Advertisement

The Orphic Physics of Early Modern Eloquence

  • Jenny C. Mann
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Handbooks of Literature and Science book series (PAHALISC)

Abstract

Since its first appearance in the poetry of early Greece, the myth of Orpheus has helped to conceptualize the hidden process whereby eloquent language persuades or otherwise produces belief by making a strong impression on its audiences. The earliest tales of Orpheus emphasize the preternatural force of artful language, endowing Orpheus’s song with the power to move animals, trees, and stones.1 In Roman versions of the myth, including those contained in Virgil’s Georgics and Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Orpheus descends into the underworld in order to win back his dead wife Eurydice. He uses his song to persuade the gods of Hades to release his bride, only to lose her a second time when he disobeys their command and gazes back as they depart the underworld. In his grief Orpheus renounces all women, promising to love only boys, and his mournful song draws trees, beasts, and stones to follow him. Yet despite the power of his song, Orpheus is torn apart by a howling band of Bacchae in revenge for his disdain. Dismemberment, however, does not quiet his voice, and Orpheus’s severed head and lyre continue to sing as they float down the Hebrus to the island of Lesbos, where Apollo protects the head from the bite of a snake and gives it the power of prophecy. Virgil and Ovid thus emphasize the magical force of artful language, but they also highlight the impotence of Orpheus’s song (he fails to rescue Eurydice and is eventually torn to pieces). In the Metamorphoses, Orpheus is killed, as Joseph Ortiz explains, because he cannot ‘move’ the Bacchantes (in illo tempore primum /inrita dicentem nec quicquam voce moventem) and so cannot deflect stones being thrown at him.2

Keywords

English Poesy Deep Impression Classical Myth Roman Version Voice Terminal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Anderson, Judith, and Joan Pong Linton. 2011. Go figure: Energies, forms, and institutions in the early modern world. New York: Fordham University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aristotle. 1931. De Memoria et Reminiscentia. The Parva Naturalia. Trans. J.I. Beare. The Works of Aristotle, Vol. III, ed. W.D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 1986. De Anima (On the soul). Trans. Hugh Lawson-Tancred. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  4. Arkin, Samuel. 2013. “That map which deep impression bears”: Lucrece and the anatomy of Shakespeare’s sympathy. Shakespeare Quarterly 64(3): 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Auerbach, Erich. 1984. Figura. In Scenes from the drama of European Literature, 11–78. Trans. Ralph Manheim. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bacon, Francis. 1884. Bacon’s essays and wisdom of the ancients. Trans. A. Spiers and Basil Montagu. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 1996. The advancement of learning. In Francis Bacon: A critical edition of the major works, ed. Brian Vickers, 120–299. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bate, Jonathan. 1993. Shakespeare and Ovid. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bennett, Jane. 2010. Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Blake, Liza. 2013. Early modern literary physics. PhD. Diss, New York University.Google Scholar
  11. Blount, Thomas. 1654. The academy of eloquence. London: T.N. for Humphrey Moseley.Google Scholar
  12. Chapman, George. 1594. The shadow of night: Containing two poeticall hymnes. R.F. for William Ponsonby.Google Scholar
  13. Cicero. 1949. De Inventione. Trans. H.M. Hubbell. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Clement, Francis. 1587. The Petie Schole with an English Orthographie. London: Thomas Vautrollier dwelling in the black-fryers.Google Scholar
  15. Crane, Mary Thomas. 2014. Losing touch with nature: Literature and the new science in sixteenth-century England. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Daston, Lorraine. 2000. Preternatural philosophy. In Biographies of scientific objects, ed. Daston, 15–41. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. De Grazia, Margreta. 1996. Imprints: Shakespeare, Gutenberg, and Descartes. In Alternative Shakespeares, vol 2, ed. Terence Hawkes, 63–94. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2000. Words as things. Shakespeare Studies 28: 231–235.Google Scholar
  19. de Montaigne, Michel. 1603. The essayes. Trans. John Florio. London: Val. Sims for Edward Blount.Google Scholar
  20. Derrida, Jacques. 1978. Freud and the scene of writing. In Writing and difference, 196–231. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Enterline, Lynn. 2003. Afterword: Touching rhetoric. In Sensible flesh: On touch in early modern culture, ed. Elizabeth D. Harvey, 243–254. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  22. Erasmus. 1963. On Copia of words and ideas [De Utraque Verborem ac Rerum Copia]. Trans. Donald B. King and H. David Rix. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Garber, Daniel. 2006. Physics and foundations. In The Cambridge history of science, ed. Katharine Park, and Lorraine Daston, 21–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Goldberg, Jonathan. 1986. Voice terminal echo: Postmodernism and English Renaissance texts. New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
  25. Golding, Arthur. 2002. Preface to the reader. In Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’. Trans. Arthur Golding, ed. Madeleine Forey. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Guillory, John. 1983. Poetic authority: Spenser, milton, and literary history. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Harwood, John T. (ed). 1986. The rhetorics of Thomas Hobbes and Bernard Lamy. Carbondale/Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Holsiger, Bruce. 2013. Object-oriented mythography. Minnesota Review 80: 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kalas, Rayna. 2007. Frame, glass, verse: The technology of poetic invention in the English Renaissance. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Knight, Leah. 2014. Reading green in early modern England. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  31. Lanier, Douglas. 1996. Encryptions: Reading Milton reading Jonson reading Shakespeare. In Reading and writing Shakespeare, ed. David M. Bergeron, and Robert S. Knapp, 220–250. Newark: University of Delaware Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lewis, Charlton T., and Charles Short. 1879. A Latin dictionary. Founded on Andrews’, edition of Freund’s Latin dictionary. revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by. Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and. Charles Short, LL.D. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Perseus Digital Library, ed. Gregory R. Crane. Tufts University. http://perseus.uchicago.edu/Reference/lewisandshort.html. Accessed 15 May 2014.
  33. Ling, Nicholas. 1597. Politeuphuia. London: I.R.Google Scholar
  34. Mann, Jenny C. 2012. Outlaw rhetoric: Figuring vernacular eloquence in Shakespeare’s England. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Milton, John. 1957. On Shakespeare: In Complete poems and prose, ed. Merritt Y. Hughes. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  36. Moston, Doug (ed). 1998. Mr. William Shakespeares comedies, histories, & tragedies: A facsimile of the first folio, 1623. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Newman, William. 2009. Brian Vickers and the occult: A response. Perspectives on Science 17(4): 482–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ortiz, Joseph. 2011. Broken harmony: Shakespeare and the politics of music. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ovid. 1984. Metamorphoses. Trans. Frank Justus Miller, revised by G.P. Goold. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. ———. 2002. Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’. Trans. Arthur Golding, 1567. Ed. Madeleine Forey. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Oxford English Dictionary. 2016. ‘impression,’ n. OED Online. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/92725?rskey=SBFBuL&result=1. Accessed 16 Dec 2014.
  42. Parker, Patricia. 1993. Gender ideology, gender change: The case of Marie Germain. Critical Inquiry 19(2): 337–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Passannante, Gerard. 2011. The Lucretian Renaissance: Philology and the afterlife of tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peacham, Henry. The garden of Eloquence (1593). Ed. W.G. Crane. Gainesville: Scholars’ Facsimiles & Reprints, 1954.Google Scholar
  45. Perry, Curtis. 2007. “On Shakespeare,” Poetic rivalry, and the art of the intertext. In Approaches to teaching Milton’s shorter poetry and prose, ed. Peter C. Herman, 161–165. New York: Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
  46. Plato. 1987. Theatetus. Trans. Robin A.H. Waterfield. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  47. Poole, Joshua. 1972. The English Parnassus, 1657. Menston: The Scholar Press.Google Scholar
  48. Puttenham, George. 2007. In The art of English poesy, ed. Frank Whigham, and Wayne A. Rebhorn. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Quintilian. 1921. Institutio Oratoria. The Loeb classical library. Trans. H.E. Butler. London/New York: William Heinemann/G. P. Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar
  50. ———. 2001. Institutio Oratoria. Ed. and trans. Donald A. Russell. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Rebhorn, Wayne. 1995. The emperor of men’s minds: Literature and the Renaissance discourse of rhetoric. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Reynolds, Edward. 1640. A treatise of the passions and faculties of the soule of man. London: R.H. for Robert Bostock.Google Scholar
  53. Sandys, George. 1632. Ouids metamorphosis Englished, Mythologiz’d, and represend in figures. Trans. G.S. Oxford/London: Iohn Lichfield/William Stansby.Google Scholar
  54. Shakespeare, William. 1997. The Two Gentlemen of Verona: In The Norton Shakespeare, ed. Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, and Katharine Eisaman Maus. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  55. Shapin, Steven. 1984. Pump and circumstances: Robert Boyle’s literary technology. Social Studies of Science 14: 481–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sidney, Philip. 2002. The Defense of Poesy: In Sir Philip Sidney: The major works, ed. Katherine Duncan-Jones. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Thatcher, David. 2001. Shakespeare’s The Two Gentlemen of Verona. Explicator 59(2): 68–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Turner, Henry S. 2010. Lessons from literature for the historian of science (and vice versa): Reflections on “form.”. Isis 101: 578–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Werth, Tiffany. 2012. A heart of stone: The ungodly in early modern England. In The indistinct human in Renaissance literature, ed. Jean E. Feerick, and Vin Nardizzi, 181–203. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. West, William N. 2009. “What’s the matter with Shakespeare?”: Physics, identity, playing. South Central Review 26(1–2): 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilson, Thomas. 1567. The Arte of Rhetorike. London: Ihon Kingston.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jenny C. Mann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EnglishCornell UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations