Judging Like a Malt-Horse: The Humanist Interpretation of Humanity

  • Erica Fudge

Abstract

‘Speak that I may see you’: Socrates’ dictum, cited by both Erasmus in the early sixteenth century and Jonson in the early seventeenth, comes to life at the end of Valentine and Orson.1 Orson becomes visible through his ability to communicate, and his contemplative state at the end of the text reveals a new notion of the species, one which can be termed humanist rather than Reformed. Speech and identity are inextricably linked: just as Orson needed to gain his voice to truly enter the human community, so humanists proposed that spoken communication was a signifier of humanity. This emphasis on speech would seem to offer a solution to the dangerous frailty of human status offered by the Reformed emphasis on conscience. But at the same time as eloquence was emerging as the site of human-ness the question of interpretation was also an issue. Eloquence was only a signifier of the human if it could be understood; in fact, eloquence, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The human can be as eloquent as is humanly possible, but if his eloquence is not understood, if he is not interpreted aright, then his eloquence counts for nothing, and as such interpretation becomes the skill which defines the human.

Keywords

Dust Tated Defend Metaphor Bide 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Socrates quoted in Joanna Martindale, English Humanism: Wyatt to Cowley (Beckenham: Croom Helm, 1985), p. 32, Erasmus and Jonson cited by Martindale, p. 49, n. 72.Google Scholar
  2. 5.
    Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, On The Dignity of Man, translated by Charles Glenn Wallis (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965), p. 6.Google Scholar
  3. 7.
    Roger Crab, Dagons Down-fall; or, the great IDOL digged up Root and Branch (1657), pp. 12–13. On Roger Crab, see Christopher Hill, ‘The Mad Hatte’, in Puritanism and Revolution: Studies in Interpretation of the English Revolution of the Seventeenth Century (1958; reprinted London: Penguin, 1990), pp. 303–10.Google Scholar
  4. 15.
    See Tracey Hill, ‘“He hath changed his coppy”: Anti-Theatrical Writing and the Turncoat Player’, Critical Survey, 9: 3 (1997), 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 16.
    This contradicts Michael O’Connell’s reading of the important change from the very ‘visual, sensual’ worship of the Middle Ages -traced in pilgrimages, processions, the mystery cycles and so on — to the emphasis in Reformed thought on the Bible, the written word alone. O’Connell, ‘The Idolatrous Eye: Iconoclasm, Anti-theatricalism, and the Image of the Elizabethan Theater’, ELH, 52: 2 (1985), 288–9.Google Scholar
  6. 19.
    Despite this important difference between Reformed ideas and humanism there are many links to be made between the two philosophies. Humanist scholars helped to disseminate Luther’s original attack on the established church in 1519; the return ad fontes — to the source — was at the heart of both movements. Alister McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987), p. 64. For a more detailed discussion of the links between humanism and the Reformation see especially pp. 32–68.Google Scholar
  7. 23.
    Roger Ascham’s description of William Cecil’s custom of hearing ‘the minde of the meanest at his Table’, has led Alan Stewart to write of the ‘pretended levelling of humanism’. Stewart, Close Readers: Humanism and Sodomy in Early Modern England (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997), p. 110.Google Scholar
  8. 24.
    Sister Mirian Joseph, Shakespeare’s Use of The Arts of Language (New York: Columbia University Press, 1947), p. 10.Google Scholar
  9. 29.
    Charles Hoole, A New Discovery of the Old Art of Teaching School (1660), in David Cressy, ed., Education in Tudor and Stuart England (London: Edward Arnold, 1975), p. 81.Google Scholar
  10. 36.
    R. W. Maslen, Elizabethan Fictions: Espionage, Counter-Espionage and the Duplicity of Fiction in Early Elizabethan Prose Narratives (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), p. 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 38.
    George Puttenham, The Arte of English Poesie (1589), Gladys Doidge Willcock and Alice Walker, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936), p. 6.Google Scholar
  12. 39.
    , E. K., ‘Epistle’ to Edmund Spenser, The Shepheardes Calender (1579), in J. C. Smith and E. de Selincourt, ed., The Poetical Works of Edmund Spenser (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924), pp. 416–19.Google Scholar
  13. 41.
    Both quoted in Richard Rambuss, Spenser’s Secret Career (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 1.Google Scholar
  14. 43.
    John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559 edition), translated by Henry Beveridge (London: James Clarke & Co: 1949), Volume II, p. 243.Google Scholar
  15. 48.
    On the dangerous implications of the use of the term ‘breaking-in’, see Marjorie Spiegel, The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery (London: Heretic Books, 1988), p. 88.Google Scholar
  16. 51.
    In this I am disagreeing with Roger Chartier, who argues that the author has ‘an interest in keeping close control over the production of meaning and in making sure that the text that they have written … will be understood with no possible deviation from their prescriptive will/ Chartier, The Order of Books: Readers, Authors and Libraries in Europe Between the Fourteenth and the Eighteenth Centuries, translated by Lydia G. Cochrane (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994), p. viii. In support of my reading David Norbrook suggests that Sidney’s revision of The Old Arcadia was due to the problems this attempt at authorial liberality threw up: ‘the first version … was not didactic enough’. Norbrook, Poetry and Politics in the English Renaissance (London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1984), p. 104.Google Scholar
  17. 53.
    Sir Philip Sidney, The Old Arcadia, Katherine Duncan-Jones, ed., (Oxford: World’s Classics, 1985), p. 315.Google Scholar
  18. 59.
    Katherine Duncan-Jones ‘Explanatory Notes’, in Sidney, Old Arcadia, n. 64, p. 372; Alan Young, Tudor and Jacobean Tournamments (London: George Philip, 1987), p. 128.Google Scholar
  19. 63.
    Sir Philip Sidney, A Discourse of Syr Ph. S. To The Queenes Majesty Touching Hir Manage With Monsieur, in Albert Feuillerat, ed., The Prose Works of Sir Philip Sidney (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), Volume III, p. 52.Google Scholar
  20. 64.
    This interpretative strategy goes against William Dinsmore Briggs’ unequivocal statement that ‘it would be absurd to regard this fable as a poetical representation of the origin of man or of how he acquired dominion over the brutes’. Briggs, ‘Political Ideas in Sidney’s Arcadia!’, Studies in Philology, 28: 2 (1931), 152.Google Scholar
  21. 68.
    Howard Needier, ‘The Animal Fable Among Other Medieval Literary Genres’, New Literary History, 22: 2 (1991), 423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 69.
    Annabel Patterson, Censorship and Interpretation: The Conditions of Writing and Reading in Early Modern England (London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984), p. 37. Needier argues the same qualities exist in the medieval romance figure of the monstrous herdsman, but it is important that in Sidney’s work it is man and not monster who is the super-beast: Needier, ‘The Animal Fable’, 426.Google Scholar
  23. 71.
    , Jonathan D. Trigg, Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), p. 106.Google Scholar
  24. 79.
    See Andrew Gurr, Play going in Shakespeare’s London (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 85–109.Google Scholar
  25. 81.
    See, for example, R. B. Parker, ‘Volpone and Reynard the Fox’, Renaissance Drama, n.s. 7 (1976), 3–42;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. D. A. Scheve, ‘Jonson’s Volpone and Traditional Fox Lore’, Review of English Studies, n.s. 1 (1950), 242–4; andGoogle Scholar
  27. Malcolm H. South, ‘Animal Imagery in Volpone’, Tennessee Studies in Literature, 10 (1965), 141–50.Google Scholar
  28. 84.
    An important interpretation of the play which also looks at the theatricality of Volpone and which has informed my reading is Stephen J. Greenblatt, ‘The False Ending in Volpone’, Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 75 (1976), 90–104.Google Scholar
  29. 89.
    On this issue see Felix Raab, The English Face of Machiavelli: A Changing Interpretation 1500–1700 (London: Routledge, 1964).Google Scholar
  30. 90.
    Niccolö Machiavelli, Letter 137, in The Letters of Machiavelli, translated by Allan Gilbert (New York: Capricorn, 1961), p. 142.Google Scholar
  31. 91.
    There are no copies of texts by Machiavelli in Jonson’s library, as listed by David McPherson in ‘Ben Jonson’s Library and Marginalia: An Annotated Catalogue’, Studies in Philology, 71: 5 (1974), but Jonson had clearly read Machiavelli’s work. For a discussion of Jonson’s relationship with Machiavelli, see Daniel C. Boughner, The Devil’s Disciple: Ben Jonson’s Debt to Machiavelli (New York: Philosophical Library, 1968).Google Scholar
  32. 92.
    In his study of Jonson and Lucian Douglas Duncan utilises this same Machiavellian moment in a very different way; see Duncan, Ben Jonson and the Lucianic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), p. 120.Google Scholar
  33. 94.
    T. H. White, ed., The Book of Beasts: Being a Translation from a Latin Bestiary of the Twelfth Century (1954), (Reprinted, Stroud: Alan Sutton, 1992), p. 54.Google Scholar
  34. 98.
    Aulus Gellius, cited in Tony Davies, Humanism (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 126.Google Scholar
  35. 99.
    For an analysis of this animal image see Ian Donaldson, ‘Jonson’s Tortoise’, in Jonas A. Barish, ed., Volpone: A Casebook (London: Macmillan, 1972), pp. 189–94.Google Scholar
  36. 100.
    Laura Levine, ‘Men in Women’s Clothing: Anti-theatricality and Effeminization from 1579 to 1642’, Criticism, 28: 2 (1986), 126; reprinted inGoogle Scholar
  37. quan Levine, Men in Women’s Clothing: Anti-Theatricality And Effeminization, 1579–1642 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 10–25.Google Scholar
  38. 108.
    Writing in the 1650s, the Quaker George Fox records that he was known as the ‘man in leathern breeches’, a title which refers, according to the editor of his Journal, to the fact that Fox wore ‘a suit of leather, doublet and breeches.’ In this Fox represents a return to ‘pure’ clothing (Stubbes’ version), but the fact that Fox was known by his leather clothing also reveals a possibility of Prynne’s line existing: Fox (appropriately named) is made animal by wearing animal skins. Fox, The Journal of George Fox, John L. Nickalls, ed. (London: Religious Society of Friends, 1975), pp. 83–4.Google Scholar
  39. 109.
    William Lamont records the appallingly appropriate story of the supporter of Prynne, Burton and Bastwick, who enacted her support for her maimed heroes soon after their public ear-cropping. She ‘named her cats, Prynne, Burton and Bastwick, and then cut off their ears.’ Lamont, Marginal Prynne 1600–1669 (London: Routledge, 1963), p. 40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Erica Fudge 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erica Fudge
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Humanities and Cultural StudiesMiddlesex UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations