nursery rhyme in chrysalis
Jan. 21st, 2003 07:23 amSo I'm reading Pepys's entry for 20 Jan, and the annotation expanding on the Thing with General Monk has this doggerel:
"Monk under a hood, not well understood,
The City pull in their horns;
The Speaker is out, and sick of the gout,
And the Parliament sit upon thorns.”
--Rugge's 'Diurnal.'--B."
Dunno who Rugge is, or what his "Diurnal" might be, or what "B" is supposed to mean (I said I was out of period here), but this did make me, for the first time, properly understand how political jingles turned into nursery rhymes. I mean, yes, I understood intellectually that it happened, but it was one of those things I knew without actually being able to make sense of. But now I get it.
And 'cause this is the kind of geek I am, right at the moment, I'm in love with this, with the pun on monkshood and the image of London as a snail, and that fabulous last line: "And the Parliament sit upon thorns." (Fantastic! says Elijah Wood in the back of my head.) It doesn't take much to make me happy (first rule of surviving grad school: be self-entertaining and easily amused), but this is an unexpected pick-me-up at 7:30 a.m. Which I needed.
Now, what I want to know is, when and how did our culture lose this ability? Why don't we get nasty little jingles about Dubya? 'Cause, frankly, I think our political system would be the better for a healthy dose of doggerel.
And, just because, here's my other favorite political jingle that didn't make it into Mother Goose:
The Cat, the Rat, and Lovell our Dog
Ruled all England under a Hog.
"Monk under a hood, not well understood,
The City pull in their horns;
The Speaker is out, and sick of the gout,
And the Parliament sit upon thorns.”
--Rugge's 'Diurnal.'--B."
Dunno who Rugge is, or what his "Diurnal" might be, or what "B" is supposed to mean (I said I was out of period here), but this did make me, for the first time, properly understand how political jingles turned into nursery rhymes. I mean, yes, I understood intellectually that it happened, but it was one of those things I knew without actually being able to make sense of. But now I get it.
And 'cause this is the kind of geek I am, right at the moment, I'm in love with this, with the pun on monkshood and the image of London as a snail, and that fabulous last line: "And the Parliament sit upon thorns." (Fantastic! says Elijah Wood in the back of my head.) It doesn't take much to make me happy (first rule of surviving grad school: be self-entertaining and easily amused), but this is an unexpected pick-me-up at 7:30 a.m. Which I needed.
Now, what I want to know is, when and how did our culture lose this ability? Why don't we get nasty little jingles about Dubya? 'Cause, frankly, I think our political system would be the better for a healthy dose of doggerel.
And, just because, here's my other favorite political jingle that didn't make it into Mother Goose:
The Cat, the Rat, and Lovell our Dog
Ruled all England under a Hog.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-22 02:56 pm (UTC)I made one up in 1991, which I was reminded of when Zorinth came in and wanted help getting his sweater off -- too many layers. It's a putting sweater on or off a kid rhyme:
"Saddam Hussein, " said Madame Hussein,
when he came back from his levies (leave-ees)
"Saddam Hussein," said Madame Hussein,
"Keep your armies up your sleevies!"
I made up a ton of nursery rhymes when Zorinth was a baby, but I don't think any of the others were even remotely political. That one was in bad taste then, and is in worse taste now, oh dear.
I would guess we stopped doing it as a culture when we stopped finding rhyme a natural means of expression, as a culture, though when I look at advertising jingles, maybe not.
In The Lore and Language of Schoolchildren (Peter and Iona Opie can't give you year because I lent it to someone who isn't likely to give it back, alas,) they quote a number of rhymes about contemporary politics, but as adaptations of older rhymes, like:
"Hark the herald angels sing
Mrs. Simpson's pinched our king."
(They are absurdly memorable, I'll say that for them.)
no subject
Date: 2003-01-22 05:09 pm (UTC)Daughter of Time, which I first read long before I could tell John Webster from John Fletcher.
In case anyone cares about the minutiae of periodization in English literature:
[geek]
The borders of "early modern" vary dramatically depending on who you ask. 1483 (Battle of Bosworth) is one terminus post quem; another is 1558 (Elizabeth's ascension). Termini ad quem range from 1642 (beginning of the Civil War) to 1648 (trial--and beheading, in 1649--of Charles I), 1660 (Restoration of Charles II), or 1674 (death of Milton. My personal expertise--as in, ask me a question, and I may not end up gaping like a stranded goldfish--runs roughly from 1588 (defeat of the Spanish Armada) to 1660 (Restoration).
[/geek]
I think what we lost, somewhere along the way, is the idea of verse as a vehicle for satire. At least, that's my tenuous and unsupported theory.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-23 08:33 am (UTC)As for The Daughter of Time, me too. I read it when I was about 13 from the school library.