In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Difficile est saturam non scribere: L’Herméneutique de la satire rabelaisienne
  • John Parkin
Difficile est saturam non scribere: L’Herméneutique de la satire rabelaisienne. By Bernd Renner. (Études rabelaisiennes, 45). Geneva, Droz, 2007. 384 pp. Hb €77.42.

This landmark study represents the fullest treatment yet accorded to Rabelaisian satire, offering as its main argument a case whereby predominantly monologic satires, exemplified, say, in the legal farce of the Baisecul-Humevesne hearing, are replaced progressively by a plural satire ménippéenne, from which univocal messages are excluded to the advantage of the reader who, in responding, for instance, to the far more complex case of the judge Bridoye, ‘arrivera [. . .] à ses propres conclusions’ (p. 310). The complexities of the very term satire are fully respected, and Renner’s comprehensive study of Renaissance debts to its antique and medieval traditions is most welcome, particularly in the examination of Marot’s coq-à-l’âne, where the dialogic patterns favoured by Rabelais’ later volumes already appear. Nestling within this notion of an increasingly complex satiric mode, however, we find the well-worn theme whereby a key pattern is the progressive marginalization of Panurge (‘entièrement relégué au second plan’ as of Quart livre c. 33), along with Rabelais’ supposed rejection of le bas corporel once Pantagruel is an established hero: Gargamelle’s diarrhée (?) prior to Gargantua’s birth has positive connotations; Epistémon’s rush to the jakes during the Homenaz feast is entirely negative. So while establishing, laudably, Rabelais’ sense of reader freedom (manifest, say, in the unresolved ambiguities of the Enigme en prophétie or the open verdict on Bridoye), Renner insists, following Screech and Duval, that we assess his key comic hero in a predetermined manner. Hence, the final paragraph of the Quart livre amounts to an ‘échec total’ rather than that positive toast audible in Panurge’s injunction, ‘Sela! Beuvons!’ Moreover is Panurge ‘laid et méprisable’ (p. 231) in his ingenious interpretations of the oracles’ pronouncements, or when admitting to Frère Jean that those same interpretations are wrong, or when triumphing so gloriously over Dindenault, or when praising God in Quart livre c. 65? This contradiction whereby an avowedly plural text, progressively enhancing its reader’s initiative, is nonetheless subjected to a univocal reading is acknowledged when Renner admits that the fou remains an ambiguous character. Yet he still insists on the ‘univocitéabsolue du sot’ (p. 318), despite having conceded that ‘le déclin de Panurge’ remains relative (p. 266). The notion of a plural satire quite explains such confusions, but the approach must logically legitimize anyone who would redeem Panurge, be it for his lovable weaknesses or via the collective loyalty and tolerance of the group to which he remains integral. Praise is deserved for such a thorough and ground-breaking treatment of Rabelais’ satire, yet satire remains only one among various comic modes, and Renner’s reference to Bergson on ‘le rire’ (p. 131 n.) masks the omission of various fuller treatments (by Quesnel, Bowen, Weinberg, etc.). His own text is not without its coquilles (and its occasional anglicisms), but the chroniques themselves are cited with almost unerring accuracy. Moreover, Renner’s broad perspective, whereby ‘c’est au lecteur qu’incombe la tâche d’interpréter les [End Page 204] diverses données qu’il a sous les yeux’ (p. 353), surely guarantees that the riches he finds within them will yield us further profit.

John Parkin
University of Bristol
...

pdf

Share