HUMOUR AND MORALITY IN THE WORKS OF D.J. ENRIGHT

Abstract

This dissertation investigates the poetry of D.J. Enright. It seeks an answer to the question, "Why does Enright's poetry have a buoyancy and lightness, combined with a principled moral stance, which is not characteristic of his contemporaries?" Gavin Ewart and AD. Hope are chosen as contemporaries with whom to compare Enright. Hope shares Enright's deep knowledge of European culture and both have pursued academic careers; Ewart shares Enright's familiarity with the British cultural, literary and political scene. But Hope's poetry savages the common man, and even more woman, while Ewart's poetry, dwelling on sadism and instinctive sexuality, is arguably even bleaker. Both are representative examples of successful poets whose work contrasts so strongly with Enright's in tone and reading of human nature that a comparative reading may be expected to illuminate Enright's distinctiveness. An initial comparison confirms Enright's relative optimism. Hope is found to have different moral principles but a similar moral seriousness to Enright, and very little humour. Ewart is found to have none of Enright's moral seriousness, but to share some of Enright' s entertainment value. An investigation of the three poets' use of satire shows Hope to be the most satirical, condemning contemporary Australian society as shallow. Ewart makes only limited use of satire, having no moral basis from which to ridicule social conduct. Enright's satire is a minor element of his work, directed at minor targets. An explanation for Enright's lack of satire is sought in his humanism. Hope is found to be contemptuous of common humanity, placing a high value instead on art, heroes and gods, and seeing the evolutionary processes of nature operating through sexual reproduction as stronger and more important than the individual. It follows that Hope has a basis for satirical comment on contemporary society. Ewart is found to have a low regard for human beings, emphasising their animal, sexual and sadistic natures. Enright's sympathy for human beings, it is argued, is a fundamental theme of his poetry which explains the relative absence of satire in his work. Use is then made of Donald Davie's criticism of Enright, because Davie argues that Enright' s sense of an obligation to be both humorous and moral, stands in the way of his poetic achievement. Given the subject of this dissertation, this charge is seen as a fundamental one and is discussed in detail. Enright' s humour (by contrast with Ewart's) is found to have a purpose in illuminating aspects of experience which have a 'poetic' or 'religious' aspect (neither word being adequate), and particularly in connecting the mundane with the 'poetic', 'religious' or 'eternal'. A brief consideration of Enright's free verse and prose forms shows how much he contrasts with Hope and Ewart, both in theory and practice, and suggests reasons for the appropriateness and success of Enright's forms. In conclusion, Enright' s humanism and relevance to ordinary life are seen to combine with his use of humour as a poetic catalyst to produce a body of work which is valuable and deservedly popular.