Has political satire fallen into decline?

As we continue our discussion in class about Jonathan Swift and his peers, Pope and Dryden, etc.  It has occurred to me that we don't see much of their style of wit, that humorous and at times biting political satire, except in dark dusty corners and in editorial comics.  Why has political satire faded into semi-obscurity, relegated to black and white lines and droll text on the bone grey pages of starving newspapers? Perhaps as a culture we have become too concerned with political correctness to enjoy a good satirical verse.  Of course poetry itself is a neglected shadow of it's former robust self.  So maybe the two are entwined?  Satire and poetry strolling hand-in-hand down into the dark mire of obscurity, with it's mistress, reading, limping along behind them.

Certainly there are satirists in our age who perhaps can match wits with those of old. Most are content with commentary on politics from a safe distance however.  Avoiding the ire of the politician shepherds and their flocks of adoring sheep.  Perhaps this is because the sheep turn into ravening beasts when their favorites are brought under scrutiny.  The were-sheep prowl the fields of political satire, ensuring that no wolves can vex the politician shepherd. So the satirical wolves must content themselves with letting fly their sharp arrows of wit from behind the walls of obscurity. Hoping that the were-sheep followers don't sniff them out, clamor over the wall and devour them in their ravening lust to protect the almighty shepherd and his crook of political correctness.

Perhaps we will see a return to the days when a Swift, a Pope, a Wollstonecraft and their progeny can once again provide our culture with a wider view of our failings, perhaps make us laugh at ourselves once in a while, and nod our heads in agreement that change can be accomplished.  I hope to live to see that time, perhaps be part of it in a meaningful way, for true change comes from those who are willing to admit that we are not perfect, and see the truth behind the lines of a satirical verse.

Jonathan Swift was many things, a great writer, a man of great satirical wit and a master of irony, but lest we forget he was also a critic.  His scathing denunciations of great writers such as Daniel Defoe and Eliza Haywood had sometimes profound effect on the careers of many of his peers.  Yet, the "Dean," as he was sometimes known, was not immune to the effects of criticism. Quite the contrary. Many of Swifts most well known works were, at the time of their publishing, basted with ample quantities of critical scorn.  Swift was certainly in good company however since writers have always been subject to the scornful slaughter of their critical peers as well as more recently professional critics.  In this sense, the critics play the role of the Fates of ancient Greek mythology.

Critics had (and often still have) the power of life and death over literary works.  Once the Critic-Fates passed their decree the Muse inspired author could only accept the inevitable and hope for an afterlife for his or her doomed literary work.  In many cases, the fate which the critics ordained passed an irrevocable death sentence on the the author's career, and though that author may continue to write, nothing they produce is likely to raise their reputation from the murky depths of Hades until years after they and (more significantly) the critics have truly gone to rest within the abode of the god of the underworld for eternity.  For unlike the Fates of Greek mythology, the judgments handed down by the Fates of Literature sometimes are rescinded by the next generation of critics.  So in this sense, the Literary Fates are more powerful than those three mythological goddesses of Greek legend.

Take for example Daniel Defoe, who during his life saw his legacy tarnished by the scathing criticism of the mighty Alexander Pope and the deity of divine satire, Swift.  With the passing of a few generations Defoe's fate was reversed, in a twist of irony which Swift would have envied,  he was elevated to the pantheon of immortals and became one of the gods of Literature along with those who had passed judgment upon him only 60 or 70 years earlier. Ah how fickle the divine literary of fates can be! To bring an end; the moral of this story is this simple--writers, write well, and don't fear the frightful pen of Literary Fates, the critics, who may damn you for a a year, a decade, or even a century, but if you write well, the Fates may one day come to exonerate you, nay perhaps even venerate you.

18th c. Criminal Justice - The Price of Petty Crime

Criminal justice for petty crime in 18th century England was hard, and swift. The Old Bailey Online site has countless instances of convictions from documented cases from various court records of the time. I've included below, excerpts from a selection of interesting petty theft cases with the verdict and punishment.

SOME SAMPLE CASES OF THOSE RESEARCHED

28th August 1700 - "Rebecca Maud , of the Parish of Stepny , was Indicted for Felony and Burglary, for breaking the House of Thomas Mead , on the 24th of day of August last, about two in the Night, and taking thence a pair of Worsted Stockings, and 5 blew Aprons, 2 Plates, a Copper Sauce Pan, and other Goods."  Rebecca Maud pleaded her belly, but was found to be without child and transported for a 7 year term.

In this case the woman was considered an "old criminal" her pleading her "belly" resulted in what probably was a stay of her sentence until they could determine the truth of her plea, then as noted she was found to be lying and was transported as an indentured servant for 7 years.

12th July 1721 - "Samuel Dexter was indicted for a Misdemeanour, in breaking and entring a Cobler's Stall adjoyning to the Dwelling-House of Samuel Trowel , with an intent to Steal. The Prisoner in his Defence said that he was drunk, and the Stall being open he went in to Sleep, intending to go home to his Master in the Morning Francis Nicholas deposed that the Prisoner was his Servant ; that he ran away from him a Week before Easter; and is a dangerous Person. The Jury found him Guilty . Fined Ten Marks ."

Dexter was found guilty, based on the word of his former master and his apparent intent to break into a stall and steal, though he stole nothing.  Since this was a misdemeanor crime he was only fined. Note: that 10 marks was equivalent to just over 6 £ sterling, which would have been a pretty large sum of money for a run away apprentice.

11th September, 1734 - William Howard , was indicted for breaking and entering the House of Thomas Taylor , and stealing a Coat, Waistcoat, and Breeches, 3 pair of Shoes, 3 Shirts, 2 Smocks, a pair of Boots, 2 Hats, 3 Wigs, 2 Tea-Spoons, 5 Dishes, 11 Plates, 3 Spoons, and 2 Brass-candlesticks, the Goods of Thomas Taylor ; and other Things, the Properties of divers Persons, May 5 . in the Night time. The Jury found him Guilty . Death .

In Howard's case above, he stole quite a lot of small items from one home, and other unknown items from other victims in what amounted to a one night crime spree. The website entry shows various testimonies as they were transcribed at the time, the man apparently boasted of his crimes to others.  Though the document does not give the value of the items taken, they seem even with the large number listed to be fairly petty items, yet the man was sentenced to death (probably by public hanging).

11th July 1750 - Mary Kelley , late of Fulham , was indicted for breaking and entering the dwelling house of Henry Holland , and stealing from thence five copper sauce-pans, value 12 s. one brass saucepan and one brass kettle, value 12 d. the goods of the said Henry. Sentenced to be transported for a term of 7 years.

Mary Kelley's theft indictment was for a fairly small amount and value of items compared to many of the entries I read (not all of those are listed here).  Since she was only convicted of the felony which probably was her attempt to sell stolen property, she was sentenced to be transported.  Had she been convicted of the theft as well she may very well have been sentenced to death, though that would also have depended upon what her criminal record was prior to this.

THOUGHTS CONCERNING 18TH CENTURY CRIMINAL JUSTICE

I found a few interesting things in my research: 

First, there were a surprising number of women indicted, particularly in the early part of the century when it seems there was a great deal of "petty" crime committed by women.  As the century progressed the names of women appear less frequently.  Whether this is due to some sort of cultural trend, that is women quit resorting to theft, or some other unknown factors is beyond the scope of this post.

Second, in our reading of Moll Flanders there is the impression that death was frequently the verdict in most cases of theft, even petty theft.  Yet, in the cases I show above and the many others I reviewed, the most common sentence appears to be transportation, it seems that the English were more interested in removing the problem from British soil than in actually hanging a thief.

In general, the crimes were pretty minor by our standards today, but punishment was seemingly quite harsh.  Though a person probably would have been grateful for a verdict of transport, it still meant indentured servitude for a number of years (usually 7) with no way of knowing what sort of master they would have once they were taken to the New World.  It was just as likely that the master would be a man of good morals or of bad, and that in the case of the bad ones, whipping, beatings and perhaps worse would be a common thing.  Moreover, the more disreputable masters may not give up their free labor at the end of the term, finding some excuse or another to keep the person in bondage.

18th CENTURY COMPARED TO TODAY'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

It seems clear that today's system is much more lenient in its handling of pretty criminals.  Frequently first and even second offenders, if convicted, are let off with a fine and probation.  Partly this leniency is due to prison overcrowding in many states.  Those who are incarcerated are treated fairly, in relatively clean conditions, which falls in line with our much more liberal ideas concerning criminal reform.  Criminals of the 18th could expect no "breaks" even for petty crimes the judiciary felt that strict and severe punishment was the best course of action in deterring crime.  Naturally, transported convicts were, for the most part, not going to cause further problems in England for at least 7 years (unless they escaped and returned to England, in which case if they caught again they were probably swiftly executed).  The question is, did the more harsh treatment really inhibit crime? Does punishing a criminal ever really change the crime rate? This is the question which we still ask today, and for which there seems to be no easy answer.  What do you think?