BEN JONSON'S HORATIAN THEORY AND PLAUTINE PRACTICE by D. AUDELL SHELBURNE, B.A., M.A. A DISSERTATION IN ENGLISH Submittecj to the GracJuate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved -/ / August, 1997 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank all of the people at Texas Tech University who have made my years in the doctoral program enjoyable and educational. In particular, I am gratefixl to my committee for their assistance in the preperation of this study; Donald W. Rude, who promised to champion my cause and has done so by offering his guidance and support throughout the process; Paul Allen Miller, who introduced me to the joys of reading Plautus and Catullus and whose own scholarship has made this study better than it would have been otherwise; Celeste A. Patton, whose careful reading and commentary helped me complete and refine my argument; and Ernest W. Sullivan, 11, who taught me what a scholar is and who has promoted my work from the beginning. Each of them provided valuable insights into my topic and offered much encouragement to me. I also thank the English Department at Texas Tech University for creating a program conducive to my education and for its financial assistance. In addition, I appreciate the families of George T. Prigmore, William Bryan Gates, Helen Hodges, and Eldon Durrett, who endowed scholarships which have supported my education over the years. Finally, I must acknowledge Theresa Shelbume, my v^fe. She and my four sons, Nicholas, William, Peter, and Thomas, have sacrificed more than I care to admit, and their patience and love allowed me to complete my work. u TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii PREFACE iv CHAPTER I. THE INTERTEXTUALITY OF JONSON, HORACE, AND PLAUTUS 1 n. JONSON, HORACE, AND POETIC THEORY 22 ffl. JONSON, PLAUTUS, AND COiVL4AfflV^ 770 60 IV. JONSON, PLAUTUS, AND THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CLEVER SLAVE 117 V. CONCLUSION 162 ENDNOTES 168 BIBLIOGRAPHY 198 m PREFACE We are uniquely situated to constmct a reading of Jonson's intertextual relationship to Horace and Plautus due to the increased interest in and improved approaches to these two classical authors over the last 25 years. While Horace has enjoyed a prominent position throughout various periods, views of his poetry have graduated from relatively simplistic reductions of his work to a monolithic set of mles to a more sophisticated approach which acknowledges the dialectical potential of his poetry. For instance, in her essay in Horace Made New (1993), Joanna Martindale argues convincingly that the persona constmcted by Horace in Ars Poetica is locked in a dialectical stmggle between the necessity of his common sense mles for poetry and the reality that his mles mean little and have little use for the vast majority of people. On the one hand, he puts forth his famous assertion that poetry ought to teach and delight, but, on the other, he despairs that his effort means nothing. The complexity of his poetic expression is better appreciated today than it has been before, when critics tended to gloss over problematic and multivalent passages in order to subordinate them to the unified theory of poetry they preferred to see in Horace's poems. Likewise, critics are in a position now to see and appreciate facets of Plautus's plays that have escaped notice. Beginning with Erich Segal's groundbreaking book Roman Laughter (1968), critical interest in Plautus's comedy has increased. Where earlier critics found only trivial humor and rollicking good fun, critics today discover iv plays full of social awareness and conmientary, as well as an astute and talented writer whose ability to constmct good drama outweighs the technical flaws that so frequently dominated the attention of earlier critics. David Konstan's Roman Comedy (1983), a study of Plautus' comedy within the social and historical context, and Wolfgang Riehle's Shakespeare, Plautus, and the Humanist Tradition (1990), a carefol study of Plautus' extensive influence on Shakespeare, indicate a promising future for Plautine scholarship. In addition to an improved critical approach to Plautus in particular, the reevaluation of comedy as a significant literary form contributes to our heightened awareness of Plautus's abilities. As the estimation of farce as "low" comedy is revised, comedy gains status as a legitimate and worthwhile topic of study. With this status comes our ability to discern significance in the plays that have been frequently dismissed as merely amusing distractions. In the cases of both Horace and Plautus, our knowledge of the texts and their contexts, our awareness of literary influences and practices, and our openness to multivalent and complex interpretations of the texts create a foundation unlike that available to previous Jonsonians. It permits the constmction of a better understanding of Jonson's relationship to these two prominent figures. If we add to those benefits the advances made in intertextual approaches promoted by Thomas Greene and others, we find that Jonsonian critics are better equipped than ever to confront the cmcial gap between Jonson's theory and practice that is illuminated by his use of borrowed material in his plays. The following chapters address this gap between Jonson's theory and practice. Chapter I focuses the inquiry on a clear-cut instance of the conflict—the schism between Jonson's averred tmst in Horace's critical positions and his willingness to follow a Plautine model, which Horace had condemned. This focus exposes the inadequacy of the common approaches to Jonson's comedies, for it illuminates the complex intertextual relationship that exists between the works of Jonson, Horace, and Plautus. Chapter II examines the similarity between Horatian and Jonsonian theories of drama, focusing in particular on the five requisites for the poet—ingenium (natural wit), exercitatio (exercise), imitatio (imitation), lectio (reading), and ars (art); on the overarching principle of decorum, or literary propriety; and on the famous Horatian dictum that art should delight and teach. Although Jonson appears to be a thoroughgoing Horatian in his view of these fundamental critical topics, he adapts Horace's theory in order to promote a poetic program, which is founded on the intellect and industry of the poet. The remainder of the study, however, shows that Jonson is also clearly something other than a Horatian in his willingness to embrace sources that Horace and other Horatian critics would have found at least potentially objectionable. Chapter III examines Jonson's principal method of generating the content for his plays, a method known traditionally and often pejoratively as contaminatio, which is the practice of combining more than one source into a new work. We will see Jonson's tendency to unite disparate sources in his plots, not unlike Plautus who has been altematingly vi accused of and defended for his practice of combining plots to create his own works. The Case is Altered XQWQdXs Jonson's most basic use of this method: he combines the plots of Plautus' Aulularia and Captivi to form his own play. His use of the method becomes more complex, however, as his skill as a dramatist develops. In Ihe Alchemist, Jonson combines elements from several Plautine plays, including Mostellaria, Pseudolus, Poenulus, and Persa, while in Volpone, his selection extends to an even wider range of source material, including Erasmus' In Praise of Folly, Lucian's satires, Petronius' Satyricon, and Catullus' carmina. In order to show how far Jonson extended the practice of contaminatio, the primary focus of Chapter HI will be Jonson's use of Catullus, to whom Jonson owes a larger debt than has so far been assumed. While all of Jonson's plays may not stem directly from the comedies of Plautus as The Case is Altered does, Jonson's method of invention is based upon the process of contaminatio that Terence had attributed to Plautus. In addition to the method of invention, Jonson borrows Plautus' approach to characterization. Chapter FV examines the characters of Face and Mosca as specimens of the Plautine seruus callidus, the clever slave who manipulates and dkects the action of the plays. Like the Plautine clever slave. Face and Mosca assume such stature in the plays that one can reasonably question whether they, in fact, overwhehn the titular characters in importance to the play. Like Psuedolus, Sosia, Tranio, and other Plautine clever slaves. Face and Mosca follow a well-established code of behavior, working out and comphcating the plots of their plays as they strive to raise the stakes vii of their intrigue while, simuhaneously, trying to minimize the potential of their own discovery and punishment. They assume the roles of stage directors, playwrights, military strategists, generals, and gods, as they exercise their abilities to control and manipulate others. Like Plautus' clever slaves. Face and Mosca drive the outcomes of the plays in their roles as clever slaves. Finally, Chapter V presents the conclusions about the contrast between Ben Jonson the theorist and Ben Jonson the dramatist: as we will come to see, his theory tends to elevate the mles and precepts of classical authorities over the sometimes messy reality of real drama. At the same time, his own drama reveals an unstated compromise with the "mess)^' reality of putting on an attractive and stimulating play for an audience who enjoyed the very plays he condemned in his strict, classical theory. Thus, the gap between his theory and his practice reveals, among other things, the rhetorical nature of Jonson's activity as a critic and a plajwright. On the one hand, as an advocate of classical mles and learning, he tries to position himself as the preeminent playwright of the day, more informed and more knowledgeable than his contemporaries with whom he competes on the stage.