Wednesday, September 12, 2007

"Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes" -- blog #3

Just as a heads up: This is my first Literature course ever and I basically only think scientifically. Thus, my blog might make no sense whatsoever; so bare with me.

While reading “A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur’s Court”, Hank consistently refers to the Church. In the first paragraph of Chapter 17, the passage reads “I will say this much for the nobility; that, tyrannical, murderous, rapacious, and morally rotten as they were, they were deeply and enthusiastically religious. Nothing could divert them from the regular and faithful performance of the pieties enjoined by the Church. More than once I had seen a noble who had gotten his enemy at a disadvantage, stop to pray before cutting his throat; more than once I had seen a noble, after ambushing and dispatching his enemy, retire to the nearest wayside shrine and humbly give thanks, without even waiting to rob the body. There was to be nothing finer or sweeter in life of even Benvenuto Cellini, that rough-hewn saint, ten centuries later. All the nobles of Britain, with their families, attended divine service morning and night daily, in their private chapels, and even the worst of them had family worship five or six times a day besides. The credit of this belonged entirely to the Church. Although I was no friend to that Catholic Church, I was obliged to admit this. And often, in spite of me, I found myself saying, ‘What would this country be without the Church?’”.

I believe this passage is full of irony. Foremost, Hank says ‘What would this country be without the Church?’ Perhaps, Hank is finally noticing that 6th century Britain is dependent on the Church to a point where the Church is keeping moral in the people of Britain and keeping them away from being barbaric. On the other hand, Twain might be focusing more on trying to show how different 6th century Britain could be if it was like 19th century America with a separation of Church and State. One part of the passage states ‘More than once I had seen a noble who had gotten his enemy at a disadvantage, stop to pray before cutting his throat’. I’m sorry, but anyone that is truly religious is not going to have an enemy nor pray before killing someone. Therefore, if the Church wasn’t involved in the country, people might be killing left and right. However, if there was separation of Church and State, killing might not happen at all, at least to point where Hank will not see this situation happen more than once.

Furthermore, Hank notes ‘All the nobles of Britain, with their families, attended divine service morning and night daily, in their private chapels, and even the worst of them had family worship five or six times a day besides’. During this time period, the nobles were not the ones that needed to do all the praying. If anything, the ‘freemen’ needed to be praying. The ‘freemen’ were the ones catching diseases, working, starving, and all around living the hard life. But, we don’t hear any account of the ‘freemen’ praying. If 6th century Britain was more like 19th century America, there would be no nobility class and thus they would know the necessity of praying and actually meaning it. Hence, if there was separation of Church and State, as Twain is trying to say, there would be a democratic society which would eliminate the nobility.

2 comments:

Yomi said...

Yeah i agree with Emily. She points out the contradictory nature of the Church as an institution fully involved in the lives of a nation state that basically thrives off the toil of many to the benefit of the few. The irony i find in this passage though doesn't relate to what Hank says and does with the 6th century in this novel; i feel it simply touches the irony of the RC church and its influence throughout early history.

Adam Johns said...

One interesting question - to go on a tangent off your introduction - is "what is the difference between scientific and literary thinking?" It may seem obvious - but one might argue that science has many dependencies, if not on literature, then on narrative.

The very famous biologist, E.O. Wilson, in fact has an essay "Life is a Narrative" - it's in the book you're borrowing from me.

Your main quote is excessively long. Not a big deal, just saying.

Is this really about irony? Hank directly and repeatedly advocates separation of church and state - if that's what Twain believes as well, I don't see the ironic disjunction or distance between them.

Why do you say, incidentally, that no truly religious person would do this? Osama Bin Laden is one religious guy, and look what he did.

Which brings up what to me seems like a strange omission. You don't seem to consider the possibility that Twain is going farther than Hank: Hank wants Protestantism, but Twain is holding up all religion as hypocritical and debased -- as causing violence, not restraining it.

You don't _need_ to see Twain like this, but I think that's the way you'd find some real ironic distance between Twain and Hank here.