BROTHER TOMATHAN'S cm! causm:
THE URBAN WISE FOOL m TWENTEETH
CENTURY AMERICAN SOCIAL AND
POUTICAL SATIRE

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
LAWRENCE EDWARD MINTZ
I 96 3

Tu TIT TTTWTTTT

Ti;

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

BROTHER JONATHAN'S CITY COUSIN: THE
URBAN WISE FOOL IN TWENTIETH CENTURY
AMERICAN SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SATIRE

presented by

Lawrence E. Mintz

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in English: American Studies

 

WQW

Major professor

Date Mb 4’) I414

 

0-169

 
   
 

III—:5: my? ‘
. ’ amounts or “‘
' HUM} & 8088'

i am amnmtmc

. on... In} an”!!! 13$

AUG Q L‘EQQ fl“

ABSTRACT

BROTHER.JONATHAN'S CITY COUSIN: THE URBAN
WISE FOOL IN TWENTIETH CENTURY AMERICAN
SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SATIRE
BY

Lawrence Edward Mintz

The wise fool is one of the oldest characters in liter-
ature. His roots can be traced back to such folk festivals
as the Roman Saturnalia and various tribal rites around the
world, including those of American Indians, Africans, Asians,
and Europeans: and his literary history includes appearances
in the Commedia 22;;3 gage, medieval sotties, and the works
of such important writers as Erasmus, Cervantes, Skelton,
and Shakespeare.

In satire the wise fool character operates from a va—
riety of perspectives, including those of the buffoon whose
antics present the author's thesis by his burlesquing the
subject of criticism, the "inspired idiot" or madman whose
simplicity is seen as God-sent, and whose nonsense inno-
cently expresses Truth, and the common-sense philOSOpher
whose practical experience and mundane understanding is held
to be superior to more esoteric and sophisticated knowledge.
The character is effective as a satiric device because the
general audience readily identifies and sympathizes with his

ridicule of self-conscious seriousness and pomposity.

Lawrence Edward.Mintz

Traditionally he is immune to punishment for his antics and
opinions, and his humor allows him to make satiric refer-
ences which would otherwise infuriate the authorities or the
public. His humor also allows him to treat sacred or serious
things as absurd, and trivial matters as elevated and im-
portant.

The wise fool character has been popular in America
throughout the country's history, perhaps because our demo-
cratic philosophy accepts the moral equality of the "average
man" and the intellectual or member of the social and economic
elite. Such early American plays as Royall Tyler's ghg_ggny
§£§§§_(l787) presented wise fool characters like Brother
Jonathan, a rustic farmer who is naive and uneducated, but
morally superior to his European adversary. During the nine-
teenth century such common-sense philosophers as "Major
Downing,“ "Petroleum V. Nasby," "Hosea Biglow," "Bill Arp,"
”Josh Billings," and numerous others launched social and
political satire against such things as war, slavery, cur-
rent political policies, graft, and social pretension.

The nineteenth-century American wise fool was usually
a rural figure, identified by a rustic dialect, who ridiculed
the corruption of city and national authorities and leaders.
His dialect also provided him opportunity to generate humor
and ridicule through the employment of puns, malapropisms,
double entendres, and other linguistic distortions. His
other techniques included the use of the tall tale, fantasy,

ludicrous description, and the "quip," or short joke which

Lawrence Edward Mintz

created a surprise, "snub-ending" for which American humor
is noted.

At the end of the century, the rustic sage began to dis-
appear from the American literary scene, though in the person
of Will Rogers and a few others, the archetype had some rep-
resentation. The decline of this figure did not, however,
signify the end of the wise fool character in American social
and political satire for in the persons of Finley Peter
Dunne's "Mr. Dooley," Leo Rosten's "Hyman Kaplan," Langston
Hughes's "Jesse B. Sample" (”Simple"), and Art Buchwald he
survived throughout the twentieth century, to the present day.

Dunne's Irish-American wise fool was a resident of
Chicago whose shrewd commentary dealt with urban and national
political issues. He was noted also for his quotable insights
into basic human nature. Rosten presented a Jewish-American
character, from New‘York, who burlesqued the absurdities of
formal English, and exposed the pedantry and lack of imagi-
nation of the academician. Hughes's "Simple" offered a New
York Negro-American's perspective, in the wise fool manner,
and Art Buchwald's newspaper columns on washington and Paris
society and national politics represent the continuance of
this tradition in contemporary writing. The work of these
four satirists, among others, helps prove that the contention
that native American humor has been in an eclipse during the

twentieth century is exaggerated, if not entirely erroneous.

BROTHER.JONATHAN'S CITY COUSIN: THE URBAN
WISE FOOL IN TWENTIETH CENTURY AMERICAN

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SATIRE

By

Lawrence Edward Mintz

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of English

1969

g; (9/ 7y?)
fan/7°

Introduction

Chapter I.
Chapter II.
Chapter III.
Chapter IV.
Chapter V.
Chapter VI.

Bibliography

TABLE OF CONTENTS

and Acknowledgments

The Backgrounds of the Wise Fool Charac-
ter, and His Early Literary History

The Rural Wise Fool in America Through
the Nineteenth Century: A Brief Sketch

Finley Peter Dunne's "Mr. Dooley”: An
Urban, Irish-American Wise Fool

Leo Rosten's "Hyman Kaplan": An Urban,
Jewish-American Wise Fool

Langston Hughes's "Jesse B. Semple":
An Urban Negro-American Wise Fool

Art Buchwald: A Contemporary Urban
Wise Fool Satirist

ii

iii

24

55

87

109

133
159

INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The similarity of Brother Jonathan, the American comic
figure of the rustic, simple, "common sense" character so
often used for social and political satire, and the European
tradition of comic clowns and fools, has not gone entirely
unnoted in this country. As early as a generation before
the Civil War, reports Benjamin T. Spencer in Ih§_gg§§§_§gr
Nationality, ". . . the editor of the N9;Eh_American Review,
William Tudor, was convinced that European clowns had their
counterparts in America. . . ." (p. 140). It does seem fair
to say, however, that students of American literature have
yet to study carefully the archetypal nature of their local
wise fool, and the specific relationship of his anthropo-
logical and literary roots to both the structure and per-
spective of the satire in which he has been involved. It
is equally correct and important to note that by limiting
our recognition of Brother Jonathan to the role of a late-
eithteenth- and nineteenth-century rural bumpkin, we miss
the full scope and import of an important motif which has
had both a wider and more current usage.

This study is intended to demonstrate the universality

of the wise fool motif by placing the creations of four

iii

iv
twentieth-century humorists, Finley Peter Dunne, Leo Rosten,
Langston Hughes, and Art Buchwald, whose setting is urban
rather than rural and whose spokesmen are superficially
quite alien to the position of the native, rustic "country-
bumpkin," in the full context and tradition of the wise fool
archetype from its earliest anthropological origins, through
its literary history in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, and
its early American appearance in the person of Brother Jona-
than and allied characters. In so doing we will have the
opportunity to study the composition of the social and
political satire which emerges from this context and tradi-
tion, and perhaps discover the sources of its popularity and
success in this country.

Because the tradition of the wise fool is such an
ancient and widely used one, the composition of this charac-
ter is complex and multi-faceted. The complexity is increased
by certain logical developments within the character himself.
The study of this complex and often cloudy background mater-
ial proves its usefulness when we recognize the merging of
various strains of myth, popular belief, and social and
literary convention, and their effects on the behavior of
the American wise fool characters. Thus we find that the
authority of the fool emerged from ancient tribal and reli-
gious attitudes, and his popularity and position yi§.a gig.
his audience resulted from various social and historical
phenomena including the Renaissance, Reformation, and

American Revolution. Additionally, we see that the

v
dimensions of his literary personality have developed from
a tradition that includes the contributions of such signifi-
cant writers as Erasmus, Cervantes, Rabelais, and Shakespeare.
I should like to express my sincere thanks to Professors
JOhn D. Russell and Carol Carlisle of the University of South
Carolina, in whose classes I first became interested both in
satire and in the wise fool, and Professors Russel B. Nye,
Clyde E. Henson, Douglas T. Miller, and Joseph J. Waldmeir
who have aided me in both this specific endeavor and in
numerous other ways over the past few years. Additionally,
engaging in a project such as this one has made me aware that
the acknowledgments of the contributions of the author's
spouse which so often preface academic studies are far more
than perfunctory courtesies. The assistance of my wife,
Joan, both material and spiritual, is indeed significant
enough to warrant the statement that it would not have been

possible for me to complete this study without it.

Chapter I
THE BACKGROUNDS OF THE WISE FOOL CHARACTER,
AND HIS EARLY LITERARY HISTORY

It is both interesting and revealing to note that the
origins of the character we call the wise fool are appar-
ently closely parallel to the origins of satire itself.
This parallel does not necessarily suggest a direct histori-
cal connection between the two, for one may find as much
evidence to deny as to affirm such an assumption. Rather
such a parallel might lead us to recognize that the univer-
sal impulse to correct a society through verbal condemnation
of it, and the equally universal impulse to engage in cele-
brations characterized by licentious behavior, the inversion
and burlesque of normal social order and convention, and a
temporary lapse of sanity and sobriety, both appeal to very
fundamental human and social forces. It reminds us that the
traditions of literature are often governed by a complex
network of unspOken and subliminal beliefs and inclinations,
which help account for its structure, direction, and nature.

Robert C. Elliott, in the first two chapters of his
important book, fle gave; 9: Satire; Magi; Ritual, _A_r__t_,
discusses the earliest records of satiric practice in
Grecian, Arabian, Irish, and other civilizations, and finds
that the origins of satire are connected with certain reli-
gious beliefs and attitudes toward magic, all of which sug-
gest the acceptance of the concept that social criticism has

direct physical consequences (pp. 3—47). The early satirist,

l

2
utilizing invective rather than humor, appealed to a widely
held belief that verbal criticism was a vital force in
society. This belief evolved from the primitive attacks of
such early satirists as Archilocus, the Greek, and various
Irish bards, to more formal festivals where social criticism
was prominently featured, and finally to the literary satire
that we find in the modern world.

The story of the development of the concept of the wise
fool also begins with apparently universal primitive beliefs,
Scholars have discovered remarkably similar rites of cele-
bration involving the inversion of normal social order and
the permission of social criticism and licentious behavior,
among civilizations in all times and areas of the world, in-
cluding American Indians, Asians, Ancient Irish, Persians,
Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, and tribal EurOpeans.1 Sir James
George Frazer's monumental study, The Golden Bough (especi-
ally Part VI, "The Scapegoat") provides us with a thorough
and fascinating account of these rites, using the Roman
Saturnalia as the focal point of comparison. He describes
the Saturnalia as

. . . an annual period of license when the custom-

ary restraints of law and morality are thrown aside,

when the whole population give themselves up to

extravagant mirth and jollity, and when the darker
passions find vent which would never be allowed

them in the more staid and sober course of ordinary

life. (p. 306)

Frazer describes the Saturnalia and parallel rites in

Persian, Aztec, Egyptian, Buddhist, Greek, and Hebrew

festivals, as connected with fertility and agricultural

3
concerns, and characterized by the practice of social inver-
sion that is so important to the development of the wise fool.
It is impossible to do justice here to the study of the
belief—structure behind this complex social phenomenon, but
we must note that the concept of the wise fool appears to be
closely related to the practice, in these primitive agricul-
tural rites, of selecting a minor member of society, perhaps
a common farmer or soldier, elevating him to the position of
"king for a day," and allowing him to rule over festivities
characterized by absolute license (perhaps originally as
consolation for the execution which followed his transient
glory), mirth, and inevitably, social criticism and parody
of social convention.

From this ancient tradition of a "Lord of Misrule,”
allowed this absolute license, a lengthy history, which we
will trace here briefly, of social criticism connected with
ceremonies including the temporary elevation of a chosen
"common man“ developed. It is easy to see in these early
rituals the origin of the character's immunity, and the re-
Spect with which he is accustomed to being treated by the
Populace.

To this anthropological tradition of satire within the
<=Cmtext of primitive quasi—religious rites, one must first
add a few more of the ingredients which emerge from popular

alld.religious ideas concerning madness and folly in the
arnzient world. There is an extremely interesting ambiguity

“3- these attitudes that provides some of the primary features

4
of the composition of the wise fool. The ambiguity lies in
the common belief of primitive societies that madness and
folly, while being in themselves reprehensible characteris-
tics, might at certain times and in certain ways provide the
afflicted man with a variety of moral and metaphysical in-
sights that are denied to so-called "normal" people. The
concept resembles, in many respects, the time-honored notion
that innocent children may be inadvertently more receptive
to truth than their more s0phisticated seniors. One may find
beliefs of this sort expressed in the thought of ancient
Greece, but it is to the Judaeo—Christian tradition, especi-
ally to later Christian philosophy, that one must turn for
the clearest picture of these concepts as operational
premises.

As one would expect to find, madness and folly are
usually considered in the Judaeo-Christian tradition as the
antithesis of wisdom, understanding, and morality. However
When we examine certain Biblical writings, the source of the
later ambiguity is evident, since it is often expressed that,
in a theological sense, the aspiration toward wisdom is in-
‘herently futile and vain. Only God Himself, we are instructed,
Inay be truly wise, and the only portion allotted to temporal
than is a recognition of his condition of defined insuffi-
<liency, a perception requiring no vast intellectual achieve-
m'F-‘nts. Therefore the lowly fool may be even closer to

theological truth than the wise man, since at least the

fc>1:mer has no delusions about his ability to arrive at true

5
Wisdom. The fool, by avoiding the sin of Lucifer and of Adam
and Eve, is actually closer to salvation and God's protection
and love, than any other human being. A full historical
account of the development of this concept is neither neces-
sary nor feasible here. One may find it illustrated nicely
in Ecclesiastes, which despite its many denunciations of
folly and madness as evils to be avoided by the righteous
man, also contains the admonition, "And I applied my mind to
know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that
this also is but a striving after wind. For in much wisdom
is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases
sorrow" (1:17-18).

In Christian thought, particularly of the medieval
period, the concept of the "Fool in Christ,” the dictum to
"suffer fools gladly," and the idea that religious truth is
to be found in instinctive acceptance and in naive belief
rather than any intellectual understanding developed and
existed parallel to scholasticism, as it later existed apart
from, but parallel to Renaissance humanism.2 This ambiva-
lence toward madness and folly presents a problem (to be
dealt with subsequently) of the simultaneous use of the
13erm "fool" to connote both a negative, reprehensible qual-
ilty, and an extremely positive and admirable one. As Barbara
SWain puts it, in her book Fools and M During the Middle

Egg; and the Renaissance:
To the conventional moralist and theologian the fool

was an object of scorn. . . . But the conventional
moralists and theologians were not the only writers

6

to present the fool. Story-tellers and dramatists

and poets as well as mystics and sceptics made use

of him. In their accounts of his nature, his defi-
ciencies often proved sources of power, and he was

as often applauded as scorned. (p. 27)

But before examining this literary and didactic use of
the fool, there is a related dimension to this concept that

must be noted. It is perhaps one that comes directly from

the Judaeo-Christian ideas, but possibly it is even more

universally sanctioned: the belief in the magical and

oracular potentials and powers of the madman. In the words

of Enid‘Welsford, in The Fool: His Social and Literary

Histogy:

The madman is not always regarded as an object of
commiseration. On the contrary there is a wide-
spread notion which is not yet quite extinct that
the lunatic is an awe-inspiring figure Whose reason
has ceased to function normally because he has be-
come the mouthpiece of a spirit, or power external
to himself, and so has access to hidden knowl-

edge. . . . (p. 76)
From the three cultural phenomena discussed above, the

Saturnalia and allied festivals, the ambiguous attitudes
toward folly and madness in religious thought, and the
equally complicated superstition and belief concerning the
magical potential of madness, two traditions emerge that
.lead ultimately to a literary use of the wise fool. These
Eire l) the existence of professional fools and madmen (as
‘Vell as dwarfs and other "grotesques") who are either kept
k3? wealthy men or who travel about on their own, in either

CEise providing entertainment through their "foolish" antics,

aliri 2) the later continuation of various versions of

n
AA

0“"

t
.h“
t-

”A.

,.‘L

 

0v

03“.

on

5.

Mi

In:

+1-

uh

7
fool-festivals, which by the middle ages obscured most of
the religious and magical qualities of the ancient fertility
rites, but which retain many of their physical characteris-
tics.

Enid‘Welsford traces the custom of keeping dwarfs,
fools, and "grotesques" from the Grecian parasites, through
Roman house-fools, to court-fools in medieval Europe (pp. 3-
28). These professional "jesters" were originally actual
"naturals," or genuinely afflicted or deformed individuals
whose coarse antics amused those who availed themselves of
the service. A combination of factors including the sincere
affection of the employer, the above-discussed ambivalence
toward madness and folly, and the universal tendency toward
engaging in satire resulted in the policy of immunity for
the jester. Quite logically, therefore, they could and did
safely ridicule society, lampoon individuals, and offer
satiric comment of contemporary religious and political
affairs. Before long the posture of the fool was adopted
by perfectly sane, often truly ingenious individuals for
professional and political reasons. For example Enid
Welsford notes:

In Germany, as in other countries, the court-fools

fall into two main classes, the real naturals, very

often of peasant origin, and the witty impudent men

who assumed folly as a convenient method of money
making. . . . If we may believe the jest bodks,

many of the fools at the German court were clever,

observant men, deeply engaged in the religious con-
troversies of the time. (pp. 138-139)

8
Thus through the middle ages there developed a class of pro-
fessional buffoons who used the mask of folly as a shield
from which they might launch social and political satire
with impunity. For the sake of providing popular entertain-
ment, these buffoons often formed traveling companies with
shows consisting of juggling, song, and other light entertain-
ment interspersed with humorous skits and anecdotes that
could be bitingly and relevantly satiric. According to
Barbara Swain, "Some early groups of semi-professional French
actors adopted the costume and name of fool and so obtained
a particular satirical and moral effect in certain of their
plays, as well as the freedom to rough-house and to criti-
cize the authorities" (p. 54). Gradually these primitive
skits and jokes evolved into more s0phisticated dramatic
endeavors.

If the tradition of the court fool may be cited as a
contributing factor to the development of wise fool litera-
ture, the influence of the Feast of Fools and of the Fool
Societies provides an influence every bit as obvious and
Significant. As is noted by Welsford, Swain, Frazer e§_al,,
these medieval folk festivals and folly-celebrations were
iihe clear descendants of ancient agricultural rites. As
izime progressed these festivals were transformed from mys-
t:erious fertility ceremonies to occasions for gaiety and
t11e release of pent-up social tensions, which included

siitire along with other forms of "anti-social" and licentious

9

behavior. This transformation has been described by Enid
Welsford:

The growth of towns, the increasing importance of

the bourgoise, the guild movement, the spread of

education, did not leave the folk festivals un-

changed. When a lively young clerk took the part

of the traditional fool, he was not likely to rest

content with an unintelligent repetition of the

actions of his predecessors; on the contrary the

role would afford him an admirable opportunity for

dramatic experiment and satirical comment. (p. 200)

From these fool festivals there grew organizations
called "Joyous Societies," which were, according to Welsford,
". . . associations of young men who adOpted the traditional
fool's dress of motley, eared hoods, bells and bauble and
organized themselves into kingdoms under the rule of an
annually elected monarch known as Prince des Sots, Mere—
Folle, Abbe g2 Malgouverne etc. . . .” (p. 205). Involved
with the fool festivals and fool societies were performances
of religious parodies in which members of the lower orders
of the clergy satirized either the church hierarchy or as-
pects of the religious service itself, and during which com-
moners and/or fools were elevated to temporary positions of
ecclesiastical mock-grandeur. These various medieval
customs develOped into the "sottie," a more formalized wise
fool satire that will be described below, and which affected
the deve10pment of other forms of medieval drama signifi-
cantly.

Before we can turn to our examination of the wise fool's

literary history, however, one final aspect of the evolution

of the character must be accounted for, if we are fully to

10

understand all of the subtleties of his composition. Thus
far we have been dealing with fools-proper, whether real or
pretended, i.e., characters representing either witlessness
or madness. During the Renaissance, and with further en-
couragement from the Reformation, an additional dimension
to the character of the fool was brought forward. This de-
velopment is the tradition, equally ancient in origin, which
presents the simple, rustic, unlettered country "plowman" in
a role that is essentially quite similar to the one that we
have been describing for the fool. There are philosophical
nuances that separate the simpleton from the simpleman, but
it was inevitable that the two would often be merged into a
single character, or that the distinctions between the two
would often be Obscured. Thus the simple farmer or tradesman
was accorded the same immunity and satirical privilege that
the fool claimed. Arthur Ray Heiserman discusses this phe-
nomenon in his book, Skelton ang_Satire:

Generations of satirists had attacked the vices--

particularly the clerical vices--of their times by

assuming the role of the simple, unlettered country-

man—-the plowman whose virtue was itself an affront

to the pride of nObleman, officer, and prelate.

Such a persona could do nothing but speak out true

and plain; he was no learned, weary poet falling

into elaborate allegorical dreams. . . . (p. 192)
The inclusion of the rustic, pastoral, satiric mode into the
range of the fool's postures and traditions is of an impor-
tance difficult to over-emphasize.4

Borrowing liberally from all of the traditions discussed

above, a rich treasure of folkloric and literary uses of the

ll
fool and rustic character for didactic and expository pur-
poses developed. In the case of folk-tale appearances alone,
Stith Thompson has indexed considerably more than one-thou-
sand motifs in which the message is conveyed either by
exhibiting folly, contrasting folly with wisdom, or using
folly as an exposer of pretense and false wisdom. It is,
however, to the literary history of the wise fool that we
may most fruitfully turn to study the multi-faceted, complex
satiric figure in Operation.

Since this study is basically concerned with twentieth-
century urban American versions of wise fool satire, it is
not within its sc0pe to provide a detailed account of the
full literary history of the motif, but a brief examination
of several of the important examples from earlier writing is
essential to an appropriate understanding of its operation.
Our account of this history rightfully begins with medieval
drama. In the very thorough study, The Medieval Stage,

E. K. Chambers carefully traces the relationship of the
above-mentioned satiric "sotties" to earlier folk festivals
and religious rites (see Chapter IV). Concerning the popular
dramas he notes, "Their full significance only appears when
they are regarded as fragments of forgotten cults, the naive
cults addressed by a primitive folk to the beneficent deities
of field, wood and river, or the shadowy populace of its own
dreams" (p. 94). From the "sotties" the fool found his way
even into miracle and mystery plays, contributing substan-

tially to the character, Vice, as well as to others.

12

Two aspects of the wise fool's medieval stage career
are of particular interest to us here: the first is his
enormous popularity and his wide appeal to uns0phisticated
audiences, a feature that is probably due as much to humor-
ous antics as to any ideological reasons, the second is the
increasing tendency for literary artists to turn to the fool
for sOber, even entirely non-humorous social and political
satire. Between the quasi-comical satire of the pOpular
drama and the religio-political satire of more sober literary
endeavors, the fool indeed had a varied and important career
in medieval literature.

Concerning the reasons for this wide popularity of the
wise fool, Walter Kaiser notes:

It is not hard to see how the humor he provided and

the impunity he enjoyed made him irresistible to the

literary imagination. His beguiling, child-like

appeal guaranteed him the sympathy of the audience,

and at the same time his traditional freedom from

punishment made it possible for the author to have

him speak out boldly. . . . Thus the license of the

natural fool was apprOpriated for the artificial

fool; his nonconformity was turned into iconoclasm,

his naturalism into anarchy, and his frankness into

satire. (p. 7)
Since there is no clearly defined and generally accepted di-
viding line between humor and satire, or for that matter be-
tween satire and didactic invective, it is often difficult
to classify the literature that utilizes the wise fool in
these terms. For the satirist, however, the general ten—
dency appears to be to use the fool to deal with matters so

serious and so realistic that he either loses, or all but

loses, his persona as a fool. In many of the works that we

13

will be studying, we will find this "drift" in which the
character evolves away from the very condition that provides
his virtues as a literary device. It is sometimes hard to
remember that the character of the fool is in any way asso-
ciated with Folly, since the figure has become the obvious
and absolute spokesman for Wisdom and Reality.

To demonstrate this range of the wise fool from a clown
with only the barest and most tenuous claims to wisdom, to
a popular philOSOpher far removed from folly, one should
trace the development of the role of Harlequin and his family,
and the evolution of the character of Pulcinella in the ppm:
megi3_g§llf‘a£§e from the fourteenth through eighteenth cen-
turies. The commedia dell] a;§g_was, in its earliest appear-
ance, popular theatre that existed alongside the professional
theatre of its time. It most probably is a development of
the Roman Atellanae which have been described as "comedies
and popular farces, parodies and political satire." Several
of the characters of the commedia dell} a£§§_play an impor-
tant role in the develOpment of the dramatic use of the wise
fool, particularly the Zanni, or comic servants (of which
Harlequin is the most famous), and the scoundrel—fool Pulci-
nella. The Zanni of the commedia dell] egg; range from pure
simpletons whose behavior is exclusively physical, humorous
buffoonery, to more sophisticated wise fools who achieve
satiric and didactic results from lengthy and rather complex

verbal duels with such personages as the Captain and the

Doctor.

l4

Zanni is a name sometimes used as a proper name for the
comic servant, but the Zanni is also the term used to de-
scribe the role of the more familiar comic character of the
commedia dell] agte, Harlequin. As Maurice Sand records in
The History 9§_the_Harlegginade, Harlequin, and his "family“
of similar characters, evolved over four centuries from the
acrObatic buffoon to the wit and philosopher sans diploma
(p. 65). The history of the character Pulcinella is also of
considerable interest since in his very composition we find
reflection of the ambivalent tendencies of literary wise
fools. ,As Pierre Louis Dudhartre describes him, Pulcinella
is an inherently schizophrenic figure as the result of his
unfortunately having had gyg_fathers: "The 'upper' Pulcinella
is intelligent, sensual, sly, keen; in him the blood of Bucco
predominates. The 'lower' Pulcinella is a dull and coarse
bumpkinP (p. 212). It is important to note that since the
characters of Pulcinella and Harlequin were very widely
known throughout the Europe of the fifteenth through the
eighteenth century, the commedia dell] a;§e_thus has had a
profound direct influence on the traditions of the wise fool.

Throughout the Renaissance we find the fool, both as
wise fool and as the butt of critical laughter, playing a
large role in didactic and satiric literature. Sebastian
Brant's Narrenschiff (known in England through Barclay's
translation, Ih§.§h$2“2§H§22£§) used the fool negatively,
as symbol of the world's various follies and errors, pre-

Eiented in a roll-call of allegorical characters dressed in

15
motley (Swain, pp. ll4ff.). Though Narrenschiff is impor-
tant, largely because it was so widely known, it is to
Desiderius Erasmus' The_Praise 2£_§911y_that we turn for
the first example of wise fool satire that is truly complex
and significant. Analysis of Th§_Praise 2§_§glly_is pri-
marily useful to this study because it provides the Oppor—
tunity of examining the full range of the character, as well
as the problem of his drift or loss of persona.

As Walter Kaiser tells us:

. . . Erasmus may be said to have given Eur0pe the

paradox of the Wise Fool. For though that person-

ified oxymoron is at least as old as Socrates and

Christ, and though its medieval ancestors and

apologists are legion, its first modern, and most

influential appearance is as the figure of Stultitia

in the Moriae Encomium. (p. 21)

A study of The Praise 2§.§211y_provides an excellent
opportunity to view the literary problems that stem from the
ambiguous and complex tradition of the wise fool. As noted
previously, this problem is often the result of a dual view
of the fool as subject or representative of folly, and as
exposer and critic of it. Thus Stultitia, in Erasmus' work,
functions both as a negative fool whose oratory illustrates
concepts with Which the author disagrees, and as a wise fool
whose insights present those Erasmus wishes to affirm. Hoyt
Hopewell Hudson's helpful introduction to one of the more
readily available translations of Th§_Praise 2§.§91ly_sheds
some light on this problem by noting that Stultitia is con—

sistently treated as a fool in the work, but she avails her-

self of the full scope of the fool's accepted stances, and

16
is thus allowed accidental flashes of wisdom and understand-
ing that in no way change her essential character. Thus:

. . . in the early part of the speech she seems to

be the wicked folly of Christian and Hebrew morality;

farther on she embodies a conception gained from the

good-natured but shrewd fool of the courts; and
finally (though not in the peroration) she becomes

Christian folly, a conception having kinship with

the tradition and doctrine of St. Francis of Assisi.

(p. XXV)

Erasmus does not seem to have been at all disturbed by
the paradoxical nature of his central character, though the
dual nature of his Folly causes considerable problems for
the reader who is not familiar with the philosophical posi-
tions taken elsewhere by the author. One wonders whether
Erasmus' contemporary audience was fully aware of exactly
what opinions they were supposed to derive from a reading
of the work.

Before turning to the other truly outstanding example
of the literary use of the wise fool, we might mention two
other writers whose works contributed significantly to the
literary tradition, Rabelais and Skelton. Rabelais, in the
third bodk of Gargantua and Pantagruel, handles the problem
of the fool's split persona that we have discussed above by
distributing his duties among three different characters.
As Kaiser notes:

Though Panurge is the fool par excellence, in one

sense or another every character in the Tiers Livre,

with the possible exception of Gargantua, is a fool.

(p. 103)

Thus, in Rabelais' hands, the Erasmian fool is

split up. By means of her irony, Stultitia was able
simultaneously to be the foolish and the wise fool;

17

but when, in the drama of Rabelais' narrative, these

two contradictory types of fool confront each other,

each is personified by a separate character. (PP.

127-128)

We emphasize this idea of the division of duty here because
it is a method quite frequently employed by the American
satirists in the wise fool tradition. Skelton's Colyn Cloute
and other rustic fools contribute another important feature
of the American fools, i.e., the usual reliance upon the
rural posture, the plowman image, for the fool's identifying
feature.

William Shakespeare was not the first Elizabethan drama-
tist to avail himself of the tradition of the wise fool for
comic and satiric purposes, but he was in this, as in the
other aspects of his art, the most important and noteworthy.
Scholars and critics such as J. B. Priestley, walter Kaiser,
Oscar Campbell, and Rebert Hillis Goldsmith have quite thor-
oughly analyzed the Shakespearean contribution to the tradi-
tion, which includes both actual fool-characters such as
Touchstone, Feste, and Lear's Fool, and others who are not
really wise fools, in the main, but who have elements of the
fool's nature in their personalities. The character most
frequently discussed in this respect is Falstaff. ShakeSpeare
presents virtually every dimension of the wise fool, from the
clowning bumpkin to the inspired jester. As Goldsmith puts it:

ShakeSpeare uses the tradition of the fool but trans-

cends it. He gives us not merely a theatrical type

but four complex and individual characters. Each of

the four--Touchstone, Lavache, Feste, and Lear's Fool
--is clearly differentiated from the others. I have

l8

tried to show that Touchstone is a comic realist

astray in the forest of Romance, that Feste is an

artist who observes the golden mean in loving and
laughing, and that Lear's Fool embodies the Chris-
tian doctrine of wise folly on abandoning his pru-

dence to follow his sick King. (p. vii)

Much of the credit for the survival of the full range of
wise fool literature in America must go to the plays of
Shakespeare, which exhibit graphically the potential of the
character for comedy, satire, and philosophy.

What, then, are the basic characteristics and technique
of wise fool social and political satire as one finds it in
modern literature? The first and perhaps foremost quality
of the fool is his license, which has derived from the im-
punity with which he spoke in the earlier periods to a more
subtle allowance. In modern satire the license no longer
necessarily affords the author disquise of intent or actual
physical protection from punishment for verbal offenses, but
rather it renders iconoclastic references concerning serious
matters more palatable and less shocking or frightening to
the audience than they would be if they came from the lips
of a character less well-liked and traditionally tolerated
than the wise fool. Leonard Feinberg writes in his book,
Introduction Eg_Satire, that the satirist uses the fool to

. . . achieve distortion, indirection, and protec-

tion from the censor by pretending that it is the

fool rather than the satirist speaking. The fool

intersperses unpopular and forbidden truths among

genuinely foolish remarks. And like the child and
clown, who presumably do not know any better, the

fool is permitted to express ideas which would be

dangerous or vulgar in the mouths of 'normal'
adults. (pp. 49-50)

19
Thus from sources quite similar to those which originally
gave him license to speak, the fool also derives identifi-
cation with his audience, using here the humility that he
obtains by virtue of the pastoral aspect of his tradition,
saying to the audience in effect, "Accept what I have to
say since I am one of you, and we both know that our 'common
sense' is the only true key to understanding.”

The wise fool uses, in addition to his license to speak
and his identification with his audience, the h3g9; that may
emerge from his antics and comments. From the persona of
the wise fool the tendency to burlesque flows naturally.
Exaggeration, understatement, reductio ad absurdum, paradox
and irony, and other humorous devices are, by definition of
his character, part of his bag of tricks; thus they are not
prone to losing their effectiveness by appearing incongruous
or false when they are used to satirize. The fool's bur-
lesque ranges from "low burlesque" in which he parodies, by
distorted emulation, the conventions of society or the ac-
tions and opinions of his adversary, to "high burlesque" in
which he ridicules his subject by comparing it to a more
rational norm.9

Two terms that are often used by literary critics who
write on the nature of comedy and satire, eiggn and alazon,
apply usefully to the fool's burlesque techniques.10 The
wise fool may be used either in the role of the giggn, or

the little man who triumphs over the giant and belittles

him: or he may be the alazon, reduced to the position of

20
the fool by the obvious folly of his pretentious behavior.
In either role he manages to make the audience regard the
target of the satire as ludicrous.

The fool is admirably suited to satirizing by accident
as well as by intent. An amusing example of how'he uses his
ignorance to expose the victim has been recorded by Stith
Thompson, in the Folk—motif entitled "The King no Priest's
Son.” "A Pope in writing to a King says, 'To our dear son
Fredrick.’ Upon hearing this the fool cries out, 'that is
a lie; he is no priest's son. I knew his father and mother
and they were both honest people" (p. 154, J.1827). After
all one cannot expect a fool to be aware of the convention
of a priest addressing his parishioners as "my son," so the
fool quite "innocently" makes his comments about the clergy.
When he operates by intent, the fool is more likely to shed
the motley in favor of the farmer's or worker's overalls,
scratching his head and prefacing his bombshells with words
to the effect of "I don't know too much about that but, . . .“
In this position the fool asserts that his mundane experience
makes him ironically more qualified to comment on important
matters than his more sophisticated adversary.

The following chapters examine the construction and
techniques of the wise fool satire as they have appeared in
American literature, from the early character, Brother Jona-
than, a rustic used both as a bumpkin and as a philosopher.
They include examination of the later nineteenth-century

humorists who adopted the persona of fool for the purposes

21

of social and political commentary, and more detailed analy-
sis of the appearance of this "old wine" in a ”new bottle"
of the urban fool, an immigrant or new-comer to the sophis-
ticated world of the city, whose method of exposing folly
borrows from the many centuries of wise fool beliefs and
wise fool literature. We will find that the modern wise
fool's techniques have varied very little from those used
by his predecessors, and even his basic attitudes are stri-
kingly similar to those used by earlier authors to expose

pomposity and pretense from a "down-to-earth" perspective.

22

32122.8.

1Most of the works that deal with the fool cited in the
Bibliography begin with a survey of these anthropological
phenomena, but see here particularly Sir James George Frazer,
The_Golden Bough (London, 1913), Vol. 9, pp. 306ff.; Peter
Farb, Man's Rise §2_Civilization (New York, 1968). PP. 92ff.;
Lucille Hoerr Charles, "The Clown's Function," Journal o_f.
American Folklore, 58 (January, 1945), 25-34.

2These concepts and their relationship to the ideas of
Saint Paul and other Christian thinkers is discussed by
Walter Kaiser, Praisers 9f_Folly (Cambridge, Mass., 1963),
p. 8.

31n a useful but highly technical study entitled Madness
ang_Civilization (New York, 1967),.Michael Foucault accounts
for this phenomenon by asserting that it appeals to a univer-
sal and psychologically inherent need for a concept of knowl-
edge that provides for intuitive, highly abstract, non-logical,
and mystical thought, eschewing both rational and empirical
methodology (p. 29). Further study and inquiry into these
psychological and ideological bases of anti-intellectualism
would help explain the complex human impulses that lie behind
the wise fool's popularity.

4The intellectual dimensions of this idea and its re-
lationship to the pastoral mode, European thought, and the
history of anti-intellectualism is an area which is quite
fascinating, but peripheral to this paper. Eugene Rice, Jr.
makes some pertinent comments in his book, The Renaissance
Idea 9§_Wisdom (Cambridge, Mass., 1958). pp. 18-28.

J.2749 (Bloomington, 1955), pp. 137-229.

6Michael Foucault's comments on the serious wise fools
illustrate this point:

In farces and soties, the character of the mad-
man, the Fool, or the Simpleton assumes more and
more importance. He is no longer simply a ri-
diculous and familiar silhouette in the wings:

he stands center stage as the guardian of truth
--playing here a role which is the complement

and converse of that taken by madness in the
tales and the satires. If folly leads each man
into a blindness where he is lost, the madman, on
the contrary reminds each man of his truth. . . .

Madness and Civilization, p. 23.

23

7Pierre Louis Duchartre, The Italian Comedy (New York,
1966), p. 18.

8Olive Mary Busby, Studies in,the Development 9; the
wrighET "Madmen as Performers on the Elizabethan Stage,“
Journal g§_English and Germanic Philology, 30 (1931), 48-54.

9Useful definitions of these terms are provided in
Meyer Abrams, A Glossary 9; Literagy Terms (New York, 1957),
pp. 9-11. A helpful discussion of the operation of satire,
in these reSpects, is found in the chapter "The Mythos of
‘Winter; Irony and Satire," in Northrop Frye, Anatomy 9g.
Criticism (Princeton, 1957). pp. 223-239.

10David WOrcester, The Art 2; Satire (NGW’YOrk, 1960),
p. 92.

“The principal character types in Greek comedy
are the buffoon, who makes fun for others, the
ironical man, who makes fun for himself, and
the imposter. The ironical man is called the
eiron, or foxy, crafty one. He is a specialist
in understatement: he is the close-mouthed
Yankee who has no objection to being thought

a fool. He will even encourage his detractors
by speaking in a thick dialect, tugging his
forelock obsequiously, or otherwise deprecia-
ting himself. The imposter, or alazon, repre-
senting the principle of overstatement, struts
about in false security venting his heavy wit
and braggadocio on the eiron. But the gods
love a shining mark--everyone knows that--and
the eiron grins secretly, the while his dense
manner encourages his adversary to even greater
extravagances. When fate has been tempted be-
yond endurance, the blow falls."

Chapter II
THE RURAL WISE FOOL IN AMERICA THROUGH THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY: A BRIEF SKETCH

The concept of the wise fool has found frequent and
varied expression during the course of the history of the
United States. Early American social and literary history
displays many examples of each of the aspects of this con-
cept that were discussed in the first chapter. It is not
surprising that the Christian concept of inspired folly is
frequently expressed by American Puritan and other religious
writers. JOhn Cotton's sermon, "Purchasing Christ," provides
an illustration of this idea that is not atypical: "If a man
will be content to forsake all for Christ, he must first be a
foole, and be content to be counted a foole, and heare every
carnall man to count him a foole."

Even the heritage of the folk festival, with its de-
cidedly unpuritanical features was not entirely unknown in
America. The incident at Merrymount, made famous (or rather
infamous) by William Bradford's account of it in his history
and by Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story "The Maypole of
Merrymount," proves the existence of covert celebrations of
this sort, despite official disapproval. As Bradford de-

scribes the incident,

And Morton became Lord of Misrule, and maintained
(as it were) a schoole of Atheisme. . . . They
allso set up a maypole, drinking and dancing aboute
it many days togeather, inviting the Indean women,
for their consorts, dancing and frisking togither
(like so many fairies, or furies rather;) and worse

24

25

practises. As if they had anew revived and cele-

brated the feasts of the Roman Goddes Flora, or the

beastly practieses of the madd Bacchinalians.

Similarly one finds in America, a belief in the magical
and supernatural powers of the madman, more often used to
justify non-conformist or eccentric behavior than to provide
prophecy. Such sentiments are expressed in literature by
Emily Dickinson's "Much madness is divinest Sense/To a dis-
cerning Eye." As is so often the case, though the more
modern expression of the belief may have lost its direct
reference to the original superstition, its effect relies
on an unspoken and perhaps unconscious acceptance of ideas
which are passed on through tradition.

The most significant American expression of the various
concepts of the wise fool, however, is found in the promotion
of the "common man," or "plowman," as a rustic philosoPher,
and in the assertion of the value of "natural knowledge" as
Opposed to authoritarian or empirical knowledge.4 As Thomas
Jefferson phrased it in an often-quoted statement, "State
a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former
will decide it as well, and often better than the latter,
because he has not been led astray by artificial rules."

As JOhn William Ward points out, this belief was one of the
sustaining forces behind the popularity of Andrew Jackson;
it directed the tone of Jackson's political campaigns and
the various myths which grew up around him. The posture of

"Nature's Ndbleman" proved so popular and politically useful

26
that it was eventually adopted by anti-Jacksonian Whigs,
and became an indelible part of the national ideology.

Soon Americans were advertising their primary virtues
in terms of an image that had been used by British and Con-
tinental critics of democracy to ridicule the citizens of
the new nation. Jonathan, the archetypal bumpkin, became

6
a national heroic symbol. .As Richard Dorson puts it, in
his article "The Yankee on the Stage,"

With the rapidly mounting confidence of the early

decades of the nineteenth century, noisily voiced

in strident tones of Jacksonian democracy and the

cult of the common man, the nation began to vaunt

the uncouth image of itself. It found a secret

pride in the bluntness and the cunning attributed

to its stage likeness. The maundering vagabond

was elevated to a bumpkin hero. Jonathan took his

place with other crude and vigorous personalities

in the gallery of heroes in homespun exalted by

the boisterous thirties and the roaring forties. . . .

(pp. 489-490)

In addition to the early literary use of the wise fool,
it should be noted that the fool was also widely used in
American folk tales and jokes in a manner quite similar to

7
the European tradition discussed in Chapter One. This folk
tradition doubtlessly contributed considerably to both the
construction of literary wise-fool satire and its acceptance
by the American public. It should also be mentioned that
the traditions of formal, classical satire were not unknown
in America, and they too certainly aided in the development
of wise-fool satire.

From this background of religious, social, and cultural

tradition, an archetypal American wise fool character soon

27

emerged to become one of the most prominent features of
early American literature. One finds him most often, during
these early years, as a regional “local color“ type, as
Yankee, Southern farmer, or Western backwoodsman. He also
appears, however, as the universal simpleton or clown, as
in the periodical, "The Fool." In this early satiric jour-
nal, the ”editor,“ who is named "T. Brainless," informs us,
“Now know all Fools by these Presents that I intend to keep
my own secrets, and treat brother fools according to their
folly."9 The satiric commentary is then presented in the
form of letters to the editor sent by such personages as
"Simon Simple," "Dick Hairbrain," and "Harry Softskull."

These early figures were, as in the cases of many of
the early European wise fools (e.g., Harlequin in the Egg:
meg;a_g§llf agte), basically negative, brainless bumpkins
who exposed folly through their own ludicrous behavior,
evolving only later to the higher stages of the wise fool.
As Jennette Tandy writes in anckegbox Philps0phers in_
American Hgmggflang_8atire,

The provincial philosopher is the most timeworn of

our American character types. He has had full ex-

pression since his emergence as comic Yankee and

Southerner. In each generation he has made fresh

appearance as a jester, censor, and guide. After

long periods of experimentation, his representation

has narrowed down to the humble sage. (p. 172)

The first really important wise fool character in
American literature is Brother Jonathan, the Yankee stage—

bumpkin/rustic sage. The specific origin of the name

Jonathan, and the direct connections between the Yankee of

28
the American stage and his foreign antecedents is a widely
debated subject.10 The stage-Yankee, whatever his debt to
British, Irish, and other early sources might be, is a
direct descendant of the central character of early New
England folk tales. These tales presented the Yankee in
a variety of ways, ranging from the role of purely comic
bumpkin, through shrewd rustic peddler and practical joker,
to unlettered philOSOpher. Richard Dorson introduces his
collection of these tales entitled Jonathan Draws the Long
Bow by noting:
They [the Yankee yarns] reported, borrowed and cre-
ated situations appropriate for their central actor;
sharp trades, dupes, "saws," and endless clownish
antics that resembled in plot but differed in tone
from Old World tales of rogues, scalawags, and dolts.
They emphasized salient traits of rural personality,
uncontrollable curiosity, dismal naivite, impudence,
low cunning, parsimony, and loutishness. . . . Pre-
eminently the comic figure was a fool, an ignorant
countryman baffled by urban ways, befuddled by modern
machinery, legitimate game for dupes and hoaxes.
(pp. 69-70)
When the Yankee began to appear on stage, he retained some
of his low-comic attributes, as buffoon, dupe, and innocent
clownish victim, but more frequently he began to be repre-
sented as "nature's nobleman," the concept of the national
mythology concerning the virtues of the common man that has
been discussed above. The nature of the character as he
finally emerged after the Revolution has been described by
James J. Quinn, Jr.: "When Jonathan first appeared on the

stage, he reflected the young American Republic--somewhat

insecure, yet proud, vital, and frank. During the first

29
half of the nineteenth century, the Yankee became the epitome,
ll
theatrically, of the Jacksonian spirit of democracy." In
the American drama the Yankee character, whether bumpkin or
rural sage, was used primarily as a foil to expose the pre-
tentions of would-be aristocrats and pompous frauds. He was
well suited to this task since he was ". . . endowed with a
distrust of aristocratic formality and sham and possessed of
a wholehearted belief in the ability of the common man to
12
shape his own destiny."

The most important of the stage Yankees is certainly
Jonathan, who was originally intended to bela minor figure
in Royall Tyler's play, The Contrast (1787). As Arthur
HObson Quinn states in his introduction to the play (Repre-
sentative American Plays):

The Contrast is the second play written by an

American to be produced in America by a profes-

sional company. It is our first comedy, and while

its central theme is the contrast between native

worth and affectation of foreign manners it is of

especial significance as introducing to our stage

in the character of 'Jonathan' the shrewd, yet un-

cultivated type of New England farmer which has

since become known as the 'Stage Yankee.’ (p. 45)
Though Professor Quinn is supported by several other critics
in his judgment that the small part played by Jonathan in
the play is its only significant literary contribution, it
should be noted that the role of the play's hero, Colonel
Manly, is of equal importance to the subsequent development
of the wise fool character in American social and political

13
satire. Jonathan, in The Contrast, is basically an ignor-

ant bumpkin who is easily duped and fooled. He is only

30
partially redeemed in the audience's eye by his basic moral
goodness and innocence, and it is more luck than innate
shrewdness that he escapes both moral and physical ruin in
the plot.

Jonathan's role in the play is aptly illustrated by his
reaction to the attempt, by the rascal servant to the fop-
pish Billy Dimple, Jessamy, to entice Jonathan to forsake
his fiancee Tabitha wymen and court the more sophisticated
servant girl, Jenny (Quinn, Representative Amerigan_glay§,
pp. 60-62). Jonathan is all too willing to learn Jessamy's
technique of "gallantry" (though he confuses it with “girl
huntry,")and he readily embarks on the quest that Jessamy
has devised for him. Not only is Jonathan impressed by the
fOppish courtship ("six elegant bows" etc.), he fails to see
that Jessamy’s instructions are exaggerated parodies of the
absurd mannerisms that even such a dandy as he would employ.
Jonathan makes a fool of himself with the "lady," as he re-
ports to Jessamy later (pp. 73-74), but ironically it is his
inability to learn Jessamy's lessons that saves him, for he
fails in his immoral endeavor, and emerges unscathed.

As a low-comic character, Jonathan is likable even at
his most ignorant. He sits through a play, “The School for
Scandalization," without being aware that he is in a play
house, and his naive description of the actors and the
dramatic action is most amusing. When he is told, by
Jessamy, that he has been to the theatre, he exclaims,

"Mercy on my soul: did I see the wicked players?--Mayhap

31

that 'ere Darby that I liked so, was the old serpent him-
self, and had his cloven foot in his pocket. Why, I vow,
now that I come to think on 't, the candles seemed to burn
blue, and I am sure where I sat it smelt tarnally of brim-
stone" (p. 65).

Colonel Manly, on the other hand, is not a bumpkin but
a relatively simple (in the sense of the word that connotes
unpretentiousness rather than unintelligence) man who pro-
vides the real moral contrast to the fops and frauds of the
play. It is the Colonel's native common sense that truly
exposes and defeats the "foreign vices" which have corrupted
the new nation and threaten Jonathan. At the close of the
play, Manly rescues the silly girl, Charlotte, from the
clutches of the nefarious Billy Dimple, and thus removes the
foreign influences of Dimple and Jessamy from the positions
where they might corrupt the "pure” Americans, including
Jonathan. Innocence has triumphed over experience, and Manly
has learned ". . . that probity, virtue, honour, though they
should not have received the polish of Europe, will secure
to an honest American the good graces of his fair country-
woman, and I hope, the applause of THE PUBLIC" (p. 77). It
is as much Manly's character, and the basic theme of the
plot itself which is exemplified by it, that forms the basis
for the later stage Yankees, as it is the more primitive
Jonathan's.

'The character of the Yankee in many of the later plays

is one that is essentially a hybrid of Jonathan and Colonel

32
Manly. This contention is illustrated in another American
play, Anna Cora Mowatt's social satire, Fashion (1845). In
this play the central character, Adam Trueman, is a composite
of the qualities of both Jonathan and Colonel Manly, and he
is more akin to the former than the latter. As Constance
Rourke notes in American Humgr; A Stugy_gf_th§_National
Character, the theme of Fashion is ". . . almost a precise
echo of the original Contrast, even to the Prologue" (p. 34).
Adam Trueman is presented as a hard-working farmer, who
through the exercise of his native common sense, moral in-
tegrity, and innate mistrust of foreign airs and material
display, rescues his friend Mr. Tiffany from the clutches
of frauds and villains who are almost identical to those
found in The Contrast. Trueman is somewhat less dignified
and refined than is Colonel Manly, making him a more believ-
able spokesman of the typical "common man" than the Colonel
could be.

Adam Trueman rescues the innocent American maidens,
Gertrude and Seraphina, from the clutches of the foreigner,
"Count" Jolimaitre, and protects his friend Tiffany from the
blackmail attempts of the evil Snobson. As has been noted,
both the theme and the plot of the play are virtually iden-
tical to that of The_Contrast, and the former play ends,
like the latter, in the triumph of Innocence over Experience.
When the defeated pseudo-Count, who has now opted to become
an American, attempts to explain his earlier deceitful con-

duct by asserting that he ". . . heard that in America, where

33
you pay homage to titles while you profess to scorn them--
where Fashion makes the basest coin current--where you have
no kings, no princes, no nobility--" Trueman, the simple
Catteraugus farmer cuts him off and exclaims,

Stop there: I object to your use of that word.

When justice is found only among lawyers--health

among physicians--and patriotism among politicians,

then may you say that there is no nobility where

there are no titles: But we have kings and princes,

and ndbles in abundance-~of nature's stamp, if not

of Fashion's,--we have honest men, warm-hearted and

brave, and we have women--gentle, fair, and true,

to whom no title could add nobility. (Quinn, p. 311)
This statement illustrates the evolution of the wise fool
from the bumpkin whose innocent virtue overcomes his own
stupidity to the naive, unsophisticated rustic hero whose
common sense merges with his virtue to provide the anti-
thesis to corrupted intelligence and knowledge.

Thus though the stage Yankee may have begun his career
in satire as a low-comic bumpkin, through such characters
as Adam Trueman and Jonathan Ploughboy (in Samuel Woodworth's
play, The Forest Rose) he functions more as ”nature's noble-
man," the more serious common sense philOSOpher. As Ridhard
Dorson puts it, in "The Yankee on the Stage,"

No single hero, but a mock-heroic type, evolved in

the long spate of Yankee plays. From his beginnings

as a loutish servant in The Contrast in 1787 to his

blackguard role in The Peddlar in 1821, the stage

Yankee appeared as bumpkin or knave. But from 1825

on, when Jonathan Ploughboy emerged as hero in The

Forest Rose, and "Yankee" Hill became identified

with the part, the Yankee assumed increasingly

heroic stature. (p. 65)

An additional development of the Yankee character as a

device for satire may be seen in the creation of such figures

34
as Seba Smith's Major Jack Downing and James Russell Lowell's
Hosea Biglow, among others of their type. Walter Blair, in
Horse Sense in_American Humor, quotes Seba Smith's explana-
tion of the reasons why he created Jack Downing.

. . . the author . . . wishing to show the ridiculous

position of the legislature in its true light, and

also, by something out of the common track of news-
paper writing, to give increased interest and popu-
larity to his little daily paper, bethought himself

of the plan to bring a green, unsophisticated lad

from the country into town with a load of axe-handles,

hoop-poles, and other notions for sale, and while

waiting the movements of a rather dull market, let

him blunder into the halls of the legislature, and

after witnessing for some days their strange doings,

sit down and write an account of them to his friends

at home in his own plain language. (p. 57)

The idea proved to be a fruitful one. The letters of
the "innocent" Jack Downing, in "his own plain language,"
gained such wide popularity that Smith contrived to send
the Major to washington where he could report periodically
of the activities of his new friend, Andrew Jackson. Before
long Smith had numerous imitators, some of them (notably
Charles Augustus Davis) audacious enough to borrow Jack
Downing's name for their own creations. Seba Smith's Major
Jack Downing is a rather ambivalent wise fool, neither
purely bumpkin nor hero. He is naive enough to blunder
blindly and innocently into certain situations Where he
does not belong, yet shrewd enough to ask the right ques-
tions and make the right comments once he gets there.

An excellent example of Smith's satiric technique may

be seen in a letter from Major Downing concerning the

35
bestowal of an honorary Law Degree upon Andrew Jackson by
Harvard University.

Ye see when we were at Boston they sent word to us
to come out to Cambridge. for they wanted to make
the President a Doctor of Laws. What upon arth a
Doctor of Laws was, or why they wanted to make the
President one, I couldn't think. So when we came
up to bed I asked the Gineral about it. And says
I, Gineral, what is it they want to do to you out
to Cambridge? Says be they want to make a Doctor
of Laws of me. Well, says I, but what good will
that do? Why, says he, you know Major Downing,
there's a pesky many of them laws passed by Con-
gress, that are rickety things. Some of 'em have
very poor constitutions, and some of 'em haven't
na»constitutions at all. So that it is necessary
to have somebody there to doctor 'em up a little,
and not let 'em go out into the world where they
would stand a chance to catch cold and be sick,
without they had good constitutions to bear it.
You know, says he, I have had to doctor the laws
considerable ever since I been at Washington, al-
though I wasn't a regular bred doctor.14

The satire of this incident is deceptively simple. Beyond
the lightly humorous puns on doctor of laws and constitu—
tiggg, lie two important, and to some degree contradictory,
assessments of Andrew Jackson's personality and politics.
Jackson is portrayed here as indeed unsophisticated, both
through his choice of companions in Jack Downing and his

own apparent naivete concerning the nature of the honorary
degree; but he is also presented as a shrewd, common-sense
president who ggg§_know enough about politics and congresses
to "doctor" the laws of the country successfully. In this
light sketch the image of the Jackson-Truman-Dyndon Jehnson
style president is superbly captured; the successful Ameri-
can president is portrayed as a man of no great intellectual

talents or abilities, but one who has the political savoir

36
fai;e_to control the actions of his more sophisticated col-
leagues, and to make the proper judgments despite his rather
primitive decision-making process.

As Arthur P. Dudden states in The_Assau1t g£_Laughter,
"Jack [Downing] was both patriarch and prototype for gener-
ations of comic figures" (p. 26). Downing, and other early
versions of this character such as Thomas Chandler Halibur-
ton's "Sam Slick" for example, were widely popular during
the first half of the nineteenth century.15 Most of the
humorists of this school are of less interest to the student
of literature than to the historian, but many of the columns
and sketches are still amusing.

From the literary standpoint the most successful of the
nineteenth-century Yankee characters are to be found in James

Russell Lowell's Biglow Papers. Lowell studied the Yankee

 

character and dialect with scholarly objectivity, but he
used his knowledge to write satire that frequently evidences
the intensity of a person truly enraged by the conduct of
his adversary. Primary among the factors that elevate the
Biglow Papers above the level of the other representatives
of this type of satire is Lowell's creation of three sepa-
rate, well-developed characters. To introduce the common
sense observations of the central character, the rustic
philosopher Hosea Biglow, Lowell created Parson Wilbur, a
pompous, narrow, but morally sincere New England cleric.
For low-comic purposes, and to provide himself a negative

fool with whom he might make the military mentality appear

37
ludicrous Lowell added to the cast an ignorant bumpkin named
Birdofredum Sawin. In the Preface to the Second Series
Lowell discusses the characters that he created:
I need on occasion to rise above the level of mere
patois, and for this purpose conceived the Rev. Mr.
Wilbur, who should express the more cautious element
of the New England Character and its pedantry as Mr.
Biglow should serve for its homely common sense vivi-
fied and heated by conscience. The parson was to be
the complement rather than the antithesis of his
parishioner, and I felt or fancied a certain humorous
element of the real identity of the two under a seem-
ing incongruity. . . . Finding soon after that I
needed someone as a mouthpiece for mere drollery,
for I conceive that the true humor is never divorced
from moral conviction, I invented Mr. Sawin for the
clown of my little puppet show.16
This division of the wise fool character into three
characters is similar to that of Rabelais's in Gargantua and
Pantagruel, and it serves the same purpose as the shifting
persona in The Praise gf Folly: namely to add latitude and
dimension to the satiric properties of the character. The
practice also anticipates the use of dual and triple wise
fool personae in the twentieth century. By employing Parson
Wilbur, Hosea Biglow, and Birdofredum Sawin, Lowell could
deal with the issues that concerned him (e.g., war, slavery,
patriotism) from a wide variety of perspectives. All three
of the characters are, in one sense or another, wise fools,
but they are more than this, because they develop pictur-
esque and individual personalities that extend beyond their
stereotyped roles.

Hosea Biglow's simple moralism may be seen in his

opinions on the key issues of his era. Concerning pacifism

38

he notes: "wut's the use 0' meetin' goin'/ Every Sabbath,
wet or dry;/ Ef its right to go amowin'/ feller-men like
oats and rye?" (Biglow Papers, p. 46). His view of slavery
is stated: "wy its jest as clear ez figgurs/ Clear ez one
an' one makes two/ Chaps that make black slaves o' niggers/
Want to make wite slaves 0' you" (p. 47). Birdofredum's
more comic preaching speaks to the same issues in a differ-
ent manner. He writes home from the Mexican War, after he
has enlisted in search of glory and plunder:

I spose you wonder ware I be: I can't tell, fer the

soul 0' me,/ Exacly ware I be myself,---meanin' by

thet the holl 0' me./ Wen I left hum, I hed two legs,

an' they worn't bad ones neither,/ (the scaliest trick

they ever played on me wuz bringin' on me hither,)/

Now one on 'em's I dunno ware;---they thought I wuz

adyin',/ An' sawed it off because they said 'twuz kin'

o' mortifyin';. . . .
With regard to the political power of the pro-slavery forces
he notes: "There's one thing I'm in doubt about: in order
to be President,/ It's absolutely ne'ssary to be a Southern
resident;/ The Consitution settles that, an' also thet a
feller/ Must own a nigger 0' some sort, jet black or brown
or yeller" (in Blair, Native American Humor, pp. 248-253).
Lowell's points are driven home with equal effectiveness
through Hosea's sober, common-sense analysis, and through
the buffoonery of the ignorant Birdofredum.

In addition to the Yankee characters, the wise fool
tradition in American literature is often represented by

similar characters of Southern and Western humor. The tall

tales of the American backwoodsman. and the humorous tales

39
of the Southern yeoman farmer, are neither primarily satire
nor solely of the wise fool type, but their central charac-
ters frequently borrow from the tradition, and ultimately
17
also add to it. The heroes of the Southern and Western
tales, such as Sut Lovingood and Simon Suggs for example,
are perhaps closer to the "trickster" character than to the
wise fool, but when their pranks, practical jokes, and
boasts serve satiric purposes, they quite closely resemble
l8
Brother Jonathan. From the Davy Crockett tales through
the experiences Sut and Simon, among many similar figures,
Southern and Western humor developed until it reached its
peak in the comic writings of Mark Twain.

Kenneth Lynn traces the relationship of the traditions
of Southwestern humor to Twain's comic writing in his bodk,
Mark Twain and Southwestern Humog, He notes that Twain, for
the purposes of satiric effect, wanted a persona that could
function both through the low-comic practical joking and
buffoonery of the frontiersman, and the more subtle verbal
ironic commentary of the naive observer:

The solution to the problem of finding a new persona

for a new era was to fuse the Gentleman and the Clown

of the Southwestern tradition into a single character.

In the new dispensation, the vernacular figure became

the narrator, and the stories he told were not at the

expense of other people . . . but on himself. This
persona Mark Twain would someday describe as an "in-
spired idiot," but he was more complex than that.

For this was a character whose "preternatural shrewd-

ness," as an English commentator on Twain's lectures

put it, was "thinly veiled under the assumption of
simplicity.” His innocence, in sum, was a mask, and

the audience's awareness of the fact was a part of
the joke. (p. 148)

40

A thorough study of Twain‘s version Of the wise fool
deserves a separate volume, but two examples might serve to
illustrate it. In an essay entitled "The Facts Concerning
the Recent Resignation,” Twain's character is a minor, though
thoroughly pompous clerk of “the Senate Committee on Conchol-
Ogy." This wise fool seeks to educate various government
officials with such advice as the following, delivered to
the Secretary of War and dealing with the problem of paci-
fication of the Indians.

I said there was nothing so convincing to an Indian

as a general massacre. If he could not approve of

the massacre, I said the next surest thing was soap

and education. Soap and education are not as sudden

as a massacre, but they are more deadly in the long

run. . . .19
Here Twain simultaneously comments on the stupidity of gov-
ernment officials, the brutality of United States policy
toward the Indians, and the myth of the "noble savage."

The use of the wise fool allows him to direct the satire
in several different, even Opposite, directions.

One Of the best, and most famous appearances of Twain's
wise fool character is that of the doctor in Thg_Innocents
Abroad. The doctor's specialty is upsetting the confidence
and air of superiority and importance of the European guides
that he encounters on the trip, by playing the fool and ask-
ing ludicrous questions. As Twain tells us, "The doctor asks
the questions generally because he can keep his countenance,

and look more like an inspired idiot, and throw more imbe-

cility into the tone of his voice than any man that lives.

41
It comes natural to him." An example Of this technique is
seen in a guide's attempt at showing the party a bust of
Christopher Columbus.

'Ah, genteelmen, you come wiz me: I show you beau—
tiful, Oh magnificent bust Christopher Colombo:
Splendid, grand, magnificentl' He brought us be-
fore the beautiful bust---for it gag beautiful---
and sprang back and struck an attitude: 'Ah, lOOk,
genteelmen! Beautiful, grand--bust Christopher
Colombo: Beautiful bust, beautiful pedestali' The
doctor put up his eyeglass---procured for such occa-
sions: 'Ah---What did you say this gentleman's name

was?‘ 'Christopher Colombo! Ze great Christopher
Colombo.’ 'Well, what did he_do?' 'Discover
America! Discover America, Oh ze devill' 'Discover

America. No---that statement will hardly waSh. We
are just from America ourselves. We heard nothing
about it. Christopher Colombo---pleasant name---

is he dead?‘ 'Oh, corpo di Baccho! Three hundred
year!‘ 'What did he die of?‘ 'I do not know: I
cannot tell.‘ 'Smallpox, think?‘ 'I do not know,
genteelmen: I do not know what he die ofl' 'Meas-
les, likely?‘ 'Maybe---maybe---I do ngg_know---I
think he die of somethings.‘ 'Parents living?’
'Im-posseeblel' 'Ah---which is the bust and which

is the pedestal?’

In this hilarious scene, which continues at some length in
the same vein,Twain's humor deftly touches upon the naivete
of American travelers, the banality of guided-tours, and
the attitude Of the typical European guide, in a most mem-
orable manner.

Mark Twain's writing led to a greater use of irony in
the tradition Of the wise fool humor, due to the success of
his more subtle brand of satire. Twain's popularity on the
lecture circuit encouraged others to bring the wise fool and
his humor and satire to the platform, in addition to the

newspaper column and the dramatic stage. The comic writing

42

of Mark Twain is far more sophisticated, and more readable
today, than that of any of his predecessors or successors.

Other important comic writers and lecturers who used
the wise fool, during the years from the Civil War to the
end of the nineteenth century include Charles Farrar Browne
("Artemus Ward"), David Ross Locke ("Petroleum V. Nasby"),
RObert Henry Newell ("Orpheus C. Kerr"), Henry W. Shaw
("Bill Arp"), and Edgar Wilson Nye (”Bill Eye").20 These
"literary comedians," as they are called by Walter Blair
(Native American Humor, p. 102ff.), owe much to the wise
fool traditions that preceded them, and they also contribute
much to later uses of the motif. As Constance Rourke notes,
"In themes, in tone, they belonged to the frontier. None of
them was definitely localized; their lingo was far less re-
gional than that of the oracles of an earlier day" (American
3239;, p. 177). The emphasis of the literary comedians of
the later-nineteenth century was less upon the creation of
a ”local color" character than upon the use of a nationally
recognized stereotype for specific, issue-oriented political
satire. According to Walter Blair, in an article entitled
"The Popularity of Nineteenth Century American Humorists,"
”A large part of the humor between 1830 and the end of the
century dealt with political themes" (p. 177).

The range of the personae employed by these later-
nineteenth century American humorists is as wide as that of
the other types of wise fool characters that have been dis-

cussed thus far. Their masks include the naive bumpkin and

43
the "inspired idiot," as well as the crackerbarrel philoso-
pher and agrarian-yeoman hero. As Norris W. Yates notes,
”The crossroads oracles carried on the traditions of the
court fools and jesters in satirizing their readers in an
era When the common man was the uncrowned king, at least
21
in the Official mythology."
The satiric humor of Charles Farrar Browne's Artemus
Ward can'be viewed as representative of these humorists.
As Jennette Tandy describes Ward's composition:
The shrewdness of a Barnum was to be united with the
stupidity of an unsophisticated itinerant exhibitor,
who had gained his experience by roughing it in the
West amongst the towns and villages of society where
the more refined forms of amusement are comparatively
unknown. The Old showman was to have the smartness of
a yankee combined with the slowness of one whose time
had been chiefly spent among the backwoods. . . .
(p. 136)
Walter Blair writes in Horse Sense ig_American gumog_that
"Charles Farrar Browne, it appears, started the great rush
of humorists to the lecture platform" (p. 187). Browne's
lecture style greatly influenced the other literary comedi-
ans, including Mark Twain, Whose biographer Justin Kaplan
successor" (p. 86). In his essay, "How to Tell a Story,"
Twain discusses Browne's platform style. He notes Browne's
use of the "nub, point, snapper, or whatever you like to
call it" to end a humorous tale. He also notes Browne's
technique of using ludicrous non seguiturs to create a

humorous air of incongruity. As an example of this Twain

cites one of Browne's jOkes,

44

I once knew a man in New Zealand who hadn't a tooth

in his head"---here his animation would die out; a

silent reflective pause would follow, then he would

say dreamily, as if to himself, “and yet that man
could beat a drum better than any man I ever saw."

Artemus Ward, as the innocent Observer, also follows
the tradition of Jack Downing by writing letters to the
editor of the newspaper containing such remarks as: "My
perlitercal sentiments agree with yourn exackly. I know
they do, becawz I never saw a man whoos didn't," or "I
have no politics. Nary a one. I'm not in the biziness.

If I was I spose I should holler versiffrusly in the streets
at nite and go home to Betsy Jane smellin of coal ile and
gin, in the mornin” (Blair, Native American Humor, pp. 400-
401).

Another Of the more famous of the literary comedians
was David Ross Locke, whose wise fool character, "Petroleum
Vesuvius Nasby," in the words of Arthur P. Dudden, ". . .
marshalled his mocking pen for the Union cause during the
Civil war, against extremists of all persuasions, then
after Appomattox directed it against the North's vindictive
radicals. . . ." (p. 27). In a representative selection,
Nasby as a draft dodger lists ten reasons why he should not
have to fight, including such physical factors as ”dandruff,"
"kronic katarr," and "verrykose vanes," concluding quite
innocently with a disclosure of his real reasons:

I dont suppose that my political opinions, wich are

‘ aginst the prossekooshin uv this unconstooshnel war,
wood hev any wate, with a draftin orfiser: but the
above reesons why I cant go, will, I make no doubt,

be suffishent. (Blair, Native American Humor, pp.
410-411)

45

"Bill Arp,” the creation of Charles Henry Smith, is
another interesting character of this period. In his first
four "letters to Abe Linkhorn" Arp is a pro-Union southern
turncoat who is used to champion the southern point of view
indirectly, through the negative impression of the character
that the reader gets. Thus when he fears for his safety as
a Unionist in the South, he writes "Linkhorn" and seeks to
borrow the "Skotch cap and kloak that you travelled in to
Washington,” expressing both his own cowardice and the popu-
lar myth that Lincoln, through fear of the wrath of Southern
sympathizers, travelled to his inauguration in disguise.
Later Arp underwent quite a character change, becoming a
common-sense fool who spoke directly for the South, threat-
ening the Unionist, Artemus Ward, by writing him that "I
hated a man so bad onst that all the bar cum off my bed,
and the man drowned himself in a hog waller that nite"
(Blair, Native Amegican Humgg, pp. 421, 423). The progress
of Smith's creation aptly illustrates both the flexibility
and the potentiality for confusion of the wise fool device.

In his autobiography, Mark Twain notes that much of
the work of the literary comedians had a very brief span
of popularity. He writes of ". . . a dozen other sparkling
transients whose light shone for a time but has now, years
ago, gone out." Twain provides an insight into the causes
of this phenomenon:

I Why have they perished? Because they were merely

humorists. Humorists of the "mere" sort cannot
survive. Humor is only a fragrance, a decoration.

46

Often it is merely an odd trick of speech and of

spelling. as in the case of Ward and Billings and

Nasby and the "Disbanded Volunteer," and presently

the fashion passes and the fame along with it.

There are those who say a novel should be a work

of art solely and you must not preach in it, you

must not teach in it. That may be true as regards

novels but it is not true as regards humor. Humor

must not professedly teach and it must not profes-
sedly preach, but it must do both if it would live

forever. By forever I mean thirty years. (PP. 297-

298)

Only a fraction Of the work of the literary comedians is
relevant to the contemporary reader, but the best of such
writers as Artemus Ward, Petroleum V. Nasby, and Bill Arp,
like most of Twain's own humorous writing, is still both
interesting and amusing.

The methodology of the wise fool social and political
satire throughout the nineteenth century in America is not
hard to describe. The wise fool character, usually himself
a blend of bumpkin and rural philosopher, either directly
addresses the audience with his Observations, or he reports
them to another character Who is often also a wise fool.
His means of conveying his message include the use of
dialect, humor, ludicrous contrasts and distortions, and
hyperbole and meiosis among other satiric devices. Bump-
kins like the early Jonathan, tricksters and jokers or the
Sut Lovingood type, common-man philosophers like Hosea
Biglow, and ironic Observers of the Mark Twain-Artemus Ward

variety all use essentially these same techniques, albeit in

different prOportions and somewhat different styles.

47

Dialect helps the satirist in two ways; it creates a
sense of identity, sympathy, or rapport between the persona
and the audience, and it is an excellent source Of humor,
distortion, and contrast.22 Rustic dialect forms a connect-
ing link between the character and the type of comments he
makes. It identifies him as the wise fool, and it permits
him to “innocently" drop puns, double entendres, malapro-
pisms, and other linguistic distortions that may serve the
purpose of humorously inflating or deflating the subject.
The comic dialogue may function to create contrasts between
character, as for example by pitting the genial, relaxed,
natural speech of the wise fool against a stuffy, prim, pom-
pous or effete tone on the part of the object of ridicule.

The technique of distortion through inflation or de-
flation of the importance of the subject, utilizing hyper-
bole and meiosis for the task, is also quite natural from
the perspectives of wise fool satire. When the satirist
distorts the subject by overstating or understating it, it
appears ludicrous and can no longer be taken too seriously
or revered by the audience. The different postures of the
wise fool character that have been referred to frequently
thus far vastly increase the number of different combina-
tions of techniques and approaches toward the subject
possible in this mode.23

The American wise fool character of the nineteenth
century was almost exclusively a rural figure.24 He was

Portrayed either as the silly country bumpkin temporarily

48
at large in the wicked city, or the poor, humble, honest,
simple farmer who is forced to confront the corrupt urban
world. During the last decade Of the nineteenth century
and the early decades Of the twentieth, the literary wise
fool moved to the city along with so many of his real life
countrymen. The reasons for this literary migration are
not hard to understand. With the social migration to the
city the newspaper readership was becoming increasingly
urban, and with growing industrialization the urban worker
began to provide a recognizable character that was admirably
suited to the tasks of the wise fool.

In the early years of the century the character often
appears to be an essentially rural type who has been trans-
planted in the city. For example "The Idiot," who is the
central figure in JOhn Kendrick Bang's several volumes of
'wise fool humor (e.g., Coffee angnRepagtee gag Th§_lgig§,
N;Y., 1902), is a young stockbroker who is living in an
urban boarding house. The character is scarcely an urban
type, and the manner in Which he does battle with such
stereotyped city sophisticates as Mr. Pedagogue and Mr.
Brief is virtually identical to the way Colonel Manly and
Adam Trueman handled such foes.

Other early urban wise fools, such as Finley Peter
Dunne's Mr. Dooley (the subject of Chapter Three), and
William L. Riordan's "tongue-in-cheek" portrait of the
archetypal Tammany leader, George washington Plunkitt?5

are genuine city types, though they still speak from the

49

perspective of the common man rather than the SOphisticate.
It should be noted, however, that the rural wise fool did
not entirely disappear during the twentieth century. From
the platform and in neWSpaper satire such figures as Will
Rogers and Kin Hubbard kept the nineteenth-century tradi-
tions alive, and in cartoons the rural wise fool appeared
as such characters as Al Capp's "L'il Abner." Additionally
one finds elements of wise fool humor during the twentieth
century in such characters as Ring Lardner's “Busher” and
Don Marquis's cockroach, "archie" of archie agg mehitabel.

It is important to mention that quantitatively the
character of the crackerbarrel philosopher has not been as
prominent during this century as he had been previously, as
is pointed out by such students of American satire as Henry
C. Carlisle.26 According to Norris W. Yates in The American
Humorist: Conscience g§_the Twentieth Centuiy, the humorous
figure most typical of twentieth-century comic writing is
the “little man,“ a white-collar neurotic who is confused
and oppressed by the complexities of modern civilization
(p. 13). The "little man" is a character who borrows, in
some ways, from the wise fool traditions, but both his
basic description and his method deviate significantly
from Brother Jonathan's.27 During the twentieth century
the "little man" figure has been used as a comic and satiric
character in movies, cartoons, and television, as well as in

literature. Among the more famous of these characters are

50
Charlie Chaplin, Laurel and Hardy, Dagwood Bumstead, and
television's Gomer Pyle.

The bumpkin common-sense philosopher has been well
represented throughout the century, both in terms of the
quality and quantity Of the satire in which he has been
employed. From Dunne's late-nineteenth century-early
twentieth century newspaper columns through the columns
of Art Buchwald and Arthur Hoppe,28 and the television
comedy of Bill Dana's "Jose Jimenez,“ Brother Jonathan's
progeny have been on hand to expose the pretensions Of
their countrymen and tarnish the grandeur Of those subjects

that are too close to being awesome, from the perspective

of the wise fool.

 

 

Notes

1Quoted from Perry Miller and Thomas H. Johnson, eds.,
The Puritans: A Sourcebook 9i Their Writing, Vol. I (New
York, 1963), p. 332.

21bid., p. 108.

3Quoted from Thomas H. Johnson, ed., Final Harvest:
Emily Dickinson's Poems (Boston, 1961). p. 101.

4Much has been written concerning the history of this
concept in America, since it is generally viewed as one of
the most significant features of American thought. Illus-
tration of the idea and analysis of its backgrounds are
provided by JOhn William Ward, Andrew Jackson; Symbol £2;
an_§ge (New York, 1962), particularly Chapters III, IV, and
V: Russel Blaine Nye, The Cultural Life g§_the New Nation:
1776-1830 (New York, 1960), pp. 22-28; Leo Marx, Egg Machine
ig Egg Garden: Technology and the Pastoral idea ig_America
(New York, 1967); and Merrill D. Peterson, The_Jeffersonian
Image ig.ghe_American Mind (New York, 1962).

5Quoted by John William Ward, gp, cit., p. 49.

York, 1942), p. 117.

7See Ernest W. Baughman, Type egg Motif-Index gi_§he_
Folkgales gi_England a§g_North America (The Hague, 1966).
entries J. 10 through J. 2722; and Benjamin A. Botkin, A
Treasugy gi_American Anecdotes (New York, 1957).

(New York, 1912); and Bruce I. Granger, Political Satire in_
the American Revolution, i163-l783 (Ithaca, New York, 1960).

9This periodical was published in Salem, Massachusetts,
from February through April, 1807, and is available on micro-
film.

10See Marston Balch, "Jonathan the First," Modern
Language Notes, XLVI (May, 1931), 281-288: and the extended
debate between Constance Rourke and J. De Lancey Ferguson
in American Scholar, 4 (January, March, May, 1935).

11"The Jonathan Character in the American Drama," Dig-
sertation Abstracts, XV (1955), 2193. Other useful accounts
of the early stage Yankee include: Stanley L. Glenn, "Ludi-
crous Characterization in American Comedy from the Beginning

51

52

until the Civil War," Qissertation Abstracts, XVI (1956),
400-401; and Francis Hodge, Yankee Theatre: The Image 2;
America gg_the Stage, i825-i850 (Austin, Texas, 1963).

12Richard Moody, America Takes §g_the Stage (Blooming-
ton, Indiana, 1955). p. 110.

13Examples of Quinn's point Of view are found in
Constance Rourke, American Humor: A Study gi_§he_National
Character (Garden City, New York, 1953), p. 24; and The
Roots g£_American Cultuie (New York, 1942), p. 116, Leo
Marx, 92, gig,, p. 113. For a critical approach that
recognizes the importance of Colonel Manly and the play's
theme, see Arthur Halline's introduction to The_Contrast,
in American Plays (New York, 1935). p. 4.

14In Kenneth S. Dynn, ed., The Comic Tradition in,
America (Garden City, New York, 1958), p. 91.

15See walter Blair, "Down East Humor," Native American
Humor (San Francisco, 1960), pp. 38-61.

16The_§igigy Papers (Cambridge, Massachusetts), p. 156.

17For a general discussion of these two types of tales,
see, in addition to Constance Rourke, American Humor, Mody
C. Boatright, Folk Laughter gn_the American Frontie; (New
York, 1949); and Clement Eaton, "The Humor of the Southern
Yeoman," Sewanee Review, 49 (April, 1941), 173-183.

18There is a large element of the "trickster" character
in many of the American wise fools, and vice versa, though
the characters are distinct ones. For a description Of
trickster see Roger D. Abrahams, "Trickster, the Outrageous
Hero," in Tristram Potter Coffin, ed., Qu£_Living Traditions
(New York, 1968). pp. 170-178.

191n Walter Blair, Native American Humog, p. 523.

20See the various works by Blair, Rourke, and Tandy
cited in the Bibliography, for discussion and illustration
of the humor of these figures.

212h2_gm§;iga§_Humorist: Conscience g; the Twentieth
Centugy (New York, 1965), p. 22.

22According to Richard Bridgman, who provides an excel-
lent analysis of the literary uses of dialect in his book
The Colloguial Style ig_America (New York, 1966):

Not only does this kind of dialect writing re-
duce the pretentions of trite conventional words
and phrases by clothing them in the outlandish

53

garb of misspelling . . . it also forces more
than normal attention upon the individual words,
for most of them in such a passage must undergo
translation to be understood. This necessarily
keeps attention focused on the surface of the
words. (p. 57)

Bridgman also notes that.

From its inception, dialect,---what Henry James

called "a hatful of queer pieces,"---frequent1y

played the clown. Because it violates an accep-
ted norm, very little effort is required to ani-
mate dialect's comic energies. (p. 52)

23An interesting account of the various tricks and

techniques of the wise fool humorist is provided by Melville
D. Landon, himself a wise fool lecturer and writer, and the
creater of the character "Eli Perkins,” in a lecture deliv-
ered by the latter in Kings 2i Platform agg Pulpit (Chicago,
1890). Additionally, the various works pertaining to the
history and art of satire cited in Chapter One are useful
here.

24One important exception to this rule is the "B'hoy,"
an urban Irishman on the nineteenth-century American stage,
of whom we shall have more to say in Chapter Three.

25M 2:: W _Hall. (New York, 1905).

p. xiv; and “The Comic Tradition," American Scholar, 28
(Winter, 1958), 98-108.

27Yates identifies the "little man" as a specie of wise
fool, but distinguishes him from "the rustic sage" and the
public spirited "respectable citizen,” p. 12. While it is
perhaps valid to call the "little man" character a wise
fool, since the definition of the latter is so wide, the
"little men" of such writers as James Thurber and Robert
Benchley are employed in a manner that is quite different
from that of the wise fools that have been dealt with in
this paper. It is impossible to call this character a
lineal descendant of Brother Jonathan--Or for that matter
of the fool-tradition discussed in Chapter One, in the same
sense that the twentieth-century rustic and common sense
philosopher clearly is. Yates's boOk itself makes this dis-
tinction tacitly, through the contrast of the treatments of
such writers as Dunne, Hubbard, Lardner, and Will Rogers, and
those of Thurber, Perelman, Benchley, e; ai, An interesting
article that deals briefly with the transition from rural
wise fool humor to urban humor of the predominantly "little

54

man" type is Walter Blair, "The Urbanization Of Humor," in

Robert Spiller, ed., A Time 9; Harvest (New York, 1962), pp.
54-64.

28Burton H. Wolfe, "Arthur HOppe: The Return Of the

Newspaper Satirist," North American Review, 2 (September,
1965). 10-21.

Chapter III
FINLEY PETER DUNNE'S 'MR. DOOLEY': AN URBAN
IRISH-AMERICAN WISE FOOL

Finley Peter Dunne's Mr. Martin Dooley, a Chicago bar-
tender of Irish origin, is perhaps the best known wise fool
in twentieth-century American literature. The Dooley pieces
revived the tradition during the 1890's, and carried it for-
ward into the first two decades of the present century. As
Constance Rourke noted, "For a brief space in the 80's the
oracle had gone into a partial eclipse, but in Mr. Dooley
he rose again as if this homely figure stirred a deep-seated
popular passion."1

Although Mr. Dooley is a middle class urbanite rather
than a rustic or peasant figure, several students of American
humor have acknowledged his similarity to the nineteenth-
century crackerbarrel philosopher. Typical of this recogni-
tion is the comment by Arthur P. Dudden, in The_Assault g;
Laughter, “Mr. Martin Dooley, Finley Peter Dunne's immortal
saloonkeeper and public oracle, was a national institution
at the turn Of the century. He belonged to the great
crackerbarrel tradition of Downing, Biglow, Ward, and Nasby,
yet was infused with an urban and immigrant flavor all his
own” (p. 285).2

Finley Peter Dunne, Mr. Dooley's creator, was a Chicago

journalist who, like his character, was an Irish-American.

He was born, on July 19, 1867, into an environment that has

55

56
been characterized as "Irish, Catholic, urban, and Ameri-
can."3 Both Dunne's early life and his career as a jour-
nalist, which he began at the age of seventeen as an Office
boy for the Chicago Telegraph, are significant to the
development of the Dooley sketches. At home he was sur-
rounded by politics, and at work he learned in detail of
the city of Chicago and the lives of its inhabitants. By
the time he was twenty-one, Dunne had risen to the position
of city editor of the Chicago Iipep, and had become knowl-
edgeable and experienced as both reporter and writer.

In addition to his early encounters with politics and
urban affairs, another aspect of Dunne's youth is relevant
to his creation of Martin Dooley, that is, his early in-
clination toward satire, ready wit, and lively sense of
humor. A situation recorded by Ellis serves to illustrate
this. "His [Dunne's] contributions to the school paper were
highly appreciated but seldom printed by the more timid edi-
tors who feared that Dunne's characterizations of fellow
students and teachers were somewhat libelous" (p. 13).
Dunne's love of joking, repartee, and satiric remarks pro-
vided for numerous amusing incidents throughout his life.
Ellis records several Of these in the biography, including
Dunne's advice to Marshall Field, a notoriously frugal man.
During a golf match, Dunne told Field to put a dollar on the
ball, to improve his drive, since, the wit noted, ". . . all
Chicago believes that you can make a dollar go farther than

anyone in the world" (p. 108).

57

This feeling for humor was doubtlessly furthered by
Dunne's acquaintance with two other Chicago journalists of
a similar disposition, Eugene Field and George Ade. 0f the
many influences upon Dunne during his journalistic career,
Elmer Ellis notes, ". . . most important Of all was the
presence in the same newspaper plant of Eugene Field. . . .
No close friendship developed between Field and Dunne, but
Field's very distinction in Chicago journalism made him an
Object Of emulation. . . ." (pp. 22-23). Field's column,
“Sharps and Flats," occasionally used dialect, often dealt
with the mysteries of urban life, and frequently employed
a dry humor similar to that found in the Dooley pieces.
Dunne's friendship with Ade was closer than with Field,
and While it is difficult to trace specifically the influ-
ences that these men had on each other, a reading Of their
respective humor columns and stories shows many similarities
of both style and subject.4

Dunne and Ade were both members of the Whitechapel Club,
along with Brand Whitlock, Fredrick Upham Adams, and several
other "bright young men" of turn-of—the-century Chicago. As
Elmer Ellis has reported, the club exposed Dunne to radical
politics, sophisticated literary and philosophic debates,
and a great deal of humorous--and practica1--joking (pp. 47-
57). Ellis describes the atmosphere of the club as "Bohemian,
Rabelasian, and macabre" (p. 49), and notes that "To the
young writers the most important feature of the club was the

unplanned critical atmosphere which naturally dwelt in the

58
group" (p. 51). Through his association with Field, Ade,
and the members of Whitechapel Club, Dunne sharpened his
understanding of politics and people, and his wit, increas-
ing his intellectual perception beyond the level to which
T his journalistic experience had already brought it.
Mr. Dooley was conceived during Dunne's tenure on the
"Chicago Evening Pppp, where his creator was encouraged to
engage in writing humorous editorials as well as "straight"
reporting.5 In his Introduction to a collection of Dooley
essays, Mi, Dooley ap_§i§_§g§p, Dunne recalls the events
surrounding the creation of his character:

One day when I had left the Tribune and had gone to
work on the Evening Post under a great managing edi-
tor, Cornelius McAuliff, I dropped into McGarry's
for a drink. Jay Gould had died that day and Mr.
McGarry passed some quaint remarks on this celebrated
financier's career. I thought they were funny enough
to quote, and I put them into a little piece for the
Sunday Post, the evening paper's sickly paper which
soon died of lack of nourishment from advertisers.
I attributed them to a mythical "Col. McNeery."
Afterwards, while I was writing editorials for
the Post, we became engaged in a bitter fight with
the crooks in the city council. McAuliff and I were
both hot municipal reformers but our publisher wasn't
so eager. He was nervous about libel suits and loans
at banks that were interested in the franchises for
sale in the council. It occurred to me that while it
might be dangerous to call an alderman a thief in
English no one could sue if a comic Irishman denounced
the statesman as a thief. SO I revived Col. McNeery
and used him to bludgeon the bribe-taking members of
the council. (p. xxiii)

Jim McGarry, the man after Whom "Col. McNeery" was patterned,
complained to Dunne's employer about the columns, since it
was quite apparent to his friends and customers that he was

the model for the character. Dunne then changed the comic

59
Irishman's name to Martin Dooley, and moved his bar to
Archer Avenue (which is called "Archey Road" in the sketches)
and continued writing the columns on a weekly basis after
1893.

Apparently Dunne was attracted to the dialect essay
primarily for the immunity it afforded him,-although the
true identity of Mr. Dooley's creator was known to many. As
he notes in the same Introduction, "If I had written the
same thing in English I would inevitably have been pistolled
or slugged, as other critics were. But my victims did not
dare complain. They felt bound to smile and treat these
highly libelous articles as mere humorous skits" (p. xxiii).
Eventually Mr. Dooley became far more than a mask behind
which Dunne might hide for the purpose of engaging in com-
ments on local politics. He was soon commenting on national
and international affairs, the mores and lives of the people
around him, and on a number of other topics ranging from
golf to metaphysics. Dunne continued writing Dooley essays
until the early years of the first World war, when he turned
to non-dialect writing except for a brief try at reviving
Mr. Dooley during 1922-1924.

Finley Peter Dunne's use of an Irish character for humor
and satire was not without precedent in American literature.
According to Jennette Tandy, in Crackerbox Epiiosophers‘ip
American Hpmpi_and Satire, "The sage of Archey Road was not
an unheralded figure. Drama and vaudeville had long fea-

tured the Irish comedian. Private Mike O'Reilly [Charles

60

Halpine's giyii E. we £991] had ridiculed Gideon Welles
and the monitors" (p. 160). Constance Rourke describes the
"b'hoy" figure, a nineteenth-century stage character of the
popular theatre, as one who was “. . . undoubtedly Irish in
general ancestry but who soon merged with the riffraff of
New'York streets and water fronts."7 The stage Irishman,
Miss Rourke goes on to say, gradually became an urban fig-
ure (p. 117). During the 1890's, Thomas Beer points out in
his chronicle of that decade, "Pat and Mike held endless
colloquies in the comic weeklies: the pig and the goat
watched through the shanty's door While a fat shrew be-
laboured her man with a skillet."8 The stage Irishman was
developed further in the plays of the Irish-American author,
Dion Boucicault.9

Though Dunne was most certainly influenced by both his
wise fool predecessors and the comic Irishman Of his era,
the world of Mr. Dooley is basically the world of Chicago's
Irish-Americans which Dunne knew personally as a member of
that community and as a reporter. Elmer Ellis reports
Dunne's efforts to portray this world realistically:

As he began to write of Mr. Dooley, Dunne found that

he needed a better acquaintance with Archer Avenue,

and in company with JOhn McKenna he made several

visits there, going the rounds of some Of the saloons,

meeting many Irish characters and listening to their

talk. With these superficial things to use, and his

own good memories of the Irish of St. Patrick's Parish

gg-ggaw upon, he had what he needed for his work. (pp.

Martin Dooley is described as an Irish-American who had

come to this country as a young man. He is a middle class

61
entrepreneur, and a bachelor. His tavern on Archey Road is
his forum for his "philOSOphizing." As Mr. Dooley tells us,
"There's no better place to see what's goin' on thin the
Ar-rchey Road" ("Peace,“ p. xi). Dooley is a careful and
relatively successful business man, and in this respect he
is rather different from most of his fellow wise-fools. In
Dunne's words, "He [Dooley] is Opulent in good advice, as
becomes a man of his station; for he has mastered most of
the Obstacles in a business career, and by leading a pru-
dent and temperate life has established himself so well that
he owns his own house and furniture, and is only slightly be-
hind On his license" ("Peace," p. xi).

Mr. Dooley's knowledge, however, is limited to that
which he has acquired from his immediate experience and "th'
pa-apers," his only reading matter. He champions this prac-
tical knowledge as the only type of any real value, and is
decidedly cynical concerning "intellectuallsm" and “culture."
According to Dooley, "They're on'y three books in th' wurruld
‘worth readin'--Shakespeare, th' Bible, an' Mike Ahearn's
histhry iv Chicago. I have Shakespeare on thrust, Father
Kelly r-reads th' Bible f'r me, an' I didn't buy Mike
Ahearn's histhry because I seen more thin he cud put into
it” (“Peace," p. 106).10

In his concern with local matters and urban affairs,
Dooley's "experience" is indeed useful to him. Mr. Dooley
is’a thorough urbanite from a distinctly urban background

(as he notes in one of his essays, "Peace," p. 202). Van

62

wyck Brooks, in Ipe_Confident Yeapgz 1885-1915, sees Mr.
Dooley as ". . . a symbol of the shift of interest from the
country to the city. . . ." (p. 186). Brooks compares
Dunne's creation to those of other writers of the period
who dealt with the shift in America from a predominantly
rural to an urban culture. According to Brooks, though
many writers (e.g., Dreiser) wrote Of rural people who mi-
grated to the city, ". . . Dunne had written about city
people, not country people who had come to the city, for
he had grown up in his native Chicago in an Irish world
that was represented in Mr. Dooley's saloon in Archey Road"
(p. 191). In addition to being a proud student Of urban
life whose ridicule of the supposed glories of suburban and
rural habitation are charged with an indignant iconoclasm
(e.g., ”The City as a Summer Resort," "Opinions," pp. 45-
51), Dooley knows urban machine politics, reform movements,
ethnic clashes, economic situations, etc. at first hand.

Dunne's wise fool is a student of human nature, who
believes that persons and personalities are the most sig-
nificant aspects of all events, institutions, and ideas.
In this he reflects the author's own belief that men are
more important than things or institutions.

As Time goes on, I find I have less fixed interest

in the mere machinery of human relations--of poli-

tics, of society, of philosophy, and even Of ethics.

Some machinery is better than others, no doubt; and

let us have the best, by all means, but remembering

how little relatively, after all, depends upon it,--

in comparison, I mean, with What depends upon thf
human and spiritual qualities of men themselves. 2

63

This interest in human nature, and concern for "the
human and spiritual qualities of men themselves," at times
leads the Dooley material away from humor and satire. In
such essays as "Fireman" ("Best," pp. 272-275) and
"Shaughnessy" ("Countrymen,“ pp. 45-49), Mr. Dooley's dis-
cussions of human courage, heroism, tragedy, loneliness, and
love border on pathos. As Elmer Ellis has stated, ". . . as
Dunne began to picture the life of Archer Avenue, and through
that, hold up a mirror in which humanity might see itself,
he found himself frequently deserting satire and comic humor
for pathetic and tragic sketches that were necessary to his
total picture” (p. 81). Ellis goes on, however, to note
correctly that “. . . the great majority of the pieces were
humor, pure, simple and great" (p. 82).

Another important quality of the character, Martin
Dooley, is his independence, which on most subjects makes
him an objective, unbiased observer (exceptions to this rule,
such as his anti-British leanings, for example, will be dis-
cussed below). Philip Dunne sees Dooley's independence as a
key to his success.

Indeed, Mr. Dooley's phenomenal success was based on

this quality of aloofness. Not that Mr. Dooley didn't

take sides. When the situation called for a blow, he
hit and hit hard. But the blows fell impartially.

You were not immune because you happened to be a Demo-

crat or a Republican or a businessman, or a labor

leader. ("Remembers,“ p. 101)

Though Louis Filler, in Crusaders i2; American Liberalism
calls Dunne "Another early muckraker of the first importance.

3
. . .,“l Fred Lewis Pattee notes that "He could reprove the

64

holy muck-raker as harshly as he did the muck-raked sinner."l4

Behind Mr. Dooley's independence and Objectivity is a
cynical realism. His response to the idealism with which
many Of his friends greeted the Alaskan gold rush is indica-

tive of this reserved attitude.

Whin I was a young man in th' 01' counthry, we heard
th' same story about all America. We used to set be
th' tur-rf fire 0' nights, kickin' our bare legs on
th' flure an"wishin"we was in New York, where all
ye had to do was to hold ye're hat and th' goold
guineas 'd dhrop into it. . . . But, faith, whin
I'd been here a week, I seen that there was nawthin'
but mud undher th' pavement, . . . an' that, though
there was plenty iv goold, thim that had it were
froze to it. . . . Me experyence with goold minin'
is it's always in th' nex' county. If I was to go
to Alaska, they'd tell me iv th' finds in Seeberya.
So I think I'll stay here. ("Peace," pp. 100-102)

His attitude toward women's suffrage also expresses this
same hard realism: "I'm not wan way or th' other. I don't
care. What diff'rence does it make. . . . Annyhow, as Hogan
says, I care not who casts th' votes in me counthry so long
as we can hold th' Offices" ("Says," pp. 38-39).

At times Dooley's experience, Objectivity, and realis-
tic outlook make it difficult to view him as a wise ippi.
Despite his lack of education and restricted sources of in-
formation, DOOley's discourses occasionally sound like the
words of a professor translated into an Irish brogue. For
example, his economic analysis of "Panics" examines the
complicated subject of stock market fluctuations in accu-
rate, though simply stated, detail ("Says," pp. 59-66).
Dooley uses "Grogan the banker," "Mulligan, th' little

tailor," and "th' shoe-store man" for his illustrations,

65
but the analysis is directly applicable to the world of
high finance.

This sort of wisdom coming from Mr. Dooley reflects an
inconsistency in the character, for he is basically a simple,
unlearned man, and sometimes even a narrow-minded,‘mis-
informed one. .As an ardent Irishman, Dooley accepts any
alliances or any policies which Offer the Opportunity to
strike out at Great Britain. At times this irrational Irish
chauvinism is satirized by Dunne through Dooley's position
on the topic. Thus Dunne, who at the start of the First
World war urged American intervention on the side of the
Allies, has Dooley allying with his arch-enemy and competi-
tor, "Schwartzmeister," because of their common hatred of
England ("Peace," pp. 213-217).15 On the subject of Orange-
men, Dooley's objectivity, objections to war, and non-
partisan aloofness vanish. While in theory he notes, “I
suppose they [Orangemen] ought to be left walk about, an'

I'm a fair man," when he sees one walk by he exclaims,

"Jawn . . . if ye run up on th' roof ye'll find the bricks
loose in th' top row in the chimbley. Ye might hand him a
few" ("Countrymen," pp. 90-91).16

Thus Mr. Dooley ranges from wise explicator of complex
philosophic and technical matters to practical, Objective,
common sense Observer, to the negative fool Who represents
the Object of the satire. Of these three roles, however,

Martin Dooley is most characteristically the common-sense

sage, whose observations are simple, practical, and worldly

66

rather than either terribly sophisticated or ridiculous.
.Many of the maxims are eminently quotable, and are familiar
to readers Of books on history, politics, and the social
sciences. Among the more famous Of these sayings are his
evaluation of the role Of Vice President, ”It isn't a crime
exactly" ("Dissertations," p. 115): the Supreme Court,
". . . no matther whether th' constitution follows th' flag
or not, th' supreme coort follows th' illiction returns"‘
("Opinions," p. 26); and the medical profession, "I wondher
why ye can always read a doctor's bill an' ye niver can read
‘his purscription" ("Says," pp. 93-94).17

Some of these practical Observations are indicative Of
the native shrewdness that has been traditionally the identi-
fying feature of the American wise fool. Dooley notes con-
cerning reform,'"I've seen waves in rayform befure, Jawn,
‘Whin th' people in this country gets wurrked up, there's no
stoppin' thim. They'll not dhraw breath until ivry man that
tOOk a dollar in a bribe is sent down th' r-road. Thim that
takes two goes on th' comity in the wave iv rayform" (”Coun-
trymenq" p. 35). "Life," says Mr. Dooley, ". . . is like a
Pullman dinin'-car: a fine bill iv fare but nawthing to eat"
("Dissertations," p. 35). Rumblings of discontent in the
nation do not disturb him, for he knows that ”Th' noise ye
hear is not th' first gun in a revolution. It's on'y th'

people iv th' united States batin' a carpet" ("Dissertations,"

p. 261).

In

67

.Mr. Dooley's remarks are usually made to one of his
customers, Mr. Hennessy ("Hinnissy").18 Hennessy is a
narrow-minded, staunchly partisan man who serves as a foil
for Dooley. In many respects he takes on qualities of the
'bumpkin or negative fool, comparable to Lowell's Birdofredum
Sawin, for example, though he lacks the humorous, "clownish“
;properties of most of these characters. walter Blair has
described the function of Hennessy in his boOk, §2£§2.§§B§2
.ip,American H3993; "Hennessy, a fool character, 'who had
at best a clouded view of public affairs' and who suffered
‘badly from credulity and horrible logic, asked an innocent
question now and then to get the Sage started and to keep
'his tongue wagging. . . ." (p. 246). Hennessy can be
counted upon to spout the Irish-Democrat "line” for Dooley's
comment. He slavishly follows the lead of the "machine,"
and can be used to represent imperialistic, jingoistic, and
other narrow sentiments. He condemns Dreyfus, for example,
solely on the basis of the latter's Jewishness (“Peace," p.
234), and BOOker T. washington for being Negro ("Opinions,"
p. 207), providing Dooley the opportunity to object to this
sort of ignorant and unjust prejudice on the basis of
racial, religious, or ethnic affiliations.

In addition to Mr. Hennessy, Dunne often uses two
other characters to add dimension to Dooley's perspective.
He refers to Father Kelly and Hogan when he needs the opin-
ions of more educated men on which to comment. As Norris W.

‘Yates describes these two men, "Hogan is the eternal pedant,

68
I‘Who'swan iv th' best-read and most ignorant men I know. .
. .' Father Kelly, the parish priest, is a common-sense
philosopher in his own right, and is often quoted when Dunne
'wishes to stress Dooley's ignorance or narrow-mindedness
rather than his shrewdness" (p. 94). In this manner Dunne
achieves the full range of the wise fool character, both
‘through the license of inconsistency in Dooley himself, and
by the splitting of the persona through the introduction of
additional characters. In this sense Hennessy, Dooley, and'
Father Kelly/Hogan parallel Lowell's trio of Birdofredum
Sawin, Hosea Biglow, and Parson Wilbur.

Humor, of course, is central to Finley Peter Dunne's
satiric technique. The humor of the Dooley sketches is
light, dry, and amusing rather than broad or intense. Even
when its Object is to reduce the subject to the ridiculous,
the humor is more generous and sympathetic than mocking or
'harsh. Philip Dunne's recollection of his father's thoughts
on humor make the reason for this approach quite clear.

"Humor," he told me, "especially political humor, is

a privilege of the innocent and the secure. . . . NO

one can be permitted to laugh at a cause he must be

carefully prepared to die for. The fanatic is the
most humorless creature on earth, but he is the one
the people will turn to more and more as fears and
tensions grow less and less tolerable. Humor is only
effective as a weapon when the victim has enough humor

in himself to perceive that he has been wounded. . . .

Humor goes hand-in-hand with the independent spirit.

If one declines, so does the other. Only free peOple

can laugh, and those who forget how to laugh may soon

forget how to be free." ("Remembers,“ p. 213)

The humor of the Dooley pieces seeks to ridicule without en-

couraging hatred or scorn. It aims as much at correcting the

69

Object of criticism by creating a sense of shame, as it does
to rally Opponents to the cause. Additionally, beneath its
surface lies a sadness over the abuses it attacks, rather
than anger. The laughter it engenders reduces the tension
and abrasiveness surrounding the political or social issue
rather than increases them. As Mr. Dooley remarks, ”I don't
think we injye other people's sufferin', Hinnissy. It isn't
acshally injyement. But we feel betther f'r it” ("Observa-
tions," p. 275).

Dunne creates the humor of these essays through a num-
‘ber of devices common to wise fool literature. Like that of
:most of his predecessors, Mr. Dooley's dialect is one of the
central features of his approach. Dooley's Irish brogue is
quite realistic, though as its creator has noted, it is an
Americanized Irish "with the difference that would naturally
arise from substituting Cinders and sulphuretted hydrogen
for soft misty air and peat smoke" ("Peace," p. viii).
According to Kenneth S. Lynn, "No American, not even Mark
Twain, ever had a better ear for dialect than Dunne."19 The
spelling of certain words is inconsistent, but this probably
reflects Dooley's poor spelling rather than Dunne's linguis-
tic inaccuracy.

DOOley's dialect, in addition to the humor that it
generates through providing opportunities for puns, mala-
propisms, garbled quotations, and other types of word-play,
serves to identify him as a "man of the people." As has been

noted, sentiments that would be either pretentious or

70
inflammatory in standard English are softened and made less
Objectionable in the mouth Of the genial Irishman. Dooley
thus may be permitted to discourse on topics "sacred" to his
readers, and forgiven his satire when the reader disagrees
with him or when he becomes extreme. His perspective is
therefore that of the "insider,“ or friend (and perhaps
alter ego) of the reader, rather than that of the super-
cilious prophet or preacher.

Comical puns are frequently employed by Dooley, and
they appear to the reader as resulting “naturally" from
either his dialect or his lack of education. He defines an
"illegible" (eligible) political candidate as one "that
can't be peed out of the party" (”Opinions," p. 93, empha-
sis added). Emile Zola's famous "J'accuse" is rendered as
"Jackuse," and the Frenchman is depicted screaming this
accurate epithet at the opponents of Dreyfus (”Peace," p.
236). Similarly, a meeting between Mark Hanna and President
McKinley, at which certain business interests were defended,
is moved, by Dooley's pun, from Jekyl Island to Shekel
Island, the slang term for money fixing the true interest
of these politicians. Dooley's distortion of the English
language also creates a sense of the ludicrous through the
malapropism and the double meaning. A.modern battle between
the Greeks and the Turks is reduced to the comic by Dooley's
comparison of it to “Leonidas at th' pass iv Thermometer"
("Peace," p. 111), and it is noted that President McKinley's

cat has been named "gold bonds" because of the interest that

71
he drew ("Peace," p. 77). To Mr. Dooley, the military term
"Right Dress" does not refer to a drill procedure, but to
the over-emphasis on elaborate uniforms on the part of
American Officers ("Peace," p. 29).

The garbled or distorted quotation is another source of
humor in Dooley's repertory. "Th' modhren idea iv govern-
mint,“ we are told, "is 'Snub th' people, buy th' people,
jaw th' people'" ("Philosophy,” p. 252). According to
Dooley's version of it, "Th' las' thing that happens to a
pathrite he's a scoundhrel" (”Countrymen," p. 8). The dis-
tortion Of language, in Dunne's work, as was the case in the
writing Of his predecessors, is an effective tool both for
generating humor and making incisive satiric comments.

Another technique frequently employed by Mr. Dooley is
comical physical description of a person, with the effect of
an ag_hominem attack. General Fitz-Hugh Lee is described in
these terms:

Did ye iver see a pitcher iv him? A.fat ma-an with

a head like a football an' a neck big enough to pump

blood into his brain an' keep it from starvin'.

White-haired an' r-red faced. Th' kind iv ma-an

that can get mad in ivry vein in his body. Whin he's

hot, I bet ye his face looks like a fire in a furni-

ture facthry. Whin a ma-an goes pale with r-rage,

look out f'r a knife in the back. But, whin he

flames up so that th' perspi-ration sizzles on his

brow, loOk out f'r hand an' feet an' head an' coup-

ling pins an' rapid-firin' guns. ("Peace," pp. 10-11)
This description of the General transforms the traditional
romantic picture of the leader with calm dignity and sober

strength to a view of a man who. "when his face flames an'

his neck swells an' his eyes like a couple iv illicthric

72
lamps again a cyclone sky, he'd lead a forlorn hope acrost
th' battlemints iv hell" (p. 13).

The technique of the comical description is not con-
fined to the portraits of people. Mr. Dooley describes
"th' first gr-reat land battle iv the [Spanish-AmericanJ
war. . . ." as an encounter between the soldiers and a
pack Of mules escaping from the corral:

They dayscinded like a Whur-rl-wind, dhrivin' th'

astonished throops befure thim, an' thin charged

back again, completin' their earned iv desthruc-

tion. At th' las' account th' brave sojers was

climbin' threes an' tellygraft poles, an' a reg'-
mint iv mules was kickin' th' pink silk linin' out

iv th' officers' quarthers. (”Peace,“ p. 14)

It is this sort of parody of news reports Of the Spanish-
American War that first earned the Dooley essays a national
audience and reputation.20

Other features Of Dunne's satire that are similar to
the methods used by other American wise fool satirists in-
clude the use of the "tall tale," the vaudeville joke,
vivid contrasts and incongruities, distortion by overstate-
ment and understatement, and the "snub-ending" in which a
witty or ironic remark suddenly reverses the tone of the
entire piece. In "The Great Hot Spell," Mr. Dooley "tops"
a remark about the heat by spinning a yarn about ”Th' Sip-
timber iv th' year eighteen sixty-eight" when a break in
the heat allowed him to step from the ice-box long enough
to find out that the thermometer read "four-hundred an'

sixty-five" (”Countryman," pp. 180-184). "The Education

of the Young" serves as an opportunity for comment on how

73
a vocation is chosen: “'Th' kid talks in his sleep: 'Tis
th' fine lawyer he'll mdke.‘ Or, 'Did ye notice him admir-
ing that photygraph? He'll be a gr-reat journalist.‘ Or,
'LOOk at him fishin' in Uncle Tim's watch pocket. We must
thrain him f'r a banker'" ("Philosophy,” pp. 243-244).

The satirist frequently relies on incongruity and con-
trast to make his point. Besides the contrasting of charac-
ters, Dunne achieves this effect linguistically through such
sentences as: ”All over this land onhappily mated couples
ar-re sufferin' almost as much as if they had a sliver in
their thumb or a slight headache" ("Says," p. 5). The
effect here is to reduce the effectiveness of the arguments
in favor of divorce, by comparing marital difficulties with
very minor physical ailments. Similarly, in discussing the
great literary men of the Victorian era, Dooley makes his
comment by a simple incongruous list: "Think iv th' gran'
procession iv lithry men,--Tinnyson an' Longfellow an' Bill
Nye and Ella Wheeler Wilcox an' Tim Scanlan. . . .“ (”Peace,"
p. 173).

The incongruity and contrast is often the result of
Dooley's overstatement or understatement. His description
of the scientific testimony at a murder trial ridicules the
court's reliance on "expert testimony":

"Thin they call in a profissor from a college. 'Pro-

fissor,‘ says th' lawyer f'r the State, 'I put it to

ye if a wooden vat three hundherd an' sixty feet long,
twenty-eight feet deep, an' sivinty-five feet wide,

an' if three hundherd pounds iv caustic soda boiled,

an' if the leg in a guinea pig, an' ye said yestherdah

about bi-carbonate iv sode, an' if it washes up an'
washes over, an' th' slimy slippery stuff, an' if a

74

false tooth or a lock iv hair or a jawbone or a goluf
ball across the cellar eleven feet nine inches--that

is, two inches this way an' five gallons that?‘ 'I
agree with ye intireley,‘ says the profissor. . . .
("Peace," pp. 142-143)

This mock testimony continues for two pages, but Dooley
could have saved the court all the trouble; "What th' coort
ought to have done was to call him up, an' say: 'Lootgert,
where's ye're good woman?‘ If Lootgert cuddent tell, he
ought to be hanged on gin'ral principles; f'r a man must
keep his wife around th' house, an' whin she isn't there,
it shows he's a poor provider" (p. 142).

Similarly, Dooley comments on the scientific debates
over Darwin's theories by burlesquing the language used by
the " experts" :

"well, thin, listen to th' pro-fissor: 'Such habits

not on'y tended to develOp the motor cortex itself,‘

he says, 'but thrained th' tactile an' th' kin--th'
kin--I'11 spell it f'r ye--k-i-n-a-e-s-t-h-a-t-i-c--
pronounce anny way ye plaze--senses an' linked up
their cortical areas in bonds iv more intimate

assocyations with th' visyool cortex--' . .

"Fr' m what he said I guess that th' pro-fissor
that wrote it meant to say that the raison man is
betther thin th' other animals is be-cause iv what's
in his head." ("Wi11,“ pp. 82-83)

Most of the columns end with Mr. Dooley "clinching" the
argument, either with a funny remark or one of his famous
common-sense observations. Thus a lengthy and idealized
discussion of the "past glories" of war ends with such di-
alogue as: "'Oh, I suppose all wars has been alike,' said
Mr. Hennessy. 'Maybe so,‘ said Mr. Dooley. 'They're like
th' rest iv life. It's on'y th' prisint that ain't roman-

tic'" ("Will," p. 211). A discussion of heroes and great

75
men Of history comes to a comical close when Mr. Hennessy
asks about a Dooleyism (“As Hogan says, ivry man is a hero
excipt thim that have vallays."): 'Be th' way,‘ said Mr.
Hennessy,. 'ye spoke of vallays. What is a vallay, anny-
how? What does he do?‘ 'A vallay,‘ said Mr. Dooley, 'As
I undherstand it, is an English gentleman who has arose be
conscientious wurruk to th' position iv a boot-jack” ("Will,"
p. 113).

Though there are many different subjects on which Mr.
Dooley comments, most of them may be classified in one of
two categories: the exposure of hypocrisy and pretension.
and the analysis of the contemporary social situation. The
first category includes frequent examinations of such issues
as nativism, imperialism, war, ethnic groups, politics, ora-
tory, and reform from the perspective of the cynical "real-
ist" who is not readily swayed by appearances. In the words
of Louis Filler, ”The cardinal sin, to Dunne, was pretence,
and it was this which enabled him to see through the illu-
sions of the racists, and the related attitudes of jingoes
and 'patriots,‘ whom he had occasion to examine."21

Imperialism, whether American, British, French, or
German, understandably provided a target for a man of
Dooley's iconoclastic temperament. Kenneth S. Lynn, in
The Comic Tradition ip_America, makes the point that "TO a
great extent, Dunne's Irish Catholic perspective was respon-
sible for his incisiveness" on this subject (p. 404). While

this is undoubtedly a valid contention, Mr. Dooley's attitude

76
toward imperialism also parallels that of Lowell's character
Hosea Biglow and of Mark Twain very closely.22 The common-
sense philosopher, Irish or not, objects to imperialism
because he sees through the pomposity, bravado, and hypo-
critical masking of self-interest behind religious or
political slogans, and because Of his sympathy for the
treatment of the oppressed "little man" at the hands of his
more powerful foes.

Examples Of Dooley's observations on this topic are
plentiful. As a realist Dooley cannot see the usefulness
of colonization: "Hogan says we've got to fight f'r th'
supreemacy iv th' Passyfic. Much fightin' I'd do f'r an
ocean, but havin' taken th' Phillippeens, which ar-re a
blamed nuisance, an' th' SandWhich Islands, that're about
as vallyable as a toy balloon to a horseshoer, we've got to
grab a lot iv th' surroundin' dampness to protect thim"
("Says," pp. 100-101). Additionally, Mr. Dooley tends to
identify with the victims of these international adventures:

Th' Lord f'rgive f'r sayin' it, Hinnissy, but if I

was a Chinyman, which I will fight any man f'r say-

in', an' was livin' at home, I'd tuck me shirt into

me pants, put me braid up in a net, an' go out an'

take a fall out iv th' in-vader if it cost me me

life.("Philosophy,” p. 78)

Dunne's satiric pieces on the Spanish-American War are
among his finest. As Elmer Ellis notes, "The excess Of emo-
tionalism, the examples of bombast and bluff, the wartime

oratory and journalism, and the striking cases Of incompe-

tence in WaShington, all lent agility to Dunne's imagination"

77
(p. 111). Perhaps the most famous and most frequently re-
printed Dooley column, "A Book Review," finds the sage criti-
cizing Theodore Roosevelt's book, Tpe_§ppgg_Riders, for its
romantic account of its author's exploits. Dooley concludes
the IGVIGW’bY noting that the title of the book should have
been "Alone in Cubia!" ("Philosophy," pp. 13-18).

Dooley is harshest in his criticism Of the generals,
"war experts," and jingoists. In "war and war Makers," he
Observes, "I wisht it cud be fixed up so's th' men that
starts th' wars could do th' fightin'; Th' trouble is that
all th' prelimin'ries is arranged be the matchmakers an' all
they'se left f'r fighters is to do th' murdherin'" ("Philoso-
phy," p. 46). When, at the end Of the war, many “heroes"
sought to gain public office on the strength Of their war
records, Dooley responded:

'Annyhow,‘ said Mr. Dooley, 'Mighty few iv th' rale

heroes iv th' war is r-runnin' f'r Office. Most iv

thim put on their blue overalls whin they was mus-

tered out an' wint up an' ast f'r their 01' jObs
back--an' sometimes they got thim. Ye can see manny

as tin iv thim at th' rollin'-mills defendin' th' na-

tion's honor with wheelbarh's an' a slag shovel.‘

(”Peace," p. 91)

Mr. Dooley's defense of the "little man“ is carried
over in his attitude toward nativism, racism, and intoler-
ance. Van wyck Brooks sees Mr. Dooley as the spokesman for
the large number of immigrants in America: "Mr. Dooley
spoke for them all in his scorn of the Eastern Anglomania,

the 'dilute Englishman, the dudes around New York,' as he

called them. . . ." (p. 187). In several columns Dooley

78
scores the treatment of Black-Americans and American Indians,
and the rampant anti-Semitism of the era. As has already
been noted, Dunne often used Mr. Hennessy to represent these
prejudiced attitudes, and Dooley to expose them. One of Mr.
Dooley's reflections on the plight of the Negro is remarkably
relevant to the race issue today. He responds to Hennessy‘s
query, "What's goin' to happen to th' naygur?“:

'Well,‘ said Mr. Dooley, 'he'll ayther have to go to
th' north an' be a subjick race, or stay in th' south
an' be an objick lesson. Tis a har-rd time he'll
have. annyhow. I'm not sure that I'd not as lave be
gently lynched in Mississippi as baten to death in
New York. If I was a black man I'd choose th' cotton
belt in prifrince to th' belt on th' neck fr'm the
polisman's club. I wud so.‘

'I'm not so much troubled about th' naygur whin he
lives among his Opprissors as I am whin he falls into
th' hands iv his 1iberators.‘ ("PhilOSOphy,” p. 217)

Another favorite target of Mr. Dooley's wit is the in-
flated oratory of the period.24 Mr. Dooley says of oratory,
"Iv-ry nation injyes some kind iv a crool spoort, an' afther-
dinner Orathry is th' same with us as bull-fightin' is with
the Spanyards" ("Will," p. 133). He also maintains:

I guess a man niver becomes an orator if he has any—
thing to say, Hinnissy. If a lawyer thinks his
client is innocint he talks to th' jury about th'
crime. But if he knows where th' pris'ner hid th'
plunder, he unfurls th' flag, throws out a few re-
marks about th' flowers an' th' bur-rds, an' asks
th' twelve good men an' thrue not to break up a
happy Christmas, but to send this man home to his
wife an' childer, an' Gawd will bless thim if they
ar-re iver caught in th' same perdicymint. (”Disser-
tations," p. 23)

Mr. Dooley's views on the subject of social and politi-
cal reform are of considerable historical interest to the

student of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries

79
in America. Though as a journalist Finley Peter Dunne was
an ardent opponent of political corruption and immorality,
he shared his wise fool's skepticism concerning both the
motives and the effectiveness of reformers.25 Dooley Often
suspects reformers of using "muckraking" as a convenient
stepping-stone to political office, and of a lack of sincere
interest in the needs and desires of the people. He also
doubts that people really want reform, or that they are ca-
pable of sustaining a reform movement for any length of time
(WAS a people, Hinnissy, we're th' greatest crusaders that
iver was--f'r a short distance")("0pinions," p. 154).

As an urban citizen of Irish background, Dooley is also
aware that more Often than not, it is the "machine" that pro-
tects his interests, against the attacks of reformers who in
reality represent the social elite.26 According to Richard
Hofstadter, "Early civic reform was strongly tainted with
nativism“ (p. 178). Mr. Dooley was well-enough acquainted
with the urban politicians to recognize them as the croOks
that they were, and to realize that ultimately “the people”
suffered from this sort of government; but as a realist and
pragmatist, and as a cynical student of human nature, he
could rarely ally himself with the reformer.

.Mr. Dooley's coverage of every day domestic life is as
diversified as is his view of the political issues of the
day. Jennette Tandy acknowledges this range when she writes,
"Mr. Dooley is perhaps the most versatile of our political

and social satirists. He disposes of golf, women's suffrage,

80
grand Opera, college professors, lying, with a lambent equa-
nimity which is not above shedding sparks" (p. 162). Though
a bachelor, Mr. Dooley has quite a bit to say about the
"weaker sex." In a piece entitled "On the Power of Love,"
Dooley attributed a prizefighter's success to the support Of
the man's wife, "An' Fitz looked over his shoulder an' seen
her face, an' strange feelin's of tendherness came over him;
an' thinks he to himself: 'What is so good as th' love iv a
pure woman? If I don't nail this large man, she'll prob'ly
kick in me head'" (“Peace," p. 166).

In a somewhat more serious vein, Dooley is indeed con-
servative on the subject of woman's rights. "WOMAN'S RIGHTS?
What does a woman want iv rights whin she has priv'leges?"
("Observations," p. 253). He applauds the approach of his
friend Donahue to handling "the new woman.“ When "Molly
Donahue have up an' become a new woman," and her husband
". . . seen her appearin' in th' road wearin' clothes that
no lady shud wear an' ridin' a bicycle,. . . .” Donahue re-
fused tO go to work or do the heavy chores until his wife
capitulated ("Peace," pp. 136-140). On the subjects of
traditional family roles, education of the young, and re-
spect of elders, Mr. Dooley squarely Opposed innovation.

He also comments on such domestic matters as the impos-
sibility of keeping New Year's resolutions ("Peace," p. 95),
religion ("Rillijon is a quare thing. Be itsilf it's all
right. But sprinkle a little pollyticks into it an' dinny-

mite is bran flour compared with it")("Willfi'p. 182), and

81
the game of golf. Dooley's description of the latter ac-
tivity is classic:

Ye're supposed to smash this little grenade fr'm

place to place an' here an' there an' up an' down

an' hither an' yon with an enormous insthrument

iv wood or iron, ontill in due time ye get to what

is called a puttin'-green. Ther's a little hole

with a tin can in it in th' middle iv this place,

an' whin ye're within a fut or two iv this hole,

ye take a small hammer out iv th' bag, an' ye hit

th' ball four or five times till it tumbles into

th' hole. Thin ye wipe th' cold sweat fr'm ye'er

brow, write down '5' on a little card, an' walk

away a few feet an' do it all over again. ("Will,"

pp. 147-148)

There has been considerable controversy concerning an
evaluation of Mr. Dooley's permanent place in American lit-
erary history. Opinions on the subject range from eulogizing
the pieces as quaint reminders of a forgotten era, to prais-
ing them as timeless examples of the best in American social

27
and political satire. Many critics contend that Dooley's
dialect inhibits the contemporary reader's appreciation of
his Observations. Thus Elmer Ellis suggests that ”The most
dated element in theDooley stories turns out to be the di-
alect, and that Dunne himself recognized that ". . . if the
Dooley essays were to live they would have to be rewritten
. 28
in ordinary English" (p. 307).

If the dialect inhibits the reader's appreciation of
the essays, it does not totally negate it. Though it may
become tiresome in reading an entire volume, it barely
limits the effect of any single short piece. The major

factors that do render the Dooley sketches "dated" are the

unfamiliarity of many of the Specific references they

82
contain; the inclusion detail that only Dunne's contempo-
raries can easily recognize; and the fact that only a
limited number of the many pieces deal with more universal
aspects Of human nature. The best Dooley columns are as
humorous and revealing today, in dialect or "translated,"
as they were when they were written, but they represent
only a small per cent of the canon. Unfortunately, much
of Dunne's finest satire is in the larger group of pieces
no longer relevant. As Gerald W. Johnson has Observed,
". . . it is possible that a satirist purchases immunity
at the price of transience."

Today one most frequently encounters Mr. Dooley's wit
in anthologies of American humor, or through the many appear-
ances of his quotable common-sense observations in history
and political science texts. Remembering Mark Twain's dic-
tum that a humorist who preaches may achieve an "immortality"
of thirty years (see Chapter Two, p. 46), it may regretfully
be conceded that the era of Dooley's wide popularity is
drawing to a close, but the essays doubtlessly will continue
to be of interest to the student of American life during the
period 1890-1920, and to the student of American literary
styles. Additionally, it is possible that certain of them
may survive intact because of Mr. Dooley's insight concern-

ing man's virtues and follies.

Notes
1American Humor, pp, cit., p. 226.

2Other critics who find the Dooley pieces comparable to
the rest of nineteenth-century wise fool literature include
Constance Rourke, Jennette Tandy, Nbrris W. Yates, and Walter
Blair, all cited in the second chapter, and Dunne's biogra-
pher, Elmer Ellis, in M3, Dooley's America: 5 Life pi Finley
Peter Dunne (New York, 1941).

3Ellis, p. 3. Additional biographical information is
provided by Dunne's son, Philip, in the latter's comments in
his edition of Finley Peter Dunne's loosely organized "mem-
oirs," Mi. pooley Remembers (Boston, 1963).

4Norris Yates's chapter on Ade, "George Ade, Student of
'Success,'" in The American Humorist, provides some useful
comments on the writers of "The Chicago School“ at the turn
of the century (pp. 61-80). His chapter on Dunne's work,
"Mr. Dooley of Archey Road,” is also useful here (PP. 81-99).

5Ellis's account of the circumstances surrounding the
creation Of the Dooley series is found on pp. 58-101 of his
biography of Dunne.

6Many of the Dooley essays are reprinted in nine diff-
erent volumes (eight authorized, one, What pooley Says, a
"pirated" edition that Dunne had removed from the market);
and there are six volumes in which certain selections from
these volumes are again reprinted. Additionally, virtually
every twentieth-century anthology of American humor and
satire includes selections from Mr. Dooley. The following
abbreviations will be used for further references to Dunne's
'writing: "Dissertations," gussertagicns py Mp. Dooley (New
York, 1906); "Best," Mi. Dooley ap_§i§_Best. Elmer Ellis, ed.
(New York, 1938); "Countrymen," Mi. Dooley ipqppe_Hearts p£_
Hip Coupprymen (Boston, 1899); "Peace," Mi, Dooley ip_Peace
apg_fla£_(Boston, 1898); "Will," Mg, Dooley pp.Making a_Will
and Other Necessary Evils (New York, 1917); "Opinions," Mp.
pooley's Opinions (NeW'York, 1901); "Philosophy," Mp, Dool-
ey's Philospphyg(NeW’York, 1906); "Remembers," Mp, Dooley
Remembers, Philip Dunne, ed. (Boston, 1963); "Says," Mi,
Dooley Says (New York, 1910); “Observations," Obsegyatipns
py Mg. Dooley (New York, 1902).

7American Humor, p. 116.
8The Mauve Decade, p. 109.

91bid., p. 104.

83

“’31

84

loIt should be noted that although Dunne realized that
he had much in common with his character (He once signed a
personal letter, "Dooley D.," Ellis, p. 107), the writer's
reading habits and attitudes toward intellectual and cul-
‘tirral pursuits were quite different from those of his char-
acter. In a letter to his son, Philip, Dunne discusses the
relative merits of such writers as Montaigne, Joyce, Gide,
Cellini, Gibbon, and Proust (“Remembers," pp. 22-24).
Pfiij.lip Dunne argues that ". . . in Peter Dunne as a person-
ality there was no trace of Mr. Dooley," but this evaluation
appears to be considerably overstated ("Remembers," p. 53).

11Some interesting background material on these subjects,
wh ich helps to illuminate the views advanced by Dooley, is
found in Richard Hofstadter, Th_e_ A_g_e_ pi: Reform (New York,
1955), pp. 174-186. Elsewhere in the book Hofstadter calls
Eh1131n3" one of the shrewdest commentators Of that

age. 0 o 0“ (p0 22).

12"Scientific Management," in The World 2£.H£: Dooley,
IKDIlis Filler, ed. (New York, 1962), p. 214.

13”The First Muckraker," p. 58.

14The New American Literature: 1890-1930 (New York,
193 0) , p. 108.

15Philip Dunne explains his father's position on this
nnastter in considerable detail:

Many Irish-Americans in the First War adopted
what we learned to call later an isolationist
position. They were not so much pro-German as
fanatically anti-British. . . . My father was
one of the exceptions, not the only one, but
perhaps the most prominent and influential
among Americans of Irish descent. At the risk
of seeming to labor the point, I repeat that
he looked on the world through purely American
eyes. . . .

My Father didn't like the British as a na-
tion. . . . He simply considered it his duty
as an American to stand for our entry into the
war as a matter of self defense ("Remembers,"

pp. 54-55).

Ei<=“t: l6Norris‘W. Yates describes this side of Dooley's char-
131i. Gar and notes, "Not only does Mr. Dooley's reason desert
3L at times--as when he wants to throw bricks at various
$G- enemies--but he can't possibly keep well informed. All
lteads is the 'pa-apers,' and the data in his mind are a
33d mixture of truth and misinformation" (p. 87).

85

17Philip Dunne has collected and "translated" many Of
these famous quotes in his edition of his father's "memoirs"
( " Some Observations by Mr. Dooley," "Remembers," pp. 303-

.3()7).

18In some of the earlier columns, "Jawn" McKenna func-
tioned in the same role as Hennessy.

195 8), p. 404.

20RObert Hutchinson, in his Introduction to a collection
of re-printed Dooley essays, discusses the events surround-
ing the popular national reception of such Spanish-American
War pieces as "On His Cousin George," in _M_r_. Dooley pa

Ivrything and Ivrybody (New York, 1963), pp. iv-v.

2J-Introduction to a collection of reprinted "Dooley
essays," Mp. pooley: Now and Forever (Stanford, California,

1954), p. xiv.

22See, for example, Lowell's pieces on the Mexican War,

in The Biglow Papers, and such essays by Twain as "To a
Person Sitting in Darkness," or other essays on the Sandwich

Islands or Philippine questions.

23In an article entitled "Literary Aspects Of American
Anti-Imperialism, " Fred H. Harrington contends, "Dunne did
1101:. embrace the whole ideology of the anti-imperialist move-
ment, but he rendered the cause great service by openly
§Ympathizing with the Filipinos and by making fun of the
J ingoistic, over-enthusiastic expansionists', " INfl England

anrterly, X (December, 1937), 664.

24Barnet Baskerville, in "19th Century Burlesque Of Ora-
tory," attributes "a substantial influence" in the decline
of the popularity of bombastic oratory to "a small group of
égth century humorists" including many crackerbarrel phil-
asophers such as Artemus Ward, Bill Nye, Petroleum V. Nasby,
73d Orpheus C. Kerr, American Quarterly, XX (Winter, 1968),
h 6e743. Of Dunne's role he notes, "With detached good
Mngr, but with deadly effectiveness, Finley Peter Dunne's
Cartin Dooley deflated the pretentious utterances of politi-
3- orators by dwelling playfully upon their lyrical quali-

t .
lee (p. 741).

de 25Both Elmer Ellis and Philip Dunne treat this matter in
1:ail in their biographical accounts of Finley Peter Dunne.

26This complex and paradoxical situation is discussed by

Ri
tthard Hofstadter who notes, ". . . it was the boss who saw

needs of the immigrant and made him the political in-

St
blament Of the urban machine. The machine provided quick

86

naturalization, jobs, social services, personal access to
authority, release from the surveillance Of the courts,
deference to ethnic pride. In return it garnered votes,
herding to the polls new citizens, grateful for services
rendered and submissive to experienced leadership" (p. 177).

27For example, Gilbert Seldes, writing in 1957, assures
his reader that his piece is "almost certainly the last ever
written about Mr. Dooley" _Tpa Seven Lively Arts (New York,
195 7), p. 111. F. L. Pattee notes, "A generation has come
that does not read Mr. Dooley; long ago was he outmoded,
but he will not pass completely into limbo where most of
the American comic entertainers have gone" (pp. 109-110).

On the other hand, Seldes himself offers a contradicting
Viewpoint by asserting, "Nearly everything serious in Dooley
has the same relevance, and one reads about war experts and
' disqualifying the enemy' (in relation to the Spanish-
Arnerican and Boer Wars) with a slightly dizzying sensation

that this man has said everything that needed to be said
twenty years in advance of his time" (p. 123).

28In recognition of this opinion, Philip Dunne has en—
deavored to "translate" a few of the Dooley essays in his
edition of his father's "memoirs" ("Remembers," pp. 272-

307).
29"Mr. Dooley's Creator," New Republip. 149 (December 21.
.1963), p. 23.

Chapter IV

LEO ROSTEN'S 'HYMAN KAPLAN' : AN URBAN
JEWISH-AMERICAN WISE FOOL

Like Finley Peter Dunne, Leo C. Rosten, the creator Of
a Jewish-American wise fool character named Hyman Kaplan.
was raised and educated in the city of Chicago. Rosten was
born in Lodz, Poland, in 1908, and at the age Of two was

brought to the United States by his parents. Of his early

experiences in Chicago he has written, "In my youth, I lived

on the west side of Chicago. It offered all who inhabited

that rough-and-tumble section of the city the vitality of

life: crowds, noise, challenge, conflict, camraderie, side-

walk poets, alley crooks, front-step seminars--plus the

Priceless dream of someday moving to a nicer neighborhood."
Rosten was educated in the Chicago public schools, and re-

ceived advanced degrees, including the Ph.D. (1938) from the

University Of Chicago.
Rosten's literary career, which reflects both his pro—
fesaional training as a sociologist and his interest in
fiction and humor, has included the writing of such widely
‘31 fferent types of literature as adventure and mystery
s"'t<>:l:~ies, humorous articles and sketches, an extremely suc-
ceg‘sful novel, and such serious sociological studies as The
W gap-respondents; Hollywood: The Moyi_e_ 993.5331: 111.3

M -
\_ 0% Makers; and Religions ia America. His literary works
i

he lude a number of "pot-boilers, " published under the

87

88
pseudonym "Leonard Ross," the critically acclaimed novel
Captain Newman, 13.9,, and a large number of short columns
and articles (e.g., "The World of Leo Rosten," a regular
feature in ippk_magazine), as well as the Hyman Kaplan
stories.2 His most recent book, IRE gpya pi Yiddish (New
York, 1968), is a humorous lexicon that serves both as a
scholarly guide to the language and as an anthology Of
Jewish jokes and anecdotes, with which most of the words
are illustrated.

As a humorist Rosten has used the wise fool character
on a number of occasions in addition to the Hyman Kaplan
stories. Concerning a well-known and frequently antholo-
gized satiric sketch, "An Open Letter to the Mayor of New
York," Rosten notes, "I tried to write this appeal to reason
in various ways, but they all suffered from one inexcusable
defect: they reeked of virtue, which is boring. The device
I finally hit on, inventing an obvious idiot who defends the
Mayor, seemed to me both amusing and effective."3 In this
amusing satire, both a positive and a negative fool are em-
ployed. J. R. Jukes, the "obvious idiot," reports the views
of a man (Leo Rosten) whose "innocent" complaints concerning
the noise, crime, air pollution, and other civic defects of
New York are both comical and devastating. Jukes's ignorance.
reflected by his poor spelling and inability to defend the
mayor against Rosten's charges, adds to the effect of the

Pretestor's "common-sense" Observations.

89

Another example of Rosten's use Of this device is the
short sketch "The Broads were very Skinny, or Pop Art, Shmop
Art, Leave Me Alone."4 This satiric study Of modern art and
its pretentious patrons also follows the epistolary pattern,
with the report of a character called "Vern" to his friend
"Lefty." "Vern" is nonplussed over the attention given to
one gpiap.g;a£p, "Because in that window is a garbadge pail,
full of custard, and across the pail in pukey purple letters
is the word--BEING--and in the goo are maybe 100 popsikles
covered by a Fish-net in which a U.S. FLAG is planted: And
across our Stars & Strips is posted--NOTHINGNESS. SO help
me, Lefty, I am not slipping you no baloney" (p. 90).

Perhaps the most SOphisticated of Rosten's uses of the
wise fool is in his novel, Captain Newman, 21.2.5 A thorough
study of this novel is unnecessary here, but among its char-
acters are such wise fools as Corporal Laibowitz, whose
"home remedies" for mental patients are as effective as they
are unorthodox and seemingly absurd; several mental patients
whose disorders reflect more wisdom than madness; and the
"down-to-earth," original, creative, psychiatrist Captain
Newman, whose approach is neither naive nor foolish, but
which reflects certain aspects of this motif in its practi-
cal refutation of established, orthodox, and Officially sanc-
tioned procedures. Indeed the central theme of the novel is
the paradox of the "insanity" Of conforming, unimaginative,
and ”proper" Officials, contrasted with the "sanity" of the

bizarre but humane members of an army mental ward, both

90
staff and patients. Captain Newman, M.2. is frequently
hilarious, but it is not really a "humor novel," for it
makes some serious, often tragic, comments about human be-
ings and the society that they have created.

Rosten would agree with those students and writers of
humorous literature who assert that such social commentary
lies behind good comic writing. In the Preface to Ipa_
Return p£_H*Y*M*A*N K*A*Pti?A*N he defines humor as ". . .
the affectionate communication of insight."6 He further
acknowledges the instructional value of humor in the Preface
to $22 gpy§_p§ Yiddish (PP. xxiii-xxiv). Rosten's wit and
sense of humor permeate his work, including some of his non-
fictional writing. For example, a serious discussion Of
dialect writing in the Preface to "Return" soberly advises
the reader to see an "admirable study" by Arthur Winsome
Platt, Hampi, Dialect apg_Catharsis, but the footnote to
the reference states, "On second thought, don't try. Pro-
fessor Platt taught at Rutgers for years, but was asked to
resign when they discovered he wasn't real. I just made
him up to add the weight of authority to my argument. I
hope this teaches you not to be impressed by footnotes"

(p. 16).

Hyman Kaplan was invented, his creator notes, for eco-
nomic rather than pedagological purposes, however.

It was 1935, I was living in Washington, wallowing

in research on the Capital's corps of newspapermen,

for my Ph.D. Thesis. It had been awarded a "field

fellowShip" from the Social Science Research Coun-
cil. . . .

91

I slaved away in Washington for a year, when I
fell in love with a Model A Ford. I saw it on a
used car lot and it was going for $125. My heart
pined for the black beauty, a rakish two-seater
with a canvas top and a rumble seat. . . .

To get the $125, I wrote a story one weekend
about a character I called Hyman Kaplan. It was
vaguely based on a student I had briefly known in
a nightschool class I had occasionally taught to
help pay my way through college. The story was
sold to the New Yorke; and Annabelle Eaia name 39;.
ppa_ga£_ was sold to me.

I ha not the faintest notion of writing more
than one Kaplan story, but soon Annabelle needed
a tire, so I wrote another. . . .

I submitted all my writing under a pen name,
Leonard Q. Ross, because I felt indentured to the
S.S.R.C., and was fearful of my humorless profes-
sors back in Chicago, before whom I would have to
appear with an indigestible doctoral dissertation.7

Hyman Kaplan is portrayed as a Jewish-American immi-
grant attending a night school, the American Night Prepara-
tory School for Adults, in New York City. The basis in
Rosten's experience for the stories provides an interesting
parallel to the sources of Dunne's "Mr. Dooley," Hughes's
"Jesse B. Sample," and many other wise fool characters. In
this regard, a dialogue in which Rosten answers typical
questions that he had been asked concerning the background
of his character is instructive:

"Ar_e_ 213.9. 11min Kaplan stories true?"
Yes, they are all true--but they never happened.

 

Yes, I taught (I thought) for about two years, as a
bootleg substitute for an instructor in a night school
on the West Side of Chicago. . . . I committed peda-
gogy for an instructor who had sensibly suffered a
nervous breakdown. . . . ‘

"Wpy_aig you move the scene from Chicago pp_Nap York?"

It seemed natural. It seemed appropriate. It
seemed inevitable. Stories about immigrants in a
night school just have an irresistible tropism for

 

92

that marvelous carnival of a city. Besides, New York
has an annual mean rainfall.
"pig y_<_)i1_ actually have _a_ student like Hyman Kaplan?"

NO. Life is not that beneficent. . . .

Mr. Kaplan is, I suppose, the projected image of
certain traits of personality, nourished by narcissism
and pushed to the outermost boundaries of yearning. A
famous psychoanalyst once analyzed Mr. Kaplan and con-
cluded he was my alter ego. I sometimes think it is
the other way around.

"were ypa_M£, Parkhill?" [Parkhill is the school's
instructor and Kaplan's Opposite and foil .

I don't know. But I also don't know Who else he
could have been, or Where else he could have come
from. ("Return," pp. 11-13)

As was true of Mr. Dooley, Hyman Kaplan was not without
predecessors, both in traditional Jewish and earlier American
literature. Nathan Ausubel, in A Treasugy pi_Jewish Humor,
notes the traditional use of fools in Jewish folk literature.
According to his account, negative fools (shlimiels, shmen-
driks, shmiggeges) were Often used for didactic purposes by
Jewish writers (pp. 380-381). Additionally, one finds, in
the JewiSh tradition, the common-sense, "crackerbarrel"
philosophers, Whom Ausubel terms "Synagogue-Stove Sages"

(pp. 568-569). Ausubel writes of these characters:

They touched on every problem, personal, communal,

national, and international with the air of spoofing

authority that comes quite naturally to simple people
who always find the short cut to the most complicated
problem. It's the kernel and not the outer husks

that they seek for in truth. With ironic amusement

they viewed the mess that the powerful of the earth.

the learned and the wise made out of human affairs.

(p. 568)

Earl Rovit draws the parallel between Jewish and American
wise fool characters more specifically in his article "Jewish

Humor and American Life"; "It is also true that the Yiddish

schliemiel-figure and the schnorrer have their native

93

American counterparts in such eighteenth- and nineteenth-
century folk creations as Brother Jonathan and Poor
Richard. . . ."8

Jewish-American predecessors of Hyman Kaplan include
Montague Marsden Glass's early twentieth-century popular
characters "Potash and Perlemutter" ("Abe" and "Mawruss")
among others. Of these two wise fool characters Jennette
Tandy notes, "They introduce the reader to a new world of
idiom and social tradition. It is a far cry from the sar-
castic brevities of the rustic philosopher to the involved
meanderings, the 'Olav hasholem's of Abe and Mawruss. Yet
the pair are true provincials."9 Norris W. Yates includes
Hyman Kaplan in a list Of characters who are in the tradi-
tion of "dialect humor based on the uncouth English of immi-
grant minorities."10 In addition, among the several reviews
that cite Kaplan's place in the American wise fool tradition,
Louis Untermeyer's "A Naturalized Natural" notes the simi-
larity of Hyman Kaplan and Mr. Dooley.ll

Like Dunne's wise fool, Rosten's is ". . . the very
apostle and epitome of urban civilization. . . ." ("Return,"
p. 26). Hyman Kaplan has been in America for fifteen years,
and is a cutter in a New York dress factory. As his creator
describes him:

This Mr. Kaplan was in his forties, a plump, red-faced

gentleman, with wavy blond hair, pgp_fountain pens in

his outer pocket, and a perpetual smile. It was a

I strange smile, Mr. Parkhill remarked: vague, bland,

and consistent in its monotony. . . . Mr. Kaplan was
an earnest student. He worked hard, knit his brows

94

regularly (albeit with that smile), did all his
homework, and never missed a class. ("Education,"

pp. 4, 6)

Elsewhere, however, Mr. Parkhill notes,

But, unfortunately, Mr. Kaplan never seemed to

learn anything. His spelling remained erratic,

his grammar deplorable, his sentence structure

fantastic. There was only one word for Mr. Kap-

lan's idioms--atrocious. As for Mr. Kaplan's

speech, if anything it grew more astounding from

day to day. ("Education," p. 164)

Mr. Kaplan's teacher is also disturbed by his pupil's
exuberance which he expresses, among other ways, by placing
multi-colored stars between the letters of his name on all
of the work that he does for class, and by what Parkhill
calls "his [Kaplan's cavalier attitude to reality, which he
seemed to think he could alter to suit himself" ("Return,"
p. 55). This latter feature is perhaps the essence of Kap-
lan's personality. Kaplan defies all established rules of
language and logic with "innocent" abandon, and while he is
always "wrong," somehow his private "reality" Often para-
doxically makes more sense than the officially accepted one.
As Rosten tells us:

Mr. Kaplan did not deny that English had rules--good

rules, sensible rules. What he would not accept,

apparently, was that the rules applied to him. Mr.

Kaplan had a way of getting Mr. Parkhill to submit

each rule to the test Of reason, and Mr. Parkhill

was beginning to face the awful suspicion that he

was no match for Mr. Kaplan, who had a way with

rules of reason entirely his own. ("Return," p. 58)

In fact, Mr. Parkhill secretly suspects that Kaplan "is

a--well, a kind of genius" ("Return," p. 59). "For a long

time Mr. Parkhill had believed that the incredible things

95
which Mr. Kaplan did to the English language were the pro-
ducts of a sublime and transcendental ignorance," pap, "The
more Mr. Parkhill thought this over the more he was con-
vinced that it was neither ignorance nor caprice which guided
Mr. Kaplan's life and language. It was Logic. A secret kind
of logic, perhaps. A private Logic. A dark and baffling
logic. But Logic" ("Education," p. 152). Kaplan is not
consciously aware of his intuitive genius, so he submits
meekly to correction, §££§£.he has made his point.

In this sense Kaplan represents a departure from the
most common American wise fool character, the crackerbarrel
philosopher, and is closer to the medieval wise fools of the
sotties, or of Skelton and Erasmus. His insights are "inno-
cent," and almost "inspired“ rather than the result of prac-
tical experiences. After one of his "wrong/right"
interpretations, "Mr. Kaplan smiled with the sweet serenity
of one in direct communication with his muse" ("Education,”
p. 35).12 Hyman Kaplan is another example of the tendency
toward inconsistency in wise fool characters, however, for
despite his almost mystical insights, he is still a fool.
like that Of Erasmus's Folly, Kaplan's divine wisdom emerges
from the mouth Of a very human, and imperfect, being.

He can, for example, be quite intolerant of his class-
mates (though in fairness it should be noted that some of
them are also less than tolerant of his errors). On several
occasions he ridicules the Italian heroes Garibaldi, Dante,

and Mazzini when an Italian member of the class uses them as

96

examples ("Education," pp. 95, 134, "Return," p. 91).13 He
also can resort to SOphistry to win his battles with his
fellow students, as he does when he defends the contention
that newspapers can be either masculine or feminine by Off-
ering the "Harold Tribune" as an example ("Education," p.
162), or when he escapes censure for his sentence, "If your
aya falls on a bargain pick ip_up,“ by claiming he was
writing to a man with a "gless eye" ("Return," p. 90).

Kaplan is not basically a negative fool, however, for
the author usually uses him to expose rather than represent
folly. He is essentially a genial, kindly man, who primarily
wants to help his classmates and Mr. Parkhill. Like many of
the wise fool characters, including Mr. Dooley, Kaplan occa-
sionally becomes quite serious, and the tone of some of the
pieces is closer to pathos than humor. When, for example,
one of the students, Mr. Teitleman, is humiliated into
leaving the class, Kaplan is noticeably upset over the inci-
dent ("Education,“ pp. 117-128). Mr. Kaplan is a sincere
defender of his own "private logic," devoted to the task of
improving his command of the language, and unwilling to
accept arbitrarily rules and procedures that do not make
"sense" to him.

Another of the character's virtues is his concern with
what he terms "dip thinking," as Opposed to the petty, triv-
ial, grammatical exercises that he is assigned. For Kaplan
each speech or composition exercise is an opportunity for

speculative thought, rather than the easier task represented

97
by the less ambitious but more "correct" work of some of
the better students. After one particularly awful attempt,
Kaplan answers the charge that there are too many mistakes
by claiming, "Dat's because I'm tryink to give dip ideas"
("Education," p. 17). In one Of his compositions Kaplan
writes:

Sometimes I feel sad about how some people are

living. Only sleeping eating working in shop. Not

thinking. They are just like Enimals the same, which
dont thinking also. Humans should not be like Eni-
mals! They should Thinking! This is with me a deep
idea.

Now we are having in school the axemination--a
comp. Mostly will the students write a stogy for
Comp. But I am asking, Why must allways be a story?
Mr. P. must be sick and tierd from storys. Kaplan,
be a man! No Story! Tell better about Thinking
something! ("Education," p. 174)

To make his point in these stories, Rosten contrasts
Kaplan's attitude with that of several other characters,
the most important Of whom is the teacher, Mr. Parkhill.
Parkhill is a pedant-fool who has an excellent command of
language (Latin as well as English), but who lacks Kaplan's
imagination, vision, and willingness to innovate. As has
been noted, Rosten feels that Parkhill as well as Kaplan
represents an aspect Of his own personality.

"Not all of me, I hasten to add, is Mr. Parkhill,

nor all of him me. Part of him, I suspect, is that

portion of me which is conventional, slow-witted,

virtuous beyond belief. Other facets of him, which
are not me, I deeply envy and admire: infinite pa-
tience, kindliness, restraint, an incorruptible faith

in man, and unshatterable faith in his perfectibility."
(“Return," p. 13).

Parkhill is portrayed as a stereotypical "WASP," cool,

reserved, proper, and sincere. He is a graduate Of a school

98

with the Anglo-Saxon name of Tilsbury, and is by his own
admission rather out of place in his present urban, immi-
grant environment ("Return,” pp. 108-109). His defense of
his work at the night school, though said in jest, is re-
vealing; "Why, Aunt Agatha, just as your father brought God
to the heathen, I bring Grammar to the alien" ("Return," p.
110). He is truly concerned about his students, but he is
also capable of treating them with sarcasm at times, par-
ticularly in the case of Hyman Kaplan. His self-assurance
often proves his undoing, as when he smugly and patronizingly
insists that Kaplan is speaking of "a big department store,"
when the latter is asking about the correct use of the polite
expression "I big de pottment" ("Education," p. 12). Most
frequently, however, Parkhill is simply the unwitting victim
of his own "correct" language and logic, a system that makes
him worry about teaching the distinction between "It is I"
and "It is me," while Kaplan solves the dilemma with the
”logical," "It's Kaplan" ("Education," p. 175). Parkhill
is forced, by both his training and personality, to insist
upon his traditional comparisons and antonyms rather than
accept such Kaplanisms as "good, better, high-class," "bad,
voice, rotten," or "new-second-hand," which are obviously
more descriptive ("Education," pp. 20-23).

Besides Parkhill, Kaplan is contrasted with some of the
more conventional, and better, students in the class. Most
formidable of these adversaries is Miss Rose.Mitnick, a shy,

serious, and able, if humorless and unimaginative student.

99
As David Macaree points out, "There are conformists like
Miss Mitnick who accept rules without questions and gain
praise thereby . . . but lose the chance of living more
richly as we recognize when we see her composition which
contains no ideas, gip or otherwise, but is pedantically
accurate. With these Hyman is at war" (PP. 336-337). In
the confrontations that take place between the proponents
of the Parkhill/Mitnick perspective and Kaplan's alterna-
tive, portions of the class side with each faction. In
Kaplan's corner one finds, most frequently, Sam Pinsky
". . . in spirit a man fashioned by his Maker for the ex-
press purpose of playing Sancho Panza to Mr. Kaplan's Don
Quixote" ("Return," p. 23). The conflicts that take place
between these two groups provide much of the humor and most
of the Opportunities for social commentary in the Kaplan
sketches.

One of the many examples Of these battles is the one
which takes place over the class's criticism of Mr. Kaplan's
letter to his brother, Max ("Education," pp. 43-54). After
criticizing Kaplan's spelling, grammar, and usage throughout
the body of the letter, Miss Mitnick has the temerity to
challenge Mr. Kaplan's use of "your animated brother, Hymie"
as a signature. Having just defended the use of three ex-
clamation points after the salutation by arguing that his
affection for his brother would be understated by any fewer,
Kaplan is prepared to defend the appellation "animated." He

refuses to consider such common terms as "dear" or "fond,"

100
since they are clearly inappropriate to the degree of en-
thusiasm that he wishes to convey. Finally he agrees to
replace "animated"--with the "Poifick" substitute, "Meg-
nificent!" (p. 53). Despite the unorthodoxy of Kaplan's
conclusion to his letter, he does make the more orthodox
alternatives appear feeble and insincere.

The most common subject of the confrontation is,
naturally, the English language, so dialect plays an even
greater role in the Kaplan stories than it does in most
other American wise fool works. Rosten's interest in lan-
guage and dialect reflects his divided career, for he is a
serious student of the subject as well as a dialect humor-
ist, as evidenced by The Joys p§_Yiddish. Concerning the
art Of writing comic dialect he notes:

Comic dialect is humor plus anthropology. Dialect

must seduce the eye to reach the brain. It must

tantalize without irritating, and defer without
frustrating. It must carry a visual promise to the
reader that what he does not instantly recognize can
be deciphered with ease and will be rewarded by
pleasure. The reader must be cued into making what
he thinks is his own special and private discovery--

a discovery of delight which, he suspects, neither

the character nor the author fully appreciates.

Dialect is not transcription. Nothing is more
depressing than a passage of broken English exactly
transcribed from the spoken. The "accurate ear" for
which a writer is praised is as inventive as it is
accurate. It is creative, not literal, for the wri-
ter transforms what he hears into that which you

could not. ("Return," p. 14).

Rosten's structural device, in the Kaplan stories, of
the meetings of an elementary class in English for immi-

grants is thus a particularly fortunate one for the writing

of dialect humor. The linguistic difficulties of Mr.

101
Parkhill's students provide a natural Opportunity for an
interesting and hilarious examination of the English lan-
guage, semantics, and logic.14 The various foreign accents
of the students lead them into a plethora of malapropistic
errors.15 Thus Kaplan discourses on the virtues of "Abraham
LincOhen," "Judge washington" ("Education," p. 96), "Shanghai
Jack" (the Chinese leader) ("Return," p. 23), or on the musi-
cal comedies of the British team of "Goldberg and Solomon"
("Education," p. 67). He also blunders into such happy mis-
takes as "heaven a good time" ("Education," p. 33).

As has already been noted, Kaplan's comparison of
adjectives and antonyms 113 often comical and expressive,
though inaccurate. "To eat," for example, is presented as
"eat, ate, full," and the opposite of "inhale" is, of course,
"dead" ("Return," p. 25). The pun is, for Kaplan as for his
fellow dialect-wise fools, unavoidable and expressive.

During an examination he asks about the permissibility of
"holdink bladders," creating an embarrassing situation for
Mr. Parkhill out of the simple problem of keeping his paper
from becoming smudged ("Education," p. 165). His term "auto-
crap" for King George III ranks with his denunciation of that
tyrant's use of "missionaries" to do the fighting for him
("Education," pp. 97-98). Kaplan's fluidity in punning res-
cues him from some uncomfortable situations at times, as
When, in reference to the exploits of Patrick Henry, he
claims ". . . I will always edmire the glorious pest." When

Miss Mitnick corrects his pronunciation of "past," he responds,

102
"To a tyrant like Kink Judge, . . . vat else vas Patrick
Henry bot a glorious pest?" ("Return," pp. 105-106). Mr.
Kaplan also does some amusing things with famous quotations,
as did Mr. Dooley. For example, he renders the famous mili-
tary admonition of the Revolutionary War, "Don't shoot 'till
their eyes toin white" ("Return," p. 93).

In addition to their comic dialect, the Kaplan stories
provide excellent examples of other techniques common to
American wise fool literature. The contrast between Kaplan's
exaggeratedly enraptured speech on the glories of nature and
the dull, prosaic grammatical corrections of it, for example,
provides a humorous comment on the insensitivity of pedants
("Education," pp. 25-31). Kaplan creates a sense of incon-
gruity, in one of the stories, by linking the serious and
frivolous aspects of the American newspaper:

Vat i§_a newspaper? Ha! It's a show! It's a

comedy! It's education! It's movvellous! . . . .

Even the edvoitismants in de paper is a kind les-

son. An' ufcawss de odder pots a newspaper: de

hatlininks, de auditorials, de cottoons, de fine

pages pictchiss on Sonday, dat ve callink roto-

gravy sactions. . . . An' in newspapers we find

Ot all dat's heppinink all hover de voild! Abot

politic. crimes, all kinds different scendels

pipple makink, abot if is goink to be snow or

rainink, an' ufcawss--'spacially in U.S.--all

abot Sax! ("Education," pp. 159-160).

One of the most comical passages in these stories con-
cerns Kaplan's effort at explicating the famous "Tomorrow,
and tomorrow, and tomorrow" soliloquy from Shakespeare's

"Macbeth." Parkhill tells the class who wrote the piece,

but forgets to place it in context. Kaplan is certain the

103
speech represents the thoughts of "Julius Scissor," recited
". . . in a tant, on de night bafore dey makink Julius de
Kink from Rome." Kaplan goes on:

So he is axcited an' ken't slip. He is layink in

bad, tinking: 'Tomorrow an' tomorrow an' tomorrow.

How slow dey movink! Almost cripps! Soch a pity

de pace! . . . . De days go slow, fromm day to day.

like leetle tsyllables on phonograph records fromm

time. . . . 'An' vat about yestidday,‘ tinks Julius

Scissor. Ha! 'All our yestiddays are only makink a

good light for fools to die in de dost! . . . . An'

Julius is so tired, an' he vants to fallink aslip.

So he hollers mit fillink, '60 ot! Go ot! Short

candle!‘ SO it goes ot. . . . But he ken't slip.

Now is bodderink him de idea fromm life. 'Vat is

de life altogadder?’ tinks Julius Scissor. An' he

gives answer, de pot I like de bast. 'Life is like

a bum actor, strottink an' hollerink arond de stage

for only van hoar bafore he's kicked ot. Life is a

tale told by idjots, dat's all, full of fonny sonds

an' phooey!‘ ("Education," pp. 137-139)

Rosten relies heavily on the effect of the surprise,
humorous, "snub ending" in these tales. Typical of this
technique is Mr. Kaplan's earnest remark to Mr. Parkhill,
after the class had finally conquered the "W-V" pronuncia-
tion problem by laboriously converting "ooo-eee" into “W's"
for each word. After Parkhill, flushed with the success of
his pedagological device. urged additional practice to per-
fect the newly acquired ability, Kaplan replies, "Practice?
. . . Fromm nah on, ve vill voik vit dobble-youss till ve

vouldn't iven vhisper--."

Though the techniques are quite similar, the Kaplan
sketches differ considerably from most of the other repre-
sentatives of American wise fool dialect humor in that they

seldom make any direct references to contemporary events or

104

specific social or political issues.16 superficially they
are simply gently humorous portrayals of the linguistic
struggles of a comical immigrant. The element of social
satire in Hyman Kaplan's story becomes obvious only when
one considers the implications of the battle of non-
conforming ”genius" and personal, original intensity versus
sterile pedantry and humorless rigidity.17

Additionally, the stories provide a satiric contempt
on the infantile and unstimulating approach to basic educa-
tion in America. Kaplan's love for "dip thinking" is
thwarted by the puerile and idealized accounts of American
history presented by his teachers, which he, like many
American school children accepts literally and unquestion-
ingly. The highly formalized, mechanical, and uncreative
assignments he is given reflect our educational system's
emphasis on learned response rather than developed abilities.
Kaplan's insistence on altering the accepted forms to fit
his own particular desires and needs (as, for instance, when
he writes a "personal business letter" to his uncle, mixing
the business form with terms of personal affection), and his
patient, friendly, but completely stubborn adherence to his
positions despite the overt hostility of the authority
(Parkhill) and his peers (Mitnick ap_ai,), suggest a social
function, in the work, that transcends "mere humor."

It is possible that Rosten's indirect rather than spe-
cific satire18 has earned the Kaplan stories a more permanent

place than is enjoyed by most wise fool humor. None of these

105

pieces are really dated, as are many of Dunne's for example,
and they are unlikely to be dated as long as conformity and
pedantry exist, and as long as learning a language is diffi-
cult. The characterization of Kaplan, Mr. Parkhill, and the
others, in addition to Rosten's clever use of language and
ability to create funny situations are responsible for the
wide popularity of the stories, and these qualities are

ones that affect a work's universality and longevity.

1122a

l-'

The Many Worlds pg Leo Rosten (New York, 1964). PP.

N

The Many Worlds p§_Leo Rosten, an aptly titled anthol-
ogy, provides selected examples of Rosten's various writings.

0.)

Ibid., p. 7. The piece is reprinted here, pp. 8-13.

 

4Haipers, 231 (October, 1965), 90-91.
5New York, 1956, 1961.

6p. 14. Future references to the two volumes of col-
lected Kaplan pieces will use the following abbreviations:
"Education, " Ea Education pi fl*M*A*}i K*A*P*i._*A*N (New
York, 1937, 1965); "Return," Thp_Return pi H*Y*M*A*N
K*A*P*L*A*N (New York, 1959).

7The Many Worlds p§_Leo Rosten, pp. 27-28. The first
collection of these stories, "Education," was published
under this pseudonym (distinguished from the other pseudo-
nym, "Leonard Ross," of the "potboilers" by the addition of
the 'Q.'). The second collection, "Return," appeared under
the author's real name.

8American Scholar, 36 (Spring, 1967), p. 243. Rovit's
spelling of "schlimiel" is a commonly used variant, but
Rosten, in Tpa_ngs pi Yiddish, argues for the omission of
the 'c.' Rosten's lexicon is the best available source for
brief descriptions and illustration of these character-types,
and Ausubel's book provides more lengthy stories in which
they are used.

(New York, 1925), p. 163.
10The American Humorist, p. 335.
1]-Saturday Review, 16 (August 21, 1937), p. 5.

12David Macaree takes a similar approach to Kaplan's
"errors," in an article entitled "The Study of Humorous
Fiction and gap Education pi HIX?M*A*N K*A*PfifA*N, English
Journal, 57 (March, 1968), 334-338. According to Macaree,
Kaplan's function is ". . . to educate his teacher to the
kind of insight that he possesses intuitively" (p. 337).

l3Kaplan also resorts to ag hominem attacks at times,

commenting on the weight or marital status of a classmate,
or calling on a "Litvak," which in addition to identifying

106

107

the student as a Lithuanian, connotes "an erudite but pedant
type--thin, dry, humorless," or "A sharp trader, a corner-
cutting type--and one whose piety is shallow," according to
Rosten's Yiddish lexicon (p. 209) ("Return," p. 74).

14In an amusing article entitled "Wallop Yon Horse with
a Parachute," Rosten examines the problems that can be raised
by attempting to speak an unfamiliar language. The title
represents the result of a tourist's attempt at requesting
an umbrella in "guide book" Spanish, Look, 30 (March 8, 1966).
16.

15Evan Esar, in Ipa_Humor p§_Humor (New York, 1952), uses
the term "macaronic humor" to define the comic effects of an
inappropriate or inaccurate juxtaposition of different lan-
guages (p. 96). In the strictest sense of the definition,
the malapropisms of Rosten's characters are not macaronic,
since foreign words are rarely incorporated into English
sentences, but the distortion is Often created by a simi-
larity of sound between English words and words more familiar
to the immigrants. It would be useful to employ this term
with regard to these types of errors, since it would aid in
distinguishing malapropisms of this sort from the more common
errors which result from ignorance or simple misunderstanding.
Esar's definition is perhaps sufficiently liberal for this
purpose, since he says of macaronic humor, "In addition to
prose and verse specimens, and combinations of living and
dead languages, it makes use of other multilingual fusions
of spelling, pronunciation, and word use" (p. 96). Addi-
tional examples of this type of linguistic error in the
stories include Mrs. Yanoff's recitation concerning Mary's
little lamb "with fleas white like snow" ("Return," p. 114),
and the various requests for explanations of such expressions
as "monkey ranch" and "a sleeping of the tong" ("Education,"
p. 56).

16There are a few notable exceptions to this rule, as
when Kaplan writes a piece criticizing the "sweat shop"
labor conditions in his dress factory ("Education," p. 16),
or when he tells the class that he missed the funeral of his
friend Jake Popper "Becawss de funeral vas in de meedle of
de veek, . . . an' I said to mineself, 'Keplen, you in
America, so tink like de Americans tink!‘ So I tought, an'
I didn't go. Becawss I tought of dat gip_American idea,
'Business bafore pleasure!'" (”Education," p. 103).

17This approach to the Kaplan stories is supported by
David Macaree's analysis of their ultimate meaning, in his
article, "The Study of Humorous Fiction and zpa_Education p§_
H*Y*M*A*N K*A*P*L*A*N," pp. 36-38. He notes that the boOk
may be considered as ". . . a social document illustrating
the difficulty of assimilating the gifted person into the
group. . . ." (p. 338). Macaree also asserts that "The

108

education of Hyman Kaplan becomes an education by Hyman
Kaplan in the things that matter, and these are far more
than items in elementary Englis " (p. 338).

18According to Rosten's definition of the term satire,
it should not be applied to this material, since the author
defines it as "focused bitterness." He defines the term
burlesque as "the skewing of proportions,” which would
apply nicely, and, as was noted above, he calls humor “the
affectionate communication of insight," a definition also
quite applicable (”Return,“ p. 14). If satire is defined
as criticism through ridicule, or a similar definition that
does not depend upon connoting anger or bitterness, the
term would accurately describe the result of Mr. Kaplan's
encounters.

Chapter V
LANGSTON HUGHES'S 'JESSE B. SEMPLE': AN URBAN
NEGRO-AMERICAN WISE FOOL

The place of Langston Hughes's Jesse B. Semple (“Simple“)
in the tradition of American wise fool literature has been
noted by several critics, including Hughes's bibliographer,
Donald C. Dickinson. According to Dickinson, "His pene-
trating wit is in the high tradition of the so-called cracker-
box philos0phers, Josh Billings, Mr. Dooley, and Artemus ward.
If in Simple's case the crackerbox has been converted to a
bar stool the total effect is pleasantly the same."1 Hughes
suggests his awareness of the similarities between his Negro-
American wise fool and other such characters in world liter-
ature, when he writes in one of his two autobiographical
volumes that he ”.~. . began to read 22n_guixote in the
original, a great reading experience that possibly helped
me to develop many years later in my own books a character
called Simple."2

Langston Hughes, like Leo C. Rosten, had a widely
varied literary career, of which the "Simple" stories rep-
resent only one small part. His published work includes
several volumes of poetry, a collection of plays, a novel,
a number of books on Negro history and culture, and many
articles on writing and on the condition of Negro life in
America.3 Hughes was a member of the famous informal group

of black artists during the 1920's whose work constituted

109

110

what has been called the "Harlem Renaissance," and he played
a significant role in the development of a realistic, origi-
nal, and racially-oriented black literature. Born in Joplin,
Missouri, in 1902, Hughes lived at one time or another in
each of the three major urban black ghettoes (Chicago, Wash-
ington, D.C., New York), as well as in Mexico, France,
Russia, and other foreign countries. His life and his work
are characterized by a peculiar blend of intellectualism and
education (including a B.A. degree from Lincoln University
in 1929), and an understanding of and proximity to the cul-
ture and lives of lower class, "man-on-the-street" black
people.

Hughes began the "Simple" sketches as columns in a

4
Negro newspaper, the Chicago Defender, in 1943. The

 

stories quickly became immensely popular, enjoying a wide
following both in the United States and abroad.5 Unlike the
wise fool writing of the nineteenth-century humorists and
the work of Finley Peter Dunne, however, the "Simple" pieces
are rarely anthologized (except in books devoted to Negro
writing), and have received little scholarly attention.6
James Emanuel is indeed justified in claiming, "A deeper
analysis of the Simple books should be made. It is worth-
while sociologically to synthesize Simple's comments on
American delusions, white liberals, foreigners, Negro lead-
ers, and the South. It is profitable esthetically to com-

prehend how ingeniously he extracts humor from absolutely

111
odd notions, expressed and implied etymologies, turnabouts,
and the illusoriness of race itself“ (p. 157).

Considering the gravity of the social and political
issues concerning the black man in this country, one well
might ask why Langston Hughes chose humor as the vehicle for
his comments on them. He answers this question in some of
his several comments on the writing of humor. To begin with,
he notes that many features of the prejudices American whites
have toward blacks are inherently funny. In an article en-
titled "White Folks Do the Funniest Things,“ Hughes writes,
“Some incidents of Jim Crowism which I personally have ex-
perienced have amused me more than they have angered me--
due as nearly as I can analyze them, to their very
absurdity."7 He goes on to tell of being served through a
hole in the wall of a segregated lunch-shack, and of his
difficulty in leaving a "whites-only" waiting room when a
law officer refused to let him lgayg_through the front (and
only) door. The title of this article is derived from a
black newspaper boy's view of the absurdity of national
affairs, in a comment very reminiscent of Dunne's Mr.

Dooley, “'We ain't even got the Philipines,‘ he said, 'and
here we are grantin' 'em freedom: White folks do the fun-
niest thingsi'"(p. 46).

In the foreword to Simple Stakes a_Qla;m, Hughes laments
the absence of humor in the black magazines. "The serious
colored magazines like the Crisis or Phylon do not publish

humor even if given to them free. These magazines evidently

112

think the race problem is too deep for comic relief. Such
earnestness is contrary to mass Negro thinking. Colored
people are always laughing at some wry Jim Crow incident
or absurd nuance of the color line" (pp. ll-12). Nancy
Levi Arnez and Clara B. Anthony support this contention in
their study, "Contemporary Negro Humor as Social Satire."8
They point out that Negro humor has developed through three
separate stages, from "in-group" self-criticism, to stereo-
typed "half—truth caricatures," and finally to the more
mature "public humor" which proudly creates a self-image
based on an essentially realistic characterization (p. 340).
Unlike many Negro critics and editors, Hughes realized that
Negro humor had evolved to a type of commentary that was
useful to the Negro's self-and-public image, rather than
detrimental to it.

In The Book 9;.Negro Humor, Hughes (its editor) says of
humor :

Humor is laughing at what you haven't got When you

ought to have it. Of course, you laugh by proxy.

You're really laughing at the other guy's lacks,

not your own. That's what makes it so funny--The

fact that you don't know you are laughing at your-

self. Humor is when the joke is on you, but hits

the other fellow first. Humor is what you wish in

your secret heart were not funny, but it is, and

you must laugh. Humor is your own unconscious

therapy. (p. vii)9
This aSpect of humor, "laughing to keep from crying,” is an
important feature of Hughes's approach in the "Simple" ma-

terial.10 It is the touch of pathos in Simple's humor that

leads Arthur P. Davis to say of him, ”In this light Simple

113
is no longer a comic character but a black Pagliacci. Under-
neath all of his gaiety and humor there is the basic tragedy
of the urban Negro and his circumscribed life" (p. 28).
Simple expresses the therapeutic value of humor in the face
of adversity, in his own amusing way, when he responds to
the charge that "Nothing you say sounds funny to me" with
"Laugh anyhow . . . if you do not laugh, you might get mad,
that is no good for brotherhood."11

In the foreword to Simple Stakes a Claim, Hughes gives
another reason for treating racial matters humorously.
"Humor is a weapon, too," he says, "of no mean value against
one's foes" (p. 12). Humor is used as a weapon in these
stories in a variety of ways, from ridiculing the enemies of
the black man: to providing a gentle corrective to liberals
and other well-meaning but unrealistic or insufficiently mo-
tivated friends of the Negro; to criticizing blacks Who
either ”disgrace the race" or are less militant or "race
conscious“ than Hughes would like them to be. Since Simple's
humor additionally makes him likeable, it is an important
factor in making his ”message" more readily accepted by a
sympathetic audience.

In all of his writing, Langston Hughes concerned him-
self with a realistic approach to the daily life of his
fellow Negroes. He revolted against the romantic idealiza-
tion of Negro "heroes" and the didactic “Horatio-Algerish"

works of some of his contemporary black writers, and was

therefore frequently condemned by black as well as White

ll4
critics who disapproved of his militancy and his realistic
treatment of the so—called "unsavory" aspects of Negro
life.12 During the last years of his career (he died in
1967), Hughes concentrated even more intensely on portray-
ing the life of the ghetto Negro. As Donald C. Dickinson

wrote, shortly before Hughes's death:

Harlem is Hughes's principal subject and inspira-
tion during recent years. Aside from two academic
appointments he lived this period in New York,
close to his favorite people, the urban Negroes.
His poetry, more than ever, reflects the rhythms
of contemporary jazz, while his major literary
figure, Jessie [sic B. Semple, is drawn wholly
from the street li e of the city. (p. 82)

Hughes's account of the origin of his character, Jesse
B. Semple, reflects this literary interest, and, in its bar-
room setting, provides an interesting parallel to Dunne's
recollection of his creation of Mr. Dooley (see p. 58).
Simple was born, Hughes tells us, as the result of a bar-
room encounter with a neighbor Who worked in a war plant
and made "cranks." Hughes inquired as to the function of
those “cranks," and the following dialogue ensued:

I said, “What kind of cranks?"

He said, “Oh man, I don't know what kind of
cranks.”

I said, "Well, do they crank cars, tanks, buses,
planes, or what?"

He said, “I don't know what them cranks crank."

Whereupon his girlfriend, a little put out at the
ignorance of his job, said, "You've been working
there long enough. Looks like by now you ought to
know what them cranks crank."

"Aw, woman," he said, "You know white folks don't
tell colored folks what cranks crank."

That was the beginning of Simple. I have long
since lost track of the fellOW'WhO uttered those
words. But out of the mystery as to what the cranks
of this world crank, to whom they belong, and why,

115

there evolved the character in this book, wondering

and laughing at the numerous problems of white folks,

colored folks, and just folks-—including himself.

(Foreword, "Who is Simple?" "Best," pp. vii—viii)

All of the incidents and characters in the .'Simple" stories
are based on the author's own experiences in Harlem, and as
he notes, ". . . it is impossible to live in Harlem and not
know at least a hundred Simples, fifty Joyces, twenty-five
Zaritas, a number of Boyds, and several Cousin Minnies--

or reasonable facsimilies thereof" (”Best," p. vii).

Like many of the wise fool characters, Simple is at
different times both a positive and a negative figure. Like
Mr. Dooley, for example, he is an inconsistent character in
that he sometimes represents and sometimes exposes that
which the author wishes to criticize. Simple is often por—
trayed as a naive bumpkin or clown (particularly in his do-
mestic affairs), and he at times represents a violent and
random extremism that both he (in calmer moments) and Hughes
ultimately reject. However, even when Simple is cast in
this role, Hughes is sympathetic with his character's posi-
tion, for Simple always means well in his tangled domestic
adventures, and his extremism is one for which there are
understandable causes.

In the majority of the stories Simple is not the nega-
tive "bumpkin” fool, but the more positive figure, the
“common-sense" philosopher. Like Hyman Kaplan, Simple is

uneducated, but not stupid. As Donald C. Dickinson states,

"In his conversation Simple reveals an insight born of the

116
streets, of low-paying, back-breaking jobs, of Saturday
night parties, and Sunday prayer meetings“ (p. 99). He
appeals to his practical, experiential knowledge in his
debates with his more educated and sophisticated drinking
partner: "I do not care what you know out of a book, you
also have to know a lots out of life" ("Wife," p. 161).
Simple feels no sense of inferiority because of his lack
of formal schooling, and he confidently holds forth on any
and every subject.

At times, in fact, Simple's common-sense observations
are so involved and s0phisticated that he comes close to
losing his mask as a wise fool. For example, in one of his
attacks on the slow pace of racial integration in the South,
he delivers an analysis of international politics which
asserts that the "third world" forces of "Nasser, Nehru,
and Chou” will ultimately force America to correct its
treatment of black Americans, because of our need to pro-
tect our image in the world (”Claim,” pp. 66-72). In the
same manner he examines the road to political success in
the ghetto, feigning a belief that "politicianer" is a
synonym for graft, and concluding with an astute observa-
tion of the relative importance of an attractive platform
rather than actual results to a politician's future ("Claim,”
pp. 17-19). In discussions such as these some of Simple's
statements sound as if, exclusive of the dialect, they might
more easily be attributed to a well—educated journalist or

a professor of political science.

117

Above all Simple is a Negro. As Arthur P. Davis main-
tains, "Our first impression of.Mr. Jesse B. is that however
unpredictable he may be in other things he is thoroughly
consistent in one respect: first, last, and always, he is
a 'race-man'--a fourteen carat, one hundred percent, dyed-
in-thedwool race man“ (p. 22). Accused of bringing race
into every topic he discusses, Simple counters, "I do . . .
because that is what I am always coming face to face with--
race" ("Claim," p. 58). A.participant in the Harlem riots
(of 1943), Simple is a militant advocate of civil rights who
is essentially suspicious of, and hostile toward, whites.
He is capable of praying that “. . . when Christ comes back
this time . . . I hope he smites white folks down!“ (”Mind,"
pp. 16-17). Yet when he is asked whether or not he includes
Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt in this blanket condemnation of the
white race, he exempts her readily. In addition he is ob—
jective enough to recognize and appreciate the fairness or
benevolence of some white people, such as a man who gave him
a dime for ice cream when he was a little boy, a white
couple who stood up with him at his city-hall wedding, or
an Irish—American policeman who sided with a black taxicab
driver in a dispute with a belligerent Southern tourist.

Simple, like Mr. Dooley and Hyman Kaplan, differs from
the nineteenth-century American wise fools such as Major
Downing, Orpheus C. Kerr, Josh Billings, Petroleum V. Nasby,
Bill Arp, and others in that he is a thoroughly urban char—

acter. Though he was born in rural Virginia ("Inwould be

118
borned in a state named after a woman. From that day on
women never gave me no peace"--"Mind,” p. 4), and though he
is “country“ in his taste for "soul food" and his occasional
nostalgia for the laziness and serenity of his boyhood,
Simple repeatedly reaffirms his love for Harlem and his un-
willingness to leave the city: "I will not return to the
country, North or South. No backwoods for me. I am a big-
city man myself. My roots is here" ("Sam," p. 46). He
rarely ventures beyond the borders of Harlem, and when he
does the trip usually has some rather disastrous results
for him. A brief trip to New Jersey, for instance, ends
in Simple's losing a fight, catching cold, having to push
the stalled car off of the George washington Bridge, and
getting into deep trouble with his fiancée ("Wife," pp.
87-90). Simple feels comfortably at home in Harlem. He
answers the query, "What is it you love about Harlem?" by
asserting, "I feel like I got protection . . . from white
folks. . . . Furthermore I like Harlem because it belongs
to me" ("Mind," p. 31).

The "Simple" sketches are in the form of dialogues be-
tween Simple and a bar-room companion who has been identi-
fied as Langston Hughes, but is called "Boyd" by the author
in the preface to The §§§E_g§_Simple (p. vii) and the musi-
cal comedy that was based on the stories ("Simply Heavenly,"
1957). Simple also refers to him twice by that name, in
Simple's ggglg_§§m (pp. 72, 152).13 Boyd is described by

Hughes in the character notes for "Simply Heavenly”:

119

Boyd: Boyd has probably been halfway through col-

lege before his army service in EurOpe. Serious-

minded, pleasant-looking, trying to be a writer,
perhaps taking courses at New York university on

the last of his G.I. money. Almost every Harlem

bar has such a fellow among its regular customers,

Who acts sometimes as a kind of arbiter when ”in-

tellectual" discussions come up. (New York, 1959,

p. 4).

Though he is less militant and more "objective" on
racial matters than Simple, Boyd is not really an "Uncle
Tom," nor is he one of the members of the black bourgoisie
or corps of Negro "spokesmen" that Simple attacks frequently.
Like his drinking buddy, and like Hughes, Boyd is truly at
home in the bars and on the streets of Harlem, where he may
be found "observing life for literary purposes" ("Mind," pp.
18-19). Boyd has two functions in these stories. As an
intellectual, rationalist, and Objective observer, he pro—
vides a perspective different from Simple's, correcting the
latter's excesses (it is he, for example, who brings up Mrs.
Roosevelt when Simple tries to condemn all whites). As a
pedant-fool, or "foolish wise man," his function is reversed
and he provides an opportunity for Simple to challenge un-
warranted idealism or unrealistic assessments of the Negro's

l4
status in America. Thus when Boyd pontificates on the
correlation between a cold climate, energy and ambition,
and racial progress, arguing that the American Negro has
advanced beyond other blacks because "Cold weather makes
you get up and go, gives you life, vim, vigor, vitality,"

Simple is set up to put this absurd theory to rest by noting,

"It does not give me anything but a cold" ("Wife," p. 198).

120

Comical dialect is, for Hughes as it was for Dunne,
Rosten, and most of the nineteenth-century American wise
fool writers, a key feature of his satiric technique.
Simple's Harlem dialect identifies him as a lower-class
Negro to help establish his persona, as well as provide
opportunities for revealing linguistic "errors."15 As is
typical of the American wise fool character, Simple's speech
is marked by puns, malapropisms, double-entendres, and other
types of wordplay. One of his better puns, for example,
allows Simple to make a double play on the name "Butts,"
when writing a letter to a Negro "leader" of that name.

This letter has been prompted by Dr. Butts' assertion that
America is the best country in the world for the black man,
and that things are getting better all the time. Simple
responds: "Dr. Butts, I am glad to read that you writ an
article in 1h; .1172! grip 1132:? but also sometime I Wish you
would write one in the colored papers and let me know how
to get out from behind all of these ppp§_that are staring
me in the face. I know America is a great country pup:-
and it is that but that has been keeping me where I is all
these years" ("Wife," p. 227).

The malapropism is another important feature of Simple's
comical dialect. He goes to ”noteriety republicans" for in-
come tax aid ("Mind," p. 120), and has the dangerous habit
of addressing judges as ”Your Honery." When Boyd corrects
Simple's references to ”Negro Hysterians," Simple ignores

the correction, and in the discussion that follows, makes

121
the error appear appr0priate ("Claim," p. 186). Simple con-
tinually capitalizes on words that sound alike, or can be
distorted conveniently. When Boyd announces that white
folks are currently "resolving to do better,” Simple re-
plies that "They have been resolving for two hundred years.
I do not see how they need to resolve anymore. I say, they
need to gplypfl ("Mind," p. 193). Similarly, he answers the
excuse that the poor treatment he receives in a local res-
taurant is the result of "untrained personnel" with the
cynical comment, "person-hell!" ("Mind," p. 55). Another
of his favorite tricks is to puncture the inflated posture
of anyone who tries to win an argument with him by using
"ten-dollar words." When Joyce, his girlfriend, tries to
make him back down on his charge that she has been flirting
with the bar-room piano player by shouting, "Don't insinu-
ate,” Simple is set up to answer, "Before you sin, ypu|
better wait" ("Mind," p. 80).

The word-play in the ”Simple” columns is both humorous
and effective for conveying Simple's point graphically and
emphatically. Boyd asks Simple if he intends to block the
divorce action taken against him by his first wife, Isabel.
by "cross-filing," and Simple responds with, "I would not
cross that wife of mind no kind of way, . . . with a file
nor otherwise“ ("Mind," p. 228). As is often the case with
"folk wisdom," the aphorism is employed by Simple to convey
his message. His advice to young men concerning the dangers

of romance is summed up as, ”Midsummer madness may bring

122
winter sadness,“ and to young women, "If a chick wants to
go straight, she shouldn't shake her tail gate."16

In addition to his use of dialect, Hughes employs vivid
contrasts to illustrate the points that he wishes to make.
Often he contrasts Boyd's idealism with more practical ob-
servations made by Simple. On several occasions Boyd gener-
alizes concerning the improved status of the black man in
America, and Simple replies by specifically contrasting this
view with a picturesque description of his own status and
lack of progress. prd: “How wonderful . . . that Negroes
today are being rapidly integrated into every phase of Ameri-
can life from the Army and Navy to schools to industries--
advancing, advancing.” Simple. "I have not advanced one
step. . . . Still the same old job, same old salary, same
old kitchenette, same old Harlem and the same old color"
(”Claim," p. 53).

Another type of contrast juxtaposes a serious, tense
point with the ”snub-ending" so frequently used by the wise
fool satirist, easing the tension and helping to make the
argument less objectionable. After Simple lists in detail
the suffering to which whites would have to voluntarily sub-
ject themselves if they were to truly understand the plight
of the Southern Negro, Boyd exclaims that if pg were white
he would never go that far in the cause of civil rights.
Surprisingly, Simple concurs, causing Boyd to triumph,

"Then you would not be very good either." "No," said Simple,

"but I would be white" ("Claim," pp. 31-32). A denunciation

123
of the state of Mississippi in which the state's name is
rendered acrostically as standing for such things as
Murder, ignoramus, Satan, and other similar harsh terms is
softened by homor when Simple gets to the last three letters:
"After which I will double the P, as it is in the spelling.
Excuse the expression, but right over Jackson, which is the
state capital, I will P'P. . . . Now I come to the final
letter which is I--meaning mgr-who will spell as I fly,
M-i-s-s-i-s-s--yes--I-PP—i1" ("Claim," p. 166).

If perhaps Simple tends to understate racial progress
by insisting, in his debates with Boyd, upon using his own
status as the only yardstick against which it can be meas-
ured (at that he overlooks his “progress" from a boarding
house to the kitchenette that he occupies), he is as prone
to exaggerate his woes in a most picturesque manner. The
list of torments to which his feet have been subjected ex-
hausts the reader almost as much as they must have Simple:

These feet have stood on every rock from the Rock
of Ages to 135th and Lenox. These feet have sup-
ported everything from a cotton bale to a hongry
woman. These feet have walked ten thousand miles
working for white folks and another ten thousand
keeping up with colored. These feet have stood at
altars, crap tables, free lunches, bars, graves,
kitchen doors, betting windows, hospital clinics,
WPA desks, social security railings, and in all
kinds of lines from soup lines to the draft. If

I just had four feet, I could have stood in more
places longer. As it is I done wore out seven
hundred pairs of shoes, eighty-nine tennis shoes,
twelve summer sandals, also six loafers. The socks
that these feet have bought could build a knitting
’mill. The corns I've cut away would dull a German
razor. The bunions I've forgot would make you ache
from now till Judgment Day. '(”Mind," p. 5).

124

Like his American predecessors in this mode, Hughes
incorporates the tall-tale and comical, burlesqued descrip-
tion into his wise fool's repertory. As James Emanuel notes,
”The exaggerations of the tall tale, often heard in the ani-
mated exchanges in Negro barber shOps and lounging places,
seems a natural endowment of Simple's" (p. 159). Simple's
flights into the realm of fantasy include imagining himself
a Bunyanesque giant avenging segregation all over the world
(South Africans are warned, "Apart your own hidei") ("Claim,"
p. 26), a member of the Supreme Court, and a diplomat pre-
siding over a summit meeting (”Sam," pp. 160-163). He also
conjures up a reversal of the traditional roles of blacks
and whites in the rural South, in which a "Mammy Eastland"
appeals to kindly, paternalistic "Master Simple” for his
support of her "good" white church ("Sam," pp. 127-132).
Perhaps the most intriguing of his fantastic schemes is a
”pose out" protest, in which Negroes all over the country
will disrobe at the same prearranged time to shock Americans
into a more decent treatment of its black citizens" ("Sam,"
pp. 197-109).

A typical example of the burlesqued description in
the "Simple" pieces is Simple's portrayal of Mrs. Sadie
Maxwell-Reeves, a pretentious Negro ”Society" lady. "She
is built like a pyramid upside down anyhow. But her head
was all done fresh and shining with a hair-rocker roached
up high in front, and a advertised in Epppy_snood down her

back, also a small bunch of green feathers behind her ear

125

and genuine diamonds on her hand" ("Mind," p. 86). In de—
scriptions such as this one, as in the other techniques used
by Hughes, the humor is based on an exaggeration or distor—
tion of reality, and it stings as it provokes laughter.

There are two broad categories into which virtually all
of the "Simple" sketches may be placed: race and women.
Within these two categories Simple concerns himself with a
number of topics including the pretensions of the Negro mid-
dle class (e.g., Mrs. Maxwell-Reeves), national political
and economic policies, relationships between relatives, and
the merits of urban life, among others; but he almost always
relates these subjects to one of the two basic ones. Simple
is not ashamed of his participation in the Harlem riots, and
he has little faith in non-militant solutions to racial prob-
lems. Boyd, on the other hand, champions the N.A.A.C.P.
approach of ". . . propaganda, education, political action.
and legal redress," but Simple retorts that when he went out
”lodking for justice," it was with two bricks (“Mind," pp.
167-168). Hughes's position with regard to these two options,
as it is found in the "Simple" material, appears to be that
Boyd's approach is preferable, but it cannot win the support
of people like Simple as long as it continues to achieve
fewer concrete results than more violent actions.

Another of Simple's frequently voiced complaints is
that national politics, as reported in the press, are more
concerned with international affairs than with the immediate

prdblems that he sees all around him in Harlem. He is also

126
disturbed that naturalized citizens and second or third gen-
eration Americans are soon afforded full-citizenship, whereas
blacks whose ancestry is often American as far back as
Colonial days are perpetually treated as second-class citi-
zens. Simple doubts the sincerity of white liberals, and is
suspicious of Negroes who are less militant than he. When
Boyd describes as nonesequitur reasoning Simple's comparison
of the American bombing of Hiroshima to a beating he once
received from a White man, Simple asserts that if you cannot
see the connection between two such incidents, "you are not
colored" ("Sam," pp. 121-123).

Simple also criticizes the conduct of "sassy" black
clerks and waitresses, but he reserves most of the satirical
remarks that he directs at members of his own race for Negro

"Society" (e.g., Mrs. Sadie Maxwell—Reeves) and Negro "Lead-
hers." He criticizes the black "elite” and the black
bourgoisie for their attempts at emulating White society and
their lack of concern for the culture, and other members, of
their own race. One of the pieces on this subject, "Banquet
in Honor" is perhaps the most powerful sustained example of

Hughes's satirical writing17

(”Mind," pp. 83-90). In this
sketch Simple, at the insistence of his girlfriend Joyce,
attends a dinner given by a Harlem cultural society in honor
of an aged black artist who was ignored by the Negro upper-
and middle-classes when he most needed, and was able to

profit from, their support. Simple reports the event to

Boyd, describing such entertainment as the singing of "O

127

Caro Nome" (which Simple reports as "0 Carry Me Homey"), and
the comically flamboyant introduction of the artist by Mrs.
Maxwell-Reeves. The speaker's rather powerful and unusual
banquet speech is Hughes's statement to Negroes who fail to
support black artists and the "genteel" black critics who
attacked his treatment of "nitty gritty" literary subjects
throughout his career:

You think that you are honoring me, ladies and

gentlemen of the Athenyannie Arts Club, when you

invited me here tonite? You are not honoring me

a damn bit: I said, not a bit. . . . The way you

could have honored me if you had wanted to, ladies

and gentlemen, all these years, would have been to

buy a piece of my music and play it, or a book of

mine and read it, but you didn't. Else you could

have booed off the screen a few of them Uncle Toms

thereon and told the manager of the Hamilton you'd

never come back to see another picture in his the-

atre until he put a story of mine in it, or some

other decent harddworking Negro. But you didn't

do no such thing. You didn't even buy one of my

watercolors. You let me starve until I am mighty

nigh blue-black in the face--and not a one of you

from Sugar Hill to Central Park ever offered me a

pig's foot. (p. 87)
Naturally Simple is the only one at the banquet who appreci-
ates this sort of speech, and his noticeable response of
loud laughter embarrasses his fiancee terribly. He con-
cludes his report of the evening by noting, "They wouldn't
buy none of his art when he could still enjoy the benefits.
But me, I'd buy that old man a beer any time" (p. 90).
Hughes also employs Simple to satirize the Negro slick maga-
zines ("Claim,” pp. 96-101), the move to the integrated sub-
urbs by status-conscious blacks ("Claim," pp. 114-117), and
similar aspects of the Negro middle class of Which he dis-

approves.

128

Another popular target of Simple's wrath is the Negro
"leader" who claims to speak for the black masses, but shuns
Harlem and the other black ghetto communities, or who ad-
vises patience and hard work from his position of prosperity.
This is the theme of Simple's above-mentioned letter to Dr.
Butts, in which he tells the "spokesman,“ ". . . we have too
many leaders now that nobody knows until they get from the
white papers to the colored papers and from the colored
papers to me who has never seen hair nor hide of you. Dear
Dr. Butts, are you hiding from me--and leading me, too?"
("Wife,“ pp. 225-226). Simple calls such leaders "Cellophane
Bandannas," his term for "Uncle Toms” who mask their Obse-
quious behavior behind a sophisticated, or politically mod-
erate facade ("Claim," pp. 126-130).

Simple's relations with his opposite sex are complicated,
amusing, and the subject of some of his more universal wise
fool observations. "Women," he maintains, "is a sweet wor-
riation." He qualifies his authority to make this observa-
tion by asserting:

I know womens. I've been married twice, and the

sames as married more than once before, and be-

tween that. But from Isabel, my first, through

Zarita, right on up to Joyce, I have never really

won an argument yet. If a woman does not get the

last word now, she will still be heard then. Oh,

yes, a woman is not like a man. A man thinks the

argument is over and done with. But no: A woman

will not place a period.

‘Stnne of the most entertaining of the "Simple" stories are

't11<>se in which he matches wits with his shrewish landlady

all(iher pampered dog, flirts with Zarita, a happy-go-lucky

129

bar-girl, explains his way out of trouble with his exacting

fiance/e, Joyce, or re-tells the adventures of his trouble-

some cousin, Minnie.

The topics of the satire in the “Simple" stories are,

for the most part, still relevant. The racial problems on

which he comments are as worthy of attention today as ever,
and Simple's approach to them is now perhaps more character-

istic of typical Negro attitudes than it was in the 1950's

and early 1960's. Yet it would be erroneous to contend that

these stories are of interest solely for their comments On

the race question. Simple, like Mr. Dooley and Hyman Kaplan,

offers insights concerning more general aspects of human be-

havior, and he and Boyd reflect a timeless contrast of basic

human attitudes. Indeed it is rewarding to study this ma-

terial both for the content of its political and social
Satire from the perspective of the American Negro, and
stylistically, for the effects that Hughes is able to

Create through his characterizations and wise fool humorous

deV ices .

Notes

1ABio-biblipgraphy p§,Langston Hughes (Hamden, Connec-
ticut, 1967), p. 98. A similar recognition is made by J.

Saunders Redding in his perceptive review of Simple Speaks
His Mind, entitled "What It Means to be Colored," New York
Herald Tribune Book Review (June 11, 1950), 13.

(New York, 1956), p. 291. This volume covers Hughes's life
during the years 1930-1938. Another volume, gh§_§;g_§gg

(New York, 1940), traces his earlier life. These two vol-
umes are of interest for their insights into such subjects

as the Harlem Renaissance and Soviet Russia during the 1930's,
as well as for their account of Hughes's own growth and de-
velopment as a writer.

3A good critical study of Hughes's fiction is James
Emanuel, Langston Hughes (New York, 1967).

4It is interesting to note the connection with Chicago
that is shared by Dunne, Rosten, and Hughes, though the set-
ting of the wise fool pieces of the latter two writers is in
New‘York. After 1962 the "Simple" columns appeared in the
New York Post.

5James Emanuel notes that "After the third Simple book,
a minimum of a hundred and twenty-nine reviews were avail-
able in periodicals and newspapers, forty—one of them
foreign. . . J'(p. 150). Donald C. Dickinson goes so far
as to claim, "The world knows the American Negro best through
Hughes's sketches of Jessie [gig] B. Semple" (p. 118).

6Both Emanuel and Dickinson devote a few pages to
Simple, treating him essentially from a sociological perspec-
tive (pp. 154-160, pp. 95-100, respectively); and two arti-
cles, Arthur P. Davis, "Jesse B. Semple: Negro American,“
Phylon, XV (Spring, 1954), 21-28, and Heinz Rogge, "Die
Figur des Simple in Werke Von Langston Hughes, " 1_)_i_§_ Neuren
§prachen, 12 (1955), 555-566, also approach the work in this
manner. The German article is essentially a re-statement of
Davis's.

7Common Ground, 4 (1944), 42.
8Phylon, 29 (Winter, 1968), 339-346.
9Compare this statement with Mr. Dooley's "I don't

think we injye other people's sufferin', Hinnissy. It isn't
acshally injyement. But we feel betther f'r it" (pp. 68-69),

130

131

or Nathan Ausubel's remark in his Introduction ("Why Jews
Laugh“) to A Treasupy p§_Jewish Humor, "What do you suppose
makes Jews joke so much about adversity? It is the instinct
for self-preservation. By laughing at the absurdities and
cruelties of life they draw much of the sting from them”

(p. xvi .

10This term, which comes from an old blues song and is
used by Philip Sterling for the title of his anthology of
Negro humor (New York, 1965), is comparable to the expres—
sion "laughter through tears” that, as Ausubel notes, JewiSh
folk philOSOphers used to characterize their traditional
type of humor (p. xvi).

11Simple Stakes g_C1aim, p. 173. The following abbrevi-
ations will be used for further references to the five dif-
ferent collections of "Simple" pieces: "Claim," Simple
Stakes a_Claim (New York, 1953); "Mind," Simple Speaks §;§_
Mind (New York, 1950): "Wife," Simple Takes §_Wife (New York,
1953); "Sam," Simple's Uncle Sam (New York, 1965): and "Best,"
Egg Best p£_Simple (New York, 1961).

12Hughes's handling of these themes, and the battles
that he fought with critics over it, is discussed by both
Emanuel and Dickinson in their discussions of his work. In
an article devoted to this question, "The Negro Artist and
The Racial Mountain," Tp§_Nation, 122 (June 13, 1926), 692-
694, Hughes wrote:

But then there are the low-down folks, the so-
called common element, and they are in the
majority--may the Lord be praised: The people
who have their nip of gin on Saturday nights and
are not too important to themselves or to the
community, or too well fed or too learned to
watch the lazy world go round. . . . They fur-
nish a wealth of colorful, distinctive material
for any artist because they still hold their own
individuality in the face of American standardi-
zations. And perhaps these common people will
give to the world its truly great Negro artist,
the one who is not afraid to be himself. (p. 693)

13Though the identification of Hughes as Simple's inter-
viewer, made by both Dickinson (p. 97) and Davis (p. 21), is
an Obvious one--the interviewer shares Hughes's external
description as to skin color (light-brown), region of birth,
education, etc.--it would be more accurate to retain the
name, Boyd, in discussing him, since he frequently expresses
opinions that are inconsistent with positions adopted by
Hughes elsewhere in his writing. In fact, in the "Simple"
stories, Simple more often speaks for Hughes, against

132

“intellectual” objections raised by Boyd, who is, at times,
the target of the criticism. Hughes's relationship to Simple
and Boyd is comparable to Rosten's relationship to both Kap-
lan and Parkhill.

l4As Arthur P. Davis assesses it, the Simple/Boyd re-
lationship has more significant and subtle dimensions than
that of a purely literary device of conflict-generating con-
trast. "The clash and interplay of these [Simple's "man-of-
the-streets" and Boyd's black intellectual] attitudes furnish
much of the humor in Simple, but they also serve a deeper
purpose; they point up and accentuate the two-leVel type of
thinking which segregation tends to produce in all Negroes"

(p. 22)

15In addition to these functions, Arthur P. Davis sees
the dialect employed by Hughes as indicating a number of
complex aspects of his personality, including his values,
status, relationship to “in-group" thinking, and mood, or
attitude toward particular questions (pp. 25-26).

16These and others of Simple's sayings on women are col-
lected in The Book p£_Negro Humor, p. 146.

17Another contender for this designation might be a
"non-Simple" short story entitled "Professor," reprinted in
the volume Something ip Common gpg_0ther_Stories (New York,
1963), pp. 135-142.

181112 .1222]; 21: Esare _Humor. pp. 137-138.

Chapter VI
ART BUCHWALD: A CONTEMPORARY
URBAN WISE FOOL SATIRIST

The political and social satire produced by the con-
temporary columnist, Art Buchwald, represents the continuing
tradition of the wise fool character in America during the
twentieth century. As has been noted in Newsweek magazine,
"Buchwald's gleeful goading of the President puts him
squarely in the tradition of the nation's great newspaper
satirists. . . .“1 Both the perspectives and the techniques
of Mr. Buchwald's widely syndicated columns can be compared,
in many respects, to the works of such crackerbarrel wits as
Seba Smith, Charles Browne, Mark Twain, and Will Rogers.

Like Finley Peter Dunne, Leo Rosten, and Langston
Hughes, however, Art Buchwald is an urban rather than a
rural figure. He has, in fact, been described as ". . . a
sort of citified Will Rogers."2 For the past seven years
Buchwald has been an "insider" in Washington, D.C., and be-
fore that he gave his American readers insight into the
cosmopolitan world of Paris, France. He does differ from
the above three writers, though, in that he does not write
from the perspective of an immigrant, or a member of a
minority group (although he is of Jewish descent).

Art Buchwald's presentation of himself as an urbanite
is a legitimate one, since he was raised in New York. A

biographical account of his life prior to his career as a

133

134

journalist notes:

Buchwald grew up in a succession of New York City

foster homes, after the death of his mother when

he was 6. Reunited briefly with his father and

three sisters, he ran away from home at 16 to en-

list in the Marines during World War II. . . .

When Japan surrendered, Buchwald enrolled in USC

University of Southern California] and spent

three years there 'getting A's in subjects I liked

and D's in those I didn't.‘ He almost failed an

English course in humor, but edited the gollege

humor magazine and wrote a variety show.
After his three years of college, Buchwald took his G.I.
Bill money and went to Paris, eventually getting a job
covering nightclubs, restaurants, and the activities of
American celebrities for the European edition of the New
York Herald Tribune. "Buchwald's success was practically
instantaneous. Reviewers soon were comparing him with that
other 'innocent abroad,‘ Mark Twain.”4

In 1962, Buchwald moved from Paris to Washington, for
what was supposed to be a two-year temporary assignment
covering the nation's capital. By 1964 more than two
hundred newspapers were printing his column, and he had
clearly become America's most important political satirist.5
In addition to his thricedweekly column (written for the
Washington Post since the demise of the Tribune), Buchwald
gives humorous lectures (at a fee of $1,500) and writes for
such periodicals as McCalls, the Saturday Review, Look,
Playbgy, and the Ladies Home Journal. He has brought his
humorous political analysis to television, covering elec-

tions and serving as a guest on interview-shows, and to the

press in the form of "tongue-in-cheek" interviews in which

135

he retains, as his own personality, the wise fool character—
ization of his column.6

Like most American satirists, Buchwald relies heavily
upon humor as the vehicle of his social commentary. Though
he is capable of intense sentiment, he is rarely found dis-
cussing any issue seriously. As he has declared, "My secret
of being funny is to treat important things facetiously and
facetious things very importantly."7 Dean Acheson has cited
Buchwald's faculty for capturing the absurdities in actual
events and ideas, and the range of the humorous devices with
which he exposes them. "Buchwald brings to his satire the
genius of hitting upon the most absurd of the absurdities
around him and a rare gift for dialogue that runs the gamut
of humor from the subtle to the Rabelaisian to the hilari-
ous" (p. l). The humor of Buchwald's satire does not, how-
ever, make it ultimately gentle or genial; he uses humor as
a weapon, destroying his target under the protective cover
of laughter and his wise fool persona. According to Leonard
C. Lewin, in his review of one of Buchwald's bodks, "Buchwald
at his best has a deceptive simplicity which can be devasta-
ting; he is concise, unelaborate, and, incidentally, very
funny."

Art Buchwald's wise fool posture is a complex one.
Since he does not write in dialect, he does not have the im-
mediate identification as an uneducated "man on the street,"

but he compensates for this by appearing to be an "innocent"

or naive reporter who is rather bewildered and at loss among

136
the “great people" of Paris or Washington. In this manner
he gains the sympathy of the reader, Who feels that Buchwald
is just an "average citizen" viewing an exalted world which
the reader can visit vicariously. As a guest at an important
French vineyard, for example, Buchwald naively tries to imi-
tate the elaborate ritual for wine-tasting, but ends up de-
flating the gravity and pompousness of that ritual by sipping
the wine and noting, "It sure puckers the inside of your
mouth," or "It tastes like cotton" (instead of velvet), and
spitting it on the floor of the salon, instead of the
cellar.9 Similarly, Buchwald promotes his reputation as
”the Washington expert" by attending a New York banquet and
after studying the weekly news-magazines and the network news
programs, confidently answers questions on topics about Which
he knows nothing. When he is finally completely stumped, he
claims that the answer is privileged information that he can-
not reveal to the general public ("Capitol," pp. 21-22).
Buchwald does not claim to be well—read, but when someone
asks him if he read an important book he counters, "No, I
didn't read the book, but his wife went to school with my
wife,” using "one-upsmanship" to cover his naivete ("Safe,"
p. 250).

As the "innocent" reporter, Buchwald occasionally func-
tions as a negative fool, ridiculously agreeing with the
proponent of the view that he wishes to expose. This often
provides him the opportunity to magnify the erroneous posi-

tion by carrying even further than its original proposer had

137
intended. Thus, when a Congressman argues that the taxpayer
has a right to coverage of all White House social events,
Buchwald agrees and adds that he feels that the President's
eating breakfast, and playing with his children should not
be exempt from news coverage either ("We didn't elect a man
so he could turn into a recluse!") ("Capitol,” pp. 105-107).
He defends General Motors's unofficial "investigation“ of
the safety-crusader, Ralph Nader, by noting, "We can't allow
people like Mr. Nader to invade the privacy of General Motors”
("Society," p. 110). Buchwald's positive response to a
National Rifle Association editorial that encouraged people
to buy guns leads to an hilarious "arms race" between the
columnist and a fellow customer in the gun shop, culminating
in the author's purchasing a (gift-wrapped) bazooka ("Lied,"
pp. 50-51). As the negative fool, Buchwald proves to be
both gullible and rash, exposing the various foibles of gov-
ernment or society by a distorted representation of them, in
a classic wise-fool manner. In this pose he resembles such
negative fools as Birdofredum Sawin, Mr. Hennessy, and Boyd,
among others.

In addition to his poses as the "innocent Observer" and
the negative fool, Buchwald also presents himself as the
common-sense philosopher. He shrewdly shows the reader how
to make a recalcitrant French electrician repair a heater by
doubting the man's ability to do the job, demonstrating that
common-sense psychology can achieve results which neither

money nor heart-rending appeals can accomplish ("Write,” p.

138
24). Buchwald answers the question of why college students
revolt by noting:

The reason the college students are doing so much

demonstrating is that there is no one in class to

teach them anymore, and the students have nothing
else to do. Almost every full professor is either
writing a book, guest-lecturing at another univer-
sity, or taking a year off to write a report for

President Johnson.

Therefore, he has turned over his course to a
graduate instructor Who is either working on his
Ph.D., traveling on a Fulbright scholarship, or
picketing in Montgomery, Ala. So he in turn has
turned the class over to one of the brighter stu-
dents who is never there because he works on the
college newspaper, is a member of the student
senate, or is a delegate to his national frater-
nity. ("Society," p. 181)

Buchwald's common—sense observations include such re—
marks as ". . . you won't find one leader in the world today
who isn't willing to mediate a just peace--for somebody
else" ("Society," p. 52), and, after his wife has become
inordinately upset over their son's stealing five cents,
”all ten-year-old boys have criminal instincts. . . .
Stealing and lying are part of growing up" (“President,” p.
110). He offers "translations" of diplomatic terms in a
manner very reminiscent of Mr. Dooley; e.g., "Restraint--
Something you tell another country to show when your own
personal interests are not involved" ("Lied," p. 84).

When working from the perspective of the common-sense
philosopher, Buchwald, like many of his predecessors, occa-
sionally appears to be so wise that his foolepersona becomes

suspended. Thus his explanation of the European Common Mar-

ket transcends ”common-sense," and is a complex analysis, in

139
plain language, that shows the knowledge and intelligence
of a seasoned European correspondent. Part of this lengthy
economic and political analysis reads:

After World War II Europe was in a mess and so the
United States started the Marshall Plan to get it
back on its feet. In twelve years Europe got back
on its feet and formed the Common Market to put the
United States out of business. The United States
would now like to make a deal with the Common Mar-
ket, but some American business groups don't like
the idea, because they don't want European goods
flooding the American market.

The object of the Common Market is to break down
tariffs between European countries at the same time
that they raise them against the outside world.

Eur0pe is split between the Inner Six and the
Outer Seven. Great Britain was leader of the Outer
Seven, but has asked to become a member of the Inner
Six. The only trouble is the British are afraid if
they join the Inner Six they'll lose the Commonwealth,
which will then turn to the United States for trade.
(“Safe," pp. 140-141)

The explanation goes on in this vein, presenting information
and insights that are hardly the product of common-sense
alone. Buchwald's shrewd understanding of American society
is reflected in his observation of the role of public image
in defining success or status in this country:

The success of a person in this country is really

dependent on how much exposure he has had, and the

more exposure you have, the shorter your career is.

The Press creates these things. And then the press

gets mad at itself and wants to knock them down. . . .

we have the success syndrome here which is drilled

into us from the start. You have to be a success,

and we have the communications to do it overnight.

And at the same time we just don't have the patience

to absorb it.10

The form of most of Buchwald's columns, like that of
many of the American wise fool writers is that of a dialogue,

frequently between Buchwald, as the newspaper interviewer,

140
and another character. The second character is not con-
sistently the same person: BuChwald "interviews" celebrities,
”experts," highly-placed "friends," his family, and a host
of other foils for his satire. Often these characters them—
selves represent aspects of the wise fool character. He
introduces such figures as the "ugly American," a negative
fool who teaches how pgp_to behave abroad through his re-
pulsive behavior. In one column an American tourist badgers
the stewardness, annoys his fellow passengers, and terribly
embarrasses another American sitting next to him on the
plane. The bore finally turns to his countryman and says,
"Well, I enjoyed sitting next to you and talking to you.
We Americans in Europe have to stick together, or they'll
take us for a ride" ("Write," p. 77).

One of the most commonly used characters in Buchwald's
repertory is the pedant-fool, the learned antithesis of the
common-sense philosopher who has been discussed above as
Dunne's Hogan and Father Kelly, Rosten's Mr. Parkhill, and
Hughes's Boyd. Buchwald interviews such pedant-fools as
Professor Heinrich Babelmeir, who holds the "Billie Sol
Estes Chair of Taxation at the University of Pecos." Pro-
fessor Babelmeir leads the reader through the intricacies
of current tax manipulation policies, inadvertently showing
that the specific tax proposals of the Kennedy administra-
tion are working at cross-purposes. {As Babelmeir describes
it, ”Tax reform is when you take taxes off things that have

been taxed in the past and put taxes on things that haven't

141
been taxed before" (”Capitol," p. 89). Buchwald asks the
"dumb" questions, but the expert's endorsement of the con-
fused and idiotic policies he portrays indicates which one
is the fool.

Another example of the ”expert" as fool is found in the
description of a staff meeting of U.S. military officers.
After General Patent of the Army, General Wings of the Air
Force, and Admiral Bilge of the Navy scream at each other
over whose function includes which activities, they conclude
their childish argument by fighting and throwing water pitch-
ers as though they were nursery-school students ("President,"
pp. 64-65). Similarly, a college professor is interviewed
during a riot on his campus, displaying an extreme naivete
and an unrealistic lack of concern over the actions of his
students. As they lead the professor to a scaffold, he re-
plies to Buchwald's offer to get the police, "I wish you
wouldn't. . . . If we don't let the students try new meth-
ods of activism, they'll never know for themselves which
ones work and which ones are counter-productive" (April 24,
1969). As a typical wise fool character, Buchwald continu-
ally exposes the 1ack of practical knowledge and common
sense on the part of well-educated, highly-placed authorities.

In addition to his interviews with "experts," Buchwald
carries on humorous dialogues with celebrities, such as Bill
Dana, Alan King, Gary Cooper, etc., interesting personalities,
shop-keepers, taxi-drivers, repair-men, and his wife and

children. In one of these dialogues, he interviews the

142
mythical "Nubam of Lemon," whose problems with a gigantic
entourage in Paris are representative of the actual visits
of certain Arab leaders to that city. Despite the Nubam's
large number of wives and concubines, he concludes the in-
terview by noting that he has "got a few good numbers to
call while the girls are out shopping" (“Write," p. 135).
Buchwald also reports of dining out with the wealthy JOhn
Paul Getty, while the billionaire grumbles about how much
cheaper the meal would be at his home ("Write," pp. 136-137).
An "overheard conversation" between three American couples in
Paris presents memorable satiric dialogue. After complaining
about everything that they have seen, and showing their
"sophistication" by boasting of what they have deliberately
avoided seeing, the dialogue concludes:
The first wife said, "We're not coming back to
Europe next year."
The second wife said, "we won't be back in the
next five years."
The third wife said, "we'll probably never come
back."
The first husband said, "If I had it to do all
over again I wouldn't have come to Paris."
The second husband said, ”You can say that again."
The third husband said, "We're lucky we didn't go
to Paris."
“But," protested the first husband's wife, "you're
in Paris right now."
"What?" the third husband said. He took out his
itinerary. "By heaven you're right. Wait till I
get that travel agent when I get home." (”write,"
p. 80)
Although Buchwald does not use the immigrant, rural,
or lower-class dialect that is characteristic of the Ameri-

can wise fool character, he does employ many of the same

linguistic devices as his predecessors, including the pun,

143
malapropism, double-entendre, and "quip" or brief, one—line
joke. The title of one of his books, I_ng§g_Capitol PuniSh-
mppp, is illustrative of his use of the pun. Buchwald's
puns have improved over the years, going from making a hor-
rible reference to cashing "a bad Czech," or writing about
the girl in Warsaw whom the men would not touch "with a
ten-foot Pole" ("Caviar," pp. 7, 12), to defending a company
which made girdles with an American flag pattern by noting
that the Stars and Stripes does represent "the foundation of
our liberty" ("Society," p. 100). He also describes the
tourist festivals of the mythical country "Lovlost," as the
Whaling festival and Whine festival, both dealing with noise-
making rather than sea-mammals or beverage-production
("Write," pp. 293-294). A.parody of a "Joe Pyne-type" in-
sulting interview program is called, by Buchwald, "Couth
Wants to Know" (“Lied," p. 64), and the U-2 plane incident
is categorized as a part of President Eisenhower's "Open
Spies Program" (”Dollars," p. 177). Other Buchwald puns
include his claim that the word gigp_evolved from the verb
pg_gip_("Write," p. 208), and that "It turns out there is a
lot of ferment in the French wine business” ("Write,” p.
190).

His tenure in Paris gave Buchwald a penchant for bi-
lingual word-play. Realizing that the majority of his
readers know both French and English, Buchwald offered a
sophisticated linguistic humor that capitalized on distor-

tions of meaning resulting from literal translation, and

144
incongruity emanating from the juxtaposition of the dis-
similar languages. His famous attempt at explaining the
game of baseball to the French, “Lp_Bazbal Made Easy“
(reprinted in Art Buchwald's Paris) provides an example
of this technique:

Each man must try to catch the bazbal with his

moufle (glove). The opposing team sends one

frappeur (batter) at a time to the assiette

maison, or home plate. . . .

As each man gets on a sac the man in front of

him advances to another sac (there are three sacs

plus the assiette maison) and a player is re-

quired to touch all four of them before he scores

a course (a run).

There are nine innings for each team and the

team scoring the most courses is the winner. If

it wins enough games it will play for the Serie

mondiale (World Series) and make a lot of money
In addition to this amusing description of baseball, Buch—
wald entitles a quick-service lunch counter, "Déjeuner de
Trois Heures" ("Caviar," p. 88), and translates General De
Gaulle's formal remark to President Eisenhower, "Le Maréchal
Montgomery m'a charge de vous transmettre, Monsieur le
President, l'expression de sa haute consideration" as “Monty
says hello" ("Write," pp. 272-273).

An Interpol Police inspector is named, by Buchwald,
Sergeant Vendredi, to parallel the famous television police—
man played by Jack webb ("Write," p. 186). Other comical
names for characters in some of these columns include ”Pia
Callous," an opera star ("write," p. 169), "Horace Turnover,"

the man in charge of U.S.-Soviet friendship ("Lied," p. 154),

“Jean Pensepas," a government official in charge of "thinking

145

the unthinkable" ("Lied," p. 187), and "Higgenbottom Hand-
out," a professional lobbyist in washington ("President,“

p. 176). Buchwald's description of the various positions

on U.S. military activity includes the term "Chickens," as
‘well as “HaWks” and "Doves,“ providing a humorous alterna-
tive title for those who are opposed to war for practical

rather than political reasons ("Capitol," p. 170).

Many of Buchwald's columns derive their humor from
quips or jokes which often used to provide the "snub ending"
for which American humor is justly famous. A discussion of
the Middle-Eastern situation is concluded, for example, by
Buchwald noting, "WOuldn't it be a wonderful world if all
the armies were staffed by Egyptian officers?", and his
companion replying, “That . . . is the only solution to
peace in our time" ("Lied," p. 77). The proud parents of
a college protester who is described as an utter anarchist
conclude their report of his graduation (at which he walked
out) by informing the columnist, "He's applied for training
jobs with IBM, Time-Life, Inc., and the Ford Motor Company.
He figures there's a much better future with a large corpora-
tion than trying to start out on your own" (“Lied," p. 17).
The cynical quip effectively makes the author's point as to
the seriousness and longevity of the protest. A report on
the activities of retired military officers prompts the quo-
tation, "Old soldiers never die--They just write their

memoirs" ("Write," p. 231).

146

Buchwald also uses the technique of vivid contrasts in
his satirical writing. He contrasts the idealism of a newly-
appointed Washington bureaucrat, Mr. Sinecure, with the more
mundane attitudes of his underlings, in the following di-
alogue. Sinecure concludes his patriotic introductory
address by proclaiming, “This is a bright new day for the
department. The dark clouds that hovered over this building
for the past eight years will disappear and it is my fervent
prayer that you and I will walk together in the sun once more.
Now I'll accept questions." An employee responds, "Since
Washington's birthday falls on a Saturday . . ., can we take
off Monday and still be paid?" (February 16, 1969).

This same technique contrasts the romantic view of the
activities of lawyers and doctors found in television scripts,
with a more realistic view. Buchwald has his version of the
real-life Perry Mason responding to a mother's plea for him
to defend her innocent son, "wait a minute, madam. Before
you go any further, I'll have to ask for a retainer. . . .
How much can you afford? Legal costs are expensive. If he
pleads guilty, I'll make a deal with the District Attorney
and save you the expense of a long drawn-out jury trial."
Similarly, the realistic portrayal of Dr. Kildare, according
to Buchwald, would have the physician referring the patient
to a specialist and collecting ten dollars, without even ex-
amining him ("Capitol," pp. 122-123). The cynical wise fool
is unwilling to accept any idealization that is not con-

sistent with his every-day experience.

147

One of Buchwald's most amusing contrasts describes a
naval officer losing his fight to beat a parking ticket at
the Pentagon; "The Captain paid his two dollars and, locking
like Billy Mitchell after his court-martial, left the room.
I will always remember his words as we said good—bye. They
were: 'I regret that I have only one Chrysler to give to
my country'“ (“Capitol," p. 38). The ludicrous juxtaposi-
tion of the trivial and the significant is used, by Art
Buchwald, as effectively as it is by any other American
satirist.

With the possible exception of Mark Twain, Buchwald is
also as deft in his use of irony and antithesis as any other
American writer.11 A classic example of his ironic tech-
nique is his famous description of what Senator Barry Gold-
'water would have done in Vietnam, had he rather than Lyndon
JOhnson been elected President:

Every once in a while, when I have nothing better

to do, I wonder what the country would be like if

Barry Goldwater had been elected President of the

United States. Based on his campaign and his

speeches, it is a frightening thing to imagine.

For one thing, we would probably be bombing North

Vietnam now if Goldwater were in office.

As I see it, this is what would have happened.

The Viet Cong would have blown up an American bar-

racks. Using this as an excuse, Goldwater would

immediately call for a strike on military bases in

North Vietnam and announce a "new tit-for-tat

policy.“ ("Society," pp. ll-12)

The “guessing" continues, following the implications of
Goldwater's speeches, but the exact pattern of President

JOhnson's actual actions. It concludes with the addition-

ally ironic remark, ”But fortunately, with President JOhnson

148

at the helm, we don't even have to think about it" (p. 12).

Buchwald's ironic commentaries include an interesting
complaint by a Negro who saved his money to move out of the
ghetto so that his children would receive a better education.
The father notes that the busing program now required that
be send his children back to the same school from which his
sacrifice had wrested them ("President," pp. 120-121). An-
other ironic account portrays the FBI infiltration of the
Communist Party as resulting in an entirely FBI-controlled
Party running J. Edgar Hoover for President on the Communist
ticket: (“Capitol," pp. 172-174). Also illustrating the
sophisticated use of this technique (which is prObably Buch-
‘wald's best) is his report of how the mythical country,
"Lovlost," lost all of its few Communists because American
aid made these citizens too affluent to remain Communist.
This loss in turn made the country forfeit the American aid
which again in turn made the country really become Communist
("Write," pp. 275-277). The plausibility of these highly
ironic twists of fortune makes this story revealing as well
as humorous, for it depicts the superficiality of our for-
eign aid policy, as well as its tendency ultimately to have
extremely different results from those for which it was in-
tended.

Buchwald is also a master of the art of parody. One
famous parody, of a press conference supervised by President
Eisenhower's press-secretary, James Haggerty, was so believ-

able that it brought an angry denial from Haggerty, who

149

completely missed the satire and called the article "Un-

12
adulterated rot." In this parody the banality of these
news conferences, as well as the pettiness of the informa-
tion sought by the press is scored. Several questions are
devoted to the President's going to sleep, including the
following dialogue:

0. Jim, whose idea was it for the President to go

to sleep?
A. It was the President's idea. He was tired and
decided to go to sleep. . . .

0. Jim, did the President speak to anyone before

retiring?

A. He spoke to the Secretary of State.

0. What did he say to the Secretary of State, Jim?

A. He said: “Good night, Foster."

0. And what did the Secretary say to the President?

A. He said: "Good night, Mr. President."

0. The Secretary didn't say: "Pleasant dreams"?

A. Not to my knowledge. I have nothing on that.

("Caviar," pp. 165-166)
This scintillating dialogue is carried on, with similar and
even more trivial questions and answers, for two pages.
Buchwald also parodies television shows (e.g., the Joe Pyne-
type shows, "Lied," p. 64; a Huntley-Brinkley Space broad-
cast, "Society," pp. 134-135), and a number of other
familiar events. The parodies are exaggerations of reality,
and as such they serve a satiric as well as a comic func-

. 13

tion.

Additionally, Buchwald's comic arsenal includes the
tall-tale, forays into the world of fantasy, and absurd or
bizarre solutions to complex problems, and he uses these
devices for the same effects for which they were used by

Dunne, Rosten, and Hughes, as well as the nineteenth-century

American rustic humorists. Some of his descriptions of

150

European tourist attractions are indeed reminiscent of Mark
Twain. For instance he describes the "Ga2pacho Festival,"
in which after a parade and dance, the procession leads to
the main square of the village;

. . . where tourists who have paid anywhere from

six thousand to ten thousand fandangos are seated

in specially built stands to watch the hilarity.

In the exact center of the square is a pile of

cobblestones which the natives have collected all

year long. The natives dance around the pile and

then, at a signal from the mayor, each person picks

up a cobblestone and suddenly starts throwing it at

the tourists. No tourist can escape, and when all

the visitors are stoned to death the festival is

considered over. After the square is cleaned up

the natives take off their colorful costumes and

put them away for another year.

There have been some protests from neighboring
towns about this fiesta, but the people of Gazpacho

always reply, "We don't like tourists and this usu-
ally teaches them a lesson.“ ("write," p. 97)

Buchwald's fantasies include his serving as adviser to
such political leaders as KhruShchev and De Gaulle (e.g.,
"Safe," pp. 237-240), and a scheme in which nudity will be-
come required at all political conferences to ". . . show
that both parties have nothing to hide. . . ." (July 10,
1969). He frequently gives bizarre "inside tips“ on the
news, asserting, for example, that the recent Six-Day War
in the Middle East was really a means for Russia to deliver
arms purchased from her by Israel, without political embar-
rassment (“Lied," pp. 80-81).

His comic solutions include a ”Selective Praying"
policy to solve the Prayer-in-school issue, in which chil-
dren pray only before examinations (at which time, he

assures us, there are no atheists) ("President," pp. 83-84),

151
and a plan to drop new automdbiles on Hanoi, so the Viet-
namese will take care of killing themselves ("Lied," p. 35).
One column claims, "I have the Buchwald plan to solve the
gold outflow. Instead of going on the gold standard, we
should go on the used-car standard and make used cars into
bars, like they do gold, because we have a lot more used
cars than we do gold."14 With these humorous techniques
Buchwald makes the reader drop the guard of his particular
political and social prejudices and laugh, possibly even
before he realizes the deeper implications of what he is
laughing at.

Before he moved from Paris to waShington, Buchwald was
primarily a rather genial social satirist and humorist,
whose wit was only occasionally either caustic or particu-
larly pointed toward significant subjects. He specialized
in such domestic humor as a recollection of the noise made
by his children on New Year's morning ("Safe," pp. 157—158),
the prOblems faced by his hard-working, harried wife (e.g.,
"Capitol," pp. 71-75), or the ground rules for children at
play in the exclusive Parc Monceau (”write," pp. 30-32).
His satiric writing during this period was, with a few ex-
ceptions, limited to critical portraits of Americans abroad
and accounts of the French bureaucracy.

The shift from Paris to washington, in 1962, brought
out the best in Art Buchwald, in terms of both technique
and subject matter. As Buchwald himself notes, "When I was

writing from Paris, it was fun and games. I came to

152

Washington to write satire and washington is THE place to
write satire."15 In the Preface to his first collection of
Washington columns, Buchwald humorously comments on the
often-voiced thesis that contemporary events in washington
are too serious to be treated satirically:

Many people warned me that I was making a big mis-

take going to washington, D.C. They pointed out

that it was perfectly all right to make fun of the

French but it's another matter making fun of Ameri-

cans. Besides, they say people take themselves very

seriously in washington and there is no room for

frivolity in the nation's capital at this time.

Well, I have no intention of being frivolous.

No country of 180,000,000 people and a yearly defi-

cit of nine billion dollars can afford to laugh,

and I hope that if I ever write anything from

Washington that is not serious and solemn, someone

will throw me into the Attorney General's nearest

swimming pool. ("Capitol," p. 14)
The subtlety of the juxtaposition of the seriousness of our
national prdblems and the famous Kennedy swimming pool inci-
dent, set off against his innocent promise to refrain from
frivolity, is characteristic of the blend of humor and
piercing commentary in Buchwald's recent writing. He has
tackled Washington's infamous bureaucracy, depicting a
meeting of washington officials to decide whether or not
to have a meeting (”Lied," pp. 193-194), commented wryly
on the dangers of rearming Germany ("Lied," pp. 164-165),
and infuriated such personages as Chester Bowles, who he
portrayed as having been exiled to a meaningless post for

l

criticizing the President ("Capitol," pp. 31-33). 6 Re-
cently, Buchwald has exposed the escalatory logic behind

the proponents of the Anti-Ballistic Missile, representing

153
their cause with empty clickers, against the objections of
a friend named Mulligan (March 27, 1969).

In addition to Washington politics, Buchwald comments
on such important topics as air pollution (describing the
earth's atmosphere as too polluted for travelers from Venus
to visit here, "Lied," pp. 132-133), and civil rights. His
columns on the latter topic are often his most intensely
satiric and hence, least funny. For example, he describes
a situation in a classroom at the University of Mississippi,
in which the professor distorts the Constitution to uphold
a variety of cruel or stupid practices, and then has a stu-
dent arrested for asking a question about the fifteenth
amendment (the right to vote, regardless of race, creed,
etc.), stating, "If there is anything I hate worse than a
Negro, it's a Constitution-lover" ("Capitol," pp. 223-224).
However, Buchwald is also critical of black militants, de-
picting the servile white supporters of these extremists as
"Uncle JOhns" who are treated, by the blacks, just as the
slaves were by their white masters ("Lied," pp. 144-145).

A good deal of Buchwald's recent satire deals with
specific topics Whose period of relevance will indeed be
brief, but the perspective from which he writes, that of
the wise fool character, gives his work a certain perma-
nence, for bureaucrats, bigots, inflated "experts," and
obnoxious, self-important individuals will always exist,
in one guise or another. As JOhn Wesley Fuller writes,

in a review of a collection of Buchwald's columns,

154
". . . Buchwald's underlying t0pic is neither the Great
Society nor its son (himself), but human foibles. His
satire devastates phony political poses and suspect public

17 Buchwald's use of the wise fool persona

pronouncements."
is indicative of its survival, in modified form, through the
twentieth century thus far. Dunne, Rosten, Hughes, and
Buchwald span the century with an urban counterpart to the
nineteenth-century American crackerbarrel philosopher, and
their predecessors both American and foreign. In addition
to Buchwald, such contemporary syndicated columnists as
Arthur Hoppe and Russel Baker employ the motif, at times,
and it has found its way into other mediums, including the
television comedy of Bill Dana ("Jose Jimenez," a Spanish-
American wise fool), and Gilligan, of television's "Gilli-
gan's Island," among others. Furthermore, aspects of this
character's perspective can be found in such important re-
cent novels as Joseph Heller's Catch-22 ("Yossarian"), Ken
Kesey's One Flew ove;_the Cuckoo's Nest (both the Chief and
Murphy), and Rosten's Captain Newman, 11.2. (discussed above).

,As.Arthur P. Dudden has written, in Ih§_Assault g:
Laughter, ". . . it has become commonplace of late to decry
the dwindling output and declining quality of humor in the
United States" (p. 22).18 PrOponents of this thesis tend
to ignore columnists like Buchwald, Hoppe, gp_gl,, as well
as the lecture-cabaret comedy of such satirists as Mort
sahl, Dick Gregory, Godfrey Cambridge, Alan King and a

host of others (many of whom have also written humorous

155
works). Additionally, such satiric groups as "The Com-
mittee," "Second City," and "Upstairs at the Downstairs,"
successfully engage in s0phisticated, often satirical
humor. To paraphrase Mark Twain's famous remark, the re-
ports of the death of the wise fool, and of American humor

and satire, are greatly exaggerated.

Notes

1Anonymous, "The Capital Wit of Art Buchwald," Newsweek,
65 (June 7, 1965), 47.

2Anonymous, "Art Buchwald on Taxes, L.B.J., Automation,
The Stock Market, and a Whole Bunch of Other Things," Nation's
Business, 53 (August, 1965), 39.

3Anonymous, "Funnyman in Paris," Look, 26 (March 13,
1962), 102.

41bid., p. 102.

5Representative of the acclaim which he has received is
the comment, by walter Lippmann, ”He's one of the best satir-
ists of our time," quoted in "The Capital Wit of Art Buch-
‘wald" (p. 47). Former Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, goes
so far as to claim, ". . . Art Buchwald is probably the great-
est satirist in English since Pope and Swift," "Gift of
Laughter in a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World," Bodk Week (May 26,
1968 . 1.

6See, for example, interviews in Nation's Business, 53
(August, 1965), 38-43, 56 (January, 1968), 86-88; Playboy
Interviews (Chicago, 1967). pp. 180-203; and the Detroit
Free Press (May 18, 1969), 38-42.

7"Funnyman in Paris," p. 102.

8"Politics and Pins: A Review of . . . And Then ;.Told
The President," New York Times Bock Review (May 2, 1965), 3.

9Don't Forget Tg_Write (Cleveland, 1960), pp. 193-195.
The following abbreviations will be used for references to
the many books in which his columns have been collected (his
publishers put out an edition of selected pieces every eigh-
teen months): "Write," Don't Forget To write, "President,”
. . . And Then I Told The President (New'York, 1965): "Lied,"

Have I Ever Lied To You? (New York, 1968), "Dollars," How

Much I§_That ;p_Dollars? (Cleveland, 1961); "Capitol," I
Chose Capitol Punishment (Cleveland, 1962); "Safe," ;§_;p_
Safe Tg Drink Thp_Water? (Cleveland, 1962): "Caviar," More
Caviar (NeW'York, 1957); and "Society," Son of Egg Great
Society (NeW'York, 1966). References to uncollected columns

will be cited by the date of their appearance.

10Quoted in "Art Buchwald on Taxes, L.B.J., Automation,
The Stock Market, and a Whole Bunch of Other Things," p. 43.

156

157

11Jesse Bier, in a recent boOk, Th§_Rise Egg Fall g:
American Humor (New York, 1968), coins a useful term,
”Antitheticism,” to refer to the general tendency, in
American humor, to reverse expected logic, concepts, and
behavior to achieve a humorous effect. His discussion of
the techniques commonly used by American humorists is appli-
eable to the work of all four of the authors studied here

pp. 1-31 .

12Buchwald had the last laugh by issuing his own press
release in which his secretary noted, "Mr. Buchwald has been
known to write adulterated rot, but never to my knowledge
has he written unadulterated rot. I think it might have
been a misprint" ("Caviar," pp. 168-169).

13Buchwald is quoted as saying, "Most of the things I
write about really happened to me" ("Art for Humor's Sake"),
Newsweek, 58 (December 4, 1961), 87: and his burlesques of
actual events, people, and current realities are usually
very easy to trace to their original source.

l4“Art Buchwald on Taxes, L.B.J., Automation, The Stock
Market, and a Whole Bunch of Other Things,” p. 39.

15Quoted by John Joly, in an interview with Buchwald,
"The Best of Buchwald--At Lunch Already,” Detroit Free Press
(May 18, 1969), 42. ___...__._____._______

16As he did with James Haggerty, Buchwald rebuked Bowles
for having the temerity to complain about the piece by "inno-
cently" suggesting that the column was meant to be a general
comment on washington practice, and that "he didn't know
that Bowles was the only one of his kind.”, Time, 82 (Sep-
tember 20, 1963), 65.

17"ASkillful Jester: A.Review of Son 9; The Great
Society," Christian Science Monitor (October 18, 1966), 9.

18This argument has been advanced by numerous critics,
including Kenneth Rexroth in ”The Decline of American
Humor," Th§_Nation, 184 (April 27, 1957), 374-376, and Jesse
Bier, Thg_Rise agg_Fall g§_American Humor (New York, 1968).
Bier does hope for a resurgence of American humor, and he
cites Art Buchwald as one cause of this hepe (p. 336). One
critic, Hamlin Hill, argues that native American humor has
not disappeared, but has moved from literary to non—literary
forms, becoming one stream of what he describes as a "dual
trend," the other being the genteel "little man" humor de-
scribed by Norris Yates in Th2 American Humorist. Hill's
article, “Modern American Humor: The Janus Laugh," appeared
in College English, XXV (December, 1963), 170-176. Most of
these critics, including Rexroth, Bier, Hill, and Yates,

158

either overlook or refer to only in passing, the humorous
writing of Rosten, Hughes, and Buchwald, though they do
recognize the work of Finley Peter Dunne.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrahams, Roger D. "Trickster, The Outrageous Hero," in
Tristram Potter Coffin, Our Living Traditions. New

Acheson, Dean. "Gift of Laughter in a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad

Allen, Charles A., and George Stephens. Satire: Theory and
Practice. Belmont, California, 1962.

Anonymous. “Art Buchwald on Taxes, L.B.J., Automation, The
Stock Market, and a Whole Bunch of Other Things," Nation's
Business, 53 (August 1965), 38-43.

"Art Buchwald's Political Prognostications,
Potpourri and Poppycock," Nation's Business, 56 (January
1968), 86-88.

 

. "Art for Humor's Sake," Newsweek, 58 (December 4,
1961), 86-87.

 

. "Buchwald's Washington," Time, 82 (September 20,
1963), 62-65.

 

. "The Capital Wit of Art Buchwald," Newsweek, 65
(June 7, 1965), 47-51.

 

. The Fool (periodical); by_Thomas Brainless,
Jester §2_His Majesty the Public. Salem, Massachusetts,
February, 1807-April, 1807.

 

. "Funnyman in Paris," Lodk, 26 (March 13, 1962),

 

98-102.

. "Offbeat Mr. Buchwald,“ Newsweek, 47 (February
13. 1956), 60.

 

. "01d Shoe Columnist,“ Time, 76 (October 3, 1960),

 

68-690

Arnez, Nancy L., and Clara B. Anthony. "Contemporary Negro
Humor as Social Satire," Phylon, 29 (Winter, 1968), 339-
346.

Ausubel, Nathan. 5 Treasury 2; Jewish Humor. Garden City,
New York, 1951.

159

160

Balch, Marston. ”Jonathan the First," Modern Langgage Notes,

Bangs, JOhn Kendrick. Coffee and Repartee and the Idiot.
New York, 1902.

Baron, Hans. "Secularization of Wisdom and Political Human-
ism in the Renaissance,” Journal g£_the History gg Ideas,
XXI (Winter 1960), 131-150.

Baskerville, Barnet. "Nineteenth Century Burlesque of Ora-
tory," American Quarterly, XX (Winter 1968), 726-743.

Baughman, Ernest W. Typg and Motif-index of the Folktales

g£_Eng1and and North America. The Hague, 1966.
Beer, Thomas. The Mauve Decade. New York, 1926.

Berger, Arthur A. "L'il Abner in American Satire," New York
Folk Quarterly (June 1967), 83-98.

Bier, Jesse. The Rise and Fall g§_American Humor. New York,
1968.

Blair, Walter. "Burlesques in 19th Century American Humor,"
American Literature, 2 (November 1930), 236-247).

. Horse Sense In American Humor. New York, 1942.

 

 

. Native American Humog. San Francisco, 1960.

. "The Popularity of Nineteenth Century American
Humorists,” American Literature, 3 (May 1931), 175-194.

 

 

"The Urbanization of Humor," in RObert Spiller,
A Time g§_Harvest. New‘York, 1962, pp. 54-64.

 

Bluestein, Gene. "Constance Rourke and the Folk Sources of
American Literature," western Folklore, XXVI (April 1967),
77-87 0

Boatright, Nody C. Folk Laughter 2E.the American Frontier.
New‘York, 1949.

Botkin, Benjamin A. A Treasury 2;.American Anecdotes. New
York, 1957.

Boynton, H.W. "American Humor," Atlantic, XC (September 1902),
414-420.

Bridgman, Richard. The Colloggial Style ig.America. New
York, 1966.

161
Brogan, D;W. American Themes. New York, 1947.

Brooks, Van wyck. The Confident Yeagg; 1885-1915. New
York, 1952.

Budhwald, Art. And Then ;_Told The President. New‘York,
1965.

. Art Buchwgld's Paris. New York, 1952.

 

 

. Don't Forget Tg.Write. Cleveland, 1960.

. Have I Ever Lied To You? New‘York, 1968.

 

 

. I_Chose Capitol Punishment. Cleveland, 1962.

 

. Is It Safe To Drink The water? Cleveland, 1962.

 

. More Caviar. New York, 1957.

 

. Son Q§_The Great Society. New York, 1966.

 

Busby, Olive Mary. Studies ig_the Development g£_the Fool
;g_the Elizabethan Drama. London, 1923.

Campbell, Oscar James. Shakespeare's Satire. London, 1943.

Canby, Henry Seidel. "Homespun Philosophers,“ in Seven
Year's Harvest, New York, 1936, pp. 49-53.

“Mr. Dooley and Mr. Hennessy," Saturday Review
.9; Literature, XIV (May 9, 1936), 3-4.

 

Carlisle, Henry 0., Jr. American Satire i9 Prose and Verse.
New York, 1962.

. "Comic Tradition," American Scholar, 28 (Winter
1958-1959), 96.

 

Chambers, E.K. The Medieval Stage, 2 vols. London, 1903.

Charles, Lucile Hoerr. "The Clown's Function; Clowning in
Primitive Cultures,” Journal g£_American Folklore, 58
(January 1945), 25-34.

Coffin, Tristram Potter. Our Living Traditions: Ag_Intro—
duction £g_American Folklore. New‘York, 1968.

Cotton, JOhn. "Purchasing Christ," in Thomas H. Johnson and

Perry Miller, The Puritans. Vol. I. New‘York, 1963, pp.
327-334.

162

Davis, Arthur P. "Jesse B. Semple: Negro American," Phylon,
XV (Spring 1954), 21-28.

Dickinson, Donald C. A Bio-Bibliggraphy gr Langston Hughes.
Hamden, Connecticut, 1967.

Doran, JOhn. The History gr_Court Fools. Boston, 1858.
Dorson, Richard M. American Folklore. Chicago, 1959.

. Jonathan Draws the Long Bow. Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, 1946.

 

 

. "The Yankee On the Stage," New England anrterly,
XIII (September 1940), 467-493.

Du Chartre, Pierre Louis. The Italian Comegy. New'York,
1966.

Dudden, Arthur P. The Assault gthaughter. New York, 1962.

Dunne, Finley Peter. Dissertations by_Mr, Dooley. New'York,
1906.

. (Mr, Dooley gr His Best, ed. Elmer Ellis. New
York, 1938.

 

. JMr, Dooley 12 the Hearts gr_His Countrymen.
Boston, 1899.

 

. .Mr, Dooley rE.Peace and War. Boston, 1898.

 

. Mr, Dooley: Now and Forever, ed. Louis Filler.
Stanford, California, 1954.

 

. Mr, Dooley gr the Choice ngLaw, ed. Edward J.
Bander. Charlottesville, Virginia, 1963.

 

. ,Mr, Dooley gr Ivrything and Ivrybody, ed.
Rebert Hutchinson. New York, 1963.

 

. :Mr, Dooley gr_Making §_Will and Other Necessary
Evils. New'York, 1919.

 

 

. :Mr, Dooley Remembers: The Informal Memoirs of

Finley Peter Dunne, ed. Philip Dunne. Boston, 1963.

 

 

. Mr. Dooley Say . New York, 1910.

 

. :Mr. Dooley's Qpinions. New York, 1901.

 

. Mr, Dooley's Philosophy. New'York, 1906.

 

163

Dunne, Finley Peter. Observations py_Mr, Dooley. New York,
1902.

The World of Mr, Dooley, ed. Louis Filler. New

 

 

York, 1962
Eastman, Max. The Enjoyment pr Laughter. New York, 1937.

Eaton, Clement. "The Humor of the Southern Yeoman," Sewanee
Review, 49 (April 1941), 173-183.

Eich, Louis M. "The Stage Yankee,“ Quarterly Journal gr_
Speech, XXVII (February 1941), 16-25.

Elliott, Rebert C. The Power gr Satire: Magic, Ritual, Art.
Princeton, 1960.

 

Ellis, Elmer. _M_r_. DooJrey's America: A Life gr Finley Peter
Dunne. New York, 1941.

Emanuel, James A. Langston Hughes. New'York, 1967.

Erasmus, Desiderius. The Praise gr Folly, ed., trans., intro.
Hoyt Hopewell Hudson. Princeton, 1941.

Esar, Evan. The Humor pr_Humor. New York, 1952.
Farb, Peter. Man's Rise Tg_Civilization. New York, 1968.
Feinberg, Leonard. Introduction :2 Satire. Ames, Iowa, 1967.

. The Satirist: His Temperament, Motivation, and
Influence. Ames, Iowa, 1963.

 

Ferguson, J. De Lancey. "American Humor: Roots or Flowers?“,
American Scholar, 4 (May 1935), 380-382.

. "The Roots of American Humor," American Scholar,
4 (January 1935), 41-49.

 

Filler, Louis. Crusaders for American Liberalism. Yellow
Springs, Ohio, 1950.

Ford, James L. "A Century of American Humor," unsey, XXV
(July 1901), 482-490.

Foucault, Michel. Madness and Civilization. New‘York, 1967.

Frazer, Sir James George. The Golden Bough: A Study r__Magi
and Religion. London, 1913.

Frye, Northrop. Anatomy pr Criticism. Princeton, 1957.

164

Fuller, thn Wesley. "A.Skillfu11 Jester: A.Review of Son
g; The Great Society," Christian Science Monitor (Octdber
18, 1966), 9.

Glenn, Stanley L. "Ludicrous Characterization in American
Comedy from the Beginning until the Civil War," Disserta-
tion Abstracts, XVI (1956), 400-401.

Goldsmith, RObert Hillis. Wise Fools ;m_Shakespeare. East
Lansing, Michigan, 1955.

Haliburton, Thomas Chandler. Traits pr_American Humor.
London, 1852.

Halline, Alan G. American Play . New York, 1935.

Harrington, Fred H. "Literary Aspects of American Anti-
Imperialism," New England Quarterly, X (December 1937),
650-667.

Heiserman, Arthur Ray. Skelton and Satire. Chicago, 1961.

Highet, Gilbert. The Anatomy gr Satire. Princeton, 1962.

Hill, Hamlin. "Modern American Humor: The Janus Laugh,"
College English, XXV (December 1963), 170-176.

Hodge, Francis. Yankee Theatre: The Image pr_America pm the
Stage, 1825-1850. Austin, Texas, 1963.

Hofstadter, Richard. The Age gr_Refonm: From Bryan pg.F.D.R.
New York, 1955.

Holliday, Carl. The Wit and Humor pr Colonial Day . New
York, 1960.

Howells, William Dean. "Certain of the Chicago School of
Fiction,” North American Review, 176 (May 1903), 371-382.

Hughes, Langston. The Best pr Simple. New York, 1961.

. The Book gr_Negro Humor. New‘York, 1966.

 

. I WOnder as I wander. New York. 1956.

 

. "The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain," The
Nation, 122 (June 23, 1926), 692-694.

 

. Simple Speaks His Mind. New'York, 1950.

 

. Simple Stakes §_C1aim. NGW’YOrk, 1957.

 

. Simple Takes §_Wife. New'York, 1953.

 

165
Hughes, Langston. Simple's Uncle Sam. New York, 1965.

. Simply Heavenly. New York, 1959.

 

. "White Folks Do the Funniest Things," Common
Ground, 4 (1944), 92-93.

 

Johnson, Gerald W. "Mr. Dooley's Creator," New Republic,
149 (December 21, 1963), 23.

JOhnson, Thomas H. Final Harvest: Emily Dickinson's Poems.
Boston, 1961.

Jehnston, Charles. "The Essence of American Humor," Atlantic,
87 (February 1901), 195-201.

Joly, John. "The Best of Buchwald--At Lunch Already,"
Detroit Free Press (May 18, 1969), 38-42.

Kaiser, walter. Praisers pr_Folly. Cambridge, Massachusetts,
1963.

Kaplan, Justin. Mr. Clemens and Mark Twain. New York, 1966.

Kernan, Alvin. The Cankered Muse; Satire of the English

Renarssamce. New Haven, 1959.

. .Modern Satire. New York, 1962.

 

 

. The Plot gr Satire. New Haven, 1965.

Landon, Melville D. Kings pr Platform and Pulpit. Chicago,
1890.

Leacock, Stephen. The Greatest Pages pr_American Humor.
Garden City, New York, 1936.

Lewin, Leonard C. "Politics and Pins: A Review of . . . And

(May 2,1965). 3, 30.

. A Treasury gr American Political Humor. New
York, 1968.

 

Lowell, James Russell. The Biglow Papers. Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, 1862.

Lynn, Kenneth S. The Comic Tradition in America. Garden

City, New York, 1958.

. Mark Twain and Southwestern Humor. Boston, 1959.

 

166
Macaree, N. David. “The Study of Humorous Fiction and The
Education pr_H*Y*M*A:N.K*A*P*L*A*N," English Journal, 57
(March 1968), 334-338.

Marx, Leo. The Machine rm_the Garden: Technorpgy and the
Pastoral Ideal rm_America. New York, 1967.

Matthews, Albert. “Brother Jonathan,” Publications gr the
Colonial Society gr_Massachusetts, VII (1900-1902), 94-
122.

Miller, Perry, and Thomas H. thnson. The Puritans: A
Sourcebook gr Their Writings. Vol. I. NGW'YOrk, 1963.

Moody, Richard. America Takes rg_the Stage. Bloomington,
Indiana, 1955.

Mott, Frank L. History gr American Magazines. Vol. III.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1938.

Nye, Russel Blaine. The Cultural Life gr_the New Narion:
1776-1830. New York, 1960.

Pattee, F.L. The New American Literature. New York, 1930.
Paulson, Ronald. The Fictions gr Satire. Baltimore, 1967.

Peterson, Merrill D. The Jeffersonian Image rm_the American
Mind. New York, 1962.

Presley, James. "The American Dream of Langston Hughes,"
Southwest Review, XLVIII (Autumn 1963), 380-386.

Priestly, JOhn B. The English Comic Characters. London,
1925.

Quinn, Arthur Hobson. A History pr_the American Drama. 2
vols. New York, 1951.

. Representative American Plays: 1767-1923. New
York, 1925.

 

Quinn, James J., Jr. "The Jonathan Character in the American
Drama," Dissertation Abstracts, XV (1955), 2193-2194.

Redding, J. Saunders. "What It Means to be Colored: A Review

11, 1950), 13.

Reed, Perley Isaac. The Realistic Presentation of American

Characters rm_Native American Plays Prior rg_1870. Colum-
bus, Ohio, 1918.

167

Rexroth, Kenneth. “The Decline of American Humor," The
Nation, 184 (April 27, 1957), 374-376.

Rice, Eugene F., Jr. The Renaissance Idea of Wisdom.

Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1958.

Riordon, William L. Plunkitt gr_Tammany Hall. New York,
1948.

Rogge, Heinz. "Die Figur des Simple im werke von Langston
Hughes," Die Neuren Sprachen, 12 (1955), 555-566.

Ross, Leonard Q. The Education gr_H*Y*M*A*N K*A*P*L*A*N
New York, 1965.

 

Rosten, Leo C. "The Broads Were Very Skinny, or Pop Art,
Shmop Art, Leave Me Alone," Harpers, 231 (October 1965),
90-91.

q

oys gr Yiddish. New York, 1968.

 

 

Many WOrlds pr_Leo Rosten. NGW’YOIK, 1964.

I? I? |’:—.?1

Return pr_H*Y*M*A*N K*A*P#L*Af§, New York,

 

1959.

. "Wallop Yon Horse with a Parachute," Lodk, 30
(March 8, 1966), 16.

 

Roth, George. "American Theory of Satire: 1790-1820,"
Amerrgan Lmterature, 29 (January 1958), 399-407.

Rourke, Constance. American Humor: A Study 23 the National
Character. Garden City, New York, 1953.

. "Examining the Roots of American Humor," Ameri-
can Scholar, 4 (March 1935), 249-252.

 

. The Roots of American Culture. New York, 1942.

 

Rovit, Earl. "Jewish Humor and American Life,” American
Scholar, XXXVI (Spring 1967), 237-245.

Sand, Maurice. The History gr.the Harlegpinade. London,
1915.

Seldes, Gilbert V. The Seven Lively Arts. New York, 1957.
Sewell, Elizabeth. The Field gr Nonsense. London, 1952.

Smith, Winifred. The Commedia Dell' Arte. New York, 1964.

168

Spencer, Benjamin T. The Quest For Nationality. Syracuse,
New York, 1957.

Sterling, Philip. Laughing pm the Outside: The Intelligent
White Reader's Guide pp Negro Tales and Humor. New York,
1965. ,

Swain, Barbara. Fools and Folly During the Middle Ages and
the Renaissance. New York, 1932.

Sypher, wylie. Comedy. Garden City, New York, 1956.

Tandy, Jennette. Qrackerbox Philosophers 12 American Humor
and Satire. New York, 1925.

Thompson, Stith. Motif Index of Folk Literature. 6 vols.

Bloomington, Indiana, 1955.
Thorp, Willard. American Humorists. Minneapolis, 1964.

Twain, Mark. The Autobiography gr Mark Twain, ed. Charles
Neider. New York, 1961.

. "How To Tell a Story," in Joe Lee Davis, John
T. Frederick, and Frank Luther Mott. American Literature,
gm Antholggy and Critical Survey. Chicago, 1949, pp.
304-307.

 

. The Innocents Abroad. New York, 1966.

 

Untermeyer, Louis. "A Naturalized Natural: A Review of The
Return gr_H*Y*M*A*N K*A*P*L*A*N," Saturday Review, 16
(August 21, 1957), 5.

ward, JOhn‘William. Andrew Jackson: Symbor For gm Age.
New York, 1962.

Welsford, Enid. The Fool; His Social and Literary History.
Gloucester, Massachusetts, 1966.

Wolfe, Burton H. "Arthur Hoppe: The Return of the Newspaper
Satirist,“ North American Review; 2 (September 1965), 10-
21.

Worcester, David. The Art gr Satire. NEW’YOrk, 1960.

wyman, Mary A. Two American Pioneers: Seba Smith and Eliza-
beth Oakes Smith. New York, 1927. ‘

Yates, Norris W. The American Humorist: Conscience of the

Twentrgth Century. New York, 1965.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
1|HIWWIIWIWMWIWW'I'INWIIIWIWM1|
31293010732919