To write a parody requires that an author treads a fine line. A good parody is as much a celebration of another’s work, as it is a shot across the bows. A good parodist strives towards their art with a love of the source material, rather than seeks to merely lampoon. Bad parody on the other hand tends more towards the mean spirited and on occasion seeks to be offensive for the sake of causing offence.

The latter of these is where some critics believe Dear Edgar’s ‘A Tale of Jerusalem’ falls, and it is cited as an example of why Poe earned a reputation as a mean spirited and harsh, even venomous, literary critic. Indeed, his reputation as a critic was far greater than his reputation as an author in his own right for the majority of his career. A reputation he certainly earned, and which made him less than popular among his peers. However to dismiss ‘A tale of Jerusalem’ as nothing more than a mean spirited parody is far too easy.

First off, a little context. You can’t call something a mean-spirited parody without knowing what is being parodied in the first place. This is something of an issue and rather prosaic, because the chances of a modern reader having read the novel being parodied are virtually negligible. Horace Smith’s 1829 novel, ‘Zillah, a Tale of the Holy City’, has been effectively out of print for over a century and a half despite it being a popular novel of it’s time. Popular enough to be a subject of Parody by our own Dear Edgar.

Thanks to the wonders of the modern age, the likes of The Gutenberg Project and industrial scanners ‘Zillah, a Tale of the Holy City’ has actually been brought back to life. You can track it down for free on google books if you so desire. You can even get ‘copies’ of the novel in paperback via the great south american river corporation, as some enterprising individual, of dubious moral’s, has recreated it using poor quality scans of the original printed text, thanks to the broad pretext of intellectual ownership allowed by public domain and copyright laws. Not that there is anything wrong with doing that but they could at least actually typeset the book and done a proper modern edition, rather than the bare minimum in the hope of a fast buck…

Despite its internet age availability, judging by the number of reviews its hasn’t received on any of the platforms it currently lingers in the half life of zombie availability, it is probably a safe bet to say that next to no one has read this once popular novel in years, in much the same way no one will be reading Dan Brown’s inexplicably popular novels of the 1990’s in a hundred years time…

Least-ways, we can hope…

Smith’s novel, ‘or more correctly novels as it is in four volumes of 380 odd pages a piece,’ you can reasonably say, hasn’t really stood the test of time. its parody however is still around because its author went on to write bigger and better things… It would however be unfair to review this short story without knowing the source material. Thus I have of course sat down and read all 1463 pages of Mr Smiths grand opus set in The Holy Land fifty years before Christ amidst the Roman invasion and later occupation…

Except of course I didn’t, it sounds dreadfully dull and frankly I’ll pass. In stead I decided to read a synopsis on line, which I couldn’t find as no one has read the book for over a century and a half, about the best you get is this…

“Zillah: A Tale of the Holy City” follows the adventures of a Jewish girl in Jerusalem during the 2nd Temple era.

Not a glowing indictment of a novel effectively longer than Wart and Peace is it… But back to Poe.

As is the way of parody Poe lifted the basis of his story directly from the novel. Characters, though names were altered, are recognisable to readers of the original, as indeed are whole sentences lifted from the original text… Of course having not read the original text I have no idea which ones but what you gonna do? However as the original was still a poplar novel when this story was first published the original readers were very much in on the jokes, in a way the modern reader is not…

That said, the basic story and importantly the subtext remains funny, in the way Monty Python’s Life of Brian is funny. Indeed it is not difficult to imagine Mr’s Cleese, Idle and Palin playing the three principal characters and doing so virtually word for word in a skit that would slot straight into the movie. How much of that is the original intent is another question, but the exert below highlights this…

“Thou forgettest, however, Ben-Levi,” replied Abel-Phittim, “that the Roman Pompey, who is now impiously besieging the city of the Most High, has no assurity that we apply not the lambs thus purchased for the altar, to the sustenance of the body, rather than of the spirit.”

“Now, by the five corners of my beard!” shouted the Pharisee, who belonged to the sect called The Dashers (that little knot of saints whose manner of dashing and lacerating the feet against the pavement was long a thorn and a reproach to less zealous devotees- a stumbling-block to less gifted perambulators)- “by the five corners of that beard which, as a priest, I am forbidden to shave!- have we lived to see the day when a blaspheming and idolatrous upstart of Rome shall accuse us of appropriating to the appetites of the flesh the most holy and consecrated elements? Have we lived to see the day when-“

“Let us not question the motives of the Philistine,” interrupted Abel-Phittim, “for to-day we profit for the first time by his avarice or by his generosity, but rather let us hurry to the ramparts, lest offerings should be wanting for that altar whose fire the rains of heaven cannot extinguish, and whose pillars of smoke no tempest can turn aside.”

The basic premise of this story is that it is set Jerusalem in around 50BCE. The King David’s at the time was under siege by this bunch of upstarts known as the Romans, and the Romans are doing what Romans do best and starving out the population. However Simeon, Abel-Phittim, and Buzi-Ben-Levi, three Gizbarim or ‘sub-collectors of temple offering’s’ or low level functionaries at the Temple, have managed to strike a deal with a roman to ostensibly to secure an animal for sacrifice. The Roman is to be paid thirty sheckle’s to send up an animal for sacrifice in a basket.

A sheckle at the time was a mid weight Hebrew coin made of silver. So that’s thirty pieces of silver… I suspect there is a subtext there, due to the large sign saying SUBTEXT, and that someone is planning to betray someone…

Our three ‘holy’ bureaucrats of course most vehemently deny to each other and anyone in listening that the ‘sacrificial’ beast they are purchasing with the temples money would in any way be used for anything other than sacrifice. It would be a betrayal of everyone trapped in the city if the three were planning to feast upon the flesh of an animal destined for holy sacrifice. Many are starving within the besieged citadel… No, it will go to the knife and its life’s blood be drained for the glory of the lord and then it will be roasted over a… sorry… ‘burned on a temple fire’. Eating the freshly roasted flesh of a sacrifice is certainly, they assure anyone who might be listening, not a perk of the job…

So our motley bunch of temple functionaries take the thirty pieces of silver, and send it down in a basket through the early morning mist to a Roman legionary below who takes the silver as agreed and sends up a beast back up in the basket to them…

Of course doing all this must also be risky for the Roman, he can’t be seen to be taking a bribe or feeding people in the city they are besieging. But as the three Bureaucrats have assured him it will not be eaten, ‘no definitely not’, ‘not it is for religious purposes only, honest’ . Well if you can’t trust low level bureaucrats who can you trust… Honest folk these Hebrew priests, clearly… But, well, best to make sure and keep them honest, so his Centurion doesn’t take the hump. There is after all one beast he can send up to the Jewish citadel in a basket and be safe from sanction…

The story ends with the three Gizbarim discussing what kind of beast the Romans have provided for them to ‘sacrifice’ for their thirty pieces of silver as they pull the basket back up through the morning mist…, A succulent spring lamb perhaps, or maybe its a fatted calf perhaps… ‘Oh, it will be a tasty… erm … fitting sacrifice, yes yes a fitting fresh tasty meaty sacrifice… What was that a bleat, a moo… or ….’

Roman’s, honest as the day is long, you pay them for an animal for sacrifice that’s what you get. Not a swine among them… In the basket however.

Now this is a short tale, its fairly verbose, all the more so as Poe incorporated phases and whole sentences from Horace Smiths novels, which added to the humour value for the original audience no doubt. But does it stand up to the test of time,this parody of a novel long forgotten by the world? Well surprisingly yes its does, its short, witty, full of subtext and the punchline hits home perfectly. It’s not overly subtle but its not intended to be, and as story you can read in minutes it is well worth your time. Sure you’ll forget most of it ten minutes later, but as a bit of pure entertainment it does it’s job, in the way the first two stories of the Evening Courier quintet don’t. On a basis level it’s just funny and silly, smart, well levelled fun at that.

Of course the question really is how much of that is Poe and how much is what he ‘borrowed’ rather directly from the long forgotten Horace Smith. But still it gets …

FOUR RAVENS OUT OF AN UNKINDNESS, OR, ALMOST A FLOCK…

Should your read it: If you have ten minutes to spare and want a story to make you grin and grimace in equal measure, yes.

Should you avoid it: There is an argument that has been made that there are aspects of racism within this tale. But frankly I don’t see it, it is no more racist than the life of Brian. So if Monty Python offends you avoid it… But really, come on now… Try and look on the bright side of life…

Bluffers fact:  At one point in the story a list of Philistine deities comes up, one of which is Dagon, a half man half fish giant… No one has ever used that deity in a work of fiction since, I am almost sure… Apart from my old friend Howard… Lovecraft was of course a huge Edgar fanboy, and while he was fastidious with his research, he was not above borrowing from Poe in much the same way Poe borrowed this story from Smith…