人 文 研究大 阪 市 立大学文学部第 42巻第10分冊1990年23頁""'44頁

Encomium or Mock Encomium?:

Jonson's Verses to the Memory of

Shakespeare*

YUMIKO Y AMADA

He do's equiuocate， shee sayes . . .

-23

And sweares by the light. when he is blinded.

-The A lchemist

1. Between Liberality and Frugality

As regards the long-standing dispu te over“the sincerity" of Jonson's

tribute to Shakespeare's First Folio (1623)， the sceptics appear to have

been overwhelmed by the devotees during the last two centuries. Critics

are almost unanimous in underscoring the affirmative side of the poem:

it is“Jonson's finest poem of praise of another poet" (van den Berg， 1987)1

and con tains “great phrases which posterity has found it impossible to

better" (Herford， 1952) ;2 Jonson realized “tha t all com peti tion wi th

Shakespeare is useless" (Honigmann， 1982; Riggs， 1989)，3 and “pro-

posed Shakespeare as the strongest English contender for a timeless

canon of great authors" (Marcus， 1988)ブetc.Thus， those who wish to be

orthodox are req uested to read his lines li terall y:

He praises Shakespeare's“、ar吋tand Kyd . . .. Although Chaucer and Spenser have their spacious tombs in

(713)

、

-24-

Westminster Abbey.， the man Shakespeare). .. has no need of such a

monument because... he will continue， even more vitally than they， to live

through his work As a tragic writer， he is a peer of Aeschy:lus S phocle-s and

Euripides. But in comedy -Jonson's O¥¥1n preferred form -Shakespeare e-

clipses Aristophanes， Plautus and Terence.5

Y ct thcrc rises thc inevitable questlon of ¥vhy all these ¥vords should be

diamctrically OPPoslte in meaning to Jon<;on s !larsh sentenoe '0口 the

playwright，“that Shakちperr¥¥f an ted 1¥ rteH

(Convl:.吋 3!tonstdth D71int-

rnond， 17)， which hc consistcntly， or even pers~stently ， :reiterated else-

whcrc both bcforc and aftcr 1623.6 Convulsive efforts ¥¥re:re t6 be bent，

thcn. to rationalizc this seerningly irralional change of att:itude. lt ha円

bccn accollntcd for as Jonson's sllddcn gcneroslty roused by the death of

his crst whllc nval (Hclgerson， 1983) ;7 as the scnse of dcfeat he felt on

rcading Shakcspcarc's mastcrpicccs for t.he first titne (lfoniglnann;

Riggs):8 and out of th(' Horat.ian tradition in、¥vhichcriticisrn and prai

can bc pcaccflllly COTηTnpatiblc (PC引h寸tcωI"son，1 c)811. 9 Of these the last theor

ncarly l.cnllinatcd thc long disput'c in .favour of thc "'dev'0tees:・¥v'ith

Barton's dcclaration (198 '1) that Pcterson handled t:he probl剖11

tivcly and pcrsllasivcly.'o

^ rcsistant group has appcarcd lC'crnl:ly， ho¥¥'ever， in 311 atteJnpt: t

11 ndcrCll t thc "c、tablishcd"argull1cnt of the grcntel:rnajority :“th

IIoratian belckground COlllpht 川CS，"thcy sny. "ra ther than $1111plifies our

undc，rstandlng of J on~o n's att:itudcs" (Ro¥vc! 1988 ('t nlふ11 j¥

p叫 rhoanahtic apPloach， the、aCCllSCJ on50n of u nc()n、ι、l(.)U

W 111C11.thGynbbCl・t:.bCtl川 、itsclfin "thc ldcntificat.ion of the prai

、E-Ea --

4

圃、

en¥ •

er and

thc praised，" b(，t d l1 ~(， “J O llson attributcs to Shak l"'~ pCa t・e ¥、rhat. belolls.rs t

his ca t:cgory" -C.g・ぉrtabn¥'c nature or c1.1~~lcl~nl {Rt)lli:n. 1982: }¥()¥ve，;

Lec， :1 ~)R9) 12 'rht'll・ton('lS no lcss rcsol u t.c thnn t ht.' ~(' .lt. hing prot.cst

13iRRGS.11401 1)tvdG11'R rGIllF11K1113t it:lb 可111in~()l t.'nt S(

v id iOllS p::1 nc日、 tic."14 .lndeed， t h()~e lllodl'rn S('l'pt l\."~ pr

u crG i 11f11・tic u 1 ~ 1 t l' 1 y h a lf・lllunsun'd: lll'rfοrd S('t.'ll t t.'d ()u

rIll):!，. and in-

thenl

・'Itnperfcct

perccptloll 01 itll))Cr[l'C{: SitlCUl・1t、H illr、。llh'l)f the phrH~c.'S. only to coun・

7.1 Jl

Encomium or Mock Encomium? -25-

teract it by pointing out generous words of“complementary truth，" 16

and Trimpi， whose more poignant senses detected in the stuructural

obscurity “a slight indecisiveness about what to praise Shakespeare for，"

estimates the whole poem as Jonson's great effort to associate Shake-

speare with the humanists as closely as he could (1962).16 But do we need

to consult Freudian analysts in order to endorse the “righteous" in-

dignation of the seventeenth century poets， who were unenlightened on

the problem of unconsciousness? Moreover， it is difficult to believe that

a person's unintentional frugality of praises or slips of the tongue could

be so manifestly provoking. Lastly， if they assert that there is no other

way of proving Jonson's insincerity than resorting to their method， how

can they vindicate their difference from the affirmative majority? Was

every basic literary means tried before this， and proved to be absolutely

ineffecti ve?

As far as the interpretation of the poem is concerned， it is important to

point out the fact that it is mainly Shakespearian scholars who have

undertaken the task， and accordingly it has been mainly discussed from

the viewpoint of the person praised rather that the praiser. It is sur-

prising， for instance， to recognize how little attention has been paid to

Jonsonian rhetoric. Trimpi .aptly suggests that his style often connotes

subtle ambiguity which may be overlooked by the modern reader，17 and

according to Sackton's elaborate work on Jonson's dramatic language

(1948)， in his drama it is generally not what is said but rather how it is

said that matters most.18 There also have been few attempts to reex-

amine Jonson's theoretical pronouncements， including his comparative

views of other poets; is it possible， for example， that he could be so

servile as to reject Aristophanes， Terence and Plautus in order to praise

Shakespeare? Both Digges and Dryden were fairly versed in Jonsonian

figure of speech through their intensive reading of his works; they must

have detected something that the uncritical modern reader has over-

looked.

Ol:1r work here is to be concentrated upon the overhauling of the

whole poem in a sceptical light， through which we may reproduce the

(715)

26

:readings o:f the tVlO co:ntemporary detractors. l~he procε55 mav a

:illu:m'I:nat，e the deep-seated modern tend，e:ncy t.o accept Jon500、slncer-

ily，; it is :reJnarkable enough that the very sch叫a:rs'¥vho dea] ¥vith

negative side of the poetnーBald¥vin'¥vho discussed Sha:kespear也、"small

ιa.tU1C， and lesse G:，~e，eken 円

igges' protest poern -should take. the verses at face valu

infcr that Jonson's tribut，e ¥vas orig'I日allydesig日edto a:l:lo¥¥' a double-

reading; the t¥VQ opposit，e Interpretatio:ns tllay 'co号 制SLana回 C

u

1'h，e J¥ nd th

~rhc introductory .16 l'ines， as ls oft'cn pointed out， are indeξd "1

~llld 3¥¥'k wrardly conn巴ctcdt，o t，he rest 'of the poe.nl.'"N \，~ hether

rdness hnp1ies Jonson's strif，c to adjust to嗣 thesh

Inpctitio:n '¥V川

dcfensc against anxi'ety，" JU it. can safely bεsaid t.hat， the pr.actical

tarts '¥vH，h "'1， ther'cfore ，viH begin"( 1四

1γ、od'悶t

11¥ I th、US1111¥刊f)Ic'lo I.h 3

n thy lnam

. ond FOrll

"0 l詑 such.

ISC 100日Iluch

l3Ul. t h

nlQ 'th

日¥0¥'U:nht、

th nc'c'l

目両手1('(h[¥11 1

lhi

HS巴EH1.dt

:I1I111E1.

れfhHc1 thv ，vritin

一

1.. ，圃掴砲、

忌

--aa h------r‘

や一』

‘

‘冒圃巴

↑‘ .. ay nIOU¥O'U

Encomium or Mock Encomium?

Should praise a Matron. What could hurt her more?

But thou art proofe against them， and indeed

Aboue th' ill fortune of them， or the need.

1， therefore will begin. Soule of the Age !

The applause! delight! the wonder of our Stage !

(11.1・18)

-27-

The first factor to be noted in this whole length of introduction is that

it has a function of substituting “Soule of the Age! / The applause!

delig ht! the wonder of our S tage !"( 1 7 -18) for “neither Man， nor Muse，

can praise too m uch"( 4). W e m ust also beware tha t the la tter is， besides

being commonplace， a straightforward praise of superlative degree

which cannot be misinterpreted in any way. This compliment， once

secured with “1 confesse"(3)， is soon turned am biguous by the phrase

“all mens suffrage"(5)， finally to be negated with “these wayes / Were

not the paths 1 meant vnto thy praise"(6・7).To J onson w ho professed to

write contentus paucis lectoribus，“all men" meant nothing but the un-

educated multitude who “commend W ri ters， as they doe Fencers， or

Wrastlers" ( The Alchemist， To the Reader， 16). They are to be identified

in the lines that follow with .“Ignorance"(7)，“Affection"(9) and “Malice"

(11). Thus “neither Man， nor Muse， can praise too much" is determined

lo be unsuitable for Shakespeare only because it is uttered by “all men";

in the same way“all men，" possibly composed of good citizens， are

dcbased to the rank of “ some infamous Baud， 0ωr Wh加orぱeぜザ"(1

punishment， perhaps， for awarding the phrase to Shakespeare.

What Jonson offers instead is“Soule of the Age! / The applause!

delight! the wonder of our Stage!" Here we may justly wonder on what

basis this is taken to be more appropriate. Hitherto critics have given no

satisfactory explanation to this but have satisfied themselves with its

idolizing unction; even Herford， the demi-sceptic has “found i t i m pos-

siblc to better，"間andRol1in， w ho is more radicall y sceptical， admires i ts

gcne~osity. 24 Yet how can we be so optimistic without trying to examine

Jonson's own attitudes towards the age and the stage?

(717)

28

'ears aft町 thecomposition o:f the 'poem， Jonso:n used simila

~pressions in The Sta:ρle 01 ̂ ~ews (1626):

(CYM.) CO.me f町l.hthe S，talo， and ¥¥'onder，

'Of these our tirnes. da.zl，e the vulgar

And strike lhe :people b1ind ¥¥'it.h admiration

日 ~23S-40

'nlbal i ddr JIl Ullld. In'OnC}r Ul1

ributive that he believes t，o

uitors.. ¥¥'ho are eQuaHy cro¥vn

pirH.s 0・the8Re! /丁he111ir

truth. rev'cal thenlselves t

fancics" for fashion (JV. ii .137

h

withid

les 0" th

rson

lon

' 1\~ln r

u

..111lerle n1

‘圃唱H

r

----

n同い

山

h一

t

HWE

----

・晶置圃圃噂

一--r

・‘

一一一

&EE-----

u.

hu

"

" 。し司

、目、•..

--E

、.咽T

. ." 1 tion her'c 'i :n、.U'OI1IC :In

parent as Volponc's nlorning hynln

LI t J onson's ha lred of the aRe. w

Id. lf ，ve stiU f1eel u日

日h'have to rienlenlbをr

farnou

reiter

18'111副 i1011 nd nlanners~" • lIch

ivel throug:hout hi

“ ‘

•• 1

-a置唖-

p・直属 k

In the Jon

nce of

n .. -圃l・unu

， ¥v hich 'is no't

ndlv "th 、.. -EEE--m -a巴

n

t・

-aet

‘Et

孟--‘

・

圃圃曙

P

E

•••• •••••• lin~ "l.h ul$!，ar

'(百 • ur 'is :inher -圃圃圃圃隆

一一

--EE・

『

E-E

圃'c

uous. lt h n auot ff"lOnl NI

L~lUn lJ S th巴nl川lC，';d ulc1e d

vHi)‘ ¥vho ¥¥'on the cnlpcrofs 向、

Jonson's unfavouroble vie¥"， of th

n rUI11 Ulln

ugh h'is hl'teHig，en

ln

¥vn ，ns (Jnly adds 't:o t.he un

! "'hich the nl'inH~ 'eOI・n

f his

Ilnit 111en

t n

t.hcc" (

¥7， 32); "Nh~n loue t.hee n剖 rorthis: ，..'t IOUl!h al

lX. 1 •

¥リ1tJl(Jllil副h.1日39剖r吋r‘

th巳 1日'~む1.ιikikfむl'll日百 hns rlU

is lhe nl刊川1:叶;iih1r亀1γr亀。tγ・()f the s't 1

1・1，ynlC.ln hi

n

‘. 一

-E--ma冒咽--

忌晶岨唱

h.，圃圃回唱-・曹置、

。盆.圃圃電 nl

." :in courlle， stunethues i

;1.XX111』‘ JonsonUl lfn

Encomium or Mock Encomium?

the pair for their degenerate interdependency:

And since our Dain tie age，

Cannot ind ure reproofe，

Make not thy selfe a Page，

To that strumpet the Stage，

But sing high and aloofe，

Safe from the wol ves black ja w， and the d u11 Asses hoofe.

-29-

(11.31・36)

And in the ode affixed to The NeωInn (1640 F)， the affinity between

them is even closer with synonymous epithets: the poet advises himself

to“leaue the lothed stage， / and the more lothsome age"( 1・2).The stage

is usurped， he says， by the multitude whose “palate's with the swine"

(20). Their appeti tes， w hich prefer “acornes" to “wheat，" and “lees" to

“lusty wine，" are never discouraged by the stinking “Shrieues crusts" or

“his fish-scraps"( 11・24);rejecting wholesome plays， they eagerly seek

after “some mould y tale， / Like (Shakespeare's) Pericles"(21-22).

Thus to be a favourite with the time and the stage comes to bear a

doubly negative connotatiQn; it may be a supreme honour to“all men，"

but it is the last phrase 10nson would give to a true poet.

3. Poets Compared

It is a universal consensus that the next twenty lines serve to raise

hakcspcare above the traditional poets of England. Yet we， who have

already come to guard ourselves against this kind of overcredulity， are

to reexamine how 10nson really regarded the poets compared.

My Shahesρcare， rise; 1 will not lodge thee by

Chauceγ. Or Spenser. or bid Beaumont 1 ye

A litUe further， to make thee a roome:

σ19)

30

Thou art a N1onimen't. ¥'lithout a to:m

，And art aliue still. vihilc thy Booke doth liu

t¥nd ¥¥'e haue v;il5 to read， a:nd praise to

hat 1 not mixe thee 50. :my brai:ne excu

1 Ineane with grea'l. but dispro∞rlion~d …一一

For. if 1 thought my iudgcment \\~ere of yeer

I 5hould conlnrit thee surcly ¥¥'it.h th

nd tell. ho¥¥' farre !lhou did

r sporting Kid， or ，/.101'10

]:n the first three lines }onson :fIatly

nd

fer

n1tnif' hilll '¥vith IChaucer，. n unlonl 111 r

ハb(] 6.1

• 1"h

uld h

n tern por.ari ，vh d ]on n冶 fi foli 0・巾

U d onl nc r n for this: 't

1at Jon 'Jllcanl 1.0 1 dc fact E

jecUon to d剖Il.nthenl t.hc honour. and it， ¥vas iu

hak 問 h no statur，c t 日.IChaucer a:n lscr

，ver ted ¥vith ¥ver at n ln:n

'in 7i" ldcll

nclu

ted th

，R 161151. the n1 ue ]onson

-EE--一、am-E圃

圃置姻 nl'fnenl • no 日、d

J~i itl u日110日t層

his i

z

r

llnf

us

bcttcr" .1 '111 ust enuie th

nsidcring his uSllal l，ac'k

Jedicole a po色111tc) th

:¥¥ 一.凪・也、.. -EE岨

111 (.Y. BeaUlllont

n t bel .‘

Presun10 bly Jonson 出口11l1lcdlin

raCt・tohide the truc reo'Son :for not. '.Ilrixing~' Sh‘

fOllo¥v 'Trhllpi. rnthct t.hnn th

E

btl'l

nloy inlp'ly Uurl

、'iththos

t he ¥¥'01ず 1"

-・

n80n

t:he th

t nUo¥¥' 川町

not 'e司lInlShnk 礼

lnean¥ll POI~UQザdii lL "

te~t 'ft su

Encomium or Mock Encomium? -31-

Shakespeare's match by reason of their defectiveness.

In order to appease those who are left unsatisfied with this exclusion，

his brain makes a plausible excuse by declaring "Thou art a Moniment，

without a tombe"(22). Here again the style is grand and impressive

enough， but we modern readers tend to overlook what would have been

instantly perceived by his contemporaries. In those days the word

“Moniment" still retained its etymological sense of “porten t" (OED;

deriving from the Latin monere， to remind (esp. of the universal disor-

derJ )， synonymous with “monster." S hakespeare himself offers a good

example in The Taming 01 the Shrew， where people are astounded at

Petruchio's bizarre clothes on his wedding day，“as if they saw some

wonderous monument" (ill.溢.97).31The “wonderous" here， the adjecti ve

of“wonder" (omen or portent) has an identical meaning: they therefore

regard Petruchio as some deformed monster. Similarl y “the wonder of

our Stage"(18) above comes to have the implication of a monster thriv-

ing on the pu blic stage in an age of vice.

The next two lines， which seem to assert the immortality of his book，

actually serve to limit the period of its immortality. Shakespeare is

“aliue Still， while thy (his J Booke doth liue， / And we haue wits to read，

and praise to gi ue"(23・24).:does he perish， then， w hen the book is

physically destroyed and the public have lost their fickleness to praise

him? Jonson gave Fletcher a similar tribute， which is less likely to be

misread: his poem (it was "murdered" by the ignorant mass)“shall rise /

A glorified worke to Time， when Fire， / Or moathes shall eate， what all

these Fooles admire" (“To the Worthy Author， Mr. John Fletcher，"

Ungathered Verse， VsI， 14・16).So high was Jonson's estimation of him that

he guaranteed that “next himself only Fletcher and Chapman could

make a Mask" (Conversations with Drummond， 55・56).It is a small wonder

if Digges was infuriated at this， for his own lines for Shakespeare went

“This Booke， / When Brass and Marble fade， shall make thee fresh to all

Ages."S2

Lines 27・28，w hich are as enigmatic as the preceding two， may be

interpreted in this way， if we wish to evade being naive: perhaps 1， now

(721)

32

the unrivaned court poet， :might be aHoltv，ed to r，egard 'my judg，ement ，as

reln k (勺 shouldcO.m:nli

d:isproportion'd j\~f:u

rs" as a refcrence t

h

any (“if 1 thou~ht my iudRem

those '¥¥'ho can safel}'t be said ω

urely ¥v:ith thy peeres，"お).'00

，;e陀 o:f

of you

real bu

beinQ: as ma tu:re and cure a

resf27h o 1 m，e cit

.'" 'U:nli'ke th

the cal

nerall inclinatio:n to int町.pr 'lOthv

ical p far

:rl

10¥'.'，. 'th

nd

con 日abl

'it to indica p ts n 問 rhOllle. L τh:i m

nlits that Shakespea:r，c d

re auit

“out.shin Jon

nless '"

hakcsp

be in ¥¥'h

lhCJl1.

pla:n lon

明 hi

hat" Jon

ual ，29-30).

。upenon

id t.o b

nabJe 'qu

ual and :in ¥vh 1 u Jln

rc~s dralllati

thev a:r

~oul

n introdu n an h 白 Hl r 'In n1 ;n

n Jon

Hc lin

f J¥t.lacbcth . ¥vhich are nol t underミitood.h

1 of h Jsed 1.0 S8}' that il ¥"as hOtTOl・-H路 γhes8tiric quot

fornl Kvげ

n d i n .D;sCO'JCバcs he r'epudi.at

7、a，11lC，.-ChanlS of the late J¥ge， ，，'hich h

lfcall strutting! and furi，ous 1I熔Cげc，官hO'I!t

ignorant Rapcrs" ('777・79)， lf t.he trio h

hakespeare apart fr0J11 bei口宮 dranl刊'lsti

rbol ic.! .${rand Ciceron:i.a'

ltIon in Jonson'!ミ∞nll

日 he ~O'lu~，~loliCS，. 81

in 't:hClll bu 1. th

rr.a n t. t henl t.o tt

III COnlt110日 '¥¥'i'tJ

U陀 Iy their sty]，e -'t t

uphuislll. ，as ¥¥'，eH

inco:rnpatible ¥¥rit

n1， ¥'" h'ich h培111.!量 一ー ー ー 唱匝量 . ..

r官官、.

t.h

101¥

5{ 11 of th 、a--E岨・-a圏直也‘

111.3n 。theti亡R 11anti-CiccmMani

thc plRin stylな;SF11GMMPOLli

then n fooHsh 8ud ，aff

rnt.hcl' h品、 plain

:lot1uence" (1)， .. • ‘ •

，I¥fter 811 i'Out喝 hinct1II1sinu

spear Qf nashy slyle， ，vhich 'i

lnd ost:cntntion. 1~h is :in

、E・E

・-a圃岨

Ea

‘圃喝-EE岨

圃畠・・岨 thcnl in

tnnd1iloou pnngl

unぬ for't:hc itn

hv:

交 :tnind色刷lt1InonUef電 br-.ilQhU)'shhl(~S

Encomium or Mock Encomium?

ln his well torned， and true-filed lines:

ln each of w hich， he seemes to shake a Lance，

As brandish'd at the eyes of Ignorance.

-33-

(11.66・70)

Even tuall y he is to“shine forth" wi th his “Volumes light" as“Starre of

Poets "(77・80).

4. The Triumph of Nature

Hereafter， ]onson's enhancing voice simply crescendoes: Shakespeare

is metamorphosed into a Marlovian hero whose insatiable ambition

m ust conq uer both space (“Europe，" 42) and time (“for all time，" 43); he

does not hesitate to assume immortality in the shape of Apollo and

Mercury (45・46)，until he subjugates“Nature" at his own will (47・50).It

is not difficult， without Sackton's warning against ]onson's hyperbole，

to relate the tragic endings of Tam burlaine， Faustus， Volpone or

Mammon with their blasphemously bombastic speech.

And though thou hadst small Latine， and lesse Greeke，

From thence to honour thee， 1 would not seeke

For names; but call forth thund'ring Aschilus，

Euripides， and Sophocles to vs，

Paccuuius， Accius， him of Cordoua dead，

To life againe， to heare thy Buskin tread，

And shake a Stage: Or， when thy Sockes were on，

Leaue thee alone， for the comparison

Of all， that insolent Greece， or haughtie Rome

Sent forth， or since did from their ashes come.

Triumph， my Bバtaine，thou hast one to showe.

To whom all Scenes of Europe homage owe.

He was not of an age， but for all time !

(723)

Encomi um or Mock Encomium? -35-

praise to Bacon， who belonged to the same anti-Ciceronian schoo1.41

Thus the evaluation of his comedy is also suspended. More importantly，

Aristophanes， Terence and Plautus， the ancient masters of comedy， are

not referred to here， but are for some reason spared until lines 51・54.42

The encomium is about to reach its climax with “Triumph， my

Britaine， thou hast one to showe， / To w hom all Scenes of Europe

homage owe"(41-42). uAll Scenes of Europe" in this context indicates

nothing but the classical poets above. Even if we leave the rudimentary

triflings unquestioned， such as whether it is chronologically possible for

the ancient Greeks and Romans to learn something from Shakespeare，

we are by now too sceptical to imagine that the ancients were amazed

by Shakespeare， who had “small Latine， and lesse Greeke，" and tended to

misquote them in his plays. Or else this may be a world upside-down，

one of Jonson's typical strategies; his variety of hyperbole with ironic

effect has been dexterously classified by Sackton.43 Who believes， for

example， that real“Queenes may look pale" before Dol Common (see The

Alchemist， m. i .144)? In the same way no one expects the members of

the Artillery Company， composed of chicken-livered Citizens， to"blushu

Maurice and Spinola and “keepe the Glorie of the English name， / Up

among Nations" (“A Speecn according to Horace，" The Underwood，

XLIV). It would be more convincing to believe that Shakespeare is

astounding the classical poets with the audacity to behave as if he were

their founder.

And we wonder why Jonson did not use the future tense in the next

line asserting that “He was not of an age， but for all time!"(43).44 The past

tense used in a context referring to the ancient poets may be another

allusion to his anachronistic mistakes-“he had the nerve to deal wi th

any time in history， however ignorant he was of it."

In due course， Shakespeare assumes immortality “like Apollo"(45) or

Ulike a Mercuη"(46). Jonson's normal praise might be， for example， he

‘“‘p凶leasedAp卯olle一Andthe superfluous “

be another proof of “"insincerity." Besides the function of adjusting the

rhythm， it indicates the writer's reluctance to give the title of “the

(725)

•

ρhu

q4υ

Presiden t of Language" (see Discoveries， 1883・841to one ¥vho he thinks

lacks it， even in a game of make-believe.

This so pleased “Nature" that she ¥vill allo¥v nothing but Shake-

spearian wit (47・50).The Jonsonian reader would suspect that '''Nature"

here may not be as she should be but as she is. ln his masque ，1¥lfer，αめ l

Vindicated from the Alchem，ists al Court (1616)， she is presented as

"weaker Nature. that through age 1S lamed" and "oldtt

(8・9):she bring

forth and cherishes solely her hkeness. that ¥VhlCh IS abnormal and

porten tous.

The merry Graeke. tart A nstophanes.

eat Terence. witty Plautus. no¥¥' not please.

But antiqualed， and deserted 1、eAs they werc not of Natures family.

Ycl musl 1 oot glue Nature all: Thy Arl，

ty geotle Shaρesρcan.must en.10、aparL

For lhough Poets nlattcr. Nalure be.

1-11$ Art dolh giuc t he tushion. And. that he

Who casts to writc a liuing linc. nlu~t 州 eat.

(5uch as thinc arc) und stnkt" thc "rcond heat

: pon t hc J¥'IIぬυふ anullc:turnc thc sanlC・

(And hiInsclfe with it) thnt hc thinkt....s to lr.nllle;

Or for t h(' lawrcll. hc III日ygnttlt'" .¥札ornc.

For :l good POt't's nl~ldc. (lぉ w，，1Ins born('

八nd~\l C h wcrt: ..ho¥1.

(.11 51 ci~'

'rh us J¥ ri~ t op h3 11('$. 'rcrl'n(."(' a nd Pl~l ll t ll~. t h(' COtll t(' gcnii ¥1$(、s，，，h() in-

spired J on~on ¥vith thcir (\1 1s~ ica l idl....aL "no¥v not pll" ... 1se" ， ('、... Ul'llot fa、w、vn、upon tけ:h児G“"lothsOll1ωG 日EGH一“"b汎uけtH川111川1川ti同quntむd.and dC$以er川.tぐd h、C / As ttt}川可i作i

w じωI'enot (の)fN~λ川川1刊刊t:れ: u日rcs fl:nn i ly" - bl.l t. a re t hl ・u¥¥'ll ‘ l~idc n ぉ ，，'ld-

(w hich is t h(.、f;lt (、l)fJ ()l¥s()n's rOllH、dv ns ¥¥'(、11)‘ h('(¥l¥1以、 th(、、.bt.'loug tο.ll・1

01' tl、，lt'n ing， n nd 1¥ot t 0 thc ( n、akishncss<.)1' t hl' ~lge thnt hns cea~(、d t

、E

，、、，a町、

、.F-

•• • a---

f、、

Encorniurn or l¥.1ock E:nCOnlium? -37-

pprcciate their val ue (.51・54).

nscqucntly the honcy-tongued cαnplirnent that Shakespeare has

rcat，cd with“NatureHand-Art"may i口 factconceal a thorn of bitter

nit:ion:tti .]' he artist J onson :rn ust :not gi ve na ture "'a11" -the self-

tio:n 'wiith popu)arity :result:ing :f:ron1 casy '¥vriting is not ever}'-

th:ing; Shakespcare's art :rnust enjoy“a pa:rf'一healso ouS!ht to exerc

hC1日1m日mIn1i凶ghthave， jf any (5，5-5is). Sha'kespeare"s li:nes :fnay b

"li u:i n耳':'indeed，. nl，eaning that they ar，e“flow:ing'" '(“Such as thi:ne are"

d lrn:i ts :it)， 4'1 bu t :i f he ¥v i s hcs to '(11 ，a'k e i t tru:l'y “ev，er:lasting，'" h

九nlust， 5w，cat.";: }onson even suggests the need for thoroughly renlode:l-

's bra:ir口11"by tU:rl口rn口Inn11:iiI口19・制'h吋ii:I口:r115clf，c帆，，':ithit" to、t廿r吋rhen白t/ 'Vnon l.hc A1uses a:n凶llc"('60・6:1).“And 5uch '¥vert thou"(65)， ap-

in ，l

:n 1，*

hc 'whol

''̂， t

d ，lJoel冶rnade，as ¥'lCU as bo:rnc，，" :fnay in fact

blern

r -•

ialily ":fo:r the la¥¥'rcU. he lrnay

he ":incons:ist，cncy" '¥¥fjth the rerna:rk

山昌 10)'町宮 hnve，o:ftcn imcntioned I'l as an honour t.o Shak~pca，円

r山I¥).!.(wlrln'lsocv町同開ロザd)hec nc¥'c:r bloued ，out :l:inc.・・ 1・

hil't f向白cil山iHtいW、v札'?九l.tha叫t.som，目iiM!『口n1陀c:it was nccessar}' hc should

t: as A :u.gustus said of IlatcTぜus.liiswiL was in h:i

nc [ぬ'wer:¥¥'，ould thc :rule of it hnd民cnc50 't∞. ~1an\t ti.m，cs hぽ fell:into

UIO oot CSCsOξ.auilh'te.r . . . .

Discovcries" 647-62

Ihlit'ClriUS fhc 'rheto.rician has bξen br，ought '(，orth as an

:ral ¥vnter. I¥Ccof'Olng '(0 ，1 acnus s An.nals (th

in \\~hich :Hatcrius plays 3 mino:r par

rn ¥'igerat'" ( (his) str，c:ngth 13)'町lore'1

rum iUud et. Dr'ofluens cum :1 官 官

'~ exU口ctumest~Uhe nlelc凶¥'nnd日uenc¥'of liate口usICXU日2U:1

町10n

‘

-38-

10nson's friends. Beaumont. whom he refused to“commif' Shakespeare

with (see 11.19・21above)， once sent 10nson a mock Shakespearian epistle.

In writing the poem he did“let slippe . .. /... scholler-shippe~ / ，And

from all Learninge keepe these 1ines as cleere / as Shakespeares best

are"( 15-18). The w hole thlng was en terprised. he apologizes. "nei the.r to

follow fashion nor to sho¥ve / my ¥vitt against thp StateU

(l・2)，but to

please 10nson as his friend. not 10nson as a poet (43・44).Artless ¥vriting，

judged by thelr norm. was equivalent to an act of treason. Or .it ¥¥'a

something attributable to some supernatural po¥ver;冶od:made all that

is"(23}: posterity would admire “ho¥v farr sometimes a 'mortaH man ，may

goc f by the dimme light of ~ature" (20・，21).¥¥' hich lS， to Bea umont， '"an

heplc to wri te of nothing (22).

Swcet Swan o[ A lIon! what a sight it were

To !)cc thee in our waters yct appeare，

A nd nlake t ho吋 flight.svpon thc bankes of Tha'lIcs，

That. so did takc Eliza. and our )lllllCS !

But stay. 1、ccthee in thctFIefntsρhe， ヘduanc'd. and rnadc :1 lonstellat ion there!

Shtnc forth. thou St，ltTC of A∞ts. and with ragc.

r influcncc. chidc. 0γc hccre t. he d roopin民 ~tdge;

¥V hich. sincl' thy flight. frotl¥ hence， hath nlourn'd likc night

And dcspaircs dny. but for t.hy Volufrles liRht..

11.71-

"S¥Vl'C't S¥van of A 1ω1111

¥vas thc phrasc iihacknt'¥ t."d in the luodern cult

of S h(1 k('spl'<-l rc. " ・ 'H~ cxclusivcl)' in the posit.iveぉt....nse.Bllt ht;1f<:句、'""'-1，.

Jonson's rcgular rC'adcrs lnight have pcrcciv(.~d a secrl~t si~na. ()f 'e

n0t11 izn tion.、lVhat if Cv頁nl1s's placc in the fir，lnanHUl t. haメ

for anot.hcr poct. ¥¥' h~)ぷc prcsencc ¥VOl.llo l'l'hps(~ Shakt午、 ---a 、a-

‘岨膚岨個‘

•• . 圃岨

唱圃圃凪恒

rOlnnH'tlda t:ory pocnl 1.0 }'lugh 1 h)lIand's J句'1(:.1，a..，.，ぷ (l603)( U"gatJl

\'( ' ， ~( I. ¥'1)， Jonぷon川、・，lt・dC.'lt1'11111 t ht.' ti th、01habLlt、kl

1f日 hakl'~püat・c ¥vas "Souh.、01thc i¥gl"" hc 'VflS bo.rn ¥1¥ spH，u of ~'()ur

'7P氏、

|主主~‘ .

Encomium or Mock Encomium? -39-

Times"(l). The other ordinary swans (including Avon) do nothing but

admire this “blacke Swan" -signifying something extremely rare，

almost non-existent -and affect to assume his rarity (of course based

upon copious learning; see 1 7・24)，but “in vaine"( 13・14).J onson cannot

let “one Riuer boast / Thy (his J tunes alone，" but makes him fly to

cover all the main rivers of Britain (35ff.); he compares him temperately

with contemporary European writers， without mustering up the an-

cients to awe the ignoramus， and warrants his outstanding superiority

(114). Jonson， who sees Shakespeare， perhaps through his alcoholic

hallucination，“in the Hemisphere / Aduanc'd， and made a Constellation

there"(75・76)，makes him an entreaty to“Shine forth" (dazzle the vulgar

eyes in the theatre) “with rage" (with his usual bombastic speech) to

galvanize the stage which is “drooping" since his death with his

“Volumes light"(77・80).Ironically enough， the black swan of Britain was

to dedica te a com menda tory poem to his “usurper" swan， in w hich he

declared “done are Shakespeares dayes: / His dayes are done."50

5. Could Turn and Return

We have seen that the texture of the poem has been woven as

completely reversible: what seems to be in fact whole-hearted praise

can be changed into pungent criticism with the turn of a hand. Yet the

negative interpretation is available only to those who would take trou-

ble to concentrate their overall knowledge of Ben Jonson to explore

behind its “syntactic obscurity and structural looseness." After all，

Jonson was neither so humble nor so unprincipled as to admit suddenly

“that all competition with Shakespeare is useless"; he never retracted his

long-standing belief that “there is a great difference between those， that

(to gain the opinion of Copie) vtter al1 they can， how euer vnfitly; and

those that vse election. and a meane." 61 Nevertheless it would also be

misleading to conclude that it is a transparent mock ecnomium. If so

intended， Jonson's poem would not have been adopted as an eulogy in

(729)

'.

-40-

the first place， nor would such a large num ber or critics have overlooked

its “i泊ns幻irn1Ceri比ty，坑 .f.

with every verse speaking in two voices

But for what purpose dld he take to such a labyrinthian course? For

our c;peculation of hlS motives. Catiline may provide a good hint， '¥vhere

]onson cxpccted dlfferen t sort of responsec:; from t¥VO differen t kinds of

readcrs. i.e..“the reader in ordinary" and “the reader extraordinary."

With our poem， it弓eems，theちtandardcon"lsts in ¥vhether the reader ，j

hakcspcarian or ]on弓onianin orientation， rather than ordinary or

cxtraordinary. Bctween them lie弓 agulf that IS impassable: ¥vhile

Shakcspcarc's“mind and hand ¥¥'ent together，" ne¥ er leaving“a blot in

hl、papcrぐ i2Jonson would rathcr ¥¥'rite “bul three ver弓己、.. ii:in three

ciaicsJ・and “with、omed ifficu lt.ic. a nd thro\\~es:・ s3 tha n lea ve i:m perfect

trash to poc:;tcrity: if Shakcspcare irnitatcd thc grand-looklng ClceronIan

1 hctoric. Jonson chosc to ¥¥ ritc in t hc plain， sunple but ¥vitty anti-

ICCl・011ian.人sTrimpl S3¥ ". "Bacon's virtues (¥VhlCh ¥vere aJso Jonson ‘

wcrc not.. finally， Shakcc:;pcarc'" virt.u('~ aιLOUt1t!:¥ for a ~reat deal":S4

Jonson had t.o Incct thc dClnand to .Jnakc a conlnlcndatory poe:nl for

poct in ¥vholn hc could find nothing but. negative factors in the l:ight of

his hunlanistic principlc、'Thus Jon~on ¥vas drt¥ ('n to display thc hcight of his a:rt :in this pocnl，

and itnpOSSlblc fcat of pn、lngn cOlnp1inl('ntar、{rib111P10111e memory of

Sh(lkl'spcarl' ¥¥'lthout bcing falst' to hi5 nest:hetic ph\lü~ophy. ¥VhlCh ¥vsy

t:o r('(ld it l~ lcft to thc bcltrf of thc r('，lder. Lc. in ")¥r1" 01 ・・¥..lhlfC:'ln ~

cloing， hc (''¥ploitcd ¥vhat S，lckton pOlntcd out. as 011(' ut the Hh.'st ¥.'Tlh.'l..d

diffel'cnccs bct¥vccn thCll' dra.1natur氏、 ・'in S h .. 1 k (，$Pt'，¥ l'じtandrl10st othcr

¥vriters) t'lnphasiぷ isput on ¥vhat. is s‘¥ld ~οtt en. in Jonson. thc dra!‘:111

ffcct depcnds IlHJch 1日nlorcupon h(ο、、w、，¥'i t. 1~ ぶ..l ld リ55 .h1ns()l1 boasted of hi、

infalliblc jUdgCllH、nt ot 1l1cn's llS(' l)f .languagc :・'1.."a1l♂川、明 nh'ぶtshc¥vs H

1 1\ a n : おいじ~1 k l"l t h a t 1 n 1川 SGG 1.11Ge--(l)tぷ("OfJsげcs.2031・82).1:f ¥¥'e flrl-} t

"undCl・st:and"hl示、、・orks，¥VC tllllst nol bc:、lnisled1、、 おきeeUling p:lausi・

bility. ¥Vu lllU$t r(~ n\ H in \'Ü! il ~H\t a良:ninsthis d，，)uhl(、...1亡uli:ngrhetori(;，

it n\~l 、1) 1・01lFG i11 、・ 4lilti :1t tM1 Y 111tH11GIlt: “tJ\(;~ ¥Vl，lnh)tlt¥('SSl' ¥)( ltn\~~lH1 Jo.! t'.' :is

、、，、‘••• .•

‘、、.‘，----

e‘、

Encornium or Mock Encornium? -41-

the symptom of“a sick mind，" as “the excesse of Feasts， and apparel， are

the notes of a sick State" (Discoveries， 956・58).No doubt Digges and

Dryden were skilled in deciphering his enigmatic figure of speech; they

had read too much of Jonson， unfortunately for ardent Shakespeari-

ans， to overlook “an insolent， sparing and invidious予anegyric"behind

the outward generosity which “proposed Shakespeare as the strongest

English contender for a timeless canon of great authors."

Notes:

* The rnanuscript of this paper was originally read at the annual meeting of the English Literary Society of Osaka City University held in Osaka， 1989.

1 Sara van den Berg， The Action 01 Ben ]onson旨Poetry (Newark: Univ. of

Delaware Pr.， 1987)， p.146.

2 C. H. Herford and Percy and Evelyn Simpson eds.， Ben ]onson， 11 vols.

(Oxford: Clarendon Press， 1925・52)，n， p.377. All quotations from Jonson are

from this edition. Further citations will appear as“H & S."

3 E. A. J. Honigmann， Shakespeare's lmpact on His Contemporaries (London:

Macrnillan， 1982)， pp.36・37;Da vid Riggs， Ben ]onson: A Lile (Cam bridge， Mass. :

Harvard U.P.， 1989)， pp.276-78.

4 Leah S. Marcus， Puzzling Shakespeare: Local Reading and its Discontents

(Berkeley: Univ.of California Pr.， 1988)， p.31. Russ McDonald， Shakespeare and

]onson / ]onson and Shakespeare (Lincoln and London: Univ. of Nebraska Pr.，

1988) is also of the same opinion.

5 Anne Barton， Ben ]onson: Dramatist (Cam bridge: Cam bridge U.P.， 1984)， p.

258.

6 lt is important that this poem is the only example in which Jonson shows his

Ugenerosi ty" to Shakespeare， and tha t after 1623 he regains his usual cri tical

tone， notably in Discoveries and in his indignant ode concerning The New Inn.

See my page below.

7 Richard Helgerson. Self二CrownedLaureates: Spenser， ]onson， Milton and the

Literary System (Berkeley: U ni v. of California Pr.， 1983)， p.154.

8 See note 3.

9 Richard S. Peterson， Imitation and Praise in the Poems 01 Ben ]onson (New

Haven and London: Yale U.P.， 1981)， pp.158・94.

(731)

、

-42

10 Barton， p.358 n.

11 George E. Rowe， Distinguishing Jonson: Imitation， Rivalry and the Direction 0/

a Dramatic Career (Lincoln and London: U ni v. of N e braska Pr.， 1988)， p.183 n.

12 Roger B. Rollin，“The Anxiety of Identification: Jonson and the Rival Poets" in

Claude J. Summers and Ted-Larry Pebworth eds.， Classics and Cavalier: Essays

on Jonson and the Sons 0/ Ben (Pittsburg: Univ. of Pittsburg Pr.， 1982)， pp.143・51;

Jongsook Lee， Ben Jonson旨Poesis:A Literary Dialect o/ldeal and History (Char-

Iottesville: Univ. Pr. of Virginia， 1989)， p.45

13 Leonard Digges， "Commendatory verses to Shakespeare's Poems "(1640)

reprin ted in E. K. Cham bers. William Shakespeare (Oxford: Clarendon Pr..

1951)， n， pp.232・34.

14 J ohn Dryden，“A Discourse Concerning the Original and Progress of Satire" ln

O[ Dramatic Poesy and Other Critical Essays. 2 vols. (London J M. Dent & Sons.

1962)，n， p.75.

15 11 & S. n， p.377.

16 Welsey Trimpi， Ben Jonson冶Poems:A Study 01 Plain Style (Stanford. Cal.:

Stanford U.P.， 1962)， pp.148・52.

17 Trim pi， p.148.

18 Alcxander H. Sackton， Rhetoric as a Dramatic Language in Ben Jonson (Ne¥v

York' Colum bia U.P.. 1948).

19 T.W. Balwin. William Shakespeare's SmaLl Latine and Lesse Greeke. 2 ¥'ols.

(U rbana' U n 1 v. of Illinois Pr.. 1944). 1. pp 1・10:John Freehafer. "Leonard

Dlgges. Bcn Jonson and the Bcginning of Shakespeare Idolatory" 1n SJzakesρeare

Quarterly 21 (1970). p.74.

20 Trimpi， p.149.

21 Honigmann， p.37

22 Rollin. p.145.

23 II & S， n， p.377.

24 Rolli n. p.146.

25 Scc. for c.xam plc， ElIeη， l¥i1an in llrs llrl1nour (1616 F)， m.吋.146.a nd Ba ，.tl1ol-

omew Fair. 11. iii.113.

26 Martial. Epigrarns， trans b} W. ('. A Ker. 2 ¥ ob. (1919; rpt. London: ¥VH1ianl

Hcincmann. LoC'b Cla~slcal llbrary， 1979)， n， p.90.

27 J. A. selrish，“J onson and t hC' しoathむdStagc" in ¥¥ilh(.un Blis$l~tt ct a1. l'ds.， i1

C('LelJration 01 lJen ]onson (Toronto: lJnl¥'. of Toronto Pr.. 19(3).

( 73~~)

•

Encomium or Mock Encomium? -43-

28 William Basse， "On Mr. William Shakespeare: he dyed in Aprill 1616，.'

reprinted in Chambers， n， p.226.

29 Trimpi， p.150.

30 Ibid. Cf. van den Berg. p.150 and Rollin， p.146， who interpret it as indicating

Lyly， Kyd and Marlowe.

31 G. B. Evans et. al. eds.， The Riverside Shakespeare (Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

1974).

32“To the Memory of the Deceased Author Master Shakespeare，" the First Folio.

33 See Trimpi， p.150. Peterson (p.178) asserts that“of yeeres" means ephemer-

ality.

34 10nson's use of the syntactical quirk reaches to such a degree that it seems as

if he is making every effort to evade any kind of decisive reading.

35 Dryden， 1 ， p.173.

36 Every Man in 1tお Humour(1616 F)， 1 . v.47-76; Cynthia's Revels， Ind. 209・11;

Eastward Ho， n. i .135・36;TheAlchemist，IV. vii.71; BartholomeωFair， Ind. 106・9，

The Staple 01 Neωs， 1 . iv .17; The New Inn， n. vi.4・5et al.

37 Trimpi， p.151; 10nas A.Barish， Ben ]onson and the Language 01 Prose Comedy

(New York: Norton Library， 1970)， pp.l・40.

38 See Cham bers， n， pp.193・95.

39 “万πoυδεtνbν6ρ，~ρεμ6ταSX6Aoν 三νδ08，εν55ε，" (Ah， how impressive the rage that

burns in the heart of the Thunderer!) is the first line that parodies the bom bastic

style of Aeschylus (Frogs， 814). The quotation is from F. W. Hall and W. M.

Geldart eds.， Aristophanes Comoediae (1901; rpt. Oxford: Clarendon Pr.， 1967)， 2

vols; the translation is by David Barrett， Aバstophanes(Harmondsworth: Pen-

guin Classics， 1964).

40 Robert Greene， Greenes Groats-worth 01 Wit (1592) reprinted in Chambers， n，

p.188.

41 Trimpi， p.43.

42 See Trimpi， p.151.

43 Sack ton， pp.113・159.

44 Cf. the words of Euripides in Discoveries， 2461・62:“Thyverses will not last

those three daies; mine will to all time" (italics mine).

45“From Pancharis， 1603，" 12 (Ungathered Verse，VI); also see my page below.

46 Cf. Trimpi， p.152.

47 “Hee flow'd with that facility， that sometime it was necessary he should be

(733)

•

-44-

stop'd，'・ Dtscoueries.659・60.

48 J. Jackson trans. and ed吋 TaCitus，Annals，4 ¥'ols. (Cambridge， ~1ass.: '¥Villiam

Heinemann. Loeb Classlcal Library， 1937)， .IY. lxi. The editor poin臼 outtha

similar verdicts are passed by the Senecas both :father ana s， n) and Jerome

IV， p.188 n.

49 H & S. ll， p.377.

50 ・・Vpon the Lines and Life 0.( the Famous <;c~nic Poet， .lv1aster ¥ViUiam

Shakespcarc，" 2・3，the Firsl Filio.

51 'The A lchelnist， To the Reader. 31・33.

52 John Heminge and Henry CondeU，“To the Great Var.iely .o:f .Read'ers." the

Firsl Folio.

53 Dr"...'icotJeries. 2453・62.

54 T.rimpi， p.152.

55 Sa( k ton. p.l 24.

7311