Paedeia through laughter: Jonson's Aristophanic appeal to human intelligence 9783111392073, 9783111029580

Citation preview

STUDIES IN ENGLISH

LITERATURE

Volume LXXVI

PAEDEIA THROUGH LAUGHTER Jonson's Aristophanic appeal to human intelligence by

ALIKI LAFKIDOU Louisiana Stale University

DICK

at New

1974 MOUTON T H E HAGUE • P A R I S

Orleans

© Copyright 1974 in The Netherlands Mouton & Co., N.V., Publishers, The Hague No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 73-84787

Printed in The Netherlands by Mouton & Co., The Hague

To the memory of my father and brother

PREFACE

Although it is a mixture of many elements and influences — Roman comedy, Renaissance tradition, contemporary theories of comedy and the comic — which shaped the comedy of his time, Jonson's comedy is set apart from the main currents which identify Renaissance comedy. Jonson is not the only Renaissance dramatist who used comedy as the means to educate mankind, but he is unique in the way he emphasized the importance of self-knowledge. His concern for man who is gradually turning into a beast by forces which suppress his intellect, who is ignorant of his potentiality to live a better life and unaware of his innate charisma to work miracles in life when he makes right use of his intellect, link Jonson closely with Aristophanes. This study attempts to establish a relationship between Aristophanes' and Ben Jonson's serious intention to educate their fellow men through laughter. That laughter is the only means of appealing to human intelligence and restoring man to an ideal state of being is comically revealed in the theatres of Aristophanes and Jonson. The Aristophanic spirit of concern for man, who has forgotten his right to exist on earth, manifests itself in the works of Ben Jonson by those elements of thought, feeling, language, method, and technique which pervade and animate Aristophanes' work. Certain aspects of this expression of individuality which dominates the works of Aristophanes have passed into the work of Ben Jonson and helped to create a comedy which is unique in its time. In order to establish a relationship between two dramatists of such different cultures, periods, and backgrounds, we must

Vili

PREFACE

first define the position of each playwright in his own epoch, and then separate the elements which constitute the author's individuality from those which have shaped and influenced his work to a point that we can speak of a relationship. In the Introduction we shall try to show in what way Jonson's comedy is different from that of his contemporaries and his predecessors, and in what respect it is similar to that of Aristophanes. Jonson's notion of the comic and comedy and its purpose is as close to Aristophanes as it is to Roman Comedy and the Renaissance tradition, yet, Jonson's way of expressing this theory — educate through laughter — and the means he uses to accomplish it — techniques used to ridicule man's folly and ignorance, stylistic devices employed to facilitate the satire of human abuses — bring Jonson close to Aristophanes and his work. A study of Jonson's confessions regarding his relationship with Aristophanes, a consideration of the comments of his contemporary scholars who sometimes evaluated Jonson's comedies by comparing them with the comedies of Aristophanes, and a review of the research done be various scholars regarding the publication of Aristophanes' work before or during Jonson's time will show that Jonson well knew Aristophanes' work. The question of an actual influence is hard to establish until one comes to the works of the two dramatists and tries to find out the degree of their relationship. A comparative study of those aspects in those works of the two playwrights which seem to be representative of their art — ideas, intentions, techniques, and modes of expression — will help us define their relationship. The comedies to be studied are those most representative of the dramatists' works: comedies of Aristophanes written during the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.) and those comedies of Jonson from Every Man In His Humour (1598) to, and including, Bartholomew Fayre (1614), when his comedy seems to be richest in Aristophanic art. The first chapter of the study will try to show that Jonson shares Aristophanes' world vision. Human beings are viewed as self-centered, ignorant, and weak, unable to realize their own potentialities; yet human intelligence is held to be always capable of improving man's life. The second chapter will trace the two

PREFACE

IX

dramatists' attitude toward their audience in order to show Jonson Aristophanic in his belief that man's self-ignorance is the main obstacle in his march forward in lfe; nonetheless, there are still men who can use their intelligence to improve themselves and others. Both playwrights show a dichotomy in human nature and try to correct by reproving. The third chapter will reveal that Jonson was influenced by Aristophanes' spirit of concern for a society threatened by the negative forces of sophistry and alchemy. Chapter four will discuss Aristophanes' and Jonson's satire which through bitter ridicule scourges human follies and encourages thoughts of human solidarity. Chapter five will show that Aristophanic techniques of distortion and exaggeration both in thought and language are used by Jonson in his attempt to present man as gradually turning into a beast through his unnatural appetites and intentions. At the same time, the use of obscene language to lighten the criticism and animate the satire will be shown to be a manifestation of the Aristophanic spirit of merriment. There has not been much study done on the relationship of Ben Jonson to Aristophanes. F. Schelling pointed out at the end of the 19th century that Jonson is one of the few "exponents of the classical spirit",1 as Jonson strongly believed that drama should be written within the spirit of Old Comedy in order to be successful. E. Baldwin in 1901 detected a likeness in Jonson's methods of personality depiction to those of Theophrastus when he wrote his character sketches.2 K. Lever observed in 1946 that Aristophanes was popular in 16th century England for his clarity of diction but little influence of his work is detected before Jonson, because few people understood the meaning of his comedies.8 In 1959, C. G. Thayer associated the works of Jonson with those of Aristophanes and pointed to the efforts of the two dramatists to show that both the sophist and the alchemist 1

Felix E. Schelling, "Ben Jonson and the Classical School", PMLA, XIII (1898), 231. 1 Edward C. Baldwin, "Ben Jonson's Indebtedness to the Greek Character Sketch", MLN, XVI (1901), 193-198. 3 Katherine Lever, "Greek Comedy on the 16th Century English Stage", CI, XLH (1946), 170.

X

PREFACE

"would be the ruin of society if left unchecked to perfect nature". 4 L. Lord in 1963 stated that Jonson used Aristophanic ideas and displayed an Aristophanic attitude toward his own work, as manifested in the Aristophanic parabases. He observed that Aristophanes "is become a touchstone by which all that is keenest in wit, that is gayest in laughter, that is bitterest in ridicule, and that is highest in poetry is tested".5 P. H. Davison wrote an article in 1963 in which he pointed out that Volpone is close in tone and aspects of techniques to the comedy of Aristophanes as the agon between eiron and alazon forms the basis of the action.6 John Potter in 1968 compared the conventions of Old Comedy with those used by Ben Jonson in Bartholomew Fayre and concluded that Jonson is indebted to Aristophanes' art because his "use of a series of illustrative episodes related directly to the theme rather than to each other, the choice of an old man as a hero, the antiromanticism, and the use of Aristophanic language, names, and incidents, indicate that Jonson was not writing a sloppy exercise in New Comedy, but was consciously trying to adopt the form of Old Comedy to the Jacobean Stage".7 C. Gum, finally, unified the attempts of previous scholars in his extensive study of the works of the two dramatists. For the first time in a comparative study of the works of the two playwrights, Gum considered their work as a whole. He noticed a similarity in the loose structure of their plots, in their presentation of low class characters who are rich in comic potentialities, in the distortion of the world view (human values twisted, estimable people shown in degeneration, etc.), in the indecency of their vocabulary, and, finally, in their serious intention which is hidden behind the comic world they present.8 4

C. G. Thayer, "Theme and Structure in the Alchemist", ELH, X X V I (1959), 23-35. 5 Louis E. Lord, Aristophanes, his Plays and his Influence ( N e w York: Cooper Square Publishers Inc., 1963), p. 174. 6 P. H. Davison, "Volpone and the Old Comedy", MLQ, X X I V (1963), 151-157. 7 John M. Potter, "Old Comedy in Bartholomew Fair", Criticism, X (1968), 299. 8 Coburn Gum, The Aristophanic Comedies of Ben Jonson (The Hague: Mouton, 1969).

PREFACE

XI

The present study will further the attempts of the above mentioned scholars to detect and define the relationship between Aristophanes' and Ben Jonson's work. Besides pointing out the various aspects of their work which are close in tone and intention, it will emphasize the importance both dramatists placed upon the fact that human intelligence is to be used rightly if man wants to have a happy life on earth. Certain aspects of Aristophanes' art will be studied with specific examples from his plays, and a comparative view taken of the same aspects as they appear in the comedies of Ben Jonson. The similarity will establish the relationship in terms of common ideas, thoughts, intentions, tone, methods, and techniques used, and it will lead us to the conclusion that Ben Jonson's attempt to educate through laughter is shaped and influenced by Aristophanes' art and spirit, both serious and gay. It is not possible to acknowledge individually all those who have helped with their suggestions and comments as this work was being prepared. I would like, however, to thank Dr. Robert Richardson, Dr. Douglas Wilson, and Mr. Gary Malberg of the University of Denver for their assistance. I would like also to express my deep gratitude to Dr. Leland Chambers of the University of Denver for his valuable criticism and recommendations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

vii

Introduction

1

I. Revelation of Degenerate Human Nature — The Knights and Volpone

11

II. The World of the Audience

44

III. Forces of Annihilation — Clouds and Alchemist

.

57

IV. Jonson's Aristophanic Modes of Human Evaluation .

89

V. Jonson's Aristophanic Modes of Expression .

.

.

110

VI. Conclusion

129

Works Consulted

133

Index

137

INTRODUCTION

Aristophanes is the only extant representative of Old Comedy. Many theories have debated the origin of comedy as an art form. Aristotle was one of the first to observe that comedy originated with the authors of the Phallic Songs, invocations of the god Dionysus. In phallic processions which took place during the festivals of the City and Rural Dionysia in Attica, the ithymphalloi escorted the phallus wearing masks of drunkards; the phallophoroi who followed them did not wear masks of any kind, but they also wore the phallus and joked with the people around them. Comos, from which the word comedy is derived, was just such a phallic procession during which those participating disputed with the people standing by and improvised jokes at their expense.1 This is the Attic contribution to the development of comedy. The Dorian mime performances which mixed abuse with laughter are also considered to have contributed to the development of Old Comedy. This mixture of Attic and Dorian elements marks the early phase of comedy which ended in 486 B.C. when a chorus was granted to the playwright and comedy became a part of the official state festivals.2 The chorus became an integral part of comedy; because they were free to move on the stage and speak to the audience, they became the most important link to connect the world of the comedy with the real world represented by the audience. 1

Arthur W. Pickard-Cambridge, Dithyramb, Tragedy, and Comedy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), pp. 140-141, 150. 8 Albin Lesky, Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur, trans. A. G. Tsopanakes in Greek (Thessaloniki: University of Thessaloniki, 1964), p. 341.

2

INTRODUCTION

By the time Aristophanes came to write his comedies, comedy was well defined as an art form meant to educate through laughter. Long before him, Anacharsis had pointed out the importance of the seriousness of purpose in entertainment: "Play in order that you may work",3 a thought which dominated the comic theory from Aristophanes to Ben Jonson and preserved its importance into our own times. In this respect, Aristophanes was not an innovator; Kratinos and Eupolis were also followers of a tradition which saw comedy as an integral part of human paedeia and laughter as the proper means of attaining it. Behind the laughter of a comically presented world, a serious thought leading toward self-evaluation emerges to educate man toward an actual knowledge of human nature and its potentialities. In the Wasps, Aristophanes himself defines comedy as "an attempt to heal an inveterate, old/ Disease engrained in the heart of the state".4 It is a cultural force aimed at the cure of a disease which is rooted deeply in the human mind and corrupts human ability for understanding. In the Frogs, he makes it clear that his purpose in writing comedy is "to exhort and teach the city" (Frogs, 687). Euripides in the same play states that a noble poet is praised for . . . his ready wit, and his counsels sage, and because the citizen f o l k h e trains T o b e better t o w n s m e n and worthier m e n .

(Frogs, 1008-09)

while Aeschylus points out that "the poets are teachers of men" who are "bound things honest and pure to speak" (Frogs 1055* The above motto is not included among Anacharsis' fragments edited by R. Hercher in Epistolographi Graeci (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1965); it is mentioned, though, by Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics (London: W. Heinemann, 1956) trans, for the Loeb Classical Library by H. Rackham. Among other things, Aristotle says: "to make amusement the object of our serious pursuits and our work seems foolish and childish to excess: Anacharsis' motto, Play in order that you may work, is felt to be the right rule. For amusement is a form of rest; but we need rest because we are not able to go on working without a break, and therefore it is not an end, since we take it as a means to further activity." NE, X, vi, 6. 4 References from now on are based on Aristophanes, Loeb Classical Library, trans, by B. B. Rogers (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960-1963, first printed in 1924), Wasps 651.

INTRODUCTION

3

56). Aristophanes believes that the writer is first a teacher and then an entertainer. He himself explains that his technique aims at presenting worthy men and deeds so that men "stretch themselves to their measure and height" {Frogs 1041-42). Aristophanes exaggerates and distorts persons and events for the sake of laughter but there is always some serious thought emerging when the laughter is over. The seriousness of his intention and his effort to contribute through the comic world he creates toward an actual paedeia of mankind becomes obvious in Aristophanes' concern for the appreciation of the genuine merits of his work. He says that he is proud of his work because: he raised and enobled the Art High thoughts and high language he brought on the stage a humour exalted and rare. (,Peace 749-50)

Aristophanes considered the comic elements of his work as the means to inspire man toward a serious contemplation of his nature which would extend the horizons of a better future. These comic elements had something of the Dionysiac spirit of carefree merriment in them — licence of words and expressions — and were combined with a spirit of nobility aspiring to furnish mankind with ideals for a better life. Almost two thousand years separate the thoughts and art of Aristophanes from those of Ben Jonson. The Middle Comedy and New Comedy which followed Aristophanes' work were interested in the private life of individuals rather than in man as a member of a community. Aristophanes was concerned with the latter; he was a censor of political and social abuses, and he protested strongly against the attempt of certain individuals to attain supreme power and rule the lives of themselves and others inspired only by self-centered motives. The criticism of Middle and New Comedy is milder.5 These are comedies of manners involving love affairs, mistaken identities, and endless adventures. The characters are set and recognizable types: conservative fathers, prodigal young men, cunning slaves, braggart soldiers, 5

James Feibleman, In Praise of Comedy (London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1939), p. 33.

4

INTRODUCTION

etc. With these romantic elements which were absent from the Aristophanic comedy, Roman Comedy continued the tradition of New Comedy. Plautus' plays were concerned with private rather than social life, and demonstrate the dramatist's concern to provoke laughter through farcical situations which hide the moral aspects of his comedies. Terence's comedies were of the same romantic nature. He tried to please his audience and to never offend them; he avoided Aristophanes' kind of frankness and obscenity. Jonson's comedy is part of the Aristophanes tradition in that he is concerned with man in society, and part of the Renaissance tradition in his humanitarian faith in the potentialities of the individual to improve himself and others. Yet, what Jonson shares with Aristophanes is his ardent zeal to censor social abuses and through laughter to ask man to become more reasonable. Jonson's comedies are far from the romantic ones of the Romans and equally far from those of the late 16th and early 17th century English playwrights who had modelled their works on Roman Comedy. Those dramatists presented groups of characters centered in a certain household; their themes were most often adventurous love affairs of the type popular in Roman Comedy and the plays which followed its tradition. 6 Jonson attacks romantic tradition in Every Man In His Humour where he tries to show how unlike romantic comedies his work is.7 The comic world Jonson created was closer to Aristophanes' than anyone else's before him. His language is also daring in its obscenity and has something of the gay spirit of the Aristophanic language in it. Like Aristophanes, Jonson set out to teach his fellow men 6

N. Udall in Roister Doister (1555) openly declares himself inspired by the comedies of Plautus and Terence; he uses conventions of Roman Comedy, such as intrigues, flatterers, braggart soldiers, etc. Tricky rascals who come from Roman Comedy are also used by the author of Gammer Gurton's Needle (1563). Gascoigne's Supposes (1566) is an expression of romantic comedy — love intrigues, disguises, mistaken identities, etc. Lyly's Endymioti (1591) blends Roman love intrigues with country wit in an attempt to flatter Queen Elizabeth. Middleton's and Rowley's comedy, A Trick to Catch the Old One (1604), is a comedy of manners with a chain of love affairs and cheatings. 7 See Every Man In His Humour, Prol. 7-12; I.iii.31-32; I.iv.8-21; I.v.72-84.

INTRODUCTION

5

through satire and ridicule and to inspire them with ideals for an intellectually and ethically better future. Aristophanes was not the first one to use comedy for the education of man and Jonson was not the last one to do so; yet, their vision of the world is similar, and their attitude toward individuals, the members of a society, reveals that an equal amount of concern for humanity motivated their actions. We know that at Westminster School Jonson had learned Greek as a student of Camden, one of the best Greek scholars of his time.8 It is said that Camden picked up Jonson in the street when he heard him reciting Homer in Greek." We also know that among the books included in Jonson's library was Aristophanes, Comoediae Undecim Cum Scholiis Antiquis, edited by Odoardus Bisetus in 1607 in Geneva.10 Neither Jonson himself nor any of his contemporaries ever suggests that Jonson had read Aristophanes' comedies, yet we have facts enough to believe that Jonson had both read and been influenced by Aristophanes' work. The first edition of Aristophanes' comedies came out as early as 1498, published by Marcus Musurus in Venice.11 By 1600 there were eleven editions of the works of Aristophanes in the original Greek. The first translation in Latin appeared in 1607. Individual plays translated into Latin had appeared even earlier: Peace in 1589 and the Knights in 1593, published by J. Barnes at Oxford.12 Plutus and Peace were performed at Cambridge in 1536 and 1546.18 It is probable that Jonson had read one of these published editions. 8

Byron Steel, O Rare Ben Jonson (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928), pp. 11-12. • G. B. Harrison (ed.), Elizabethan Plays and Players (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1956), p. 176, quotes Bishop Fuller's Worthies of England. 10 C. H. Herford & P. & E. Simpson (eds.), Ben Jonson, I (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925-1952), p. 265. 11 Thomas F. Dibdin, An Introduction to the Knowledge of the Rare and Valuable Editions of the Greek and Latin Classics, 2 vols. (London: Harding & Lepard, 1827). 18 Henrietta R. Palmer, List of English Editions & Translations of Greek and Latin Classics Printed Before 1641 (London: Blades, East & Blades, 1911), p. 10. » Lever, "Greek Comedy on the 16th Century English Stage", p. 170.

6

INTRODUCTION

The first to associate Jonson with Aristophanes was an anonymous contemporary of Jonson who wrote in 1602: Jonson has become nowadays something humorous and too-too satirical up and doun, like his great grandfather Aristophanes.14 The allusion associates Jonson's satirical spirit with that of Aristophanes, but it is brief and vague as to an actual influence of Aristophanes on Jonson. In 1629, someone I. C. writes in an address to Jonson: We must not make thee less Than Aristophanes.15

The allusions show clearly that Jonson's contemporaries had detected a likeness in the works of the two dramatists which could not have been a simple coincidence. Jonson himself alludes to Aristophanes and his art several times in his plays. In Every Man Out Of His Humour, Jonson has Cordatus comment when Mitis asks him his opinion about the play: Faith, sir, I must refraine to judge, only this I can say of it, 'tis strange, and of a particular kind by itself, somewhat like Vetus Comoedia: a worke that hath bounteously pleased m e . . . ,16

Jonson clearly admits that Old Comedy pleased him and that he himself tries to make his work fit its spirit. It is the elements of "strange" — unusual for English Comedy — and "particular" — unlike any other comedy — which associate Jonson's comedy with that of Aristophanes. In the same play Jonson observes that he has been an admirer of the spirit of dignity of Old Comedy and of its freedom of invention: But 'tis extant, that that which we call Comoedia, was at first nothing but a simple, and continued Song, sung by one only person, till SUSARIO invented a second, after him EPICHARMUS a third; PHORMUS, and CHIONIDES devised to have foure Actors, with a Prologue and Chorus-, to which CRATINUS (long after) added a 14 J. F. Bradley & J. Q. Adams, The Jonson Allusion-Book (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1922), p. 33. « Ibid., p. 147. 16 References to Jonson's plays following are based on Herford & Simpson; Every Man Out Of His Humour, After 2nd Sounding, III, 230-233. Hence the above play will be referred to as E.M.O.

INTRODUCTION

7

fift, and sixt; EUPOLIS more; ARISTOPHANES more than they: every man in the dignitie of his spirit and judgement, supplyed something... I see not then, but we should enjoy the same licence, or free power, to illustrate and heighten our invention as they did. CE.M.O., Induction, 250-68)

This dignity somewhere else comes as a boasting when Jonson points out that he restored comedy to its ancient majesty and grandeur: I shall raise the despis'd head of poetrie againe, and stripping her out of those rotten and base rags, wherewith the Times have adulterated her form, restore her to her primitive habit, feature, and majesty, and render her worthy to be imbraced, and kist, of all the great and master-spirits of our world. (Volpone, Dedication, 129-34)

Nobility comes in the shape of an ideal which Jonson shares with Aristophanes: to teach man how to become reasonable and dream better dreams for himself and others. Jonson further admits his admiration for Aristophanes in Poetaster, where he comments in his address To the Reader: Ha! If all the salt in the old Comedy Should be sensur'd, or the sharper wit Of the bold Satyre, termed scolding rage, What age should then compare with these, for buffons? What should be sayed of Aristophanes? Persius? or Juvenal? whose names we now So glorifie in schooles, at least pretend it.

(Poetaster, To the Reader, 186-92) While Jonson tries to justify what his contemporaries call "rayling" as a bold satire inspired by Aristophanes and others, he confesses also his indebtedness to Aristophanes' art for the "salt" of his comedies which is expressed in a witty and bold language. Jonson's comment reminds us that the comedies of Aristophanes were taught in schools at that time, and it is probable that Jonson got acquainted with Aristophanes' work at Westminster school. If Jonson's confessions, the remarks of his contemporaries, and the fact that so many editions of Aristophanes' comedies had been published by the time Jonson started writing his comedies

8

INTRODUCTION

are not evidence enough to prove that Jonson knew Aristophanes' work, then Jonson's comedies themselves will be seen to reflect the Aristophanic spirit, an infusion of merriment and humanitarian concern for man, and his serious intention to educate man through laughter. It is there we can speak of an actual influence. When Volpone points out that he is better than other people, he uses an Aristophanic metaphor to express himself: he says that he, unlike other people, is not trying "to grinde people into poulder" (Volpone I.i.36). In Aristophanes' Peace Trygaios tries to show his fellow men what will happen if they do not work hard to bring back peace: "War will sit down and pulverize our cities" (Peace 266). In both cases the image is expressive of unnatural appetites which can extinguish humanity in no time. At another instance, Jonson uses an Aristophanic expression which seems to have been taken directly from the Clouds. Pug, the lesser devil in The Divell Is An Asse, wants to get away from his present employment and states that he would rather: Keepe fleas within a circle, and be accomptant A thousand yeere, which of 'hem and how far Out-leap'd the other, then endure a minute Such as I have within. (The Divell Is An Asse, V.ii. 11-14)

The student in Clouds, trying to explain to Strepsiades the "high mysteries" of the sophist's art, says, among other things, that: 'Twas Socrates was asking Chaerephon, H o w many feet of its own a flea could jump. For one first bit the brow of Chaerephon, Then bounded off to Socrates's head. 0Clouds 144-47)

In both plays the jump of a flea is ironically considered as a thing of the utmost importance, since the persons who are considering measuring the jump of the flea are serious about it. The above similarities advocate a strong possibility that Jonson had read Aristophanes' comedies and was inspired by his art. Jonson avoided a close imitation of the world of the Aristophanic comedies. He tried to present a genuine image of life as he understood it. His interpretation seems to be influenced by

INTRODUCTION

9

the spirit which dominates the works of his classical predecessor. Jonson's attention, like that of Aristophanes, was focused on self-ignorance and self-deception — vices which deluded man to the extent that he took cheating for wisdom, hypocrisy for sincerity, gluttony for philanthropy, money for respect, and selfinterest for humane concern. It was likewise focused on the exposure and abuse of human folly which he tried to unroot from the human psyche by presenting exaggerated cases of ridiculous "humours" on the stage. Aristophanes ridicules demagogues, sophists, dicasts, sycophants, priests — men and gods alike. Jonson depicts ridiculous merchants, courtiers, squires, simpleminded citizens, state representatives — individuals in general who lack human ethos and self-knowledge to see their degree of ridiculousness and stop acting unlike themselves. Jonson's vision of antagonism between man and man, or between individuals and society, is Aristophanic in its presentation of human nature prevailing at a high moment of agon. Human nature is depicted as capable of depending upon cunning and impudence in its effort to go ahead. When self-interest, flattery, and hypocrisy take precedence over everything else in the world, the world turns upside down. The degenerate individual is excluded from Aristophanes' symbolic banquets and is punished by Jonson as unworthy of a dignified existence in hopes of opening the eyes of the audience to see the truth concerning themselves. Aristophanes tries to elevate worthy individuals and give them a stature worthy of the dignity of man. By lifting man up to the level of gods and presenting triumphing banqueteers, he tries to lift man to a higher sphere of existence. On the other hand, he shows the depths of human degeneration by presenting men as close to beasts in their unnatural appetites and strange behavior toward their fellow men. Jonson's comedy presents man in disintegration, slowly turning whatever human elements are still left in him into beastly habits and intentions. He presents human degeneration in order to show how imperative is the necessity for a change. While Jonson negatively presents the truths he believes as valuable and necessary for human existence, Aristophanes positively presents his argument as actually triumphing at the

10

INTRODUCTION

end. He shows prosperity side by side with misery so that his audience may see what good they are missing and search for the ideal themselves. Jonson shows his audience what to avoid whereas Aristophanes shows them what to seek. Although the method of presenting the ideal is different, the technique of the two dramatists is the same. Jonson, following Aristophanes' technique, distorts and exaggerates both in thought and language in order to assert an Aristophanic ideal — the ability of man to improve himself, once he uses his reason to judge himself and others and takes the initiative to work for a better future. This is the Aristophanic vision which Jonson inherited. Aristophanes is an advocate of peace as the ideal situation in which man can prosper; all his work reflects an effort to convince his fellow citizens of the value of peace in human life. Jonson is an advocate of reason as the ideal state of mind for man to create a better life for himself and others. Their works reflect their efforts to awaken men and make them face the world as it is, not as others want them to see it or as they themselves want to think that it is. Jonson is Aristophanic in his effort to make men conscious of themselves, of others, and of the human values which preserve humanity. He is also Aristophanic in that he uses Aristophanes' bold satire, daring ridicule, and licentious language to express his thoughts and ideas in a light and merry way, appreciated by the audience of his time as much as by people of all times and cultures.

I REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE — THE KNIGHTS AND VOLPONE

Aristophanes in the Knights and Jonson in Volpone present a picture of man's desperate position when man is degraded to the point that he loses his humanity. Yet the comic language they use and the humor they display lightens their pictures, turns despair into merriment, and definitely asserts that man is not doomed to be degenerate. Human nature, as depicted in their works, seems to lack moral qualities which are indispensable to human welfare. Individuals appear to be monsters in their ethical degeneration, and as such they threaten to annihilate the whole human race. Yet some of the characters are endowed with intellectual abilities and keen insight to see the truth and turn despair into laughter in hope of a better tomorrow. The technique of Aristophanes and Jonson is to project the negative side of human nature under a strong light of distortion in an effort to advocate positive human qualities. The ethical standards of the characters in the two plays are closer to the instincts of animals than to logical human behavior. The playwrights give their characters names which indicate qualities of their personalities: Jonson's Volpone is the Fox, an animal which traps by cunning; Mosca is the Fly, an insect which vexes the world around; Volpone's three visitors are the Vulture, the Raven, and the Crow, birds which prey upon carrion; 1 Aristophanes' Sausage-Seller in the Knights is an agora man as his name suggests — Agoracritos!* Paphlagon is the sort of man who 1 The device goes back to Roman Comedy and it is probable that Jonson works within its tradition. Yet the Romans took it from Menander who, in his turn, was using a device which first appeared in the Old Comedy. 2 See Knights 1257-58.

12

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

puffs up and flatters a great deal; 3 and Demos, the Greek word for "people", stands for the Athenian citizens in general. The method used by both dramatists to reveal degenerate human nature is that of an agon between, on the one hand, a protagonist who is endowed with intellectual qualities and ironic disposition, and, on the other hand, the antagonists who lack msight and are morally degenerate when the plays start. The protagonist's intelligence enables him to work changes in the lives of those around him, as well as in his own life. This brings hope that degeneration can be stopped before it destroys the whole of humanity if man decides to use his intellectual abilities. This hope is more positively expressed in the Knights where one of the antagonists actually benefits Demos, and less obviously in Jonson's Volpone where none of the characters seem to have been benefited at the end. Demos' life which had been a chaos because of his steward's insolent ways takes a better turn when Demos decides to use his logic and trust actions rather than words. Better order in his household is achieved through a positive persecution of immorality and an acknowledgement of the possibility for improvement. Volpone's ethical degeneration, on the other hand, is what creates the chaos in his life and the lives of others, but his intellectual superiority over the rest of the characters makes him work out a punishment which does not exclude himself. The punishment of the vices indicates that human degeneration may and must be stopped. Although Jonson does not present the change of characters as actually taking place on the stage, he shares Aristophanes' faith in the capability of man to transform the negative forces which work for his degeneration into positive ones if he uses his reason correctly. Most of Aristophanes' characters are allegorical figures; Jonson's are types. Aristophanes' seem to live in his contemporary Athens, and one can easily identify Demos with the citizens and see that behind the mask of Paphlagon is the demagogue Cleon who held the fate of Athens in his hands at the time. These people are used as means to an end: Aristophanes wants «

See Knights

919 and Peace 314.

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

13

to attack the demagogues who used the citizens of their times to gratify their own personal wishes. At the same time he wants to urge the citizens to use their common sense and to discern that the demagogues' real intentions were motivated only by selfinterest. Jonson's people are types: although they combine many of the characteristics of real people and display an amount of individuality, they are meant to display human vices and follies which the audience are invited to laugh at but urged to avoid practicing themselves. Two distinct groups of characters constitute the world which Jonson created according to the Aristophanic inspiration. The characters speak and behave either like eirons or alazons. The words, Greek in origin, come from the Old Comedy where they indicated two categories of people.4 Although Jonson does not refer to his characters as eirons and alazons, those in Volpone display traits of character which associate them closely with the character types of Aristophanes' comedies. The eirons are those who pretend to know less than they actually know; under a mask of stupidity and foolishness they hide an ironic, intelligent, tricky, cunning, and sly self. Being always aware of all that is going on around them and intellectually capable of distinguishing between reality and appearance, sincerity and pretense, they are able to get the best chances in life and gain advantages over the rest of mankind. The eirons, sometimes spokesmen for the dramatists themselves, are purposely created to interfere with the world of the alazons whose nature they are well qualified to expose to common view and whose negative contribution to the welfare of society the eirons 4

For the use of the word eiron in Aristophanes' comedy, see Clouds 449, Wasps 174, Birds 1211 where it means the dissembler, someone who says less than he thinks. Jonson calls Volpone eiron (dissembler) in IV.vi.28. For alazon see Acharnians 109, 135, 373, Knights 269, 290, 903, Clouds 102, 449, 1492, Peace 1045, 1069, 1120, 1121, Birds 983, 1016, Frogs 280,909, 919, where the word refers to persons who are liars, cheats, humbugs, boasters, impostors, rascals, quacks, etc. Jonson also refers to his characters using the above adjectives whenever he depicts the alazons. See Volpone I.ii.99103; I.iii.51-60; I.iv.26; III.i.23-33; IV.v.29-38, and also I.iv.137; H.ii.14, 70; II.vi.ll; IV.v.8, 16,106, 141; IV.vi.23; V.vi.10, 19, 24; V.viii.l, 8, 16; V.x.18, 19, 45; V.xii.55, 89, 91, 109, 110.

14

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

are able to turn into a promise for improvement. The eirons are created to establish a better order of things through the castigation of the false world of the alazons. The alazons, on the other hand, are those who think they know more than they actually know, and who try to prove this to themselves and others. They use tricks and flattery to gain advantages, display counterfeit wisdom and knowledge, and pretend to be brave and superhuman in their achievements.5 This is how Aristotle describes the eirons and alazons in his Nicomachean Ethics: As generally understood then, the boaster is a man who pretends to credible qualities that he does not possess, or possesses in a lesser degree than he makes out, while conversely the self-depreciator disclaims or disparages good qualities that he does possess.6 Further on Aristotle distinguishes the qualities of their characters as follows: The man who pretends to more merit than he possesses for no ulterior object seems, it is true, to be a person of inferior character, since otherwise he would not take pleasure in falsehood, but he appears to be more foolish than vicious. (NE IV.vii.10) on the other hand, the self-depreciators, who understate their own merit, seem of a more refined character, for we feel that the motive underlying this form of insincerity is not gain but dislike of ostentation. (NE IV.vii.14) Aristotle's comments show that eiron and alazon were not mere terms used by Aristophanes; they implied actual characteristics of personalities which had the ability to dissemble and display an amount of insincerity in their relationships with their fellow men. The motive behind this pretention counted as an important factor in human relationships. Aristophanes and Jonson use the eiron and alazon device to 5

For the interpretation of the roles of eiron and alazon in comedy I am indebted to C. H. Whitman, Aristophanes and the Comic Hero (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U. Press, 1964), pp. 26-36. 8 Nicomachean Ethics IV.vii.2-4. Henceforth the work will be referred to as NE.

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

15

portray through their characters the positive and negative forces working simultaneously in the world. Through the clash of the two forces, both dramatists intend to present as possible the castigation of degenerate human beings by intelligent men. Jonson's eiron is representative of the Aristophanic positive force in so far as he is intelligent enough to reveal the negative forces which work around him and help bring about their destruction. Jonson made some additions to the device, though: his positive eiron is only partially positive. Jonson's technique is more complex in that he typically employs a real alazon and a counterfeit eiron. Yet the intellectual superiority of the eiron over the rest of the characters helps him reveal the real character of those around him. Through his positive irony and knowledge of the ways of human nature, the Jonsonian eiron becomes a successful device for the final revelation of the truth. Aristophanic and Jonsonian eirons and alazons work within a closed circle where one follows the other in an endless agon for predominance. Without the agon the revelation of human nature is not complete. Isolation partly reveals the nature of man, but hypocrisy and pretense are never revealed through the relationship of man to himself. Through man's relationship to others, whatever is false in human nature is revealed and the possibility for man's ability to improve his condition is affirmed. Both Demos and Volpone, the eirons of the Knights and Volpone, respectively, are depicted as old men confronted with the negative forces around them (alazons) who try with flattery, shamelessness, and witty dialectics to make the eirons marionettes in their hands. Volpone, like Demos, is an eiron who knows well the real intentions of those ethically degenerate individuals who gather around him. He can tell pretense and hypocrisy from sincere intentions; he can read the real thoughts of those who come with false promises to take advantage of his alleged weakness. Demos is also aware of the cunning of those who flatter him in order to gain his favor and rule his household for him. The old men in both plays display an equal amount of insincerity; they pretend to be gullible and ignorant of the real intentions of those around them. This pretense facilitates their attempt to

16

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

reveal real human nature, as it gives the alazons more opportunities to be themselves and to act and talk as if no one were around. Both Demos and Volpone laugh at those fools who take their pretense for real ignorance, but Volpone seems to delight more than Demos in the thought of the alazons' deception.7 The houses of both Demos and Volpone become the whole world where people, motivated by self-interest, expose their stupidity and beastly immorality which was supposedly hidden under an assumed mask of cleverness and humanity. This revelation of the duality in human nature (eirons and alazons) will teach people what to look for and what to avoid in life so that they may improve their future. Although Volpone is an eiron on the Aristophanic scale, he is more complex in his inventions than Demos. He shares in the world of the alazons, being as tricky, cunning, avaricious, hypocritical, and degenerate as the alazons themselves. Yet because he can see what the alazons cannot, he has the advantage of being able to comment on human affairs, human nature, and thé human condition in general8 and enjoy vexing the alazons as if he were outside the sphere of their world.9 Jonson uses an Aristophanic device when he presents his eiron as seemingly resembling the alazons in nature. Demos also shares in the world of the alazons. He is portrayed as cunning, gluttonous, sensual, and stupid. These qualities appear to put him in the same category as those surrounding him, but Demos does not personally delight in vexing the alazons the way Volpone does; he only urges them to vex each other. Through Demos' alleged deception, Aristophanes shows how easy it is for man to take a self-interested, false demagogue for a faithful leader who is sincerely interested in public welfare. Through Demos' relationship with Paphlagon, Aristophanes points to the disastrous influence of false politicians 7

See frequent allusions to "hope", "delusion", "expectation" in Volpone I.i.79; I.ii.122, 127; I.iv.4, 135, 155; II.iv.9; II.vi.44, 49; III.v.27, 30; Hl.vii. 188; III.viii.6; III.ix.26, 36; V.ii.24, 53, 67, 74; V.iii.21, 27, 29, 36, 62, 68; V.x.31; V.xi.21; V.xii.154 and their ephemeral quality: I.iv.159; n.ii.197-199. 8 See Volpone I.i.1-27; I.iv.144-159; I.v.99-102; III.ix.64-67; V.vi.25-27; V.viii.9-14. • See Volpone V.ii.56, 111; V.iii.106, 112; V.ix.16.

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

17

on the citizens and the state as a whole. On the other hand, Jonson shows, through the relationships of his eiron to the alazons, the catastrophic nature of avarice and sensuality; he affirms, through the presentation of a contradiction to his ideal, his belief that human vices have nothing positive to offer, and urges men to cast them out of their lives. Aristophanes believes that corruption in the individual has an effect on the state. It is the state as a whole which must have ethical integrity in order for the individuals to prosper in it — by state he means its representatives. Men live in a society; although they are individual entities they have to cooperate among themselves if they want to progress. Progress is not the outcome of an individual effort, but rather that of the ethos of a whole society. Jonson's concern, on the other hand, is with the individual rather than with the state and its leaders. While Aristophanes sees the ethical integrity of the individuals (Demos) as something positive, Jonson sees corruption in the individual himself. Human nature is corrupted to the degree that it destroys not only itself, but it carries along with it the rest of society with which it is connected as if in a chain. Jonson is not concerned with the state for he believes that once man manages to acquire ethical integrity for himself as an individual, he can benefit society as its member. Individuals, as Jonson sees them, are ethically degenerate because they are given to vices instead of to virtues; those few who still keep the integrity of their character (e.g., Celia, Bonario) are profoundly threatened with submersion in the chaos of this corrupted society. If the individuals decide to fight their vices, there is hope for a better life. The alazons in Jonson's world are depicted as sick cases of human degradation. Their lust for money blurs their view of reality. Volpone's alleged sickness, like old Demos' pretended foolishness, is used as the means to unmask the impostors and show the difference between pretense and sincerity. In both plays the success lies in the clash of the two worlds (the eirons' and the alazons') in a climactic moment of high hopes and expectations, and in their mutual revelation of human nature as selfish and immoral because its egotistical pursuits leave no space for human

18

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

empathy which is necessary for a harmonious life in a community. In the Knights the world view is restricted in the presentation of one eirort and two alazons. As Aristophanes' concern is with the state as a whole, he creates his characters large enough to represent the whole state. He presents an interesting case of human lust for power, and he assumes that man is only motivated by self-interest in the pursuit of his personal endeavors. In order to prove his thesis, Aristophanes uses a multiple point-of-view technique. All the main characters are first seen through the eyes of the secondary characters before the main characters themselves appear on the stage. We have a wider angle from which to judge them, since their actions are reflected in the minds of those well acquainted with them. Thus, the agon also comes in three parts. First in the introductory words of the servants while they plot to overthrow Paphlagon, then, in the clash of words and actions of the two alazons themselves, and, finally, in the actual confrontation of the eiron with the alazons when a more positive lesson is to be learned. The repetition is intended as a device to emphasize the main point of the play — the revelation of the alazonic side of human nature. Since Paphlagon is the main target of Aristophanes' attack throughout the play, he is the first to be introduced by the servants as soon as the play starts: O! O! This Paphlagon with all his wiles, This newly-purchased pest, I wish the Gods Would utterly abolish and destroy!

(.Knights 1-3)

Their prayer expresses the wish of the author who wants to destroy the "pest" whose mere presence causes disorder in the state. Since Paphlagon stands for Cleon himself, Aristophanes purposely distorts his characteristics to show in a hyperbolic way the monstrous nature of the politicians to whom the people had entrusted their fates. The wish that the "pest" be annihilated is sincere as an expression of indignation. Only when Paphlagon is completely destroyed will the house of Demos come to an orderly state again. Aristophanes believes that the state as a whole will improve only when the demagogue is abolished. Paphlagon is

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

19

also "the greatest liar in the world", who "flatters, and fawns, and wheedles, and cajoles" all the people around him. H e does not hesitate to puff himself u p by finding fault with the actions of others. He is a "thief, brawler, roaring, as Cycloborus roars" (Knights, 45, 48, 137), according to the servants. He is a blackmailer who "slanders those within/ With downright lies", in order to gain his master's favors. This man is dangerous for the household, for nothing will stop him from attaining his end. He is so dangerous that the servants see superhuman qualities latent in his character: His eyes are everywhere; he straddles out, One foot in Pylus, in the Assembly one. So vast his stride, that at the self-same moment His seat is in Chaonia, and his hands Are set on Begging, and his mind on Theft. (Knights 75-79) In the servants' view, Paphlagon is not an alazon of ordinary size. H e is simply monstrous. The fact that he is presented in so distorted a way is part of the Aristophanic technique in presenting the case as both comic and serious. The more monstrous he appears, the more successful the outcome of the agon when this man, so well qualified to conquer the world in one stride, will be defeated by his "foolish" master. The servants who introduced Paphlagon in such bright colors are also the ones to plot against him and devise all the tricks which will help Demos bring about this "Colossus' " downfall. They will help Demos the way Mosca will help Volpone in Jonson's play to outsmart the alazons and destroy them for the sake of humanity. The portrait of Demos himself painted by the same servants is meagre when compared with that of Paphlagon: A sour old man Quick-tempered, country-minded, bean consuming, A trifle hard of hearing. (Knights 41-43) When the inflated picture of Paphlagon is compared and set beside the three-line picture of Demos, a rash, stubborn, ignorant, old peasant, one sees in the extreme of the exaggeration the dis-

20

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

similarity and distance between the two men and their worlds. Paphlagon is depicted at the zenith of cleverness and strength, while Demos lies at the nadir of stupidity and senility. The actual appearance of the two men on the stage will prove the exaggeration of the servants' depiction successful as a device. Demos' weakness will be his power at the end and will lead him to a symbolic banquet, while Paphlagon's power will prove empty since he still will be driven away from the stage like a real pest. After the servants present the two men, they set out to find a third party who will stand between the two and make their plan successful. When Demos has someone to compare his servant with, he can eventually make the ideal solution possible. He will discover Paphlagon to be a flatterer, a thief, and a liar — a degenerate individual motivated only by self-interest which he tries to hide under a false appearance of concern. The servants will find the Sausage-Seller a worthy opponent of the main alazon, for he has most of his characteristic qualities wrapped within his deceitful personality. Ironically, the Sausage-Seller, who is chosen to substitute Paphlagon and bring order to Demos' household, seems to possess "roguery, impudence, and agora-training" (Knights 181). He functions as a counterfeit duplicate of Paphlagon whose personality is mirrored in the words and actions of the Sausage-Seller's "brutal voice", "low birth", and perfectly matched emptiness of character. He is as distorted as Paphlagon. Both of them have beastly natures, both are politically qualified, and both are completely degenerate. The Sausage-Seller's agoratraining helps him inhumanly cheat the people with false rhetoric and logic. His vulgarity and low birth are particularly emphasized as aspects of his character development which are the exact opposite of those required for an ideal leader of the physically, spiritually, and ethically perfect man of the Homeric set of values. He is created to match Paphlagon who stands for whatever is degrading in human nature, so that the agon is fought between apparently equal parties. Thus, well qualified for the ironic confrontation and final revelation of the alazon's nature, the Sausage-Seller gets ready to face Paphlagon and fight him with his own weapons — to pay impudence with impudence,

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

21

roguery with roguery, and cheating with cheating.10 In the process, the world appears to become more chaotic and the necessity for order becomes more imperative. Once the static depiction of characters is over, Paphlagon and the Sausage-Seller come on the stage to face each other in a direct agon. Through their relationship they show how far human impudence and shamelessness can go. Their alazonic nature shines forth doubly as Paphlagon's nature is reflected and illustrated by the nature of the Sausage-Seller, who surpasses him many times in shamelessness and cunning. Paphlagon denounces the Sausage-Seller as a traitor in pursuing self-interest: I d e n o u n c e this smuggling f e l l o w ; contraband of war h e takes For the Peloponnesian galleys, trapping t h e m with — girdle-cakes. 1 1 CKnights 2 7 8 - 7 9 )

Paphlagon refers to the gluttonous aspect of human nature when he accuses the Sausage-Seller that he influences people with his cooking. The Sausage-Seller denounces Paphlagon as an opportunist, a glutton who misses no opportunity to gain ready-made advantages: A t the Hall, f r o m day to day, In h e runs with empty belly, with a full o n e hies away. tKnights 2 8 0 - 8 1 )

But it is not only the opportunistic aspect of their personality that brings the two men close together. In their railing at each other they completely lose their resemblance to humanity and become frantic beasts in the way they reveal their intentions: PAPH. I'll outwit you by fraud and lying. 10 The Sausage-Seller himself points out during the course of the play that he is using Paphlagon's methods: "Nay as one guest, at supper-time, will take another's shoes,/ When dire occasion calls him out, so I your methods use" (Knights 888-889) and he assures Paphlagon that " 'tis with humbug I'm to win" (Knights 903). 11 The word for "girdle-cakes" means "sauces" in the original Greek and emphasizes the Sausage-Seller's ability to charm with his cooking.

22

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

S.S. I'll your pettitoes chop for frying. . . . PAPH. Say but g-r-r, and to strips I'll tear you. S.S. Speak one word, and as dung I'll bear you. (Knights 290-91, 294-95)

At the same time they shamelessly confess their impudence: PAPH. I confess that I steal. Do you? S.S. Agora Hermes! yes, I do. CKnights 296-97)

Even their plans are similar in aim: S.S. The sort of citizen he is, I'll first expose to view. PAPH. Give me precedence. (Knights 335-36)

The intention, aim, and language of the two men is the same, yet the Sausage-Seller seems to be ironic in the way he talks to his opponent, as the imagery of the language he uses shows. While the Paphlagon's weapon is fraud, the Sausage-Seller's is wit and intellect. Their similarity is further revealed in the language they use, which expresses their real nature: PAPH. I'll twitch the lashes off both your eyes. S.S. I'll cut your gizzard out, poulterer-wise. (Knights 373-74)

The Sausage-Seller's similarity to Paphlagon is meant only as a joke against the seriousness of the real alazon's intentions. Their likeness is not complete. The Sausage-Seller is purposely created an expert Cook in order to mock Paphlagon's degenerate intentions. He turns Paphlagon's serious threats into a parody which comically ridicules the real alazon's character. All the threats the Sausage-Seller pronounces in a language full of food imagery, exaggerated in order for the humor to leaven the effects of human monstrosity, are purposely created comic so that no one mistakes the degree of identity between the two men. Paphlagon goes to the Council-Board to report the SausageSeller's "vile conspiracies" and to denounce his plots, an act which reveals serious intention to rid his world of all possible rivals. The second agon arises as the outcome of Paphlagon's practices. Ironically, the Sausage-Seller wins the combat again

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

23

because of his ability to charm with his cooking the gluttonous men who constitute the Council: With just one obol's worth of coriander I've all the Council w o n . . . . (Knights 681-82) The victory is the outcome of the Council's weakness and the alazon's power to turn everything to his advantage: Full of guile Plot and wile Full of knavish skill {Knights 686-87) The Sausage-Seller proved to be a greater rascal than Paphlagon, and despite the seeming similarity with him, he managed to win the Council's favor. The Council is composed of men who are no better than the alazons, easily bribed by whoever promises to satisfy their gluttony. This victory will be repeated in a similar way when later the eiron himself comes on the stage to take part in the agon. Once Demos walks in, the similarity of the two servants becomes all the more obvious as they compete to show their loyalty to Demos. Demos' household is not large enough to hold natures like those of Paphlagon and the Sausage-Seller. Demos takes them both to the Pnyx in order to publicize their vile intentions. There, in the General Assembly of the citizens, he unmasks the alazons and exposes to common view their impudent natures. Trying to win Demos' favor, Paphlagon boasts that he tries to keep Demos a free man and the Sausage-Seller brags that he strives to keep him alive with his cooking. From the juxtaposition of Paphlagon's war language to that of the Sausage-Seller's cooking and eating, the real nature of the two men comes comically to light. 12 Paphlagon asserts that he sailed "to Pylus, and brought back the Spartans", for Demos, but the Sausage-Seller takes an oath that Paphlagon "walked around, and from the workshop stole/ A mess of pottage cooked by someone else" (Knights 742745), revealing thus the tricky ways by which Paphlagon managed to secure Demos' favor. As Paphlagon stands for Cleon, the audience understand well what the Sausage-Seller means when " See Knights 774-778, 790-791, 800, 861-863, 905-907, 924-930.

24

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

he points out that he stole a dish from someone else to present it as his own. 13 By the comic identity of means used to serve Demos, Aristophanes wants to show the public the degree of degeneration of the Athenian demagogues and the height of the citizens' deception. Behind the two servants' words of pretended public interest, Demos detects an immoderate lust for power and immoral pursuit of self-interest: S.S. He's the vilest of miscreants, Demus, and works more mischief than any, I vow. While you're gaping about, he is picking from out Of the juiciest audit the juiciest sprout, And devours it with zest; while deep in the chest Of the public exchequer both hands are addressed To ladling out cash for himself, I protest. PAPH. All this you'll deplore when it comes to the fore That of drachmas you stole thirty thousand or more. (.Knights

823-29)

The truth is revealed little by little as the two men hotly accuse one another. Demos' presence aggravates their mutual hatred, makes them believe that their tricky practices and efforts are viable, and inflames their hopes to win him over. The eiron is successful in convincing them that he is listening carefully 14 so that they find more ways of revealing themselves: PAPH. That over all Hellas our Demus may rule; for do not the oracles say, He will surely his verdicts in Arcady give, receiving five obols a day, If he grew not aweary of fighting? Meanwhile, it is I who will nourish and pet him, And always the daily triobol he earns, unjustly or justly I'll get him. 13 B. B. Rogers points out that this is a hint to actual historical events. Two Athenian generals managed to seize Pylus and later capture many Spartans as prisoners, but because they had delayed in their action a few months Cleon accused them of cowardice and went there himself to clear up the situation. Although he discovered the situation was already cleared up, since the generals had won the battle, Cleon managed to get credit for something that the two generals achieved, without himself having done anything to deserve it (pp. 120-122).

"

Knights

787, 873-874, 884, 943-945, 1011-1013, 1048, 1059.

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

25

S.S. No not that o'er Arcady Demus may rule, but rather that you might essay To harry and plunder the cities at will, while Demus is looking away, And the war with the haze and the dust that you raise is obscuring your actions from view, And Demus, constrained by his wants and his pay, is a gaping dependent on you . . . You KNOW it; and Demus you swindle with dreams, crammed full of yourself and your praises. CKnights 797-809) This is the real nature of the alazon to whom Demos had entrusted his fate. While listening, Demos manages to appear stupid, easily diverted by promises of food, flattery, and bribery: S.S. But answer me this single thing: you sell a lot of leather, You say you're passionately fond of Demus, — tell me whether You've given a clout to patch his shoes. DE. No, never, I declare. S.S. You see the sort of man he is! but I, I've bought a pair Of good stout shoes, and here they are, I give them you to wear. DE. O worthy, patriotic gift! I really don't suppose There ever lived a man so kind to Demus and his toes. S.S. . . . But here's a tunic I have brought, well-lined, with double sleeves. DE. O, why Themistocles himself ne'er thought of such a vest! (.Knights 868-84) A little later, when the two men come to read their oracles, Demos shows himself willing to be flattered: Well read them out; and prithee don't forget The one I love to hear about myself, That I'm to soar, an Eagle, in the clouds. CKnights 1011-13) The more Demos pretends to be pleased with their promises, the

26

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

more he facilitates their effort to convince him with false hopes. Finally, Demos decides to favor the one who proves in practice, and not only in words, his love for him: DE. I can't abide your barley-talk; too often Have I been duped by you and Thuphanes. PAPH. I'll give you barley-meal, all ready-made. S.S. I'll give you barley-cakes, all ready-baked, And well-broiled fish. Do nothing else but eat. DE. Make haste and do it then, remembering this, Whichever brings me most titbits to-day, To him alone I'll give the Pnyx's reins. (Knights 1102-09)

By showing himself a sensual old man, easily flattered and influenced by promises of a good tunic or a good meal, Demos uncovers the two men. The encouragement which Demos offered and his final decision to accept one of them as worthy of his trust, make it clear to those watching him that his "wit is roaming". This is part of Aristophanes' plan to use a foolish eiron to help reveal the alazons' nature in a more positive way. When the time comes, Demos uncovers himself and admits, when talking to the chorus, that he is not the person they take him to be: DE. Wit there's none in your hair. What, you think me a fool! What, you know not I wear, Wear my motley by rule! (Knights 1121-24)

The chorus is surprised by the unexpected confession of the old man and willingly expresses its admiration for the cunning plan of Demos to play the fool in order to trap the alazons: Art thou really so deep? Is such artfulness thine? (Knights 1131-32)

In the chorus' sincere voice of surprise at the ways of the old man, Aristophanes comments on the success of his device. Demos assures the chorus of his plan: Ah! they know not that I Watch them plunder and thieve.

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

27

Ah! 'tis easy, they cry, Him to gull and deceive. Comes M Y turn by and by! D o w n their gullet, full quick, Lo, my verdict-tube coils, Turns them giddy and sick, U p they vomit their spoils: Such, with rogues, is my dealing, 'Tis for MYSELF they are stealing. (.Knights 1141-50)

In his words he shows the real eiron hidden behind the fool: DE. Zeus! if I don't with these two lovers, have A rare good time, 'tis dainty I must be. (Knights 1163-64)

He delights at the deception and enjoys playing with the delusion of the two. The denouement itself reveals how well Aristophanes had planned his device to use a foolish eiron to uncover alazonic human nature. Paphlagon is the only one punished and driven away from the stage. He had proved himself cunning, impudent, hypocritical, and immoral in his words and actions; he had been the live manifestation of disorder in human nature. The SausageSeller, although he showed himself to be the equal of the former in words, proved to be his superior in his actions and he is rewarded by being trusted with the management of Demos' household. This is not an act of stupidity on the part of Demos, nor is it improper as a solution. The Sausage-Seller's function in the play had been to reveal the real alazorís nature by pretending to exhibit an equal amount of immorality in his words and intentions. The comic language Aristophanes puts in the SausageSeller's mouth proves that he served as a false counterpart of Paphlagon. The fact that in his agon with Paphlagon he is the only one to make all the real accusations16 while Paphlagon keeps on the defensive, having nothing of which to accuse the SausageSeller and prove him impudent, shows that the whole ethical distortion was a set-up to uncover Paphlagon's immorality. By re" See Knights 792-796, 801-809, 817-819, 824-835, 847-857, 893-894, 10701072.

28

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

juvenating Demos at the end (Knights 1321), by making him a "noble Demus" again, and by managing to provide him with thirty year treaties, the Sausage-Seller shows that his false role is over and he promises to work for the re-establishment of order in Demos' household. His words of triumph when he wins over Paphlagon: "Hellanian Zeus, the victory prize is thine!" (Knights 1253)16 also suggest that the counterfeit role is over and the real role of the benefactor of the people assumes validity. As for Demos himself, although depicted stupid and sensual, he is soon uncovered to show that the denouement was an act of logic. He had been successful in his mission to work for the revelation of alazonic human nature, and his decision to accept the SausageSeller is a promise that order will be re-established. Demos is led to a banquet which is symbolic of Aristophanes' optimism that the Athenian citizen will finally attain a degree of knowledge which will help him distinguish the real from the counterfeit value of things and persons. The eiron-alazon relationship is part of Aristophanes' wider plan to cure state corruption through personal attack, actual revelation of the truth, and awakening of the citizens' insight. The alleged ignorance of Demos is meant as a compliment to the Athenian citizens whom he represents. It is a flattering comment on the citizens' ability to see and stop the state corruption by proving their weakness to be their power, and like Demos improve their lives. Jonson similarly uses the eiron-alazon relationship to reveal the depths of degeneration hidden behind human desire for wealth, and to point to the need that man's intelligence and ethos cooperate in order for man to cast off pernicious vices. His work is more universal and inclusive than Aristophanes'. Demos pretended to let himself be fed with false hopes in order to lead the alazons to a blind-alley and see them deceived in their own expectations at the moment when they considered their plans successful. The Aristophanic eiron, a mere observer of the alazons' " The translator notes the following: "This was an Aeginitan title of Zeus, but it was used as a symbol of Greek unity. Cleon's fall means the triumph of Hellenism." I, p. 244.

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

29

plans, kept himself in the background. Jonson's eiron is created to work in another direction. He is always present and participates in the agon under all sorts of disguises. He is the main source of invention in planning and executing the tricks which will trap the alazons and expose them to common view as completely degenerate human beings. The servants had planned all the tricks for Demos who was free to play the role of the foolish master and successfully deceive the alazons. Volpone is more involved. It is harder for him to play the fool and still find delight in his direct confrontation with the alazons. Jonson has Volpone pretend he is sick, a trick which successfully facilitates his plans. While in bed, Volpone pretends to be as innocent as Demos in the ways of human nature, yet he is far more active than Demos. With the help of Mosca, his active spokesman, Volpone feeds those around him with high hopes about the inheritance they are to receive upon his death. The device of the sick man gives Volpone an advantage over the Aristophanic eiron, for it allows him to laugh beneath his bed clothes at the inability of man to see beyond an assumed appearance toward something he does not want to acknowledge. Jonson, following the Aristophanic technique, presents his eiron as participating in the world of the alazons; he is as cunning, sneaky, shameless, flattering, hypocritical, and immoral as the men who so greedily gather around him under the false pretense of human concern and interest. Jonson, like Aristophanes, portrays his eiron as one of the alazons in such a way that the agon again is fought among seemingly equal parties. Jonson, however, makes Volpone a richer and more complex personality. Volpone is an active participant in the agon around him when compared with passive Demos. Volpone himself actually sharing all their intentions, would have been a weak eiron had he left the alazons to fight among themselves. Volpone, as much as Demos, is aware of the facts around him, but being at the same time an active participant of the alazons' world, he loses some of his ability to judge correctly. Talking to Mosca early in the course of the play, Volpone exhibits the ironic character of the man with the clear insight who perfectly understands that human nature is

30

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

so obsessed by greed that it lives on hopes instead of on facts and is so blind that it entrusts its expectations on the "air": So many cares, so many maladies, So many feares attending an old age, Yea, death so often call'd on, as no wish Can be more frequent with 'hem, their limbs faint, Their senses dull, their seeing, hearing, going, All dead before them; yea, their very teeth, Their instruments of eating, fayling them: Yet this is reckon'd life! Nay, here was one, Is now gone home, that wishes to live longer! Feeles not his gout, nor palsie, faines himselfe Yonger, by scores of yeares, flatters his age With confident belying it, hopes he may With charmes, like AESON, have his youth restor'd, And with these thoughts so battens, as if fate Would be as easily cheated on, as he, And all turnes aire! (Volpone I.iv. 144-59) This active eiron's vision is less clear than passive Demos' who is not completely equated with the alazons. Jonson's art manages to put the eiron into the same category as the alazons and at the end to have Volpone as much disappointed and deceived as the alazons themselves. Yet it is Volpone who brings about full disillusioning and a proper resolution when he, by confessing the truth to the avocatori, decides to undo the knots which had confused the others. Jonson's comedy opens with a direct self-revelation of the protagonist. Volpone confesses that he plays a role when he pretends to be happy with the gifts that those who hope to inherit him bring him: All which I suffer, playing with their hopes, And am content to coyne 'hem into profit, And looke upon their kindnesse, and take more, And look on that; still bearing them in hand, Letting the cherry knock against their lips, And, draw it, by their mouths, and back againe. (Volpone I.i.85-90) He shamelessly admits his plan to vex with cruelty those inter-

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

31

ested in his property by feeding them with hopes. A few lines before this revelation, Volpone had tried to show how unlike the world around him he is; he unconsciously emphasized his identity with the alazons soon to appear on the stage: I use no trade, no venter; I wound no earth with plow-shares; fat no beasts To feede the shambles; have no mills for yron, Oyle, corne, or men, to grinde 'hem into poulder; I blow no subtill glasse; expose no ships To threatnings of the furrow-faced sea; I turne no moneys, in the publike banke; No usure private — (Volpone I.i.33-40) The apparent difference between Volpone and the rest of mankind purposely excludes Volpone's affinity for the ways of the alazons when it comes to money, "melting" an inheritance, or confiscating someone else's property for personal gain. Mosca, who is listening to his master's confession and is participant of his world, will not leave the statement unanswered, and his intelligent evaluation follows Volpone's confession. Mosca, like Volpone, is an alazon in his intentions, yet he has enough of the eiron's intelligence and insight to understand and correctly interpret the ways of Volpone; as a matter of fact, he serves to present Volpone's case in double, the way the Sausage-Seller presented Paphlagon's. Here his flattery reveals Volpone's sensuality which Volpone had tried to hide under false rhetoric: You are not like the thresher, that doth stand With a huge flaile, watching a heape of corne, And, hungrie, dares not taste the smallest graine, But feeds on mallowes, and such bitter herbs; Nor like the merchant, who hath fill'd his vaults With Romagnia, and rich Candian wines, Yet drinkes the less of Bombards vineger: You will not lie in straw, whilst moths, and wormes Feed on your sumptuous hangings, and soft beds. (Volpone I.i.53-62) Mosca's exaggerated imagery and metaphors reveal Volpone's real sickness — his beastly sensuality — which is worse than the avariciousness of the alazons because it threatens to affect the

32

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

lives of others and deprive them of their personal integrity. Volpone himself better reveals the extent of his sensuality: Prepare Me musicke, dances, banquets, all delights; The Turke is not more sensual, in his pleasures, Then will VOLPONE. ('Volpone I.v.86-89)

Volpone needs no introductory whisperings behind his back. His relationship with Mosca and his conversation with him uncovers his real personality. Mosca, following Volpone's example, offers an accurate portrait of himself in a monologue where he vividly portrays the alazonic nature of man in the picture he paints of himself: . . . fine, elegant rascall, that can rise, And stoope (almost together) like an arrow; Shoot through the aire, as nimbly as a starre; Turne short, as doth a swallow; and be here, And there, and here, and yonder, all at once; Present to any humour, all occasion; And change a visor, swifter than a thought! (Volpone III.i.23-29)

The picture shows alazonic nature as Jonson saw it, capable of changing shapes and "visors" like Proteus to suit a certain purpose, fickle and frail as the inclination of the moment bids. Jonson's vision of the alazon is similar to that of Aristophanes'. Mosca's stride is as gigantic as Paphlagon's whose "eyes are everywhere" and whose hands and thoughts move as fast and as artistically (cf. Knights 75-79). Mosca proves to be more intelligent than Paphlagon during the course of the play, for, like Volpone, he is both eiron and alazon, a clear manifestation of the potentialities of human intelligence. Paphlagon's role is restricted to taking part only in an agon of words where the only actions take the shape of a great boastful nostalgia over his past superhuman deeds. Nonetheless, the picture has a degree of similarity in its inspiration; Jonson is influenced by Aristophanes' art in presenting man as able to act like a chameleon or a superhuman being, able to change the world whenever personal interest guides his steps.

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

33

Mosca is the counterpart not only of the eiron and the alazon in Jonson's world, but also of all the alazons presented in Aristophanes' comedy. He is superhuman in his intentions and abilities. Cunning, flattery, shamelessness, and hypocrisy are weapons common to both parties of alazons and the eiron-alazon of Jonson's comedy. The self-centered nature of man revealed in Jonson's comedy is the exact counterpart of that nature as Aristophanes had seen it so many years before Jonson. Voltore, the Avocate, is the first alazon to be presented in a direct confrontation with the eiron and his assistant. Mosca's previously depicted nature will prove equal to the rest of the alazons in shamelessness. Like the Aristophanic alazons who used to flatter Demos by promising blind obedience and service, Voltore comes with valuable presents to delude Volpone and secure the promise that he will become heir. He, like all Jonsonian alazons, is strongly motivated in his use of flattery and his vain exhibition of interest. He has aimed at inheriting Volpone's money no matter what the consequences. Like the Aristophanic alazon who tried to cheat Demos by appealing to the sensual side of his nature (food, good life, shoes, tunic, etc.), Jonson's alazons, bringing him presents which they think would turn his mind to their favor, try to deceive Volpone by appealing to the greed of his sensual nature. When it comes to self-interest, these alazons are the same sort of pragmatic psychologists as those of Aristophanes in the way they weigh the most minute details which would influence the eirons and facilitate their work. Like Demos who pretended to believe the alazons' intentions and gestures, Volpone, paying hypocrisy with false faith, welcomes his Magi with their valuable presents and never fails to show them his "sincere" appreciation. Volpone, by pretending to be seriously ill, gives the alazons an opportunity to be themselves and not to bother about diplomatic language and false behavior. One does not have to guess the real meaning of their words, as it was necessary to do with Paphlagon. Once Volpone pretends to have fallen into a coma, the whole truth is revealed as if by magic. Voltore, like all those greedy for money who follow him in Volpone's house, starts out with a pretended concerned look and

34

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

a false interest in Volpone's health. Once Volpone exclaims: "I feele me going, (vh, vh, vh, vh)/ I am sayling to my port, (vh, vh, vh, vh?)" (Volpone I.iii.28-29), the man feels relieved and free to express himself and his real feelings. Volpone pretends to fall into a lethargy immediately after he touches the gift, and Voltore does not have to pretend for long. Being himself, the first question Voltore asks Mosca is: "Am I inscrib'd his heire, for certayne?" {Volpone I.iii.33). He wants to be immediately sure so as not to miss a second's happiness of being heir. Again and again he asks Mosca in agony: "but am I sole heire?" (Volpone I.iii.44). It is hard to believe that such happiness is real, and he wants to be assured of his expectations. In his lack of humanity, Voltore never thinks that his happiness depends on another's death. Mosca's answer is as diplomatic as Volpone's would have been: I, oft, have heard him say, how he admir'd Men of your profession, that could speake To every cause, and things mere contraries, Till they were hoarse againe, yet all be law; (Volpone I.iii.52-55)

In his irony Mosca expresses the wish that both he and Volpone be as perfect as the Aristophanic sophists in convincing with false logic. Ironically, Mosca praises Voltore for the wrong qualities; being ignorant of the ways of human nature, overconfident of his own ability to outsmart the world, and indifferent to others' potentialities, Voltore takes it as a first-rate compliment. The fact that Mosca expresses Volpone's wish becomes clear in Mosca's own words when he points out later: Alas, sir, I but doe, as I am taught; Follow your grave instructions; give 'hem wordes; Powre oyle into their cares: and send them hence. (Volpone I.iv.139-41)

The end of the play, however, shows that Mosca was not a mere instrument in Volpone's hands, for he was working for his own profit. In the world which Aristophanes created in the Knights, the alazons are more sincere in the way they feel and behave toward

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

35

one another than the characters in Jonson's play are. Both Paphlagon and the Sausage-Seller develop cannibalistic appetites of destruction in their wish to prevail. They never think of pretending to be friendly to each other: they are sincere in their hatred. Mosca, an alazon himself, always pretends to be friendly with the other alazons and never shows his hatred the way Aristophanes' alazons do. Mosca mocks Voltore in the false language of admiration because he acts for the eiron and reflects Volpone's thoughts in his words and actions. Thus the alazons' smiles of victory are turned into bitter grimaces when they see their world scattered in pieces. These alazons are mutually deceived in their expectations from one another; their delusion is greater than that of the Aristophanic alazon who at least sees his foe clearly many times in the face of his opponent. Jonson teaches a hard lesson to those who base their hopes on "air". Signior Corbaccio appears soon after Voltore, happy in his thoughts of the inheritance, leaves the stage. This degenerate old man also comes to visit Volpone with the purpose of finding out whether the time has finally come to inherit his property. In his haste to hear himself proclaimed an heir, he forgets to pretend to be humane and show concern for Volpone's health: human values have no place in his world of self-interest. When Mosca informs him that Volpone is worse, he answers spontaneously: "that's well", and when Mosca adds that Volpone had an apoplexy which has almost "paramorphosed" him, he exclaims: "O, good!" The more Mosca exaggerates the seriousness of Volpone's condition, the more eagerly he responds, crying out: "excellent, excellent!" The psychological treatment of man in this extreme case of self-interest, as it reveals him betraying the secret of his own existence, is a contribution of Jonson's art to the Aristophanic technique. Jonson's psychological study of the human mind aims at revealing man's incapacity to control himself and to act and think reasonably when he lets his beastly nature overpower whatever is humane in him.17 In his inability to see what 17

Corbaccio's inhumanity is also projected in the language of Mosca and

Bonario where the "natural" and "unnatural" emphasize the real relationship between father and son: Volpone III.ii.17, 36, 54; m.ix.31; IV.v.5, 107; IV.vi.90.

36

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

the actual situation is, the alazon mistakes Mosca's flattery and false concern for real interest, and even agrees to disinherit his own son, being convinced by Mosca that this is the surest way to inherit Volpone's money.18 Under the ironic compliments of Mosca and the vicious laughter of Volpone who hears everything, Corbaccio leaves the stage absolutely convinced, like Voltore before him, that he will win the inheritance. Also taking Mosca's mocking and irony for interest and concern, Signior Corvino is the last of the three alazons to fall into Mosca's snare. Once Mosca assures him that he himself hates Volpone, Corvino willingly answers the challenge and admits that Volpone is like an "old smok'd wall, on which the raine/ Ran down in streakes", his nose is "like a common sewer, still running", and as for his mouth it is "a very draught" (Volpone I.v.61-62). Ironically, Volpone himself watches him closely. Corvino's cunning, like that of Volpone's other two opponents, works only in one direction. Having his mind set on Volpone's money, he watches as plans are executed the way he had plotted them, but he forgets to watch the ways of others, underestimating the possibility they might outwit him, and in his self-confidence not even taking any notice of their presence. Corvino presents an extraordinary case of immorality and as such he will be more ironically treated than the other two. The eiron plans to have Corvino willingly give his wife to him. Volpone, disguised as a mountebank and helped by Mosca, addresses Corvino's wife in public, causing Corvino to react like a real Pantalone, the old man of Commedia Dell' Arte who is always jealous of his beautiful young wife and is ridiculed as such. Jonson did not mean Corvino to be a Pantalone only for the sake of laughter; he presents him furious at his wife's liberty in order to show the depraved inconstancy and pretense of man when he is self-centered and egotistical. The stern husband who threatens his wife with the murder "of father, mother, brother", and all her race (Volpone II.v.28), who pretends to be incurably wounded in his honor and is anxious to find revenge, presents an interesting case of hypocrisy. The new Othello, who blinded by jealousy 18 See Volpone I.iv.108-118.

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

37

would have drawn his dagger to defend his honor and sternly orders his wife to go and live in the margin of life because she consents to listen to the mountebank's praise: "Thy lodging shall be backewards; thy walke backe-wards" (Volpone II.v.59), turns into a mild sheep, a passive and quiet man, when Mosca asks him to bid his wife "forward" to Volpone's bed. When invited by Mosca to "think, think, think, think, think, think, think" (Volpone II.vi.59), Corvino, who had threatened to pay with blood for his honor, demonstrates how shallow his previous morals were, how hypocritical his anger, and how false and pretentious his belief in human values. Greed will be above thought, money above honor and reputation. The fact that Mosca urges Corvino to "think" emphasizes the absence of thoughts in Corvino's mind. He does not have to think because he is not torn by any kind of ethical dilemma, for his belief in human values is superficial and hypocritical. Words like honor and reputation are empty sounds when compared with that of Volpone's money. That is why so suddenly the wrathful husband becomes a skeptical Falstaff and says: Honour? tut, a breath; There's no such thing, in nature: a mere terme Invented to awe fooles. (Volpone Ill.vii.38-40)

Corvino, expressing his degeneration, turns honor into a nothingness.19 Fortunately for Corvino's wife, the plan is discovered in time, and Volpone, along with the husband, is called to answer for the whole thing. It is Volpone's turn to pay for his alazonic nature. Since he has the advantage over the other alazons in clearly seeing things as they are, Volpone is not deceived in his judgment regarding the nature of the birds of carrion. He can read their real thoughts in his own; when his estimation of their characters is corroborated by their confessions while they thought him almost dead, he is greatly pleased instead of angered. He knows why Voltore decides to defend his case in court, why Corbaccio " See also Volpone III.vii.54, 92, 200, 208 where the repetition of the word "nothing" emphasizes Corvino's inhumanity.

38

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

disinherits his own son, and why Corvino so easily decides that "honour is but a word", for he shares their avaricious dreams and understands their ways. This is what Volpone says in a conversation with Mosca: Deare saint, Riches, the dumbe god, that giv'st all men tongues: That canst doe nought, and yet mak'st men doe all things; The price of soules; even hell, with thee to boot, Is made worth heaven! Thou art vertue, fame, Honour, and all things else! Who can get thee, He shall be noble, valiant, honest, wise —

('Volpone I.i.21-27) Volpone's perverted logic reflects his inner distortion. His sensual imagination makes him see riches as the god that works miracles and allows the one who possesses them to control the actions of others, perhaps merely for the sake of amusement. Volpone feels safe as he plays with the birds of carrion, enjoying the spectacle of their foolishness as they continue to degrade themselves. The more they spend for him, the more convinced Volpone is of his success, but once his own sensuality influences him to neglect his cautiousness and to forget to peer behind the facade of his acquaintances' words into the abyss of their motivations, he becomes vulnerable to others just as they had been vulnerable to him. When Bonario interferes with Volpone's seduction of Celia, the old man feels the ground shifting under his feet for the first time: Fall on me, roofe, and bury me in ruine, Become my grave, that wert my shelter. O! I am un-masqu'd, un-spirited, un-done, Betray'd to beggery, to infamy — {Volpone IILvii.276-79)

His voice of despair shows how much shocked he is. He dreads the thought that his dreams will turn into ashes from one moment to the next. Volpone has to pay for his double personality and this is where society interferes with his personal relationships. Volpone admits to himself that "'twas good, in private". Once his world becomes larger and society invades his sanctuary, Volpone, aware of the danger of being discovered, drinks to

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

39

forget his worries, to "be merry" and "shake off" the dull thoughts which are not worthy of his self-image. Made "up againe" with wine, he says: "I was/ A little in a mist; but not dejected:/ Never, but still my selfe" (Volpone V.ii.39-41). Volpone decides to play dead so that for the last time he can see the alazons crowd his house with the hope of finally reaching their goal: O, I shall have, instantly, my vulture, crow, Raven, come flying hither (on the newes) To peck for carrion, my shee-wolfe, and all, Greedy, and full of expectation — (Volpone V.ii.64-67) Volpone's language depicts the utmost degradation of mankind, when human beings turn into birds of carrion hunting for corpses. At this moment of high hope, Volpone plans to have their joy "ravish'd from their mouthes". This time he plays only the role of the eiron, motivated by nothing except a spirit of irony and mere jest; he takes delight beforehand at the exposure of human avarice: I'le get up, Behind the cortine, on a stoole, and harken; Sometime, peepe over; see, how they doe looke; With what degrees, their bloud doth leave their faces! O, 'twill afford me a rare meale of laughter. (Volpone V.ii.83-87) This man sounds like Demos when he had confessed that he was going to have "a rare good time" with the alazons in his world (Knights 1162-63). Yet Volpone's is a malicious laughter at the alazons' degeneration. He is sure that one of them will "turne stark dull", the other will "crumpe" Volpone "like a hog-louse, with the touch", and the third will certainly "runne mad". The eiron will laugh at human beings taken by surprise, and, being the cause of their embarrassments, he will be delighted at his success. The eiron's role here is not only to provoke greedy, hypocritical, and self-centered men to reveal their nature, but also to "torture" and "vexe" them with his irony, to become "sharp disease unto 'hem" in order to have the world realize to what

40

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

point of degradation vices and folly lead mankind.20 Mosca, on the other hand, before paying for his own alazonic nature, will teach Volpone as hard a lesson as the one Volpone had planned for others: My F O X E Is out on his hole, and, ere he shall re-enter, I'le make him languish, in his borrow'd case, E x c e p t he come to composition, with me: (Volpone V.v.6-9)

Mosca plans to catch Volpone by surprise and trap him in his own snare: Let his sport pay for't, this is call'd the F O X E - t r a p . (Volpone

V.v.18)

Ironically, Volpone's own words to Voltore become the most appropriate commentary on his own punishment, for when he is jibing at him Volpone remarks: It cannot be, sir, that you should be cosen'd; 'Tis not within the wit of man, to doe it: Y o u are so wise, so prudent, and, 'tis fit, That wealth and wisdome still should goe together. (Volpone V.ix.17-20)

but unknowingly he reveals himself, since he shares all the qualities of the alazons' character; he becomes victimized. Mosca threatens to reveal Volpone's plans to the court if Volpone does not appoint him his heir immediately. Mosca almost succeeds but the old man decides to talk for himself, thus helping to dissipate the confusion which had been created as much by his own words and actions as those of the alazons: I am V O L P O N E , and this is my knave; This, his owne knave; this, avarices foole; This, a Chimaera of wittall, foole, and knave. (Volpone V.xii.89-91)

Volpone's language shows the degree of his surprise on being deceived by Mosca. He is still proud of himself as the emphasis he puts upon the "I" shows. The repetition of the words "knave" See Volpone V.ii.56, 111; V.iii.106, 112, 117; V.ix.16 for references to Volpone's malicious delight at vexing and torturing the alazons. 20

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

41

and "foole" which describe the alazons around him express his last-moment agony as he tries to prove to everyone that he is still as clear-sighted as he had been at the beginning of the play. Once the truth is revealed, Volpone finds little sympathy for his own ethical self-degradation. The Avocatori, who had proved themselves in the course of the play as stupid and deceived as the alazons, are the representatives of authority who are called upon to establish order. These people, taken in by his false appearance as a sick old man, had been mistaken in their judgment about Volpone and had pronounced the guilty innocent and the innocent guilty, for which they apologized: "I' am sorry, our credulitie wrong'd him" (Volpone IV.vi.57). In fact it was not their "credulitie" that had wronged Volpone, but rather their lack of concern for others. These people are part of the chaos which selfish and indifferent individuals create in the world. The Avocatori had pronounced Voltore a benefactor: "you have done a worthy service to the state, sir" (Volpone IV.vi.60), while in fact Voltore had knowingly defended the guilty. Even Corvino had suspected their easy way of reaching conclusions and perceived the ignorance and indifference hidden beneath their tone of sincerity: "I doe doubt the Avocate, still" (Volpone IV.vi.74), he admitted. While everyone around had seemed confused at the complexity of the case, the Avocatori took everything for granted; they doubted nothing and believed whatever the impostors wanted them to believe. As representatives of authority, the Avocatori must find a way to show that reason is momentarily restored. The vices must be punished so that people see in their degradation the triumph of sane morality. Mosca is whipped, commanded to disrobe himself — an action which will symbolically reveal the real man behind the counterfeit — and condemned to spend the rest of his life "prisoner in the gallies". Volpone is sentenced to remain in prison until he is "really sicke and lame indeed". Behind the ridiculous pronouncement of the verdict a sad truth asserts itself: Volpone's real sickness is "incurable" (Volpone V.xii.120). Voltore is banished from the city; Corbaccio is confined "to Monasterie of San Spirito" where he will learn to "die well", and

42

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

Corvino is condemned to be taken around Venice like a common fool, wearing a cap with "long asses eares". All the alazons are driven away from town, like Paphlagon in Aristophanes' comedy; although Aristophanes leaves his audience to guess the "why" of his decision, Jonson makes it clear why the vices have been punished after their real character has been revealed through their relationship with the eiron: Let all, that see these vices thus rewarded, Take heart, and love to study 'hem. Mischiefes feed Like beasts, till they be fat, and then they bleed. CVolpone V.xii.149-51) The revelation of human nature as degenerate and beastly and the punishment of the vices are meant only as cases to be studied by the audience. Man has purposely been exposed as being monstrous in his vices, inhuman in his endeavors, and beastly in his unnatural appetites, so that people will see, as if through a magnifying glass, the monstrosity of human degradation, laugh at it, and cure their own vices through laughter. Jonson showed in an exaggerated way that greed for money degrades man, driving him away from human dignity and faith in human values which hold the balance of the world. Aristophanes showed the triumph of the positive side of human nature and secured a promise that order will be reestablished when the pest which had created chaos in Demos' household was cast away from it forever. There is no actual improvement in Volpone, for Jonson's purpose is to show what to avoid in life. In order to make people think of the necessity for order, he presented moral disorder as it was created by the alazons of the world. Both Aristophanes and Jonson present the world's eirons and alazons in an agon which leads man away from delusion. Their comedies are exaggerated expressions of an effort to present the human mind distracted by the immoderate self-love and indifference toward the rest of mankind. Jonson believes with Mosca that: All the wise world is little else, in nature, But Parasites or Sub-parasites. (Volpone III.i.12-13)

REVELATION OF DEGENERATE HUMAN NATURE

43

The world as it is now is a place where ethical degeneration reigns as people try to monopolize the welfare of the world, create a life for themselves, ignore the rest of humanity, and prosper at the expense of their fellow men. Yet even if the world is invaded by alazons, people can become eirons when they make right use of their intellect and drive away from their lives those who are unworthy of living a better life. In both cases the dramatists suggest that selfish men who underestimate the human mind and aspire to conquer the world for themselves are unhappy and miserable since in the end they accomplish nothing and merely get the scorn and contempt of society. The closing Aristophanic banquet and the Jonsonian punishment both assert a positive lesson to be learned by man. Human weakness can be turned into strength once men realize their potentialities, see beyond pretense and affectation the world as it really is, stop hoping beyond reason, and take the initiative in working positively for a better future. The revelation of human nature as degenerate and at the same time as intelligent enough to create a new life for man, asserts the possibility that the world can be without vices.

II THE WORLD OF THE AUDIENCE

"How many things escape our notice!" (Peace 619)

Self-ignorance is the main target of Aristophanes' and Jonson's criticisms and it manifests itself in the way the two dramatists viewed their audiences. Their comments on the world of the audience justify the efforts of the playwrights to show the world of the play — ruled by eirons and alazons — as degenerating and also capable of regaining human dignity through the establishment of a hope for a better future. The eiron this time is the dramatist himself whose ironic criticism stimulates people to improve themselves. Jonson shares Aristophanes' view of the audience and presents a dichotomy consisting of the wise and the ignorant, eirons and alazons existing side by side in the world. While their aim and view is the same, their approach toward the audience is different. Aristophanes uses comic irony and well intended jokes to make his public think highly of their potentialities to be keen and shrewd as the author wants them to be. Jonson uses cynical language and reproach to make the people see the degree of their ignorance. Nevertheless, Jonson and Aristophanes both toward the end of their careers become more tolerant and mellower toward the audience. While creating the world of the play for the audience, the two dramatists tried to be consistent in their presentation of human nature as wise and ignorant. They wanted the world of the play to be as close as possible to the real world represented in the audience of their time. It is important for us to see how Aris-

THE WORLD OF THE AUDIENCE

45

tophanes and Jonson viewed the world of their audiences in order to understand why they created their world the way they did, and to understand the meaning of their art. Aristophanes wrote most of his comedies at a time of high anxiety; the people were weary of the times and afflicted by all sorts of misfortunes — war, plague, death, etc. These people went to the theater to escape from a dreary reality, to forget their troubles, and to relax from tension and anxiety; therefore, Aristophanes believed that comedy first should be funny and appeal to the emotions of the public before it is successful as a message appealing to their intellect. The masks and the costumes which the players used to wear helped the playwright create an illusion of escape for his audience; the jokes and humor, fitting the atmosphere of the public temperament, helped man forget his anxiety. Since Aristophanes' comedies were acted during the Dionysiac festivals when most of the people were drunk and merry, the jokes of the plays were accommodated to the merry mood of the moment in order to be successful as vehicles for messages. The world Aristophanes created in his plays reflects the sprit of the Dionysiac celebration. Jonson displays in his comedies a gay spirit similar to that of Aristophanes. His use of obscene jokes, coarse jests, and audacious ridicule of vices have much of the carefree Aristophanic spirit of merriment in them. Since Jonson's audience also demanded to be entertained first, Jonson had to use humor and language fitting their taste and mentality in order for his messages to be successfully conveyed to them. Yet he, like Aristophanes, also tried to be more serious than comic when addressing his audience; he attempted to point to the importance of the serious message hidden behind the comic world he created: Now gentlemen, I goe To turne an actor, and a Humorist, Where (ere I doe resume my present person) We hope to make the circles of your eyes Flow with distilled laughter: (.E.M.O., After 2nd Sounding, 213-17)

The "present person" is Asper, Jonson's serious commentator

46

THE WORLD OF THE AUDIENCE

who has nothing comic about him. When Jonson addresses his audience in the Prologues, Epilogues, and during the course of the play under different names and disguises, although partly using devices which derive from Roman Comedy (prologues, epilogues), he is inspired by Aristophanes' art in the way he views the people. Aristophanes addresses his audience in the parabasis as a chorus. The chorus jokes with the spectators, asks for their help and advice, and makes them participate in the play in order that they might see for themselves the relationship between their world and the world of the play which was created for them. The chorus is the spokesman for the author himself. Most often the Aristophanic parabasis is a plea from the author — for a better understanding and appreciation of his work — to the audience, which should recognize that the poet's voice of abuse is the voice of a true benefactor: But you, ye numberless myriads, stay And listen the while to me. Beware lest the truths I am going to say Unheeded to earth should fall; For that were the part of a fool to play, And not your part at all. (Wasps 1010-14)

It is important for the audience to understand the "truths" which the author hides behind his jokes, the poet's good intentions, and his righteous and true art. Once they understand that, they can more easily understand themselves and others. Besides pleading for his right cause and noble art, the author wants to be sure that the audience is entertained and takes pleasure in the dramatist's "words and acts". In order to have people cooperate and at the same time enjoy themselves, Aristophanes uses flattery and compliments whenever he finds an opportunity: Our audience here Are shrewd and bright; they'll recognize the man. {Knights 232-33)

The comment is ironic since in this particular case it did not

47

THE WORLD OF THE AUDIENCE

require exceptional mental abilities to recognize the character as Cleon, the chief demagogue of Aristophanes' time: frequent allusions to his profession, character, and historical actions made it clear to the audience who was meant by Paphlagon. 1 As Aristophanes' method is always to provoke the people to measure up to his own ideal, he hopes the audience will overlook the irony and admire his daring remark and action. On other occasions Aristophanes calls them "best and wisest" (Clouds 521) and "sharp and keen" (Frogs 1115). This intelligent audience demands a sharp, bright, and intelligent poet; therefore, Aristophanes praises himself so that the audience do not consider themselves bright in vain: Always fresh ideas sparkle, always novel jests delight, Nothing like each other, save that all are most exceeding bright. (•Clouds 547-48)

Aristophanes, a good psychologist, knows that by lifting the mentality of the audience and elevating the people's level of understanding he incites them to really work for their own progress. Whatever he offers them is carefully chosen to fit their mentality; his comedies are not "too refined and exquisite" for them, "yet wittier far than vulgar comedy" (Wasps 65-66). Aristophanes wants to make sure that the audience will realize that his obscene jokes, coarse jests, and extravagant ideas are expressions of his wit rather than of vulgarity. The audience must understand that his comedies are full of meaning which goes beyond the comic. Despite the fact that Aristophanes often compliments the mental abilities of his public, many times he does not hesitate to express bitterness at their ingratitude: For now our poet, with right good will, of you, spectators, must needs complain. Ye have wronged him much, he protests, a bard who had served you often and well before. (Wasps 1016-17) 1

Knights 52-57, 361, 392, 438, 798, 932-933, 1103, etc.

48

THE WORLD OF THE AUDIENCE

and he continues in the same spirit of indignation: Ye played him false when to reap, last year the fruit of his novel designs he came. Which, failing to see in their own true light, ye caused to fade and wither away. (Wasps 1044-45)

Although Aristophanes protests in right good will, he forgets himself in his wrath at human ignorance: O unwise and foolish people, yet to mend your ways begin; Use again the good and useful; so hereafter, if ye win 'Twill be due to this your wisdom: if you fall, at least 'twill be Not a fall that brings dishonour, falling from a worthy tree. (Frogs 734-37)

Aristophanes reproaches his audience for not using their intelligence when appointing leaders to manage their state affairs. He also questions their sincerity and mental capability to appreciate his art: Yours is the shame that ye lacked the wit its infinite merit at first to see. (Wasps 1048)

This indignation and contempt for their lack of intelligence and understanding many times comes in the shape of a comic irony which is artistically hidden under a joke: Make much of his play, and store it away And into your wardrobe throw it With the citrons sweet: and if this you do, Your clothes will be fragrant, the whole year through, With the volatile wit of the Poet. (Wasps 1056-59)

These moments of bitterness, indignation, and irony are manifestations of the Aristophanic genius which knows when to praise and when to shock through reproach for a better understanding of his message, because the contradictions are forgotten and the spirit of indignation is lost. Aristophanes knows that a large

THE WORLD OF THE AUDIENCE

49

variety of people, tastes, and minds is included in his audience. Trygaios points out in Peace: Survey the audience: by their looks You can discern their trades. {Peace 543-44) Aristophanes is well aware that, in order to be successful, his plays should try to satisfy all these trades. Aristophanes is anxious to have his efforts crowned with an award. The applause of the spectators will not only prove to him their degree of understanding but it will also show whether his endeavor was successful. H e lets no opportunity slip through his fingers, but between ironic jokes and serious comments he pleads for the prize. Jokingly, Aristophanes asks those bald-headed among the audience: And each bald-headed man should do all that he can That the prize should be awarded to me. (Peace 767-68) The basis of the identity is comic because Aristophanes suffered from baldness, too, but this identity is necessary for his spectators to understand his message. This is the main concern of Aristophanes, and it sometimes carries him away so that in a humorous way he promises those who are to judge the play officially that he will pray for them to receive whatever they desire: Little Lauriotic owlets 8 shall be always flocking in. Ye shall find them all about you, as the dainty brood increases, Building nests within your purses hatching little silver pieces. . . . If you hold some petty office, if you wish to steal and pick, In your hands we'll place a falcon, very keen and small and quick. If a dinner is in question, crops we'll send you for digestion. (Birds 1106-13) 1

According to the translator "the owl was stamped on Athenian coins", Aristophanes, II, p. 236.

50

THE WORLD OF THE AUDIENCE

In comic language Aristophanes has the birds promise to reward the judges by satisfying their demands and appetites, although simultaneously he implies them to be a pack of avaricious and gluttonous thieves. In his effort to come to the level of his audience's mentality, Aristophanes also points out to them, what they will suffer if they deny him the prize: But should you the prize deny us, you had better all prepare, Like the statues in the open, little copper disks to wear;3 Else whene'er abroad ye're walking, clad in raiment white and new, Angry birds will wreak their vengeance, spattering over it and you. CBirds 1114-17)

The picture of the people wearing disks on their heads so the vengeance of the birds can not touch them presents Aristophanes' thesis in a lively way. Aristophanes worked on the mind of his audience in the way he worked on the mind of his characters in the world of the play. He becomes the eiron who vexes the alazons in order to wake them up and make them think highly of themselves. By inviting them to use their right judgment when judging his play, he invites them to become disillusioned and see the degree of human ignorance. The world of the audience is not far from the world of eirons and alazons of the play itself. Aristophanes saw the world as divided between the sharp, bright, keen, shrewd, wise people, and the vulgar crowds, ignorant and unintelligent, who lack wit to see the truth. In the Aristophanic parabasis the chorus takes the part of the eiron and forces the role of alazon upon the audience in a way similar to how the eirons and the alazons were presented side by side in the world of the play. The identity of the worlds leads to parallel results. The spectators are urged to show themselves wise and become the eirons of the world. Like Aristophanes, Jonson is concerned that the audience 3 The scholiast comments that "disks of bronze were placed over the heads of the statues to protect them from the pollutions of birds," Aristophanes, II, p. 238.

THE WORLD OF THE AUDIENCE

51

understand Ms art. His attitude is usually bitter and contemptuous although he sometimes compliments the intelligence of his audience in order to make them think favorably of the play.4 The function of the Aristophanic parabasis is taken by prologues and epilogues which Jonson borrows from the Roman Comedy, but many times, following the Aristophanic technique, Jonson has characters who are outside the world of the play interrupt the action and comment on its development and explain its meaning.5 The author tries to put his audience in a good mood first so that they are attentive, and eventually pleads that the people show themselves different from the characters at whom they had laughed. While Aristophanes lets his audience see a part of the world of the play before he comes to address them in the name of the chorus, Jonson addresses them immediately as he is anxious to point out to them his serious intentions: Who is so patient of this impious world, That he can checke his spirit, or reine his tongue? Or who hath such a dead unfeeling sense, That heavens horrid thunders cannot wake? To see the earth, crackt with the weight of sinne, Hell gaping under us, and o're our heads Blacke rav'nous ruine, with her saile-stretcht wings, Ready to sink us downe, and cover us. Who can behold such prodogies as these, And have his lips seal'd up? not I: my language Was never ground into such oyly colours. To flatter vice and doube iniquitie: But (with an armed, and resolved hand) lie strip the ragged follies of the time, Naked, as at their birth. CE.M.O., After 2nd Sounding, 4-18)

This is not only the voice of a dramatist who wants his comedy to be appreciated as an art form, but also the voice of a man who sees human degeneration and struggles to stop mankind from marching toward destruction. Jonson does not "checke his spirit" but his work expresses his concern to make those who have a "dead unfeeling sense" see the "blacke rav'nous ruine" which « See EM.O., Induction, 55, 65, 134-138. s See EM.O., Asper, Cordatus, Mitis and their function in the play.

52

THE WORLD OF THE AUDIENCE

threatens to annihilate them. Jonson inherited Aristophanes' humanitarian spirit and wanted to inspire men toward higher ideals by showing them the degree of their degeneration. He wants to have the attention of the audience focused on the message of the play more than on anything else: Yet here mistake me not, judicious friends. I doe not this, to begge your patience, Or servilely to fawne on your applause, Like some drie braine, despairing in his merit: Let me be censur'd, by th' austerest brow, Where I want arte, or judgement, taxe me freely: Let envious censors, with their broadest eyes, Looke through and through me, I pursue no favour, Onely vouchsafe me your attentions, And I will give you musicke worth your eares. (E.M.O., After 2nd Sounding, 56-65)

The attention of the audience is the reward of the author; this the applause and prize. Once people are attentive, Jonson is sure that his work will be appreciated for its "genuine merits". Jonson sometimes finds another way to express the seriousness of his purpose. In a comic way he says that "of his playes worth, no egges are broken;/ Nor quaking custards with fierce teeth affrighted" (Volpone, Prol. 20-21). Aristophanes before him had expressed the idea in a similar way: "We have no brace of servants here, to scatter/ Nuts from their basket out among the audience" (Wasps 58-59), and "it is not meet, with such a Bard as ours,/ To fling a shower of figs and confits out/ Amongst the audience, just to make them laugh" (Plutus 797-799). These are comments on the vulgar habits of the audience but at the same time they are expressive of the effort on behalf of the dramatist to show the serious purpose of his art. Jonson's audience, too, was composed of many "trades" which included various levels of mentalities. Jonson is aware of that when at one moment he praises the wisdom and refinement of the people and then he scorns them for their ignorance, lack of taste, and vulgarity. Although he does not flatter them like Aristophanes does and most often reproaches them vigorously, still he finds his way to make them see the truth. He hopes that bitter criticism

THE WORLD OF THE AUDIENCE

53

will shock them to the point that they will start realizing the importance of a change. H e is "Furor Poeticus" when attacking that part of the audience who absolutely lack knowledge and understanding to judge correctly for themselves. H e reproaches them for their ignorance, and makes it clear that he is furious against that spectator who: Sits with his armes thus wreth'd, his hat pull'd here, Cryes meaw, and nods, then shakes his empty head, Will show more severall motions in his face, Then the new London, Rome, or Nineveh, And (now and then) breaks a drie bisquet jest, Which that it may more easily be chew'd; He steeps in his own laughter. (E.M.O., After 2nd Sounding, 160-67) The detailed description of the empty-headed spectator is a bitter comment on the habits of the ignorant who pretend to understand and is successful sarcasm on the spectators' behavior and reactions. The influence of such a man on his neighbors is what Jonson dreads will lead mankind to deeper ignorance. Jonson, however, is also aware that the use of flattery is necessary for his play to be interpreted correctly. Like Aristophanes, he greets in his prologues the "good men and vertuous spirits" who appreciate his art; he distinguishes them from the ignorant who might sit next to them. Doe not I know the times condition? Yes, MITIS, and their soules, and who they be, That eyther will, or can expect against me. None, but a sort of fooles, so sicke in taste, That they condemne all physicke of the mind, And, like gald camels, kicke at every touch. Good men, and vertuous spirits, that loathe their vices, Will cherish my free labours, love my lines, And with the fervour of their shining grace, Make my braine fruitfull to bring forth more objects, Worthy their serious, and intentive eyes. (E.M.O., After 2nd Sounding, 128-38) Jonson can be really rude in the way he despises the "fooles" as he can be flattering in the way he praises the "vertuous spirits". Many times he repeats in his plays:

54

THE WORLD OF THE AUDIENCE

If gracious silence, sweet attention, Quicke sight, and quicker apprehension, (The lights of judgements throne) shine anywhere; Our doubtfull authour hopes this is their sphere. And therefore opens he himselfe to those; To other weaker beames, his labours close. (Cynthias Revells, 3rd Sounding, Prol. 1-6)

This is Jonson's way to plead for an applause. He knows that the "weaker beames" are ready to betray the author with their judgment, for they are as frail and fickle as the alazons in the play; but the "high beames" will meet his expectations and it is for them he writes his plays. In his self-confidence, Jonson says that his "mind is above" the "injuries" (Poetaster, Prol. 28) of the fools and that "the strength of his muse" rises above their wicked intentions. He asks no favor and never hunts "after popular applause". Jonson many times gets away from the diplomatic attitude of Aristophanes' comic irony and compliments. His art is to be appreciated by those "high beames" among his audience in order for him to consider himself successful. He does not quite follow the Aristophanic attitude toward his work, and he is at times self-confident and egotistic. Aristophanes openly and frequently had pleaded for applause and the reward of the prize. Doubtful as he is of the spectators' faithfulness which is so ready to change, Jonson asks for applause at one moment, and the next he points out he does not care for it. Aristophanes had also noticed before him this tendency in the audience: While e'en as the plants that abide but a year, so shifting and changeful are YOU. (.Knights 518)

The spectators' reaction is the criterion by which their taste is measured and weighed. According to Jonson's reasoning, those who do not like the play lack good taste, while the wise people who have good taste will understand and enjoy it, and thus prove themselves to be bright. Furthermore, only those who lack wit will be offended by the dramatists' art: those who realize the true meaning of the play will understand that by identifying with the characters in the play they give themselves a chance to consider their position in the world and to try to avoid thinking and acting

THE WORLD OF THE AUDIENCE

55

as the characters on the stage do. Jonson comments: If any, here, chance to beholde himselfe, Let him not dare to challenge me of wrong, For, if he shame to have his follies knowne, First he should shame to act 'hem. (E.M.O., After 2nd Sounding, 140-43)

Jonson encourages identification. The spectators should not be embarrassed to see themselves in the vicious characters on the stage; on the contrary, they are considered wise if they have already reached that degree of knowledge that allows them to criticize themselves. Jonson's viewpoint is that the theatres are crowded with people among whom are those who are ignorant of art, who pretend to be learned, who come prejudiced to censure the play, and who hastily express the opinion of the man sitting next to them out of fear of being thought ignorant. Aristophanes, on the other hand, does not treat his alazonic audience as ignorant. His allusions to historical events, political facts, and mythological tales show that he thought of them as qualified enough to understand. He is not more certain than Jonson about their level of mentality, but he always wants to give them a chance to be the way he wants them to be; he approaches them as wise so that they aspire to become wise. Jonson cures not so much through diplomacy as through criticism. He wants his audience to exercise their own reason and judge the play for its genuine merits. Aristophanes' laughter is merry; Jonson's is usually a bitter grimace at the spectators' ignorance. Both are ironic observers of human ignorance and full of concern for man's welfare; they try their best to make man aware of his lack of knowledge. The world of the audience, as portrayed by the two dramatists, presents a dichotomy in human nature. The spectators are alazons wandering between being and non-being. Ignorance reduces man to the state of non-being. The world is shown to be torn between two extremes — what a man should be and what he is. By putting the extremes side by side, the two playwrights hope to have the tension burst like a bubble and humanity released of its burden of polarities. Once man realizes that he is laughing at himself,

56

THE WORLD OF THE AUDIENCE

he will realize also that he should do something to avoid this laughter. Once he acquires knowledge enough to see himself and others as they really are, he will be able to reprove the false values which poison his life and create a better life for himself. Degenerate human values are the next target of the two dramatists' criticism. They attempt to complete the picture of a man standing at a turning point where degeneration will become hope for a better tomorrow. The disparity between what should be and what is will appear under another light when man will be shown torn between real and false values. The world of the play and that of the audience will cooperate to reveal human values in degradation. The ideal life will be shown in contrast with actual life. The ignorance of the characters in the play will not be contrasted with that of the audience before them; it will be put alongside as if the two worlds were one. The message becomes successful through identification. The audience is treated in the same way the characters are treated on the stage. This identity will help man to see himself as he really is and to know himself and others as they prove to be by their words and actions during the course of the play, rather than as their imagination wants them to be. Once man learns to be himself and to know himself and others, he must see for himself the difference between real and false values in life.

in

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION: CLOUDS AND

ALCHEMIST

"The world's turn'd Bet'lem." (Alchemist V.iii.54)

Aristophanes realized that people of his time were too eager for a change — a change toward the unknown, the unexpected, the new, and the untried — as a way out of the pressure of the war.1 He saw the wish for such a change as a movement toward human disintegration and decay. Jonson also noticed in his contemporary society the same wish for a change from the familiar and known values to the strange and unfamiliar; he, too, saw it as a movement that threatened to turn the world upside down. The alchemist influenced the people negatively. He promised to "make/ Nature ashamed of her long sleep" (Alchemist I.iv.26). Jonson, like Aristophanes, believed that the awakening of nature from her old, safe dream would only cause problems to mankind. To stir "nature up in her own center" (Alchemist II.i.28), to work miracles over phenomena which only the eons can change, means to confuse and disturb the order. Although alchemy promised bliss and immortality,4 it proved to offer no more than individual catastrophe. The times required reason instead of dreams, humanity instead of self-interest or indifference, and alchemy led man away from both. Aristophanes identified the new learning with the "meteora" 1

The Peloponnesian War: 431-404 B.C. See Alchemist I.iv.23; II.i.48-53, 55-60, 63-68; IV.i.156-160; cf. also religious language in II.i.30, 40; II.ii.76; II.iii.3-4, 17, 29-31; m.ii.7-8; IV.v. 57-58.

1

58

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

things which never touch the safe ground of experience. Jonson identified the new morality with a "scientific" movement which seemed to be capable of annihilating mankind. Both saw the future of man shaking under the weight of a loose morality, the outcome of decaying human values. In the limitations of human capability for understanding, Aristophanes and Jonson detected the agony of an age which saw that its hopes and expectations were not fulfilled. Jonson clearly stated that the hope of man to conquer his own nature only invites confusion if the natural order of things is disturbed.3 Yet, while both playwrights were aware of the limitations of human capability, they were also aware of the potentialities of mankind for turning confusion into order. Jonson shares Aristophanes' faith in the strong potentialities of mankind. Both dramatists assert the positive merits of human values by presenting a distorted picture of an upside down, immoral society. The distortion points to the monstrosity of the changes worked in man by external forces of annihilation and presents a change as imperative. The sophist and the alchemist are used as the touchstones upon which the ability of a whole society is measured — the ability to reach the utmost of disintegration through a blind belief and faith in values untried. Laxity of morals is only the outcome of such a faith. Sophistry meant radicalism of ethics to Aristophanes, as the old ideals of arete and sophrosene were neglected for the sake of daring dialectics. The practical, opportunistic view of the sophists' teachings seemed to him not to elevate man to a higher sphere of knowledge, but rather to plunge him into the deepest pit of annihilation. Aristotle offers a picture of the sophist in his Nicomachean Ethics similar to the one Aristophanes paints in the Clouds: T h e sophists wish to s h o w their cleverness by entrapping their adversary into a paradox, and w h e n they are successful, t h e resultant 3

See frequent allusions to "natural" and"unnatural" and also to confusion which leads the dreams of man into "fumo:" Alchemist I.iv.25-26; II.i.53; II.ii.38; II.iii.218; III.i.8; IV.i.74; IV.v.66, 76, 97; IV.vi.40, 45; IV.vii.37; V.ii. 42; V.iii.16, 29, 62, 67; V.iv.5,10,103; V.v.75. These frequent allusions make the natural assume validity.

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

59

chain of reasoning ends in a deadlock; the mind is fettered being unwilling to stand still because it cannot approve the conclusion reached, yet unable to go forward because it cannot untie the knot of the argument. (NE VII.ii.8)

and Aristotle continues: On the other hand those sophists w h o profess to teach politics are found to be very far from doing so successfully. In fact they are absolutely ignorant of the very nature of the science and of the subjects with which it deals. (NE X.ix.20)

Aristophanes thought the sophists to be mere cheats, ignorant opportunists who threatened to destroy the ethos of their contemporary society. Early in the Clouds, Aristophanes presents the sophists as men who care more for the money than the actual knowledge: Aye, and they'll teach (only they'll want some money) H o w one may speak and conquer, right or wrong. 4 (Clouds 98-99)

The sophists are so perverted ethically that do not hesitate to teach men how to become morally degenerate for the few drachmas they will get. Pheidippides calls them alazons and emphasizes the fact that the sophists are not "sapient souls" but "pale-faced" and "barefoot" vagabonds (Clouds 102-103) 5 who try to take advantage of the other people's ignorance. On the other hand, Socrates himself equates the sophists with quacks (Clouds 331) while Strepsiades boasts that the sophist taught him how to become a perfect cheat (alazon) (Clouds 444-451). In this distorted world picture, the sophists are also referred to as "sapient souls" and "subtle intellects" (Clouds 94, 153), men who are good and honest (Clouds 101). The sophist of Aristophanes' Clouds is a real person — Socrates. His school was known at the time for its famous master 4

Rogers' translation does not render the exact meaning here. My own translation of line 98 reads: these men will teach you, if you give them money . . . . s See also Clouds 1016-1019, 1112, 1171, 1492.

60

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

and students, among whom were Critias, the tyrant; Alchibiades, the brilliant general who turned traitor; and Plato, the philosopher, who could have been accused along with Socrates of seducing Athens' youth.6 In the person of Socrates, Aristophanes criticizes not the real Socrates who was well-known for his integrity of character, but Socrates as the representative of the sophists who were initiators of methods of education based on new, revolutionary ideas, such as pseudo-logic and high dialectics, as the means to grasp the truth. In the sophists' schools the students studied political science, physics, astronomy, geometry, and natural history. They taught an opportunistic way of life in a peculiar way — through meditation, speculation, and use of dialectics. Others besides Socrates were teaching and contributing with their revolutionary thoughts to the gradual change of established values. Democritus taught a few years before Socrates that the "universe was but a collection of infinitely small bodies which he called atoms". 7 Diogenes Apollonius "declared that air was the element most free from admixture and most suitable for philosophic meditation".8 Euripides seemed to move the gods from Olympus down to earth; he shook the very basis of religion. Doubt and speculation replaced belief and faith. According to Aristophanes, Socrates was one of those disturbing that which was the established. The scholiast, on the other hand, says that: Nobody paid fees to Socrates, who always asserted that he knew nothing. It is precisely on this account he was judged to be a wise m a n by the pythian oracle. 9

Aristotle also gives a clear and impartial picture of Socrates as he saw him: Hence some people maintain that all the virtues are forms of prudence; and Socrates' line of inquiry was right in one way, though wrong in another; he was mistaken in thinking that all the virtues are Lord, Aristophanes, his Plays and his Influence, pp. 29-30. Quoted in Lord, Aristophanes, his Plays and his Influence, p. 28. 8 Quoted in David Greene, "The Comic Technique of Aristophanes", Hermathena, L (1937), 96. 9 William G. Rutherford (ed.), Scholia Aristophanica, I (London: MacMillan & Co., 1896), p. 136.

4

7

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

61

forms of Prudence, but right in saying that they cannot exist without Prudence. (.NE VI.xiii.3)

This is not the sophist presented by Aristophanes but rather a man of sophrosene. Aristotle further on states: How can a man fail in self-restraint when believing correctly that what he does is wrong? Some people say that he cannot do so when he knows the act to be wrong; since as Socrates held, it would be strange if when a man possessed knowledge, some other thing should overpower it and "drag it about like a slave". In fact Socrates used to combat the view 10 altogether, implying that there is no such thing as Unrestraint, since no one, he held, acts contrary to what is best, believing what he does to be bad, but only through ignorance. (NE VII.ii.1)

Xenophon also asserted in his Memorabilia that no one ever heard Socrates say or saw him do something impious and wicked. He never studied the celestial things the way the sophists did; on the contrary he blamed the sophists for doing so, and called them foolish. Xenophon points out that Socrates was not an alazon or barefooted opportunist like the sophists but rather a prudent, selfrestrained, and pious man.11 Socrates, the historical person, was first of all a stern critic of himself. He studied not remote ideas, as Aristophanes' comedies have him doing, but people to whom he taught a method of finding self-knowledge through reason.12 He was an honest man who maintained that "virtue can be taught" and people can be better.13 Aristophanes' distortion of the historical Socrates shows the degree of misunderstanding which new methods of education had created, and the confusion they had caused for mankind. The sophist in the Clouds is presented as a "pale faced", "barefoot" master, a poor wretch who spends most of his time meditating about how he will be able to make the world turn his own way. He is the sophist who studies "celestial matters" {Clouds 228) 10

That a man may know the right and do the wrong. Carolus Hude (ed.), Xenophontis Commentarii (Lipsiae: Aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1934), A.I.11; A.II.l; A.II.5; A.II.6. 12 H. Theodoridis, Philosophy (Athens: Demetrakos, 1933), pp. 38, 120. 18 Paul Edwards (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: MacMillan & Co., 1967), article by G. B. Kerferd, VIII, p. 496. 11

62

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

and pretends to believe in the influence they exercise on the life of man, an atheist who substitutes Zeus for the clouds (Clouds 247-248, 253, 365, 367), an impious man equated with the sophists themselves in his ability to teach false logic (Clouds 317-321) and new things which enable man to overthrow the established (Clouds 1399-1400, 1403-1405, 1423-1424). He teaches only for money (Clouds 877) — a mere cheat (Clouds 1466) who deceives men in their expectations, a thief of the worst kind (Clouds 177179, 497, 856, 858,1498). This is the picture of Socrates as Aristophanes presents him. We are not sure as to what appeal Aristophanes' presentation had on the mind of the public. Socrates himself says in the Apology, though, that he has: . . . nothing to do with these things. And I offer as witness most of yourselves, and I ask you to inform one another and to tell, all those of you whoever heard me conversing — and there are many such among you — now tell, if anyone ever heard me talking much or little about such matters.14 Socrates' words, as Plato has recorded them, seem to assert that Socrates had taken seriously Aristophanes' attack which was the outcome of the dramatist's misunderstanding of Socrates' philosophy. Socrates suggests that he himself is not the sophist in the Clouds who delights in idle speculation and teaches the youth false dialectics and logic merely to get their money. Yet Aristophanes seems to be consistent in his view of Socrates as a real sophist. In the Birds (written around 414 B.C., nine years after the Clouds had been presented), Aristophanes maintains the same opinion regarding Socrates. He has Hermes point out that men in Athens had been "Socratified" (Birds 1282); he means that they followed his idle way of living — they walked in the streets barefooted, unwashed, long-haired — and the chorus later recapitulates the whole thing pointing to Socrates' uncleanliness and useless philosophy (Birds 1553-1561). In the Frogs still later (405 B.C.), Aristophanes calls Socrates' students and followers mere fools because they devote their life to idle talking (Frogs 149114 Plato: Apology, Loeb Classical Library, trans, by H. N . Fowler (London: William Heinemann, 1928), 19 c-d.

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

63

1499). The fact that Aristophanes is consistent in his opinion about Socrates shows how firmly he believed in the perniciousness of the influence of the sophists' methods of teaching upon the youth of Athens; right or wrong, he equated Socrates and his teaching with them. Aristophanes presents in the person of Socrates a charmer who attracts followers as if by magical compulsion. He convinces them by using false rhetoric and logic and appeals to their mind in such a way that men turn into beasts (Clouds 184). Dialectics is the means to catch the victim and this is also how Subtle, Jonson's alchemist, works upon the minds of those who come to consult him. The alchemist seems to possess a similar compelling power which acts in such a way that his victims are hypnotized to the extent that they trust their fates to the hands of a cheat.16 When Face first describes Subtle and tells how they had met, he reminds us of the starving, pale-faced, and barefooted Socrates in the Clouds. Face points out that he met Subtle: at pie-corner, Taking your meale of steame in, from cookes stalls, Where, like the father of hunger you did walke Piteously costive, with your pinch'd-horne-nose And your complexion, of the romane wash Stuck full of black, and melancholique wormes, Like poulder-cornes, shot, at th'artillerie-yard. (Alchemist I.i.25-31)

and Face continues: When you went pinn'd up in the severall rags Yo' had rak'd and pick'd from dung-hills, before day, Your feet in the mouldie slippers, for your kibes, A felt of rugg and a thin threadden cloake, That scarce would cover your no-buttocks. CAlchemist I.i.33-37)

This is how Subtle was before he joined Face,1» and now this man promises to change the fates of men. The picture of Socrates stealing the mantle under the false excuse of conducting an ex15

Face clearly accuses Subtle of practicing sorcery: Alchemist I.i.112. See also Alchemist I.i.15, 59,103, 106,108, for adjectives describing the alchemist in a lively way. M

64

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

periment resembles that of Subtle picking his cloak from the dunghills. This man now lives "by the wits" (Alchemist III.v.42) like Socrates. Subtle himself says that he carries "tempest in his hand and voice" (Alchemist I.i.62), which points out that he and Socrates were using the same weapons.17 False logic and rhetoric are means by which you may charm the people and make them believe that you give them the "rules to cheat" others (Alchemist I.i.75) while at the same time they are too blind to see that they are cheated themselves. When Mammon says in the course of the play that he does not "fable" (Alchemist II.i.46), in a metaphorical way he is describing the idle talk of the alchemist and the method by which he can "cosen" his victims in order to get their money. Surly explains how the charm works on the mind of the people: What else are all your termes, Whereon no one o' your writers grees with other? Of your elixir, your lac virginis, Your stone, your med'cine, and your chrysosperme, Your sal, your sulphur, and your mercurie, Your oyle of height, your tree of life, your bloud, Your marchesite, your tutie, your magnesia, Your toade, your crow, your dragon, and your panthar, Your sunne, your moone, your firmament, your adrop. Your lato, azoch, zernich, chilbrit, heautarit, And then, your red man, and your white woman, With all your broths, your menstrues, and materialls, Of pisse, and egge-shells, womens termes, mans bloud, Haire o'the head, burnt clouts, chalke, merds, and clay, Poulder of bones, scalings of iron, glasse, And worlds of other strange ingredients, Would burst a man to name? (Alchemist II.iii.182-98)

This is the language the alchemist uses to charm his victims and make them believe that his cheating is a great art which has the power to change the world for them. Ananias equates Subtle with the beasts, and sounds like Strepsiades describing Socrates' students: 17 See also Clouds 316-317 and Alchemist IV.ii.21-28 for a similarity in the way Socrates and Subtle describe their skill.

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

65

He beares The visible marke of the Beast, in his fore-head. And for his Stone, it is a worke of darknesse, And, with Philosophie, blinds the eyes of man. (.Alchemist III.i.7-10)

Like the sophist, Jonson's alchemist uses his skillful language to blind men and turn them into beasts.18 Alchemy, on the other hand, is presented as a game which "cheats a man with charming" the way sophistry cheated Strepsiades with false rhetoric. The definition of alchemy which Surly offers in the course of Jonson's comedy is similar to that of sophistry which becomes obvious through the relationship of Strepsiades with Socrates and his students: Alchemie is a pretty kind of game, Somewhat like tricks o'the cards, to cheat a man, With charming. (.Alchemist II.iii.180-82)

With empty words and theories, as if by magic Socrates convinces Strepsiades of the merits of his school's educational system. Subtle also convinces those who gather around of the merits of alchemy as if by magic, for his arguments and "projection" amount to no more than empty sounds resembling the Aristophanic clouds in meaning. Mammon also agrees that alchemy is charm, and Surly asserts that it is like a symbol, an allegory, or a parable whose meaning few people can comprehend (Alchemist II.iii.204-209, 235). Strepsiades is the man to be charmed by the sophist in Aristophanes' play. The manners of the student who opens the door for Strepsiades and his friendly welcome, "O, hang it all!" and "what a clown you are", give an introductory comment on the paedeia of the sophist's Thinking House. Thoughts in this school are more important than maimers and one has to be careful when 18 See also Alchemist I.iii.43-49, 52-57, 63-68, 69-71, 72-74, 76-80; Il.iii. 4-23, 29-32, 40-44, 60-61, 62-66, 100-102, 106-119, 145-178; n.v.8-11; Il.vi. 11-18, 19-24; HI.ii.19-41, for Subtle's false rhetoric and ways of convincing his victims by using nonsensical language.

66

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

knocking at their door in case one disturbs the students' meditative mood. This introduction emphasizes the importance of meditation to the school's educational system which is as worthless as their speculation on trifle things. Strepsiades believes h e comes to Socrates' school to learn the use of false logic. He is immediately impressed, not by the rude language and manners of the student who opens the door, but by the "subtle intellect" of the master and the other students. He learns that these people can easily find "how many feet of its own a flea could jump" or how the gnats hum "through their mouth, or backwards through the tail" (Clouds 145, 158). These things impress Strepsiades and make him decide to attend the school. His reasoning is: Full surely need he fear nor debts nor duns, Who knows about the entrails of the gnats. 0Clouds 167-68) With problems like the jump of a flea or the hum of a gnat answered so simply, Strepsiades is sure his problem — how to get rid of his creditors — will be solved easily. Strepsiades, amazed at the way the master can "filch a mantle" by using a compass which he is supposed to have used f o r the solution of a geometrical problem, is at ease and will not be surprised at all when the same master takes Strepsiades' own mantle and shoes after he is officially registered as a student. The first glance Strepsiades has of the students is as illuminating as his conversation with the student at the door. These students seek "things underground", and have their eyes fixed downward "diving deep into deepest secrets", while their " r u m p " takes "private lessons on the stars" (Clouds 182, 194). Astronomy is the favorite subject of the school's curriculum and Aristophanes' comic criticism emphasizes the fact that it has absolutely no positive value in contributing to the actual knowledge of man. In the same ironic and comic way the uselessness of the other subjects is pointed out through the conversation of Strepsiades with one of the students. Geometry is considered a failure because it cannot manage to move Sparta further away from Athens on the "chart of

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

67

the whole world" which Socrates' students had prepared. 19 The educational system will be better revealed by Socrates himself who comes to talk to Strepsiades. When he first appears on the stage, Socrates is suspended in the air, sitting in a basket, or rather, as he puts it: "walking on the air, and contem-plating the Sun" {Clouds 225). Socrates finds the air the only suitable place for uninterrupted meditation; it is the ideal place to contemplate freely and meditate upon sublime things, since, as he believes, the earth draws "to herself the essence of our thought" (iClouds 333) and one cannot be successful in one's meditation unless somehow separated from it. The fact that Socrates appears meditating in the air not only comes as an impressive surprise to Strepsiades, but also points to the distance which separates the earthly and palpable facts of life from the "meteora" things which Socrates worships. Strepsiades will attend classes in natural history first and learn things he had never imagined existed. The clouds are not "vapour and dew" as he thought of them to be, but mighty gods able to exalt the human mind to great heights of creation and produce refined thoughts. The misinterpretation of natural phenomena which Socrates offers to Strepsiades and the ridiculous explanations of causes and results of rain, thunder, and lightning emphasize the emptiness of the school's system.20 After the theoretical part of Strepsiades' training, he becomes a real student of the Thinking House. In practice he has to find out for himself "what are the males among the quadrupeds" (Clouds 659) while lying in bed and contemplating. The bugs are too real for Strepsiades to let himself meditate freely: Out creep bugbears scantly fed, And my ribs they bite in twain, And my life-blood out they suck, And my manhood off they pluck, See Clouds 143-147, 156-158, 192-195, 201, 202; the first student describes in his own words the usefulness of Socrates' educational system and ironically he reveals its uselessness. 20 See Clouds 348-350, 376-378, 386-387, 404-407, 423-424, for a more detailed description of Socrates' ridiculous explanations of natural phenomena.

68

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

A n d m y loins they dig and drain. (Clouds 710-14)

Meditating under such conditions is almost impossible. Instead of thinking of his creditors and the way to cheat them, he thinks of himself and his present condition. He cannot "refine his thoughts" while the bugs are biting him; he is unable to let his thoughts "range freely through the air" when the earth is so near him: SO. A n d what have your ponderings come to? ST. Whether these bugs will leave a bit of me. (iClouds 724-25)

Practical in his general outlook on life, Strepsiades is a tough student; he cannot easily let himself wander into the realm of impossibilities which offer no immediate solution to his problems.21 Sophistry is empty for him since it cannot help him forget his earthly existence. It does convince him, though, to try hard, and this is where Jonson's theory of charm meets the sophistry of Aristophanes' time. The people who come to be enlightened by Subtle's art expect, like Strepsiades, to meet with a "strange success" which will help them rule over mankind. While astrology is studied by Socrates' students as a science which enlightens and purifies their thoughts, it is "studied" by Subtle's victims as a science which enlightens their everyday life. These people, sharing with Strepsiades an immense faith in the ways of the master, do not doubt the merit of the "doctor's" teachings. One of Subtle's faithful "students" is Dapper. Unlike Strepsiades, Dapper is greeted by Face in a polite way at the door; he is called a "noble fellow" and "a special gentle" and is treated like a fool. Subtle appears to be a person worthy of respect: he refuses to accept Dapper's money, talks of "temptation", "heaven", and "love" while Face pretends to be mad at him. Face curses him, as the first student cursed Strepsiades, in order to soften Subtle who in his turn consents to take Dapper's money.22 81

See Strepsiades' practical outlook in his responses: Clouds 747-756, 764772, 779-782. 21 For similar use of language see Clouds 133, 135-137 and Alchemist I.ii.61-63.

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

69

All this pretense, hypocritical piety, and false behavior are set up by the alchemist and his assistant in order to trap Dapper and make him believe he is the favorite of the stars: The spirits of dead HOLLAND, living ISAAC, You'ld sweare, were in him: such a vigorous luck As cannot be resisted. 'Slight hee'll put Sixe o' your gallants, to a cloke, indeed. (.Alchemist I.ii.109-12)

Subtle is as pragmatic and convincing in his arguments as Socrates had been when trying to convince Strepsiades of the subtlety of his intellect. Subtle prescribes a training which Dapper has to undergo similar to that which Socrates had prescribed for Strepsiades. Dapper has to go through a suffering similar to what Strepsiades put up with in the Thinking House: Sir, against one a clock, prepare your selfe. Till when you must be fasting; onely, take Three drops of vinegar, in, at your nose; Two at your mouth; and one at either eare; Then, bath your fingers endes; and wash your eyes; To sharpen your five senses; and, cry hum, Thrise; and then buz, as often. (Alchemist I.ii.164-70)

Dapper is to sharpen his senses like Strepsiades had refined his thoughts. It is not only the training system that is similar; the reaction of the "students" is also the same. Strepsiades had been impressed by Socrates' "subtle intellect" and Dapper is surprised at the alchemist's wisdom while Subtle takes all his money and leaves him "nothing".23 Astrology is the subject which interests Drugger, the second "student" who comes to the alchemist's workshop. He wants to learn how the movement of the stars influences his life. "Metoscopie" and "chiromantie" are related subjects which help man arrange his life in a way that makes his self-interest thrive. The method the two cheats use to greet Drugger again is that of a hypocritical respect (Alchemist I.iii.22-32) for the man and his M

For references to the "nothingness" which alchemy offers to mankind, emphasized in the play, see Alchemist I.ii.22, 23; II.iii.218; HI.iv.56; M.v. 40, 43.

70

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

profession. A warm greeting puts Drugger in the right mood to hear and believe that he is a fortunate fellow: A certaine starre i'the fore-head, which you see not. Your chest-nut, or your olive-colour'd face Do's never faile; and your long eare doth promise. I knew't, by certaine spots too, in his teeth, And on the naile of his mercurial finger. (Alchemist I.iii.45-49)

This ironic language along with the mood of Subtle who, deep in thought, tries to solve the "student's" problem, convince Drugger that the alchemist will certainly work miracles for him. Like Socrates in the air, deep in meditation, Subtle will finally instruct Drugger as to how he can be successful in life: Make me your dore, then, south; your broad side, west: And, on the east-side of your shop, aloft, Write Mathlai, Tarmiel, and Baraborat\ Upon the north-part, Rael, Velel, Thiel. (Alchemist I.iii.63-66)

The more incomprehensible the language Subtle uses, the more profound the thoughts conceived through it are taken to be.24 Drugger is so happy and so impressed by the alchemist's false dialectics that he promises to bring another customer to Subtle. As the course of the play will prove, both Dapper and Drugger will meet not with "strange success" but with economic catastrophe. The alchemist will prove to be a cheat who initiates human degeneration and helps man fail instead of succeed in life. The results of the two men's teachings as well as their method and "curriculum" show man degenerate to the extent that he accepts false logic for wisdom. The practical Strepsiades is educated to the point that he becomes a scoundrel, and the ignorant but superstitious Dapper and Drugger are led to become cheats in order to succeed as individuals. Sophistry and alchemy alike are presented as forces shaping man's annihilation in the name of knowledge and success. At this point, the distortion of Aristophanes' work becomes 24

See Alchemist I.iii.69-71, 72-74, 76-80; II.vi.11-18, 19-24, for the alchemist's nonsensical language which becomes a powerful weapon in his hands.

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

71

an integral part of Jonson's art. The world presented in the Alchemist is one twisted to the point of complete paramorphosis: alchemy is taken for religion, hypocrisy for piety, epicurian gluttony for philanthropy, cheating for success, and money for respect. In the Aristophanic world view, likewise, the distortion is an integral part of the whole edifice. The son appears to be wiser than the father, the old man venturous and the young conservative; the son becomes the master of the father, and, finally, the educational system creates a scoundrel instead of a respected man. Distortion is used by both playwrights to emphasize the laxity of morals, the outcome of human ignorance and foolishness, which leads to man's degeneration. The first thing made clear in the Clouds is that the world has turned upside down. Strepsiades, the old man who by nature and experience should be conservative and cautious, is shown to venture new things and dream to prevail by using false logic initiated by a new educational system. His relationship with his son will reveal a world in confusion as traditional values are about to be replaced by new ones. The play opens with Strepsiades worrying about his debts, his son's manners, the war, and above all the times which turned even his servants into arrogant masters. The very fact that Strepsiades worries about these things shows him conscientious enough to be considered human. Later, after undergoing Socrates' training, he will be without worries for he will simply try to forget them at the moment. This man gives no hint that he will turn into the old man who cheats his creditors: Surely I heard the cock crow, hours ago. Yet still my servants snore. These are new customs. O' ware of war for many various reasons; One fears in war even to flog one's servants. (Clouds 4-7)

The picture of Strepsiades tossing and rolling in his bed shows the nature of his subconscious integrity. The irregularity noticeable in this opening scene lies not only in the relationship of master to servants but also of father to son. The father is country born, simple-minded, and practical. The son:

72

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

curls his hair, And sports his thoroughbreds, and drives his tandem; Even in dreams he rides:

(Clouds 14-16) The father thinks that the new customs which the city mother taught the son are the cause of his own economical ruin and his son's degeneration. He believes that the root of the whole misfortune lies with his unfortunate marriage with a city woman: I rank with wine-lees, fig-boards, greesy woolpacks; She all with scents, and saffron, and tongue-kissings, Feasting, expense, and lordly modes of loving.

(•Clouds 50-52) The juxtaposition of country and city life shows Strepsiades to be a person who has troubles adjusting to the demands of the times. At the same time he misplaces the emphasis of his judgment; he accuses city life as the destroyer of youth while he should have been able to see that immorality lies not only with feasting, scents, or expense. Strepsiades is purposely created as short-sighted and mistaken in his judgment of values in life. He asks his son to "strip off" his "present habits" {Clouds 88) and ironically bids him forget his humanity. He, the same man who a little while ago complained that new customs changed his son's behavior to the worse, asks his son to throw away his morality and learn how he "may speak and conquer, right or wrong" (Clouds 99). This is the beginning of the perverted logic formed in a mind possessed by a strong feeling of self-interest which makes him mistake false values for the true and real. He believes that the false logic of Socrates which teaches man how to cheat and conquer is the "subtle logic" of the ages, and he takes cheating for wisdom. Being a cheater already in his thoughts and a sophist in his habits — he never bathes, shaves, or cleans himself, just like them — Strepsiades tries hard to be educated in their school. He seems to succeed temporarily, but soon must admit that he has failed: "I haven't learnt to speak" (Clouds 792). The teacher dismisses him with words full of indignation which emphasize his failure: "Be off, and feed the crows,/ You most forgetful, most absurd old dolt"

73

FORCES O F ANNIHILATION

(Clouds 789-790). Ironically, the son who holds "antiquated notions" and appears to be wiser than the father, who insists that he is not interested in the "mighty secrets" of the sophist, consents to become a student in Socrates' school in order to please his father. Aristophanes purposely has both father and son undergo the same training in order to show the disastrous results of Socrates' educational system upon the youth. At the same time Strepsiades has to see his son's real immorality in order to realize the degree of his own degeneration. Strepsiades' misjudgment of his son's ethos is emphasized throughout the play by his constant misundertanding of things. When Socrates doubts the degree of his son's intelligence, the father points out to him that his son is smart by nature: For when he was a little chap; so high, He used to build small baby-houses, boats, Go-carts of leather, darling little frogs Carved from pomegranates, you can't think how nicely!

(iClouds 878-81)

This is a ridiculous and meaningless way of presenting the merits of a grown person and makes everyone listening smile ironically. That much, nevertheless, is enough for the school of Socrates where skill and intelligence are not required for enrolling. The triumphant moment of the father's misjudgment and misevaluation of things will come when the news arrives that his son has become an excellent cheater: "Hurrah! great Sovereign Knavery!" (Clouds 1150) is his happy exclamation. Though convinced now that his son was born "his old father's house to restore" (Clouds 1159), he will find out soon that this restoration is an illusion. The son had warned the father before he decided to enter Socrates' school: "the time will come when you'll repent of this" (Clouds 865), and the creditor Pasias had repeated after him: "sooner or later you'll repent of this" (Clouds 1242). The time came, as if by magic, when Strepsiades found out how mistaken he had been. Pheidippides graduates from the Thinking House an insolent man who does not hesitate to beat his father and find a way to prove his act proper. False logic helps the "restorer" of the house

74

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

to become a destroyer. The polarity of the expression emphasizes the sort of values the son stands for as a result of his education in Socrates' school. His education degrades him to the point that he learns not only "established rules and laws to overthrow" (iClouds 1400), but also to overturn the house of his father and along with it the very basis of society. Education teaches him to destroy instead of to build. Strepsiades now sees his son's loose morality as catastrophic as death itself: "He'll be my death I vow" (Clouds 1440), he says, when the obedient son of yesterday becomes the rebel of today. The son's conduct enlightens his father and emphasizes the falsity of the new values he represents as Socrates' student. Pheidippides' role is to show the world where man will be led if he lets false values rule his life. Once he proves through his relationship with his father what the real values are, he vanishes from the stage, and Strepsiades is left to set the Thinking House on fire. The relationship of father and son is part of the Aristophanic technique to show one side of a distorted world and its values. The other side represents the forces of destruction which work deep in the world, and their might is revealed through the relationship of safe values to pernicious forces of decay. The relationship between the clouds (chorus) and Right Logic, and at times that of the old man with the rest of humanity, will reveal the other side of the distortion when Wrong Logic will beat Right Logic and perverted thoughts will prevail over sanity. Strepsiades is a controversial character. Although he seems to be by nature closer to the world of Socrates and the values he represents, deep in himself there is a side he does not suspect which makes him realize the pertinence of basic values despite the efforts of Socrates to "educate" him. Strepsiades subconsciously loves the traditional values and, therefore, blames the city for his son's morals at the beginning of the play. His first real confession comes in the shape of a wish. He wishes his son were named after his own father, respecting the head of the family as the morals of his generation required. His wife: . . . was for giving him some knightly name, "Callippides", "Xanthippus", or "Charippus":

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

75

I wished "Pheidonides", his grandsire's name. 0Clouds 63-65)

He respects traditional values which taught reverence for elders and perhaps that is why he thinks of education as a missionary which would change the world. When he fails to be educated according to the sophist's teaching, Strepsiades is again the man he was at the beginning. He asks his son to sing a poem of Simonides and to "take myrtle in his hand/ And chant some lines from Aeschylus" (Clouds 13641365). He calls Euripides' plays, which his son likes to quote, "shameful" and immoral because they teach atheism and lust. This man who respects the values of the past is purposely created controversial in his demand to cheat his creditors. Aristophanes wants to show that false logic might lead to temporary triumph, but it certainly drives the steps of man toward degeneration. Aristophanes' technique works in a strange way, as the chorus points out at the end of the play: We find a man On evil thoughts intent, Guide him along to shame and wrong, Then leave him to repent.

('Clouds 1459-61)

Strepsiades will not simply repent; once he sees that he placed his hopes on wrong ideas and sees what the school stands for, he takes the initiative to bury under a purging fire the forces which threatened to annihilate mankind. The chorus is as controversial as Strepsiades in their relationship to the rest of the characters in the play. Although they appear to be Socrates' collaborators and assistants when they show with him the "marvels that science can show" (Clouds 358), they think of Strepsiades as revolutionary for venturing into new things at his age: "Here's a spirit bold and high" (Clouds 458). Their comment asserts Aristophanes' thesis that it requires a bold spirit to agree with the teachings of the sophist's school; it also points to the duality of their own role. They admire him not for deciding to attend Socrates' school, but for attempting venturous actions:

76

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

. . . now, in his life's dim twilight haze, Is game such venturesome things to do, To steep his mind in discoveries new, To walk, a novice, in wisdom's ways. (Clouds 513-17)

They betray themselves, Socrates' assistants as they are, by accepting Strepsiades' ways as wise. Later, though, when the debate between Wrong Logic and Right Logic takes place, they show themselves admirers of Right Logic which stands for traditional values: O Thou who wert born our sires to adorn with characters blameless and fair, Say on what you please, say on and to these your glorious Nature declare. (Clouds 957-58)

The respect they show to Right Logic asserts them as advocates of the values he stands for; their enthusiasm is shown again when he finishes his speech. Their words make them admirers of the old values as preservers of order in the world: O glorious Sage! with loveliest Wisdom teeming! Sweet on thy words does ancient Virtue rest! (Clouds 1026-27)

This is a confession that old values are the safest for mankind. The chorus, like Strepsiades himself, is purposely created as a Janus-faced personality advocating both causes. While as clouds they represent the empty sounds of Socrates' false logic, as a chorus they are commentators on those values which are lifepreserving forces. Both chorus and Strepsiades play a double role — a favorite of Aristophanes' technique to present side by side the good and the bad, the false and the real. Right Logic is the only pure representative of the old human values, the safeguards of humanity. The merits he stands for are proved to be real and valuable in the debate with Wrong Logic. Wrong Logic declares immediately that there "never was Justice or truth" in the world, that the world is a chaos, as it has always been, and that man should face this as the real condition of things. Right Logic comes to contradict him and remind the people of the good old times when "rare Discipline" ruled in

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

77

Athens, when "Honour and Truth were in fashion with youth and Sobriety bloomed" (Clouds 962). This is when Right Logic reigned all by himself. The nostalgia for old times is more than a wish for the return of days gone by: it is a strong desire and a prayer that these days may never be forgotten — "First of all the old rule was preserved in our school that 'boys should be seen and not heard' " (Clouds 963). The times were blessed when the boys sang "to some manly old air all simple and bare which their fathers had chanted before" (Clouds 969). The young men respected the old and followed their path: . . . the precepts which taught The heroes of old to be hardy and bold and the Men who at Marathon faught! (Clouds 985-86)

These were the paths which led to a noble life which sustained human ethos and individual integrity, the values which created heroes and demi-gods in life. Now Wrong Logic teaches disrespect and immorality, and neglect of modesty, simplicity, and truthfulness — the ideal values of the past. New morality, initiated by false logic, leads man to idleness and empty disputes. Wrong Logic will not have to try hard to prove "how old established rules and laws might contradicted be" (Clouds 1040). The laxity of morals among the gods who are set for examples and among the sophists who have embraced him as their advocator will make him win the case. One has to consider his point of view in order to find out the definite value of his arguments. All the virtues he advocates are measured against a common denominator — the joy of the moment without which "life itself is little worth" (Clouds 1074). When the son decides to follow Socrates' logic, Aristophanes' thesis becomes clear as to the validity of Wrong Logic's triumph. At the denouement all the doubts are raised as to whether Right or Wrong Logic stands for the real values in life. When Strepsiades becomes enlightened and confesses: Oh! fool, fool, fool, how mad I must have been To cast away the Gods, for Socrates. 0Clouds 1476-77)

78

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

we realize that Wrong Logic's victory was a setup to prove the values Right Logic stood for to be more permanent and real. The life of joy which the false logic had promised to the son is a life of corruption and immorality. Strepsiades realizes the real merit of old values and destroys the negative forces which try to turn man's life into a chaos of degeneration. Jonson, like Aristophanes, is aware of the catastrophic nature of false values whose main cause of existence is alchemy. It corrupts the morals of man and threatens to turn the world upside down, convincing humanity, like Wrong Logic of Socrates' school, that laxity of morals is the joy of life which makes existence worth while.25 Like the sophist, the alchemist works negatively on the mind of man and educates him toward a self-interest which elevates him temporarily to the point that he thinks he is superhuman in his ability to rule his life and the life of others. Like Aristophanes, Jonson uses distortion to show that "to speak false and prevail", or to work false and go ahead in life, is not the ideal of human dignity. To be temporarily relieved of your burden with base means is not the complete solution. Overthrowing rules and laws turns the world upside down as the order is disturbed. The human mind, however, is not limited in capability. If this mind is able to overthrow the law and invite chaos because man thinks this the best solution to his problems, it is also able to realize that it has erred. Man is capable of purging his deceived faith and beliefs under a fire which will symbolically show man conqueror of the self and restorer of the natural order of things. All the people who come to Subtle's workshop are driven there by an ardent desire to conquer nature, to change the world, and to be its only dictators. In order to show the merits of true human values, Jonson uses the Aristophanic technique of distortion and like him presents a chaotic world in order to advocate order. This distortion first becomes obvious in the presentation of alchemy as a new religion. The alchemist speaks of "conscience", swears on "faith", "belief", and "troth". 28 When Mam25 26

See Alchemist IV.i.165-166. For people swearing on "faith", "truth", etc., see Alchemist

I.ii.3, 10,

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

79

mon comes to visit him, Face informs him: At praiers, sir, he Good man, hee's doing his devotions, For the successe. (.Alchemist II.ii.29-31) while in fact he is a "smoky persecuter of nature" (Alchemist I.iii.100), a man who teaches his followers to "make/ Nature asham'd, of her long sleepe" (Alchemist I.iv.25-26). 27 The new religion the alchemist initiates encourages lust, gluttony, corruption, and immorality, like the educational system of Socrates, although it still pretends to work its way to success through "prayer and fasting". In the eyes of those visiting him, Subtle is: A pious, holy, and religious man, One free from mortall sinne, a very virgin. {Alchemist II.ii.98-99) He is an: . . . honest wretch, A notable, supertitious, good soule, Has worne his knees bare, and his slippers bald, With prayer, and fasting for it: (Alchemist II.ii.101-04) In Jonson's distorted world picture, alchemy and deceipt are taken for religion and piety. The alchemist himself uses a different kind of language when conversing with his customers than when talking to his associates. This is how he advises Mammon to approach alchemy: Sonne, I doubt Yo'are covetous, that thus you meet your time I' the just point: prevent your day, at morning. This argues something, worthy of a feare 115, 118, 121, 126, 130; II.i.37, 77 at the beginning of the play. This is Jonson's way of emphasizing the absence of truth and faith, something which becomes a fact at the end of the play when everyone again speaks of deception and madness: Alchemist IV.v.66, 77, 97; IV.vi.45; IV.vii.37, 69; V.ii.42; V.iii.16, 29, 54, 62, 67; V.iv.5, 10, 102. 17 See Alchemist H.i.28, 64; II.iii.138, 158, 170; IV.i.73, 95 for references to nature which emphasize the unnatural and point to the distortion of the world.

80

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

Of importune, and carnall appetite. Take heed, you doe not cause the blessing leave you, With your ungovern'd hast. (Alchemist II.iii.4-10)

He assures Mammon that his own ways are those of God: Which (heaven I call to witnesse, with your selfe, To whom, I have pour'd my thoughts) in all my ends, Have look'd no way, but unto publique good, To pious uses, and deere charitie.... (.Alchemist II.iii.14-18)

In the name of religion and piety, Subtle deceives his victims and fills up his own pockets with gold. This is a religion which leads man to deception and madness instead of to bliss and blessing. Subtle constantly uses religious language. He promises to "convert" the "heretics" and to grant "bliss" (Alchemist II.iii.21) to the faithful. The elixir, on the other hand, which: . . . by its vertue, Can confer honour, love, respect, long life, Give safety, valure:

(Alchemist II.i.49-51)

is able to bestow upon mankind valuable gifts which only God could have given. Religion-like, alchemy promises immortality {Alchemist II.i.53-55) and the "sanguis agni" to those who believe in it; like the Holy Trinity, the philosopher's stone is the spirit which guides the steps of the new "apostoles". As cheating is taken for religion, religious language helps emphasize the nature of the deception and points to the magnitude of the distortion which makes mankind appear lost in chaos. Sir Epicure Mammon is an explicit case of human distortion. Not only does he equate alchemy with religion, he also equates self-interest and lust with philanthropy and compassion. Alchemy is the touchstone by which voluptuousness is tested and passes for generosity. Mammon's passion to enjoy life makes him mistake the merits of real human values. He believes money is respect and dignity, and cheating is wisdom: I will pronounce the happy word, be rich. This day, you shall be spectatissimi. (Alchemist II.i.7-8)

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

81

Like Strepsiades, he mistakes real values for false and false for real. He is motivated only by lust and gluttony, and a desire to own the whole universe. Blinded by lust, he assures Surly: You shall start up yong Vice-royes, And have your punques, and punquettees, my SURLY. (.Alchemist II.i.22-23}

He manages to wrap up his personal sensuality in a religious language which makes lust pass for piety. He speaks of "idolatry" and "heretics", of "faith" and "the spirit of Sol", and of "pious uses", while he dreams: To have a list of wives, and concubines, Equall with SALOMON; who had the stone Alike, with me: and I will make me, a back With the elixir, that shall be as tough As HERCULES, to encounter fiftie a night. (Alchemist II.ii.35-38)

The Old Testament and mythology help him shape his lusty dreams. His gluttony, on the other hand, makes him appear monstrous in his appetites: The tongues of carpes, dormise, and camels heeles Boil'd i'the spirit of SOL, and dissolv'd p e a r l e . . . . Oild mushromes; and the swelling unctuous paps Of a fat pregnant sow, newly cut off, Drest with an exquisite, and poynant sause; (.Alchemist II.ii.75-76, 83-85)

The elixir and the stone will be the gods who cause his sensuous dreams to be realized.28 Mammon loses himself in his sensuality which has no end or restraint. His immorality is monstrous, as his lusty dreams reveal: I'll ha' no bawds, But fathers, and mothers. They will doe it best. (.Alchemist II.ii.57-58)

This is the utmost of human degeneration, created and encouraged by alchemy; the most sacred names of human respect and reverence are thrown into an abyss of annihilation. Mammon "

See also Alchemist II.ii.41-52, 57-59, 87-94, 159-169.

82

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

plans to "enjoy a perpetuity/ Of life and lust" (Alchemist IV.i. 165-166) in the name of philanthropy. The lusty side of Mammon's character cannot be hidden altogether under the false pretense that philanthropy is his motivating force in pursuing his dreams. He promises to benefit humanity with the help of alchemy: N o , I assure you, I shall emply it all, in pious uses, F o u n d i n g of colledges, and grammar schooles, Marrying yong virgins, building hospitals, A n d now, and then, a church. 2 9 (Alchemist II.iii.48-52)

He wants people to believe that his purpose is pious and he hopes his lust will pass for philanthropy. Surly, the ironic commentator of Mammon's dreams, finds a way to identify Mammon's philanthropy with lust: the "stone is lechery" (Alchemist II.iii.268), he says. This is also Mammon's end in achieving his purpose: lechery rather than philanthropy. Mammon is part of the perverted world where false values pass for real. His dreams reveal him to be an individual of loose morality, degenerated by the negative forces to which he has entrusted his life. When all the "projection" is "flowne in fumo", Mammon realizes what is real and what false. Like Strepsiades, he sees that he had placed his fate in the hands of forces of destruction: "O my voluptuous mind! I am justly punish'd" (Alchemist IV.v. 74). This is a moment of enlightenment when the degenerate man comes to blame himself and his intelligence for whatever misfortunes have befallen him. Later, when he sees Subtle's door locked before him and the cheat gone forever, he calls the values by their right name and realizes that the cheat was not the "subtle intellect" he had taken him to be: "rogues,/ Coseners, impostors, bawds" {Alchemist V.iii.9-10) are the indignant and wrathful labels he uses. When everyone around him thinks he is "distracted", as the values have been turned upside down, Mammon is the only one who is in his right senses for the first time: I will goe m o u n t a turnep-cart, and preach 28

See Alchemist

II.i.66-69 for Mammon's "humanism".

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

83

The end o'the world, within these two months. SURLY, What! in a dreame? CAlchemist V.v.81-83)

Disappointment is the common end for alchemy's victims. Like Aristophanes, Jonson is not satisfied by presenting one case or distortion to assert a general human degeneration. His collection of degraded human nature is richer than Aristophanes'; it almost includes a whole world of iniquities in its universality. Ananias, the "pious" puritan, is depicted as a double faced man in his hypocrisy, a part of the same perverted world in which hypocrisy passes for piety. He introduces himself as the "faithful Brother" so devoted to piety that he will never be able to understand "heathen language", though he understands well how to deal with "widowes, and with orphanes goods" (Alchemist II.v. 47). Under a mask of piety and concern for human suffering, Ananias is the worst case of human degeneration, for he hides a beastly appetite for individual satisfaction. Mammon, although beastly in his appetites, stubbornly believes in the miracle alchemy will work for him and the "common wealth". Ananias is the man depicted in the alchemist's greeting: Out, the varlet That cossend the Apostoles! Hence, away, Flee Mischief e. (Alchemist II.v.72-74)

This wicked person does not trust the alchemist, not only because he is a "heathen", but also because his work is "a work of darknesse" which "with Philosophy blinds the eyes of man" (Alchemist III.i.5, 9-10). This man, who assures Tribulation that "the sanctified cause/ Should have a sanctified course (Alchemist III. i. 13-14), is a perfect hypocrite who tries to hide his hypocrisy under an assumed mask of "zeal" and "piety". Subtle himself misses no chance to address Ananias and his "brother" in a language which reveals the real nature of these two: No, nor your holy vizard, to winne widdowes To give you legacies; or make zealous wives To rob their husbands, for the common cause: Nor take the start of bonds, broke but one day,

84

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

And say, they were forfeited, by province. Nor shall you need, ore-night to eate huge meales, To celebrate your next daies fast the better: The whilst the Brethren, and the Sisters, humbled, Abate stiffenesse of the flesh. Nor cast Before your hungrie hearers, scrupulous bones, As whether a Christian may hawke, or hunt. (.Alchemist III.ii.69-79)s0 Ananias will soon prove that Subtle's words express reality; he will uncover himself to the full. Ananias hates "tradition" but he also hates the present just as much. The only thing he seems to care about, when trusting his fortune in the hands of the present, is satisfaction of his personal avarice. The "works of darknesse" he well knows can work miracles for him. The cause justifies the means and it is of no concern to him whether the whole of humanity has to be sacrificed in order for him to reach his end. Although he is supposed to know the truth "by revelation" and know better than anyone else the ways of God, he violates many of His Commandments in his greed for money and individual gain. He votes for the "projection" of counterfeit money and, like Pheidippides, finds the right words to prove it lawful. The Dutch dollars which the alchemist will make for him are "forraine coyne" and* therefore "casting of dollers is concluded lawfull" (Alchemist IV.vii.43). His conscience is distorted to the extent that he uses God and religion to hide even from himself the magnitude of his degeneration. Ananias' claim that the whole truth about the counterfeit money being lawful was revealed to him by "prayer and fasting" shows the extent of his degradation. Jonson puts the hypocritical side of Ananias' character next to the piety which he wants people to believe is real. Ananias at the same time abuses the others in words which abound in piety and zeal: Avoid Sathan, Thou art not of the light. That ruffe of pride, About thy neck, betrayes thee: 'and is the same With that, which the uncleane birds, in seventy-seven, Were seen to pranke it with, or divers coasts. so

See also Alchemist

III.ii.86-96.

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

85

Thou look'st like Antichrist, in that leud hat. {Alchemist IV.vii.50-55) He presents himself as an ardent advocate of Christ and fights the "fiend" who "hates the Brethren". Ananias' hypocrisy is covered beneath a pretended zeal for the right cause. While he is convincing Subtle to start making counterfeit money for him, he tries to show himself a bitter foe of the "antichrist". Even at the end of the play when he is sure that all his hopes for gain have turned into "deceptio visus" and he realizes that Subtle's house "is become a cage of uncleane birds" (Alchemist V.iii.46-47), his hypocrisy still carries on. He never unmasks himself completely, but uses Biblical language and imagery to describe the laxity of morals of which he is the worst specimen. The alchemist and his assistant are "Locusts/ Of the foule pit", and "worse then the grasse-hoppers, or the Lice of Egypt", and above all they are "scorpions/ And caterpillars" (Alchemist IV.v.13-14, 15, 21-22). Alchemy kindled the flames and helped hypocrisy to appear as piety. The alchemist's threat to destroy nature for the sake of individual prosperity is a perfect recommendation of the outrageous character of Subtle. Being indifferent to human disintegration, he promised, with the help of Face, to bring chaos to the world. The relationship of Subtle to his assistant — their endless quarrels and the base vocabulary addressed at one another — is characteristic of the degenerating values which they represent. When Subtle and Face are corrupted and degenerate, there is no hope that faith in their false values will lead to success. The only success these values lead to is confusion and disorder. Lovewit's comment at the end of the play expresses the real human condition at a promised moment of success: "The world's turn'd Bet'lem" {Alchemist V.iii.54). The loose morality which the alchemist and his art encourage leads to where Aristophanes' Socrates' paedeia had led mankind two thousand years before Jonson — to disorder, confusion, and human degradation. The downward movement in ethics is not totally the result of a pessimistic outlook. Both Aristophanes and Jonson assert their faith in the capability of the human mind to turn disorder into

86

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

order. This assertion becomes obvious not only through the enlightenment of some of the characters in the play, but also through the presentation of positive values still left in the world which will work out man's salvation. Jonson portrays decadent and sane human natures side by side in his perverted world. Surly, like Right Logic in Aristophanes' play, stands for the uncorrupted elements of society; he attacks with bitter criticism those values which alchemy presents as real. This man, who seems to lack faith 31 in the miracles which alchemy promises to perform for mankind and who is in no way "converted" by the alchemist's "religion", appears to be the only sane person not taken in by the promises of alchemy. When Mammon accuses him of being faithless, he answers: Faith, I have a humor, I would not willingly be gull'd. Your stone Cannot transmute me.

(Alchemist II.i.77-79) Unlike the other victims who willingly fall into the snare of the alchemist and are convinced to take cheating for wisdom, hypocrisy for piety, and money for respect, who are distorted to the extent that they take real and true things as false and worthless, Surly is presented as a "heretic" and a non-conformist who paradoxically is the only one to see things as they really are. He is part of the distortion. Mammon asks the alchemist to try and prove Surly wrong: "I but come/ To ha'you confute this gentleman" (Alchemist Il.iii. 24-25) who seems to be determined not to be "gulled" and cheated. Surly uncovers the truth about alchemy and its weapons: "What a brave language here is? next to canting?" (Alchemist II.iii.44), he ironically comments when he hears Subtle trying to "charm" his victims. Subtle realizes that Surly is one of those he cannot cheat and simply ignores his comments. In this "mad" world, no one listens to Surly's voice of sanity and his warnings of the impossibility for any fulfilment (Alchemist Il.iii. 129, 185200, 249, 268); on the contrary they take him to be "foul" (Al31

See frequent references to "faith" which indicate the absence of belief in Surly's character: Alchemist II.i.29, 37, 54, 77; II.iii.26, 126.

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

87

chemist II.iii.252) and rude (Alchemist II.iii.264-265), a cheater (Alchemist IV.vii.8), a liar and a fiend (Alchemist IV.vii.25, 55, 57). Distorted logic works in various ways as alchemy works negatively on the minds of men; 32 it brings about madness (Alchemist IV.vii.37) instead of sanity and order. Surly is the man who warns humanity that alchemy is not wisdom but only a game which cheats with charming and that Subtle's religion is only hypocrisy. His role is to show the truth, not to try to convert the cheated humanity. Jonson saw the power of false values in overthrowing order and turning men into beasts. The degeneration of human ethos is shown to be a clear outcome of man's blind faith in values untried and his inability to see the difference between false and real. Both dramatists saw the decay of morals and ethos as a warning sign before humanity met with catastrophe: the laxity of morals seems to be the result of a freedom which has exceeded its limits. The overindividuality promised by the overthrowing of rules and laws and the disturbance of nature is a sign of downfall. Man's power to rule lives according to his personal whims is a disaster of immeasurable size for humanity. False values promise to relieve man of his burden not by solving his problems, but by placing them on someone else's shoulders. The fire which consumes the sophist's school is a purifying force meant to destroy the forces which the school represents and to cause man to spring rejuvenated from its ashes. What had created a master out of a son and a scoundrel out of a student, passes into non-existence; its power of destruction is demolished under the blaze of the purging fire. Jonson wipes out the forces of annihilation which threaten the order of his world in the play, not by an Aristophanic fire, but by the tempest of an arrival. When the master of the house comes back, the forces which had tried to paralyze man's ability to function like a logical being are drawn back into non-existence. Face becomes Jeremie the butler again and the values he had stood for are ruined and vanish along with the alchemist's assistant. Jeremie now stands for the " See also the reaction of Kastril and Ananias: Alchemist 39-41, 50-55.

IV.vii.36-37,

88

FORCES OF ANNIHILATION

forces which kept the house of his master in order. Disorder gives way to order and confusion vanishes with those who had caused it. By offering a distorted picture of man and human values, both Aristophanes and Jonson mean to emphasize vividly the importance of the human intelligence in creating or destroying man's own life. The destruction of those forces which caused the world to turn upside down is an act of faith in the potentiality of the human mind for overcoming weakness and safely leading man to higher spheres of existence. The "nothing" that Strepsiades gets when trying hard to contemplate "meteora" things and the "nothing" which the alchemist's followers get as a reward for their blind faith are of the same kind. It proves that false values have nothing positive to offer. The two playwrights are not dull conservatives in advocating the merits of sanity: they are humanists in their concern for man. Both sophistry and alchemy are considered as forces which influence man negatively; they lead him to his catastrophe through the encouragement of a loose morality, and as such they are presented under a strong light of distortion so that men see for themselves their real merit. Aristophanes and Jonson do not reproach men who have erred as a result of putting an overabundance of faith in false values; they urge them to return to the safe path of normality and sanity. Jonson is Aristophanic in his view of mankind as lost in polarities of false and real values, as degenerate in his uncontrolled and illogical faith in untried values, but as capable of working out his salvation; he is also Aristophanic in the presentation of his arguments, when he lets distorted logic and behavior furnish man with faith in order and sanity.

IV JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

Aristophanes' comic voice many times becomes a satiric scourge which, by striking and whipping them severely in a whirlwind of ridicule, teaches men the way to be reasonable. Jonson likewise presents extreme cases of ridiculous individuals in his attempt to show where the absence of reason can lead mankind. Both dramatists satirize man in order to supply him with the strength of mind which will enable him to face the problems life creates for him. The two men raise their satirical voices, and in the midst of laughter they aspire to awaken man's sense of dignity and make him think reasonably. By projecting under a strong light of satirical distortion the inner world of the individuals — their Utopias and daydreams — both Aristophanes and Jonson try to lead man away from passive despair into an active life of mutual understanding and cooperation based on good will and sane reasoning. Jonson shares with Aristophanes not only the inspiration of the means used, but also the spirit of respect for man whom he satirizes in order to correct rather than merely to laugh at him as an idiot. Under their humorous satire, a criticism of man and his follies manifests itself in a lively way. The satire is a sharp reproach of man's lack of reason; it is comically woven in a way which whips men in general but does not hurt any individual in particular. The two dramatists satirize life itself not to entertain man or to poison his feelings, but to make him think deeply and reasonably of the world as it should be so that he can live happily in it. Satire is Aristophanes' and Jonson's way of speaking the truth to the people of their times. Highet has stated that

90

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

satire is "secretely idealistic",1 a trait Aristophanes' and Jonson's satire share in common. Aristophanes aspires to make a god out of man and Jonson hopes to turn the "morose" people of his contemporary London into reasonable beings. They both try to show that even the impossible can be realized when man uses his intellect to cure his delusions. In his attempt to satirize man's follies and elevate mankind to the state of gods, Aristophanes equates men and birds in the Birds and presents the representatives of the gods as ridiculous, stupid, and gluttonous. From the beginning, men and birds alike call themselves and each other beasts (Birds 69, 87, 93, 369); at the same time men are not human beings: "O we're not men" (Birds 64). Men use metaphors from birds to describe their trip (Birds 35) and they clearly state they are birds: "I'm the Panicstruck, a Libyan bird" (Birds 65); "I'm a pheasant, and a yellowtailed one" (Birds 68). The birds also claim to be of human descent. The Plover-Page assures the two men that he is a "servant" as if he were a human being, and the Hoopoe confesses: "Strangers, 1 / Was once a man" (Birds 96-97). Beyond the personal confession there is something else which equates birds with men: You were a man at first, as we are now, And had your creditors, as we have now, And loved to shirk your debts, as we do now; And then you changed your nature, and became A bird, and flew round land and sea, and know All that men feel, and all that birds feel too. (Birds 114-19) This identity is the basis of Aristophanes' satire. The birds are the Athenian citizens satirized for their stupidity in not seeing the real condition of things. The representatives of mankind, spokesmen for Aristophanes himself, work out the satire and try to elevate the birds. When they come on the stage they seem to be tired of their present condition and to want to change their lives as the birds did before. They do not hate their present state, 1

Gilbert Highet, The Anatomy of Satire (Princeton, N J.: Princeton University Press, 1962), p. 243.

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

91

but they want to change it and find "some quiet easy-going spot" where they can "dwell in peace" (Birds 44, 45).2 These two men look for peace of mind which their city and townsmen cannot offer. If the birds help men find this spot, humans will also change for the better by becoming happier. The ideal guide for Peisthetaerus and Euelpides in their search for a quiet and peaceful place is a Hoopoe, who, being a bird, is more experienced than they. At the beginning, the bird appears to be a severe censor of the two men's confessions: "you are in love with ills indeed" (Birds 143), he says when the men tell him what their dreams are. This is the first apparent difference between birds — untouched by the corruption created by money's influence in life (Birds 157)—and men—worshippers of money, "a grand corrupter" of life (Birds 158). On the other hand, another similarity is noted when Peisthetaerus jokingly says: With us, for instance, If you should ask the flighty people there, Who is that fellow? Teleas would reply, The man's a bird, a flighty feckless bird, Inconsequential, always on the move. (Birds 166-70)

Men are fickle like birds, and always on the move in their life.3 The Hoopoe himself asserts that the birds were "mere barbarians" when he first came to them (Birds 199), but they have changed for the better now. This change is what the two men seek. Since the birds are not barbarians any more, the two men can hope for success in their own plans. The Hoopoe is the first to be convinced that the men can help the birds prove themselves equal to and even better than mankind. The bird introduces Peisthetaerus to his fellow birds thus: 1

Both Peisthetaerus and Euelpides seem to be ardent advocates of peace in the way they describe their ideal state of being: Birds 128-134 and 137142. At the same time their names suggest their intentions: Peisthetaerus is the man who "trusts to his friends" and Euelpides "one who hopes that he will one day reach better things", as the scholiast points out (Scholia Aristophanica, I, ed. W. G. Rutherford [London: MacMillan & Co., 1896], p. 423). ' For the same sort of identity, see also Birds 291.

92

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES O F HUMAN EVALUATION

For hither has come a shrewd old file, Such a deep old file, such a sharp old file, His thoughts are new, new deeds he'll do. (Birds 254-56)

Here Aristophanes' satire begins to take shape. The birds were identified with men so that Aristophanes can scourge his fellow Athenians as stubborn and suspicious, stupid and ignorant in the ways of others. Beside the birds Aristophanes places demos, the people of Athens; he satirizes them in order to make them aware of their power to become gods, and to awaken them and make them recognize the deceitful ways of the demagogues. The Hoopoe believes in Peisthetaerus, although he had at the beginning suspected him of being in love with ills; he decides to trust his genius since the man had promised to make him and all the birds gods. When the other birds come to join the Hoopoe, they greet the two men with hostile looks; they are suspicious of the ways of their foe: He has led us unawares into wiles, and into snares, H e has given us a prey, all helpless and forlorn, T o those who were our foes from the time that they were born, T o vile and'abominable Man! (,Birds 333-35)«

These angry birds are Aristophanes' fellow citizens, suspicious and doubtful of their foe's sincerity, and ignorant of how they should act to make their foe their friend and to live a life in peace and quiet. Satirizing the Athenians, Aristophanes introduces the birds one by one in an amusing way, showing his fellow citizens how ridiculous they can be in their everyday behavior: How they twitter, how they go, shrieking and screaming to and fro. . . . They are gazing here, and see All their beaks they open widely. (Birds 4

307-09)6

See also Birds 322, 323, 324, 344-351, 365, 415, 417-420, 426, 428, 451452, for the stubborn and suspicious attitude of the birds toward the representatives of mankind which comically suggests the ridiculous attitude of the Athenians. 5 See also Birds 267-290.

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

93

This is how they go about in the agora; the noise they make leads to nothing positive; they behave stupidly, looking like idiots and seeing nothing. Aristophanes presents his message in such a ridiculous way that no one misses it. Bringing in the birds fancily dressed, he crowds the stage with pompous creatures. These birds see men as degenerate enemies and unworthy of their friendship. Since his satire aims at having the Athenians see how to make the best of their enemies, Aristophanes has the suspicious and hostile birds change their attitude toward their enemy who comes with valuable promises to them: I admit that something useful may be taught us by a foe. (Birds 381-82)

This confession is the first step toward reconciliation and a better state of being. Men may learn a great deal from the birds and their behavior after their attitude changes and they become reasonable in considering their future. Aristophanes urges the Athenians to forget their hostile feelings and seek a better life in cooperation with others.9 As Peisthetaerus is the spokesman for Aristophanes himself, his speech to the birds seems to be a plea for man to think more highly of himself and be the man he was in the old times: So holy and mighty they deemed you of old, with so deep a respect did they treat you! Now they treat you as knaves and as fools, and as slaves; Yea they pelt you as though ye were mad.7 (Birds 522-25)

The "knaves" and "fools" and "slaves" are the Athenians who have let themselves be treated in a way unworthy of their might. Through Peisthetaerus' trying to inspire the birds to think highly of themselves, Aristophanes attempts to make his fellow citizens dream better dreams for themselves, wake up from their lethargy, and live the life they should: . . . life is not worth our retaining, • See also Birds 375-380. ' See Birds 526-538.

94

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION Unless we be Lords of the world as before, our ancient dominion regaining. (Birds 548-49)

Under present conditions, life is madness, for human beings become the slaves of the demagogues. Man should be concerned about his own future. Peisthetaerus teaches the birds how to use their wings and he expects them to show him how to furnish himself with wings and so he can be their comrade. The birds possess a power unknown to them: they can fly and be gods themselves if they decide to "live together" (Birds 172), for this is where their happiness starts {Birds 604-605). Peisthetaerus teaches them to be compassionate, to love their fellow birds, and to become reconciled with their supposed enemies so that they can live a better life. The chorus emphasizes Aristophanes' thesis in one of their songs: A spirit so lofty and rare Thy words have within me excited, That I lift up my soul, and I swear That if Thou wilt with Me be united In bonds that are holy and true And honest and just and sincere, If our hearts are attuned to one song, We will march on the Gods without fear. (Birds 629-36)

This is the Aristophanic ideal — a man who is a "spirit so lofty and rare" that he will embrace the whole universe. The parabasis comes at this point to emphasize Aristophanes' faith in human potentiality to work a better future for itself on the basis of mutual understanding and love. The chorus sings of things "transcendental" and points out that "there was Chaos at first, and Darkness, and Night, and Tartarus vasty and dismal" {Birds 693), but the gloomy imagery soon vanishes and chaos becomes order, the darkness light, and the confusion peace. This process from darkness to light has happened before; it is not unattainable. Love is the magic word that will turn the darkness in man's life into ample light:

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

95

There was never a race of Immortals at all till Love had the universe blended; Then all things commingling together in love, there arose the fair Earth, and the Sky, And the limitless Sea; and the race of the Gods, the Blessed, who never shall die. (Birds 700-02)

Love is the power which creates and transforms the world; love is able to create a better tomorrow for mankind. Through the powerful song of the chorus, Aristophanes urges the Athenians to forget hatred, love their foes, embrace each other, unite their experiences, and try to build a better future for themselves. In order to prove that man will not be able to improve his life without love, compassion, humane instinct, and understanding, Aristophanes has representatives of men visit the newly built city of the birds, Nephelokokkygia. The men who come are ones who have gone "Laconian mad", "long-haired, half-starved, unwashed, Socratified" (Birds 1282). They are driven by a desire to free the self, to escape the laws society imposes upon them, and to live a life free of the intervention of humanity. These people, unconcerned for the suffering of others, are alienated already in their wish to be left alone.8 The only thing they care about is the fulfilment of their personal wishes; they are extreme cases of egotism and indifference. Peisthetaerus will not accept these people to the birds' city; he will not even try to change them. Although Peisthetaerus will not give wings to or accept in Nephelokokkygia people who are hostile to their own race, he will help those few who have misunderstood the meaning of the wings and he will offer them a chance to become better. Wings are not the means by which they achieve alienation or ethical degradation. The Sire-Striker will get wings because he comes "well-disposed" (Birds 1361) and he is willing to follow Peisthetaerus' advice: Don't beat your father, lad; but take this wing, And grasp this spur of battle in your hand 8

Peisthetaerus treats these men each according to his character: Birds 946948, 981-985, 1015-1016, 1029, 1044. They are all treated, though, like alazons and are driven away from the stage.

96

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

Now march, keep guard, live on your soldier's pay. (Birds 1364-65, 1367)

This is the loftiest point of Peisthetaerus' idealism. Life in Nephelokokkygia is only for those who promise to become ethically better. Moral reconciliation is a prerequisite to entering the ideal state of being. At the beginning of the play, Peisthetaerus and Euelpides might seem to be two rogues who want to get away from society. Their language suggests that they are easygoing characters, but that language is purposely put into their mouths to attract the attention of the public. The city they built for the birds is Aristophanes' ideal land: Here is Wisdom, and Wit, and each exquisite Grace, And here the unruffled, benevolent face Of Quiet. (Birds

1320-22)

Here is where the gods themselves come looking for reconciliation. Aristophanes depicts the representatives of the gods as mere gluttons, no better than men or birds in their prereconciled state of being. The gods are threatened by starvation because of the lack of sacrifices. Attributed human weakness, these gods are presented as unable to solve their problem of famine for themselves. While Aristophanes satirizes the Athenians in the birds,9 he is eager now to show who the gods are that they had worshipped. Those gods are the demagogues to whom the citizens had blindly entrusted their fates. Aristophanes presents ridiculous gods in order to show how absurd the demagogues are. Once the Athenians see the demagogues' real faces and the depth of their weaknesses, they will realize their error. The gods are set as ludicrous examples which show the Athenians their degree of foolishness. People had offered the demagogues too many "sacrifices" so far; now it is time for them to stop worshipping worthless gods and • These are the stupid Athenians who are satirized behind the birds and who let themselves be treated like fools and be trapped in the snares which the demagogues had set for them: Birds 523-538.

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

97

let the state representatives themselves ask for peace. Before he starts negotiating with the representatives of the gods, Peisthetaerus asks that Sovereignty be given to him. She is the girl . . . who keeps the thunderbolts of Zeus, And all his stores, — good counsels, happy laws, Sound common s e n s e . . . . (Birds 1538-40)

The derisive treatment of the three representatives, who are ready to sacrifice their sceptre for a promise of a rich banquet, seems to facilitate Peisthetaerus' attempt. The demand is granted since even the Barbarian god seems to understand the language of Peisthetaerus' promises; their ridiculous way of consenting to accept his terms emphasizes Peisthetaerus' triumph: "come up to heaven". He and the birds for which he had built the city are elevated to ideal heights. It is time for the chorus to comment, since man is conqueror of the universe: . . . no Star has ever gleamed so fair, Sparkling refulgent in its gold-rayed home. The full far-flashing splendour of the Sun Ne'er shone so gloriously as he, who comes, Bringing a bride too beautiful for words, Wielding the winged thunderbolt of Zeus. (Birds 1709-14)

The picture of Peisthetaerus returning from the kingdom of gods in a triumph of human apotheosis is emphasized by the imagery of the chorus' song which is full of light and brightness. Man has become the "star", the "sun"' and a god since he has taken the gods' emblem of power. This is the almighty man created by Aristophanes to inspire his fellow citizens with higher ideals. The song of victory that closes the play celebrates man the master of the universe who succeeded in creating a better future for himself and others by realizing his potentialities. Aristophanes' satire — the ridicule of men as birds and gods — is the most successful mode of human evaluation. The foolish birds are enlightened to the point that they consent to take the advice of a foe, and they become sovereigns of the universe. The

98

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

all powerful gods are ridiculed for their weakness; their degradation raises hope for man to improve his own life by trusting his own intelligence and using his reason rather than worshipping worthless and incapable state representatives. In Peace Aristophanes presents once more a "mad" dream: an individual aspires to bring blessing for the whole of mankind. The impossibility of the enterprise is emphasized by the means used to achieve it. The satire again is not aimed at an individual but at a principle — man's indifference to vital state affairs such as the war. Satire is the best way to urge the Athenians to be active and work for peace. The satire in Peace, suggesting the endless potentiality of man to attain the impossible, manifests itself in the means Trygaios uses to realize his endeavor,10 and in the treatment of Hermes11 and those who make money during the war.12 Trygaios decides to visit the gods on a beetle.13 The ridiculous means he uses in order to reach his goal, as well as the exaggerated idea that inspires him on his trip upwards, prove that "madness"14 is necessary for man to escape his present condition of despair and open new horizons for himself and others. The servant points out early in the play: "my master's mad", as mad is Trygaios' enterprise and dream to liberate Hellas from its chains of corruption and to unite all Hellenes into one: "My 10

See the satirical language used to describe the beetle and its disposition: Peace 1-42, 151-172; note especially the jokes on its habits to eat "dung": Peace 1, 2, 4, 9,12,14,17, 21, 23, 27-28, 33-37, 48,137-139,150-153, 162-172. 11 For the satirical treatment of Hermes see the ridiculous language he uses when he "welcomes" Trygaios: Peace 182-184; also notice the way Aristophanes chooses to ridicule him as gluttonous and avaricious: Peace 192-194; see also how Trygaios treats him in their arguments: Peace 362-375. " See how the Sickle-Maker, the Breastplate-Seller, the Crest-Maker, the Trumpeter, the Helmet-Seller, and the Spear-Burnisher are ridiculed by Trygaios and are thrown away from the stage as worthless individuals: Peace 1197-1264. 15 See adjectives referring to the beetle which emphasize the theme of madness and make Trygaios' endeavor seem more impossible. For adjectives such as "stinking", "foul", "voracious", "conceited", "abominable", etc., see Peace 2, 25, 38. 14 Frequent references to Trygaios' madness: Peace 54, 56, 65, 66, 90, 95, make the sanity of his enterprise assume validity in contrast with the corruption of mankind.

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

99

flight for the sake of all Hellas I take,/ A novel and daring adventure preparing" (Peace 93-94). The universality of Trygaios' venture and the seriousness of his endeavor is further asserted by Trygaios who says: I'm going to ask h i m what he is going to do A b o u t the Hellenic peoples, o n e and all.

(Peace 105-06)

Trygaios' strenuous effort to reach Zeus and ask him be favorable to all Hellenes is set side by side with the ridiculous means he uses to reach his goal. He enters heaven on a "stinking brute" the way Peisthetaerus was led to the ideal land by a featherless bird. Men determined to meet with success never fail in their effort. The man who aspires to bring blessing for mankind is greeted as a degenerate human being by Hermes at the gate of the gods' kingdom: O shameless miscreant, vagabond, and rogue, O miscreant, utter miscreant, worst of miscreants, H o w c a m e y o u here, y o u worst of the miscreants.

(.Peace 182-84)

The man appears to be such a degenerate being that he is unworthy of entering the kingdom of the gods. Hermes informs Trygaios that the gods are so much upset with man's behavior that they left mankind in the hands of War,15 the only god left on earth. All other gods have fled to immense heights where man's corruption cannot reach them. With War unable to make his salad and the other gods gone away, Trygaios takes courage and cries out in joy: "take courage, mortals: all may yet be well" (Peace 286). He urges his fellow men to unite their efforts and bring back Peace. With the advice, help, and guidance of Hermes, the people manage to lift Peace from the pit where the gods, angry at human degeneration, had put her. 11

For the ridiculous treatment of War, which lightens Aristophanes' satire and encourages men to fight for peace, see: Peace 236-288. The fact that War cannot find a pestle to pulverize the mortals (Peace 259-284) emphasizes Aristophanes' thesis that the apparently impossible and unfeasible endeavors of man can always be attained if man decides to use his will power and see that the obstacles are not insuperable.

1 0 0 JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

Once Peace is lilted out, men get ready to live "joys" that they "have missed so long" (Peace 579).16 The restoration of peace is man's greatest achievement at this moment of despair (war). Trygaios also gets Harvest from the gods the way Peisthetaerus had gained Sovereignty in his triumphant ascendance to the kingdom of the gods. The parabasis, which praises the poet who "ennobled art", comes to emphasize the main thesis of the play. The chorus' song runs parallel with the attempt of Trygaios to create a better future for mankind. Trygaios admits that men looked unimportant when viewed from heaven: "How small ye seemed down here!" (Peace 821). The distance points to alienation which is a result of human indifference. When man is shut into himself and refuses to participate and communicate with the rest of mankind for the solution of their common problems (war), he is small and base on earth; once he aspires to measure up to the gods, to unite his efforts with the rest of humanity for a better life, he is no longer small and base: he is the giant who holds the earth in his hands. Love was the keyword in the Birds as the motivating force behind Peisthetaerus' "mad" dream. In Peace, love is again the power which moves mankind upwards toward a noble existence. Trygaios' appeal that all Greeks renew themselves with the "elixir of love" and "with thoughts of each other more genial and kind" (Peace 997) is an appeal for human empathy. If man decides to fight alienation and embrace humanity, to leave indifference and work for his welfare, then his dream to attain the impossible will not be a "mad" dream, but a reality more actual than Trygaios' existence. The end of the play advocates this appeal. Trygaios sings with the chorus a song celebrating man's triumphant attempt to attain blessing. When the banquet starts, Trygaios sings, "rejoice" and "be happy". Aristophanes points out that man should take the initiative and search for his own happiness, going as far as the 18 Peace is presented as the ideal state of being for man. It is "the joy of all mankind", the "great salvation", "the Goddess best and greatest" (Peace 294, 301, 308), which secures eternal blessing for mankind: Peace 339-345, 439-440, 551-600.

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

101

skies if necessary. The Utopian Nephelokokkygia and the eternal blessing for humanity (peace) which Aristophanes presents as his attainable ideals are proofs of his humanitarian concern for man. Jonson shares Aristophanes' dreams for a better humanity; he also uses satire aimed at principles rather than individuals to show where indifference and egotism can lead man, and to urge his fellow men to become unlike the humours ridiculed on the stage. Jonson, like Aristophanes, believes that a better life may only come with a humanitarian concern for the suffering of others as well as a marked effort toward mutual understanding and cooperation in life. He makes his point by ridiculing the degradation of those who are foolish or who display an overabundant concern for the self and indifference for the despair of humanity. Alienation and self-centered egotism increase despair which leads man to degradation, and transform him into an insensible animal. Jonson uses satire to ridicule human monstrosity. He describes humour as "a gentlemanlike monster, bred in the special galantry of our time, by affectation and fed by folly" (Every Man In His Humour III.iv.26-29). These are the same beasts which Aristophanes makes out of men in his effort to awaken man's selfconsciousness. Jonson starts from the same assumption and attempts to teach man how to hate human affectation and folly. Both Aristophanes and Jonson use comical satire to ridicule man's foolishness, an outcome of ignorance and indifference, and to imbue him with thoughts and feelings worthy of human intelligence. Jonson believes that every man who tries to project a false image of himself is only worthy of ridicule; he is no better than a clown who makes people laugh at his desperate gestures. In Every Man Out Of His Humour Jonson presents men as inhuman and foolish in their affectation. He puts Sordido, the monster, side by side with Fastidius and Fungoso, the clownish fops, and has them behave in the most ridiculous way in order to prove, when at the end their humour is gone and they "are laid flat", that every man who acts unlike himself is a desperate counterfeit which can accomplish nothing in life. On the other hand, Jonson

102 JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

introduces Macilente and Carol Buffone, the two commentators, who — one in bitterness and the other in jest — make fun of man's foolishness and sham. Like Peisthetaeras and Trygaios in Aristophanes' comedies, Jonson's observers of man's humours unite in their effort to help their fellow men be relieved of their "disease" and not "lose themselves" in folly. Aristophanes satirized the Athenians; he made birds and monsters out of them to awaken their self-consciousness. Jonson, likewise, creates fools 17 and monsters18 out of his fellow men. Several metaphors in the play liken men to beasts: men speak of feeding upon one another (E.M.O. I.ii.232; IV.iv.17, 98; V.iii.75; V.iv.27), or they refer to themselves and others as wild beasts and horrid reptiles. Human beings become "scorpions", "swine", "moths", "snakes", "vipers", "worms", "dogs", and "wolves"; 1 9 some of them even behave like beasts, while others are mere fools, clowns20 who try to appear what they are not. Sordido is the worst specimen of human indifference. He is senseless and wicked, and lacks humanity and compassion. Macilente calls him "boor", a clownish rustic who "fats himself with expectation" (E.M.O. I.iii.8, 27) and is rich at the expense of others. This is how Macilente comments, after having overheard Sordido talk to himself: 'Tis rare, and strange, that he should breathe, and walke, Feede with digestion, sleepe, enjoy his wealth, A n d (like a boist'rous whale, swallowing the poore) Still swimme in wealth, and pleasure! (.E.M.O. I.iii.71-74)

The imagery of the simile animatedly emphasizes Sordido's beastly nature. Sordido reveals himself to be a senseless animal in his indifference for the rest of humanity: For frequent references to man as foolish, see E.M.O. I.i.13; I.ii.33,170, 179, 199; I.iii.86; II.i.93; II.iv.8; II.v.40. 18 For allusions to man's monstrosity, see E.M.O. I.ii.230; III.v.28; Ill.viii. 36, 41; IV.ii.54; IV.vi.59; V.vi.44. 19 See E.M.O. I.ii.233, 235; I.iii.8, 104, 110; III.iv.64; III.viii.27; IV.iv.10; V.vi.65; V.xi.3. 20 See E.M.O. IV.vi.24; V.ii.82, 106, 113, where human beings are referred to as clowns. 17

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

103

O, but (say some) the poore are like to starve. Why let 'hem starve, what's that to me? (E.M.O. I.iii.102-03)

and he adds: I, their exclaimes Move me as much, as thy breath moves a mountaine! CE.M.O. I.iii.116-17)

His analogy emphasizes the firmness of his resolution to be indifferent to the suffering of others. His tactics are no better than his intentions: What though a world of wretches starve the while? "He that will thrive, must thinke no courses vile." {E.M.O. I.iii.144-45)

This man calls the others horrid names such as "snakes", "vipers", "dogs", and "worms"; he uses language which expresses an image of himself. Sordido is wicked and envious of others even at the moment when he decides to hang himself; the "nothing" he talks of expresses the nothingness of a man who even before death has decided: . . . my son and daughter shall starve ere they touch it. (E.M.O. III.vii.65)

This is the "monster", the "caterpillar", the "viper", which the rustics come to rescue. At this moment, Jonson works Sordido's metamorphosis. The beast who is "by wonder changed", the senseless human being who is touched and moved by the peasants' attempt to save his life, is surprised to see others see him as he really is. Their curses become the medicine which cures Sordido's inhumanity: . . . how have my deeds Made my Iookes differ from another mans, Out on my wretched humour, it is that Makes me thus monstrous in true humane eyes. Pardon me (gentle friends) I'le make faire mends For my foule errors past, and twenty-fold Restore to all men, what with wrong I rob'd them. (E.M.O. III.viii.37-44)

Jonson's Sordido out of his humour, firm in his resolution to

104

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

change, humane in his decision to be concerned for others, resembles Aristophanes' birds which had decided to change and embrace their foe. Here, love is also the keyword which works out the metamorphosis: "No life is blessed, that is not graced with love." (.E.M.O. III.viii.57)

These are Sordido's last words before he disappears from the stage. Sordido's case is more serious than that of the others whose only folly is their foppery. Fastidius and Fungoso are made fun of by Carlo, the jester, who knows how to make someone appear ridiculous without being bitter like Macilente. The two fops whom he ridicules are less dangerous to humanity than they are to themselves. Jonson tries to depict in their absurd behavior a well-spread disease of his time — affectation. Both of them are fools who think that "humour" is the proper quality for a gentleman. Fastidius is "a good empty puff". Carlo presents him as the gull who: . . . looks like a fresh salmon kept in a tub, hee'le be spent shortly. His braine's lighter then his feather already, and his tongue, more subject to lie, then that's to wag: he sleepes with a muske-cat every night, and walkes all day hang'd in pomander chaines for penance: (E.M.O. II.i.94-98)

This is the gallant who wants other people to believe he is a perfect courtier beloved by all the women and envied by all men. He and Fungoso are the same sort of fools; their minds are set only upon what to do to look like real gentlemen. Carlo introduces Fungoso thus: FUNGOSO! O, he lookt somwhat like a spunge in that pinkt yellow doublet.... (.E.M.O. II,iii,14-15)

While one seems to be out of the water where he belongs, the other freely absorbs the ways of others like a sponge. Fungoso is so much in love with fashion that he does not realize that he becomes ludicrous in the eyes of others. When dressed like Fastidius, Fungoso wonders why people take no

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

105

notice of his suit, which he begs his sister to give him money to pay for: Good truth, I'le pay you againe at my next exhibition: I had but bare ten pound of my father, and it would not reach and put me wholly into fashion. (E.M.O. II.v.27-29)

He finds out that one suit will not equate him with a gentleman when he sees Fastidius wearing another suit, and he exclaims in despair: How? a new sute? Ay me! (E.M.O. II.vi.31)

yet he soon returns with his tailor to become more and more ridiculous: I would have mine, such a sute without difference, such stuffe, such a wing, such a sleeve, such a skirt, belly, and all. (E.M.O. III.v.4-6)

Although he longs to be called a gentleman, and admires and tries to imitate Fastidius, whom he considers to be a man of fashion, he only manages to become utterly foolish. He is ridiculed as the gentleman in credit — the counterfeit who lacks the means to keep up with fashion and lacks the wits to realize it. The zenith of his absurdity comes at the end of the play when George discovers him under the table asking in agony: "is the constable gone?" He is the "pawn" left behind to pay the bill and be laughed at once more by the inn-keeper who finds out that he has no penny left in his pocket: What, and have such apparell? doe not say so, signior, that mightily discredits your clothes. (.E.M.O. V.vi.61-62)

This is enough to make Fungoso confess that he is "out of those humours now". Macilente bitterly observes after him: Well, if you be out, keepe your distance, and be not made a shotclog any more. CE.M.O. V.ix.46-47)

Ridicule is also the means to satirize Jonson's other fop depicted in such lively colors. He is an empty boaster who likes to show off and pretend to be an important person. "The humour

1 0 6 JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

of gentility" is what haunts Fastidius.21 Carlo sides with him in order to ridicule him more. The man who does not care about "what the fusty world speaks" of him, is mocked even by the woman whom he boastingly claimed adored him. In a most ridiculous scene where Fastidius, while taking tobacco, woos the lady, Macilente ironically observes: "I ne're knew tobacco taken as a parenthesis before'" (E.M.O. III.ix.69-70). The lady appears to be more sincere in her response to Fastidius' nonsensical compliments: "I love not the breath of a woodcockes head" (E.M.O. III.ix.125-126). His disgrace being reported by Macilente, Fastidius is left to come out of his humour. Like all the counterfeits, Fastidius, "like a pawne, at Chesse: fills up a roome, that's all" (E.M.O. IV.ii.52-53). His boasting is like a bubble which has been burst by reality and reason. In the persons of the two fops, Jonson satirizes the foolish dreams of the men of his time who were trying to appear what they were not. He attacks the extremes of human indifference and foolishness in the same way that Aristophanes criticized those indifferent to the order of the state. Overdo in Bartholomew Fayre falsely combines the two sides of humanity which Aristophanes presented in the Birds and Peace. The Justice-fool is Peisthetaerus or Trygaios of the Aristophanic comedies. He aspires to find out human "enormities" and correct them. His intentions are good, as he confesses at the beginning of the play (Bartholomew Fayre II.i.21-22), and he thinks that his disguise of "a fool and a madman" will prevent him from being an actual fool. Jonson prepares a double derision for the ignorant and overzealous Justice. While Overdo thinks that the others will leave him undisturbed to pursue his enterprise since he is disguised, Jonson has every one around make fun of the counterfeit fool who cannot realize that the rest see an actual fool behind his apparrel. Overdo takes the cheat Edgworth for an honest gentleman and misunderstands Mooncalf's ironic comments (Bartholomew Fayre II.iv.34, 62). The only one who thinks Overdo's words worth 21

For Fastidius' vain boasting see E.M.O. 30-35.

II.iii.175-178; II.iv.5-7, 19-27,

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

107

while listening to is Cokes (Bartholomew Fayre II.vi.14, 21, 34, 61), a fool himself. On the other hand, when he advises people to avoid smoking and drinking,22 Overdo's rhetoric equates him with Busy and implies that his own character is hypocritical. Quarlous later explains in one sentence the truth regarding Overdo: Of all Beasts, I love the serious Asse. He that takes pains to be one, and playes the foole, with the greatest diligence that can be. (Bartholomew Fayre III.v.265-67)

Overdo does not only play the fool: he is made one before he manages to acquire self-knowledge. Wasp beats like a common cutpurse the man whom Cokes had admired as perfect. This cures part of Overdo's humour: "I'll make no more orations shall draw on these tragical conclusions" {Bartholomew Fayre III.iii.1-2). His "madness" is only partly cured, for he still believes in his "good purpose" and fails to see the truth. Ironically, his own wife will advocate his punishment: Nay, stay, Sir and view the worke you ha' done, an' you be benefic'd at the Gallowes and preach there, thanke your owne handyworke. (Bartholomew Fayre III.v.195-97)

The man with the good intentions is called a "lewd and pernicious enormity", which expresses the truth. Grace reveals Overdo's real character when Quarlous asks her how she came to be his ward: Faith, through a common calamity, he bought me, Sir; and now he will marry me to his wives brother, this wise Gentleman, that you see, or else I must pay value o' my land. (.Bartholomew Fayre III.v.273-76)

He is more monstrous than the enormities he wants to correct. Bristle further on explains how Trouble-All came to be a madman: Hee is a fellow that is distracted, they say; one Trouble-all: hee was an officer in the Court of Pie-poulders, here last yeare, and put 22

See Bartholomew Fayre II.vi.10-13, 33-36, 38-41, 39-49, 63-65 and in.ii. 41-43; IU.vi.28-32, 79-86.

108

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

out on his place by Justice Overdoo. CBartholomew Fayre IV.i.53-55)

The Justice is put in the stocks to be mocked out of his inhumanity: " I will be more tender hereafter" (Bartholomew Fayre IV.i.74), he says when he hears Bristle's words. Yet to deride him more, Jonson has madness outwit him when he mistakes Quarlous for Trouble-All. Finally, Overdo is ridiculed when he boasts that he is Hercules, Columbus, Magellan, or Drake in his discovery of enormities (Bartholomew Fayre V.vi.33-39). Jonson evaluates human nature in an Aristophanic way: he presents, under a strong light of ridicule, an extraordinary case of a fanatic overdoing justice. Each man should discover the enormity of his own nature — the monstrosity of his own self — before he sets out to correct others. Overdo fails because he aspires to elevate man before he raises himself. Peisthetaerus had given wings only to those who were ethically mature enough to use them correctly, but Overdo cannot furnish mankind with moral ideals when he himself lacks the insight to see the truth. Aristophanes had preached that love is the force which works miracles for men, reconciles enemies, and helps men out in their moments of crisis. Jonson proclaims similarly that understanding is what humanity needs in order to be able to hope for a better tomorrow. Jonson further laughs at man's monstrosity by presenting disfigured human beings whose deformity satirizes inhumanity. Nano, Androgyno, and Castrone are put together as sick cases of human monstrosity. Nano, the midget, lightens Volpone's mood by offering him an explanation of the Pythagorean theory of the transmigration of the soul, thus emphasizing Volpone's distorted nature. H e tells those around him that Androgyno, a hermaphrodite, possesses the soul of Pythagoras. The soul descends from the top of a ladder on which Apollo, a god, stands, down to some Greek heroes, and from there to a Spartan cuckold, then to Pythagoras himself, to the whore Aspasia, and from there down to a Greek cynical philosopher; and since then: Kings, Knights, and Beggers, Knaves, Lords, and Fooles gat it,

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF HUMAN EVALUATION

109

Besides, oxe, and asse, cammell, mule, goat, and brook In all which it hath spoke, as in the Coblers cock.

(Volpone I.ii.22-24)

The soul goes from gods to beasts according to Nano's perverted explanation; in this process of decadence it carries with it humanity. Nano simply points out how Androgyno has in himself something of a king and a beggar, a cuckold and a whore, a man and a beast, and along with him all mankind, the soul of which has gone through a similar process. Through the mouth of a dwarf who entertains a lusty master, Jonson tries to emphasize in a ludicrous way the cause of man's monstrosity and point to the distortion which exists in the world. Despite the fact that Jonson tries to show man's inner distortion through the comic presentation of outer deformity, he shares Aristophanes' dream of seeing man, desperate as he is, move toward a Utopian existence which will provide him with happiness. In his address To The Reader in the Alchemist, Jonson says: If thou beest more, thou art an Understander, and then I trust thee.

(.Alchemist, To The Reader, 1) If man becomes an "understander", humanity can hope for improvement. Beastly behavior increases despair and gets man nowhere. Both Aristophanes and Jonson use satire to attack man's monstrosity and make him see himself derided in order that he may become more humane. By mocking those they want to scourge, they hope that the rest of mankind will be sensible and reasonable enough to understand the meaning of their satire. A comparative study of the two playwrights' modes of expression will again prove Jonson to be a kinsman of Aristophanes in the way he expresses his belief that beastly human nature is the result of human abuses and that lack of communication is the outcome of man's alienation. Jonson, influenced by Aristophanes' technique, tried to make man be reasonable by using an ironic, comic, and licentious language whenever he wanted to shock man out of his foolishness.

V JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF EXPRESSION

Humor facilitates Aristophanes' and Jonson's satire and criticism. They use it to make man see his foolishness and be cured through laughter. Jonsonian humor is characterized by an Aristophanic wealth of imagination, invention, irony, obscenity in language, and seriousness of intention. As the comedies of Aristophanes were acted during the Dionysiac festivals when most of the citizens were drunk and merry, the jokes and humor of his comedy accomodate to the mood of the atmosphere of the time. The language is exaggerated, inflated with absurd and obscene expressions, and always fitting to the occasion and the characters. He first makes clear through his jokes that the abusive use of food and drink depersonalizes man and turns him into a barbarian since he loses control of himself and defaces the dignity of his character. In the Acharnians, the envoy who had been sent to the Persian Court years ago and who now comes back to recount his experiences in the barbaric country, states half seriously and half jokingly that: . . . only those are there accounted MEN Who drink the hardest, and who eat the most. (Acharnians 77-78)

The envoy's comment is ironic in the way it defines manhood. Aristophanes is sure that people will realize that excessive eating and drinking are habits for Persians who are mere barbarians, yet to make sure that his message is not misunderstood, Aristophanes has Dikaiopolis add that in Athens those who are given to these

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF EXPRESSION

111

habits are considered "the most debauched and dissolute" (Acharnians 79).1 While man seems to become a barbarian when immoderately using his appetites, he cannot live without the food and drink, indispensable elements of human existence. The Megarian sells his daughters as pigs to Dikaiopolis in order to get some salt and garlic to survive through the war. The Boeotian sells his eels, among other things, to get some anchovies to preserve himself at this moment of crisis. Food will keep these starving rustics alive. On the other hand, Dikaiopolis is feasting at home celebrating the thirty-year truce he secured for himself and his family: O listen with what cookly art And gracious care, so trim and smart His own repast he's dressing. (Acharnians 1015-17)

Peace is a blessing which provides man with rich feasting. While Dikaiopolis enjoys the feasting, Lamachus is called away to fight the Boeotians. The fact that one "enjoys the feast"2 while the other groans in pain (Acharnians 1190-1202) shows that feasting is a joy of life when compared with the misery of the war which deprives man of life. Dikaiopolis' feasting process is exaggerated and the language is adorned with food and drink imagery, not to be taken as a hyperbole of abuse but as a metaphor of life itself.3 In the Knights the food and drink imagery is used more extensively to emphasize the beastly aspects of human nature which forgets itself in gluttony and becomes the slave of its lust. When Paphlagon is presented by the two servants for the first time, he is talked about as the man who will: . . . seize A dish some other servant has prepared, And serve it up for master. (Knights 52-53) 1

See Acharnians 80-83 for obscene references to the habits of their king, and also 11. 158, 161 for obscene jokes referring to the Odamantians who are representatives of all the barbarians. The jokes animatedly express Aristophanes' beliefs. 1 See Acharnians 1216 for obscene references as to how Dikaiopolis enjoys himself. » See Acharnians 1092, 1097-1098, 1103-1106, 1118-1119, 1125-1126, 1134-

112

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF EXPRESSION

This statement prepares the audience to observe that the demagogues' ways will be expressed in metaphors of eating. Paphlagon "eats" the "publick commons" and "pinches" people "like figs" in his man-devouring appetites. He appears to be able to swallow mankind in his excessive greed for power. The servants who criticize Paphlagon also drink a lot in order to have "happy thoughts" and plot successful operations. Their reasonings are representative of the mentality of all those Athenians who believed that: . . . when men drink they thrive, Grow wealthy, speed their business, with their suits, Make themselves happy, benefit their friends. (Knights 92-94)

Their success will be in accordance with their merry mood, as the decision of the two servants who are under the influence of alcohol will prove. The Sausage-Seller is the right man to be their savior because he knows a great deal about food and can easily win the favor of Demos with "the savory sauce/ Of little cookery phrases" (Knights 216). The man himself is surprised at the drunk servants' choice: "How can I,/ A sausage-selling chap, become a Man?" (Knights 178-179). His profession automatically ranks him with beings who are lower than man, but his art seems to influence men, and his "piquant sauce" wins them to the extent that masters become slaves of their appetites. When "sausages drink blood", the Sausage-Seller's art "drinks" life itself as it turns men into beasts worse than the barbarians in the Acharnians. Greed makes men beasts, degrades them to the level of animals, and deprives them of their sense of dignity. This is emphasized more in the agon of Paphlagon with the Sausage-Seller: PAPH. I'll eat my tunny grill And quaff thereon a stoup of wine which water shall not touch, And then with scurrilous abuse the Pylian generals smutch. S.S. I'll eat the paunch of cow and swine, 1135 for the juxtaposition of food and war language which emphasizes the merits of peace and the disadvantages of the war.

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF EXPRESSION

113

and quaff thereon their stew, And rising from the board with hands which water never knew I'll throttle all orators, and flatter Nicias too. (.Knights 353-58)

These two rivals express the animal in themselves which can devour the whole of society. Paphlagon is accused of "sucking and sipping" the people's money and of wishing to "drink up" and "eat up" the Sausage-Seller. The Sausage-Seller, on the other hand, does not fall short in appetites; he threatens to "drink up" and "swill up" Paphlagon, and is ready finally to "burst himself" like a real beast. The food imagery emphasizes character traits which are inhuman and appear to be as monstrous as the appetites. Later, the Sausage-Seller accuses Paphlagon of behaving like a beastly glutton when feeding Demos with promises: You chew, and pop a morsel in his mouth, But thrice as much you swallow down yourself. (Knights 718-19)

Paphlagon's appetite is as immense as his stature. The SausageSeller uses this inflated language even when referring to his own unnatural appetites: If I love you not, Demus, am game to be slaughtered by chopping and mincing, And boiled in a sausage-meat pie; and if THAT is, you think, not entirely convincing, Let me here, if you please, with a morsel of cheese, upon this to a salad be grated. (Knights 769-71)

Such language and imagery is fitting for a Sausage-Seller; this is the only way he can think and function as a man. In this play, Aristophanes presents people as exaggerated cases of unnatural appetites; they do not only think of eating and swallowing others but they easily offer themselves as appetizers to their fellow men. They are not like Dikaiopolis who enjoys his banquet which represents to him a life-giving force. These char-

114

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF EXPRESSION

acters show in "a wondrous flow of language" the voracious and predatory animal characteristics hidden in human beings. The invitation to dinner which closes the play emphasizes, nevertheless, that as beastly as man appears to be when given to unnatural appetites, he still cannot live without food and drink. The moderate use of food improves the quality of life, and that is why food is closely related to peace, and war to starvation. While Aristophanes' treatment of feasting and drinking language and imagery is usually connected with politics and the cannibalistic disposition of self-centered politicians, it also shows a primitive longing for existence, an instinctive wish for survival. Almost all of Arstophanes' food and drink imagery is used as a metaphor for life itself. On the other hand, it is created to fit the mentality and mood of the audience who understand Aristophanes' message better when it is so expressed. In the Frogs, people laugh when they hear Dionysus compare his unceasing longing for soup with his desire to bring a worthy poet back from Hades: DI. Have you e'er felt a sudden lust for soup? HE. Soup! Zeus-a-mercy, yes, ten thousand times. DI. Is the thing clear, or must I speak again? HE. Not of the soup: I'm clear about soup. DI. Well, just that sort of pang devours my heart For lost Euripides. (Frogs 62-67)

Since the glutton Hercules who is conversing with Dionysus can understand no other language better than that of food, the analogy is successful as a vehicle for the message; the joke will be understood and appreciated by the audience who are celebrating a festival of feasting and drinking. When under the influence of wine, Dionysus, a barbarian new god, misinterprets words and actions. He acts like a fool when judging Aeschylus and Euripides. Euripides points out that Aeschylus' beginnings are obscure and incomprehensible. He recites as an example the line: Grave Hermes, witnessing a father's power — (Frogs 1138)

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF EXPRESSION

115

which is spoken by Orestes when he is at his father's grave. Euripides states that Hermes, the god of craft, should not be called as a witness on this occasion. Although Aeschylus explains that it was Hermes the Helper invoked in the play, Dionysus reacts as if he has missed the whole point of the argument: E U . Why this is worse than all. If from his father He held this office grave, why then — DI. H e was A graveyard rifler on his father's side. A E . Bacchus, the wine you drink is stale and fusty.

(Frogs 1147-50)

Dionysus, drunk at the moment of the judgment, is ridiculed with his irrelevant comment. Through Dionysus' foolish behavior, Aristophanes shows that wine may deprive man of his right senses, although it, like food, is a life-giving force when moderately used. Jonson comes close to Aristophanes' point of view regarding eating and drinking, for when he treats them in his plays he shows both their life-giving and life-depriving power. Jonson is Aristophanic in the way he sees the beastly side of man exposed to common view under the influence of unnatural appetites, and in the way he presents his point of view. In its exaggeration, his use of food and drink imagery works upon the human mind as Aristophanes' use of hyperbolic language does. In Volpone, Jonson presents the animal characteristics of the Fox and the scavenger Birds by means of imagery of unnatural appetites. The Birds, with their beaks "up i' the ayre, and snuffing" ( V o l p o n e V.vi. 28), and the Fox set out to devour one another in their struggle to satisfy their lust for wealth. Volpone is ready to "milk the hopes" of the Vulture, the Raven, and the Crow who come to him "in hope of prey", thinking that he is no more than a "carcasse". The exaggerated imagery presents mankind feeding upon corpses to satisfy its unnatural appetites. If Aristophanes presents men as beasts, Jonson depicts them as horrid vampires who are ready to drink the blood and life of one another. The hyperbole in both cases points to the sad degradation of man who is given to his whims.

116

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF EXPRESSION

Volpone thinks that it is a joy of life "to fat, by eating (once a month) a m a n " (Volpone I.v.92). H e considers it to be one of the happiest moments in his life when, while cheating his wouldbe heirs one by one and ravishing the food from their mouths, he exclaims: "Who would/ Have lost this feast!" It is the utmost of moral disintegration when man distorts the life-giving elements of life and substitutes the unnatural for the natural. While under the influence of wine, Volpone thinks that wine works miracles for him, but he does not realize that he has become the victim of lust. H e drinks a lot to feel secure about himself and the success of his plans: Give me a boule of lustie wine, to fright This humor from my heart.... Any device, now, of rare, ingenious knavery, Would make me up, againe! So, so, so, so. This heate is life. CVolpone V.i.11-17) Volpone mistakes the meaning of life as he mistakes the meaning of wine and its magic powers. H e does not realize that what he attributes to it — the power to turn men into knaves — is not the magic which will make a m a n up, but the power which will destroy him. The heat of alcohol, instead of life as he mistakes it to be, is a destructive force which consumes life itself in its flames. The end will prove that neither Volpone, who set out to devour the Birds, nor the Birds themselves, who were ready to "peck for carrion", will survive their beastly expectations. As one of the Avocatori comments at the end of the play: Mischiefes feed Like beasts, till they be fat, and then they bleed. (Volpone V.xii.150-51) This is the common end for those who turn their human characteristics into animalistic qualities in order to satisfy their unnatural wishes. Jonson comes close to the Aristophanic notion of the barbaric side of man which degrades individuals. Again in Bartholomew Fayre he depicts individuals degraded to the level of animals

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF EXPRESSION

117

once they give themselves to their inhuman desires. Busy, the religious hypocrite, has given up his profession as a baker in order to become a prophet. The excuse he offers for giving it up is that: Those Cakes hee made, were serv'd to Bridales, May-Poles, risses, and such prophane feasts and meetings. CBartholomew Fayre I.iii.122-24)

Mor-

In the course of the play, Busy will prove to be more profane than those he had formerly supplied with tempting parties. The Fair is the perfect place for a glutton to expose his degeneration, for natural and healthy notions connected with food and drink are there distorted to the extent that they become monstrosities in the minds of those wishing to change the real into the imaginary because it suits their base intentions. The pig is taken for a "temptation" and natural human appetite for "carnall disease". In the exaggeration of the metaphors which the unhealthy minds of degenerate individuals create for themselves and others, the pig appears to become a religious object inspiring "idolatry". Gluttonous as Busy is, he has to find a way to disguise his lust for what he calls "idolatry" so that everyone will think he is the same man who preaches against "carnall diseases". Therefore, he decides to allow Win to eat pig "with a reformed mouth, with sobriety, and humbleness" (Bartholomew Fayre V.vi.74). He refers to pig with language normally used for Holy Communion. This man, who talks of the "lust of the palat" and wraps up his lusty appetites in religious language in order to hide them from common view, will be the first to expose an animal nature. In the Fair, food and drink seem to be traps to get the money of those devoted to gluttony. The food is stale and fusty, and the drinks are always "mis-reckoned". The fact that so much talk and cheating regarding food and drink is going on in the Fair shows the importance of these two elements in the life of man. Under the influence of wine, Overdo becomes more eloquent, but his rhetoric amounts to nonsensical statements for sober listeners. Busy also drinks "a pailefuU" before he is able to protest "against the abuses" of mankind, but his speech also is contentless for those watching him.

1 18

JONSON'S ARISTOPHAN1C MODES OF EXPRESSION

Everyone in the Fair tries by eating food or drinking to the point of depersonalization to find out what he "lackes". The excessive use of food and wine causes them to be cheated easily by those who have abstained from feasting. Jonson laughs at them and expects his audience to laugh with him in the hope that they will never debase themselves so much that others will make fun of their degeneration or take advantage of it. Besides his use of food and drink imagery to express his contempt for those who are given to unnatural appetites, Jonson is Aristophanic in the way he expresses his belief that language is a valuable means of communication. Through the use of nonsensical words which show man unable to communicate and understand the others, both Aristophanes and Jonson try to prove that man can grasp the meaning of life only when he stops playing the deaf-mute and opens his arms to embrace the experiences of life which his association with the rest of mankind offers him. Often the characters, being satisfied with a conversation, an explanation, or a speech, pretend to understand one another, while in fact they have missed the whole point. Aristophanes had already shown how important communication is as a means for human understanding. In the Acharnians, the Great King's ambassador talks to the Athenian citizens in the agora the same way that the alchemist talks to his victims in Jonson's play. He uses preposterous language which offers sounds without meaning and which finally confuses the citizens and makes communication between the two parties almost impossible: PSEUD. Ijisti boutti furbiss upde rotti.. . . No getti goldi, nincompoop lawny. DIK. Wow, but that's clear enough! AMB. What does he say? DIK. He says the Ionians must be nincompoops If they 're expecting any gold from Persia. AMB. No, no: he spoke of golden income-coupons.

(.Acharnians 104-08)

Each one of those listening to the words of the envoy interprets his quibbling in a way that fits his personal interest ("as behooves him", Jonson would have said), but in fact his speech is abso-

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC M O D E S O F EXPRESSION

119

lutely nonsensical. The Great King wanted him to speak this way in order to create confusion and misunderstanding so that no one could be sure whether he plans to help the Athenians or not. A s a result of the misunderstanding, the citizens are led to believe that the Persians are their friends while, as Dikaiopolis finds out later with his "yes" or " n o " questions which only require nods, the Persian King had no intention of assisting them financially. This man whose words and language are simply riddles utters the truth when compelled to nod "in a pure Hellenic style"; words can be allusive when not interpreted rightly. The fact that Dikaiopolis finds a way to communicate which is beyond words and pompous language shows that man is capable of communicating, but in order to do so he must use his intellect. The oracles of the gods are also obscure messages sent to man in a language which helps him little in overcoming his problems. The oracles which the two alazons pretend to have received from Loxias in the Knights show another side of the important role words play in man's life. When Paphlagon and the Sausage-Seller try to convince Demos that he is surrounded by enemies whom only they themselves can recognize and fight for him, this is what the oracles say for them: PAPH. W O M A N SHE IS, B U T A LION SHE'LL BEAR US IN A T H E N S T H E H O L Y , ONE WHO FOR DEMUS WILL FIGHT WITH A N A R M Y OF STINGING MOSQUITOES, FIGHT, AS IF SHIELDING HIS WHELPS; WHOM SEE THOU G U A R D WITH DEVOTION BUILDING A WOODEN W A L L A N D A N IRON F O R T TO SECURE HIM. Do you understand? DE. By Apollo, no, not I. PAPH. The god, 'tis plain, would have you keep me safely, For I'm a valiant lion, for your sake. DE. What, you Antileon and I never knew it! S.S. One thing he purposely informs you not. What that oracular wall of wood and iron, Where Loxias bids you keep him safely, is — DE. What means the God? S.S. He means that you are to clap

120

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF EXPRESSION

Paphlagon in the five-holed pillory stocks.

(Knights 1037-49) Demos is desperate in his response as he tries to understand the obscure language of Loxias, and this is the shield of the alazons who try to persuade him to see things their own way. Since the oracle is not clear for Demos and he is intelligent enough to recognize that fact and not trust someone else's interpretations, he decides to make them prove their concern for his affairs in acts. When words are too obscure, man has to ask for answers elsewhere if he wants to understand the meaning of life. That words carry different meanings for different people and can be easily misinterpreted, depending on man's intelligence and willingness to understand, is brought out again in the Frogs when Euripides accuses Aeschylus of using "expressions hard to comprehend" in his plays. Dionysus' reaction to the above statement proves how easily man can be misled in his judgment when he superficially interprets the meaning of words: D I . Full many a sleepless night have spent in anxious thought, because I'd find the tawny cock-horse out, what sort of bird it was! A E S . It was a sign, y o u stupid dolt, engraved the ships upon. D I . Eryxis I supposed it was, Philoxenus's

son.

(Frogs 931-34) Many times during the course of the play Dionysus will prove that words offer no communication to those who refuse to see the meaning hidden behind the sound. When Aristophanes wants to show that words do carry meanings, he has the two poets put their words on the scales to "prove whose words are weightiest". Aeschylus wins because he puts "heavy words" on the scales such as "river Spercheius", "death", and "corpses", whereas Euripides puts on "light" words such as "winged" and "persuasion", which make "a vain and empty sound, devoid of sense" (Frogs 1369), as Dionysus comments. Dionysus' decision to choose Aeschylus as the best among the two because his words are heavy and full of meaning makes the

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF EXPRESSION

121

chorus comment: Blest the man who possesses a Keen intelligent mind.... Surely the mind to school Fine-drawn quibbles to seek, Fine-set phrases to speak, Is but the part of a fool! (Frogs 1482-83, 1496-99)

Man should use his intelligence to interpret words and not pretend that he understands their meaning if they are merely nonsensical sounds. On the other hand, human modes of expression are as deluding as their agents — words — for although they are valuable means of communication, they can easily be misinterpreted and create a fool out of every man. Empty sounds can be valuable messages for man if he is reasonable enough to listen carefully. Behind the misunderstanding and confusion that words create for man, one fact becomes clear: man should not try to interpret words merely as the inclination of the moment or as personal interest bids him; he should not be deaf to the messages words carry which are expressions of another man's existence; he should stop listening to the music of his own voice, understanding only what he wants to understand, and try to be open to other people and communicate with them so that sounds become words and words become valuable messages. Although Jonson is Aristophanic in his conception of the importance of the words for human communication, understanding, and co-existence and in the method he uses to make this point clear in his works, he sees what Aristophanes does not: human alienation caused by the lack of communication among people. While he views human beings as desperate entities using a common tool to express themselves, he also understands them as parts of a wider cosmos in which each being has to cooperate with the others in order for life to be meaningful. When he made fun of the different interpretations that individuals offered to PseudoArtabas' quibbling, Aristophanes saw the catastrophic power of egotism, but he did not go so far as to attribute this to human

122

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF EXPRESSION

alienation and indifference to humanity, as Jonson did. In the Epicoene, Morose has to face the Judges of the Court, but being predisposed against noise, he has little chance to communicate with them. In this play noise stands for life itself, and Morose has his ears closed to the expressions of life. The voices of the Judges will be empty sounds, mere noise to the individual who refuses to understand their meaning: Such speaking, and counter-speaking, with their severall voyces of citations, appellations, allegations, certificates, attachments, intergatories, references, convictions, and afflictions indeed, among the Doc-

tors and Proctors!

CEpicoene IV.vii.15-18)

This "empty" noise that the human voice creates frightens Morose home since human empathy is completely missing from his world. For Morose who at any moment wants to see "what the profit can be . . . of wordes" {Epicoene V.iii.29), it will be hard to communicate with anyone else except himself. No one can solve his problems with words that have no meaning for him. The only thing he cares about is how others will understand him, not how to understand others. When Cutbeard tries to explain to him the nature of the word "divorce", he reacts in a way that shows how little value someone else's words have for him: "No excursions upon words, good Doctor, to the question briefly" (Epicoene V.iii.74), and the question is the solution of his own problems. Morose's mentality associates words with noises and presents them as empty sounds which offer him "no comfort in the question". When the learned advisors bomb him with expressions of erudition such as "impedimentum erroris", "cognatio spiritualis", "crimen adulterij", "cultus disparitas", "publica honestas", etc., he is more confused and exclaims in indignation: "I feele no aire of comfort blowing to me, in all this" (Epicoene V.iii.158). His indifference toward the rest of humanity and his attitude of being concerned only about his own affairs alienates him from the rest of mankind. In his desperate situation of alienation, words work no miracles, but leave him as empty as he thinks these sounds to be. His "frigidity" is spiritual as well as physical, for he closes his ears to the

JONSON'S ARISTOPHAN1C MODES OF EXPRESSION

123

sounds of humanity and lets silence alienate him from the rest of mankind. The emptiness of words is emphasized by Jonson to show man as a desperate case when alienated from the noises which express life itself. In the Alchemist, Jonson again presents the other extreme of those who become absurd in their interpretation of words. While Morose does not trust words and does not take them to be the vehicles of human expression, some of the victims of alchemy pretend to understand perfectly the quibbling of Subtle. The more nonsensical his words and incomprehensible the language he uses, the more happy they are in the hope that alchemy will work miracles for them. Drugger has to write on the east side of his shop: Mathlai, Tarmiel, and Baraborat; Upon the north-part, Rael, Velel, Thiel. CAlchemist I.iii.65-66)

and he is sure that these obscure words hide meanings of tremendous importance which will change the route of his affairs. Mammon is also one of those impressed with the alchemist's senseless words and takes them to be signs of Subtle's wisdom. When Subtle asks Face to: Infuse vinegar, To draw his volatile substance, and his tincture: And let the water in Glasse E. be feltered, And put into the Gripes egge. Lute him well; And leave him clos'd in balneo. (Alchemist II.iii.37-41)

Mammon takes these words to be expressions of the alchemist's wisdom. He and the others fail to realize that these words are the most powerful weapons of the alchemist who plans to "charm" his victims to the point that they willingly let themselves be cheated. By presenting exaggerated cases, Jonson points out that man should follow no extremes in his life. He should neither ignore the messages words carry for him, nor read into them messages which are merely creations of his own imagination. Human expressions should be weighed and measured so that misinterpre-

124

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF EXPRESSION

tations will be avoided. Jonson is also Aristophanic in the way he expresses his wit to lighten the criticism of his plays, toys with words to bring out different meanings, and uses obscene language, puns, and jokes to facilitate teaching man what to avoid in life in order to be happy. In the Alchemist, Jonson uses a pun on the word "tail" which has a sexual connotation similar to that of the same word used by Aristophanes in the Acharnians where also the word "pig" stands for the female sexual organ.4 The Megarian brings his daughters in a sack and tries to sell them to Dikaiopolis as pigs: DI. But she's no good for offerings. MEG. What for no? What for nae guid for offerins? DI. She's no tail. MEG. Aweel, the puir wee thing, she's owre young yet. But when she's auld, she'll have a gawcie tail. But wad ye rear them, here's a bonnie piggie! tAcharnians 784-88)

Face in the Alchemist uses "tail" similarly and brings out another application, when he talks to Subtle: A wife, a wife for one on'us, my deare SUBTLE: Wee'll eene draw lots, and he, that failes shall have The more in goods, the other has in taile. CAlchemist II.vi.85-87)

Jonson's allusions to sexual intercourse are expressed in a "greasy" language which reminds us of the language Aristophanes uses in similar cases. In the Acharnians, Aristophanes has Dikaiopolis advise a young bride to rub the bridegroom's genitalia with myrrh — which he himself gives her along with the truces — so that he stays at home and forgets the war: O, gods! What a laughable request That of the bride. She wants to know How she can take best care Of the bridegroom's p e n i s . . . . 4

Suggested by Rogers, Acharnians, I, p. 76, note a. Cf. Peace 964-966 for a similar pun on the word "corn" which stands for the male sexual organ.

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF EXPRESSION

125

Tell the bride . . . to rub the bridegroom's Penis with this. {Acharnians 1058-66)»

In Peace, when the servant announces to Trygaios that the girl is ready and waiting for him, he says that the only thing she needs now is his genitalia {Peace 870). In Lysistrata, the women decide to "abstain from the penis" {Lysistrata 124) and take an oath never "to lift their legs to the ceiling" {Lysistrata 230). This decision affects Kinesias, one of the husbands, who cries out in despair: "O me! this priapism and erection of penis, they torture me as if I were put in a torturer's wheel!" {Lysistrata 845-46).8 In a similar way, Jonson uses words which have an obscene connotation in reference to sexual intercourse. In the Alchemist, when Face tries to convince Mammon that the "lord's" sister is ideal for him, he points out that she is: . . . the most affablest creature, sir! so merry! So pleasant! Shee'll mount you up, like quicksilver, Over the helme-, and circulate, like oyle. cAlchemist II.iii.253-55)

Later, Face advises Doll: Sweet DOL, You must goe tune your virginall, no loosing O' the least time. And, doe you heare? good action. Firke like a flounder; kisse, like a scallop, close: And tickle him with thy mother-tongue. (Alchemist III.iii.66-70) In Bartholomew Fayre again, Jonson has Quarlous describe Ursula as a fat "mother o' the pigs" and referring to her sexual life and habits, he says: Hee that would venture for't, I assure him, Might sinke into her and be drown'd a weeke, Ere any friend hee had, could find where he were.

CBartholomew Fayre II.v.95-97) 7

s

This is my own translation since Rogers omits obscene words and phrases. « The translation is my own. See also Lysistrata 149-154, 212-214, 869, 904, 934, 967, 1092, for similar use of obscene language. 7 For similar expressions which have obscene connotations referring to male and female genitalia and to sexual intercourse, see Aristophanes' Acharnians 158, 161, 592, 1216; Knights 998; Clouds 713-714, 734; Wasps 1034, 1347;

126

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF EXPRESSION

Both Aristophanes and Jonson use obscene language in such a way that it strengthens their point of view more than it emphasizes indecency; obscenity makes their works pleasant rather than immoral because it is not an end in itself but rather an expression of their wit. One enjoys these expressions the way one takes pleasure in the ridicule of the characters and the satire of the follies. They are clearly part of the two dramatists' art. The stylistic devices Jonson and Aristophanes use vividly emphasize the didactic points they want to make. The chorus in the Knights joins the two servants and the Sausage-Seller in their hatred for Paphlagon, and they express themselves as they enter the stage: Smite smite the rascal and troubler The foul extortioner, bottomless abyss and Charybdiss of gain, The rascal the rascal; I'll say this many times Because he is a rascal many times a day, Therefore smite him and chase him and pound him, and rend and rattle him, And loath him. (Knights 247-52) 8

Characteristic of Aristophanes' art is repetition of verbs, nouns, and modifiers which are almost synonymous, and parataxis, a syntax which accelerates the pace and shows more animatedly the excitement of the Knights and their degree of hatred. Jonson uses the same syntax — parataxis — in Bartholomew Fayre where repetition shows excitement and haste in the words of Wasp: I know? I know nothing, I, what tell you mee of knowing? (now I am in hast) Sir, I do not know, and I will not know, and I scorne to know, and yet, (now I think on't) I will, and do know, as well as another. (Bartholomew Fayre I.iv.19-22)»

Busy also, in his hypocritical zeal to smite evil in the world and Peace 758, 898; Birds 560, and also Jonson's Volpone III.vii.220-222; Alchemist I.i.2, 10; II.ii.40-49; Bartholomew Fayre II.iii.42-47; II.v.94-100, 113118; IV.v.64-66. 8 The translation is my own since Rogers' translation does not render the point I want to make, for he changes the syntax to fit the rhythm of the speech. 9 See also Bartholomew Fayre I.iii.37-44; ni.vi.3-9; IV.iv.65-68.

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF EXPRESSION

127

convince the people in the Fair that longing for food is the worst sin, bursts out in a language which shows his excitement: Verily, for the disease of longing, it is a disease, a carnall disease, or appetite, indecent to women: and as it is carnall and indecent, it is naturall: Now Pigge, it is a meat, and a meat that is nourishing, and may be long'd for, and so consequently eaten; it may be eaten; very exceeding well eaten. {Bartholomew Fayre I.vi.45-49)

In his speech, with each repitition of a noun a modifier is added, or sometimes more than one as in the last sentence: "very exceeding well eaten", in order to put a strong emphasis on the argument.10 Another instance of similar expression in Aristophanes' and Jonson's comedy is noticed in the language which Ananias uses when he curses the cheats, and that of Aeacus in Hades when he confronts Dionysus dressed like Hercules. This is how Aeacus curses Dionysus, whom he takes for Hercules: So close the Styx's inky-hearted rock, The blood-bedabbled peak of Acheron Shall hem thee in: the hell-hounds of Cocytus Prowl round thee; whilst the hundred-headed Asp Shall rive thy heart-strings: the Tartesian Lamprey Prey on thy lungs: and those Tithrasian Gorgons Mangle and tear thy kidneys, mauling them, Entrails and all, into one bloody mash. (Frogs 470-77)

The horrible images frighten man with their sound as they excite the imagination in their power to annihilate human existence. In a similar way Ananias curses the "seed of sulphur" and "sons of fire!" He calls the cheats "Locusts/ Of the foul pit", and "worse than the grasshoppers, or the lice of Egypt", "scorpions/ And caterpillars" (Alchemist V.iii.44; V.v.14,16, 20) and like another Aeacus he says: May dogs defile thy walls, And waspes and hornets breed beneath thy roofe, 10

For similar type of syntax and way of expression see also Busy's speech in Bartholomew Fayre III.ii.35-40; m.iv.27-32, 51-55, 79-86, and also Overdo's speech H.vi.63-66. Cf. also Peace 182-184 and Frogs 465-466.

128

JONSON'S ARISTOPHANIC MODES OF EXPRESSION

This seat of false-hood, and this cave of cos'nage. {Alchemist V.v.113-15)

The horror of the mythological monsters devouring man's vitals is substituted by that of serpents and insects which make one shudder to hear about. Jonson and Aristophanes use language as the tool which facilitates their satire and criticism. Their words are heavy with meaning and carry valuable messages for mankind. Words are taken to be magic entities which make life in a community possible and human understanding a fact. Aristophanes and Jonson try to say that if man is indifferent to other people's existence and is shut up in himself, closing his ears to the sounds of life and to the expressions of others, if he alienates himself from the rest of humanity, words and life itself have no meaning. The style and imagery, the licentious language and frank obscenity are common to both men. These common tools are used to lighten the effect of their criticism and make their satire more pleasant and their attack mellower; they incite laughter which helps man accept the criticism aimed at him. Exaggeration of unnatural appetites, wishes, and habits, as well as distortion and license in the use of language, make the two men unique commentators of man's folly and identify Jonson closely with Aristophanes.

VI CONCLUSION

Jonson shares Aristophanes' vision of the world. He presents man as cunning, egotistical, self-centered, alienated, ignorant, and foolish, but capable of improvement. Like Aristophanes, Jonson saw the despair of the human condition as a symptom of man's ignorance, indifference, and irresponsibility — an outcome of his refusal to use his reason, to face life as it is, and to communicate with the rest of mankind. He saw men insisting upon interpreting words and actions according to their own opinions instead of according to the truth. In addition to seeing man's degeneration and despair, he tried to help his fellow men realize their potentialities. His comedies, like those of Aristophanes, were created to educate men toward actuality, fact, and humanity. Jonson saw that the root of man's degeneration lay deep in his ethical conduct; he used his comedies as the means to unroot immorality from the heart of man, as Aristophanes had tried to eradicate it from the heart of the Athenians and their state. This effort to create a more humane man bridges the gap between the cultures and times of the two dramatists and brings Jonson close to the ideal which Aristophanes seriously cultivated. The ideal is man, the humane being bound to the rest of humanity with a spirit of solidarity, who knows how to use his reason and intellect in order to improve his life. Both playwrights tried to express the potentialities of man as they were appropriate to his social nature, and hoped to inspire man toward shaping a better future for himself. Jonson shares not only Aristophanes' vision of the world and his dreams to change the ethical essence of man's life for the

130

CONCLUSION

improvement of humanity, but also Aristophanes' faith that this degenerate world is able to awake from its lethargy of ignorance, egotism, and foolishness and create a better life. Although the world is full of eirons and alazons who try to outsmart and overpower one another, and although the universe is invaded by negative forces which threaten to turn the world upside down and create chaos for man, there is always some hope that man will learn to make right use of his intellect and recognize that he has erred in his life. Man will only try to express his humanity when he learns how to manipulate his thoughts and actions and bring them closer to the thoughts and actions of others. Once man tries to understand himself and others, he will become conscious of the values which rule his life; if he realizes his role in the world, there is definite hope for improvement. The potentialities of human spirit are immeasurable, and Jonson, like Aristophanes, challenges man to make correct use of them. Jonson's comedy is an expression of human paedeia, not only as theory but also as practice. He uses Aristophanic methods of expression to attain his educational end. He employs distortion to the point of caricature and exaggeration to the extent of monstrosity in order to show that human intelligence creates or destroys man's life. He uses ridicule of unworthy human behavior in order to cure man by causing him to laugh at his own weakness. Both dramatists satirize man's foolishness, ignorance, and egotism; they invert the facts of his existence to shock him and make him see the confusion which his weaknesses create so that he will feel the need for a change. They show men acting unlike themselves not in order to create ridiculous characters but to provide man with examples which will show him what to avoid in life in order to be happy. Their satire becomes the means to lash human monstrosity and restore reason. Man becomes an animal if he does not know how to reason properly. Even the impossible can be accomplished when man uses his intellect to guide his steps and cure his delusions. The unworthy characters of Aristophanic and Jonsonian comedy are punished or driven away from the stage. Yet the world goes on as it did before the plays started. Although in Aris-

CONCLUSION

131

tophanic comedy an actual change seems to be taking place which crowns as successful the things Aristophanes approves, and although the world seems to be static in Jonson's comedy since nothing changes when the play is over, one is led to believe that Jonson disapproves of the things he presents as ridiculous. The change is supposed to take place in the minds of the audience, for it was their education that the dramatist aimed at. Since Jonson followed the Aristophanic technique of presenting the serious side by side with the comic, he is consistent as much as is Aristophanes in his desire to present the world as static. His satire and ridicule of characters do not change anyone on the stage because they are supposed to be enjoyed as comic elements of Jonson's art, yet they are intended to teach people how to avoid being foolish and ignorant. Jonson's characters, his world of "parasites and subparasites", are endowed with a universality and variety which is missing from the personal and topical world of Aristophanes. Aristophanes presents some of his characters as possessing virtues, feelings, and emotions which make them the ideals he wants the audience to emulate, but this makes them less real, for the virtues are those which Aristophanes creates for them. Jonson's presentation of man as worse than he is points out where man will be led if he does not change; he challenges man at the same time to find happiness in the virtues which are missing from his plays. Although Jonson presents a universality in the depiction of a variety of human vices and follies, he fails to create an Aristophanic comedy in that he falls short of creating an ideal illusion for mankind and presenting the ideal as already accomplished as Aristophanes did. It is that happy thought which made the Aristophanic comedies successful as messages for humanity; Jonson's failed to convince man of their sincerity. Jonson, nevertheless, in his deep concern for man's moira and in the way he expressed his belief in man's dignity and the potential of his intellectual powers, is obviously influenced by Aristophanes and his humanitarian intentions. The serious spirit of Aristophanes' art passed into the comedies of Ben Jonson. The gay spirit of Aristophanic art which manifests itself in the come-

132

CONCLUSION

dies of Jonson comes in the shape of a scurrilous satire which uses ridicule to project the foolishness of man under a strong light of distortion both in the language and the behavior of the characters who are set as examples to be avoided by mankind. These ridiculous characters are treated in the same ironic way by both dramatists, so that their folly is enlarged and emphasized for people around to see it. Aristophanes' comic spirit which passed into the comedies of Jonson also manifests itself in Jonson's obscene language and the licentious jokes, reminders of Aristophanes' bacchic merriment. The comedies of the two dramatists are close in tone as they combine ironic criticism with gay laughter. Their laughter sounds clearly through the ages to remind man at all moments that it is never too late for him to improve his life. Although Jonson shares Aristophanes' serious and comic spirit in the way he presents his world, he is absolutely original in the way he expresses this spirit. His individuality manifests itself in a unique way. Jonson's world — the variety of the characters and their cases — is not to be found in any other dramatist of any other time or culture. Although Jonson was influenced by Aristophanes' serious and comic spirit which manifests itself in Jonson's intentions, ideas, technique, and language, his comedy is still an expression of his own genius.

WORKS CONSULTED

Aristophanes, Aristophanes, trans. B. B. Rogers, Loeb Classical Library, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960-1963). Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, trans. H. Rackham, Loeb Classical Library (London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1956). Bacon, Wallace A., "The Magnetic Field: The Structure of Jonson's Comedies", Huntington Library Quarterly, XIX (1956), 120-153. Baldwin, Edward C., "Ben Jonson's Indebtedness to the Greek Character Sketch", Modern Language Notes, XVI (1901), 193-198. Bamborough, John B., Ben Jonson (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1959). Barish, Jonas A. (ed.), Ben Jonson: A Collection of Critical Essays (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 1963). Bate, Walter J. (ed.), Criticism: The Major Texts (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World Inc., 1952). Baum, Helena W., The Satiric and the Didactic in Ben Jonson's Comedy (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1947). Beare, W., The Roman Stage (London: Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1950). Boughner, Daniel C., The Braggart in Renaissance Comedy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954). Bradley, Jesse F. and Joseph Q. Adams (eds.), The Jonson Allusion-Book (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1922). Campbell, Joseph, The Hero with a Thousand Faces ( = The Bollingen Series XVII) (New York: Pantheon Books, 1949). Chute, Marchette, Ben Jonson of Westminster (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1953). Cornford, Francis M., The Origin of Attic Comedy (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1961). Crosby, Lamar H., "Aristophanes and the Country", Classical Weekly, XX (1927), 180-184. Davison, P. H., " V o l p o n e and the Old Comedy", Modern Language Quarterly, XXIV (1963), 151-157. Dibdin, Thomas F., An Introduction to the Knowledge of the Rare and Valuable Editions of the Greek and Latin Classics, 2 vols. (London: Harding & Lepard, 1827). Doran, Madeleine, Endeavors of Art: A Study of Form in Elizabethan Drama (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963). Duncan, Edgar H., "Jonson's Alchemist and the Literature of Alchemy",

134

WORKS CONSULTED

PMLA, LXI (1946), 699-710. Dunn, Esther C., Ben Jonson's Art (New York: Russell & Russell Inc., 1963). Edwards, Paul (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 3 vols. (New York: MacMillan & Co., 1967). Ehrenberg, Victor, The People of Aristophanes (New York: Schocken Books, 1962). Ellis-Fermor, Una, The Jacobean Drama (London: Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1936). Enck, John J., Jonson and the Comic Truth (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1957). Farnham, Willard, "The Medieval Comic Spirit in the English Renaissance", Joseph Quincey Adams Memorial Studies, ed. James G. McManaway et al. (Washington, D.C., 1948). Feibleman, James, In Praise of Comedy (London: Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1939). Ford, Gordon B., "The Knights as a Source of Aristophanes' Attitude toward the Demagogue and the Demos", Athenaeum, XLIII (1965), 106-110. Gomme, A. W., "Aristophanes and Politics", Classical Review, LII (1938), 97-109. Grant, Mary A., The Ancient Rhetorical Theories of the Laughable ( = University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature, N o . 21) (Madison, 1924). Gregory, J. C., The Nature of Laughter (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trabner & Co., Ltd., 1924). Greene, David, "The Comic Technique of Aristophanes", Hermathena, L (1937), 87-125. Grotjahn, Martin, Beyond Laughter (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., 1957). Gum, Coburn, The Aristophanic Comedies of Ben Jonson (The Hague: Mouton, 1969). Harrison, G. B., Elizabethan Plays and Players (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1956). Harsh, Philip W., A Handbook of Classical Drama (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1944). Hays, N . R., "Satire and Identification: An Introduction to Ben Jonson", Kenyon Review, XIX (1957), 267-283. Hercher, R. (ed.), Epistolographi Graeci (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hekkert, 1965). Herrick, Marvin T., Comic Theory in the 16th Century (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964). Highet, Gilbert, The Anatomy of Satire (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1962). Hude, Carolus (ed.), Xenophontis Commentarii (Lipsiae: Aedibus B. C. Teubneri, 1934). Jaeger, Werner, Paedeia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, 3 vols., trans. G. Highet (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945). Jebb, R. C., The Characters of Theophrastus (London: MacMillan & Co.,

1870).

WORKS CONSULTED

135

Jonson, Ben, Ben Jonson, ed. C. H. Herford & B. E. Simpson, 11 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925-1952). Kaufman, R. J. (ed.), Elizabethan Drama: Modern Essays in Criticism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1961). Knights, L. C., "Tradition and Ben Jonson", Scrutiny, IV (1935), 140-157. , Drama and Society in the Age of Jonson (London: Chatto & Windus, 1951). Knoll, Robert E., Ben Jonson's Plays (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1964). Kronenberger, Louis, The Thread of Laughter (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1952). Laskaris, Nicolaos I., Mathemata Istorias tou Archaiou Ellenikou Theatrou, 3 vols. (Athenai: Acropolis, 1925). (In Greek.) Lauter, Paul, Theories of Comedy (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co. Inc., 1964). Lesky, Albin, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, trans. Agapetos Tsopanakis (Thessaloniki: University of Thessaloniki, 1964). (In Greek.) Lever, Katherine, "Greek Comedy on the 16th Century English Stage", Classical Journal, XLII (1946), 169-174. — , "Poetic Metaphor and Dramatic Allegory in Aristophanes", Classical Weekly, XLVI (1953), 220-223. Littlefield, David J. (ed.), Twentieth Century Interpretations of the Frogs (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 1968). Lord, Louis E., Aristophanes, His Plays and His Influence (New York: Cooper Square Publishers Inc., 1963). McEven-Anderson, Kathryn, Classical Influence upon the Tribe of Ben (New York: Octagon Book Inc., 1968). Martyn, John R. C., "Aristophanes' Frogs, 1019-1030", Classical Philology, LIX (1964), 178-181. Murray, Gilbert, Aristophanes. A Study (New York: Oxford University Press, 1933). Nash, Ralph, "The Comic Intent in Volpone", Studies in Philology, XLIV (1947), 26-40. Nicoll, Alardyce, An Introduction to Dramatic Theory (London: George G. Harrap & Co., Ltd., 1923). Norwood, Gilbert, Greek Comedy (New York: Hill & Wang, 1963). Olson, Elder, The Theory of Comedy (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968). Palmer, Henrietta, History of English Editions and Translations of Greek and Latin Classics Printed Before 1641 (London: Blades, East & Blades, 1911). Partridge, Edward B., The Broken Compass: A Study of the Comedies of Ben Jonson (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958). Pickard-Cambridge, Arthur W., Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962). , The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). Plato, Apology, trans. H. N. Fowler, Loeb Classical Library (London: William Heinemann, 1928).

136

WORKS CONSULTED

Potter, John M., "Old Comedy in Bartholomew Fair", Criticism, X (1968), 290-299. Potts, L. J., Comedy (London: Cheltenham Press, Ltd., 1948). Rutherford, William G. (ed.), Scholia Aristophanica, 3 vols. (London: MacMillan & Co., 1896). Schelling, Felix E., "Ben Jonson and the Classical School", PMLA, XIII (1898), 221-249. Schlesinger, Alfred C., "Indications of Parody in Aristophanes", TAPhA, LXVII (1936), 296-314. Smith, Willard, The Nature of Comedy (Boston: Gorham Press, 1930). Snuggs, Henry L., "The Source of Jonson's Definition of Comedy", Modern Language Notes, LXV (1950), 543-544. Solomos, A., O Zontanos Aristophanes, apo ten Epoche tou os ten Epoche mas (Athena: Difros, 1961). (In Greek.) Steel, Byron, O Rare Ben Jonson (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928). Stewart, Douglas J., "Aristophanes and the Pleasures of Anarchy", Antioch Review, XXV (1965), 189-208. Strauss, Leo, Socrates and A ristophanes (New York: Basic Books Inc., 1966). Swinburne, Algernon C., A Study of Ben Jonson (London: Chatto &Windus, 1889). Symonds, John A., Ben Jonson (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1886). Thayer, C. G., "Theme and Structure in the Alchemist", English Literary History, XXVI (1959), 23-35. Theodoridis, H., Philosophia (Athena: Demetrakos, 1933). (In Greek.) Tilley, Arthur, "Greek Studies in England in the Early 16th Century", English Historical Review, LIII (1938), 221-239, 438-456. Tillyard, Eustace M. W., The Elizabethan World Picture (New York: Random House Inc., 1944). Welsford, Enid, The Fool: His Social and Literary History (London: Faber & Faber, Ltd., 1935). Whitman, Cedric H., Aristophanes and the Comic Hero (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964). Wilson, John D., Life in Shakespeare's England (Middlesex: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1944). Wimsatt, William K., English Stage Comedy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955). (ed.), The Idea of Comedy (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 1969). Woodbridge, Elizabeth Morris, Studies in Jonson's Comedy (New York: Lamson, Wolffe & Co., 1898).

INDEX

Acharnions, 13, 110, 111, 112, 118, 124, 125 Adams, J. Q., 6, 133 Aeacus, 127 Aeschylus, 2, 75, 114, 115, 120 Affectation, 43, 101, 104 Agon, x, 9, 12, 15, 17, 19-23, 27, 29, 32, 42, 112 Agoracritos see Sausage-Seller Alazon, x, 13-23, 25-37, 39-44, 50, 54, 59, 61, 95, 119, 120, 130 Alchemist ix, 57, 58, 63-65, 69, 70, 78, 79, 83, 84, 86-88, 118, 123, 133 Alchemist, x, xii, 57, 58, 63-65, 6871, 78-84, 86, 87, 109, 123-128, 136 Alchemy, ix, 57, 65, 69-71, 78-84, 86-88, 123, 133 Alchibiades, 60 Anacharsis, 2 Ananias, 64, 83, 84, 87 Androgyno, 108, 109 Apollo, 108, 119 Apology, 62, 135 Arete, 58 Aristotle, 1, 2, 14, 58-61, 133 Asper, 45, 51 Athenians, 12, 28, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 102, 112, 118, 119, 129 Attic comedy, see Comedy, Old Audience, ix, xii, 1, 4, 9, 10, 13, 23, 42, 44-56, 112, 114, 118, 131 Avarice, 16, 17, 31, 38-40, 50, 98 Bacon, W. A., 133 Baldwin, E., ix, 133 Bamborough, J. B., 133

Barish, J. A., 133 Bartholomew Fayre, viii, x, 106108, 116, 117, 125-127, 136. Bate, W. J., 133 Baum, H. W., 133 Beare, W., 133 Birds, 13, 49, 50, 62, 90-97, 100, 106, 126 Bisetus, O., 5 Bonario, 17, 35, 38 Boughner, D. C., 133 Bradley, J. F., 6, 133 Breastplate-Seller, 98 Bristle, 107, 108 Buffone, 102 Busy, 107, 117, 126, 127 Camden, 5 Campbell, J., 133 Carlo, 104, 106 Castrone, 108 Celia, 17, 38 Chaerephon, 8 Character, ix, x, 3, 4, 11-15, 17-22, 29, 35, 37, 40, 42, 47, 50, 51, 5456, 60, 75, 76, 82, 84, 86, 95, 96, 107, 110, 113, 118, 126, 130-134 Chinonides, 6 Chorus, 1, 6, 26, 46, 51, 62, 74-76, 94, 95, 97, 100, 121, 126 Chute, M., 133 Cleon, 12, 18, 23, 24, 28, 47 Clouds, xii, 8, 13, 47, 57-59, 61-64, 66-68, 71-77, 125 Cokes, 107 Comedia Dell' Arte, 36 Comedy, Middle, 3

138

INDEX

Comedy, New, x, 3, 4 Comedy of Manners, 3, 4 Comedy, Old, ix, x, 1, 6, 11, 13, 133, 136 Comedy, Roman, vii, viii, 4, 11, 46, 51 Comic, vii, viii, x, 2-4, 11, 19, 2224, 27, 44-50, 52, 54, 60, 66, 89, 101, 109, 131, 132, 134-136 Comos, 1 Corbaccio, 35-37, 41 Cordatus, 6, 51 Cornford, F. M., 133 Corvino, 36-38, 41, 42 Cratinus, 2, 6 Crest-Maker, 98 Critias, 60 Crosby, L. H., 133 Cutbeard, 122 Cynthias Rev ells, 54

129-131, 134 Edwards, P., 61, 133 Ehrenberg, V., 134 Eiron, x, 13-18, 23, 24, 27-33, 36, 39, 42-44, 50, 130 Ellis-Fermor, U., 134 Enck, J. J., 134 Endymion, 4 Epicharmus, 6 Epicoene, 122 Euelpides, 91, 96 Eupolis, 2, 7 Euripides, 2, 60, 75, 114, 115, 120 Every Man In His Humour, viii, 4, 101 Every Man Out Of His Humour, 6, 7, 45, 51-53, 55, 101-105 Exaggeration, ix, 3, 9, 10, 19, 20, 22, 31, 35, 42, 98, 110, 111, 113, 115, 117, 123, 128, 130

Dapper, 68-70 Davison, P. H., x, 133 Demagogue, 9, 12, 13, 16, 18, 24, 47, 92, 94, 96, 112, 134 Democritus, 60 Demos, 12, 15-20, 24-30, 33, 42, 112, 113, 119, 120, 134 Dibdin, T. F., 5, 133 Dikaiopolis, 110, 111, 113, 118, 119, 124 Diogenes Apollonius, 60 Dionysia, City, 1 Dionysia, Rural, 1 Dionysus, 1, 114, 115, 120, 127 Distortion, ix, x, 3, 10, 11, 19, 20, 27, 38, 58, 59, 61, 70, 71, 74, 7880, 83, 86-89, 109, 117, 128, 130, 132 Dithyramb, 1, 135 Divell Is An Asse, The, 8 Doll, 125 Doran, M., 133 Drugger, 69, 70, 123 Duncan, E. H., 133 Dunn, E. C., 134

Face, 63, 68, 79, 84, 87, 123-125 Farce, 4 Farnham, W., 134 Fastidius, 101, 104-106 Feibleman, J., 3, 134 Festivals, 1, 45, 110, 114, 135 Folley, viii, ix, 9, 13, 40, 51, 71, 89, 90, 101, 102, 104, 126, 128, 131, 132 Ford, G. B., 134 Fowler, H. N„ 62, 135 Frogs, 2, 3, 13, 47, 48, 62, 114, 115, 120, 121, 127 Fuller, Bishop, 5 Fungoso, 101, 104, 105

Edgworth, 106 Education, vii, viii, xi, 2, 3, 5, 8, 60, 65-67, 70-75, 78, 79, 84, 124,

Gammar Gurton's Needle, 4 Gascoigne, 4 Gluttony, 9, 16, 21, 23, 50, 71, 79, 81, 90, 96, 98, 111, 113, 114, 117 Gods, 1, 9, 18, 38, 60, 67, 77, 80, 90, 92, 94-100, 108, 109, 119, 124 Gomme, A. W., 134 Grace, 107 Grant, M. A., 134 Greed, 29, 30, 33, 37, 39, 42, 84, 112 Greene, D., 60, 134 Gregory, J. C., 134

INDEX G r o t j a h n , M., 134 G u m , C., x, 134 Harrison, G. B., 5, 134 Harsh, P. W., 134 Harvest, 100 Hays, N . R., 134 Helmet-Seller, 98 Hercher, R., 2, 134 Hercules, 114, 127 H e r f o r d , C. H „ 5, 6, 135 Hermes, 22, 62, 98, 99, 114, 115 Herrick, M. T., 134 Highet, G „ 89, 90, 134 Homer, 5, 20 Hoopoe, 90-92 Hude, C., 61, 134 Humanity, 4, 5, 8, 10-12, 16, 19, 21, 34, 35, 43, 52, 57, 72, 74, 76, 78, 82, 84, 87, 88, 95, 100-102, 104, 106, 122, 123, 129-131 H u m o r , 3, 6, 11, 22, 45, 49, 86, 89, 110 H u m o u r s , 9, 101-107, 116 Hypocrisy, 9, 15, 16, 27, 29, 33, 36, 37, 39, 69, 71, 83, 84, 86, 87, 107, 117, 126 Ignorance, vii-ix, 9, 15, 16, 19, 28, 34, 41, 44, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 59, 61, 71, 92, 101, 106, 129-131 Irony, 8, 12, 13, 15, 20, 22, 29, 34, 36, 39, 44, 46-49, 54, 55, 66, 67, 70, 72, 73, 82, 86, 107, 110, 132 Ithymphalloi, 1 Jaeger, W., 134 J ebb, R . C „ 134 Jeremie, see F a c e Juvenal, 7 Kastril, 87 K a u f m a n , R. J., 135 Kerferd, G. B„ 61 Kinesias, 125 Knights, xii, 5, 11-13, 15, 18-28, 32, 34, 39, 46, 47, 54, 111-113, 119, 120, 125, 126, 134 Knights, L. C., 135 Knoll, R. E., 135 Knowledge, vii, 2, 9, 14, 15, 28, 53,

139

55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 66, 70, 107 Kratinus, see Cratinus Kronenberger, L., 135 Lamachus, 111 Language, vii, ix, x, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 22, 27, 33, 35, 40, 45, 50, 51, 57, 64-66, 68, 70, 79, 80, 83, 84, 86, 96-98, 103, 109-115, 117120, 123-128, 132 Laskaris, N . I., 135 Laughter, vii, viii, x, xi, 1-4, 8, 11, 13, 16, 29, 36, 39, 42, 45, 51, 53, 56, 89, 101, 105, 108, 110, 114, 118, 128, 130, 132, 134, 135 Lauter, P., 135 Lesky, A., 1, 135 Lever, K., ix, 5, 135 Littlefield, D . J., 135 Logic, 12, 20, 28, 34, 38, 60, 62-64, 66, 70-73, 75-78, 87, 88 Lord, L. E., x, 60, 135 Love, 4, 26, 42, 68, 80, 94, 95, 100, 104, 108 Lovewit, 84 Lust, 17, 18, 24, 75, 79-82, 109, 111, 115-117 Lyly, J., 4 Lysistrata, 125 Macilente, 102, 104-106 M a m m o n , 64, 78-83, 86, 123, 125 Martyn, J. R. C., 135 McEven-Anderson, K., 135 Memorabilia, 61 Menander, 11 Method, vii, ix, xi, 10, 12, 21, 47, 69, 70, 121, 130 Middleton, 4 Mime, Dorian, 1 Mitis, 6, 51, 53 Mooncalf, 106 Morose, 122, 123 Mosca, 11, 19, 29, 31-38, 40-42 Murray, G., 135 Musurus, M., 5 Mythology, 81 N a n o , 108, 109 Nash, R„ 135

140

INDEX

Natural, 35, 58, 67, 78, 116, 117, 127 Nature, ix, x, xii, 2, 3, 9, 11-13, 1518, 20-23, 25-29, 32-35, 37, 39, 40, 42-44, 55, 57, 58, 71, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79, 83, 84, 86, 87, 102, 109, 111, 117, 129 Nicoll, A., 135 Nicomachean Ethics, 2, 14, 58, 59, 61, 133 Norwood, G., 135 Obscenity, 4, 45, 47, 110, 111, 124126, 128, 132 Olson, E., 135 Orestes, 115 Overdo, 106-108, 117, 127 Paedeia, see Education Palmer, H., 5, 135 Pantalone, 36 Paphlagon, 11, 12, 16, 18-24, 26-28, 31-33, 35, 42, 47, 111-113, 119, 120, 126 Parabasis, x, 46, 50, 51, 94, 100 Parody, 22, 136 Partridge, E. B., 135 Pasias, 73 Peace, 8, 10, 91, 94, 97-100, 111, 112, 114 Peace, 3, 5, 8, 12, 13, 44, 49, 98101, 106, 124-127 Peisthetaerus, 91-98, 100, 102, 106, 108 Persius, 7 Phallic processions, 1 Phallic songs, 1 Phallophoroi, 1 Pheidippides 59, 73, 74 Philanthropy, 9, 71, 80, 82 Phormus, 6 Pickard-Cambridge, H., 1, 135 Piety, 69, 71, 79-84, 86 Plato, 60, 62, 135 Plautus, 4 Plover-Page, 90 Plutus, 5, 52 Poetaster, 7, 54 Politicians, 16, 18, 114 Politics, 3, 59, 60, 114, 134 Potter, J. M., x, 136

Potts, L. J., 136 Pretense, 13, 15-17, 29, 36, 43, 69 Proteus, 32 Prudence, 60, 61 Pseudo-Artabas, 118, 121 Pug, 8 Pythagoras, 108 Quarlous, 107, 108, 125 Rackham, H., 2, 133 Reason, 4, 7, 10, 12, 41, 43, 57, 61, 89, 90, 93, 98, 106, 109, 129, 130 Religion, 71, 78-81, 86, 87, 117 Renaissance, vii, viii, 4 Rhetoric, 31, 63, 64, 65, 107, 117, 134 Ridicule, viii-x, 4, 9, 10, 22, 36, 41, 45, 67, 89, 92, 93, 96-99, 101, 104106, 108, 115, 126, 130-132 Right Logic, 74, 76-78, 86 Rogers, B. B„ 2, 24, 59, 124-126, 133 Roister Doister, 4 Rutherford, W. G„ 60, 91, 136 Satire, viii, ix, 4, 6, 10, 89, 90, 92, 93, 96-99, 101, 102, 105, 106, 108110, 126, 128, 130-134 Sausage-Seller, 11, 20-28, 31, 35, 112, 113, 119, 126 Schelling, F. E., ix, 136 Schlesinger, A. C., 136 Sensuality, 16, 17, 26, 28, 31-33, 38, 81

Sickle-Maker, 98 Simonides, 75 Simpson, E., 5, 6, 135 Simpson, P., 5, 6, 135 Sire-Strieker, 95 Smith, W., 136 Snuggs, H. L., 136 Society, ix, x, 3-5, 9, 13, 17, 38, 43, 58, 59, 74, 95, 96, 113, 135. Socrates, 8, 59-74, 76-78, 84, 95, 136 Solomos, A., 136 Sophist, ix, 8, 9, 34, 58-61, 63, 65, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 87 Sophistry, ix, 58, 65, 68, 70, 88 Sophrosene, 58, 61 Sordido, 101-104

INDEX Sovereignty, 97, 100 Spear-Burnisher, 98 Steel, B., 5, 136 Stewart, D. J., 136 Strauss, L., 136 Strepsiades, 8, 59, 64-78, 81, 82, 88 Subtle, 63-65, 68-70, 78-80, 82-84, 123, 124 Supposes, 4 Surly, 64, 65, 81-83, 86, 87 Susario, 6 Swinburne, A. C., 136 Symonds, A. J. 136 Technique, vii-xi, 3, 10, 11, 15, 18, 29, 35, 51, 60, 74-76, 78, 109, 131, 132, 134 Terence, 4 Testament, Old, 81 Thayer, C. G., ix, 136 Theodoridis, H., 61, 136 Theophrastus, ix, 134 Tilley, A., 136 Tillyard, E. M. W., 136 Tone, x, xi Tribulation, 83 Trick To Catch The Old One, A, 4 Trouble-All, 107, 108 Trumpeter, 98 Trygaios, 8, 49, 98-100, 102, 106, 125 Tsopanakes, A. G., 1, 135

141

Udall, N., 4 Unnatural, ix, 8, 9, 35, 42, 58, 79, 113-117, 128 Ursula, 125 Volpone, 8, 11-13, 15-17, 19, 29-41, 108, 115, 116 Volpone, x, xii, 7, 8, 11-13, 15, 16, 30-32, 34-42, 52, 109, 115, 116, 126, 133, 135 Vol tore, 33-35, 37, 40, 41 War, viii, 8, 23, 25, 45, 57, 71, 98100, 111, 112, 114, 124 Wasp, 126 Wasps, 2, 13, 46-48, 52, 125 Welsford, E., 136 Whitman, C. H., 14, 136 Wilson, J. D., 136 Wimsatt, W . K„ 136 Win, 117 Wisdom, 9, 14, 40, 44, 47, 48, 50, 52, 54, 55, 60, 69-73, 76, 80, 86, 87, 96, 123 Wit, x, 2, 4, 15, 22, 26, 40, 47, 48, 50, 54, 64, 96, 105, 124, 126 Woodbridge, E. M., 136 Wrong Logic, 74, 76-78 Xenophon, 61, 134 Zeus, 27, 28, 61, 97, 99