JONSON’S AND SHAKESPEARE’S “COMEDY OF AFFLICTION” by Jonathan Theodore Goossen Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia August 2011 © Copyright by Jonathan Theodore Goossen, 2011 DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH The undersigned hereby certify that they have read and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate Studies for acceptance a thesis entitled “Jonson’s and Shakespeare’s ‘Comedy of Affliction’” by Jonathan Theodore Goossen in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Dated: August 23, 2011 External Examiner: _________________________________ Research Supervisor: _________________________________ Examining Committee: _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ Departmental Representative: _________________________________ ii DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY DATE: August 23, 2011 AUTHOR: Jonathan Theodore Goossen TITLE: Jonson’s and Shakespeare’s “Comedy of Affliction” DEPARTMENT OR SCHOOL: Department of English DEGREE: PhD CONVOCATION: October YEAR: 2011 Permission is herewith granted to Dalhousie University to circulate and to have copied for non-commercial purposes, at its discretion, the above title upon the request of individuals or institutions. I understand that my thesis will be electronically available to the public. The author reserves other publication rights, and neither the thesis nor extensive extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author’s written permission. The author attests that permission has been obtained for the use of any copyrighted material appearing in the thesis (other than the brief excerpts requiring only proper acknowledgement in scholarly writing), and that all such use is clearly acknowledged. ________________________ Signature of Author iii To John Baxter, my teacher: “O give thyself the praise, if aught in me Worthy perusal stand against thy sight.” iv TABLEOFCONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................. vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2: ARISTOTLE’S POETICS AND COMEDY................................................................ 14 CHAPTER 3: COMIC ERROR AND THE HOAX ......................................................................... 35 3.1 “Laid flat” in the “flame and height of their humours” ................................... 45 3.2 “’Twere sin to reform them” ................................................................................ 61 3.3 “Fashion”ing the match......................................................................................... 72 3.4 “Seeming! Seeming!”.............................................................................................. 89 CHAPTER 4: INDIGNATION..................................................................................................... 102 4.1 The “right furor poeticus” ....................................................................................... 112 4.2 Leaving “stoicity” alone....................................................................................... 125 4.3 “Kill Claudio.” ...................................................................................................... 138 4.4 “Justice! Justice! Justice! Justice!” ....................................................................... 150 CHAPTER 5: COMIC CATHARSIS ............................................................................................. 163 5.1 “Checked by strength and clearness” ................................................................ 182 5.2 “We mock ourselves” .......................................................................................... 196 5.3 “This strange course” .......................................................................................... 213 5.4 “As if my brother lived”...................................................................................... 227 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 244 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 262 v ABSTRACT This dissertation explores the relevance of recent studies of Aristotle’s comic theory to the central dramatists of early modern England, Ben Jonson and William Shakespeare. Applications of the Poetics to Renaissance English drama tend to treat Aristotle’s theory historically, as a set of concepts mediated to England by continental redactions. But these often conflated the Poetics’ focus on literary form with the Renaissance’s predominant interest in literature’s rhetorical effect, reducing Aristotle’s genuinely speculative theory to a series of often pedantic literary prescriptions. Recent scholarship has both undone these misinterpretations and developed the comic theory latent in the Poetics. Ironically, these studies make Jonson’s and Shakespeare’s comedy look much more Aristotelian than do Renaissance ones. So rather than taking the Poetics simply as a possible source for each dramatist, I read it primarily as a literary theory that, when reinvigorated by modern scholarship, can explain structures and effects arrived at practically by these dramatists. Three recent hypotheses are especially pertinent to Jonson and Shakespeare: that comic hoaxes aim to expose comic error, which is for Aristotle a deviation from the mean of virtue; that “righteous indignation” is the comic emotion equivalent to the “pity and fear” of tragedy; and that catharsis is a clarification, rather than purgation, of reason and emotion. In light of these, I offer detailed readings of four plays that demonstrate these authors’ comic range: from Jonson’s satirical Every Man Out of His Humour to the almost farcical Epicoene, and from Shakespeare’s romantic Much Ado About Nothing to the tragicomic Measure for Measure. These plays demonstrate a variety of ways in which catharsis, the end of drama, results directly from the comic hoax and involves both the audience’s and characters’ experience of indignation and their comprehension of its relationship to the emotions of envy and pity. In each case, Aristotle’s incisive but flexible theoretical framework enables an explanation of the emotional pain present in the these “comedies of affliction” and reveals remarkable similarities between dramatists usually described as direct opposites. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS One is able to complete a project like this only with the help of many people and institutions. The Department of English at Dalhousie University has been a collegial and eminently supportive place in which to work. Of its faculty, I am particularly grateful to my committee members, Professors Bruce Greenfield, Ronald Huebert and Christina Luckyj, for agreeing to read a doctoral thesis during their summer holidays. Emeritus Professor Joel Altman from the University of California, Berkeley graciously agreed to serve as my external examiner. Their careful reports and insightful comments have significantly strengthened this thesis and will continue to guide me as I look toward its publication. Professor John Baxter has been, simply and profoundly, my teacher. From this work’s earliest stages, he has been as excited about it as I have, and it could not have been completed without his seasoned knowledge, keen perception, and warm friendship. My research and writing have been financially supported by a SSHRC Canada Graduate Scholarship, a Killam Pre-doctoral Fellowship, and Dalhousie University Faculty of Graduate Studies Research and Conference Travel Grants. Their funding has enabled me to give this project my full attention, for which I am very thankful. I am also grateful to Rev. Dr. Roman Bonnel, who, by teaching me how to order my soul, has equally enabled me to complete this work. Thanks are most especially due to my family. Long ago, my parents, Ted and Mary Goossen, taught me how to work and how to put my heart into my work. This project, I think, shows me to be their son. My four children, Jacob, Luke, Madeleine, and Mark have given me the strongest motivation to work with discipline day in and day out. Their presence in the evening provided me first-hand experience of the laughter, love, and indignation about which I wrote during the day. Finally, my wife Cindy Goossen has sacrificed much for my studies. Her indignation toward me would be righteous, but she has felt only compassion. In Donne’s metaphor of the twinned compass, “thy firmness draws my circle just.” .Ȟ, įȩȟĮ ıȠȚޒȝۏ ȢܜȜʌۂ ۏ ,ƉƥƼƲ ۯ ƅƼƮơ ƳƯƩ vii CHAPTER1 Introduction Ben Jonson called Aristotle “the first accurate critic, and truest judge; nay, the greatest philosopher, the world ever had.”1 Subsequent literary critics have generally agreed with the first of Jonson’s claims, and, if the superlatives are reduced to simple adjectives, perhaps even the latter two as well. But while we might acknowledge Aristotle’s achievement, it is only natural that the work of accurate criticism and true judging should develop and continue after him – an enterprise in which Jonson himself participated vigorously. What