Sammendrag
Pope s contemporary critics like John Dennis accused him of being a profane poet . In the course of this essay I want to discuss whether Pope s critics were right, or if they, infuriated by being the target of his biting satire, merely found it convenient to strengthen their counter-attacks with a supplementary accusation of profanity. This thesis explores the nature of mock-biblical expressions found in The Dunciad and The Rape of the Lock by Alexander Pope, inquiring whether these features can be seen as blasphemous.
The mock-biblical is here understood as a rhetorical strategy by which scriptural quotations, typologies, and tropes are used for satirical ends. Michael Suarez points out that the mock-biblical, although related to the mock epic, differs significantly from it, in that it rarely parodies its model (i.e. the Bible itself) but rather exploits disjunctions between text and context, matter and manner, and the ideal versus the real in order to put an object outside the sacred page in a critical or satirical light. In the first part of this thesis mock-biblical elements in the two works are classified on various levels and commented upon briefly.
Parodying the Bible easily borders on blasphemy. The OED defines this offence as Profane speaking of God or sacred things; impious irreverence (OED blasphemy , 1). This thesis defines blasphemy as irreverent writing aimed directly at or implicitly against the triune Godhead, the Bible, and to some limited degree towards the Christian Church and its rituals. The first part of this thesis only tentatively discusses the question of blasphemy while mapping the mock-biblical elements present in the two poems. The second part of the discussion deals with the question of blasphemy in particular. The negotiation between Pope s multifaceted classical and biblical sources makes this analysis both challenging and rewarding. Pope s allusive, playful, and brilliant style of writing forces us to play a theological hide-and-seek game as he subtly parodies the Trinity, the Eucharist, and the Great Flood.
My research question by implication involves answering whether Pope himself blasphemes as the author of the two poems at hand. In the course of my work the following question emerged: could Pope have represented blasphemous characters in a non-blasphemous way? Might not the accusation of Pope as the profane poet be mistaken for Pope as a prophetic poet who in his prophetic fervor occasionally causes the blasphemy of his satirical characterization to rebound, however unintentionally, on himself as the author?