In 1961, Henry Orion St. Onge, a Graduate Student in English At
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SCOTT OLDENBURG Thomas Tusser and the Poetics of the Plow n 1961, Henry Orion St. Onge, a graduate student in English at The I Ohio State University, found himself embroiled in controversy.1 St. Onge had attended a campus screening of Operation Abolition,afilm sponsored by the House Un-American Activities Committee depicting student protestors as the unwitting dupes of communist agitators. As a re- sponse to the film’s bias, St. Onge invited William Mandel, journalist and outspoken critic of the House Un-American Activities Committee, to give a talk at the university. The film had described Mandel as “a top communist propagandist,” so it made sense to call on him to provide a dif- ferent perspective on the film’s material.2 When the university refused to host the talk, St. Onge proceeded to invite Mandel to speak in the grad- uate student’s own backyard, not far from the university. In part as a jest amid the controversy over Mandel’s visit, St. Onge promoted the lecture under the banner of “The Thomas Tusser Society,” ostensibly a student club. With roughly 200 people in attendance, the event caused a scandal in the way it appeared to defy Ohio State’s stance on Mandel.3 Finding himself and the Thomas Tusser Society scrutinized in local newspapers, letters to the university, and a special meeting of the Nebraska Consti- tutional Conservatives, St. Onge described the backlash as “a new era of 1. The details of St. Onge’s case are best summarized in Bertram Morris and Gordon H. McNeil, “Academic Freedom and Tenure: Wayne State College (Nebraska),” AAUP Bulletin 50 (1964), 347–54; and William Mandel, Saying No to Power: Autobiography of a 20 th Century Activist and Thinker (Berkeley, 1999), 378–80. 2. Operation Abolition, 43 min. sound, b & w. dir. Fulton Lewis III (Washington Video Produc- tions, 1960). The film was not without its own controversy: The Washington Post described the film as a “forgery by film” and the ACLU released its own film, Operation Correction, sharply critical of HUAC’s misrepresentations. For a summary of the film’s release and responses to it, see Jerold Simmons, “The Origins of the Campaign to Abolish HUAC, 1956–1961, The California Connec- tion,” Southern California Quarterly 64 (1982), 141–57. 3. Coverage of Mandel’s visit appears in Randy Wright and Ben Kline, “U.S Could Never Win War with Russia, Mandel Says,” Ohio State Lantern, April 14, 1961, 1. 273 English Literary Renaissance, volume 49, number 3. © 2019 by English Literary Renaissance, Inc. All rights reserved. 0013-8312/2019/4903/0001$10.00 This content downloaded from 129.081.226.078 on November 21, 2019 18:42:27 PM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). 274 English Literary Renaissance McCarthyism...of thought control.”4 Indeed, as a result of the contro- versy, Wayne State College of Nebraska revoked a tenure track job offer it had earlier extended to St. Onge.5 Although what had come to be called “the Mandel affair” ironically underlined precisely the infringement on academic freedom and consti- tutional rights St. Onge was concerned with preserving in the first place, the Thomas Tusser Society received an unusual amount of attention. The Daily Nebraskan suggested that some thought the organization to be “a mysterious secret movement,” a communist cell in America’s heartland.6 Named for the author of the sixteenth-century book of georgic poetry, Five Hundred Points of Good Husbandry, the Thomas Tusser Society, said St. Onge jokingly, “informally discusses points of interest and possibly husbandry.”7 The AAUP asserted that one of the core issues of the case was whether “by his levity and use of the Thomas Tusser Society placard on this occasion, Mr. St. Onge transcended the boundaries of professional propriety.”8 On close inspection the society turned out not in fact to be a formal club at all, its membership being only St. Onge and one friend of mutual disposition, and its formation a kind of inside joke as Tusser’s po- etry was, again according to the Daily Nebraskan, “reportedly terrible.”9 Scholars have tended to agree with the Daily Nebraskan’s assessment of Tusser’s poetry. Indeed, Tusser is much more likely to be cited by bot- anists and agricultural historians in search of evidence about such things as early modern pest control and other agricultural matters than by literary scholars engaged with the poetic quality of Tusser’s popular verse.10 It is 4. Quoted in Morris and McNeil, 350. 5. According to the CV included in his dissertation on Thomas Churchyard, St. Onge moved on to Waimea College in New Zealand and then a tenure-track position at SUNY Potsdam, and eventually settled in Maine. I had hoped to meet St. Onge in preparation for this essay; unfortu- nately, he passed away in 2013. Henry Orion St. Onge, “Thomas Churchyard: A Study of His Prose and Poetry,” PhD diss. (The Ohio State University, 1966), iii. 6. See Wright and Kline; and “St. Onge: Confused Instructor,” The Daily Nebraskan, May 10, 1961, 1. 7. See Wright and Kline. 8. Morris and McNeil, 352. 9. “St. Onge: Confused Instructor.” Oddly enough, the Thomas Tusser Society continued at Ohio State University. In 1962 a candidate for student government listed the club as part of her qualifications, and in 1975, The Ohio State Lantern ran a tongue-in-cheek essay about the Society and its covert seminar offerings. See Ohio State Lantern, February 26, 1962, 5; and David Stephen- son, “Secrecy Covers Society,” Ohio State Lantern, March 11, 1975, 9. 10. Alan B. Farmer and Zachary Lesser, for example, categorize Tusser’s book only “second- arily under Poesy and Arts” in their study of popular print: “What Is Print Popularity? A Map of the Elizabethan Book Trade,” The Elizabethan Top Ten: Defining Print Popularity in Early Modern En- This content downloaded from 129.081.226.078 on November 21, 2019 18:42:27 PM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). Scott Oldenburg 275 worth noting that Five Hundred Points of Good Husbandry is often denied the status of poetry, described instead as a “manual,”“almanac,” or as one historian put it, “a pioneering study” in gardening.11 Even among literary scholars, Tusser’s poetry is almost compulsively denigrated as “doggerel.”12 In a review of a 1984 reprint of Five Hundred Points of Good Husbandry, Eric Kerridge implores, “Every Englishman should read his Tusser” but also laments that readers will find the book going “from verse to worse.”13 Similarly, after praising Tusser’sphilo- sophic view in one poem, Anthony Low contends that Tusser “quickly returns to his usual mixture of didacticism, forehead-knuckling, and greed interspersed with characteristically pastoral moments of relaxa- tion.”14 Wendy Wall, who has devoted considerable scholarly attention to Tusser, nonetheless reduces his book to an “agrarian book of jingles” while Amy Erickson, interested in Tusser for his sympathetic attitudes regarding women’s work, describes Tusser’s poetry as “the most execra- ble extant example of Elizabethan verse.”15 gland, ed. Andy Kesson and Emma Smith (Farnham, 2013), 19–54. This is not to say, however, that Tusser ought not to be perused for the study of early modern agriculture. See, for example, Mar- garet Willes, The Gardens of the British Working Class (New Haven, 2014), 12–16, 21–23; Karl H. Dannenfeldt, “The Control of Vertebrate Pests in Renaissance Agriculture,” Agricultural History 56 (1982), 542–59 (544, 549, 551, 558); F. L. Timmons, “A History of Weed Control in the United States and Canada,” Weed Science 18 (1970): 294–307 (295-96); Jill Francis, “Order and Disorder in the Early Modern Garden, 1558-c.1630,” Garden History 36 (2008), 22–35 (22); Dolly Jorgensen, “Running Amuck? Urban Swine Management in Late Medieval England,” British Agricultural His- tory 87 (2013), 429–451 (449 n. 13, 450 n. 18); Susan M. Ouellette, “Divine Providence and Col- lective Endeavor: Sheep Production in Early Massachusetts,” The New England Quarterly 69 (1996), 355–80 (362, 372–73). 11. For example, see Jaap Harskamp, “The Low Countries and the English Agricultural Rev- olution,” Gastronomica 9 (2009), 32–41; and Michael Roberts, “‘To Bridle the Falsehood of Un- conscionable Women and for Her Own Satisfaction’: What the Jacobean Housewife Needed to Know about Men’s Work and Why,” Labour History Review 63 (1998), 4–30 (12). 12. For references to Tusser’s poetry as doggerel, see (among others), Andrew McRae, God Speed the Plough: The Representation of Agrarian England, 1500–1660 (Cambridge, Eng., 1996), 146; Carl I. Hammer, “A Hearty Meal? The Prison Diets of Cranmer and Latimer,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 30 (1999), 653–80 (668); Steven Doloff, “Polonius’s Precepts and Thomas Tusser’s Five Hun- dreth Pointes of Good Husbandrie,” Review of English Studies 42 (1991), 227–28; and Chris Smout, “History of Soil, Battleby, Perth, 9 December 1993,” History Workshop Journal 37 (1994), 253–56. 13. Eric Kerridge, “Review of Thomas Tusser, Five Hundred Points of Good Husbandry,” Agri- cultural History Review 32 (1984), 224. For a rare appreciation of Tusser’s poetry, see Laura Kasichke, “Useful Old Rhymer,” Poetry 201 (2013), 571–73 (255). 14. Anthony Low, The Georgic Revolution (Princeton, 1985), 32–33. 15. Wendy Wall, “Just a Spoonful of Sugar: Syrup and Domesticity in Early Modern England,” Modern Philology 104 (2006), 149–72 (160); Amy L. Erickson, Women and Property in Early Modern England (London, 1993), 54. Wall has also published on Tusser in “Literacy and the Domestic Arts,” This content downloaded from 129.081.226.078 on November 21, 2019 18:42:27 PM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).