illustration by Aubrey Beardsley
The aesthetic text has a capacity to represent contradictions and ambiguities with great economy, often using figures of speech. Through devices such as oxymora and irony, authors may suggest a proposition and its opposite as well, allowing thereby the delineation of logically incongruous complex experience. This characteristic may appear even in highly conventionalized aesthetic texts. Though the psychological types of the “comedy of humours” and the social conventions on which the satire of “city comedy” realism rely on values shared by author and audience with the plays reinforcing the expectations of the culture as a whole, this general alignment by no means forecloses the use of equivocal images.
Virtually all the
pillars of bourgeois society are questioned and ridiculed In Ben Jonson’s most
frequently performed play Volpone: lawyers and courts, merchants, and
doctors. Each is presented as driven
solely by cupidity. That unifying theme
not only characterizes most of the characters; it seems very nearly their only
trait. Every act in the drama arises out of self-interest, even
(for Corbaccio) to providing euthanasia for a testator who inconveniently
continues to live. (III, ix) This
simple, unvarying motivation is consistent with Jonson’s definition of a
“humour.” [1]
Some one peculiar quality
Doth so possess a man, that it doth draw
All his affects, his spirits, and his powers,
In their confluctions, all to run one way.
Marrie ile tell thee what it is (as tis
generally received in these daies) it is a
monster bred in a man by self loue, and „
affectation, and fed by folly.
(III,
i, 156-I58 Every Man in his Humour)
The audience
knows very little of any of the main male characters beyond their avarice. The only exceptions are the hermaphrodite,
eunuch, and dwarf who are fundamentally ornaments of Volpone’s establishment
included only to indicate his affluence and peculiar taste, and the honorable
Bonario and Celia to provide contrast and conflict as they are, so far as the
reader may judge, perfect in every way.
Jonson was
careful to distinguish such deep-seated over-riding “humours” that dominate an
individual’s actions from mere vogues to which any weak-minded person might be
susceptible and which may vary over time.
As when some one peculiar quality
Doth so possesse a man, that it doth draw
All his affects, his spirits, and his powers,
In their confluctions, all to runne one way,
This may be truly said to be a Humour.
But that a rooke, in wearing a pyed feather,
The cable hat-band, or the three-pild ruffe,
A yard of shooetye, or the Switzers knot
On his French garters, should affect a Humour!
0, 'tis more than most ridiculous.
(Every Man out of His Humour, Induction,
I05-II4).
Sir Politic Would-be and his wife are examples of this minor
sort of “humour,” a condition which is not deep-seated or permanent but which
follows fashion. Their absurdities
(contrasted with Peregrine’s better sense) form a lighter parallel to the
primary drama around Volpone’s wealth. They are surely ridiculous, but they are
not wicked.
Greed is associated with black bile and Volpone is clearly consumed with
a rapacious selfishness. This is evident
not only in his miserliness, but also in his fondness for spectacle, for pranks
that humiliate others while benefiting himself.
I glory
More in the cunning purchase of my wealth
Than in the glad possession, since I gain
No common way.
(Volpone I,i)
Later he declares, “I must have my
crochets/ And my conundrums!” (V, vii)
His cruel art form consists of arranging for others to make fools of
themselves, but he pursues his medium to the point that he is ultimately found
out. Apart from this rather endearing
theatricality, though, Volpone is a merciless and unattractive con man.
This straightforward assignment of values,
however, is complicated by ambiguities and contradictions, beginning with the
very title. The central metaphor of the
play, of course, is there announced: the foxy man. Foxes are admired in the folklore of the
world, particularly in many trickster stories for their cleverness and sagacity. During the European Middle Ages stories of
Reynard the Fox were circulated throughout Western Europe. Foxes are, like Odysseus πολύτροπος (“of many
turns”), notoriously wily, yet sometimes the tables are turned on them and
their adversaries carry the day. In life
the fox is most often seen as a chicken thief hated by farmers. Oddly, foxes are also traditionally obliged
to run for their lives, pursued by great crowds of loud men and dogs. Volpone may be, as the dramatis personae
names him, a “magnifico,” but he is one few would care to emulate not least
because his arrogance seems likely to be heading for a fall.
Any ambiguity
about Volpone’s character is instantly evaporated as he worships his money in
the opening scene. He is clearly in the
grip of an obsession that has sunk him in vice and sin. His servant, his “creature” or “parasite”
Mosca, “the fly,” encourages his every move and remains entirely at his service
until the end. Mosca devotes
considerable enthusiasm to carrying out his master’s deceptions. Now a fly is an altogether despicable thing
in the common view. Though Beelzebub,
the Lord of the Flies, was a deity to the ancient Philistines and Canaanites,
he became for Jews and Christian a demon, though in Paradise Lost (II) a
significant one, "than whom, Satan except, none higher sat." Flies accumulate about a corpse almost
immediately upon death where, as part of the machinery of dissolution, they are
regarded with distaste by the living.
Cooks and tired campers and wide-awake front stoop loungers are mightily
annoyed by flies. Mosca lacks perhaps
the grand, almost Byronic, defiance of Volpone’s plotting, but he feels the
same relish that his master does in deceit.
Mosca is depicted as utterly obedient until the point when he conceives
that he might grab Volpone’s wealth for himself, when he feels suddenly no
trace of the loyalty that had seemed so central to him
The three
scavenger birds – crow, raven, and vulture – are equally inauspicious in
folklore, though the first two are often considered tricksters, for instance
among natives of the American Northwest and Australian Aborigines. While this mythic role is doubtless
facilitated by the impressive cognitive skills of corvids, in Jonson’s play
Corvino, Carbaccio, and Voltore are ridiculous dupes, blinded by the golden bequest they expect to receive.
They think they are getting the better of each other, while they are
only fooling themselves. In the same
way, Volpone and Mosca themselves turn out to be tricked. Whereas in simpler and more stylized
allegories such as Everyman most characters are stable with unambiguous,
in Jonson’s more realistic drama, they have a certain equivocal looseness,
cunning, yet careless due to greed.
The same
principle applies to metaphors. When
Mosca lures his master to new crimes by describing Corvin’s wife Celia as “bright as your gold, and lovely as your gold,”
(I,1), the qualities shared by tenor and vehicle (to use I. A. Richards’ terms)
include beauty, value, and prestige. Yet
in context the viewer knows that Volpone’s greed for gold has made him a
selfish and hateful miser, and his appreciation of female beauty has been
corrupted into lechery and sexual coercion.
Both passions can only inspire further duplicity and crime. The love of both wealth and women, each of
which might be a factor in a fulfilling life instead drives him toward both
practical and moral ruin. Each is thus
presented as a potential evil as well as a positive good.
When Celia is
horrified at her husband’s suggestion that she join Volpone in bed, her husband
calls her a “whore” (II, iii) specifically because she is not. Thinking she might cost him a fortune, his
nasty nature generates weird fantasies of degradation for her – the insulting
name is less lurid than his threats to oblige her to walk only backwards, or to
dissect her body as an anatomical lesson.
A little anxiety throws Corvino into hysterical misogyny.
The lovely and
often-reprinted lyric, perhaps Jonson’s most well-known lines “Come, my Celia,
let us prove,/ While we can, the sports of love” (II, iii), which out of
context seems a sweet lover’s seduction plea much like “To His Coy Mistress,”
is, in fact, delivered by a vicious predator to a most unwilling lady whose
response is to wish herself dead.
While the
characterization governed by the theory of “humours” might tend toward the
reductive, in Jonson’s hands it is fleshed out by secondary traits, such as the
gusto both Volpone and Mosca find in cheating others. The readers’ partial sympathy is more easily
engaged due to the fact that the
vulture, raven, and crow have equally low motives and less élan
vital. The clever fox turns out to
be outfoxed, the fly can find no fat
corpse on which to feed, and the scavengers go hungry as well.
On the level of individual figures of
speech terms like gold and whore have doubled ironic use in the play,
indicating for the first both a positive good and a potential pitfall and, for
the second, a degradation of woman that in fact indicates the degradation of
the man uttering the insult. Yet in the
end retributive justice has restored a balance to society. The play’s final lines appear to be
moralizing.
1st lawyer: Now you begin,
When crimes are done, and past, and to be punish'd,
To think what your crimes are: away with them.
Let all that see these vices thus rewarded,
Take heart and love to study 'em! Mischiefs feed
Like beasts, till they be fat, and then they bleed.
suggesting that the
malefactors on stage might make the viewer reflect on morality, but this
impulse is soon overrun by the realization that the play was all in fun,
causing no real injury, and the audience's high comedic spirits can be expressed
only by resounding applause.
Volpone:: The seasoning of a play, is the applause.
Now, though the Fox be punish'd by the laws,
He yet doth hope, there is no suffering due,
For any fact which he hath done 'gainst you;
If there be, censure him; here he doubtful stands:
If not, fare jovially, and clap your hands. (V, viii)
.
1. George Chapman,
Jonson’s friend and sometime collaborator, had introduced the theory of
“humours” slightly before Jonson with his plays The Blind Beggar of
Alexandria and An Humourous Day's Mirth.
No comments:
Post a Comment