Mar 31, 2011

Annie Besant's Use of Irony

For Phase 3 of the Archival Project, I decided to discuss Besant's use of irony in her pamphlet "Is the Bible Indictable?" and how it further strengthens her argument. In this work, Besant seems to be arguing exactly why the interpretation of obscenity, in reference to her and Bradlaugh's publishing of Knowlton's book on birth control, cannot and should not be tolerated. She does this by reiterating the implications of the law in her case and applying it to other works that were circulated at the time which would never be prosecuted with such a charge.

Throughout this pamphlet, she utilizes the concept of irony to strengthen her argument. Killingsworth, in his chapter "Appeal Through Tropes", defines irony as, "a trope that involves inversions and reversals. It turns standard meanings and expectations upside down. It often involves saying one thing and meaning another" (131). This can be seen when she discusses the differing legal treatment with expensive medical books describing birth control and the cheap book by Knowlton covering the same topic. She says, "Poor people must be content to remain ignorant... weathier people, who want knowledge less, are to be protected by the law in their purchases of medical works" (Besant 4). Certainly, she does not believe this to be the literal truth. She is exaggerating the message the government seems to be sending with the charge of obscenity against Knowlton's book and not other more expensive medical books and, in doing so, allows for the reader to more clearly see the absurdity of the law.

Near the beginning of the article, she also points out several renowned authors (such as Shakespeare, Swift, and Byron) and states, "Every one of these great names is now branded as obscene, and under the ruling of the Lord Chief Justice, every one of them must be condemned" (Besant 7). Clearly, no one would actually advocate the banning of such great authors. She is not literally calling for their condemnation, but again rather pointing out the absurdity of the possible implications the law has. While no one would want to bring a charge against these works, Besant is cleverly pointing out that if the law was to be interpreted literally, they could certainly be considered obscene.

Her most prominent example of a book that may be considered obscene, which is probably deducible from the pamphlet title, is that of the Bible. For several pages, Besant points out numerous quotes from the Bible that could very well fit into the definition of obscenity that the courts have set. This example is the most effective, considering there would be a major upset if the courts dared to actually follow the letter of the law and prosecute a book considered sacred among many of the English people.

After thoroughly proving that certain sections of the Bible could fit the definition of obscenity, Besant says, "I invite our police authorities to show their sense of justice by prosecuting the people who circulate this indictable book, thereby doing all that in them lies to vitiate and corrupt the morals of the young" (14). It is important to note the ultimate function of irony that she is using in this instance. As Killingsworth says, irony "[brings] 'I' and 'you' into alignment under the banner of shared values... to create a plural first persona, a 'we'-- and then to designate a third persona, 'them.' 'We' stand against 'them,' the oppressors or their accomplices" (132). The 'we' obviously agrees that the Bible, in addition to the aforementioned authors, should not be obstructed by the law from being published. She designates the authorities as the oppressors who have the potential to deem any of these works obscene and prevent their circulation.

In the last paragraph of her piece, Besant makes it very clear that she has been utilizing irony by making her actual intentions known. She says, "I do not urge that the Bible should be prosecuted; I do urge that it is indictable under the present ruling; and I plead, further, taht this very fact shows how the present ruling is against the public weal" (15). She has united her audience by previously calling for the prosecution of these books, which certainly caused a feeling of outrage in them. Instead of making herself the detestable person that would call for the prosecution of these books, she shifts the blame to the third persona of the authorities who have worded the letter of the law to make these works vulnerable to such an action.

--

In my final paper, I am looking to address the issue that Besant brings up in "Is the Bible Indictable?" which is the dependence on audience when considering the obscenity of the work. The government seems to have no interest in restraining the information the rich receive but do seem alright with interfering with the poor's rights to knowledge. I most likely will be looking at other works in the Freethought collection at the Lilly Library to further explore this topic. Secondary sources will come in handy to enhance my understanding of the laws in place in England during Besant's lifetime.

2 comments:

Courtney Rishel said...

Hey. I love your idea for the paper. That was really interesting with Besant. I was doing research on the Little Blue Books, and in a bio of Haldeman-Julius and his family I found that his son, who had taken over the company, was arrested for obscenity in, I believe, the mid 1900s while he was continuing his father's work in printing cheap literature (price not content) for the public. I'm not sure if this will help, but I found it interesting.
Good Luck!

Anonymous said...

I am actually quite impressed that you pulled all this together. I like the idea of taking such a delicate subject that uses a religious text to highlight the wrongdoings of the government. I think your paper will be very interesting to read. Maybe if you could talk more about how the Bible influences all of this, I was hoping for more. Very interesting!

Post a Comment