In “To Expose a Fool,” Henry L. Mencken is arguing many things at once in this “savage obituary”: evolution over creationism, the danger of the spread of Fundamentalism, and even the necessity of a secular presidency. Most of all, Mencken is arguing that William Jennings Bryan is a fool. Mencken’s fiery hatred of that “charlatan, mountebank, zany without sense or dignity” is evident in this article.
While this “obituary” is not the respectful type normally seen in newspapers, it does still follow the basic idea of an obituary. Mencken describes who Bryan was: “the most sedulous flycatcher in American history…his quarry Homo neandertalensis;” what he enjoyed: “people who sweated freely, and were not debauched by the refinements of the toilet;” and what his legacy was: the mass increase of Fundamentalists, to the point where “heave an egg out of a Pullman window, and you will hit a Fundamentalist almost anywhere in the US.”
Mencken starts his article out in a different tone than he ends it in; it goes from irritated but amused to livid. It’s as if Mencken tried to write this article in a detached way but could not hold in his true outrage. He lets his angry words flow until the last paragraph when he seems to gain control over his emotions and again writes in an indifferent tone. Mencken starts the article out in a way that, while degrading to Bryan, does not contain the venom of the insults in the last paragraphs. He is very detached when he first asks “Has it been duly marked by historians that William Jennings Bryan's last secular act on this globe of sin was to catch flies?”
Mencken uses references to Christianity in his article in order to make fun of Bryan and even religion itself. When talking about Bryan’s near success in the presidential polls, which Mencken calls a narrow escape for the people of the US, Mencken uses a religious reference to emphasize the necessary secularity of government: “the President of the United States doesn’t believe… that witches should be put to death, and that Jonah swallowed the whale. The Golden Text is not painted weekly on the White House wall.” His statement that “Jonah swallowed the whale” is a deliberate misinterpretation of the bible story in which a whale swallows a man. This slight mix-up resulting in an impossible, but humorous, act shows Mencken’s belief that the bible has ridiculous, impossible stories and that Christian beliefs are impossible, too. Also, Mencken makes a reference to the medieval Christian practice of keeping relics, and the preposterous belief that they possessed magical restorative powers when he says “if the village barber saved any of [Bryan’s] hair, then it is curing gall-stones down there today.”
He also alludes to the evolution of humans from primates with a few carefully, but seemingly innocuous, phrases. When talking about Bryan speaking to country people about religion, Mencken describes the scene as Bryan being “surrounded by gaping primates.” Later in that same paragraph, Mencken mentions that Bryan was more comfortable around rural folk, that “the simian gabble of a country town was not gabble to him.” This shows Mencken’s belief that the evidence of evolution is obvious and numerous.
Based on what Mencken says in second section of this article, his hatred of Bryan seems to stem not just from a difference in religious beliefs but also because of Bryan’s insincerity. Mencken asks questions which show Bryan’s opposing attitudes and feelings towards one event to highlight Bryan’s indecision and two-facedness. As Mencken says “if [Bryan] was sincere, then so was P.T. Barnum,” ─P.T. Barnum being a famous scam artist in the 1800s. However, Mencken does sometimes seem to grudgingly respect Bryan when he says Bryan prepared for “a jacquerie that should floor all his enemies at one blow. He did the job competently.”
This article shows the intense debate of evolution versus intelligent design as the creation of the existence. It was written soon after the Scope’s trial, where a teacher was on trial for teaching evolution instead of religion’s beliefs in his classroom. William Jennings Bryan was on the prosecution and Mencken’s friend, Clarence Darrow, was on the defense. When Bryan died a few days after the trial, Mencken felt that it was necessary to write this article to express his feelings toward Bryan in this obituary of sorts. I don't think Mencken was particularly persuasive because he was not trying to be persuasive. He wanted to express his feelings toward Bryan and show that Bryan's death was not a hardship to him, not try to convince his readers of anything. He does make his beliefs toward religion and evolution clear but I don't get the impression that he is trying very hard to convince anyone that he is right. He believes what he believes whether or not anyone else agrees with him.
I couldn't agree more with what you wrote. The evidence provided is alone enough to see Mencken's intentions, even without common sense. It was clear that Mencken was not fond of Bryan. The clearest of the insults come at the beginning of the article when Mencken constantly puts down either Bryan or Christianity, making statements describing Bryan being "surrounded by gaping primates," dismissing divine creation and speaking as though evolution is the only explanation.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you later on in your analysis that Mencken was not trying to prove anything, rather show people his opinion on Bryan and Christianity.
I also agree that your analysis was excellent. You carefully examines the flow of Mencken’s writing from “irritated but amused to livid.” That is a perfect description. H.L. Mencken’s scathing attack on William Jennings Bryant in his essay “To Expose a Fool” puts modern political pundits to shame (yes, even Ann Coulter). Mencken’s writing is so clever and articulate and the images that he creates are so vivid, that the reader almost forgets to be repulsed at the hatred and calumny contained in this article. The sneering tone of the article implies that anyone who actually agrees with Bryan, or for that matter, lives a country lifestyle is a “yokel” and “anthropoid rabble.” Highly revered as a voice of “reason” by the younger generation in the 1920s, his stinging words were most likely received with enthusiastic endorsement. He was a popular satirical writer and well known for his coverage of the Scopes “Monkey Trial.” Mencken was an intellectual, an atheist and an elitist who was not enamored of populist democracy. His distaste of all things Southern was evident in his writing (even though his beloved wife was from the South). Mencken’s attitudes influenced young college students across the country as he disparaged the “old” and promoted a more cynical, non-religious and urban point of view through his magazine, American Mercury, one of the most influential of its time. This article reveals the ongoing antagonism between modern intellectuals of the 1920s and the more conservative rural residents of America as typified in the heated debate of evolution over creationism.
ReplyDelete