The Aristophanic comedies of Ben Jonson: A comparative study of Jonson and Aristophanes 9783111391472, 9783111028972

Citation preview

STUDIES IN ENGLISH Volume XL

LITERATURE

THE ARISTOPHANIC COMEDIES OFBENJONSON A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF JONSON AND ARISTOPHANES

by

COBURN GUM Clemson University

1969

MOUTON THE HAGUE · PARIS

© Copyright 1969 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: 69-17882

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

PREFACE

This book, which is an attempt to establish and evaluate the work of Ben Jonson as a follower of Aristophanes, was originally suggested by Allan H. Gilbert. When I was one of his students at Duke University, he excited my interest in the subject, and offered suggestions concerning its investigation, which a Duke fellowship made possible. Although the long neglect of the topic by scholars is apparent throughout the text, my debt to many researchers is also obvious. Besides the help I obtained from numerous books and articles, I received valuable advice from several of my associates. These include S. K. Heninger, Jr., Charles E. Ward, Holger O. Nygard, C. Richard Sanders and James N. Truesdale, all of Duke University. In addition, Nicolas G. Maragos, a native of Greece and a gifted student of Greek Comedy, aided in the interpretation of various troublesome passages in Aristophanes' original text. Finally, I wish to express gratitude for the immense inspiration and help of my wife. She patiently typed the difficult manuscript each time it was revised, discovered and removed many errors, and, in a word, made the work a reality. Her assistance, criticism, and encouragement have been so great that an adequate acknowledgement of them in a preface is impossible. Clemson University November 20, 1965

CONTENTS

Preface

5

I. A New Approach to an Old Subject

9

II. The Plots and Characters of Aristophanes and Jonson III. The Inverted Worlds of Two Comic Dramatists

. .

19 30

IV. The Obscenities and Indecencies in Aristophanes and Jonson

46

V. Aristophanic Satire and Didacticism in Jonson's Comedy

67

VI. Personal Satire in Aristophanes and Jonson . . . .

81

VII. Jonson's Imitations and Adaptations of the Aristophanic Parabasis

108

VIII. Parallel Passages in Aristophanes and Jonson IX. Why Jonson Failed

. . .

132 187

Selected Bibliography

192

Index

203

I

A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD SUBJECT

Despite indications that Jonson frequently worked as a follower of Aristophanes, the relation between the two comic dramatists has not previously been studied. Yet the subject has long been a commonplace of Jonsonian criticism. Indeed, even during Jonson's lifetime, his work was praised as Aristophanic, and he was lauded as the peer of Aristophanes.1 Jonson never repudiated such judgments of himself and his art; instead, he did much to foster them, by specifically mentioning Aristophanes several times. These references to the Greek poet, despite their occasional laconic nature, suggest, even to the casual reader, Jonson's keen interest in the Old Comedy of Greece. Jonson mentions Aristophanes by name on seven occasions. His first reference, almost a fragmentary one, appears in Every Man Out of His Humour. In this play, Jonson uses Cordatus to discuss the development of Old Comedy, which, he maintains, his own drama resembles. Cordatus first lists Aristophanes' predecessors, from Susario to Eupolis, all of whom made significant contributions to the art. He crowns this list with a notable tribute: "ARISTOPHANES more then they" (After the Second Sounding, 258). 1

In 1607, Sir Thomas Roe, Francis Beaumont, and Dudley Digges praised Volpone for its similarities to Old Comedy. An unidentified admirer of Jonson, writing in 1629, asserted that Jonson was the equal of Aristophanes, and had overtaken his Greek predecessor through art and grace. For the text of these tributes, see Ben Jottson, edited by Charles Harold Herford and Percy and Evelyn Simpson (11 vols., Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1925-1952), XI, 319320, 337. I have used this edition, hereafter referred to as Herford and Simpson, for all quotations from Jonson's works.

10

A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD SUBJECT

In Poetaster, Jonson makes an even more important allusion to Aristophanes, for, in so doing, he identifies his own satiric elements with similar features of Old Comedy. Indignantly rejecting the accusation of his enemies that his writing is "meere rayling", Jonson appeals to the example of his honored peers, including Aristophanes: Ha! If all the salt in the old comoedy Should be so censur'd, or the sharper wit Of the bold satyre, termed scolding rage, What age could then compare with those, for buffons? What should be sayd of ARISTOPHANES? PERSIVS? or IUVENAL? whose names we now So glorifie in schooles, at least pretend it. (Apologeticall Dialogue, 186-192) Here Jonson obviously is thinking of himself as a satirist of the Aristophanic type. In another comedy (The Devil is an Ass, V, viii, 112-114), Jonson quotes a short passage from the Greek text of Aristophanes' Plutus. This play, a remarkably un-Aristophanic one, appears to have been attractive to Jonson, despite its obvious defects. He clearly had this drama in mind when he wrote one of his masques, The King's Entertainment. Here Plutus appears, not as a sightless and tattered god, but as a handsome and vigorous boy. In the scholia to this work, Jonson acknowledges the difference between his conception of Plutus and the classical one, including that of Aristophanes: "So Cephisodotus hath fained him. See Paus, in Boeoti. & Phil, in Imag. contrary to Aristop. Theogn. Lucian and others, that make him blind and deformed" (436-443). This statement is important, not only as evidence of Jonson's knowledge of Aristophanes, but also as an example of his tendency to modify at will his Aristophanic borrowings. A far less significant reference to Aristophanes occurs in The New Inn. It is an observation by Lovel, who traces the source of Lord Beaufort's remark to the Symposium of Plato: It is a fable of Plato's, in his Banquet, And vtter'd, there, by Aristophanes.

(Ill, ii, 86-87)

A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD SUBJECT

11

It is clear that, while this allusion may reveal Jonson's knowledge of Plato, it says nothing of Jonson's acquaintance with Aristophanes. Another statement, more familiar than the preceding one, throws light on Jonson's knowledge of Aristophanic comedy. It occurs in the poem which Jonson wrote for Shakespeare's First Folio: "The Merry Greeke, tart Aristophanes" (51). Despite its brevity, this reference indicates that Jonson understood Old Comedy as a combination of ebullient good humor and vitriolic satire. There are two important mentions of Aristophanes in the Discoveries. The first one indicates that Jonson was familiar with several Aristophanic comedies which contain sharp criticism of Euripides:2 "Many things in Euripides hath Aristophanes wittily reprehended; not out of Art, but out of Truth. For, Euripides is sometimes peccant, as he is most times perfect. But, Judgement when it is greatest, if reason doth not accompany it, is not ever absolute" (2573-2577). Later in the same work, Jonson's translation of a passage from Heinsius renders its criticism of Aristophanes sharper than it is in the original text: 3 And therfore it was cleare that all insolent, and obscene speaches; jest(s) upon the best men; injuries to particular persons; perverse, and sinister Sayings (and the rather unexpected) in the old Comedy, did move laughter; especially, where it did imitate any dishonesty; and scurrility came forth in the place of wit: which who understands the nature and Genius of laughter, cannot but perfectly know. Of which Aristophanes affords an ample harvest, having not only outgone Plautus, or any other in that kinde; but express'd all the moods, and figures, of what is ridiculous, oddly. In short, as Vinegar is not accounted good, untill the wine be corrupted: so jests that are true and naturall, seldome raise laughter, with the beast, the multitude. They love nothing, that is right, and proper. The farther it runs from reason, or possibility with them, the better it is. What could have made them laugh, like to see Socrates presented, that Example of all good life, 2

See Acharnians, 397-479; Thesmophoriazusae, 488-491; Frogs, 814ff. * For the Latin text of this excerpt from Ad Horatij de Plauto & Terentio judicium, which Heinsius used as a preface to his 1618 edition of Terence, see Herford & Simpson, XI, 289.

12

A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD SUBJECT

honesty, and vertue, to have him hoisted up with a Pullie, and there play the Philosopher, in a basquet? Measure, how many foote a Flea could skip Geometrically, by a just Scale, and edifie the people from the ingine? This was Theatricall wit, right Stage-jesting, and relishing a Playhouse, invented for scorne, and laughter; whereas, if it had savour'd of equity, truth, perspicuity, and Candor, to have tasten a wise, or a learned Palate, spit it out presently; this is bitter and profitable, this instructs, and would informe us: what neede wee know any thing, that are nobly borne, more then a Horse-race, or a hunting-match, our day to breake with Citizens, and such innate mysteries? This is truly leaping from the Stage to the Tumbrell againe, reducing all witt to the originall Dungcart. (2646-2677). This long, carping statement, so hypercritical of Old Comedy, contains Jonson's last direct mention of Aristophanes. It is important, not only as evidence of Jonson's knowledge of the Greek poet, but also as an expression of the general Renaissance attitude toward him. During the sixteenth century, literary criticism consistently disapproved of the distinguishing features of Aristophanes' plays. It particularly condemned Old Comedy's personal abuse, obscenity, and appeals to the baser instincts of the multitude. 4 In spite of this general hostility toward Aristophanes, certain Renaissance dramatists developed their own standards of criticism, which recognized the greatness of the Greek playwright, and even approved of his imitation by contemporary writers. In fact, nothing is more remarkable than the obvious popularity of Aristophanes during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Old Comedy was not only read and appreciated, but was also occasionally imitated.6 About 1500, two years after the appearance of the editio princeps of Aristophanes, Machiavelli wrote a comedy, Le Maschere, which was an imitation of the Clouds and contained much personal satire of Machiavelli's contemporaries. This play has been unfortunately lost, because Giuliano de Ricci did not consider its preservation desirable." All the other comedies of Machiavelli were imitations and adaptations of plays by Plautus 4

Marvin T. Herrick, "Comic Theory in the Sixteenth Century", University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, XXXIV (1950), 57. 5 Ibid., 5. • Wilhelm Süss, Aristophanes und die Nachwelt (Leipzig, Dieterich, 1911), p. 23.

A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD SUBJECT

13

and Terence. In England, Thomas Randolph (1605-1635) wrote The Jealous Lovers in the Plautine manner, and also published what purported to be a translation, but was actually a complete adaptation, of the Plutus,7 Another contemporary of Jonson, William Cartwright (1611-1643), proved that it was possible to mingle Plautine and Aristophanic elements in the same comedy. His Lady Errant is based on the Thesmophoriazusae, yet it "is a tragicomedy of the most approved contemporary romantic type". 8 It is apparent, then, that interest in Aristophanes during the Renaissance was not confined to Jonson. He was, indeed, quite in tune with the times when he endeavored to follow the Greek poet. This is evident in the remarkable number of editions of Aristophanes which appeared between 1498 and 1624. No fewer than thirteen were published during that period. Of these editions, Jonson possessed at least two, which are extant. Both were printed in Geneva, in 1607 and 1614 respectively; and both feature the Greek text, with a Latin translation. Since Jonson's library was destroyed by fire in 1623, it may be assumed that he purchased these volumes after that date. We know nothing of other editions which Jonson may have owned prior to the loss of his library; but it is likely that others perished in the flames. Of all the editions of Aristophanes, perhaps the finest was the editio princeps, a sumptuous folio, published in 1498 by Aldus Manutius at Venice, with Marcus Masurus as editor. It contained only nine comedies and scholia. This was followed by the Juntine edition of 1515, which, a year later, included two additional plays, the Thesmophoriazusae and Lysistrata, as an appendix. In 1532, all the eleven extant comedies, without scholia, were published by Cratandrus at Basel. Other editions appeared in 1538, 1540, 1542, 1547, 1548, 1600, 1607, 1614, and 1624.9 It is noteworthy that not a single English translation of Aristophanes appeared ' Felix Emmanuel Schelling, Elizabethan Drama, 1558-1642, 2 vols. (New York, Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1959), II, 85-86. » Ibid., II, 46. • Thomas Frognall Dibdin, An Introduction to the Knowledge of the Rare and Valuable Editions of the Greek and Latin Classics, 2 vols. (London, Harding & Lepard, 1827), 294-299.

14

A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD SUBJECT

during Jonson's lifetime.10 Thus Jonson must have known Latin or Greek, if he read Aristophanes. There is little doubt that he was proficient in both languages. Despite a recent tendency to lower previous estimates of his stature as a classical scholar,11 the learning of Jonson remains impressive. Suggestions that he could not read Greek have seldom been taken seriously, and have been ably refuted.12 There is evidence, therefore, that Jonson was interested in Aristophanes, read his works in the original Greek, and followed predecessors and contemporaries in his attempts to imitate Old Comedy. Hence it is surprising that Jonson's work as a follower of Aristophanes has not previously been evaluated. No detailed, comparative study of the topic has hitherto appeared. One essay, it is true, purports to be a comparison of the two dramatists. But it unfortunately ignores, almost completely, Jonson's achievements in the broad context of Aristophanic comedy; and it is actually little more than a collection of familiar verbal parallels.13 Interest in these parallels began more than two centuries ago. It was initiated by the publication of an anonymous pamphlet which appeared before the first critical edition of Jonson's plays was ready for the press.14 The editor, Peter Whalley, was so impressed by certain remarks in the volume that he decided to use them as notes to his work, which first appeared in 1756. Moreover, he recognized that the author of the pamphlet was John Upton (1707-1760), for whose scholarship and critical acumen he had high respect.16 Whalley was especially attracted by Upton's observations concerning Jonson's Aristophanic borrowings, and 10 Η. B. Lathrop, "Translations from the Classics into English from Caxton to Chapman, 1477-1620", University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature, XXXV (1933), 308. 11 Ernest W. Talbert, "New Light on Ben Jonson's Workmanship", Studies in Philology, XL (1943), 154-185. " Herford & Simpson, IX, 679-680. 18 Dorset Graves, "Ben Jonson and Aristophanes" (Unpublished M. A. thesis, Duke University, 1954). 14 John Upton, Remarks on Three Plays of Benjamin Jonson (London, G. Hawkins, 1749). 16 Peter Whalley and George Colman, editors, The Dramatic Works of Ben Jonson and Beaumont and Fletcher, 4 vols. (London, John Stockdale, 1811), I, Introduction, xxi.

A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD SUBJECT

15

he transcribed all of them verbatim. By doing so, he not only saved Upton's pamphlet from obscurity, but also established an enduring precedent for the consideration of Jonson as a follower of Aristophanes. From Whalley's day to the present, almost every editor and critic who has discussed Aristophanic elements in Jonson's comedy has relied heavily on Upton's observations. Few of these writers have studied his book at first hand. Instead, they have usually copied Whalley's transcription of Upton's remarks. Thus both Upton's first name and the title of his pamphlet have been largely forgotten. On the rare occasions when they have been mentioned together, John Upton has been confused with his father, James Upton. 16 Upton's contribution to studies of Jonson was not negligible. It has occasionally stimulated discussion of him as a follower of Aristophanes. Yet it has also tended to hinder research which the topic deserved. The subject has, in fact, become almost stale prior to investigation, because Upton's observations have been so frequently noted, alluded to, and repeated. Hence his views have focused attention on what may be a relatively unimportant aspect of Jonson's Aristophanic art. In doing so, they have obscured his work in the broad environment of Old Comedy. It is not, however, entirely Upton's fault that scholars have long neglected this area of research. Other reasons explain their disregard of it. For instance, the comedies of Aristophanes present many difficulties, even to an accomplished Grecian. They can be properly studied, understood and appreciated only in their original text. Indeed, most of their finer qualities are lost in a translation, which is always a poor substitute for the Greek, and is often a distressing distortion of it. Moreover, the magnificent Attic of Aristophanes is itself formidable. A special lexicon of its rare and frequently puzzling vocabulary has long been needed. There is also need for an adequate concordance to the plays. Lacking such aids, the scholar encounters many Aristophanic coinages, " For examples, see Alexander Hart Sackton, Rhetoric as a Dramatic Language in Ben Jonson (New York, Columbia University Press, 1948), p. 1; Herford & Simpson, IX, 577.

16

A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD SUBJECT

phrases and allusions which remain obscure, despite diligent efforts to decipher them. Textual and critical problems are so great that one-half of the humor of Aristophanes has been said to be lost to the modern world.17 This is decidedly true of his puns, which often must elude detection, because the ancient pronunciation of Greek is today unknown. There are, likewise, numerous references to forgotten persons; and these often remain dark, even after resort to the scholia, which are themselves occasionally confusing. These facts explain Aristophanes' position as an esoteric poet. He is almost unknown to most readers; and even students who know Greek seldom read more than a fraction of his work. His comedies are seldom performed. When they are, the stage versions are so bowdlerized that whole passages are deleted and distorted. It is, therefore, easy to assume that his plays are hopelessly obsolete, with no message for this age. Yet Aristophanes is surprisingly up-to-date. In fact, he frequently seems more of a modern writer than a poet like Jonson, because his society was more like that of the present.18 Its democracy, and especially its socialistic and communistic agitation, were quite similar to those of our own day. Thus Aristophanes' views on such problems are often provocative, and relevant to contemporary discussions of them. Hence it is unfortunate that Aristophanes is neglected today. This is a misfortune which he shares with Jonson, who, it has been said, would probably prove the most sympathetic of all Elizabethan dramatists if he were but familiar to the modern world.18 In comparing the art of these two dramatists, then, the researcher deals with two relatively obscure, frequently misunderstood, and seldom read comic masters. It is understandable, therefore, that study of Jonson's efforts to imitate Aristophanes has been very limited, and, indeed, almost exclusively confined 17

August Wilhelm von Schlegel, A Course of Lectures ort Dramatic Art and Literature, trans. John Black, rev. A. J. W. Morrison (London, Henry G. Bohn, 1846), p. 158. 18 Thomas Wallace Lumb, Authors of Greece (London, Jarrolds, 1924), pp. 186-187. 18 Thomas Stearns Eliot, Essays on Elizabethan Drama (New York, Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1956), p. 81.

A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD SUBJECT

17

to the collection of alleged parallel passages. Such similarities are, in my opinion, a minor feature of Jonson's art. His endeavor to capture the spirit of Old Comedy went far beyond the occasional copying or adaptation of an Aristophanic phrase. Instead, he worked, over a period of many years, in the spacious context of Aristophanes' drama. It is this aspect of his achievement which should be investigated. The principal features of the Old Comedy which Jonson sought to imitate may now be noted. This unique dramatic art flourished from about 487 to 404 B. C., with Aristophanes as its greatest representative. It was unlike modern comedy in several significant respects. Its plots were simple and episodic, and its characters were usually fixed, often typical, and occasionally allegorical. The ancient Greek comedy was further distinguished from modern drama by the fantastic, allegorical nature of its representations. Its action took place in an ideal, topsy-turvy world, created by the poet. Thus an Aristophanic play was an inversion of the real life of Greece, and not an imitation of it. Among the most remarkable features of Old Comedy were its indecency and obscenity, on which there was apparently no restriction. Despite such offenses against good taste and propriety, the comic poet acted as a public censor. He therefore produced plays which were extremely satirical, especially in their treatment of actual persons, who were subjected to unrestrained abuse on the stage. To develop his satire, and to establish rapport between himself and his audience, the poet of Old Comedy used extra-dramatic intrusions, called parabases. Such devices broke the theatrical illusion, and permitted the playwright to address the spectators directly. All these features of Aristophanes' comedies may be detected in the comic dramas of Jonson. It should be remembered, however, that Jonson encountered difficulties in his attempt to adapt Old Comedy to the English stage. Social conditions forbade a revival of the Greek comic drama in its ancient, uninhibited form. For example, Jonson could not have duplicated Aristophanes' unrestrained personal satire and abuse of actual individuals. It would have been both imprudent and dangerous to do so. The same may be said of the political elements of Old Comedy. Only

18

A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD SUBJECT

Middleton, in fact, attempted to imitate Aristophanes' ridicule and abuse of politicians. His play, A Game at Chess, remains the sole instance of Elizabethan efforts to imitate the political satire of Aristophanes.20 Jonson prudently avoided it. The unlimited obscenity, indecency, and scurrility of the Greek stage was likewise impossible to reproduce on an English one. It is, therefore, understandable that Jonson did not attempt a complete revival of Old Comedy. Instead, he adopted its mild and innocuous features, and tamed its wild and offensive ones, for use in his own plays. He faced no legal or political dangers, for example, in his imitation of the simple, episodic plots of Aristophanes. Nor did he find that characters like those of Old Comedy were forbidden on the stage. Jonson accordingly used both elements freely. Such novel plots and characters occasionally proved dangerous to Jonson's career, but they never imperiled his person. They were, indeed, innovations which often aroused misunderstanding, and sometimes even hostility, among Jonson's spectators. This is easy to understand, for Jonson's age was dominated by literary criticism which comprehended comedy only in terms of Plautus and Terence.21 Nevertheless, despite rebuffs from audiences accustomed to Plautine and Terentian plays, Jonson continued his imitation of Old Comedy during most of his long career. This suggests that his devotion to Greek models was neither casual nor transitory. Since the structure and personalities of Jonson's plays distinguish them from the dramas of his contemporaries, a comparative study of Aristophanes and Jonson might well begin with an examination of their plots and characters.

20

Schelling, I, 445. Joel Elias Spingarn, A History of Literary Criticism in the Renaissance (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1899), p. 102. 81

II THE PLOTS AND CHARACTERS OF ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

Plot is usually understood as the artistic arrangement of incidents out of which a narrative or drama is constructed. Elizabethan dramatists, in their imitations of the realistic-romantic comedies of Menander, Terence, and Plautus, developed highly intricate plots of complication and solution, and organized the action within a framework of five acts. But this structure, which has remained characteristic of drama, was not used by Aristophanes. He employed the simple plot described by Aristotle.1 It requires no close connection between the scenes, which are loosely arranged like beads on a string, and are not interlaced like the scenes of an Elizabethan play.2 According to Aristotle, the simple plot permits the crisis of the play to be reached without a reversal of fortune or recognition. Therefore the action of an Aristophanic comedy is uncomplicated, there is little intrigue, the characters are not involved with each other in a mesh of complex circumstances, and there is usually no denouement. These characteristics of Aristophanes' plays distinguish them not only from those of Shakespeare, Moliöre and later dramatists, but also from what the Greeks themselves called comedy a few decades after Aristophanes.3 For this reason, much harsh criticism has been directed against Old Comedy. It is condemned as loose and faltering in structure, devoid of plot, formless, and incoherent.4 Such strictures are, however, based on standards of 1

Poetics, ed. Samuel Henry Butcher (London, Macmillan & Co., 1895), p. 37. * Katherine Lever, The Art of Greek Comedy (London, Methuen & Co., 1956), p. 120. » Schlegel, p. 145. * Gilbert Norwood, Greek Comedy (London, Methuen & Co., 1931), p. 299;

20

THE PLOTS AND CHARACTERS

criticism which were developed long after Old Comedy had disappeared. The criteria used to condemn Old Comedy are those of Castelvetro, Scaliger, Maggi, Robortelli, and Minturno. Their sixteenth-century theories were founded on the plays of Plautus and Terence, and on Aristotle's brief remarks concerning comedy.8 Jonson did not follow the dogmas of these Italian critics. His learning, devotion to classical ideals, and independent spirit gave him an appreciation of the grandeur of Old Comedy, which owes its strength to regularity and simplicity, as the power of modern comedy lies in subtlety and multiplicity.® Jonson, therefore, endeavored to imitate Aristophanes, and one result of his efforts appears in the simple plots of several of his plays. Their structure marks a departure from Elizabethan dramatic theory and practice, and a preference for the models of Old Comedy. T. S. Eliot has said that Jonson's personality "found its relief in something falling under the category of burlesque or farce". 7 If this view of Jonson's nature is correct, it may help to explain the appeal which the farcical elements of Aristophanes' plays seem to have had for Jonson. The comedies of Aristophanes are, more often than not, gigantic farces. Their action is initiated by an airy fancy, a trivial incident, or a preposterous proposal, which is carefully and logically pushed to a ridiculous conclusion. They are clever mixtures of wit, drollery, and foolery, skillfully manipulated to produce a vast accumulation of absurdities. The essence, then, of Old Comedy is a combination of incident, surprise, caprice, whim, and improvisation.8 All these qualities are far more prominent in farce than in comedy of a more sophisticated form; and, as the success of Aristophanes' plays has proved, they are highly effective dramatic devices. It is, therefore, hardly a James Alexander Kerr Thomson, The Classical Background of English Literature (London, G. Allen & Unwin, 1948), p. 68; Lumb, p. 164. * Spingarn, Literary Criticism, pp. 101-106. * John Addington Symonds, Studies of the Greek Poets, 2 vols.; 3rd ed. (London, A. & C. Black, 1893), II, 148. 7 Selected Essays, 1917-1932 (New York, Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1932), pp. 137-138. * Alfred and Maurice Croiset, An Abridged History of Greek Literature, trans. George F. Heffelbower (New York, Macmillan, 1904), p. 257.

THE PLOTS AND CHARACTERS

21

condemnation of Aristophanes to say, as one writer does, that he writes farce more often than comedy, in the sense attached to the word since Menander; and that he is especially farcical in playing the fool as eagerly as his characters.® Farce is certainly dominant in a play like the Achamians. In this comedy, Aristophanes unleashes his imagination, disregards probabilities and the realities of normal life, and concentrates on the imaginary and the impossible. The central idea of the comedy is an absurdity. An individual citizen determines to negotiate a private peace, while his countrymen continue to bear the burdens of a crushing war. His ludicrous venture proves completely successful, in a series of scenes which have little logical connection. The result is both a political farce and a polished work of art. Much the same may be said of the Thesmophoriazusae, which differs from the Acharnians in that it has a regular plot, with an intrigue and a solution. Despite these differences, the play is essentially farcical. When the element of farce is subdued, as it is in at least two of the comedies, Aristophanes approaches the Elizabethan standards of drama. A good example is the Birds, which contains genuine dramatic development and a wealth of incident. Its scenes, though short, are closely linked, and its mythological elements are skillfully manipulated to appear quite rational, even to twentieth-century readers. The Ecclesiazusae also is rational, consistent and marked by common sense; it is likewise almost free of farcical qualities. But this play reveals a decline in Aristophanes' art. In the Ecclesiazusae, he falters when he attempts to mix reason with his caprice, scurrility and wit. His mistake appears to have been repeated by Jonson centuries later in Volpone, for, while reason may not be fatal to comedy, it tends to change it into something else. Jonson's imitation of Aristophanic farcical elements is apparent in several plays. The action of Every Man In His Humour is as trivial and insignificant as that of Old Comedy. Almost the same is true of Every Man Out of His Humour, which, despite its variety of incident, can hardly be said to have a plot at all, and of Bartho'

N o r w o o d , p. 300.

22

THE PLOTS AND CHARACTERS

lomew Fair, which is constructed largely by interlocking numerous episodes.10 Similar episodic structure appears in Cynthia's Revels, which is composed of a series of loosely-connected scenes. Even a masterpiece like Epicoene, with an intrigue which Dryden praised as "the greatest and most noble of any pure unmix'd Comedy in any Language",11 was said by Coleridge to be "the best of farces".12 Coleridge apparently bases this criticism on the comedy's basic idea, which is a fancy so light that the play might be expected to collapse for lack of argument.13 Epicoene thus indicates that Jonson, even in his finest plays, occasionally includes much that is farcical. These examples indicate that discretion should be used in any attempted classification of Jonson's plots. They vary greatly in their complexity. For instance, there are extremely simple plots in comedies like Every Man In His Humour, Every Man Out of His Humour, Bartholomew Fair, and Cynthia's Revels. On the other hand, certain Jonsonian plots are complex to the point of bafflement; The New Inn provides an example of this type. Finally, some plays, like The Alchemist, despite their diverse characters, wealth of incident, and apparent complexity, prove, upon analysis, to be remarkably simple in construction.14 Jonson appears, indeed, reluctant to move outside the simplest of actions in developing his plots.15 It is true that his dramatic structure often seems, at first glance, to be singularly involved and complex. Yet the action is generally continuous and uncomplicated, and the plot relatively simple. In the comedies of humours, for example, Jonson assembles a group of idiosyncratic people, and plans for each an uncomplicated, individual plot that will exhibit him, and display his peculiarities. Slight shifting of these personalities occurs, to avoid treatment of all the indi10

J. M. Bamborough, Ben Jonson (Writers and Their Work Series, London, Longmans, Green & Co., 1959), p. 17. 11 Quoted by Herford and Simpson, XI, 516. 18 Complete Works, ed. Professor Shedd, 7 vols. (New York, Harper & Brothers, 1868), IV, 252. 18 John Palmer, Ben Jonson (New York, The Viking Press), p. 177. 11 Ibid., p. 184. 16 Gregory Smith, Ben Jonson ("English Men of Letters Series", London, Macmillan & Co., 1919), pp. 92-93.

THE PLOTS AND CHARACTERS

23

viduals at once, and this completes Jonson's plan for the play.16 Jonson's customary dramatic structure is, therefore, much closer to the simple, episodic plots of Aristophanes than its apparent complexity seems to indicate. Such similarity, in view of Jonson's expressed devotion to classical models, can hardly have been accidental. It is apparently the result of Jonson's familiarity with and appreciation of Aristophanic plot structure. Yet, despite his fondness for the simplicity of Old Comedy, Jonson never completely breaks with conventional Elizabethan practice. The well-organized, carefully-articulated plots of Volpone and The Alchemist mark him as a follower of Plautus and Terence, who, in their turn, were imitators of Menander, the greatest dramatist of the New Comedy. Moreover, Jonson never rejects the Elizabethan tradition of dividing a play into five acts. All his comedies follow this division, which is never used by Aristophanes. Jonson's reluctance to follow strictly the Aristophanic structure may be explained by conditions peculiar to Greek theatrical production. Music was an indispensable part of Attic drama. When a play of Aristophanes was performed, its odes and lyrics were sung to the accompaniment of the flute. There was also much dancing by the chorus and other performers during the presentation of the comedy. Therefore, a Greek actor was required to sing, act, and dance, and was much more versatile than an Elizabethan actor. The result was a performance that resembled both a pantomime and an opera. Music and dancing thus harmonized the great contradictions of an Aristophanic comedy, and minimized its incoherencies.17 Conditions of the Elizabethan stage were quite different. Jonson had no chorus, dancers, and singers, trained in a long tradition of stage production, to assist him. Even if he had written a comedy in strictly Aristophanic form, complete with odes and lyrics, its presentation would have required skilled and versatile actors, dancers, and singers. Without them, a play composed in the narrow pattern of Old Comedy would have been largely unintelligible to an Elizabethan audience, le

Elizabeth Woodbridge Morris, Studies in Jonson's Comedy (New York, Lamson Wolffe & Co., 1898), pp. 4, 57. 17 Symonds, II, 178.

24

THE PLOTS AND CHARACTERS

and would have aroused misunderstanding, if not hostility, among the spectators. Jonson seems to have faced these problems realistically. To avoid alienating his audience by excessive innovations, and to eliminate serious problems of stage production, he wrote his comedies in the conventional Elizabethan form of five acts. Within this structure, he usually used simple plots of limited incident, after the manner of Aristophanes. Broad similarities are apparent between the characters, as well as the plots, of Aristophanes and Jonson. The characters of an Aristophanic play are predominantly, though not exclusively, types.18 They all exhibit traits common to a whole class, and occasionally they are allegorical.19 Therefore, the names of Aristophanic characters reveal their ideal nature, minimize their individuality, indicate their social class, and suggest the qualities which they are intended to represent. Bdelycleon, in the Knights, hates Cleon, and, in the same comedy, Agoracriticus is the choice of the market-place. In the Clouds, the name of Strepsiades forecasts his role as a twister and unscrupulous fellow. The hopeful Euelpides and his trusting companion, Peithetaerus, are seekers of a new city in the Birds. Lysistrata disbands the Greek armies in the play to which she has given her name. In the Peace, the handmaidens of the captive goddess, an allegorical figure named Peace, have Greek names that mean Harvest and Mayfair. These examples indicate Aristophanes' extraordinary use of typical and allegorical characters. It is not surprising, therefore, that all but two of his extant comedies are completely or partially allegorical.20 Jonson's fondness for allegorical characters is reminiscent of Aristophanes. The names of most Jonsonian figures exhibit their 18

Theodore Bergk asserts that Aristophanes' characters are at once types and individuals: Griechische Literaturgeschichte, 4 vols. (Berlin, Wiedmansche Buchhandlung, 1872-1887), IV, 91. 18 S. Η. Butcher emphasizes, possibly excessively, the allegorical nature of the Aristophanic characters. He says that Aristophanes "seems to think through materialized ideas. He personifies the Just and the Unjust Logic, and brings them before us as lawcourt disputants; he incarnates a metaphor such as the philosopher 'in the clouds', the jurymen with waspish temper, mankind with their airy hopes": Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, 4th ed. (London, Macmillan & Co., 1923), p. 381. 80 Lever, p. 113.

THE PLOTS AND CHARACTERS

25

predominant characteristic, and prepare the audience for the roles which the characters play. The Staple of News, for example, has a cast appropriate to a masque or allegory; Queen Pecunia, Mortgage, Statute, Band and Wax are pure abstractions.21 The dramatis personae of other plays, which are far less allegorical, contain many names which clearly reveal the dominant traits of the characters. In Volpone, the bestial rapacity of the principal figures is indicated by names like Volpone, Voltore, Corbaccio and Corvino. Other members of the cast are Nano, a dwarf; Castrone, a eunuch; Androgyno, an hermaphrodite; and Sir Politick Would-Be, a social climber. In The Alchemist, there are two worrisome and lying Puritans, who are appropriately named Tribulation and Ananias. A young man plays the part of a woman in Epicoene, and his name, which indicates his dual sexual nature, also provides the title for the play. In the same comedy, Morose is dour and surly, Cutbeard is a barber, and Thomas Otter is a captain on both land and sea. The cast of The Devil is an Ass includes a vice, Iniquity; a goldsmith, Gilthead; a lawyer, Eitherside; a blacksmith, Sledge; and a jailer, Shackles. In The Magnetic Lady appear Captain Ironside, a soldier; Sir Moth Interest, a money lender; and Sir Diaphanous Silkworm, a courtier. All these characters are representatives of entire classes, professions, and qualities. They are also, though to a smaller extent, individuals. This fact must be constantly borne in mind. Although the characters of Aristophanes and Jonson are usually typical and allegorical, they are seldom exclusively so. The persons of the comedies are usually compromises between ideals and reality. Thus their basic human characteristics never entirely disappear into types and allegories, and the characters never become mere personifications of abstract qualities.22 On the contrary, both Aristophanic and Jonsonian characters are often highly individualized. Dicaeopolis, the just citizen of the Acharnians, is a crit" Palmer, p. 284. " Coleridge, however, asserts that the characters in Jonson's plays "are, in the strictest sense of the term, abstractions. Some very prominent feature is taken from the whole man, and that single feature or humour is made the basis upon which the entire character is built up": Works, IV, 254.

26

THE PLOTS AND CHARACTERS

ical, independent and determined man, who knows how to make up his mind and to act upon his convictions. Strepsiades, the twister of the Clouds, is a typical Greek rustic, but he is not a shadowy type or abstraction. Strepsiades is old, morose, dissatisfied, and frustrated; he is at once cunning and credulous; he is passionately economical, and alive to his own selfish interests. Finally, as the head of a family, he is both feeble and dictatorial. These examples indicate that Aristophanes was a shrewd observer of character, and capable of describing it in detail. Indeed, Aristophanes has drawn some characters with such vividness, realism, and detail that his plays are our best source of information concerning the daily life of fifth-century Athens.23 Jonson's characters, like those of Aristophanes, are often not the traditional stage figures of Latin comedy, but living creatures, drawn from life, who are full of interest to the reader. It is thus a mistake to regard them only as personifications of different humours or passions, and as something less than complete human beings. Bobadill, for example, is far more than a type. Jonson created him as a humour, but Bobadill, because his traits are developed in fine detail, is fascinating as an individual, and cannot be considered an abstraction. Captain Tucca is, like Bobadill, a carefully developed character, with idiosyncrasies of speech and behavior which set him apart from the stock characters of Latin comedies. Tribulation and Ananias, who represent an entire class of Puritan hypocrites, are drawn in such realistic detail that their typical nature is almost lost in their individuality. Besides these examples, nearly every person in Bartholomew Fair has distinctive characteristics which emphasize his singularity as an individual. Each character in that play, though drawn with the broad lines of caricature and intended as a type, is a lively, interesting, and distinctive personality. Thus Jonson's characters, like those of Aristophanes, usually have a dual nature: they are at once types and individuals. There are occasional complaints that the characters of Aristophanes and Jonson remain fixed throughout the play in which "

Croiset, p. 259,

THE PLOTS AND CHARACTERS

27

they appear. Jonson's failure to develop his characters on the stage has especially been condemned as an artistic mistake. He is said, for example, to have spoiled most of his comedies through his pioneer efforts to produce set characters on scientific principles.24 Almost the same criticism has been directed at Aristophanes, whose static personalities are held to possess slight human interest.25 Because such views are subjective, and are based on demands that characters must always develop during the course of a drama, it is difficult to refute them. While it is clear that Aristophanes produced set characters in whom no significant change occurs,2® it is not at all certain that his practice should be deplored. In fact, if fixed characters are to be condemned as artistic faults, every Greek dramatist must share the blame, for Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides seldom develop their characters on the stage. Jonson does not disapprove of their example; on the contrary, he ridicules the Elizabethan custom of effecting great changes in a character during the course of a play.27 It is not surprising, therefore, that examples of character development are extremely rare in Jonson's comedies. Only Bobadill, patterned after the Miles gloriosus of Plautus, has been cited. He is said to be the sole instance in Jonson's plays of the complete transformation of a type into an individual.28 This fact indicates that Jonson, in using fixed characters, closely followed Aristophanes. Aristotle asserts that comedy represents men as worse than they are in actual life.29 The characters of Aristophanes and Jonson " George Stuart Gordon, ed., English Literature and the Classics (Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1912), p. 80. " Norwood, p. 298. *· Hans-Joachim Newiger, however, writes that development or character does occur in Aristophanes. He cites only two examples, saying that Agoracriticus in the closing scene of the Knights is a changed person, and that Dionysus at the end of the Frogs has changed his goal: Metapher und Allegorie: Studien zu Aristophanes (München: Verlag C. H. Beck, 1957), p. 67. The instances offered by Newiger are tenuous and unconvincing. " For Jonson's views, and a comparison of them with those of Sidney, see Joel Elias Spingarn, ed. Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century, 3 vols. (Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1908), I, Introduction, xiii-xv. 28 A. H. Thorndike, "Ben Jonson", Cambridge History of English Literature, 15 vols. (Cambridge, The University Press, 1932), VI, 26. " Poetics, p. 11.

28

THE PLOTS AND CHARACTERS

provide much support for his view. Both dramatists specialize in unlovely characters who are usually sensual, shallow, looselyeducated, coarse, ill-mannered and egotistic. It has been said that the hero of an Aristophanic play is the unregenerate natural man, completely selfish, and striving without shame to satisfy all his carnal instincts.30 Accordingly, most of Aristophanes' characters are bad citizens and offenders against society.31 They seem to be used in the plays because they are basically comic. For the same reason, women are represented in Old Comedy as untruthful, licentious, alcoholic, unfaithful, thieving and profligate.32 Jonson's characters, like those of Aristophanes, often belong to the low and vulgar classes of society. The comic potentialities of such persons are very great, and they also provide excellent possibilities for satire. Though characters drawn from the lower and criminal strata of society were indispensable to Aristophanes, his art required more than a faithful representation of coarse and amoral people. Old Comedy was not content with moderate ridicule, but insisted upon extraordinary exaggeration. Even a true picture of the worst elements in Greek society failed to satisfy the demands of the Attic stage. All the fictitious creatures of Aristophanes are, therefore, presented with at least some of their characteristics magnified or distorted far beyond natural possibilities. In Dicaeopolis, for example, the passion for personal tranquility is amplified; in Strepsiades, a love of economy reaches extravagant proportions; and in Cleon, baseness is pushed to excess.33 Jonson, following the example of Aristophanes, distorts and magnifies the dominant traits of his characters. In the comedies of humours, the mannerisms and idiosyncrasies of the persons are exaggerated almost beyond the limits of reality. The characters thus tend to so

Arthur Piatt, "Aristophanes", Nine Essays (Cambridge, The University Press, 1927), p. 61. 81 La Rue Van Hook, "Crime and Criminals in the Plays of Aristophanes", Classical Journal, XXIII (1927-1928), 283. 32 For a discussion of this subject, see Herman W. Haley, "The Social and Dramatic Position of Women in Aristophanes", Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, I (1890), 159-206. 33 Croiset, p. 258.

THE PLOTS AND CHARACTERS

29

become too rigid, uniform, and simple. Moreover, Jonson's personages, despite their realism and individuality, usually do not exhibit the inconsistencies characteristic of actual human beings. They run true to the patterns designed by their creator, and display to excess one principal trait.34 The comic stage also requires that the characters enjoy extraordinary freedom of both speech and action. All the familiar taboos, inhibitions, laws, and conventions of civilization interfere with the liberty of comedy's characters. Accordingly, the comic artist creates an imaginary world in which he may manipulate affairs as he pleases. In Aristophanes' universe, therefore, the conditions of everyday life are drastically altered. Customary laws of civilization are suspended or even abolished, and the characters are thereby free to engage in fantastic, impossible, and illegal schemes, and to commit the most audacious acts. Hence Aristophanes, in emphasizing sensual, selfish, and criminal behavior, does not reflect actual social conditions in fifth-century Athens. For this reason, his comedies cannot be considered imitations of life. Jonson, as a follower of Aristophanes, has likewise created an imaginary world of inverted values, unlimited freedoms, and fantastic possibilities. In this artificial environment, built for satiric and comic purposes, the characters of Jonson live and move.

34

Palmer, p. 22.

III THE INVERTED WORLDS OF TWO COMIC DRAMATISTS

Heine, in ridiculing a German imitator of Aristophanes, suggests that a deep idea of world-destruction lies at the foundation of every Aristophanic comedy.1 According to his view, Aristophanes creates a new world by first shattering the present one. Out of its ruins, he then constructs an ideal universe, which Heine compares to a magic tree, covered with blossoms and filled with singing nightingales and climbing apes. Although Heine's criticism contains a certain amount of truth, it places excessive emphasis on the fantastic features of Old Comedy, and unduly simplifies the art of Aristophanes. Heine appears to forget Aristophanic satire, an important aspect of Aristophanes' poetic world. It is true that Aristophanes creates an imaginary universe; but it is equally certain that he, as a satirist, constructs his ideal world with the actual one constantly in his thoughts. For this reason, dramatists like Aristophanes and Jonson are elusive. They are free to work at will in either a real or an imaginary environment. It is, therefore, often difficult to determine their actual position. The poetic worlds of Aristophanes and Jonson contain many allusions to and representations of actual conditions, and their characters, realistically drawn, some1

Referring to August H. Platen (1796-1835), Heine says: "Zeigt sich in des Grafen Werk keine Spur von einer tiefen Weltvernichtungsidee, die jedem aristophanischen Lustspiele zum Grunde liegt, und die darin, wie ein phantastisch, ironischer Zauberbaum, emporschiesst mit blühendem Gedankenschmuck, singenden Nachtigallnestern und kletternden Affen. Eine solche Idee, mit dem Todesjubel und dem Zerstörungsfeuerwerk, das dazu gehört, durften wir freilich von dem armen Grafen nicht erwarten": Gesammelte Werke, 6 vols. (Berlin, Aufbau-Verlag, 1956), III, 424.

THE INVERTED WORLDS OF TWO COMIC DRAMATISTS

31

times even portray contemporary figures. The comedies are thus complex works of art. Because their imaginary world is never completely divorced from the real one — in fact, remains intimately concerned with it — the plays resist simple classification and interpretation. An insistence that the artificial worlds of Aristophanes and Jonson are pure creations of fancy, like those of The Tempest or A Midsummer Night's Dream, is a denial of the satiric basis and purpose of the comedies. To assert, on the other hand, that the representations are faithful imitations of actual life, is to misinterpret their caricatures of humanity, distortions of social conditions, inversions of customary values and standards, and perversions of historical facts.2 The problems which a topsy-turvy world presents to the scholar are illustrated by the Birds. This play, the longest extant comedy of Aristophanes, is, in several respects, a most difficult and baffling work of art. Since the intention behind its composition is especially obscure, the meanings of its incidents and characters are uncertain. Most of the questions arise from the mythological features of the play. In the Birds, Aristophanes displaces the actual world, and substitutes a transcendental birdland, in which customary values and conditions are inverted. This imaginary environment creates certain problems, which are reflected in the various interpretations suggested for the comedy. The simplest, and possibly the least correct, view of the Birds, classifies it as a purely fantastic extravaganza, like A Midsummer Night's Dream. If this explanation is accepted, the comedy must be regarded as unique among the works of Aristophanes. Equally unsatisfactory is the suggestion that the Birds describes a Utopia, in which Aristophanes' radical schemes of religious, political and social reform are presented. This view ignores the personality of Peithetaerus. He is a crafty plotter and adventurer, and reaps great benefits from his intrigues, so that he is scarcely an ideal governor. 1

Bergk, whose immense knowledge does not preserve him from occasional lapses of judgment, mistakes the nature of Old Comedy. By a curious juxtaposition of thought, he praises Aristophanes as a great writer of comedy, after describing his plays as imitations of ordinary life, and comedies of manners: Literaturgeschichte, IV, 1, 90-91.

32

THE INVERTED WORLDS OF TWO COMIC DRAMATISTS

An even more unconvincing interpretation of the Birds is offered by Süvern, who believes that the play is an allegory of certain historical events, and a protest against the imperialistic policies of Athens.3 He asserts that the play was inspired by the Sicilian Expedition of 413 B. C. This premise leads him to identify the Hoopoe as Lamachus, and Peithetaerus as a double personality. Sometimes, according to Süvern, Peithetaerus represents Alcibiades; on other occasions, he is Georgias, the orator. Euelpides is a type of the foolish and sanguine Athenian; but he is also a contemporary person, Polus, the friend of Georgias. The birds represent the citizens of Athens; the gods are the Spartans; and the men are the various city-states. Despite the absurdities of these identifications, they have often been accepted as principles for interpreting the Birds.4 The difficulty of understanding the Birds suggests that both discretion and a spirit of eclecticism must be used in viewing the topsy-turvy world of Old Comedy. Interpretations which unduly stress certain of its features, and ignore or disparage others, are likely to be extravagant and misleading. The imaginary worlds of Aristophanes and Jonson contain mixtures of the fantastic, the allegorical and the actual. These elements are skillfully fused for comic or satiric effect. It is, therefore, often difficult to determine whether certain scenes and incidents refer to conditions of the real world, whether they are fanciful, or whether they are ambivalently allegorical. When the plays of Aristophanes are read with a copy of Thucydides at hand, it is at once apparent that the comedies do not contain a faithful picture of social, political, and economic conditions in Periclean Athens. Thucydides offers a dispassionate, factual account of conditions, while Aristophanes presents a fantastic, distorted inversion of them. On the other hand, the Aristophanic dramas provide much information concerning everyday life among the Greeks. One learns from Aristophanes how versatile and human his countrymen were, and his comedies 3

Johann Wilhelm Süvern, Essay ort the Birds of Aristophanes, trans. W. R. Hamilton (London, John Murray, 1835). * For example, Symonds, a conservative and able interpreter of Aristophanes, follows Süvern's theories: Greek Poets, II, 179.

THE INVERTED WORLDS OF TWO COMIC DRAMATISTS

33

suggest that views of Athenian life which are based solely on Attic sculpture, or philosophy, or even history, are incorrect. Old Comedy indicates that the Greeks were not walking statues, concerned only with philosophical vagaries, and devoid of human emotions and carnal desires. Moreover, Aristophanes discloses many details of Greek economic, religious, political, social, and family life which are not mentioned by other Attic writers. Aristophanes clearly has not forgotten the real Hellenic world while creating his imaginary one. Nevertheless, the plays of Aristophanes are not imitations of life, primarily occupied with manners and everyday affairs, like those of Menander, Plautus and Terence. Instead, Old Comedy is a revolt against convention. Aristophanic comedy turns the world upside down. It attacks all the customary conventions of society: religion, morality, politics, educational systems, and literature. Aristophanes is therefore a great comic artist, not because his plays are an imitation of life, but because comedy, as originally conceived, was a literature of revolt. Aristophanes, moreover, pushes this revolt farther than any other Greek writer.5 Jonson's drama, like that of Aristophanes, is a rebellion against convention, although, of course, not on the scale of Old Comedy. The comedies of humours and Cynthia's Revels are revolts against society's fads, fashions, shams and hypocrisies. In Poetaster, popular literary standards and practices are attacked. The Alchemist and Bartholomew Fair assail the Puritans; The Devil is an Ass and The Staple of News satirize popular obsessions with grandiose schemes for gain. To carry out their revolt against convention, Aristophanes and Jonson do not imitate, but freely create life in their imaginary worlds.® Their characters move in an environment, where the • Piatt, pp. 55-59. ' Renaissance and Elizabethan literary criticism recognizes and approves the creation of an ideal world by the poets. Scaliger advocates the substitution of the world of art instead of life as an object of poetic imitation; and Puttenham asserts that the poet is like God, in that he forms a world out of nothing: Spingam, pp. 134, 264. Sidney says that the poet's artificial world is superior to that of nature, for "Her world is brasen, the Poets only deliuer a golden": Gregory Smith, ed., Elizabethan Critical Essays, 2 vols. (Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1904), II, 156.

34

THE INVERTED WORLDS OF TWO COMIC DRAMATISTS

taboos and inhibitions of civilization are suspended or removed. In this Atlantis, a dream- or play-world, both characters and spectators live for a brief period. If the illusion is to be successful, the audience must have sufficient culture to maintain an artistic attitude toward what is presented on the stage. In addition, the imaginary world must be so completely topsy-turvy that it cannot be confused with the real one of everyday life.7 Thus there are demands on both audience and playright, if the masquerade is not to fail. Fail it does, on certain occasions; and blame for the failure falls sometimes on the artist, and sometimes on the audience. Jonson, for example, complains of spectators who cannot maintain the proper artistic attitude and who read non-existent things into a play. Such obtuse or hypercritical persons, he says, "make a libell, which he made a play" (Epicoene, Prologue II, 14). So far as Aristophanes is concerned, he is charged by Socrates with having circulated, in the Clouds, certain unfair and untrue views of the Greek philosopher that years later led to his arrest. 8 This charge suggests two conclusions. Aristophanes may have created in the Clouds a dream-world which was too much like the Athens of his day, or the audience may have misinterpreted his caricature of Socrates and considered it a portrait. Thus the danger of confusing the real world with the dramatic one always exists, largely because certain elements are usually common to both. The inverted environments of Aristophanes and Jonson are, nevertheless, primarily artistic fantasies. This fact is apparent in the plays of both poets, and especially obvious in the comedies of Aristophanes, which are scenic allegories or Titanic farces, in which the world is toned upside down.® Their similarity to reality is, therefore, frequently misleading and deceptive. Inversion of normal values, which cannot occur unless the actual world is borne in mind, is customary in the comedies of Aristophanes. For example, the Plutus, from which Jonson is believed ' John Young Thomson Greig, The Psychology of Laughter and Comedy (London, George Allen & Unwin, 1923), p. 99. 8 Plato, Apology of Socrates and Crito, ed. Louis Dyer, rev. by Thomas Day Seymour (Boston, Ginn & Company, 1908), p. 43. • Symonds, Greek Poets, Π, 153.

THE INVERTED WORLDS OF TWO COMIC DRAMATISTS

35

to have borrowed and adapted freely, is an allegory which represents a universe turned upside down by the distribution of wealth. The real ruler of this topsy-turvy world is not Zeus, as men have long believed, but Plutus. It is true that the god of wealth has become blind and ragged through the hostility of Zeus, but this fact does not alter the situation. All men have become slaves of gain. For this reason, Plutus is more powerful than Zeus, who rules the other gods only by wealth. The power of Plutus is so great that, as Chremylus tells him, no man would sacrifice anything to the gods if he were not willing.10 Therefore the usual objects of worship have been replaced by false gods or idols, who owe their deification to an inversion of customary values. Wealth is now adored as a deity, and the former ruler of the universe is dethroned. There is similar inversion of religious values in Jonson's inverted world. It is the essence of his satire of avarice, for Jonson portrays men who are so crazed by their lust for wealth that they worship gold as a god. Consider, for example, the dark comedy of Volpone. In this play, Jonson, in order to dramatize the discrepancy between what men claim to worship, and what they actually revere, turns normal conditions upside down. Under such circumstances, the deity of Volpone's world is not the God whom centuries of Christian tradition have made supreme. He is, on the contrary, the same pagan god of riches whom men had worshipped long before, in the Plutus. Volpone makes this clear when he applies to gold the terms of worship that are customarily restricted to the Deity, or to the saints of the Christian religion: 11 Good morning to the day; and, next, my gold: Open the shrine, that I may see my saint. Haile the worlds soule, and mine. More glad then is The teeming earth, to see the long'd-for sunne Peepe through the homes of the celestiall ram, Am I, to view thy splendor, darkening his: O, thou sonne of SOL "

Plutus, 127-142. Edward Bellamy Partridge, The Broken Compass (London, Chatto & Windus, 1958), pp. 72-73. 11

36

THE INVERTED WORLDS OF TWO COMIC DRAMATISTS

(But brighter then thy father) let me kisse, With adoration, thee, and euery relique Of sacred treasure, in this blessed roome. Deare saint, Riches, the dumbe god, that giu'st all men tongues: That canst doe nought, and yet mak'st men doe all things; The price of soules; euen hell, with thee to boot, Is made worth heauen! Thou art vertue, fame, Honour, and all things else! ( Volpone, I, i, 1-6; 10-13; 21-26). Here the traditional values of Christianity have been turned inside-out, and its basic symbols and principles have lost their meaning and force. Familiar, revered precepts, which stress the infinite worth of man's soul, and the abysmal worthlessness of riches, have been thoroughly perverted. Volpone has, indeed, so completely reversed common Christian doctrines, that he sacriligiously worships wealth as a god, and adores it as a saint. The base dogmas of Volpone emphasize, not the immeasurable worth of the human soul, but its calculated inferiority to gold. The glittering metal is, in fact, "the price of soules". For it, man risks perdition, since it transforms hell into heaven. It is not only all-powerful; it is also worth more than virtue, fame, honor, and everything else besides. Sentiments like these represent both a destruction of normal objects of worship, and a replacement of them by their antitheses. Yet Volpone's apotheosis of gold is quite to be expected in a topsy-turvy world; and, shocking as it may be from the Christian viewpoint, it is absolutely consistent with the conditions of an environment in which avarice, rapacity, lust and cupidity are dominant. What the real world despises, or, at least, customarily pretends to despise, is the highest good in an artificial universe, where customary values are completely inverted. The inversion is not limited to matters of theology; normal standards for judging character are also reversed in the dreamworlds of Aristophanes and Jonson. It is a truism that the everyday world entertains general opinions concerning individual worth, and tends to measure a man's goodness by those criteria. A person who is dishonest, untruthful, or morally depraved, is regarded as bad, and shunned by respectable people. Men make

THE INVERTED WORLDS OF TWO COMIC DRAMATISTS

37

mistakes, of course, in judging others, and are frequently led to praise a scoundrel who is exceptionally successful in concealing his misdeeds. But such instances do not negate the existence and validity of established norms forjudging human conduct. Comedy, in fact, recognizes these standards when it extracts mirth from the incongruity of such mistakes. Both Aristophanes and Jonson not only recognize this incongruity, but they work diligently to create it. They do so by inverting the customary standards for judging human character. The result is magnification of individuals usually considered despicable, and degradation of others whom society delights to honor. A good example occurs in the Knights. Cleon, the highest public official in Athens, the type of politician to whom the normal world pays its homage, is subjected to gross humiliation and abuse. On the other hand, a vulgar and unlettered tradesman, a seller of sausages, eventually supplants Cleon. When told by Demos that he is to oust the tyrant and become a very great man, the peddler asks for reasons behind his meteoric rise to fame. The answer, Demos tells him, lies in his very vulgarity: "because you are a rogue from the market-place, and impudent". When he protests that he has no education beyond the alphabet, and knows even it imperfectly, he learns that it would be better if he knew no letters at all: "For the character of leader no longer belongs to an educated man, nor to one of good moral character, but to the ignorant and reprehensible." Moreover, he possesses all the other requirements for a demagogue: a foul tongue, vulgar birth, and low character. "You have", Demos tells him, "everything needful for statesmanship." 12 Obviously a cultured and discriminating citizenry, like that of Athens, would never choose such a blackguard as its leader; but the inhabitants of Aristophanes' world are not normal Athenians. They are travesties of rational human beings, and their standards are ordinary ones turned inside-out. So completely are these criteria reversed that the characters of Old Comedy are often more bestial than human. Jonson also degrades men to the level of beasts. Nothing is "

Knights, 180-181; 190-193; 217-219.

38

THE INVERTED WORLDS OF TWO COMIC DRAMATISTS

more apparent than the extraordinary animal characteristics of his men and women. To a degree reminiscent of Aristophanes, he has portrayed men who are as crafty as foxes, as voracious as swine, and as rapacious as wolves. In Volpone the principal figures are all greedy, cunning, addicted to plunder and pillage. In The Alchemist, nearly all the characters are involved in schemes of rapacity and cupidity. They are so blinded by avarice that they pay perverted homage to a despicable rascal, Subtle. Their ethical standards are therefore those of beasts. They basely admire what satisfies their own base natures. To the wicked and voluptuous Mammon, Subtle is the embodiment of holiness and humility: to the ignorant and devout Ananias, he is all learning and science.13 Similar perversion of judgment occurs when the strumpet, Doll, addresses Face and Subtle as "gentlemen" and, individually as "Soueraigne" and "Generali" (I, i, 2, 4). This is magnification of the contemptible, as is Doll's promotion to "Queene of Fairy" (V, iv, 65). Low, coarse, and abominable individuals receive lofty titles in a world that reverses normal standards to honor its inferior inhabitants. In similar fashion, estimable figures are degraded and humiliated in the inverted worlds of Aristophanes and Jonson. The degradation of Cleon in Aristophanes' Knights has numerous parallels in Jonson. For instance, Justice Overdo, a staid Puritan justice, an incarnation of gravity and wisdom, disguises himself as a madman, and prowls the darker corners of a fair. An ironic touch is given to the incongruity of his appearance when the justice mutters, "They may haue seene many a foole in the habite of a Iustice; but neuer till now, a Iustice in the habit of a foole" {Bartholomew Fair, II, i, 7-9). His disguise, moreover, plays but a small element in his degradation. After Coke's purse is stolen by Edgeworth, it is Overdo who is suspected of the theft, given a sound beating by Waspe, and insulted as "the Patriarch of the cutpurses" (II, vi, 147). Mad developments like this occur easily in a world turned upside-down. In fact, much of the richest humor of Jonson resides in the values, characters, and irrational conditions of a fantastic environment. 18

Upton, p. 112.

THE INVERTED WORLDS OF TWO COMIC DRAMATISTS

39

In a world peopled with men and women who are unregenerate, sensual, selfish, and almost bestial, it would be surprising if their education were normal. In fact, educational institutions and processes in Aristophanes and Jonson are just as inverted and topsy-turvey as everything else. Schools and their curricula are organized for perverted objectives. They give direction to man's craftiness and cunning, and prepare vulgar people for the society of others as loathsome as themselves. In attacking the Sophists, Aristophanes satirizes their educational principles and theories. Strepsiades, for example, goes to the school of Socrates to receive the education of a scoundrel. He asks for a thoroughly useful and practical education, so that he may seem bold to men, and be of a glib tongue, audacious, impudent, without shame, a maker of falsehoods, an inventor of words, a skillful scoundrel in law, a law-tablet, a thorough rattle, a fox, a swindler, a treacherous rascal, a dissembler, an imposter, a rogue that deserves the cat-o'-ninetails, a blackguard, a twister, a vexatious fellow, and one who licks up hash.14 This is a knave's training, a perversion of normal education. Devoid of the cultural and moral features traditionally associated with the educative process, it is a caricature of formal schooling. Such training is, however, ideal for citizens who live in a society of vulgar, sensual, selfish, immoral, and predatory creatures. This is also the education that Jonson's characters seek and receive. They, like the people of Aristophanes, live in an environment of rampant boorishness. They know nothing of polished and refined society, which is impossible in a world populated by coarse and shallow pretenders to learning, fops devoted to fad and fashion, and ruffians who bluster and quarrel as a pastime. Solid and substantial education would be useless to them. Therefore, a quite different education, an inversion of the normal type, is provided for Jonson's characters. A young country squire, Kastril, with more money than judgment, makes his noisy appearance early in The Alchemist. He visits Doctor Subtle, because he wants to learn how to quarrel and take tobacco and, in general, be one "

Clouds, 444-451.

40

THE INVERTED WORLDS OF TWO COMIC DRAMATISTS

of the "angrie Boyes". He is assured by Face that he could have come to no better educational institution: FAC.

Sir, for the Duello,

The Doctor, I assure you, shall informe you, To the least shaddow of a haire: and shew you, An instrument he has, of his owne making, Where-with, no sooner shall you make report Of any quarrell, but he will take the height on't, Most instantly; and tell in what degree, Of saf'ty it lies in, or mortalitie.

And how it may be borne, whether in a right line

Or a halfe-circle; or may, else, be cast Into an angle blunt, if not acute·.

All this he will demonstrate. And then, rules, To giue, and take the he, by. KAS. How? to take it? FAC. Yes, in oblique, hee'll shew you; or in circle·. But neuer in diameter. The whole towne Studie his theoremes, and dispute them, ordinarily, At the eating Academies. KAS. But, do's he teach Liuing, by the wits, too? FAC. Any thing, what euer. You cannot thinke that subtiltie, but he reades it. He made me a Captaine. I was a starke pimp, lust o' your standing, 'fore I met with him: It i' not two months since.15 (Ill, iv, 25-46) Another foolish and affluent young man is educated as a singer of worthless songs. His exasperated guardian, Waspe, blames the tutors. His foolish scholemasters haue done nothing, but runne vp and downe the Countrey with him, to beg puddings, and cake-bread, of his tennants, and almost spoyled him, he has learn'd nothing, but to sing catches, and repeat rattle bladder rattle, a n d O, Madge.

I dare not let

him walke alone, for feare of learning of vile tunes, which hee will sing at supper, and in the sermon-times! (Bartholomew Fair, I, iv, 72-78) Still another young gull, Stephen, is an avid student of worthless subjects. He is eager to borrow "a booke of the sciences of hawking, and hunting." When his uncle, the elder Knowell, dismisses 16 Face's geometrical imagery appears to be adapted from a passage in Fletcher's Queen of Corinth, IV, i. The references to the proper manner of engaging in quarrels are based on contemporary books devoted to the subject. See Herford & Simpson, X, 96-97.

THE INVERTED WORLDS OF TWO COMIC DRAMATISTS

41

the idea as "most ridiculous," the simpleton rushes to the defense of the new education. Nay, looke you now, you are angrie, vncle: why you know, an' a man haue not skill in the hawking, and hunting-languages now a dayes, I'll not giue a rush for him. They are more studied then the Greeke, or the Latine. He is for no gallants companie without 'hem. (Every Man in His Humour, I, i, 40-44) Stephen is a diligent student of other subjects. To broaden his education, he struggles to master the affected oaths of the braggart soldier, Bobadill: "Oh, he sweares admirably! (by PHAROAH'S foot) (body of CAESAR) I shall neuer doe it, sure (vpon mine honor, and by Saint GEORGE) no, I ha' not the right grace" (III, v, 132-135). The elder Knowell speaks with contempt of such educational practices, and their pernicious effects on young men: We call them into fellowship of vice! Baite 'hem with the yong chamber-maid, to seale! And teach 'hem all bad wayes, to buy affliction! This is one path! but there are millions more, In which we spoile our owne, with leading them. Well, I thanke heauen, I neuer yet was he, That trauail'd with my sonne, before sixteene, To shew him, the Venetian cortezans. Nor read the grammar of cheating, I had made To my sharpe boy, at twelue: repeating still The rule, Get money, still, Get money, Boy; No matter, by what meanes; Money will doe More, Boy, then my Lords letter. Neither haue I Drest snailes, or mushromes curiously before him, Perfum'd my sauces, and taught him to make 'hem; (II, v, 39-53) The education of Kastrill, Cokes and Stephen, when judged by the standards of the actual world, is contemptible in its subjectmatter and despicable in its objectives. Like the intellectual discipline sought by Strepsiades among Socrates and his disciples, it is the systematic training of the young for careers as rogues, loafers, sharpers, fops, gluttons, and parasites. The realism of Aristophanes and Jonson is not easily produced

42

THE INVERTED WORLDS OF TWO COMIC DRAMATISTS

in a world of fantasy. It is the result of remarkable consistency and logic in systematically portraying madness as sanity, wickedness as goodness, and baseness as greatness. In the dream world of Aristophanes, ordinary points of view are so consistently ignored, and customary relations so completely reversed, that the chaos which a play of Aristophanes represents is harmonious and rational. It is, indeed, methodized madness with a sober meaning.18 In such respects, it bears close comparison to the comedy of Jonson, which excludes or distorts normal views and actions so completely that folly and stupidity become reasonable, orderly, and credible. Jonson's characters are methodical in their follies. They, like the people of Aristophanes, follow the most ridiculous premise to its ultimate, ludicrous, but logical conclusion. If they are fools, as they usually are, they are rational ones: and their conduct is wholly consistent with their character and outlook. It is, therefore, inevitable that this rationality and consistency should end in the triumph of evil. Once the real world has been annihilated and replaced by one in which raw, unsophisticated, and amoral human nature moves with perfect freedom, this result is assured. Indeed, logic demands that Aristophanes' plays should end with the victory and even the glorification of unrighteousness.17 It is the pattern of Old Comedy, and, with few exceptions, of Jonsonian comedy. Although most of the characters of Aristophanes are knavish, selfish, and wicked, it is significant that the rare persons of a better type always fare badly. Strepsiades, an unlettered rustic of mediocre mentality, is triumphant over Socrates, and burns down the Thinking-Shop (Clouds, 1502-1510). In another struggle of intelligence, a clever though unscrupulous demagogue, Cleon, is completely routed by a tradesman of base mind and contemptible origin (Knights, 998-1256). Of the contest between Aeschylus and Euripides {Frogs, 959 ff.), Gilbert Murray has said that Euripides' defense is a criticism of the intellectual by the plain man. 18 Similar instances may be cited in Jonson. In the majority of 16 17 18

Symonds, Greek Poets, II, 173. Piatt, p. 59. Aristophanes (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1933), p. 126.

THE INVERTED WORLDS OF TWO COMIC DRAMATISTS

43

cases, his rogues and rascals escape without any punishment at all. 19 There is no retribution awaiting any of the unholy trio of The Alchemist. The most clever and successful scoundrel of the three is Face, for he succeeds in his deception of his accomplices, and keeps all the loot for himself. Far from punishing him, Jonson uses him to regale the audience with a triumphant epilogue, and the play closes in the glare of victorious wickedness. My part a little fell in this last Scene, Yet 'twas decorum. And though I am cleane Got off, from SVBTLE, SVRLY, MAMMON, DOL, Hot ANANIAS, DAPPER, DRVGGER, all With whom I traded; yet I put my selfe On you, that are my countrey: and this pelfe, Which I haue got, if you doe quit me, rests To feast you often, and inuite new ghests. (V, v, 158-165) In this play, so Aristophanic in its conclusion, with evil completely triumphant, Surly is the only person with a spark of decency about him. H e could hardly have faxed worse in Old Comedy. His moral principles actually get in his way. He refuses to seduce Dame Pliant, and tries to expose the rascality of Subtle, Face, and Doll. These considerations he places before the rich widow whom he would like to marry: Lady, you see into what hands, you are falne; Mongst what a nest of villaines! and how neere Your honor was t'haue catch'd a certain clap (Through your credulitie) had I but beene So punctually forward, as place, time, And other circumstance would ha' made a man: I claime some interest in your loue. You are, They say, a widdow, rich: and I am a batcheler, Worth nought: Your fortunes may make me a man, As mine ha' preseru'd you a woman. Thinke vpon it, And whether, I haue deseru'd you, or no. (IV, vi, 1-6; 11-15) Ordinary standards of justice would award the rich widow to Surly. Since every standard is inverted in Jonson's world, however, Surly loses her to Love-Wit, who has no claim on her at all. He " The notable exception is Volpone. In this play, Jonson punishes vice so severely that the play becomes more of a tragedy than a comedy.

44

THE INVERTED WORLDS OF TWO COMIC DRAMATISTS

also receives a torrent of abuse from Kastril, the widow's brother, who is eager to test his newly-acquired skill in quarrelling. Surly's misfortunes are like those of another Jonsonian character who is diligent in doing good, and who strives to protect the virtue of others. Justice Overdo makes himself the guardian of a young fellow who, he fears, will be tainted by bad company. He works hard at his self-appointed task, and gladly endures humiliation and insult to accomplish it. In the end, however, he reaps nothing but discomfiture and ridicule for his efforts. Quarlous discloses the true state of affairs: Sir, why doe you not goe on with the enormity? are you opprest with it? I'le helpe you: harke you Sir, i' your eare, your Innocent young man, you haue tane such care of, all this day, is a Cutpurse; that hath got all your brother Cokes his things, and help'd you to your beating, and the stocks; (Bartholomew Fair, V, vi, 73-78) The good Justice accepts the disclosure in a remarkable spirit of toleration. He even gives a typically Aristophanic ending to the play, for not only are none of the rascals punished, but the Justice is their host for a good meal: "I inuite you home, with mee to my house, to supper: I will haue none feare to go along, for my intents are Ad correctionem, non ad destructionem; Ad aedificandum, non ad diruendum: so lead on" (V, vi, 110-113). Closing scenes like this are characteristic of Old Comedy. Other endings, of the Elizabethan type, change its nature entirely, and turn it into something different. An example is provided by the Plutus, in which Aristophanes makes all the just people rich and reduces the unjust to indigence. Such developments are completely inconsistent with the character of Old Comedy, and the Plutus is therefore an essentially modern play. When it is compared with Aristophanes' other comedies, its features, which are those of Middle and New Comedy, set it apart. The Plutus is indeed a singularly un-Aristophanic comedy, like Jonson's Volpone, which it resembles in its punishment of evil. Both dramas are basically Elizabethan, even though they retain certain of the distinguishing characteristics of Old Comedy. One of these features is obscenity, which, in the comedies of Aristophanes and Jonson, is as difficult to ignore as it is easy to

THE INVERTED WORLDS OF TWO COMIC DRAMATISTS

45

misunderstand. This element of Old Comedy is frequently cited in ridicule of its moral pretensions. The social benefit of Aristophanes' ribald jokes and obscene buffoonery is often questioned, and his claims to be a purifier and reformer of the state are dismissed as insincere and hypocritical.20 On the other hand, Jonson's plays are said to be frequently coarse, nasty and even prurient, while those of Aristophanes are not.21 Views like these indicate that the obscenity of Aristophanes and Jonson is easily misunderstood.

10 Edward Capps, From Homer to Theocritus (New York, Scribners, 1912), p. 140. " John Addington Symonds, Ben Jonson (London, Longmans, Green & Co., 1886), p. 64: Greek Poets, II, 163.

IV THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

A definition of obscenity and indecency should precede any discussion of these elements in the comedies of Aristophanes and Jonson. The terms are loosely employed, their interpretation is subjective and emotional, and their meanings are accordingly ambiguous. Thus what one person considers obscene or indecent may represent the noblest art to another. A definition satisfactory to everyone is, therefore, impossible to find, but a useful one, employed in this discussion, has been offered by a psychologist. He suggests that By the obscene should be understood the directly sexual exposed against resistance, and by the indecent, the indirectly sexual exposed against resistance. ... A joke is obscene which calls attention to any part of the directly sexual process which is usually not spoken of, and a joke is indecent which calls attention to an excretory process which is not usually spoken of.1 The "resistance" mentioned by this writer includes modesty, standards of good taste, and proprieties customary in civilized society. By using this definition as a guide, numerous examples of obscenity and indecency have been collected from the works of Aristophanes and Jonson. The obscenities will be considered first. Before they are examined, a few observations should be made concerning the general nature of the improprieties. Although they are often bold and candid, they are not as completely uninhibited as they at first appear, and as criticism has often de1

Greig, p. 180.

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

47

scribed them. There is small justification for saying of Aristophanes that "There is no kind or aspect of impropriety that cannot be found in his surviving work".2 It is equally misleading to assert that "No sense of decency, no shadow of the proprieties, ever restrained the genial humor of Aristophanes". 3 Views like these are based on theories of the Dionysiac origins of Old Comedy.4 By over-emphasizing its background, some critics distort the nature and extent of its offenses against good taste. Thus it is implied that Aristophanes, in his eagerness to fill his comedies with scatalogical and prurient material, flouts every consideration of decency and propriety. In much the same way, Jonson is often criticized harshly for his coarseness and nastiness, and is accused of using sewage as ink for the composition of some of his more lurid passages.5 It is not surprising, therefore, that, in the view of many readers and critics, both Jonson and Aristophanes outraged public taste by freely presenting on the stage the most raw and disgusting material imaginable. This opinion is not supported by facts. Naked smut and uninhibited obscenity have always been highly unsuitable for use on the comic stage. They were not employed even by Aristophanes, who enjoyed complete freedom in his choice of subject matter. He nevertheless had the reaction of his audience to consider. This kept him from representing crude, revolting obscenities and indecencies on the stage. Like all other dramatists, Aristophanes realized that the rawest, most nauseating material can appeal only to the basest persons in an audience. The greater part of the spectators are repelled and revolted by it. However, since lewd and coarse jests and allusions offer a rich source of laughter to the comic artist, he has been understandably reluctant to forego their use. He works, therefore, to polish and refine matter that is ordinarily offensive and repulsive. By clever phraseology and witty turns of speech, he often renders the most obscene joke 2

Norwood, 307. Wright, 303. 4 A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy (Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1927), pp. 329-335. ' Smith, Ben Jonson, 239. 8

48

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

palatable to a refined and cultured audience. A notable example of this comic technique is offered by Freud.® He relates that a Viennese artist once said, "A wife is an umbrella; at worst, one may also take a cab." Some effort is required to understand the metaphors and appreciate the cleverness of this witticism. It represents the complete transmutation of an extremely indelicate suggestion. Few men could have enjoyed the remark in a form like this: "If you are not satisfied with your wife, you may always go to a prostitute." However, when the thought, repulsive and obscene as it is, has been rephrased to conceal its grossness, it is no longer a crude, revolting suggestion. It has been transformed into a clever and artistic jest, worthy of a refined and sophisticated audience. A similar technique for polishing coarse and disgusting material may be observed in Aristophanes and Jonson. They clothe their obscenities and indecencies in wit, so that laughter instead of disgust is aroused among the spectators. Both dramatists are fond of using puns for this purpose. Some of Aristophanes' obscene puns are probably undetected because the pronunciation of Attic Greek is unknown today, but many have been identified. One of the best examples occurs in the Acharnians. A starving Megarian, having disguised his two daughters as pigs, attempts to sell them to Dicaeopolis. The word χοίρος, which frequently occurs during the conversation between the Megarian and his customer, has two meanings. To Dicaeopolis, who understands it in the common sense of "pig" or "young porker", it has a quite innocent signification. To the seller, the word is a coarse term for the female genitalia. The Megarian's remarks, therefore, are more like those of a pander than a farmer, but Dicaeopolis is unaware of this fact. When he innocently persists in interpreting the sales talk in a most innocuous sense, the result is incongruity and laughter. Δι. Δι. •

τουτί τί ή ν τό πραγμα; Με. χοίρος ναι Δία. τί λέγεις σύ; ποδαπή δή 'στι χοίρος; Με. Μεγαρικά. ή ού χοίρος έσθ* δδ'; Δι. ουκ εμοιγε φαίνεται.

Greig, 95.

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

49

Με. ού ου αί ai

δεινά; θασθε τώδε τάς άπιστίας. φατι τάνδε χοΐρον εΐμεν. άλλά μάν, λζς, περίδου μοι περί θυμιτιδαν άλών, μή 'στιν ούτος χοίρος Έλλάνων νόμφ. Δι. κέρκον ουκ εχει. Με. νεαρά γάρ έστιν. άλλά δελφακουμένα έξεΐ μεγάλαν τε και παχεΐαν κήρυθράν. άλλ° ai τράφειν λτ]ς, άδε τοι χοίρος καλά. Δι. ώς ξυγγενής ό κύσθος αυτής θατέρςι. Με. όμοματρία γάρ έστι κήκ τωύτώ πατρός, ai δ' äv παχυνθη κάναχνοιανθχ) τριχί, κάλλιστος εσται χοίρος Άφροδίτςι θύειν. Δι. άλλ' ουχί χοίρος τάφροδίτη θύεται. Με. ού χοίρος 'Αφροδίτη; μόνςι γα δαιμόνων, και γίνεται γα τανδε ταν χοίρων τό κρής άδιστον αν τόν όδελόν έμπεπαρμένον.7 (767-773; 785-796)

In this scene, the obscenity, though prominent, is not repulsive. There are clever allusions to the female genitalia as "a pig after the manner of the Greeks"; sly references are made to physical characteristics usually left unmentioned; and there is a witty reference concerning the sacrifice to Venus of χοίρος. This is the most obscene part of the entire episode.8 Jonson's puns are often as subtle and clever as those of Aristophanes. They soften the coarsest and most prurient allusions, and render them acceptable to the audience. Today some of his puns are as elusive as Aristophanes', because changes have taken place in the meanings of several words, and they no longer have their indelicate, seventeenth-century significance. On the whole, however, obscenity changes little from one age to another, and most of Jonson's lewd puns may be detected with relative ease. In the obscene show enacted for Volpone by a dwarf, an hermaphrodite, and a eunuch, a long and licentious speech is delivered ' This quotation from the Greek text of Aristophanes is taken from the edition of F. W. Hall and W. M. Geldart, Aristophanis Comoediae, 2 vols. (Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1900). The same edition is used for all other Greek passages quoted. • For other obscene puns in Aristophanes, see Lysistrata, 90-91, 735-737, 937; Frogs, 66-67; Clouds, 652; Knights, 79-80; Thesmophoriazusae, 61-62; Ecclesiazusae, 1102-1103.

50

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

by the dwarf. He uses several terms that have double meanings, and plays particularly on "piece" and "toss": 9 From PYTHAGORE, shee went into a beautifull peece, Hight ASPASIA, the meretrix; and the next tosse of her Was, againe, of a whore, shee became a Philosopher, CRATES the Cynick: (Volpone, I, ii, 18-21)

A subtle, but highly obscene pun of the same type occurs in the discussion which Face and Subtle engage in concerning the disposition of Dame Pliant. As they prepare to draw lots to determine her future, Face exclaims, A wife, a wife, for one on'vs, my deare SVBTLE: Wee'll eene draw lots, and he, that failes, shall haue The more in goods, the other has in taile. {The Alchemist, Π, vi, 85-87)

There is play here on the meanings of "tail". The word was, in Jonson's day and for at least a century afterwards, a respectable legal term often employed in litigation and discussion concerning wills. Its particular application was the limitation of an inheritance to certain descendants. The term also had another crude, obscene meaning which has endured to the present, as a synonym for the female genitalia.10 In the same comedy, other obscene puns are employed by Face, when he urges the prostitute to prepare herself for the conquest of another gull. 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. (Ill, iii, 66-70)

"Firke" is an obsolete word, still occasionally employed, however, meaning "to move quickly" or "to be lively or frisky". In Jonson's day, it was also one of the terms of the pseudo-science, alchemy. In the passage under consideration, there is a play on its pronunciation, which closely resembles that of a coarse, four-letter word • For another lewd pun of this type, see The Magnetic Lady, V, ii, 26-28. 10 Partridge, p. 143.

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

51

still in use today. The word-play is in harmony with Face's admonition to Dol to "tickle him with thy mother-tongue". Ingenious, subtle, but nevertheless unmistakable, these puns are as obscene as any of Aristophanes. Less obvious to readers of today, but completely clear to audiences of the seventeenth century, is the term "occupy". Jonson frequently uses it for purposes of broad humor. It has been established that this word, so innocuous to modern ears, was once one of the most obscene expressions in the English language.11 As a coarse synonym for sexual intercourse, particularly of the illicit variety, it was widely employed until late in the nineteenth century.12 Jonson seems to be especially fond of it. There is a play on its double meaning in the conversation of Amorphus with Asotus: "You lay wait before, preoccupie the chambermaide, corrupt her, to return false colours" (Cynthia's Revels, V, ii, 52-53). Another instance of its use occurs in the description Lovel gives of Stuffe, the tailor. He delights in having intercourse with his wife while she remains fully dressed in a gown commissioned by a lady of high rank. Lovel terms him "The very figure of preoccupation/In all his customers best clothes" (The New Inn, IV, iii, 79-82).13 Jonson thus found puns highly useful for disguising and softening indecorous material. Both he and Aristophanes, however, frequently make more candid and direct references to sexual matters. For example, they occasionally give suggestive names to characters. Aristophanes forms an obscene proper name, Orthagoras, from όρθός, "straight", and έγείρω, "to raise up". It occurs in a lewd lyrical passage in which a young woman cyn11

Allen Walker Read, "An Obscenity Symbol", American Speech, IX (1934), pp. 264-267. u As late as 1853, William James Hickie used this word in his translation of an obscene passage (Ecclesiazusae, 37-40), where the verb έλαύνω, "to drive", is used as a synonym for βινώ, which in Aristophanes always denotes illicit intercourse: The Comedies of Aristophanes, 2 vols. (London, Henry G. Bohn, 1853), II, 618. 13 Jonson also employs this word in its coarser sense in The Magnetic Lady, V, iii, 25-28; The Underwood, XLII, "An Elegie", 37-40; Epigrammes, CXVII, "On Groyne", 2.

52

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

ically suggests that her aged competitor for a young man's affections would fare better if she summoned a male prostitute. 'αλλ' ώ μαΐ' ίκετεύομαι, κάλει τόν Όρθαγόραν, δπως σαυτής κατόναι', άντιβολδ» σε. (Εcclesiazusae, 915-918) A similar name for a male whore is formed from βινεΐν, a verb which in Aristophanes always denotes illicit intercourse. A young man, ridiculing an old and lecherous woman, says that her lover is Sebinus. Νε. Άναφλύστιον ζητών τιν' άνθρωπον. Γρ. τίνα; Νε. ού τόν Σεβΐνον, δν συ προσδοκάς ίσως. (Ecclesiazusae, 979-980) The first word in this passage is also an obscene name, which Aristophanes has coined from the verb άναφλάω, "to masturbate". A final example may be cited from the Wasps, 1396-1397, where a coarse girl is named Μυρτία. Aristophanes has derived this name from μύρτον, used in vulgar conversation to denote the female pudendum. Mock proper names with suggestive allusions are also found in Jonson. In Volpone, the names of the eunuch, Castrone, and the hermaphrodite, Androgyno, may be cited as examples. In Epicoene, the cognomens of the heroine and of Lady Centaur suggest that the two women have masculine characteristics. Doll Common is a prostitute in The Alchemist, and the name of Lady Tailbush in The Devil Is an Ass is colored by obscenity, since it contains a play on the coarse sexual meaning of "tail". Specific mention of copulation is frequent in Aristophanes and Jonson. Lysistrata contains numerous frank, humorous and obscene references to the sexual act. In one notable scene, the women swear a long oath, binding them to deprive their husbands of conjugal rights until they desist from war. The oath is so involved that the women even describe their favorite positions during intercourse. Κα. οΰ πρός τόν δροφον άνατενώ τώ Περσικά. Λυ. οΰ στήσομαι λέαιν' έπί τυροκνήστιδος. (230-231)

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

53

In the same comedy, Aristophanes verges upon the actual stage presentation of the sexual union. All preparations for the act are made. Myhrrhina, following Lysistrata's instructions, tantalizes her sex-starved mate almost to madness. She uses numerous pretexts to frustrate her husband, and finally leaves him ludicrously unsatisfied. The baffled man then calls for celestial assistance. In a lewd, lyrical prayer, he implores Zeus to catch up his wife in a whirlwind, carry her aloft, and finally release her to land astride his erect penis. μιαρά δήτ' ώ Ζεϋ ώ Ζεϋ. εΐθ' αύτήν ώσπερ τους θωμούς μεγάλφ τυφφ και πρηστήρι ξυστρέψας και ξυγγογγύλας οΐχοιο φέρων, είτα μεθείης, ή δέ φέροιτ' αδ πάλιν ές τήν γήν, κφτ' έξαίφνης περί τήν ψωλή ν περιβαίη.

(972-979)

Jonson's allusions to the sexual act are sometimes coarse, nasty and offensive. Often, however, they are, like those of Aristophanes, poetically-phrased, and their obscenity is not immediately apparent. Volpone's passionate appeal to Celia, a chaste woman whom he is eager to dishonor, is an example. Thy bathes shall be the iuyce of iuly-flowres, Spirit of roses, and of violets, The milke of vnicornes, and panthers breath Gather'd in bagges, and mixt with Cretan wines. Our drinke shall be prepared gold, and amber; Which we will take, vntill my roofe whirle round With the vertigo: and my dwarfe shall dance. My eunuch sing, my foole make vp the antique. Whil'st, we, in changed shapes, act OVIDS tales, Thou, like EVROPA now, and I like IOVE, Then I like MARS, and thou like ERYCINE, So, of the rest, till we haue quite run through And weary'd all the fables of the gods. Then will I haue thee in more moderne formes, Attired like some sprightly dame of France Braue Tuscan lady, or proud Spanish beauty; Sometimes, vnto the Persian Sophies wife; Or the grsnd-Signiors mistresse; and, for change,

54

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

To one of our most art-full courtizans, Or some quick Negro, or cold Russian; And I will meet thee, in as many shapes; Where we may, so, trans-fuse our wandring soules, Out at our lippes, and score vp summes of pleasures. {Volpone, ΠΙ, vii, 212-235) In commenting on this ecstatic, erotic speech, one critic says that its last two lines constitute "one of the grossest images that even Volpone uses. ... But the most obscene part of the image is that, by the transfusions, they can 'score vp summes of pleasures'. In other words, they can record their orgasms by the number of times their 'fast and loose' souls are transferred". 14 Less subtle than the preceding, but ingeniously worded, nevertheless, is a tantalizing description of Doll, the prostitute, whom Face uses to entice the lecherous Mammon. She is, he says, the most affablest creature, sir! so merry! So pleasant! shee'll mount you vp, like quick-siluer, Ouer the helme; and circulate, like oyle, A very vegetall: (The Alchemist, II, iii, 253-256) In this passage, terms taken from alchemy describe the lascivious acts of a strumpet; thus fornication is garnished with the jargon of a pseudo-science. In the same comedy, as preparations are made for plundering another gull, Face says of Doll that "shee must milke his Epididimis". (Ill, iii, 22). The coarse sense of "milke", common even today as a synonym for inordinate profittaking in business, is here used with a medical term to form an obscene, jocose allusion to illicit intercourse. 15 A final illustration of Jonson's frank mention of the sexual act is taken from Bartholomew Fair. This is a comedy of very low life indeed. In it, the language of gutters and brothels is heard almost constantly. One of the play's coarser characters, Quarlous, sneers at the obesity of the pig-woman, Ursula. He compares her pudendum to a swamp, into which it is perilous to venture. qvar. Is shee your quagmire, Dan: Knockhutril is this your Bogge? nig. We shall haue a quarrel presently. kno. How? Bog? Quagmire? foule vapours! hum'h! " Partridge, pp. 95-96. 15 Ibid., pp. 144-145.

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

55

QVAR. Yes, 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. WIN. And then he would be a fort'night weighing vp againe. QVAR. 'Twere like falling into a whole Shire of Butter: they had need be a teeme of Dutchmen, should draw him out. (Π, v, 90-101) Obscenity in Aristophanes and Jonson also takes the form of references to sexual perversion. Many references to homosexuality are found in Aristophanes, and a few are also encountered in Jonson. Aristophanes constantly laughs at male perversion, and often ridicules contemporary Athenians who are sexual deviates. A notorious homosexual, Cleisthenes, of feminine appearance and habits, is frequently pilloried, and even has a prominent part in the Thesmophoriazusae. Another contemporary figure, Agathon, the host of Plato's Symposium, and a poet of merit, is derided for his feminism.1® The Athenian vice of keeping boys for erotic purposes is often mentioned by Aristophanes. In one instance, children who engage in such unnatural practices are criticized, not for their debased moral character, but for their avarice. The better sort, it is said, do not ask for money, while others behave like Corinthian prostitutes. Xp. καΐ τάς γ' έταίρας φασί τάς Κορινθίας, δταν μέν αυτάς τις πένης πειρών τύχη, ουδέ προσέχειν τόν voßv, έάν δέ πλούσιος, τόν πρωκτόν αύτάς ευθύς ώς τοϋτον τρέπειν. Κα. καί τούς γε παΐδάς φασι ταύτό τούτο δρ&ν ob τών έραστΦν άλλα τάργυρίου χάριν. Χρ. ού τούς γε χρηστούς, άλλά τούς πόρνους, έπει αίτοϋσιν ουκ άργύριον οί χρηστοί. (Plutus, 149-156) This depravity is portrayed as prevalent even among boys of the better classes. Small boys exhibit good breeding by taking precautions against exciting their lovers. Hence they carefully erase impressions of their bodies in the sand. Such modesty distinguished the pupils of former days, says the Just Cause, as he praises the old system of education. " Concerning Cleisthenes, see Knights, 1374, Birds, 831, and Thesmophoriazusae, 490. Agathon is mentioned in Thesmophoriazusae, 29, 49, 218, 249. In Frogs, 83, he is no longer living, and is said to be "a good poet, and mourned by his friends".

56

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

έν παιδοτρίβου δέ καθίζοντας τόν μηρόν έδει προβαλέσθαι τούς παΐδας, δπως τοις εξωθεν μηδέν δείξειαν άπηνές. είτ' αδ πάλιν αύθις άνιστάμενον συμψησαι, και προνοεΐσθαι εΐδωλον τοΐσιν έρασταΐσιν της ήβης μή καταλείπειν. ούδ' αν μαλακήν φυρασάμενος τήν φωνήν πρός τόν έραστήν αύτός έαυτόν προαγωγεύων τοις όφθαλμοίς έβάδιζεν. {Clouds, 973-976; 979-980) In contrast to Aristophanes' references to homosexuality, which are scattered throughout his comedies, Jonson's allusions to the subject are mostly concentrated in a single play, Epicoene. The title suggests its frankly sexual plot, and most of its characters are epicene.17 The masculine nature of the women who call themselves the Collegiates is particularly striking. Lady Centaur is the most vocative of the group, and her name suggests her composite nature. A woman in appearance, she behaves like a man. Her behavior, like that of her companions, leads Morose to stigmatize the group as a "mankind generation" (V, iv, 22). The sexual aggressiveness of the Ladies Collegiate is so mannish that three of them even solicit Dauphine, much to his disgust (V, ii, 52). The central figure of the comedy, Epicoene, is a boy, whose effeminate appearance deceives even the ladies of the College throughout the play. Another of the characters, La Foole, is also feminine in appearance and actions, for his speech resembles that of a woman. Finally there is Clerimont, a pervert who maintains a young boy for sexual purposes. He is capable, however, of normal though illicit sexual acts. Truewit hints at his double nature when he asserts that Clerimont is a man "that can melt away his time ... between his mistris abroad, and his engle at home" (I, i, 23-24). In this passage, "engle" has the same meaning as πόρνος, frequently used by Aristophanes to signify a catamite, or boy kept for unnatural purposes. A final example of Jonson's allusions to homosexuality may be cited. It occurs in one of the longer poems of The Underwood. What though with Tribade lust she force a Muse, And in an Epicoene fury can write newes 17

Partridge, p. 162.

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

57

Equally with that, which for the best newes goes, As aerie light, and as like wit as those? (An Epigram on the Court Pucell, 7-10)

These learned and polished lines refer to practices usually considered unmentionable in refined society. "Tribade" is a product of a mind familiar with Greek. The word is derived from τρίβας, which in ancient Greece denoted a woman who practised unnatural vice with herself or with other women. It is thus an obscene adjective. Jonson employs it to describe the perverted lust of a woman. She rapes a Muse, because, as her "Epicoene fury" indicates, she is homosexual. Despite the skill with which its indelicacy is expressed, this is one of Jonson's most obscene passages. The indecent, or indirectly sexual elements, in Aristophanes and Jonson may now be considered. For reasons not altogether clear, the indecencies of the two dramatists have attracted more hostile criticism than their obscenities. They have even led to the ridiculous classification of Jonson as an anal erotic, with a perverted delight in explosive bowel movements. 18 No one has yet suggested the same category for Aristophanes, perhaps because he is farther away from modern amateur psychiatry than Jonson. His references to excretory processes are just as frank as Jonson's and, on the whole, more humorous than his. One of Aristophanes' indecent passages concerns a great barbarian king who defecated for eight months on the Golden Mountains. This incident is related by an ambassador, who tells Dicaeopolis that the royal bowel movement delayed state business for a considerable period. Dicaeopolis, eager for additional details, asks how long it took the king to close his anus. Πρ. Ιτει τετάρτφ δ'ές τά βασίλει' ήλθομεν. άλλ' είς άπόπατον φχετο στρατιάν λαβών, κάχεζεν όκτώ μήνας έπί χρυσών δρών. Δι. πόσου δέ τόν πρωκτόν χρόνου ξυνήγαγεν; (Achamians, 18

80-83)

Edmund Wilson, "Morose Ben Jonson", The Triple Thinkers (New York, Oxford University Press, 1948), p. 218. The essay did not appear in earlier editions of this work. Wilson's views have been answered by Partridge, p. 16.

58

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

A discussion like this is grossly indecent, but it is more acceptable to a modern audience than some other portions of Old Comedy. On two occasions, the act of defecation is performed, or at least represented, on the stage. In the first instance, Blepyrus, after graphically describing the rumblings of his bowels, relieves himself in view of the audience.19 Xp. ούτος τί ποιείς; ουτι που χέζεις; Βλ. έγώ; ού δί|τ' έτι γε μά τόν Δί\ άλλ' άνίσταμαι. (Ecclesiazusae, 372-373) The second case involves ridicule of superstition in the state religion. The Greek priests often presided during the performance of senseless rituals, which Aristophanes frequently lampooned. At a certain point in these ceremonies, the priest would shout, "The libation has been poured; invoke the god!" The custom is caricatured by Aristophanes in an amusing but indecent scene. Dionysus suddenly loses control of his intestines when frightened by the angry Aeacus. In a parody of the libation ritual, he shouts, "I have defecated. Invoke the god!"20 Ξα. οδτος τί δέδρακας; Δι. έγκέχοδα. κάλει θεόν. (Frogs, 479) Jonson's references to such matters are neither so frequent nor so amusing as those of Aristophanes. The extreme indelicacy of his indecencies often destroys much of their humor. They are generally unpolished and gross, even when they occur in the tragedies. Examples from Sejanus are typical. Silius, sneering at a pair of hypocritical flatterers, says that they seek opportunities to laud Sejanus for quite contemptible accomplishments. They are, he says, constantly ready to praise His lordship, if he spit, or but pisse faire, Haue an indifferent stoole, or breake winde well. (I, i, 38-40) 19 Lever recognizes the extreme nature of this indecent act, and says that Dionysiac ribaldry does not excuse it, because "A good proportion of the indecency was as indecent in fifth-century Athens as it is today — the defecation on the stage of Blepyrus for example": Greek Comedy, p. 131. 20 Hickie, II, 551 (note).

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

59

In another scene, Sejanus endeavors to obtain information on certain noble women from Eudemus, their physician. When the doctor hesitates to provide the data, Sejanus cynically remarks: Why, sir, I doe not aske you of their vrines, Whose smel's most violet? or whose seige is best? Or who makes hardest faces on her stool? (I, ii, 304-306)

Critics have been practically unanimous in condemning the coarseness of passages like these. Criticism of many of Jonson's Epigrams has been especially sharp, and his most notorious excursion into coprology, Epigram CXXXIII, "On the Famous Voyage", has been repeatedly deplored.21 Often Jonson's indecencies seem dull and offensive because they have become simply hackneyed and commonplace. Subtle's remark to Surly is an example. When Surly, disguised as a Spanish nobleman, bows deeply before him, Subtle mutters, "Would you had stoup'd a little, and kist our anos" (IV, iii, 22). Today there is not much that is especially witty or clever in this remark, and others like it.22 Yet in Jonson's day they may have excited much laughter. The same may be true of Jonson's quite indelicate allusions to the eating of excrement. One instance of these improprieties occurs during the brawl between Face and Subtle. FAC. Sirrah, I'll strip you — SVB. What to doe? lick figs Out at my — FAC. Rogue, rogue, out of all your sleights. (The Alchemist, I, i, 3-4)

Similar crude humor appears in the impolite and highly insulting greetings of Waspe to the wife of Justice Overdo: "Mary gip, goody she-Iustice, Mistris French-hoodl turd in' your teeth; and turd i' your French-hoods teeth, too, to doe you seruice, doe you seel" (Bartholomew Fair, I, v, 15-17). Jonson's interest in cop-

rophagy is shared to some degree by Aristophanes, who, however, is much more artistic and witty in his treatment of the subject.23 21 See Herford & Simpson, I, 63; Π, 339; and Smith, who says, "Happily for his reputation, Jonson seldom dipped his quill in sewage, as he does in this last intolerable piece": Ben Jonson, pp. 239-240. 22 See The Alchemist, V, v, 57; Bartholomew Fair, V, iv, 134, 339-341. 23 Examples occur in Peace, 47-48; Plutus, 704-706. But, in fairness to Jonson, one should remember that the magnificent Greek verse of Aristophanes usu-

60

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

A less revolting subject, the breaking of wind, is frequently used for broad humor by both Aristophanes and Jonson. This indecent topic often turns up in Old Comedy, and Aristophanes has a number of verbs to describe it. Thus he not only uses the onamatopoeic verb, βδεΐν, but πέρδομαι, and its compounds, άποπέρδομαι and καταπέρδομαι. In almost every instance, Aristophanes' use of these verbs is clever, witty, and highly humorous. The subject is an indecent and indelicate one, but Aristophanes' treatment of it is never coarse. Two illustrations may be cited out of many available examples. The first is concerned with Aristophanes' repeated ridicule of Greek religion. The Greeks, a quite superstitious people, believed that a sneeze was a good omen if it happened on a person's right. Hence acts of reverence to the gods traditionally followed such an occurrence. Aristophanes parodies and ridicules this custom, in the course of his attack on Cleon. The vulgar Sausage-Seller relates that, while he was musing on important matters of state, a lewd fellow broke wind on his right. Therefore, the Sausage-Seller continues, he performed the act of reverence that usually followed a sneeze. ταϋτα φροντίζοντί μοι έκ δεξιδς άπέπαρδε καταπύγων άνήρ. κάγώ προσέκυσα. (Knights, 638-640) The same unlettered tradesman, the supplanter of Cleon, later tells Demos that Cleon's expressed desire to cheapen the price of silphium, whose juice the Greeks used for medical purposes, had a sinister motive behind it. According to the Sausage-seller, Cleon hoped that its cheapness would lead the dicasts to destroy one another by their own intestinal gas. έπίτηδες οδτος αυτόν εσπευδ' δξιον γενέσθαι, νν' έσθίοιτ' ώνούμενοι, κάπειτ' έν ήλιαίςι βδέοντες άλλήλους άποκτείνειαν οί δνκασταί. (Knights, 896-898) ally polishes the coarsest subject matter, and thus renders it acceptable to a refined audience. Because Jonson lacks the lyric genius of Aristophanes, his treatment of similar comic material is often infelicitous and, occasionally, even crude.

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

61

Jonson's references to this subject are often coarse and smutty. Occasionally, however, they contain humor reminiscent of Aristophanes, especially when Jonson employs them to ridicule absurdities. An example appears in Jonson's satire of newsmongering. When Princess Pecunia honors the office of the news staple with a royal visit, the latest dispatches are read to her. CLA. They write from Libtzig (reuerence to your eares) The Art of drawing farts out of dead bodies, Is, by the Brotherhood of the Rosie Crosse, Produc'd vnto perfection, in so sweet And rich a tincture — FIT. AS there is no Princesse, But may perfume her chamber with t\C extraction. P. Iv. There's for you, Princesse. P. Ca. What, a fart for her? P. Iv. I mean the spirit. (The Staple of News, III, ii, 97-104) The same ludicrous idea occurs in another comedy. Pug refers to it as he implores Satan to deliver him from the tortures of earthly existence. O, call me home againe, deare Chiefe, and put me To yoaking foxes, milking of Hee-goates, Pounding of water in a morter, lauing The sea dry with a nut-shell, gathering all The leaues are falne this Autumne, drawing farts Out of dead bodies, (The Devil is an Ass, V, ii, 1-6) Jonson creates similar Aristophanic ribaldry when he mentions the matter as a fit subject for poetry. Mammon, dreaming of vast riches, plans to employ poets who will give the topic the attention it deserves. And, my flatterers Shall be the pure, and grauest of Diuines, That I can get for money. My mere fooles, Eloquent burgesses, and then my poets, The same that writ so subtly of the fart, Whom 1 will entertaine, still, for that subiect. (The Alchemist, Π, ii, 59-64) These examples indicate that there is no problem in finding indecency and obscenity in Aristophanes and Jonson. It is much

62

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

more difficult, however, to explain the improprieties. Numerous explanations have been offered, but all are inadequate in some degree, and some are obviously quite unacceptable. For example, the suggestion is made that the Greeks lived in pristine, childlike innocence, without a sense of shame, and therefore utterly unaware of the gross obscenity and indecency of their comic stage.24 The answer to this theory is that it repudiates Greek culture. The Greeks were a highly-sophisticated people, and "As far as intelligence and discrimination are concerned, the Athenian audiences were probably superior to any audience of the same size which has ever been brought together."25 Had they not been cultured and world-wise, they could not have laughed at Aristophanes' buffooneries and broad humor. The Greeks, moreover, were so completely accustomed to the public display of the phallus during religious ceremonies, that its mere representation on the stage had small comic value. Therefore the comic artists had to exaggerate the size and color of the phallus to make it laughable.2® Thus the Greeks were not at all like innocent children, who do not laugh at obscenity because they lack an understanding of it. Greek audiences were familiar with obscenity and indecency, and recognized the discrepancy between impropriety and modest behavior and speech. That is why they found Aristophanes' ribaldry so funny. Another theory, similar to the one just discussed, attempts to explain the broad humor of Aristophanes and Jonson by a process of historical development. Its supporters claim that man's attitude toward ribaldry and buffoonery has become steadily more fixed and narrow. Thus the Athens of Aristophanes was more liberal in its attitude toward indecency and obscenity than the London of Jonson, and the twentieth century tolerates less improprieties than the seventeenth.27 This view is questionable, largely because 84

Symonds, Greek Poets, II, 161. See also Gilbert Murray, A History of Ancient Greek Literature (New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1897), pp. 292-293. " Arthur Elam Haigh, The Attic Theatre, 3rd ed., revised by A. W. PickardCambridge (Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1907), p. 346. " Greig, p. 82. 27 Ibid., p. 94.

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

63

evidence which supports it is both scanty and difficult to obtain. In judging the morality of an age, it is important to determine, not only the moral ideas it professed, but also the extent to which those ideals were realized.28 It is relatively easy to discover the former, but next to impossible to determine the latter. The actual achievement of moral ideals is limited by certain variable factors, such as the degree of secrecy which may accompany offenses against morality; the extent of laxity in the enforcement of the moral code; and the degree of public indifference or hostility toward the professed standards. These influences often force a society to tolerate, unwillingly enough, conditions and practices which its moral precepts strongly condemn. Thus the society with the strongest convictions concerning the evil of obscenity is not necessarily the one most free of it. It is, therefore, difficult to compare Aristophanes' and Jonsons' audiences, either with one another, or with those of other centuries, in a manner which will determine their relative toleration of improprieties. What seems reasonable to believe, however, is that the audiences of both dramatists probably differed little from those of other ages, in their capacity for laughter at the obscene and indecent.29 This is a quality deeply-rooted in human nature, and the processes of history appear to have affected it very little. A better, but not quite satisfactory answer, has been offered by a German critic, who suggests that the very principle of comedy explains Aristophanes' offenses against good taste.30 Comedy, by its nature, must make frequent realistic references to man's animal nature. This is what distinguishes it from tragedy. Comedy's wanton pictures of animal desire and fulfillment are therefore viewed as regrettable necessities. They involve many departures from good taste and occasional violations of decorum. a " William Edward Hartpole Lecky, History of European Morals From Augustus to Charlemagne, 2 vols. (New York, D. Appleton & Company, 1869), I, Introduction, vi. *· Jonson's bawdiness cannot be excused by the literary theories of his day. for "Muzio asserts that everything obscene or immoral must be excluded from poetry; and this puristic notion of art is everywhere emphasized in Renaissance criticism": Spingarn, Literary Criticism, p. 38. M Schlegel, p. 149.

64

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

Out of them is developed incongruity, the basis of mirth in Aristophanic comedy. This theory, while interesting and ingenious, is faulty in one significant respect. It fails to recognize the nature of the poet's topsy-turvy world. In the imaginative universe created by Aristophanes and Jonson, all normal restraints and inhibitions are suspended or abolished. What cannot be mentioned or displayed under normal conditions, therefore, may be freely discussed and exhibited in an ideal element. Hence the poetic world of Aristophanic comedy is incredibly obscene, and its moral features are thereby obscured. Since Aristophanes and Jonson repeatedly insist that their comedies perform functions of moral purification, their services to public morality should be noted. The first of these is a release from the stresses of civilization, which has been described as essentially a slavery.31 Its restrictions and pressures are very great, and any person living under civilized conditions, who imagines himself to be free, suffers from delusions. Countless inhibitions, laws, rules and taboos hinder him from achieving or even perceiving the freedom he often thinks he possesses. A vast body of frustrations thus weighs heavily on all citizens of civilized communities, and the resulting tension creates serious social problems. Comedy, in permitting some escape from these frustrations, makes a contribution to public morality. All comedy contains an element of psychological release, which is more prominent in ancient than in later drama. 32 By providing this release, comedy actually gives men a sort of moral holiday. It permits them to enjoy wholesale violation of society's moral laws and taboos, in a manner that will still permit the fabric of civilization to remain intact. If civilized persons are permitted occasionally to give themselves up to the instincts of the savage, and rejoice in all sorts of abominations, they find it easier to behave as members of a polite, cultivated and well-regulated society.33 Since the sexual, the obscene and the indecent are all repressed ,l

H. G. F. Spurrell, Modern Man and His Forerunners (London, G. Bell & Sons, 1917), pp. 90-96. 82 Murray, Aristophanes, p. 2. »» Piatt, p. 45.

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

65

and inhibited by civilized conditions, an innocent release of them through their unrestrained display in comedy, amounts to a moral catharsis. The second moral service is a revolt against convention. Tradition and custom are important features of civilization, for without them it would be in danger of disintegration. Both, however, create many of the moral and emotional ills of life. They give rise to deep resentment, anxiety, and discontent which affect even the best of citizens. In a civilized society, therefore, man lives constantly on the verge of revolt. Comedy permits him to revolt with impunity, for lying and stealing, if they suit one's purpose, are the natural things to do in Old Comedy. When danger threatens, it is proper to run away. Hence the typical heroes of Old Comedy are cowards and rascals.34 Naturally comedy's revolt against the constraints of civilization, and its overthrow of society's conventions and morality, lead to obscenity and indecency on an enormous scale. Yet the very presence in comedy of these improprieties has a good effect on public morals, and stabilizes the structure of society. These are not the only explanations for the obscenities and indecencies of Aristophanes and Jonson. One writer says that the buffooneries and ribaldries occur in comedy simply because they are so easy to use, and so certain to arouse laughter.36 This view also stresses the composite nature of the audience, and the necessity for providing material that would satisfy the spectators as a whole.36 A final theory stresses Old Comedy's didactic satire, which, it is claimed, explains the ribaldry and indecorum of many passages in Aristophanes and Jonson. It asserts that their plays require obscenity and indecency as foils to their almost oppressive satire. Jonson, like Aristophanes, wished to use very heavy matter in his plays; Aristophanic laughter, provided by broad humor, " Piatt, 49. " Greig, p. 94. " Lever says that, "Today, for the most part, those who like low comedy can find it in one playhouse; those who like high comedy can find it in another. The audience of fifth-century Athens was varied and Aristophanes offered a varied fare to please every palate — the coarsest buffoonery for some, the most delicate and subtle lyrics for another": Greek Comedy, p. 131.

66

THE OBSCENITIES AND INDECENCIES

was thus necessary if Jonson's material was to be given comic form.87 This view seems to offer at least a partial explanation of the improprieties in Aristophanes and Jonson. The best evidence for its support is the obvious satiric didacticism of the two dramatists. This feature, which their obscenity and indecency never entirely conceal, deserves consideration.

"

Baum, 158.

ν ARISTOPHANIC SATIRE AND DIDACTICISM IN JONSON'S COMEDY

It was not only in the plays of Aristophanes that Jonson found precedents for his didactic satire.1 Jonson himself suggests this when he refers to Volpone as a play which resembles Old Comedy in its "salt" content: [He] presents quick comoedie, refined, As best Criticks haue designed, The lawes of time, place, persons he obserueth, From no needfull rule he swerueth. All gall, and coppresse, from his inke, he drayneth, Onely, a little salt remayneth; Wherewith, he'll rub your cheeks, til (red with laughter) They shall looke fresh, a weeke after. (Volpone, Prologue, 29-36) The "best Criticks" to whom Jonson here refers are Italian ones, with whose writings he was familiar. Trissino (1563) asserted that the objective of comedy was moral. It concerned itself only with base things, for the sole purpose of scourging them. Likewise Minturno (1564) considered comedy to be the best of all correctives to the morals of mankind. These Italian views, which judged comedy by moral, not aesthetic standards, were popular in England, where they found expression in the works of Sidney.2 Jonson agreed with them, and believed human follies and vices to be the 1 Oscar James Campbell, however, disagrees with this view. He narrowly interprets Jonson's references to Vetus Comoedia to mean only the Old Comedy of Greece, and insists that it was the sole precedent for the satiric elements in Jonson's comedies: Comicall Satyre and Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida (San Marino, Californis, The Adcraft Press, 1938), pp. 4-6. See also Herford & Simpson, I, 376 and IX, 421. * Spingarn, Literary Criticism, pp. 101-106, 288-290.

68

SATIRE AND DIDACTICISM

proper themes of comedy, and their chastisement and removal its principal aims. Before Jonson's opinions are discussed in more detail, other possible sources for his didactic satire should be noted. He may have been influenced by the nature of the English drama, which, having been developed originally as a method for teaching moral truths, had traditionally been didactic in spirit.3 The works of Horace, which Jonson greatly admired, also may have offered precedents for Jonson's satire.4 Thus there were four sources from which Jonson could have received suggestions that comedy had a serious, moral function. They were the tradition of English drama, the opinions of Italian Renaissance critics, the works of Horace, and the comedies of Aristophanes. The principal precedents for the satiric and didactic elements in Jonson's comedies are found, however, in Aristophanes. There is nothing more characteristic of Old Comedy, in fact, than its judicial, satiric features. These are so prominent that the stage of Aristophanes is said to resemble a tribunal. 5 Moreover, these elements of Old Comedy were not merely its distinctive qualities. They were its essence. Once the comic poet lost his traditional freedom to act as a public censor, and could no longer criticize and ridicule freely, Old Comedy was doomed. Naturally it did not die overnight. Its satiric activity was restricted gradually; hence its poets worked for some time in a less negative and aggressive spirit than before. Finally, audiences deserted Old Comedy. They had grown tired of its violence, hyperboles, buffooneries and indecencies.® Thus, even during the lifetime of Aristophanes, his drama merged with the Middle Comedy and disappeared. The results are apparent in the Plutus. This play marks the end of an epoch. After the Plutus, no effort was made in Greece or Rome to imitate Aristophanes' militant satire and aggressive didacticism. Menander and his followers, Plautus and Terence, carefully avoided the role of public censor, of which Aristophanes had been so proud. Their comedy had * David Klein, Literary Criticism from the Elizabethan Dramatists York, Sturgis & Walton, 1910), pp. 3-6. 4 Spingarn, Literary Criticism, pp. 47-49. 5 Süss, p. 5. • Croiset, p. 264.

(New

SATIRE AND DIDACTICISM

69

no moral objectives, was not concerned with politics, and occupied itself with manners and domestic affairs. It prudently shunned personal satire. Ridicule of actual persons by representing them on the stage thus died with Old Comedy. The plays of Aristophanes ceased to be models for imitation, and centuries passed before Jonson attempted a revival of their principal features. Social and political conditions, however, hampered Jonson's efforts to imitate Aristophanes. His part in the composition of Eastward Hoe placed him in prison, and made it clear that political satire was hazardous in Elizabethan England. Jonson's interest in politics, moreover, was small; he was perhaps guided more by indifference than by prudence in avoiding the subject in his comedies. 7 In his general avoidance of personal satire, on the other hand, Jonson seems to have been restrained both by contemporary conditions, and by his own reluctance to ridicule actual persons on the stage. These restraints, however, did not make it impossible for him to scourge human frailties and shortcomings. In spirit rather than in subject matter, then, Jonson was able to imitate Aristophanes. Jonson's theories of comedy, which closely resemble those of Renaissance critics, may now be noted. Early in his career he asserts that comedy should concern itself with human follies, and should seek to ridicule them into oblivion. He rather prayes, you will be pleas'd to see One such, to day, as other playes should be. But deedes, and language, such as men doe vse: And persons, such as Comoedie would chuse, When she would shew an Image of the times, And sport with humane follies, not with crimes. Except, we make 'hem such by louing still Our popular errors, when we know th'are ill. I meane such errors, as you'll all confesse By laughing at them, they deserue no lesse: Which when you heartily doe, there's hope left, then, You, that haue so grac'd monsters, may like men. {Every Meat in His Humour, Prologue, 13-14; 21-30) In his next play, Jonson, aggressively indignant, proclaims his ' Palmer remarks that "Of politics and religion, Jonson writes as a man who has not thought long or deeply": Ben Jonson, p. 236.

70

SATIRE AND DIDACTICISM

determination to use comedy for a moral purpose. Brusquely rejecting a proposal that he moderate his attitude, he promises to expose and ridicule the iniquities and vices of his age: My language Was neuer ground into such oyly colours, To flatter vice and daube iniquitie: But (with an armed, and resolued hand) lie strip the ragged follies of the time, Naked, as at their birth: ... and with a whip of Steele, Print wounding lashes in their yron ribs. I feare no mood stampt in a priuate brow, When I am pleas'd t'vnmaske a publicke vice. I feare no strumpets drugs, nor ruffians stab, Should I detect their hatefull luxuries: No brokers, vsurers, or lawyers gripe, Were I dispos'd to say, they're all corrupt. I feare no courtiers frowne, should I applaud The easie flexure of his supple hammes. ... Well I will scourge those apes; And to these courteous eyes oppose a mirrour, As large as is the stage, whereon we act: Where they shall see the times deformite Anatomiz'd in euery nerue, and sinnew With constant courage, and contempt of feare. CEvery Man Out of His Humour, the Second Sounding, 13-28; 117-123) I n a later play, he commits himself definitely to the theory that the comic drama should teach men many good and useful things: [The poet] is said to be able to informe yong-men to all good disciplines, inflame growne-men to all great vertues, keepe old-men in their best and supreme state or as they decline to childhood, recouer them to their first strength; that comes forth the interpreter, and arbiter of nature, a teacher of things diuine, no lesse than humane, a master in manners; and can alone (or with a few) effect the businesse of mankind: ... and fitly, it being the office of a comick-Poet, to imitate iustice, and instruct to life, as well as puritie of language, or stirre up gentle affections. (Volpone, Dedication, 23-30; 121-123) In the same Dedication, he asserts that it is "the principall end of Poesie, to informe men, in the best reason of liuing" (108-109). This objective, however, does not destroy the poet's role as an

SATIRE AND DIDACTICISM

71

entertainer. He may delight his audiences while teaching them: This we were bid to credit, from our Poet, Whose true scope, if you would know it, In all his poemes, still, hath been this measure, To mixe profit, with your pleasure; (Volpone, Prologue, 5-8) These sentiments are stated more explicitly in a later declaration concerning the dual objectives of comedy: The ends of all, who for the Scene doe write, Are, or should be, to profit, and delight. And still't hath beene the praise of all best times, So persons were not touch'd, to taxe the crimes. (Epicoene, Prologue II, 1-4) Jonson insists, however, that the poet's principal aims are to benefit and correct the audience. The delight of the spectators is less important. It is, in fact, but a means to the achievement of the poet's ultimate purpose, which is the chastisement and removal of vices: this pen Did neuer aime to grieue, but better men; How e'er the age, he liues in, doth endure The vices that shee breeds, aboue their cure. But, when the wholsome remedies are sweet, And, in their working, gaine, and profit meet, He hopes to find no spirit so much diseas'd, But will, with such faire correctiues, be pleas'd. (The Alchemist, Prologue, 11-18) These passages, which constitute a summary of Jonson's belief in moral theories of comedy, resemble certain statements of Aristophanes. The resemblance, however, is probably superficial, and Jonson possibly borrowed little of their phrasing from Aristophanes. If Aristophanes' theories of comedy attracted Jonson's attention, they merely supplemented or duplicated Renaissance views with which he was already familiar. For this reason, the suggestion that Jonson owed much to Aristophanes for either the phraseology or content of his literary theories is perhaps unwarranted.

72

SATIRE AND DIDACTICISM

The early plays of Aristophanes, like those of Jonson, appear to have been written under the conviction that he, as a comic diamatist, had been called to a noble task. He seems convinced that his destiny is to furnish good advice to his countrymen, to free them from chicanery and sophistry, and to lead them from folly to higher, nobler conditions of life. 8 This is apparent throughout his early comedies, especially in extra-dramatic addresses to the audience, in attacks on obscenities and indecencies in the Greek drama, and in serious political statements. In some of these, he praises the didactic functions of the poet, to whom he often refers as a teacher. He says that poets have traditionally been the teachers of mankind, and offers proof of this assertion. Orpheus taught men mystic rites and reclaimed them from bloodshed and barbarous practices. Musaeus taught both medicine and principles for the interpretation of religious oracles. Hesiod taught agriculture and the four seasons of the year. Finally, the glory of Homer consisted in teaching the grandeur of brave deeds, and in giving men instructions concerning the marshaling of an army and the equipping of its heroes. Such didactic activities, according to Aristophanes, are proper to the poet {Frogs, 1030-1036). Therefore he will not only represent what is right, but he will also teach his audience many good things instead of wheedling, bribing, and flattering them. These things he will do for their own good (Acharnians, 655-659). In another part of this address, he criticizes the political naivete of the spectators, and claims that he is worthy of much good treatment from his countrymen, because he has taught them how cities fare under a democratic form of government (628-642). In another appeal to the spectators, he again praises his political services, and castigates the audience for failing to appreciate his struggles on its behalf. Having found such an averter of evil and purifier of the state as himself, his countrymen, to their own discredit, betrayed him the year before, misunderstanding and thwarting his noble work (Wasps, 1036-1050). A later passage asserts that the poets are teachers, diligent servants of the Muses, and followers of Homer (Birds, 912). Aristophanes thus exhibits a conviction that the tragic and comic »

Mahaffy, II, 245.

SATIRE AND DIDACTICISM

73

poet are equal in their educative functions as teachers of the polis.9 However, Aristophanes seldom reveals his role as a teacher. He skillfully conceals his lessons and artfully disguises his propaganda, so that it is difficult to know when to take him seriously. He often preaches; but almost no passages in his plays, except the pleadings of the Dikaios Logos in the Clouds and a few personal portions of the parabases, reveal his own earnestness.10 This fact has not helped Aristophanes' reputation, and has led some critics to deny his seriousness.11 Actually Aristophanes is often concerned about the future of his country and the welfare of his fellow-citizens. His anxiety is not always apparent, however, for Aristophanes prefers to teach by paradox, and to present his ideals obliquely. His technique resembles Jonson's, for when Aristophanes ridicules his absurd Athens and Jonson, his foul London, both have Paradise in mind: an ideal Athens and an ideal London.12 Jonson, unlike Aristophanes, makes almost no effort to conceal his serious intentions, and his didacticism is often excessively obvious. In Every Man Out of His Humour, his passion to teach, chastise and reform is almost painfully apparent. His eagerness to include didactic satire in the play almost obliterates his dramatic sense.13 Jonson's later comedies, with the brilliant exception of Bartholomew Fair, display the same dramatic imbalance. Plays like Cynthia's Revels, Poetaster, and The Staple of News suffer from Jonson's failure to achieve an Aristophanic balance between profit and delight. His failure was perhaps inevitable, for Jonson was no Greek.14 The Attic sense of proportion and form was * Charles Paul Segal, "The Characters and Cults of Dionysus and the Unity of the Frogs", Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, LXV (1961), p. 230. 10 Symonds, Greek Poets, II, 178. 11 Capps completely rejects the possibility that Aristophanes has a serious purpose in his comedies, and says, "Aristophanes no doubt does pose as a reformer, as a censor of morals, as a sage adviser and as a benefactor of the people. It is the pose habitual to the satirist, a part of his stock in trade": From Homer to Theocritus, p. 140. " Partridge, p. 233. " Baum, p. 155. 14 Emotional didacticism is unknown in Greek literature, because the Hellenic mind differed so much from minds like Jonson's. As Maurice Croiset says, "The Hellene always possessed judgment in imagination, intellect in sentiment, and reflection in passion. We never see him entirely carried away

74

SATIRE AND DIDACTICISM

therefore denied to him, just as surely as it was bestowed on Aristophanes. On the other hand, Jonson was a born satirist, with the irascibility, sensitivity, and proud consciousness of a divine mission which characterize satirists of all ages. For this reason, he continued obstinately to flail abuses. He never allowed rebuffs and failure to deter him from what he felt to be his principal task, the education and reformation of his audiences. Therefore, although he gradually relinquished his claim to be the censor of his age, he never abandoned his didactic purpose.16 Consequently, his zeal as a reformer and teacher continued to mold, and often to mar his work, but it was not completely unfortunate. Indeed, it has even been said that much of Jonson's excellent dramatic technique developed out of his didactic theories and his determination to hit vices with his satire.18 His technique resembles that of Aristophanes, for it is a combination of caricature, parody and irony.17 Its irony is especially prominent, for both dramatists teach by paradox. They do not present ideal stage examples of wisdom and goodness for the spectators to imitate. Instead, Aristophanes and Jonson exhibit what they dislike, in the hope that it will become just as hateful to their audiences. Examples of this dramatic technique are numerous in Aristophanes. In the parabasis to the Achamians, he says that he has taught the people how cities fare under democratic government (641-642). This is an allusion to his exposure of democracy's miserable features in the Knights (153ff.). The play displays democracy fully developed, with all its classic objectives achieved. Every citizen, no matter how base, now has a vote. Likewise, any person, no matter how wicked, illiterate, or incompetent, is now a potential candidate for any office, especially the highest. These views are not verbally expressed by Aristophanes, whose approach is a subtle, ironic one. He presents a ludicrous picture of democracy at work, and thus negatively in one direction. He has, so to speak, a number of faculties ready for every undertaking, and it is by a combination of these that he gives his creations their true character": An Abridged History of Greek Literature, p. 4. 15 Bamborough, p. 14. 16 Baum, p. 134. 17 See Norwood, p. 216; Sackton, p. 36.

SATIRE AND DIDACTICISM

75

teaches the virtues of another form of government. This is why Demos, who represents the citizens of Athens, is portrayed throughout the Knights as a silly, sensual, selfish and unsophisticated old man. His choice of the Sausage-Seller as the new ruler of Athens expresses Aristophanes' belief that democracy corrupts and debases both citizen and state. It adds the final touch to a picture of bad political institutions, displayed to teach men the virtues of better ones. A similar ironic technique is observable in Aristophanes' attacks on the Sophists, and the new education they advocated. Aristophanes clearly perceived their injurious nature, believed they were destroying Athens, and in at least one comedy endeavored to drive them out of Greek life and thought.18 His choice of Socrates as the representative of the Sophists was extremely ironical, for the philosopher was actually much opposed to the new thinkers and frequently attacked their principal theories.19 It is not surprising, therefore, that Aristophanes' caricature of Socrates in the Clouds appears to have been misunderstood, even by Athenian audiences, and is often regarded, even today, as a malicious portrait.20 Possibly Aristophanes' irony, in attacking the Sophists by portraying their most formidable opponent in a ludicrous light, proved too subtle to be easily understood, even by Socrates. His inverted representation of Dionysus, in the Frogs, is scarcely less ingenious. In this play, Aristophanes uses a caricature of the god to expose and ridicule the superstitions of the state religion. The portrait of Dionysus in the Frogs has little 18

M. W. Humphreys, stressing Aristophanes' conservatism, says that he "is to be classed with those who opposed with zeal and energy the dangers of innovation, who with indignation resisted the attacks of the free thinkers upon Athenian religion and morals, and sought to destroy in the germ the ruinous theories of the new wisdom": The Clouds (Boston, Ginn & Company, 1885), Introduction, p. 6. " See Xenophon, Memorabilia, ed. Josiah Renick Smith (Boston, Ginn & Company, 1903, pp. 18, 169-170, 233, 237. 10 A. E. Taylor, presenting evidence to support his view, says, "We have thus every reason to suppose that the picture of Socrates is a careful and elaborate piece of art, a distortion into the grotesque of a figure with which the poet and the audience upon whom the success or failure of his comedy depended were familiarly acquainted": Varia Socratica (First Series, Oxford, J. Parker & Company, 1911), p. 141.

76

SATIRE AND DIDACTICISM

resemblance to the traditional Greek conception of him, such as that of Euripides' Bacchae, which presents Dionysus as a terrifying figure. Aristophanes represents him as cowardly, effeminate, boorish, and foolish. In the behavior of the god, he parodies the libations and rituals of the Greek religion, and ridicules its most sacred objects of worship. This is all accomplished, however, in a spirit of ebullient good humor, without a hint of cynicism or bitterness, so that Aristophanes' own religious views are nowhere obvious, and his didactic efforts are everywhere concealed. A similar process may be observed in the plays concerned with problems of feminism, such as demands for emancipation, which were frequently expressed by the Greek women. They had duties but no rights, and, while Athens valued her mothers and daughters, she excluded them from most of the activities and denied them most of the privileges of male citizens.21 Therefore, with few exceptions, women lived narrow and limited domestic existences, and in Aristophanes' day their unrest was apparent on every hand. To satirize their struggle for equal rights, Aristophanes completely inverts their normal social and political positions, in the Lysistrata, Ecclesiazusae, and Thesmophoriazusae. In these comedies, women are represented in positions of power and authority, ruling the state and deciding its destinies, and forcing men to obey their whims. Ironically, Euripides, whose plays voice much hatred for women, and warn of the very dangers that trouble Aristophanes, is pilloried in these plays. To miss their irony is to fall into the error of considering them as propaganda for the women's cause. As usual, Aristophanes is teaching by paradox. Jonson's art displays the same ironic technique. His plays portray men who live existences that are caricatures of rational, well-ordered ones. The good life of the intellectual man, marked by reason and tempered by moderation, is never presented on Jonson's stage. He consistently shows his audience a life of sham, fraud, and self-delusion, marked by worship of money, sexual experience, and fine clothing. In the process, the masks which men customarily use in their disguises are stripped away. Im21

Alfred Eckhard Zimmern, The Greek Commonwealth (Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1911), pp. 329-330.

SATIRE AND DIDACTICISM

77

posters and pretenders are exposed before the audience as the fops, simpletons, and gulls that they are. This is an ironic process in which the spectators take part. An audience which is aware of the approaching exposure of an impostor assumes the role of an ironist. Moreover, the critical attitude, which Jonson consistently requires of his audience, is that of an ironist.22 Therefore, the audience is constantly prepared for the inevitable disclosures. The unmasking of the braggart, Bobadill, is typical. Bobadill's pretensions to military glory and literary taste are quickly followed by revelation, in his own words, of their falsity. He is seen, for example, to have none of the drinking habits of the tough and battle-hardened soldier. "A cup o' thy small beere, sweet hostesse" is his request for refreshment (Every Man in His Humour, I, v, 3). His pose as a connoisseur of literature ironically displays his absurd taste. Referring to a much-ridiculed play, The Spanish Tragedy, he ecstatically praises it, and declares it to be beyond imitation: "I would faine see all the Poets, of these times, pen such another play as that was!" When Matthew reads some of its most ludicrous lines, and asks for his opinion, Bobadill's reply is as simple as it is pontifical: "'Tis good" (I, v, 50-51; 64). He is a boaster and blusterer, whose imminent exposure as a coward is hinted to the audience when Downright promises to repay Bobadill for insulting him. He does so, and reveals the swaggerer as a poltroon, for Bobadill accepts a humiliating beating without attempting any defense. This development occurs, ironically, soon after Bobadill's boasts of his incredible feats with a rapier at the fierce battle of Strigonium (III, i, 140-149). The elder Knowell, in expressing disgust at Bobadill's pusillanimity, voices the sentiments of the audience: "'Slid, an' these be your tricks, your passada's, and your mountanto's, lie none of them. O, manners! That this age should bring forth such creatures! that Nature should bee at leisure to make 'hem!" (IV, vii, 145-148). Jonson's use of Bobadill is characteristic. Although Bobadill is an amusing character, and intended as such, Jonson uses him more to instruct the audience than to regale it. His behavior and punishment teach the audience not only the folly of pretense and " Sackton, p. 45.

78

SATIRE AND DIDACTICISM

sham, but also the virtues of modesty, bravery, and integrity. Jonson's primary purpose is, therefore, always that of a teacher, whose task is the instruction and correction of his pupils. Jonson's teaching, however, is unlike that of the usual instructor. It is consistently negative and ironical. Jonson portrays what he hates and scorns, not what he likes, and this process requires many unsavory characters. The result is that there are very few good people in Jonson's comedies. By this inordinate emphasis on the wickedness and folly in human nature, Jonson actually displays his own moral earnestness. He passionately desires that men lead lives more consistent with human dignity than their present ones. Thus, in displaying men who practice vices and are addicted to follies, he works toward the banishment of these defects from human character. This ideal goal is always in his mind; Jonson, as a master of irony, celebrates the good obliquely, and makes the foul ludicrous.23 For this reason, his characters, ridiculous and detestable as they are, always suggest their antitheses. Hence, Bobadill, a caricature of a soldier, suggests what a genuine military man should be, just as Fastidius Briske, the false courtier of Every Man Out of His Humour, hints at the character of a true one. In a similar manner, the nature of a truly pious person is taught by the negative examples of Tribulation and Ananias in The Alchemist, and Rabbi Busy in Bartholomew Fair. These hypocrites, like most of Jonson's characters, are inversions of ideal individuals whom he would have liked to see walking the streets of London. In his efforts to lift his spectators to ideal modes of life, Jonson tried to shock them out of their follies, by so exaggerating human failings that they would appear ridiculous and hateful to men. These distortions are not always fortunate. Frequently Jonson loses his artistic detachment, and becomes emotionally involved with the wickedness of his characters. He is thus led to display them in such a harsh light that the comic character of his drama almost disappears. He seems often to have forgotten that, if the moral failings in mankind are to be satirized successfully and laughed at, their display must not be so grave and extensive that "

Partridge, p. 69.

SATIRE AND DIDACTICISM

79

the moral sense of the spectator is aroused.24 Jonson's representations, in fact, often excite reactions of a moral nature. This is particularly true of Volpone, in which avarice, lechery, treachery and deceit are so graphically displayed that the comic elements of the play are nearly destroyed. Volpone is not an isolated case, for Jonson treats wickedness with great sternness, so that even the best plays lose much of their comic effect through the atrocity of their characters and the nakedness with which Jonson unmasks them. 26 The trouble is that Jonson's plays contain too much of his individuality; thus, in destroying follies, Jonson, in a measure, destroys himself.26 Aristophanes, on the other hand, is preserved by his Greek sense of balance from a similar fate. There is no excess of Aristophanes' personality in his comedies; by modern standards, there is not nearly enough. The Hellenic restraint of his plays is notable: Aristophanes clearly could say more if he only would. He undoubtedly feels indignation and even hatred toward the men and institutions he believes are destroying Greece. There is a hint of this in his denunciations of human follies and crimes. However, his attack is never bitter, as Jonson's frequently is; it is always good-humoured, despite the satire which pervades and permeates it, and arouses gigantic laughter instead of anger.27 Thus Aristophanes is never carried away by his emotions, but maintains an artistic balance between elements of instruction and delight. The moment his satire threatens to become oppressive, he invariably introduces a brilliant comic episode to lighten the pressure. Hence he avoids the excessive moralizing which frequently disfigures Jonson's work. A comparison between the Frogs and Poetaster reveals the superiority of the Aristophanic technique. The Frogs is marked by harmonious balancing of serious criticism and unrestrained fun. On the other hand, Poetaster is marred by almost unrelieved didacticism, heavy and sometimes coarse satire, and a spirit of petulance and bitterness. Particularly 81

James Sully, An Essay on Laughter (London, Longmans, Greene & Co., 1912), p. 93. 25 Symonds, Ben Jonson, p. 64. *· Eleanor Patience Lumley, The Influence of Plautus on the Comedies of Ben Jonson (New York, The Knickerbocker Press, 1901), p. 121. " Piatt, p. 51.

80

SATIRE AND DIDACTICISM

in its personal satire, Poetaster often seems to be the hammered product of a sour and morose spirit. In this respect, its contrast to Aristophanes' play is remarkable. It suggests that Jonson's personal satire should be compared with that of Aristophanes.

VI PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

The Old Comedy of Greece was, above all, intensely personal in its satire. Although, like Jonson's comedy, it satirized human failings and vices, its method of attack was quite different. Old Comedy dealt primarily in personalities, and freely represented actual contemporary persons on the stage. Thus Aristophanes, in his ridicule of homosexuality, portrays Cleisthenes, a noted Athenian pervert, in several comedies. His method is not that of Jonson, who, in most cases, uses completely fictitious characters to represent follies and abuses. In ancient Greece, no person was immune from the possibility of being ridiculed on the comic stage. In fact, eminent citizens were, by their prominence and importance, almost assured of a place in comedy. The abuse of such public figures often reached astonishing heights, and was accompanied by unrestricted ribaldry, obscenity and buffoonery. This type of satire was made possible by the unique license of Greek comedy.1 Aristophanes freely ridiculed prominent Greek citizens; he caricatured not only a powerful statesman and a brilliant Greek general, but the entire Athenian public.2 Moreover, he did this during a great national 1 R. W. Livingstone says, "Certain attempts were, however, made to restrict comic licence. A law was passed in 440 forbidding the treatment of contemporary politics but was repealed in 437. There was a similar enactment in 416 forbidding 'ονομαστί κωμφδεΐν, personal attacks; yet in 414 Aristophanes wrote the Birds. The poet was twice prosecuted by Cleon": The Greek Genius and Its Meaning to Us, 2nd ed. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1915), p. 66. ' Thus Demos, who represents the Athenian citizenry, is lampooned in the Knights. In the same play, Cleon is severely criticized, and he is also satirized in the Acharnians, Wasps and Clouds. Lamachus is ridiculed in the Acharnians,

82

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

crisis, in the darkest days of the Peloponnesian War. Rigid censorship and harsh restrictions axe normal in modern nations during similar crises. They were unknown in Periclean Athens, and their absence indicates the nature and extent of Greek freedom, which has absolutely no parallel, even in other ancient civilizations.3 Jonson's England knew a limited freedom which the Greek spirit would have found stifling. The limitations placed on liberty by modern countries would have been equally odious to the Greek mind. On the other hand, today's readers, accustomed to the restrictions and controls imposed by their states, find it difficult to believe in the reality of Greek freedom, especially in comedy. For this reason, much disagreement exists concerning the nature and extent of Old Comedy's license. Ingenious attempts have been made to deny its existence. Thus it is claimed that Old Comedy did not actually represent contemporary individuals on the stage. As one writer expresses it, The fact that the Old Comedy introduced living characters on the stage by name and with all circumstantiality, must not mislead us to infer that they actually did represent certain definite individuals. For such historical characters in the Old Comedy have always an allegorical significance, and represent a class.4 There is a certain amount of truth in views like this one. They err, however, in insisting that the representations are primarily and exclusively allegorical. Actually only a few of them should be so considered. In most cases, prominent Athenians are so realistically portrayed on Aristophanes' stage that their identity is as unmistakable as the purpose behind their portrayal. Even the masks worn by the actors appear to have been so designed that the spectators could easily identify the satirized individuals. Thus distinguished Athenians were often introduced, and their masks revealed their identity before the actors had uttered a word. 6 The extent of this personal satire is impressive. In the comedies, 112 but in the Frogs (1039), he is called a hero and numbered among the brave men of Greek history and legend. * Livingstone, p. 69. * Schlegel, p. 149. * Roy C. Flickinger, The Greek Theatre and Its Drama, 4th ed. (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1936), pp. 212-213.

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

83

actual persons are attacked, derided, or lampooned by name. If Socrates, Euripides, Cleon and Pericles are excepted, 108 persons are ridiculed 347 times.® Despite the intense realism and detail of these representations, some of them do have allegorical significance. Thus it is said that Aristophanes' satire on Cleon is not directed so much against Cleon personally as it is against the central principle of democracy, which permits rule of the people by the intellectually incapable; and the satire of Euripides is believed to have been inspired by dislike of the intellectual movement headed by him, and the new technique in poetry which Euripides represented.7 Likewise the ridicule of Socrates in the Clouds should not be considered as a personal attack on the philosopher. The gross caricature of the historical Socrates is explained as necessary, because to Aristophanes Socrates is a class conception, and satirized as such.8 These views, when confined to a few examples, are reasonable. It seems clear that Aristophanes sometimes uses stage representations of prominent persons to ridicule not only classes, institutions and movements, but also certain vices and follies which they symbolize. Cleisthenes has already been mentioned as an example. There are several others which may be cited. Cleonomus, the Falstaff of Old Comedy, is often ridiculed as a man, but also represents the vice of cowardice.9 He attempted to evade military service, and threw away his shield during an important military campaign.10 Another contemporary figure, Hyperbolus, is often attacked by Aristophanes for his unscrupulous business practices. He had amassed a fortune by dealing in lamps, owned much property, and appears to have been influential in political affairs during Cleon's regime. Aristophanes pillories him as a person, but also uses him to represent the vice of avarice.11 By thus at• Van Hook, p. 277. 7 David Grene, "The Comic Technique of Aristophanes", Hermathena, L (1937), 89-90. ' Humphreys, p. 10. 9 For references to his cowardly conduct, see Knights, 958, Birds, 1473 and Wasps, 592. 10 Humphreys, p. 125 (note). 11 He is ridiculed in Clouds, 551, 876,1065. See also Acharnians, 846, Knights, 304, 739, 1315 and Wasps, 1007.

84

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

tacking prominent individuals, both as men and as representatives of follies and vices, Aristophanes seems to have anticipated the example of Jonson in Poetaster. In this play, Jonson not only satirizes John Marston and Thomas Dekker as men, but also uses them to ridicule a whole class of false and inferior poets. It should be remembered that Aristophanes never ridicules obscure, private, powerless men and women, but only those prominent in public life, whose actions, personal habits and ideas significantly affect the state.12 He is very proud of this fact. In the parabasis to the Wasps (1029-1035), he boasts that, from the beginning of his career, he never attacked mere men. Instead, with the spirit of Hercules, he bravely faced the most dreadful monster and boldly joined battle against him.13 He refers here to Cleon, whom he pilloried in the Knights, the first comedy Aristophanes performed in his own name. In this play, Cleon is portrayed so realistically that, although he is not actually named, his identity is unmistakable. Aristophanes appears to have made a solitary exception by failing to name Cleon in the Knights, for his later plays contain numerous representations of contemporary people, and their names are always given. Thus Socrates is named in the Clouds, just as Euripides is repeatedly referred to by name in the Acharnians, Thesmophoriazusae, and Frogs. The names and descriptions of more than one hundred other public figures are not necessary to prove the detailed representation of actual contemporary persons on Aristophanes' stage. None of Aristophanes' extant plays is entirely free of personal satire.14 This fact indicates that personal abuse is characteristic of Old Comedy. Moreover, the variety of the persons attacked is as significant as their number. Aristophanes does not confine his assaults to a few persons and social groups. With unsparing " "

Lever, Greek Comedy, p. 96. Aristophanes repeats these lines in the parabasis to the Peace (752-759). 14 Even the Plutus, which does not properly belong to Old Comedy, ridicules actual individuals. It mentions persons by name (see lines 174, 303, 314) but "they are of no great note, we are not sure that they were still living, nor is the satire on them so bitter that it must have provoked the penalty of the law against personalities": W. C. Green, ed., Plutus (Cambridge, The University Press, 1913), Introduction, p. 5.

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

85

invective, he castigates many individuals and classes. Thus his lash is felt by generals like Lamachus, political figures like Cleon and Pericles, poets like Euripides and Agathon, and familiar philosophers like Socrates. Less prominent citizens than these are also lampooned and caricatured. Practitioners of vice like Straton and Ariphrades are frequently named, and their sins against common decency are exposed to public ridicule. Despicable characters, like Theogenes and the fop Amynias, are likewise scourged and derided.15 Old Comedy's broad and uninhibited personal satire presents a complete contrast to Jonson's. Aristophanes' satire of politicians,16 for example, has scarcely any echo in Jonson's works.17 Likewise, Jonson's castigation of human vice never takes the form of personal attacks on known practitioners of evil. No Elizabethan Englishman, notorious for his avarice, is ridiculed by Jonson, as Hyperbolus is by Aristophanes. Likewise, lust and lechery are satirized by Jonson, but no familiar English degenerate is mentioned, nor does one represent an entire class. In contrast, Aristophanes, who identifies by name the most infamous perverts of Athens, makes constant references to their vices and represents them realistically on the stage. It has already been mentioned that not a single play of Aristophanes is free of personal satire. This is not true of Jonson. His personal satire is confined to a few plays, and even in them it is restricted to persons connected in some way with the literary profession. In its representation and scope, it is much more disguised and prudent than that of Aristophanes. This fact is apparent from the difficulty of identifying the persons ridiculed. Characters who represent real persons are never given the actual 16

Lever, Greek Comedy, p. 103. " Carl Newell Jackson says, "Aristophanes denounced their vileness and immorality (Eg. 880, Nub. 1093, Eccl. 113) as well as their shameless bravado (Eq. 325) their brawling and bluster (Ach. 38, Eq. 358)": "The Decree Seller in the Birds and the Professional Politicians at Athens", Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, XXX, (1919), 94. 17 Political references in Jonson are rare. They may be found, however in Cynthia's Revels, V, iii, 132; The Staple of News, I, vi, 46; Π, ii, 33-34; Ungathered Verse, XXX, 43-46; and The Magnetic Lady, III, iv, 128-129. See Herford and Simpson, XI, 149.

86

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

names of the caricatured individuals. Instead, they may have fictitious names that provide a hint of the real ones. An example is Antonio Balladino, who appears briefly in The Case Is Altered, and represents Antony Munday, a mediocre ballad-writer of the day.18 Another instance is the clerk of the news office in The Staple of News. His name is Nathaniel, and he is believed to represent Nathaniel Butter, publisher of a news sheet.19 The identification seems justified by certain "butter" allusions in the play.20 With these exceptions, Jonson's caricature of actual persons is marked by fictitious names that indicate a spirit of cautious reserve. Another point of divergence between Jonson and Aristophanes in their caricature of actual public figures should be noted. Aristophanes delights in such ridicule, and he is proud of his record of attacking the most prominent figures in Athenian life. In two of his comedies, he addresses the audience directly, reminding it that, since beginning his career, he has courageously assailed the most noted and powerful figures of Athens. He has, moreover, rejected every plea that friends of his victims have made in their behalf. To have listened to such persuasions, he says, would have meant the prostitution of the Muses with whom he associates. Therefore he has always fearlessly attacked the most powerful public men, and neither fear nor bribery has deterred him.21 Thus Aristophanes not only asserts that his satire is personal, but takes pride in its nature. With Jonson the case is quite different. Even if he had wished to engage in unrestricted personal satire like that of Aristophanes, he could not have done so. Imprisonment, at least, and possibly even the gallows, would have rewarded his attempts, especially if he had written heavy political satire. Royalty was all-powerful, suspicious, and decidedly intolerant of such innovations. Therefore, considerations of prudence led him, on the whole, to shun political matters. It is possible, however, that Jonson's personal "

18

10

"

Herford & Simpson, IX, 308. Ibid., II, 172-173. See I, iv, 10-14 and ΙΠ, vii, 13 for examples. Wasps, 1029-1042; Peace, 752-759.

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

87

tastes, rather than his prudence, dictated his policy. He seems to have earnestly disapproved of Aristophanes' practices.22 There is little doubt that he decided to engage in personal satire only after much provocation, and with great reluctance. He asserts, for instance, that he endured many wrongs from the persons caricatured in Poetaster, before deciding to shame them: but sure I am, three yeeres, They did prouoke me with their petulant stiles On euery stage: And I at last, vnwilling, But weary, I confesse, of so much trouble, Thought, I would try, if shame could winne vpon 'hem. And therefore chose AVGVSTVS CAESARS times, When wit, and artes were at their height in Rome, To shew that VIRGIL, HORACE, and the rest Of those great master-spirits did not want Detractors, then, or practisers against them: And by this line (although no paralel) I hop'd at last they would sit downe, and blush. (Poetaster, Apologeticall Dialogue, 96-107) In spite of this admission that particular persons were in his mind during the composition of Poetaster, he denies that he attacked lawyers, captains and players by name. It is not so. I vs'd no name. My Bookes haue still beene taught To spare the persons, and to speake the vices. (83-85) His assertion is consistent with the remarks made by Horace, who represents Jonson in the play, during his conversation with Trebatius. This friend warns Horace that his satires may be considered libelous: Only, take heed, as being aduis'd by mee, Lest thou incurre some danger: Better pause, Then rue thy ignorance of the sacred lawes; There's justice, and great action may be su'd 'Gainst such, as wrong mens fames with verses lewd. To which Horace replies: I, with lewd verses; such as libels bee, And aym'd at persons of good qualitie, I reuerence and adore that iust decree: M Baum, p. 50.

88

PERSONAL SAnRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

But, if they shall be sharp, yet modest rimes That spare mens persons, and but taxe their crimes, Such, shall in open court, find currant passe; Were CAESAR iudge, and with the makers grace. (Ill, v, 125-136) The same sentiments are expressed in a later play: The ends of all, who for the Scene doe write Are, or should be, to profit, and delight. And still't hath beene the praise of all best times. So persons were not touch'd, to taxe the crimes, (Epicoene, Prologue II, 1-4). In another instance, personal satire is described as something which comedy scrupulously avoids. Probee, a member of the chorus which explains and criticizes the action of The Magnetic Lady, says: A Play, though it apparell, and present vices in generali, flies from all particularities in persons. Would you ask of Plautus, and Terence (if they both liv'd now) who were Davus, or Pseudolus in the Scene? who Pyrgopolinices, or Thrasol who Euclio or Menedemusl (II, vii, Chorus, 13-17) Finally, Bartholomew Fair contains a warning against attempts to identify the characters of the comedy as actual persons. The spectators, in a covenant between themselves and the author, affirm that they neyther in themselues conceale, nor suffer by them to be concealed any State-decipherer, or politique Picklocke of the Scene, so solemnly ridiculous, as to search out, who was meant by the Gingerbread-woman, who by the Hobby-horse-man, who by the Costardmonger, nay, who by their Wares. Or that will pretend to affirme (on his owne inspired ignorance) what Mirror of Magistrates is meant by the Justice, what great Lady by the Pigge-woman, what conceaVd Statesman, by the Seller of Mouse-trappes, and so of the rest. (Induction, 136-145) Despite all his disavowals of personal satire, Jonson did practice it. This he tacitly admits in a significant reservation, made during a defense of his art. And, howsoeuer I cannot escape, from some, the imputation of sharpnesse, but that they will say, I haue taken a pride, or lust, to be bitter,

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

89

and not my yongest infant but hath come into the world with all his teeth; I would aske of these supercilious politiques, what nation, societie, or generali order, or state I haue prouok'd? what publique person? whether I haue not (in all these) preseru'd their dignitie, as mine owne person, safe? My workes are read, allow'd, (I speake of those that are intirely mine) looke into them: What broad reproofes haue I vs'd? Where have I beene particular? Where personall? except to a mimick, cheater, bawd, or bufFon, creatures (for their insolencies) worthy to be tax'd? Yet, to which of these so pointingly, as he might not, either ingenuously haue confest, or wisely dissembled his disease? (Volpone, Dedication, 47-60) This passage suggests that Jonson felt himself free, in certain cases, to satirize contemporary figures. The character of the person was the determining factor. If an individual could be classed by Jonson as "a mimick, cheater, bawd, or buffoon ... worthy to be taxed", he felt no hesitancy in ridiculing him on the stage. Nevertheless, Jonson's personal satire is very limited. Its rarity and its disguised nature set it apart from that of Aristophanes, which is both frequent and obvious. Jonson's representations of contemporary figures are limited to a few plays, and the individuals who have been definitely identified may be counted on the fingers of one hand. Therefore numerous examples of detailed personal satire are not to be found in Jonson. Ingenious efforts to locate and substantiate them have been seriously questioned and are now generally discredited.23 Before examples of Jonson's personal satire are examined, an unusual feature of his dramatic technique should be mentioned. This is his practice of representing himself in comedies that ridicule his enemies. In the three plays that contain most of Jonson's " See Herford and Simpson, IX, 399-406, where a critical analysis of the attempts is presented. The studies mentioned include that of Frederick Grant Fleay, A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama, 1559-1642, 2 vols. (London, Reeves and Turner, 1891). This valuable, but often misleading work contains articles on Jonson, Marston and Dekker. These appear to have been extensively used by Josiah H. Penniman in The War of the Theatres (Boston, Ginn & Co., 1897). Penniman's elaborate identifications, consistently supported by the text, are sharply criticized by Roscoe Addison Small. His work, The Stage-Quarrel Between Ben Jonson and the So-Called Poetasters (Breslau, Μ. & Η. Marcus, 1899) questions the validity of the identifications and stresses their tenuous nature. Small's conclusions have not been seriously challenged by later scholars, and appear to have won wide acceptance.

90

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

satirical sketches of actual individuals, the dramatist himself appears as a principal character. Moreover, Jonson uses these instances to present extremely flattering portraits of himself. In Every Man Out of His Humour, he appears as Asper, and is described as being "of an ingenious and free spirit, eager and constant in reproofe, without feare controuling the worlds abuses. One, whom no seruile hope of gaine, or frosty apprehension of danger, can make to be a Parasite, either to time, place or opinion". (The Character of the Persons, 1-6). The next comedy, Cynthia's Revels, presents Jonson as Crites, whom Mercury describes as A creature of a most perfect and diune temper. One, in whom the humours and elements are peaceably met, without emulation of precedencie: he is neyther to phantastikely melancholy, too slowly phlegmaticke, too lightly sanguine, or too rashly cholericke, but in all, so composde & order'd, as it is cleare, Nature went about some ful worke, she did more then make a man, when she made him. His discourse is like his behauiour, vncommon, but not vnpleasing: hee is prodigall of neyther. Hee strives rather to bee that which men call iudicious, then to bee thought so: and is so truly learned, that he affects not to show it. Hee will thinke, and speake his thought, both freely: but as distant from deprauing another mans merit, as proclaiming his owne. For his valour, tis such, that he dares as little to offer an iniurie, as receiue one. In summe, he hath a most ingenuous and sweet spirit, a sharp and season'd wit, a straight iudgment, and a strong mind. Fortune could neuer breake him, nor make him lesse. He counts it his pleasure, to despise pleasures, and is more delighted with good deeds, then goods. It is a competencie to him that hee can bee vertuous. He doth neyther couet, nor feare; hee hath too much reason to doe eyther: and that commends all things to him. (II, iii, 123-145) Jonson bestows the same inordinate praise on himself in the character of Horace, who represents him in Poetaster. Horace is displayed as a noble soul, very poor, but nevertheless free of envy. When Caesar suggests that Horace, because of his poverty, is likely to envy or disparage others, the poet replies in a wounded spirit: CAESAR speakes after common men, in this, To make a difference of me, for my poorenesse: As if the filth of pouertie sunke as deepe Into a knowing spirit, as the bane Of riches doth, into an ignorant soule.

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

91

No, CAESAR, they be path-lesse, moorish minds, That being once made rotten with the dung Of damned riches, euer after sinke Beneath the steps of any villanie. But knowledge is the nectar, that keepes sweete A perfect soule, euen in this graue of sinne; And for my soule, it is as free, as CAESARS: For, what I know is due, I'le giue to all. "He that detracts, or enuies vertuous merit, "Is still the couetous, and the ignorant spirit. (V, i, 79-93) He refuses to stoop to flattery for advancement: But, if I watch not a most chosen time, The humble wordes of FLACCVS cannot clime The' attentiue eare of CAESAR; nor must I With lesse obseruance shunne grosse flatterie: For he, reposed safe in his owne merit, Spumes backe the gloses of a fawning spirit. (Ill, v, 31-36) His detestation of spies and informers is indicated, when he castigates Lupus for circulating a false story of treasonous activity: Was this the treason? this, the dangerous plot, Thy clamorous tongue so bellow'd through the court? Hadst thou no other proiect to encrease Thy grace with CAESAR, but this woluish traine; To prey vpon the life of innocent mirth, And harmelesse pleasures, bred, of noble wit? Away, I lothe thy presence: such as thou, They are the moths, and scarabes of a state; The bane of empires; and the dregs of courts; Who (to endeare themselues to any'employment) Care not, whose fame they blast; whose life they endanger; And vnder a disguis'd, and cob-web masque Of loue, vnto their soueraigne, vomit forth Their own prodigious malice; and pretending To be the props, and columnes of his safety, The guards vnto his person, and his peace, Disturbe it most, with their false lapwing-cries. (IV, vii, 37-53) Ridiculously flattering as they are, all these portraits are obviously meant for Jonson. 24 "

Small, p. 29.

92

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

Thus Jonson portrays himself on the stage in a manner unusual, not only in English, but also in Greek comedy. Aristophanes never indulges in this practice. Although he praises himself in his comedies, he never uses one of the characters to represent himself.25 In this respect, his dramatic technique is superior to that of Jonson. Little is gained and much is sacrificed when Jonson displays his personality, with all its arrogance and acerbity of spirit, in his comedies. If the satirist, even artfully disguised, appears among the personalities he ridicules on the stage, he weakens the force of his satire. The conflict between him and the ridiculed persons tends to degenerate into a personal feud. Such quarrels are not generally interesting to the public, which hesitates to take sides in controversies that do not directly concern it. Therefore the satirist must portray his private quarrel as a public one, and suggest that the individuals he is attacking are enemies of the community, or types of a recurring danger.26 This is what Aristophanes does in dramatizing his private war with the Sophists in the Clouds, with Cleon in the Knights, and with Euripides in the Frogs. In the Frogs, for example, Euripides is not portrayed as a personal enemy of Aristophanes, but as the representative of a dangerous intellectual movement, and of new poetic techniques that are considered destructive of Greek literature. 27 Jonson, in his ridicule of Puritans in Bartholomew Fair, works in the same spirit, and his satire is here as successful as that of Aristophanes. He pictures Rabbi Busy, Dame Purecraft, and her daughter, Win-the-Fight, as hypocritical frauds and impostors. Thus they represent evils which threaten the whole community, and the audience is thereby led to take a personal interest in their exposure. In Bartholomew Fair, then, Jonson conceals his personal quarrel with the Puritans by elevating it to the level of a public one. On the other hand, his feud with Marston and Dekker 25 Most of Aristophanes' praise of himself appears in the parabases, where, in the person of the chorus, he addresses the audience directly. See, for example, Clouds, 518-526, 560-562. Other instances will be noted in the next chapter. ae Greig, p. 176. " Grene, pp. 89-90.

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

93

resembles a personal one, in Cynthia's Revels and Poetaster. The fault lies in Jonson's portrayal of himself, in the persons of Crites and Horace, as a paragon of goodness and merit, unjustly abused and maligned by malevolent, inferior men. The conflict thus appears to be a limited, topical one, largely because Jonson's appearance in the plays is that of an intruder. This point, however, is debatable, for Elizabethan audiences may not have detected Jonson in Crites and Horace. Aristophanes, on the other hand, never represents himself on the stage; and, as a result, his comedies seem more modern than most of Jonson's. It is not easy for twentieth-century audiences to become excited over an exposure of the absurd behavior of Elizabethan people,28 especially if the exposure is centered in a personal squabble. In contrast, a play like the Frogs retains its freshness and appeal after two dozen centuries, because it deals with matters of abiding human interest. The earliest instance of Jonson's personal satire is found in The Case Is Altered?9 This play contains a short scene in which Antony Munday is caricatured as Antonio Balladino. Several satirical thrusts at Munday have been detected in the conversation of Balladino with Juniper and Onion. When Onion asks him if he is "Pageant Poet to the City of Millaine", Balladino replies, "I supply the place sir: when a worse cannot be had sir" (I, ii, 29-31). This is a reference to Munday's writing of city pageants for London. Their hackneyed themes are ridiculed in Balladino's statement, "Why, I'le tell you, M. Onion, I do vse as much stale stuffe, though I say it my selfe, as any man does in that kind I am sure" (48-49). His plainness of style is satirized when he boasts, Why looke you sir, I write so plaine, and keepe that old Decorum, that you must of necessitie like it; mary you shall haue some now (as for " Bamborough, p. 15. " Although Jonson never acknowledged his authorship of this play, and omitted it from the 1616 edition of his works, it is believed that he had at least some part in its composition. Its actual date of composition is unknown, but is believed to be either 1597 or 1598. The Balladino scene must therefore be a later addition, since Jonson's grievances against him did not develop before 1600. See Herford and Simpson, I, 305-306 and H. C. Hart's edition, The Works of Ben Jonson, 2 vols. (London, Methuen & Co., 1906), I, 28-29.

94

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

example, in plaies) that will haue euery day new trickes, and write you nothing but humours: indeede this pleases the Gentlemen: but the common sort they care not for't, they know not what to make on't, they looke for good matter, they, and are not edified with such toyes. (58-65)

Munday's persistence in writing for the "common sort" is derided in Balladino's assertion that "as I tell hem, and they'le giue me twenty pound a play, I'le not raise my vaine" (72-73). Other personal references to Munday occur in Onion's remark that "you are in print already for the best plotter" (79) and Balladino's reply that he "might as well ha bene put in for a dumb shew" (80). These references have been traced to works which appeared in 1598 and 1599.30 They seem to remove all doubt that Antony Munday is the person ridiculed in this short scene.31 The good humor and mildness of the caricature are notable. They are almost wholly absent from later Jonsonian sketches of contemporaries, such as the one of Chester in Every Man Out of His Humour. Attempts to identify various characters of this play with actual Elizabethan individuals have been disappointing.32 Only one is now generally accepted as a caricature of a contemporary. He is Carlo Buffone, who represents Charles Chester, a notorious babbler, scoffer, and blasphemer.33 His profanity and scurrility were proverbial, and he appears to have had a detestable personality. Jonson presents a most unflattering portrait of him: A Publike, scurrilous, and prophane Iester; that (more swift then Circe) with absurd simile's will transforme any person into deformity. A good Feast-hound, or Banket-beagell, that will sent you out a supper some three mile off, and sweare to his Patrons (Dam him) hee came in Oares, when hee was but wafted ouer in a Sculler. A slaue, that hath an extraordinary gift in pleasing his palat, and will swill vp more sacke at a sitting, then would make all the guard a posset. His religion his rayling, and his discourse ribaldry. They stand highest in his respect, whom he studies most to reproch. (The Character of the Persons, 25-34) Herford and Simpson, IX, 308-309. Small, pp. 173-175. 3a Penniman has been especially extravagant in identifying Fastidius Brisk as Daniel, Lucelento as Lord Berkeley, and Fungoso as Lodge: The War of the Theatres, pp. 52-56. a » Herford and Simpson, IX, 404-406. S1

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

95

Cordatus amplifies this description. Immediately before the play begins, he says that Buffone is an impudent common iester, a violent rayler, and an incomprehensible Epicure·, one, whose company is desir'd of all men, but belou'd of none; hee will sooner lose his soule then a iest, and prophane euen the most holy things, to excite laughter: no honorable or reuerend personage whatsoeuer, can come within the reach of his eye, but is turn'd into all manner of varietie, by his adult'rate simile's. (Prologue, Grex, 356-364)

Buffone's boorish and insulting behavior justifies these strictures, and is consistent with the character of Chester. For example, he visits brothels regularly for the sake of his health (IV, iii, 70-76), and jeers at friendship: "Pish, the title of a friend, it's a vaine idle thing, only venerable among fooles: you shall not haue one that has any opinion of wit affect it" (IV, iii, 111-113). It is his indiscreet insulting of Puntarvolo, however, that identifies Buffone most clearly as Chester. By directing ill-natured taunts at Puntarvolo, the boor exhausts the knight's patience. Puntarvolo turns on the jester, beats him, and seals up his lips with wax (V, vi, 59-86). It is known that Chester was beaten by Sir Walter Raleigh during a tavern quarrel; moreover, after thrashing him, the nobleman put a wax seal upon his lips.34 Thus one character at least in the dramatis personae of Every Man Out of His Humour has been identified with reasonable certainty as a caricature of an actual person. An extension of Jonson's personal satire is evident in his next comedy, Cynthia's Revels. By the time of its first performance (1600), English taste for satiric comedy had been whetted by Lodge, Hall, and Harington, and the time was ripe for a work of its type.35 Foppery and ostentation were widespread at Court, and Jonson chose an auspicious moment to attack Elizabeth's parasitic courtiers. In Cynthia's Revels he ridicules the social climbers, pretenders and flatterers surrounding the Queen. Thus characters like Amorphous, Asotus, Philautia, Hedon and Anaides " Small, pp. 36-37. Hart says that "if we accept the above tale in its entirety, Puntarvolo ... becomes for the nonce Sir Walter Raleigh": The Works of Ben Jonson, I, 40. " Herford and Simpson, I, 397-398.

96

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

represent the vices and follies rampant at Court. In Hedon and Anaides, moreover, there may be detected almost, but not quite, complete satirical portraits of Marston and Dekker. For the first time, then, Jonson makes a significant departure from his practice of avoiding satirical representation of actual persons on the stage. In Cynthia's Revels, he moves into personal satire and ridicules Marston and Dekker, in Hedon and Anaides. At least, both Dekker and Marston took these characters to be caricatures of themselves.36 Nevertheless, the satirical touches are so broad and general that, under less tense circumstances, they would probably have passed unnoticed by the two men. However, their quarrel with Jonson had created such an atmosphere of suspicion, that Marston and Dekker were ready to detect ridicule of themselves in any new play of Jonson. Despite that fact, they were probably not mistaken in recognizing themselves in Hedon and Anaides. Yet these characters, in spite of their similarities to Marston and Dekker, are not fully-developed, unmistakable satirical portraits of the two dramatists, like those encountered later in Poetaster.37 Hedon, who represents Marston, is not a charming character. Disrespectful and sarcastic comments by other characters stress Hedon's vanity, egotism, sensuality and foppery. Mercury, his valet, describes him as "a gallant wholy consecrated to his pleasures", whose self-love is indicated by the way he "affects" Philautia (II, i, 34-40). Continuing in the same vein of disparagement, he says: These are his graces. Hee doth (besides me) keepe a barber, and a monkie: Hee has a rich wrought wast-coat to entertaine his visitants in, with a cap almost sutable. His curtaines, and bedding are thought to bee his owne: his bathing-tub is not suspected. Hee loues to haue a fencer, a pedant, and a musician seene in his lodging a mornings. (41-46) Mercury further declares that Hedon is a poetaster, a spendthrift who is deep in debt, and a fop whose financial difficulties result from his addiction to showy apparel: himselfe is a rimer, and that's a thought better then a poet. He is not lightly within to his mercer, no, though he come when he takes phy»· Herford and Simpson, I, 407. " Ibid.

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

97

sicke, which is commonly after his play. He beates a tailour very well, but a stocking-seller admirably: and so consequently any one hee owes monie too, that dares not resist him. Hee neuer makes generali inuitement, but against the publishing of a new sute, marie then, you shall haue more drawne to his lodging, then come to the lanching of some three ships; especially if he be furnish'd with supplies for the retyring of his old ward-robe from pawne: if not, he do's hire a stocke of apparell, and some fortie, or fiftie pound in gold, for that fore-noone to shew. He's thought a verie necessarie perfume for the presence, and for that onely cause welcome thither: sixe millaners shops affoord you not the like sent. He courts ladies with how many great horse he hath rid that morning, or how oft he hath done the whole, or the hälfe pomrnado in a seuen-night before: and sometime venters so farre vpon the vertue of his pomander, that he dares tell 'hem, how many shirts he has sweat at tennis that weeke, but wisely conceals so many dozen of bals hee is on the score. (48-69) Hedon, moreover, is an envious and treacherous fellow, and a bitter enemy of Crites. Since Crites is generally believed to represent Jonson, Hedon's assaults on him are important in the identification of Hedon as Marston. He ridicules Crites to Anaides as "a whore-sonne booke-worme, a candle-waster", laughs at him as he passes by, and says: By this heauen, I wonder at nothing more then our gentlemen-vshers, that will suffer a piece of serge, or perpetuana, to come into the presence: mee thinkes they should (out of their experience) better distinguish the silken disposition of courtiers, then to let such terrible coorse ragges mixe with vs, able to fret any smooth or gentile societie to the threeds with their rubbing deuices. (Ill, ii, 28-35) He is determined to slander Crites at every opportunity. He tells Anaides that he has resolved to speake all the venome I can of him; and poyson his reputation in euery place, where I come ... And if I chance to bee present where any question is made of his sufficiencies, or of any thing he hath done priuate, or publike, lie censure it slightly, and ridiculously. (ΠΙ, ii, 46-47; 49-51) His contempt for the scholarly Crites is equalled by his lofty opinion of himself: I protest, if I had no musique in me, no courtship, that I were not a reueller and could dance, or had not those excellent qualities that giue a man life, and perfection, but a meere poore scholer as he is, I thinke

98

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

I should make some desperate way with my selfe, whereas now (would I might neuer breathe more) if I doe know that creature in this kingdome, with whom I would change. (IV, v, 54-60) Such are the principal characteristics of Hedon, revealed partly by himself, and partly by his valet. His shallow nature is further displayed in his composition of ludicrous, affected oaths and compliments (II, ii, 10-49) and banal, silly songs, which he sings (IV, iii, 241-253). Anaides, who represents Dekker, has an even more unpleasant personality than Hedon. It is portrayed in a similar manner. Other characters describe his traits, and his own words supplement their descriptions. Mercury's caustic comments concerning Hedon have already been noted. He also has much to say of Anaides, whom he describes as no courtier, but a jester, cheater, swaggerer, and lecher: He has two essentiall parts of the courtier, pride, and ignorance; mary, the rest come somewhat after the ordinarie gallant. Tis impudence it self, Anaides; one, that speakes all that comes in his cheekes, and will blush no more then a sackbut. Hee lightly occupies the iesters roome at the table, and keepes laughter, GELAIA (a wench in pages attire) following him in place of a squire, whom he now and then tickles with some strange ridiculous stuffe, vtter'd (as his land came to him) by chance. He will censure or discourse of any thing, but as absurdly as you would wish. His fashion is not to take knowledge of him that is beneath him in clothes. Hee neuer drinkes below the salt. He do's naturally admire his wit, that weares goldlace, or tissue. Stabs any man that speakes more contemptibly of the scholler then he. Hee is a great proficient in all the illiberall sciences, as cheating, drinking, swaggering, whoring, and such like: neuer kneeles but to pledge healths, nor prayes but for a pipe of pudding tabacco. He wil blaspheme in his shirt. The othes which hee vomits at one supper, would maintaine a towne of garrison in good swearing a twelue-moneth. (II, ii, 77-97) Anaides sneers at Crites, thus showing his contempt for scholars: "Fough, he smels all lamp-oyle, with studying by candle-light" (III, ii, 11-12). His hatred for Crites is intense. Hence he promises to help Hedon slander and vilify the poet as a plagiarist: S'lud, lie giue out, all he does is dictated from other men, and sweare it too (if thou'lt ha' mee) and that I know the time, and place where he stole it, though my soule bee guiltie of no such thing; and that I

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

99

thinke, out of my heart, hee hates such barren shifts: yet to doe thee a pleasure, and him a disgrace, I'le dam' my selfe, or doe any thing. (ΠΙ, ii, 60-65)

The thin, squeaky voice of Anaides is described, and he is also said to have an ugly face, huge hands, and thin legs (IV, i, 60-72). His boorish behavior angers Amorphus, who sums up his character by saying: "... thou art rude, debauch't, impudent, coorse, impolisht, a frapler, and base" (IV, iii, 351-352). This description appears justified when Anaides criticizes Crites' scholarship, and, in the bravado of ignorance, praises himself: Death, what talke you of his learning? he vnderstands no more then a schoole-boy; I haue put him downe my selfe a thousand times (by this aire) and yet I neuer talkt with him but twice, in my life: you neuer saw his like. I could neuer get him to argue with me, but once, and then, because I could not construe an Author I quoted at first sight, hee went away, and laught at me. 88 By HERCVLES, I scorne him, as I doe the sodden Nymph, that was here e'en now, his mistris ARETE: And I loue my selfe for nothing else. (IV, v, 40-50)

In these and similar passages of Cynthia's Revels, features of Marston and Dekker may be traced, though in broad outline only, in the words and acts of Hedon and Anaides. In Jonson's next play, Poetaster, the same two persons are satirized, much more harshly and unmistakably, in the characters of Crispinus and Demetrius. Possibly another contemporary individual, a Captain Hannam, whose relations with Jonson are unclear, may be ridiculed in the figure of Captain Tucca.39 This possibility, however, is much less certain than the identifications of Marston and Dekker with Crispinus and Demetrius. The circumstances surrounding the composition of Poetaster are too familiar to require detailed repetition. Jonson, aware that his enemies were preparing retaliation for his caricatures of them in Cynthia's Revels, hurriedly composed Poetaster to forestall their attack. The storm of protest raised by the comedy so dis" This reference is described as indicating "An allusive trait which fits Dekker, cf. Poet. V, iii, 312-313. Before Poetaster, both Jonson and Marston resorted to this oblique way of attack — minor touches in a character on the whole irrelevant": Herford and Simpson, IX, 517. »· Ibid., I, 425-426. See also Hart, II, 16 and Small, p. 126.

100

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

turbed and exasperated him that he abandoned comedy for several years. Jonson was thus defeated, but Marston was nevertheless hard hit by Poetaster. He wrote no more plays until late in 1603, when, having resolved his differences with Jonson, he dedicated his Malcontent to him.40 Jonson's quarrel with Dekker, aggravated by the Satiro-mastix, does not seem, on the other hand, to have been settled. It appears that, while Jonson always retained some admiration for Marston, he had none for Dekker, in whom he saw only blatant and contemptible ignorance.41 In Poetaster, the assault on Marston and Dekker is conducted with great acrimony. The worst features of the two playwrights are displayed in the speech and behavior of Crispinus and Demetrius, who are finally brought to book as common criminals. Marston's inordinate pride in his gentle background is frequently ridiculed, usually in the boasts of Crispinus, who is fond of being a born gentleman. For example, he proudly asserts, My name is CRISPINVS, or CRI-SPINAS indeed; which is well exprest in my armes, (a Face crying in chiefe; and beneath it a blouddie Toe, betweene three Thornes pungent). (Π, i, 96-99) In the fashion of gentlemen, he owes money to tradespeople, and is arrested for debt (III, iii, 1-21). Like many men of gentle birth and education, he pretends to scholarship. However, he is not content with being a mere scholar. Thus he informs Horace, "Nay, we are new turn'd Poet too, which is more; and a Satyrist too, which is more then that: I write iust in thy veine, I. I am for your odes or your sermons, or any thing indeed; wee are a gentleman besides; our name is RVFVS LABERIVS CRISPINVS, we are a pretty stoick too" (III, i, 23-28). These pretensions to gentility and its pursuits find a sorry contrast in his frayed clothing. Horace says that his "sattin sleeue begins to fret at the rug that is vnderneath it", and that his "ample veluet bases are not without euident staines of a hot disposition, naturally" (III, i, 67-70). Hence his appearance is that of a poverty-stricken poet. As a poet, he needs not only money, but also inspiration and ideas. 40 41

Small, p. 117. Herford and Simpson, I, 424.

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

101

He is a mediocre and limited writer, but is not aware of this fact. Therefore, when he writes a silly verse on Chloe, he bestows unmerited praise on it (III, i, 85-91). Jonson ridicules his style in the words of Tucca to Histrio: he pens high, loftie, in a new stalking straine; bigger then hälfe the rimers i' the towne, againe: he was borne to fill thy mouth, MINOTAVRVS, he was: hee will teach thee to teare, and rand, Rascall... If hee pen for thee once, thou shalt not need to trauell, with thy pumps full of grauell, any more, after a blinde iade and a hamper: and stalke vpon boords, and barrell heads, to an old crackt trumpet — (III, iv, 161-170) Tucca's commendations lead Histrio to employ Crispinus as an author (III, iv, 185). The immorality of Marston is exposed in Crispinus' readiness to assist Tucca in his lecherous behavior: "Faith, Captaine, I'le be bold to show you a mistris of mine, a iewellers wife, a gallant, as we goe along" (III, iv, 373-374). He is not only loose in morals, but also treacherous in disposition. Thus he eagerly promises to assist Demetrius in his slander of Horace (IV, iii, 119). This leads eventually to his indictment as a calumniator, poetaster, and plagiarist. He and Demetrius are said to haue most ignorantly, foolishly, and (more like your selues) maliciously, gone about to depraue, and calumniate the person and writings of QVINTVS HORACIVS FLACCVS, here present, poet and priest to the Muses ... taxing him, falsly, of selfe-loue, arrogancy, impudence, rayling, filching by translation, See. (V, iii, 224-227; 231-234) Besides this reference to Marston's treatment of Jonson, other allusions, of a more personal nature, help identify Crispinus as Marston. They concern Marston's appearance and temperament. His full name, Rufus Laberius Crispinus, refers to Marston's red hair, 42 and other characters mention its distinctive hue. When Crispinus tells Chloe that he plans to become a poet, she asks him whether the color of his hair will change. He sees no necessity for it: "Why, a man may be a Poet, and yet not change his haire, lady" (II, ii, 82-83). When he tells Horace that his name "is 42

Herford and Simpson, IX, 535.

102

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

RVFVS CRISPINVS, we are a prettie stoick, too," Horace, scrutinizing his red beard, ironically replies "To the proportion of your beard, I thinke it, sir" (III, i, 27-29). This and a similar remark allude to Crispinus' "hot disposition", a trait often associated with red hair (III, i, 69). He is a singer of his own songs (IV, iii, 67-79). The most definite resemblance between Crispinus and Marston lies not, however, in their personal traits, but in their vocabulary. At the end of the play, Horace gives Crispinus an emetic. This medicine causes him to vomit thirty-four words which Jonson ridicules, and of these, fifteen are in Marston's extant works. Since these lugubrious words and phrases are prominent in Marston's writings before the presentation of Poetaster, and entirely missing from them afterwards, it is clear that Crispinus represents Marston.43 It is no less certain that Demetrius is a harsh, satirical portrait of Dekker. The references to his poverty and rude background, and to his envious and spiteful nature, all point to Dekker. Although there is less description of him than of Crispinus, it is all marked by an acerbity which is missing from the delineations of Crispinus. This is apparent from the first mention of Demetrius. Tucca, struck by his poor dress, asks Histrio: "What's he, with the half-armes there, that salutes vs out of his cloke, like a motion?" and Histrio then describes him in tones of haughty commiseration: "O, sir, his dubblet's a little decaied; hee is otherwise a very simple honest fellow, sir, one DEMETR1VS, a dresser of plaies about the towne, here; we haue hir'd him to abuse HORACE, and bring him in, in a play, with all his gallants: as TIBVLLVS, MECOENAS, CORNELIVS GALLVS, and the rest" (III, iv, 318-325). Since Dekker's work as an adapter of plays is one of the few well-established facts concerning him, this passage is important in identifying him with Demetrius.44 There is further confirmation in Tucca's reference to Demetrius as "our journeyman" (IV, vii, 27). His malicious nature is revealed by Histrio, who tells Tucca that Demetrius will not only abuse Horace "im48 44

Herford and Simpson, IX, 579. Ibid., IX, 560.

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

103

pudently enough", but also "spitefully inough, too; hee ha's one of the most ouer-flowing ranke wits, in Rome. He will slander any man that breathes, if he disgust him": (III, iv, 337-340). Demetrius confirms these statements when he says of Horace: hee is a meere spunge; nothing but humours, and obseruation; he goes vp and downe sucking from euery societie, and when hee comes home, squeazes himselfe drie againe. I know him, I. Wee'll tickle him i' faith, for his arrogancie, and his impudence, in commending his owne things; and for his translating: I can trace him i' faith. O, he is the most open fellow, liuing; I had as lieue as a new sute, I were at it. α ν , iii, 104-107; 120-123) Horace, who is reluctant to accuse even his worst enemies (V, iii, 176, 178), nevertheless faces Demetrius, and condemns him as a backbiter and calumniator even of his friends: I dare thy malice, to betray it. Speake. Now thou curl'st vp, thou poore, and nasty snake, And shrink'st thy poys'nous head into thy bosome: Out viper, thou that eat'st thy parents, hence. Rather, such speckled creatures, as thy selfe, Should be eschew'd, and shund: such, as will bite And gnaw their absent friends, not cure their fame, Catch at the loosest laughters, and affect To be thought iesters, such, as can deuise Things neuer seene, or heard, t'impaire mens names, And gratifie their credulous aduersaries, Will carrie tales, doe basest offices, Cherish diuided fires, and still increase New flames, out of old embers, will reueale Each secret that's committed to their trust, (V, iii, 324-338) To these strictures Demetrius makes no reply, nor does he offer anything in his defense except the excuse that he abused Horace out of envy: "In troth, no great cause, not I; I must confesse: but that hee kept better company (for the most part) then I: and that better men lou'd him, then lou'd me: and that his writings thriu'd better than mine, and were better lik't, and grac't: nothing else" (V, iii, 449-453). Although freely forgiven by Horace, he is nevertheless punished by the court. For an indefinite period, he is to wear a fool's cap and coat to every assembly, and, with Crispinus, he is put on good behavior, He is forced to subscribe

104

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

to an oath nevermore to abuse Horace "or any other eminent man, transcending you in merit, whom your enuy shall find cause to worke vpon" (V, iii, 597-598). After Poetaster, Jonson largely shunned personal satire. There is some of it in three later plays, but it is insignificant and innocuous. Hence it hardly bears comparison with the examples in Poetaster. For example, in Volpone, there is a reference to Daniel's plagiarism45 in the words of Lady Politic Would-Be: All our English writers, I m e a n e such, as are happy in t h ' Italian, Will deigne to steale out of this author, mainely; Almost as much, as f r o m M O N T A G N I E : H e h a s so moderne, and facile a veine, Fitting the time, a n d catching the court-eare. Your P E T R A R C H is more passionate, yet he, In dayes of sonetting, trusted 'hem, with m u c h : α π , iv, 87-94)

Compared with the satire on Marston and Dekker, however, this is a pale shadow, for Daniel is not represented on the stage in Volpone, and the reference to him is not very precise.44 On the other hand, Nathaniel Butter is given stage portrayal as the clerk of the news office in The Staple of News. This slight, mild satirical sketch of the stationer has already been noticed by references to the clerk's name, and to the "butter" phrases that aid in his identification. Jonson's satire of Inigo Jones in A Tale of A Tub, is, however, much stronger than that of Butter and Daniel. It resembles his attacks on Marston and Dekker, which had been made a generation earlier.47 The character of In-and-in Medlay, for example, "

Herford and Simpson, XI, 45. Upton considers the appearance in Volpone of Sir Politic Would-Be and his wife to be a mistake, because it interrupts the action of the play. To explain their presence, he suggests that "'tis particular satyre", but names no persons (p. 25). 47 The text of A Tale of A Tub represents a reissue in 1633 of a discarded play which Jonson had written in 1596 or 1597. In the 1633 edition, Jonson inserted his satire of Inigo Jones. See Herford and Simpson, III, 3-4.

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

105

48

is an undisputed caricature of Jones. He is described as an entertainer, "The onely man at a disguize in Midlesex" (V, ii, 33) with pronounced dictatorial tendencies: Hee'll do't alone Sir, He will joyne with no man, Though he be a Joyner: in designe he cals it, He must be sole Inventor: In-and-in Drawes with no other in's project, hee'll tell you, It cannot else be feazeable, or conduce: Those are his ruling wordes. (V, ii, 35-40)

He is pictured as the Elizabethan equivalent of a modern studio technician, fond of lighting effects: Med. A fine Pan. Med.

Now, Sir this Tub, I will have capt with paper: oild Lanterne-paper, that we use. Yes every Barber, every Cutler has it. Which in it doth containe the light to the busincs. (V, vii, 30-33)

Finally, he is represented as a poorly-educated person, ignorant of Latin. TUB. Ad Infinitum Sir you meane. MED. I doe. I stand not on my Latine. (V, vii, 12-13)

Besides this satirical sketch of Jones there are believed to be other thrusts at him in another comedy, and in several other works of Jonson. 49 It is clear that Jonson, in his ridicule of Jones, did not create a satirical portrait of him that approaches the devastating picture of Marston and Dekker in Poetaster. Because Poetaster, in its personal satire and concern with literary criticism, has some affinity with the Frogs, it has occasionally been compared to Aristophanes' comedy. It is difficult, however, to point to specific similarities between the two plays. They are, indeed, so different in mood, structure and treatment of their subjects that any comparison seems hollow. However, the trial 48 Ashley Horace Thorndike, English Comedy (New York, The Macmillan Co., 1929), p. 187. " Thus it is said that Lanthorn Leatherhead in Bartholomew Fair, III, iv, 124-129, 137-138 and V, i, 6-8,14-16 is a satirical portrait "less clear but quite recognizable": Herford and Simpson, X, 689-691. Other references to Jones in the Epigrams and Discoveries are also mentioned here.

106

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

scene in Poetaster (V, viii) is slightly reminiscent of the contest between Aeschylus and Euripides in the Frogs (830-1471). Yet the narrowness, arrogance and pettiness of Poetaster are absent from the Frogs. A sober comparison of the two plays is therefore hardly justified. 60 The injection of certain elements of Jonson's personality into his comedy has already been mentioned. It unhappily creates the impression of a purely personal quarrel, of small interest to society. This is not true of the Frogs, and the contrast is notable: Aeschylus and Euripides are opponents in a great civil cause; they stand for two generations, and the issue is between two ideals: Crispinus and Dekker are merely a pair of criminals brought to the same bar for different offences, equally heinous, against the common literary standards of the time ... they stand for no literary principle or principles, however humble.61 Besides suffering from the narrow, topical nature of its subject, Poetaster lacks the exuberant good humor and sparkling comic features that distinguish the Frogs. Although Aristophanes' comedy contains elements of serious social, political and literary criticism, 52 it remains one of the most delightful of his plays. Even his determination to put Euripides in the most unfavorable light possible does not diminish the wealth of comic incident in the Frogs. On the other hand, Poetaster is marred by excessive didacticism and seriousness. In fact, if Jonson had left Captain Tucca out of the play, there would be few laughs in it. Tucca, however, is a splendid comic character, whose speech and behavior provoke much mirth. Yet even he does not liberate Poetaster from its excess of heavy satire and militant pedantry. 50

Herbert S. Mallory, ed., Poetaster (New York, Henry Holt & Co., 1905), Introduction, pp. 35-36. 81 Herford and Simpson, I, 424. 62 W. W. Merry, in his edition of this play, says that Aristophanes intends Dionysus "to be a type of the general Athenian public, so that the exhibition of his weaknesses and follies, his conceit and credulity, his unreasoning partiality for Euripides (till he changed his mind), is intended as a good-natured rebuke to the political spirit and literary taste of the thoughtless citizens of Athens. Even the character of Xanthias, a mixture of shrewdness, arrogance and disloyalty, is intended to be a hit at the false relations between servants and masters, brought about by that foolish War": Frogs (Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1956), Introduction, p. 7,

PERSONAL SATIRE IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

107

Hence it appears that Jonson's experiments in personal satire were singularly maladroit. He lacked the finesse and sense of balance that Aristophanes displays in his ridicule of contemporary individuals. In addition, dislike for personal satire hampered him in its use. If he had enjoyed personal invective as Aristophanes did, his satire of actual persons would probably have been as artistic as that of Old Comedy. Jonson, however, disapproved of personal satire. He always felt it undignified and unworthy of a comic dramatist like himself, for he wished to be regarded, not as a professional dramatist, but as a gentleman who happened to write for the stage.53 The result is that Jonson's satire of contemporaries, when compared to that of Aristophanes, seems weak and lacking in artistry. Its defects are apparent in Poetaster. Although the personal satire in Poetaster scarcely bears comparison with that of Old Comedy, there is appended to the play another, more Aristophanic feature. This is the Apologeticall Dialogue, which has been compared to the parabases of Aristophanes. 54 The Dialogue, in fact, is but one of several devices which Jonson appears to have modeled after the parabases, which permitted the Greek dramatist, in the person of the chorus, to address his audience directly. This extra-dramatic feature of Jonson's art merits more than the casual attention which it has usually received, for it is an important link between him and Aristophanes. For this reason, the Jonsonian dialogues, prologues, inductions and choruses should be compared with the Aristophanic parabases.

Bamborough, p. 7. A. W. Ward says that it resembles the parabases, but does not mention any specific parabasis. He suggests, moreover, that Jonson appeared in person to speak the part of the Author. This is probably only a guess: A History of English Dramatic Literature to the Death of Queen Anne, 2nd ed., 3 vols. (New York, The Macmillan Co., 1899), II, 360. 54

VII JONSON'S IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS OF THE ARISTOPHANIC PARABASIS

A remarkable feature of Jonson's comedy is its use of devices which break the dramatic illusion. These appear to be imitations and adaptations of a similar element of Old Comedy, for Jonson seems to have understood and appreciated the function of the Parabasis in Greek comedy, where the author addressed the audience in his own person through the mouth of the Chorus. Having no chorus, Jonson made full use of Dedication, Prologue, Epilogue, Induction and Dialogue between the acts — devices whereby the poet was enabled to communicate his private opinions and his critical observations to the public.1 Jonson thus displays not only an appreciation of the parabases of Old Comedy, but also a fondness for taking his audience into his confidence. Recognizing that his comedy differs sharply from that of other Elizabethan writers, Jonson endeavors to explain and interpret it to the spectators. Often, too, he censures the audience for its poor taste and lack of judgment. These explanations, interpretations and strictures take several forms, all of which appear to be, in some measure, imitations and adaptations of the Aristophanic parabasis.2 The parabasis is a complex work of art. Its composition called for the most serious efforts of the comic poet. Indeed, his personal 1

Symonds, Ben Jonson, pp. 29-30. Jonson may also have found precedent for his extra-dramatic devices in Plautine comedies. Plautus, like Aristophanes, was fond of introducing speeches out of character and destroying momentarily the dramatic illusion. Hough says that "The total number of speeches out of character is forty-five, of which forty-one break the dramatic illusion completely": Miscellanea Plautina, p. 192. 2

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

109

interest in it was very great, for the parabasis established close rapport between the dramatist and his audience, upon whose favor his success was dependent. By permitting him to address the audience directly through the Chorus, the parabasis offered the comic poet several opportunities. He was able to make personal appeals to the spectators, to criticize them for their lack of judgment, and to ridicule his competitors. In addition, the parabasis was often used by the playwright to express his literary and political views, and to engage in personal satire. Since the parabasis was thus highly important to the poet, he bestowed much care on its composition. Hence its structure is elaborate and highly artistic, and its content is often quite serious. A typical parabasis begins with anapaests that frequently laud the poet for his accomplishments. These conclude with a pnigos, a lengthy statement pronounced, for the sake of laughter, in a single breath. This is followed by an ode, an epirrhema, an antode and an antepirrhema. The parabasis, therefore, was composed according to a traditional pattern, and its central position in comedy was likewise fixed by convention. Thus Aristophanes could not easily have omitted the parabasis; it was, like the phallic dress, an essential feature of Old Comedy.3 This is proved by its presence in all of the extant plays of Aristophanes except the Ecclesiazusae and Plutus, which were composed during a period of transition, and lack certain characteristic features of Old Comedy. Even before the appearance of these plays, the parabasis was on its way to oblivion; indeed, some of its traditional elements are missing in the parabases of the Frogs and Peace.* In his efforts to imitate the Greek parabasis, Jonson seems to have been attracted to it largely by his didactic spirit. Like Aristophanes, he was a man of letters, a literary critic, and a learned censor of public morals. He wanted his scholarly allusions to be recognized, appreciated, and enjoyed by the spectators.5 He was equally eager that his audiences should understand his sophisticated comedy, which was radically different from that of contem3 4 5

Murray, Aristophanes, p. 13. Mazon, p. 12. Partridge, p. 223.

110

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

porary dramatists. Throughout his career, Jonson feared that the indifference or ignorance of the spectators would mean the failure of his comedies. To avoid this possibility, he sought to educate and guide his audiences toward a judicious appreciation of his work. In the Aristophanic parabasis, he found the instrument he needed to convey his messages to the spectators. Its value for this purpose was obvious. It was a proven method for explaining the dramatist's purpose and dramatic technique to the spectators, and for developing and polishing their literary taste. However, the classical form of the parabasis was a serious obstacle to Jonson's use of it on the English stage. Unlike Aristophanes, he had no chorus. Moreover, the strict, highly-complex metrical structure of the Greek device would have been very difficult to adapt to Elizabethan comedy. It was, therefore, necessary for Jonson to develop a simple adaptation of the parabasis for use in his plays. Actually, he produced not one, but several devices which contain elements of his Aristophanic model. Thus he uses dedications, prologues, inductions and intermeans, which he also calls choruses. In The Magnetic Lady, for example, he refers to the introductory portion of the play as a "CHORUS by way of Induction", and "The INDUCTION: or, CHORUS". 6 In the same comedy, the scenes between the acts are all designated as choruses. He follows similar terminology and practice in Every Man Out of His Humour and The Staple of News. Three other comedies, Cynthia's Revels, Poetaster and Bartholomew Fair, have extra-dramatic inductions that serve as introductions, but no choruses appear between their acts. In only three of his plays, therefore, does Jonson follow Aristophanes closely by introducing extra-dramatic material inside the comedies. In these, however, his practice is significant: there are interpositions of what may be called Aristophanic parabases, in passages where they are least expected.' Jonson's employment of inductions and choruses is, however, quite limited when compared to Aristophanes' use of parabases. 9

Herford and Simpson, VI, 507-508. Henry L. Snuggs, "Classical Theory and Practice in the Comedies of Ben Jonson" (Unpublished M. A. Thesis, Duke University, 1928), p. 1. 7

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

111

These appear in nine of the eleven comedies, and five of the nine plays have two parabases. These are the Acharnians, Knights, Wasps, Peace and Birds, all produced during the early part of his career, between 425 and 414. During this period, the Clouds was also produced; it, however, has but one parabasis. In this respect, it resembles the Lysistrata, Thesmophoriazusae and Frogs, all products of a later era, and presented between 411 and 405. The last plays, the Ecclesiazusae and Plutus, which have no parabases, were produced in 392 and 388, respectively. Their differences from Aristophanes' other plays indicate how greatly conditions had changed in Greece during a single generation. In the stirring days of the Peloponnesian War, which ravaged Greek civilization between 431 and 404, Aristophanes worked as a dramatist whose primary mission was that of a propagandist. 8 He, therefore, wrote plays with two parabases, which permitted him to address the audience directly. In these addresses, he explained the burning issues of the day, and strove to move the spectators to political action against the destroyers of Greece. By 392, everything had changed. It was now imprudent, if not impossible, to castigate political figures, and the parabasis was therefore less important. Having lost its principal reason for existence, it gradually disappeared from Old Comedy. During the brief period, however, in which Aristophanes acted as a public censor, he wrote comedies containing so much extradramatic material that even the parabases proved inadequate. He therefore supplemented them with other expository and explanatory devices. These are easily observed in the plays. Sometimes a principal character opens the play with a soliloquy that reveals the entire plot. This occurs in both the Acharnians and the Clouds. Other plays employ dialogues to explain the situation to the spectators. One of the speakers may even turn suddenly to the audience and address it. This technique is used in the Wasps, Knights, Peace, Birds, Thesmophoriazusae, Frogs and Plutus. Two other plays, the Lysistrata and Ecclesiazusae, employ a combination of soliloquy and dialogue to interpret and explain •

Grene, p. 88; Harsh, p. 193.

112

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS 9

the comedy. Because Jonson, in his inductions and choruses, uses a similar combination, it is possible that he followed Aristophanes' soliloquies and dialogues as well as his parabases in their composition.10 A few examples from Aristophanes should, therefore, be briefly examined. In the Acharnians (1-42), Dicaeopolis, in a long soliloquy, provides the audience with the information it needs to enjoy the play. He reveals his own miserable condition, which is the result of Athenian politics. The war is ruining the city. Its citizens have lost all interest in serious matters, and now spend all their time in idle gossip. Dicaeopolis concludes his complaint by disclosing his purpose in coming to the Assembly. He says that he is fully prepared to bawl, rail, and interrupt any orator who dares to talk of anything but peace. The plot of the comedy is thus exposed, almost in its entirety. The same technique is observable in the opening scene of the Clouds (1-24). Unable to sleep because of his debts, Strepsiades tosses and tons in his bed. As he struggles with his problems, he discloses the plot of the comedy to the audience. He has a profligate and spendthrift son, fond of horses, who has driven him deeply into debt and created an intolerable situation. The spectators are thus furnished with the background of the conflict, and may anticipate its outcome. Besides using soliloquies to reveal his plots, Aristophanes often employs another device for the same purpose. In seven plays, he uses dialogue, in which one of the speakers suddenly faces the audience to explain the situation. This actually amounts to a delayed prologue. A good example occurs in the Wasps. Two slaves, Sosias and Xanthias, stand before Bdelycleon's house in the opening scene, and discuss personal problems. Suddenly Xanthias turns to the audience, and addresses it directly in a long speech (54-75). He tells the spectators to expect nothing very great from the players, nor yet, on the contrary, anything very contemptible. The audience is not going to hear any of the old, •

Mahaffy, II, 241. He may also have followed Plautus in this respect. Discussing the opening scene of the Clouds, Gilbert Norwood says: "Plautus inherits this type of Prologue — an introductory address that tells the plot", Plautus and Terence (New York, Longmans, Green and Co., 1932), p. 68. 10

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

113

stale jokes of Megaran comedy: there will also be no slaves running about the theatre and throwing nuts to the spectators. Hercules will not be deprived of his dinner, Euripides will not be subjected to ridicule again, and even Cleon will be spared the usual castigation. This, he says, is an entirely different comedy, subtle, yet not so finely drawn that it cannot be understood. It concerns their master's father, whom the two slaves are guarding. He is afflicted with a strange disease. N o one would ever guess the nature of his illness, and therefore Xanthias will reveal it. This he does in another long speech to the audience (85-135), in which he discloses that the sick man suffers from a gentleman's ailment. He is a professional dicast, who spends all his time haunting the law courts. To control the patient's litigious compulsions, his son has resorted to many stratagems, all of which have failed. Now he has his father under house arrest, locked up and closely guarded. The old man's name is Philocleon; and the name of his son is Bdelycleon. Xanthias now leaves the stage, after having made the plot clear to the audience. Jonson's use of both soliloquy and dialogue is similar to that of Aristophanes. However, Jonson employs a soliloquy only once to reveal the plot to the spectators. He prefers dialogues, or a combination of soliloquy and dialogue. Poetaster opens with a scene in which a personification of Envy rises in the middle of the stage. In a long soliloquy, she provides information essential to the understanding and enjoyment of the play. The plot is concerned with the arraignment of the enemies of Horace: What's here? TH' ARRAIGNMENT? I: This, tbis is it, That our sunke eyes haue wak't for, all this while: Here will be subiect for my snakes, and me. (After the Second Sounding, 3-5) Certain extra-dramatic information is also disclosed by this character, who does not appear again after the play begins. She makes known the time that was consumed in the composition of the comedy: Wonder not, if I stare: these fifteene weekes (So long as since the plot was but an embriori)

114

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

Haue I, with burning lights, mixt vigilant thoughts, In expectation of this hated play: To which (at last) I am arriu'd as Prologue.

(14-18)

The scene of the comedy is also disclosed: "The Scene is, ha!/ ROME? ROME? and ROME?" (27-28). In addition, there are references to the nature of the conflict: Are there no players here? no poet-apes, That come with basiliskes eyes, whose forked tongues Are steept in venome, as their hearts in gall? Eyther of these would helpe me; they could wrest Peruert, and poyson all they heare, or see, With senseless glosses, and allusions. (35-40) This, the sole instance in which Jonson uses a soliloquy to disclose the plot, indicates that he, like Aristophanes, preferred other methods. It will be recalled that Aristophanes uses the device only in the Acharnians and Clouds. A much more flexible artifice is the dialogue, which both artists use frequently in dealing with extra-dramatic material. The chorus in Every Man Out of His Humour is composed of three characters who take no part in the play proper. Instead, their observations and comments throughout the comedy serve to explain and interpret it to the audience. Only two of the three characters remain on the stage throughout the performance. These are Mitis and Cordatus. The other member of the chorus is Asper, who leaves the stage before the play begins. He represents Jonson. Thus he is haughty and imperious in spirit, disgusted with human follies, determined to correct them, and deaf to pleas of moderation and tolerance (After the Second Sounding, Chorus, 4-25). When he is finally calmed by his two friends, he suddenly turns to the audience, welcomes it, and urges it to be critical, but fair: I not obseru'd this thronged round till now. Gracious, and kind spectators, you are welcome. APOLLO, and the MVSES feast your eyes With gracefull obiects, and may our MINERVA Answere your hopes, vnto their largest straine. Yet here, mistake me not, iudicious friends. I doe not this, to begge your patience,

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

115

Or seruilely to fawne on your applause, Like some drie braine, despairing in his merit: Let me be censur'd, by th'austerest brow, Where I wante arte, or iudgement, taxe me freely: Let envious censors, with their broadest eyes, Looke through and through me, I pursue no fauour, Onely vouchsafe me your attentions, And I will giue you musicke worth your eares. O, how I hate the monstrousnesse of time, Where euery seruile imitating spirit, (Plagu'd with an itching leprosie of wit) In a meere halting fury, striues to fling His vlc'rous body in the Thespian spring And streight leap's forth a Poet! but as lame as VULCAN, or the founder of Cripple-gate. (51-72) Here Jonson addresses the spectators, in a delayed prologue, much as Xanthias does in the Wasps. Memories of Xanthias are evoked also by the Induction to Bartholomew Fair. The stage-keeper takes the audience into his confidence, as he reveals the essential features of the comedy. But for the whole Play, will you ha' the truth on't? (I am looking, lest the Poet heare me, or his man, Master Broome, behind the Arras) it is like to be a very conceited scuruy one, in plaine English. When't comes to the Fayre, once: you were e'en as good goe to Virginia, for any thing there is of Smith-field. Hee has not hit the humors, he do's not know 'hem; hee has not conuers'd with the Bartholmew-birds, as they say; he has ne're a Sword, and Buckler man in his Fayre, nor a little Dauy, to take toll o' the Bawds there, as in my time, nor a Kindheart, if any bodies teeth should chance to ake in his Play. Nor a Iugler with a wel-educated Ape to come ouer the chaine, for the King of England, and backe againe for the Prince, and sit still on his arse for the Pope, and the King of Spainel None o' these fine sights! (6-20) He is interrupted in his discourse by the Book-holder, who then asks the Scrivener to read the Articles of Agreement between the spectators and the author. A portion of this document is reminiscent of Xanthias' warnings to the audience in the Wasps: It is further couenanted, concluded and agreed, that how great soeuer the expectation bee, no person here, is to expect more then hee knowes, or better ware then a Fayre will affoord: neyther to looke backe to the sword and buckler-age of Smithfield, but content himselfe with

116

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

the present. In stead of a little Dauy, to take toll o' the Bawds, the Author doth promise a strutting Horse-courser, with a feere-Drunkard, two or three to attend him, in as good Equipage as you would wish. And then for Kinde-heart, the Tooth-drawer, a fine oyly Pig-woman with her Tapster, to bid you welcome, and a consort of Roarers for musique. A wise Iustice of Peace meditant, in stead of a Iugler, with an Ape. A ciuill Cutpurse searchant. A sweete Singer of new Ballads alluranf. and as fresh an Hypocrite, as euer was broach'd, rampant. (113-127) There is an even more elaborate disclosure of the plot in the Induction to Cynthia's Revels. Here the characters are three children, each of which is eager to speak the prologue. One pleads that he should utter the prologue, because he studied it first; another, that he should have the honor, because the author thinks he can speak it better; while the third child rests his claim on possession of the cloak. When the issue is finally determined by lot, one of the two losers, in revenge against the author, threatens to reveal the plot: "lie goe tell all the argument of his play aforehand, and so stale his inuention to the auditorie before it come forth" (35-37). In spite of the protests of the other two children, he carries out his threat: First, the title of his play is CYNTHIA'S Reuels, as any man (that hath hope to bee saued by his booke) can witnesse; the Scene GARGAPHIE: which I doe vehemently suspect for some fustian countrie, but let that vanish. Here, is the court of CYNTHIA, whither hee brings CVPID (trauailing on foot) resolu'd to turne page. By the way, CVPID meetes with MERCVRIE ... MERCVRY, he (in the nature of a conjurer) raises vp ECCHO, who weepes ouer her loue, or Daffodill, NARCISSVS, a little; sings; curses the spring wherein the prettie foolish gentleman melted himselfe away: and ther's an end of her ... CVPID, and MERCVRY doe both become pages. CVPED attends on PHILAVTIA, or selfe-Loue, a court ladie: MERCVRY followes HEDON, the voluptuous, and a courtier; one that rankes himselfe euen with ANAIDES, or the impudent, a gallant, ... one that keepes laughter, GELAIA, the daughter of folly, (a wench in boyes attire) to waite on him. (40-61) In these lines, and forty more besides, all the meagre action of the play is described, the names of the characters interpreted, and other details of the comedy furnished for the benefit of the audi-

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

117

ence. This complete disclosure of the plot has no counterpart in Aristophanes. It is another example of Jonson's tendency toward excess, for he often lacks the Greek spirit of restraint and moderation, especially when he is eager to instruct the spectators. This regrettable tendency is apparent in Jonson's extra-dramatic ridicule of his audience. Jonson's consistent rudeness to spectators has not been equalled even by Shaw.11 Even Aristophanes, whose criticism of the spectators is notably severe, is always subtle and ingenious in reproving their taste. He alternately flatters and censures them, but consistently delivers his strictures in a spirit of good humor. This tactful approach distinguishes the parabases of Aristophanes, but it is almost unknown in the prologues, dedications, dialogues, inductions, choruses and epilogues of Jonson. The parabasis to the Achamians (626-718) provides an example of the Aristophanic technique. The poet begins by reminding the spectators that this is the first time that he has ever come forward to tell them how clever he is. However, since he has been slandered by his enemies among the "hasty-deciding" Athenians, he wants to defend himself before these fickle people. They should remember that he delivered them from cajolery by strangers, flattery by their own politicians, and deceptions by themselves. He is therefore entitled to many privileges and advantages. This is Aristophanes' defense of himself, and his censure of the audience. There is nothing spiteful or malicious about it, and a spirit of mirth pervades all his criticism.12 Aristophanes is even more subtle in reproving the audience of the Clouds. In the parabasis (510-626) of this comedy, he delivers a very learned address to the spectators. Referring to a previous failure of the Clouds, he reminds his hearers that, because he had considered them clever spectators, he had allowed them to taste 11

Bamborough, p. 11. " The audience was accustomed to ridicule by the poets of Old Comedy, who did not confine their derision to the parabases. Thus in Frogs 276, "Dionysus looks slily at the spectators when he says he 'still has his eye on the reprobates'. This good humoured abuse of the audience is a standing form of joke, cp. inf. 783; Nub. 1096 foil., Vesp. 73 foil." (Merry, ed. Frogs, p. 19 (note). See also Clouds 1202, where Strepsiades turns suddenly to the spectators and calls them "wretches, the gain of us wise men, being blocks, ciphers, mere sheep, jars heaped together".

118

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

his comedy. To his surprise, he was quite undeservedly rebuffed and defeated by vulgar fellows. Naturally he objects to such treatment from a learned audience for whose sake he had labored. He, nevertheless, will not desert the discerning portion of his audience, but will continue his work. Those who laugh at crude, vulgar and obscene comedy should not expect to be pleased with drama so refined as his. On the other hand, those who are delighted with Aristophanes and his innovations will some day be accounted wise. Almost the same sentiments are expressed in the parabasis to the Wasps (1009-1121), but the technique is different. Aristophanes first frankly announces his desire to censure the spectators. He then complains of certain wrongs he has suffered from them, largely because their judgment is so poor. They failed to understand and appreciate the Clouds, which contained verses so good that no one had ever heard better ones. The taste of the spectators is, therefore, disgraceful to them, but Aristophanes is still esteemed among the wise. Henceforth, the audience should cherish and honor its original and gifted poets. If it does this, and preserves their thoughts like apples, there will be an odor of cleverness about the clothing of the playgoers. The subtlety and tact that characterize Aristophanes' criticism of his audience are missing from Jonson's censure of the spectators. His irascible spirit is expressed in harsh denunciations of the audience, and his strictures are frank to the point of rudeness. One of the speakers in the Induction to Cynthia's Revels censures the unsophisticated taste of certain playmongers: what will you say now, if a Poet... find the tokens vpon you, that are of the auditorie? As some one ciuet-wit among you, that knowes no other learning, then the price of satten and vellets; nor other perfection, then the wearing of a neat sute; and yet will censure as desperately as the most profess'd critique in the house: presuming, his clothes should beare him out in't. Another (whom it hath pleas'd nature to furnish with more beard, then braine) prunes his mustaccio, lisps, and (with some score of affected othes) sweares downe all that sit about him; That the old Hieronimo, (as it was first acted) was the onely best, and iudiciously pertd play of Europe. A third great-bellied juggler talkes of twentie yeeres since, and when MONSIEVR was heere, and would enforce all wits to bee of that fashion, because his doublet is still so.

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

119

A fourth miscals all by the name of fustian, that his grounded capacitie cannot aspire to. A fift, only shakes his bottle-head, and out of his corkie braine, squeezeth out a pittiful-learned face, and is silent. (199-217) Similar ridicule of the appearance and taste of typical spectators occurs in the Chorus of Every Man Out of His Humour, as Jonson, in the person of Asper, says: And MITIS, note me, if in all this front, You can espy a gallant of this marke, Who (to be thought one of the iudicious) Sits with his armes thus wreath'd, his hat pull'd here, Cryes meaw, and nods, then shakes his empty head, Will shew more seueral motions in his face, Then the new London, Rome, or Niniueh, And (now and then) breakes a drie bisquet iest, Which that it may more easily be chew'd, He steeps in his owne laughter. How monstrous, and detested is't, to see, A fellow, that has neither arte, nor braine, Sit like an ARISTARCHVS, or starke-asse, Taking mens lines, with a tabacco face, In snuffe, still spitting, vsing his wryed lookes (In nature of a vice) to wrest, and turne The good aspect of those that shall sit neere him, From what they doe behold! O, 'tis most vile. (After the Second Sounding, 158-167; 177-184) Not content with ridiculing the audience to its face, Jonson occasionally uses his Inductions and Choruses to represent its follies on the stage. He seems to believe that, by giving the spectators an opportunity to laugh at themselves, he may teach them good manners and improve their literary taste. In the Induction to Cynthia's Revels, one of the boy actors mimics the affectations and poor taste of a typical playgoer. Now, sir, suppose I am one of your gentile auditors, that am come in (hauing paid my monie at the doore, with much adoe) and here I take my place, and sit downe: I haue my three sorts of tabacco in my pocket, my light by me, and thus I beginne. By this light, I wonder that any man is so mad, to come to see these rascally Tits play here (At the breaches he takes his tabacco) — They doe act like so manie wrens, or pismires — not the fift part of a good face amongst them all — And

120

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

then their musicke is abominable — able to stretch a mans eares worse then tenne — pillories, and their ditties — most lamentable things, like the pittifull fellowes that make them — Poets. By this vapour, and 'twere not for tabacco — I thinke — the verie stench of 'hem would poison mee. I should not dare to come in at their gates — A man were better visit fifteene jailes, — or a dozen or two of hospitals — then once aduenture to come neere them. (116-131) A less satirical portrait of a more judicious beholder appears in an inter-act scene of Every Man Out of His Humour. Mitis criticizes one of the scenes, and his objections are answered by Cordatus: MIT. Me thinkes, CORDATVS, he dwelt somewhat too long on this Scene; it hung i' the hand. COR. I see not where he could haue insisted lesse, and t'haue made the humours perspicuous enough. MIT. True, as his subiect lies: but hee might haue altered the shape of his argument, and explicated 'hem better in single Scenes. COR. That had beene single indeed: why? be they not the same persons in this, as they would haue beene in those? and is it not an obiect of more state, to behold the Scene full, and relieu'd with varietie of speakers to the end, then to see a vast emptie stage, and the actors come in (one by one) as if they were dropt downe with a feather, into the eye of the spectators? MIT. Nay, you are better traded with these things then I, and therefore I'le subscribe to your judgement; mary, you shall giue mee leaue to make obiections. COR. O, what else? it's the speciall intent of the author, you should doe so: for thereby others (that are present) may as well be satisfied, who happily would obiect the same you doe. (II, iii, Chorus, 288-308) The Induction to The Staple of News presents four loquacious and censorious women, whose peevish fault-finding satirizes the same tendency of the audience. These gossips, whose names are Mirth, Tattle, Expectation and Censure, are seated on the stage throughout the play, and their criticisms follow each act except the fifth. In the Induction, their interest in attending the play is disclosed as superficial, for they are concerned with details of no dramatic importance. The actor who speaks the prologue suddenly turns to Censure and exclaims: Ο Curiosity I you come to see, who weares the new sute to day? whose clothes are best penn'd, what euer the part be? which Actor has the

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

121

best legge and foote? what King playes without cuffes? and his Queene without gloues? who rides post in stockings? and daunces in bootes? Admitting this, Censure replies: Yes, and which amorous Prince makes loue in drinke, or doe's oueract prodigiously in beaten satten, and, hauing got the tricks on't, will be monstrous still, in despight of Counsell! (39-47) The same poor taste and vulgarity of purpose are ridiculed in Tattle's description of her late husband. He had very fixed ideas concerning the dramatis personae of a good play. My husband, (Timothy Tatle, God rest his poore soule) was wont to say, there was no Play without a Foole, and a Diuell in't; he was for the Diuell still, God blesse him. The Diuell for his money, would hee say, I would faine see the Diuell. And why would you so faine see the Diuell! would I say. Because hee has homes, wife, and may be a cuckold, as well as a Diuell, hee would answer: You are e'en such another, husband, quoth I. Was the Diuell ever married? where doe you read, the Diuell was euer so honorable to commit Matrimony? The Play will tell us that, sayes hee, wee'll goe see't to morrow, the Diuell is an Asse. Hee is an errant learn'd man, that made it, and can write, they say, and I am fouly deceiu'd, but hee can read too. (I, vi, Intermeane, 34-46) Another thrust at the cavils of spectators occurs in one of the choruses of The Magnetic Lady. One of the characters, Damplay, believes that his ticket entitles him to carp at the play: "I see no reason, if I come here, and give my eighteen pence, or two shillings for my seat, but I should take it out in censure, on the Stage" (Chorus, II, 59-62). His aggressive ignorance and reluctance to learn are also ridiculed: "Who should teach us the right, or the wrong, at a PlayV' (68). He is given a blunt reply: If your own science can not doe it, or the love of Modesty, and Truth; all other intreaties, or attempts — are vaine. You are fitter Spectators for the Beares, then us, or the Puppets. This is a popular ignorance indeed, somewhat better appareld in you, then the People: but a hardhanded, and stiffe ignorance, worthy a Trewel, or a Hammer-man; and not onely fit to be scorn'd but to be triumph'd ore. (69-76) Such ridicule of popular taste should not lead one to believe that Jonson despised all criticism from the audience. While he flouts the taste of the masses, and scorns the opinion of the vulgar, he

122

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

welcomes judicious censure. This is clear from Asper's appeal, in the chorus of Every Man Out of His Humour: Let me be censur'd, by th'austerest brow, Where I wante arte, or iudgement, taxe me freely: Let envious censors, with their broadest eyes, Looke through and through me, I pursue no fauour, Only vouchsafe me your attentions, And I will giue you musicke worth your eares. (The Second Sounding, Chorus, 60-65) Jonson's attitude toward wise and careful criticism is consistent with his role as a literary critic. With great frankness and earnestness, he often expresses his views on the work of other writers, and his remarks are usually provocative and informative. They occur in unexpected places, for Jonson's literary criticism is not confined to his prose works. It often appears in his dramas, usually in the prologues, inductions and choruses. The criticism of literature which these devices contain has occasionally evoked comparisons between them and the Aristophanic parabases.18 Their resemblances, however, have not been noted in detail. To do so, it is necessary first to consider Aristophanes as a literary critic. Aristophanes' exalted rank as a judge of literature is open to question. He has been called not only the first literary critic, but also one of the greatest critics of antiquity.14 This estimate appears to be justified neither by the quantity nor the quality of Aristophanes' criticism. Nearly all of it is contained in four comedies: the Achamians, Clouds, Thesmophoriazusae, and Frogs. In the first two of these plays, the criticism is largely concentrated in the parabases. In the other two, it is missing from the parabases, and is scattered throughout the drama proper. The greater part of Aristophanes' literary criticism is concerned with his attacks on Euripides. Thus, in the Achamians, Thesmophoriazusae, and 18

See Ward, II, 360, and Hart, I, 25. John William Hey Atkins, Literary Criticism in Antiquity, 2 vols. (Cambridge, The University Press, 1934), I, 23. The views of Atkins are similar to those of Murray, who says that the Frogs contains "the liveliest and most intimate piece of literary criticism that has come down from antiquity": Aristophanes, p. 109. 14

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

123

Frogs, Euripides is subjected to much abuse, and is presented on the stage in a ridiculous light. Aristophanes evidently believed that Euripides, as a literary innovator and practitioner of startling new ideas, represented a threat to Greek literature and possibly to Greek political life.15 His personal attitude toward Euripides and his poetry, is, however, very difficult to determine.16 It is certain that he ridicules Euripides personally, and parodies his poetry constantly. Yet he does both in a spirit of rollicking good humor. In addition, he often seems to enjoy the poetry of Euripides, for he frequently quotes it. His real feelings toward Euripides, therefore, remain a matter of conjecture.17 Nevertheless, it is clear that Aristophanes considers certain features of Euripides' poetry to be pernicious, for he attacks them repeatedly. Thus in the Achamians he ridicules the realism of Euripides, since he considers it sentimental and foreign to the Greek spirit. The tattered heroes of Euripides, who often are lame beggars (in Bellerophon, Telephus, and Philoctetes) are, therefore, mocked and lampooned. Likewise, Euripides' heroines, who are frequently incestuous (in Helena and Andromeda), and his sensational situations are ridiculed in the Thesmophoriazusae. In the Clouds, the philosophy of Euripides is portrayed as similar to that of the Sophists. Finally, in the Frogs, all of the objections of Aristophanes to Euripides are brought together in a comparison between him and Aeschylus.18 In the Frogs, the criteria by which Aristophanes judges Euripides and other poets are not primarily aesthetic, but moral ones.19 When Aeschylus asks what ought to be admired in a poet, Euripides replies: "Artistic cleverness, and counsel that makes better cit16

Grene, p. 90. Merry, expressing the traditional view, says that "the hatred of Aristophanes for the poet must have been very intense; for while he knows when to spare Cleon, and how to respect the memory of Lamachus, he shows no mercy to Euripides; but as it were, persecutes him even in the world below", ed. Frogs, Introduction, p. 15. " Murray, Aristophanes, p. 107. 18 "In the judgment of Aristophanes, Aeschylus seemed to be the champion of the old religion, pure morality, national institutions, and everything that was purely Athenian: while Euripides was sophist, sceptic, rationalist, atheist, libertine, and general corrupter of the people", Merry, ed. Frogs, Introduction, p. 15. » Atkins, I, 28-29. 19

124

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

izens" (Frogs, 1009). Thus literature is judged by moral standards. This fact explains the criticism of the tragedies of Aeschylus. His fondness for wild and savage scenery and undramatic beginnings is ridiculed (833, 911-916). In keeping with such settings, the vocabulary used by Aeschylus' characters is rough and unpolished. Hence he is derided as a writer of savage poetry, full of strange and ponderous words, unintelligible to the audience (834, 924932). As for Euripides, he is chided as "an introducer of lame characters" (842-843), and a playwright who violates decorum by dressing royal persons in rags to arouse pity and compassion (1061). His vocabulary is criticized as bombastic and shallow (1069-1071). He is the cause of much evil in the state, for he has represented low people on the stage, and suggested that outrageous events have taken place in the temples (1078-1088). To these strictures, Euripides replies by citing his contributions to poetry. He claims to have freed tragedy of its pomposity and heaviness, and to have simplified and beautified it (937-944). Besides these improvements, he also has developed rules for the design of tragedy, and has introduced domestic affairs to bring the art closer to daily life (956-967). All this criticism indicates that Aristophanes is more concerned with the poet's moral contributions than he is with artistic accomplishments. Thus the supreme test for judging poetry is a moral one, which stresses the didactic functions of the poet. To this test both Aeschylus and Euripides must submit their art. Aeschylus himself emphasizes the functions of the poet as priest, lawgiver and teacher. He therefore maintains that the earliest poets conferred numerous benefits on mankind by teaching them oracles, medicine, agriculture, and the arts of war (1030-1036). He adds that a poet should hide wickedness, and never exhibit or represent it, for he is to adults what the teacher is to little children (1054-1055). To these ideals he has been true. His heroes have been Patrocluses and stout-hearted Teucers, whose martial deeds stirred citizens to warlike duties. Likewise, his heroines are respectable; there are no strumpets or women in love in the dramas of Aeschylus (1041-1044). Euripides, on the other hand, fails to imitate Aeschylus in such matters. His work as a teacher

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

125

has been bad; he has taught the citizens to babble and argue as they loiter idly in the city. He has even influenced the crews of Athenian ships to contradict their officers. The evil characters of Euripides have provided pernicious examples to the spectators; consequently the city is full of petty clerks, buffoons and charlatans, who constantly deceive the citizens (1068-1073; 1078-1088). These results condemn the work of Euripides, who claims that he has taught men to use logic, to subject all things to scrutiny, and to debate cleverly on various topics (954-958). The final decision is reached in a contest between the two poets. Dionysus, patron of the theatre, acts as moderator and judge. The plots and language of the tragedies of both dramatists are examined and criticized; and the weight of their expressions is tested in scales. By these tests, Euripides loses the contest to Aeschylus, seemingly by a narrow margin. Dionysus, in awarding the palm to Aeschylus, says that he will choose the one his soul desires (1468, 1471). This judgment is not rational, but instinctive; and it is not based on utilitarian, didactic, or moral considerations. Instead, Dionysus judges the poets by the aesthetic appeal which each one makes to his whole nature.20 Yet one should not infer from the decision of Dionysus that Aristophanes' criteria are essentially aesthetic. His standards for judging literature are, on the contrary, almost exclusively moral; and they closely resemble those which were used by fifteenth-century humanists to justify poetry. Men like Bruni and Poliziano, following in the footsteps of Horace, expressed sentiments like those of Aristophanes when they praised poets as the inventors of sciences and arts, and as the teachers, lawgivers and priests of mankind. 21 Aristophanes, therefore, is hardly an ideal critic. His literary criticism is quite limited in quantity; it is, moreover, narrowly moral and arbitrary in its standards, and it is often marred by prejudice. Aristophanes' prejudices, in fact, color his criticism of other poets besides Euripides. They are apparent in extravagant condemnation of his contemporaries. In the Frogs, Aristophanes contemptuously dismisses his fellow poets, apparently with no "

11

Atkins, I, 31. Spingarn, Literary Criticism, pp. 11-14.

126

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

better reason than Jonson had for his diatribe against contemporary dramatists.22 Of his competitors, Aristophanes says: "These are small fellows, chatter-boxes, twittering like sparrows, disgraceful to the art, who disappear immediately after having received a chorus and dabbled in tragedy. But you couldn't find a poet of true genius, if you searched, who uttered a noble sentiment" (92-97). The reason for this situation, according to Dionysus, is that the good poets are all dead, and only the bad are still living (72). Even Agathon, whom Aristophanes had often ridiculed for his personal immorality, is no longer alive: "Having left me, he is gone: a good poet, and mourned by his friends" (83-84). This unexpected praise of Agathon indicates that Aristophanes' criticism of his contemporaries does not follow a consistent pattern. While Aristophanes does not cast a single aspersion on the personal character of Euripides, he consistently condemns his poetry for its bad moral effects. On the other hand, he castigates Agathon for his vileness as a man, and praises his genius as a poet. In this respect, his views differ from those of Jonson, who cannot see how one may be a good poet without first being a good man.23 Jonson's literary criticism is, with the exception of his prose works, largely confined to the inductions, prologues, choruses and dedicatory prefaces of his comedies. It is not, therefore, a well-organized body of doctrine and principles. In this respect it resembles Aristophanes' criticism, which is scattered throughout several dramas. This is not the most serious defect of Jonson's literary criticism. A proud, sensitive artist, dedicated wholly to his profession as a poet, he seems to have been even more prejudiced in judgment than Aristophanes. Hence his criticism is that of a fiercely independent spirit, working in self-imposed isolation, and often intolerant of views contrary to his own. This is not always a defect; it occasionally renders his literary judgments refreshingly original and unhampered by Aristotelian standards. He therefore makes an enduring contribution to criticism when he recognizes literary forms as dynamic, not static, and proclaims " "

Volpone, Dedication, 31-43; 128-134. Ibid., 20-23.

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

127

his independence of pedantic rules. 24 Citing the practice of the ancients, who, in their dramas "vtterly excluded the Chorus, altered the property of the persons, their names and natures, and augmented it with all liberty", he says: I see not then, but we should enioy the same licence, or free power, to illustrate and heighten our inuention as they did; and not bee tyed to those strict and regular formes, which the nicenesse of a few (who are nothing but forme) would thrust vpon vs. (Every Man Out of His Humour, The Second Sounding, 266-270) In his definition of comedy, however, he follows the views of Renaissance critics like Minturno, Tasso, and Robortelli, who consider it an imitation of life. 25 Cordatus, Jonson's spokesman in the Chorus of Every Man Out of His Humour, expresses his critical opinions on comedy: I would faine heare one of these aw/u/nwe-judgements define once, Quid sit Comoedia! if he cannot, let him content himselfe with CICEROS definition (till hee haue strength to propose to himselfe a better) who would haue a Comoedie to be Imitatio vitae, Speculum consuetudinis, Imago veritatis; a thing throughout pleasant, and ridiculous, and accommodated to the correction of manners: (III, vi, Chorus, 203-209)26 Since Jonson views comedy as "accommodated to the correction of manners", he frequently stresses its satiric features. Thus its subject matter is limited; comedy should "sport with humane follies, not with crimes". While it is proper to satirize men's vices and follies, their persons are not to be held up for ridicule on the stage. 27 However, in sparing individuals from the humiliation 14 Nevertheless, Jonson has great respect for the "laws of drama", which the neo-classical theorists had derived from Aristotle and the practice of the ancients. He continually boasts of having introduced these laws, whose sources are in continental criticism, upon the Elizabethan stage. See Spingarn, Critical Essays, I, 221, and Bamborough, p. 12. " Spingarn, Literary Criticism, pp. 104-105. " Almost the same thought is expressed in The Magnetic Lady, II, Chorus, 38-41. Jonson considers his comedy to be an imitation of life in Every Man Out of His Humour, IV, viii, Chorus, 166-174. In Every Man In His Humour, Prologue, 21-24, he says that his comedy, marked by "deedes and language, such as men doe vse", will "shew an image of the times". " Every Man In His Humour, Prologue 24; Epicoene, Prologue II, 3-4; and Poetaster, "Apologeticall Dialogue", 84-85.

128

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

of stage representation and ridicule, comedy should not soften and vitiate its satire of follies and abuses. It may be as harsh and caustic as that of Aristophanes.28 Thus comedy should help men toward nobler lives, while entertaining them. Its objectives "are, or should be, to profit and delight".29 This dual function of comedy is continually before Jonson's eyes. For this reason, he frequently criticizes his fellow playwrights for their disregard of comedy's moral objectives. To Jonson, they seem to be solely concerned with entertaining their audiences. This leads them to write plays that are obscene and licentious. These dramatists are therefore condemned by Jonson as poetasters who have "much deform'd their Mistris". Their works contain only "ribaldry, profanation, blasphemy, all licence of offence to god, and man".30 These features in drama arouse laughter, but Jonson severely reprehends their excessive use. Jonson's attitude, therefore, is decidedly puristic. He even asserts that high moral character is as indispensable to the poet as genius: For, if men will impartially, and not a-squint, looke towarde the offices, and function of a Poet, they will easily conclude to themselues, the impossibility of any mans being the good Poet, without first being a good man. He that is said to be able to informe yong-men to all good disciplines, inflame growne-men to all great vertues, keep old-men in their best and supreme state, or as they decline to child-hood, recouer them to their first strength; that comes forth the interpreter, and arbiter of nature, a teacher of things diuine, no lesse then humane, a master in manners; and can alone (or with a few), effect the businesse of man-kind: (Volpone, Dedication, 20-30) This enthusiasm for the poet's moral and didactic functions blinds Jonson, at least momentarily, to the grandeur of Elizabethan poetry. He regards it as debased and defiled, and in need of purification and restoration to honor. 88

Poetaster, "Apologeticall Dialogue", 185-190. ' Epicoene, Prologue II, 2. This is also the view of Trissino, Robortelli and Minturno, who hold that comedy is an unexcelled corrective of men's morals. See Spingarn, Literary Criticism, pp. 102-104. In the same work, p. 11, the idea that poetry should both instruct and delight is traced to the Ars Poetica of Horace, which Jonson both admired and translated into English. 80 Volpone, "To the Universities", 14-15, 36-42, 115-124; Poetaster, "Apologeticall Dialogue", 60-62; Cynthia's Revels, Induction, 172-176. 2

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

129

if my MVSES be true to me, I shall raise the despis'd head of poetrie againe, and stripping her out of those rotten and base rags, wherwith the Times haue adulterated her form, restore her to her primitiue habit, feature, and maiesty, and render her worthy to be imbraced, and kist, of all the great and master-spirits of our world. ( Volpone, Dedication, 128-134) Jonson has other complaints concerning the plays of his contemporaries. He believes their plots are ridiculously impossible and violate the dramatic unities. Hence he derides Elizabethan drama for making "a child, now swadled, to proceede/Man, and then shoote vp, in one beard, and weede,/Past threescore yeeres":31 Jonson attributes such impossible plots to a lack of originality. This dependence on others leads to literary theft. Thus a poet, lacking the ability or industry to create his own plots, must use hackneyed themes or resort to plagiarism. Jonson has no objection to creative borrowing, a practice which he often follows. 32 Plagiarism, however, he condemns. In the Induction to Cynthia's Revels, Jonson castigates poets who use material belonging to others: Besides, they could wish, your Poets would leaue to bee promotors of other mens iests, and to way-lay all the stale apothegmes, or olde bookes, they can heare of (in print, or otherwise) to farce their Scenes withall. That they would not so penuriously gleane wit, from euerie laundresse, or hackney-man, or deriue their best grace (with seruile imitation) from common stages, or obseruation of the companie they conuerse with; as if their inuention liu'd wholy vpon another mans trencher. Againe, that feeding their friends with nothing of their owne, but what they haue twice or thrice cook'd, they should not wantonly giue out, how soone they had drest it; nor how manie coaches came to carrie away the broken-meat, besides hobbie-horses, and foot-cloth nags ... they say, the vmbrae, or ghosts of some three or foure plays, departed a dozen yeerse since, haue bin seene walking on your stage heere:33 (176-188; 194-196) 31 Every Man In His Humour, Prologue, 6-8. Similar objections occur in Every Man Out of His Humour, Induction, 281-288, and The Magnetic Lady, I, Chorus, 16-24. " "This was no crime in his day, when Imitation was a recognized and accepted method of writing; the only rule was that one should always try to improve on one's original. This Jonson nearly always succeeds in doing": Bamborough, p. 19. M See also Poetaster, "Apologeticall Dialogue", 60-67.

130

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS

Thus Jonson, in a manner reminiscent of Aristophanes and his parabases, uses inductions, choruses, dedications, prologues and epilogues. Behind their use lies Jonson's desire to inform his spectators, and to improve their tastes.34 To this didactic purpose the principal faults of Jonson's extra-dramatic devices are attributed. Ward says that This endeavor to revive the relation between author and public which the old Athenian comedy permitted at a single point in the dramatic mechanism — the parabasis — would in any case have been hazardous; but when, as in Jonson's comedies, it is made with the intent, not so much of setting the poet right with his hearers, as of forcing upon them his views of art, it wearies the reader almost as surely as it seems to have offended the contemporary audience.86 This view also finds expression in objections to the inductions and choruses as annoying, boring interruptions of the dramatic action.36 There is, perhaps significantly, no complaint that they violate the dramatic illusion, although this objection is not unusual in discussions of the Aristophanic parabases.37 It is apparent that the dramatic illusion may be broken, as it is by Aristophanes, without seriously marring the play. It is equally clear that the shattering of the illusion for didactic purposes is likely to prove disagreeable both to spectators and readers. Jonson's dedications, prologues, inductions, choruses and dialogues are clearly and sometimes oppressively didactic; for this reason, they offend and annoy the reader, as the parabases do not. Unwelcome as Jonson's adaptations of the parabases appear to have been, they have, nevertheless, received a small amount of praise. The choruses of The Staple of News are considered essential to the comedy, and a valuable aid to its enjoyment; their ironical self-ridicule and good-natured "

Simpson, p. 116. English Dramatic Literature, II, 406. " Herford & Simpson, II, 186; Castelain, p. 412. " Norwood says that the parabasis "is no part of the drama at all": Greek Comedy, p. 302. Harsh rejects this view, and says that modern scholars who object to the central position of the parabasis base their views on theories of dramatic propriety which were unknown to Aristophanes: "The Position of the Parabasis", 178. A complete survey of the subject is provided by Harry Lloyd Stow, The Violation of the Dramatic Illusion in the Comedies of Aristophanes (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1936). 85

131

IMITATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS 38

thrusts at the audience have also been commended. On the whole, however, Jonson's extra-dramatic devices have been deplored as markedly inferior to the parabases which suggested them, and as blemishes which should be removed from the plays.39 This chapter concludes the examination of the main features of Old Comedy, which Jonson appears to have imitated. Other evidence of his interest in Aristophanes is contained in numerous passages, which appear to be Jonsonian adaptations or imitations of similar ones in Aristophanes. For this reason, they should be studied in the broad context of Aristophanic comedy which has already been described.

" De Winter, ed. The Staple of News (New York, Henry Holt & Co., 1905), p. 7; Herford & Simpson, II, 186. »· Castelain, p. 411.

VIII PARALLEL PASSAGES IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

Numerous passages in Jonson's comedies, and a few in several of his other works, have often attracted the attention of commentators, who have attempted to trace parallels between them and portions of Aristophanes' plays. Few, if any, of these selections are indisputable parallels; and their resemblances to Aristophanes' lines are often tenuous and open to question. They are especially disputable, because the assimilative nature of Jonson's classicism often makes it difficult to determine the sources of his borrowings. Nevertheless, the study of Jonson as a follower of Aristophanes has been largely confined, for more than two centuries, to the collection of their verbal parallels. I have, therefore, in the interests of critical analysis and completeness, endeavored to gather all the familiar verbal comparisons, and to suggest others which have hitherto been unmentioned. Our examination of the similarities may begin with The Case Is Altered. This play owes much of its plot to the Captivi and Aulularia of Plautus.1 Its obvious Plautine elements have obscured the possibility that Jonson may have derived its satire of avarice from the Plutus. This, the last of Aristophanes' extant comedies, is an allegory which satirizes man's lust after wealth. Jonson was familiar with it, and may have had the Plutus as well as the Captivi and Aulularia in mind when he wrote The Case Is Altered. This possibility is suggested by the play's references to Plutus, the Greek god of wealth. One allusion occurs in a soliloquy of the 1

Hart, I, Introduction, 29.

PARALLEL PASSAGES IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

133

miser, Jacques, as he furtively approaches the hiding place of his gold:2 this is the Court And glorious palace where the God of gold Shines like the sonne, of sparkling maiesty;

(V, iv, 4-6)

It is perhaps significant that Jacques' treasure is buried and hidden. Yet he does not on that account consider it less animate, personal and powerful. As he conceals his gold by covering it with excrement, he addresses it as a god: lie take no leaue, sweet Prince, great Emperour, But see thee euery minute. King of Kings, lie not be rude to thee, and turne my backe, In going from thee, but go backward out, With my face toward thee, with humble curtesies. (ΙΠ, v, 22-26)

When he returns to his treasure, he uncovers it, marvels "how sweet it smels", and then hides it again with the reverence men usually reserve for gods and saints: Downe to thy graue againe, thou beauteous Ghost, Angels, men say, are spirits: Spirits be Inuisible, bright angels, are you so? Be you inuisible to euery eye, Saue onely these: Sleepe, He not break your rest. Though you breake mine: Dear Saints, adiew, adiew: My feete part from you, but my soule dwels with you. (TV, viii, 72-77)

Aside from its inversion of normal values, which is reminiscent of the topsy-turvy world of Aristophanes, this passage resembles certain lines in the Plutus. When Chremylus invites Plutus into his home, the blind god demurs. He has tried that before, he says, and never got any good out of it. If he by chance goes into the house of a miser, he is immediately buried deep in the earth: άγαθόν γαρ άπέλαυσ' ούδέν αύτοϋ πώποτε. ήν μέν γάρ ώς φειδωλόν είσελθών τύχω, ευθύς κατώρυξέν με κατά τής γής κάτω. CPlutus, 236-238) * Charles Francis Wheeler, Classical Mythology in the Plays, Masques, and Poems of Ben Jonson (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1938), p. 166.

134

PARALLEL PASSAGES IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

In addition to these parallels, Jonson's use of lyrics for comic effect in The Case Is Altered has suggested Aristophanic precedents. For example, similarities are said to exist between the humor of certain lyrical passages in Aristophanes,3 and the comicality of Juniper's song: Yov wofull wights giue eare a while, And marke the tenor of my stile, Which shall such trembling hearts vnfold, As seldome hath to fore bene told.

(I, i, 1-4)

It is difficult, however, to detect any close parallel between the splendid lyrics of Aristophanes and a banal air like Juniper's. Where, for example, is that rare combination of scintillating lyricism, vivacious wit, rollicking good humor, and devastating satire, which one constantly encounters in Old Comedy? Its absence suggests that, if Jonson actually endeavored to imitate an Aristophanic lyric when he wrote Juniper's ballad, his effort was a failure. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that much of the laughter in Aristophanes is the result of an obvious incongruity between the matchless verse of his lyrics, and the shallowness of their themes. An example occurs in the Acharnians. Dicaeopolis is celebrating the Dionysiac festival with his family, when the chorus suddenly addresses a lyrical appeal to the bystanders, urging them to give Dicaeopolis a sound thrashing: οδτος αδτός έστιν, οΰτος. βάλλε βάλλε βάλλε βάλλε, παΐε παΐε τόν μιαρόν. ού βάλεις; ού βάλεις;

(280-283)

Another instance is found in the Ecclesiazusae. Here a beautiful young woman and a quite ugly old one are engaged in a contest for the attentions of a young man. The old hag sings a lyric that is as polished in form as it is crude in content. She says that anyone wishing to experience delight should sleep with her, since knowledge is not found in young, but old women. Moreover, young women are faithless, and soon fly off with other lovers: » See Birds, 254-261; Wasps, 230-231; and Lysistrata, 658-661. These examples are cited by Graves, p. 73.

PARALLEL PASSAGES IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

εΐ τις άγαθόν βούλεταν παθεΐν τι, παρ' έμοί χρή καθεύδειν. ού γάρ έν νέαις τό σοφόν ένεστιν άλλ' έν ταΐς πεπείραις. ούδέ τις στέργειν öv έθέλοι μδλλον ή 'γώ τόν φίλον φπερ ξυνείην, άλλ' έφ' έτερον äv πέτοιτο.

135

(894-900)

In spite of their comic content, however, lyrics like these could hardly have suggested trivial songs like those of Juniper. There is, in fact, a great gulf between the lyrical gifts and accomplishments of Aristophanes and Jonson, and a comparison between their lyricism is hardly justified.4 Jonson's first dramatic success, Every Man in His Humour, resembles The Case Is Altered in its combination of Plautine and Aristophanic elements. Its satiric purpose, realism and arrogant self-righteousness are all reminiscent of Aristophanes; and its prologue is an adaptation of the parabasis of Old Comedy.5 The Prologue contains certain criticism similar to that of the Aristophanic parabases. For example, it asserts that the poet for want, hath not so lou'd the stage, As he dare serue th'ill customes of the age: Or purchase your delight at such a rate, As, for it, he himself must iustly hate.

(3-6)

This refusal to seek popularity by courting the base tastes of the multitude resembles the caustic criticism which Aristophanes' audience receives, in the parabasis to the Wasps. In this play, Aristophanes complains that the spectators have disgraced themselves, by failing to recognize the merits of his works. Nevertheless, the poet has received his proper esteem from the wise, even though he has destroyed his hope of victory by producing comedies superior to those of his rivals: * Symonds says that "No poet - not even Shelley - has exceeded the choruses of the Birds and Clouds in swiftness, radiance and condensed imagination": Greek Poets, II, 154. Of Jonson, on the other hand, Thorndike says that "the great majority of his poems are lacking in melody, charm or distinction": "Ben Jonson", CHEL, VI, 10. 5 Thorndike, English Comedy, p. 170; Schelling, Π, 410; Symonds, Ben Jonson, p. 30.

136

PARALLEL PASSAGES IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

καίτοι σπένδων πόλλ' έπί πολλοίς δμνυσιν τόν Διόνυσον μή πώποτ' άμείνον δπη τούτων κωμφδικά μηδέν' άκοϋσαι. τοϋτο μέν οδν έσθ' ύμΐν αισχρό ν τοϊς μή γνοϋσιν παραχρήμα, ό δέ ποιητής ουδέν χείρων παρά τοΐσι σοφοΐς νενόμισται, εΐ παρελαύνων τούς άντιπάλους τήν έπίνοιαν ξυνέτριψεν. (1046-1050) Jonson's assertion in the prologue that no "creaking throne comes down, the boyes to please" (16) may be a borrowing from Aristophanes.® It is traced to Aristophanes' statement, that a grotesque phallic symbol, commonly used in Old Comedy "to make the boys laugh", is missing from his plays: ούδέν ήλθε βαψαμένη σκυτίον καθειμένον έρυθρόν έξ δκρου παχύ, τοις παιδίοις ίν' ή γέλως. (ιClouds, 538-539) The prologue stresses the realism of Jonson's first comedy of humours, and says that it presents deedes, and language, such as men doe vse; And persons, such as Comoedie would chuse, When she would shew an image of the times, And sport with humane follies, not with crimes.

(20-23)

These statements seem to have parallels in the Frogs. In the contest between the two tragedians, Euripides boasts of his innovations and improvements in drama. He has made it easier to understand by introducing familiar domestic affairs: οίκεΐα πράγματ' είσάγων, οίς χρώμεθ', οίς ξύνεσμεν, έξ ών y' ftv έξηλεγχόμην. (959-960) Later he chides Aeschylus for talking about Lycabettus and Mount Parnes. He asks him whether this teaches something useful, and says he ought to "speak in the language of men": 7 * H. Holland Carter, ed. Every Man In His Humour (New York, Henry Holt & Company, 1921), p. 268. * "Aristophanes seldom under ordinary circumstances makes use of words raised in any degree above the language of common life. His characters talk as the Athenian talked ... they are talking, not making speeches. They have the ease and freedom of naturalness, the colloquialism, coarseness, vulgarism, slang of Athenian streets and houses": Herbert Richards, The Diction of Aristophanes (London, Grant Richards, 1909), p. 122.

PARALLEL PASSAGES IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

137

ήν οδν σύ λέγης Λυκαβηττούς καΐ Παρνασσών ήμΐν μεγέθη, τοΰτ' έστί τό χρηστά διδάσκειν, δν xpfjv φράζειν άνθρωπείως; (1055-1058) The character of Bobadill, patterned after the miles gloriosus of Plautus, may also owe some of its details to Aristophanes.8 A braggart soldier, Bobadill continually trumpets his bravery. Describing an imaginary exploit during which he routed all his opponents, he claims that he "could haue slaine them all, but I delight not in murder". He dreams of a fantastic military expedition in which twenty men would destroy forty thousand: I would select nineteene, more, to my selfe, throughout the land; gentlemen they should bee of good spirit, strong, and able constitution, I would choose them by an instinct, a character, that I haue: and I would teach these nineteene, the speciall rules, as your Punto, your Reuerso, your Stoccata, your Imbroccata, your Passada, your Montanto: till they could all play very neare, or altogether as well as my selfe. This done, say the enemie were fortie thousand strong, we twentie would come into the field, the tenth of March, or thereabouts; and wee would challenge twentie of the enemie; they could not, in their honour, refuse vs, well, wee would kill them: challenge twentie more, kill them; twentie more, kill them; twentie more, kill them too; and thus, would wee kill, euery man, his twentie a day, that's twentie score; twentie score, that's two hundreth; two hundreth a day, fiue dayes a thousand; fortie thousand; fortie timesfiue,fiuetimes fortie, two hundreth dayes kills them all vp, by computation. And this, will I venture my poore gentleman-like carcasse, to performe (prouided, there bee no treason practis'd vpon vs by faire, and discreet manhood, that is ciuilly by the sword.® (TV, vii, 73-94) These brave words soon prove to be bluster and bombast. When Bobadill is confronted with a single opponent, Downright, he endures a shameful beating, without attempting to defend himself. His boasts and discomfiture evoke memories of Dionysus in the Frogs. ' Segal notes certain marked resemblances between the character of Dionysus and the Plautine miles gloriosus. "He appears as a gluttonous, licentious braggart, whose real cowardliness is quickly shown up at the first test, a typical ancient miles gloriosus": The Character and Cults of Dionysus, p. 209. • Bobadill's odd arithmetic resembles that of Bdelycleon in the Wasps, 707 ff.: "A thousand cities are paying us tribute at present. If each of these were ordered to feed twenty men, there would be twenty thousand common people who could live richly and daintily".

138

PARALLEL PASSAGES IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

The god, with his effeminate apparel covered by the lion's skin of Hercules, slowly makes his way through the gloom of the underworld. Xanthias, his slave, reminds him that Hercules has spoken of dreadful beasts in the vicinity. Dionysus scoffs at this; it is jealousy, he says, which causes Hercules to tell such stories. Hercules is afraid that Dionysus will rival him, for he respects the god's valor. In contrast to Hercules, Dionysus is eager to encounter the most savage beasts, including the horrid Empusa. Such an episode would be worthy of his journey. These boasts are suddenly interrupted by a terrifying commotion, and the god is seized by a great fright. When the disturbance seems to be in the rear, he orders his servant to go backwards; when it changes to the front, Xanthias is told to go forward. The ludicrous cowardice of Dionysus thus has some resemblance to that of Bobadill: Δι. ώς οΐμώξεται. ήλαζονεύεθ' ίνα φοβηθεί ην έγώ, είδώς με μάχιμον δντα φιλοτιμούμενος. ούδέν γαρ ούτω γαϋρόν έσθ' ώς Ηρακλής, έγώ δέ γ' εύξαίμην öv έντυχεΐν τινι λαβείν τ° άγώνισμ' άξνόν τι τής όδοΟ. Ξα. νή τόν Δία καΐ μήν αίσθάνομαι ψόφου τινός. Δι. ποδ ποΟ 'στιν; Ξα. έξόπισθεν. Δι. έξόπισθ' ΐθι. Ξα. άλλ' έστίν έν τφ πρόσθε. Δι. πρόσθε νυν Ϊθι. (279-287) Jonson may also have found suggestions in Aristophanes for Bobadill's remarkable oaths. Aristophanes is perhaps the originator of the Bobadill school of sentimental swearing, which is distinguished by pompous, ludicrous oaths. Those of Bobadill fascinate Stephen; they also drive him to despair. He would love to be able to mimic the great braggart, but sadly recognizes his limitations. Thus when Bobadill beats Cob, his oaths both delight and depress Stephen: BOB. A horson filthie slaue, a dung-worme, an excrement! Body o' CAESAR, but that I scorne to let forth so meane a spirit, I'ld ha' stab'd him, to the earth. WEL. Mary, the law forbid, sir. BOB. By PHAROAHS foot, I would haue done it. STEP. Oh, he sweares admirably! (by PHAROAHS foot) (body of

PARALLEL PASSAGES IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

139

CAESAR) I shall neuer doe it, sure (vpon mine honor, and by Saint GEORGE) no, I ha' not the right grace. (ΠΙ, v, 127-135) Such silly oaths as "by Pharoah's foot" may have been suggested by similar ones in Aristophanes. In the Frogs, Xanthias tells Dionysus that the dread Empusa has departed, but the frightened god refuses to believe it. He demands an oath. The affirmation "by Zeus" does not satisfy him; he must have something better. Xanthias offers "Aether, little mountain of Zeus" and an even more ridiculous oath, "Foot of Time": Ξα. Δι. Δι. Ξα. Δι.

ήμπουσα φρούδη. Δι. κατόμοσον. Ξα. νή τόν Δία. καύθις κατόμοσον. Ξα. νή Δί\ Δι. δμοσον. Ξα. νή Δία. οίμοι τάλας, ώς ώχρίασ' αυτήν ίδών. όδι δέ δείσας ύπερεπυρρίασέ σου. οΐμοι, πόθεν μοι τά κακά ταυτί προσέπεσεν; τίν'αίτιάσομαι θεών μ' άπολλύναι; Ξα. αιθέρα Διός δωμάτιον ή χρόνου πόδα; (304-311)

There are other Bobadillian oaths in Aristophanes. The swearing of Socrates in the Clouds is an example. After vainly endeavoring to teach the forgetful Strepsiades, he exclaims that "By Respiration, and Chaos, and Air", he has never seen another man so boorish, impracticable, stupid, and forgetful, who actually forgets the pettiest information before he has learned it: Σω. μά τήν Άναπνοήν μά τό Χάος μά τόν 'Αέρα ούκ εϊδον ούτως δνδρ' δγροικον ούδένα οόδ' άπορον ούδέ σκαιόν ουδ' έπιλήσμονα. δστις σκαλαθυρμάτι' δττα μικρά μανθάνων ταϋτ' έπιλέλησται πριν μαθεΐν. (627-631) Euripides' swearing in the Thesmophoriazusae is also notable. It occurs when Mnesilochus prepares for his perilous journey in disguise among the women of the Assembly. He asks Euripides to swear that, with his art, he will aid and protect him. Euripides consents and swears, but his oath is unsatisfactory; Mnesilochus suggests another. Finally Euripides, in a burst of impatience, swears by all the gods in a group: Ευ. βάδιζε τοίνυν. Mv. μά τόν Άπόλλω ουκ, ήν γε μή όμόσης έμοί — Ευ. τί χρήμα; Μν. συσσώσειν έμέ πάσαις τέχναις, ήν μοί τι περιπίπτη κακόν.

140

PARALLEL PASSAGES IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

Ευ. δμνυμι τοίνυν αίθέρ' οΐκησιν Διός. Μν. τί μάλλον ή τήν 'Ιπποκράτους ξυνοικίαν; Ευ. δμνυμι τοίνυν πάντας άρδην τούς θεούς.

(269-274)

Certain literary criticism in Every Man in His Humour has an apparent parallel in Aristophanes. Jonson ridicules The Spanish Tragedy by heaping uncritical praise on it. Thus, when Bobadill discovers Matthew reading a "new Booke", its title delights him, and he ecstatically exclaims, "Goe by Hieronymo!" This leads to high praise of the play's outstanding defects: MAT. I, did you euer see it acted? is't not well pend? BOB. Well pend? I would faine see all the Poets, of these times, pen such another play as that was! they'll prate and swagger, and keepe a stir of arte and deuices, when (as I am a gentleman) reade'hem, they are the most shallow, pittifull, barren fellowes, that liue vpon the face of the earth, againe! MAT. Indeed, here are a number of fine speeches in this booke! Ο eyes, no eyes, but fountaynes fraught with tearesl There's a conceit! fountaines fraught with teares! Ο life, no life, but liuely forme of death! Another! Ο world, no world, but masse of publique wrongs! A third! Confus'd and fiVd with murder, and misdeeds! A f o u r t h ! O, the Muses!

Is't not excellent? Is't not simply the best that euer you heard, Captayne? Ha? How doe you like it? BOB. 'Tis good. (I, v, 48-64) Perhaps this scene was suggested by Pheidippides' praise of Euripides, and his rejection of Aeschylus and Simonides in the Clouds. Aristophanes derides Euripides, by praising him in the words of an ill-educated lout. This young man, Strepsiades' son, has been taught to sponsor and defend unjust causes. The result was a quarrel between him and his father. Strepsiades explains how the disagreement developed. He says that he swallowed the young man's assertion that Simonides was a bad poet; he even forgave the aspersions he cast upon the great Aeschylus. But when Pheidippides began singing a passage of Euripides, the old man lost his temper, and reproached his son severely. This development led to Strepsiades' beating, which the young man asserts was justified for his father had not praised Euripides, the wisest of poets:

PARALLEL PASSAGES IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

Στ.

141

ό δ' εύθύς ή σ ' Ευριπίδου £ήσίν τιν', ώς έκίνει άδελφός ώλεξικακε τήν όμομητρίαν άδελφήν. κάγώ ούκέτ' έξηνεσχόμην, άλλ' εύθέως άράττω πολλοίς κακοΐς καίσχροΐσι. κφτ' έντεδθεν, οίον είκός,

κδπειτ' έφλα με κάσπόδει κδπνιγε κάπέθλιβεν. Φε. οΰκουν δικαίως, δστις ουκ Ευριπίδην έπαινεΐς σοφώτατον; (1371-1377) The scene in which Matthew attempts to claim authorship of some purloined verses may have a parallel in Aristophanes' Daitales, a play of which only fragments remain. Rare creature, let me speake without offence, Would god my rude wordes had the influence, To rule thy thoughts, as thy faire lookes doe mine, Then should'st thou be his prisoner, who is thine. ε. kn. This is in HERO and LEANDER? WELL. Ο, I! peace, we shall haue more of this. MATT. Be not vnkinde, and faire, mishapen stuffe Is of bahauiour boysterous, and rough: WELL. How like you that, sir? e. kn. S'light, be shakes his head like a bottle, to feele and there be any braine in it! MATT. But obserue the catastrophe, now, And I in dutie will exceede all other, As you in beautie doe excell loues mother. ε. kn. Well, lie haue him free of the wit-brokers, for hee vtters nothing, but stolne remnants. (IV, ii, 42-57) MATT.

Matthew's verses, which he claims to have made "extempore" earlier in the day, are quotations from Marlowe's Hero and Leander. This fact Knowell recognizes at once. This ridicule of plagiarism is possibly an imitation of the Daitales iragments. They contain a dialogue between a father and one of his two sons, whom he has sent to the city to be educated. 10 The young man is rude and impudent; each of his statements is an insult. The father, however, ignores his son's arrogance and impertinence. Instead, he rebukes him for using a vocabulary composed of phrases from dramatists or rhetoricians. When the son taunts his father with being half-dead, he says he is nothing 10

See Murray, Aristophanes, p. 20.

142

PARALLEL PASSAGES IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

but a σορέλλη, or "coffin-song". "Ah, σορέλλη!" exclaims the father. "That is from Lysistrata". "You will soon be crushed by years!" the son retorts, using the word καταπλαγήσει. "But καταπλαγήσει is used by the orators", observes the father. The contest continues, with the young man, like Matthew, uttering "nothing but stolne fragments", and his father, like Knowell, constantly exposing the plagiarisms. Α. Β. Α. Β. Α. Β. Α.

άλλ' εΐ σορέλλη και μύρον καν ταινίαι. Ιδού σορέλλη. τοβτο παρά Λυσιστράτου. ή μήν ίσως σύ καταπλαγήσει τφ χρόνφ. τό καταπλαγήσει τοδτο παρά τών Ρητόρων. άποβήσεταί σοι ταΰτά ποι τά βήματα. παρ' Άλκιβιάδου τοδτο τάποβήσεται. τί δποτεκμαίρει και κακώς άνδρας λέγεις καλοκάγαθίαν άσκοδντας; Β. οΐμ', ώ Θρασύμαχε, τίς τοδτο τών ξυνηγόρων τερατεύεται; (fr. 198)

A final instance of possible borrowing from Aristophanes should be noted in Every Man in His Humour. The play contains a compound word, modelled on examples in Aristophanes.11 When Matthew first meets Bobadill, he says that he is already familiar with the captain's fame as a fencer: MAT. Indeed, you haue absolute knowledge i' the mysterie, I haue heard, sir. BOB. Of whom? Of whom ha' you heard it, I beseech you? MAT. Troth, I haue heard it spoken of diuers, that you haue very rare, and vn-in-one-breath-vtter-able skill, sir. (I, v, 116-121) Matthew's compound has no exact counterpart in Aristophanes, who, however, coined one which might have suggested Jonson's creation. It is found in the Frogs, and occurs during the contest between Aeschylus and Euripides. Seeking to crush his opponent, Euripides ridicules his language with the comic compound κομποφακελορρήμονα. This word may be translated "pomp-bundleworded"; and, since the verb κομπολακέω means "to talk big, to be an empty braggart", it may have suggested Matthew's long, ludicrous adjective: 11 Upton, pp. 25-26. For Aristophanes coinages, see Lysistrata 457, Frogs 966, Clouds 332, Wasps 505, and Ecclesiazusae 1169. The last example is the longest word in Greek. All efforts to translate it have proved quite inadequate.

PARALLEL PASSAGES IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

143

έγφδα τοϋτον και διέσκεμμαι πάλαι, δνθρωπον άγριοποιόν αύθαδόστομον, έχοντ' άχάλινον άκρατές άπύλωτον στόμα, άπεριλάλητον κομποφακελορρήμονα. (836-839) Jonson's next comedy, Every Man Out of His Humour, is strikingly different from his two previous plays. Their Plautine features are here exchanged for Aristophanic ones. In Every Man Out of His Humour, Jonson uses a loose dramatic structure which is reminiscent of Aristophanes. The comedy's satire is developed by caricature and witty, brilliant dialogue, and is supported by righteous indignation. The result is a type of comedy which had been missing from the stage since the days of Aristophanes. 114 The distinctive Aristophanic character of the play is revealed in the first Chorus, where Cordatus describes the play as "strange, and of a particular kind by it selfe, somewhat like Vetus Comoedia" (The Second Sounding, 231-232). Asper, who represents Jonson, discloses its satiric and moral purpose, as he brusquely rejects Cordatus' pleas for a more moderate attitude toward the follies and abuses of his age: Away. Who is so patient of this impious world, That he can checke his spirit, or reine his tongue? Or who hath such a dead vnfeeling sense, That heauens horrid thunders cannot wake? To see the earth, crackt with the weight of sinne, Hell gaping vnder vs, and o're our heads Blacke rau'nous ruine, with her saile-stretcht wings, Ready to sinke vs downe, and couer vs. Who can behold such prodigies as these, And haue his lips seal'd vp? not I: my language Was neuer ground into such oyly colours, To flatter vice and daube iniquitie: But (with an armed, and resolued hand) lie strip the ragged follies of the time, Naked, as at their birth: COR. (Be not too bold. ASP. You trouble me) and with a whip of Steele, Print wounding lashes in their yron ribs. 115

Felix E. Schelling, ed. The Complete Plays of Ben Jonson, 2 vols. (London, J. M. Dent, 1910), Introduction, p. 13.

144

PARALLEL PASSAGES IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

I feare no mood stampt in a priuate brow, When I am pleas'd t'vnmaske a publicke vice. I feare no strumpets drugs, nor ruffians stab, Should I detect their hatefull luxuries: No brokers, vsurers, or lawyers gripe, Were I dispos'd to say, they're all corrupt. I feare no courtiers frowne, should I applaud The easieflexureof his supple hammes.

(3-28)

This determination to act as a public censor resembles that of Aristophanes, who as a poet, combined the functions of priest, prophet, teacher and doctor.12 Jonson's fearlessness and impartiality are especially characteristic of the Greek comic dramatist. In one parabasis, Aristophanes says that, in attacking abuses and crimes, he has always been both fair and intrepid. He has remained deaf to all pleas that friends of his victims have made in their behalf. Moreover, he has never attacked weak and insignificant men. On the contrary, he has gone straight for the most dreaded monsters in the state. οϋδ' εϊ τις έραστής κωμωδεΐσθαι παιδίχ' έαυτοϋ μισών έσπευσε πρός αυτόν, ούδενί πώποτέ φησι πιθέσθαι, γνώμην τιν' έχων έπιεική, ίνα τάς Μούσας αϊσιν χρήται μή προαγωγούς άποφήνη. ούδ' δτε πρώτόν γ' ήρξε διδάσκειν, άνθρώποις φήσ' έπιθέσθαι, 'αλλ' Ηρακλέους όργήν τιν' 'έχων τοΐσι μεγίστοις έπιχειρεΐν, θρασέως ξυστάς ευθύς άπ' άρχής αύτφ τφ καρχαρόδοντι, οδ δεινόταται μέν άπ' όφθαλμών Κύννης άκτΐνες ελαμπον, έκατόν δέ κύκλω κεφαλαί κολάκων οίμωξομένων έλιχμώντο περί τήν κεφαλήν, φωνήν δ' εΐχεν χαράδρας δλεθρον τετοκυίας, φώκης δ' όσμήν, Λαμίας δρχεις άπλύτους, πρωκτόν δέ καμήλου, τοιούτον ίδών τέρας ου φησιν δείσας καταδωροδοκήσαι, 'αλλ' ύπέρ ύμών έτι καί νυνί πολεμεΐ. φησίν τε μετ' αύτόν τοις ήπιάλοις έπιχειρήσαι πέρυσιν καί τοις πυρετοΐσιν, οΐ τούς πατέρας τ'ήγχον νύκτωρ καί τούς πάππους άπέπνιγον, κατακλινόμενοί τ' έπί ταΐς κοίταις έπί τοΐσιν άπράγμοσιν ύμών άντωμοσίας καί προσκλήσεις καί μαρτυρίας συνεκόλλων, ώστ' άναπηδαν δειμαίνοντας πολλούς ώς τόν πολέμαρχον. (Wasps, 1024-1042) Agitated and impatient at first, Asper suddenly becomes calm. He turns to the spectators and addresses them: la

Lever, Greek Comedy, p. 94.

PARALLEL PASSAGES IN ARISTOPHANES AND JONSON

145

Gracious, and kind spectators, you are welcome, APOLLO, and the MVSES feast your eyes With gracefull obiects, and may our MINERVA Answere your hopes, vnto their largest straine. Yet here, mistake me not, iudicious friends. I doe not this, to begge your patience, Or Seruilely 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 iudgement, taxe me freely: Let envious censors, with their broadest eyes, Looke through and through me, I pursue no fauour, Onely vouchsafe me your attentions, And I will giue you musicke worth your eares. (The Second Sounding, 52-65) These lines slightly resemble the mingled flattery and censure which Aristophanes, in a very learned parabasis, delivers to his audience. Like Jonson, the poet first compliments the spectators. He tells them that, deeming them to be wise, he freely submitted for their approval the comedy that had cost him immense labor. The result was distressing. He was defeated by vulgar persons, and withdrew from the contest. For this reason, Aristophanes complains to the learned audience for whose sake he labored. He refuses, nevertheless, to desert the truly discerning spectators: ώ θεώμενοι κατερώ πρός υμάς έλευθέρως τάληθή νή τόν Διόνυσον τόν έκθρέψαντά με. ούτω νικήσαιμί τ' έγώ καί νομιζοίμην σοφός, ώς ύμας ήγούμενος είναι θεατάς δεξιούς καί ταύτην σοφώτατ' έχειν τών έμών κωμφδιών. πρώτους ήξίωσ' άναγεΰσ' ύμδς, ή παρέσχε μοι έργον πλείστον, είτ' άνεχώρουν ύπ' άνδρών φορτικών ήττηθείς ούκ άξιος