Commonwealth and Caterpillars

Abstract

The final thesis of this dissertation, that the drama of Renaissance England reflected political influences far wider than those of contemporary orthodox doctrine, rests upon a mass of evidence with hardly lends itself to summary. The following abstract attempts of trace the tread of the argument chapter by chapter. CHAPTER 1 describes in broad terms the important social and political changes that took place in the period, and explores the relationship of these changes to the rich body of contemporary drama. Drawing attention to the Tillyard “Elizabethan World Picture” assumption that all Elizabethans believed certain thins, and the view of Eilizabethan critics that the drama reflected unimpeachably orthodox purposes, the chapter points to evidence of widespread disagreement and even bloodshed among Elizabethans on basic issues. The violence of the period’s history is compared with that of its drama, and it is suggested that the role of censorship in the Elizabethan and early Stuart theatre points to an unorthodox political tendency in certain dramatists. That the stage might “reflect” the age in a mechanical way, however, is discounted. It is suggested rather that the stage presents and ideal political organism, with which the age is implicitly contrasted. The ideal aspect of the notion of “commonwealth” is discussed, and the Renaissance commonplace of a “commonwealth” preyed on by “caterpillars” viewed alongside this as implying a “criticism of life”. Contemporary definitions of the political organism are seen to imply past perfection and present decadence. An association is suggested between the ideal commonwealth and religion, and the role of the Reformation discussed in terms of its removal of an independent moral authority and strengthening of the absolute power of the state. The “utopian” aspect of the ideal political organism is associated with the Christian doctrine of the fall and the Stoic notion of mankind’s collective decline from a lost Golden Age. Both imply a critique of such institutions as political power and private property. Particular kinds of private property (avaricious self-seeking, usury)and of political power (tyranny) are seen as most persistently attacked in the drama, and attracting the “caterpillar” metaphor. Attention is drawn to the fact that it is in these areas of private property and political power that most of the significant social and political changes of the Renaissance took place. The changing issues upon which civil violence was perpetrated are discussed in terms of the differences between Bosworth (1485) and Edgehill (1642), together with the strong streak of scepticism present in the literature of the period towards these issues. This scepticism is seen as reflecting not only contemporary experience, but the influence of Seneca and the Stoic philosophy. The attraction of the latter are considered in relation to its doctrines of detachment and courage, and its contempt for both power and property as the accidents of fortune. The political history of the period is considered in relation to the Tudors’ achievement of a unitary nation-state and the monopolisation of violence by the state. The effects of economic changes of these political developments are discussed, and the concomitant prevalence of social mobility contrasted with the rigidities of contemporary doctrine. It is suggested that the treatment of these themes in the drama is mush more ambiguous than has often been allowed. CHAPTER 2 discusses the broad shifts in basic concepts of good and evil evident in the drama of the period. It is divided into five sections as follows: (i) discusses the development of the “Machiavellian” villain, and his origins, pointing up the significant features that distinguish him from representations of evil in medieval drama, and the apparent influence of the writings of Machiavelli in his evolution. (ii) discusses the idea of individualism, the self against the collective organism, as a characteristic of evil in medieval thought but depicted much more ambivalently in Renaissance drama. The influence of both Machiavelli and Seneca on this development is considered; and the opposing concepts of “Nature” (organic and individualistic) are discussed in terms of their ambiguous presentation in the plays. (iii) explores the idea of the “outsider” as being automatically a villain, and points out (through a discussion of The Jew of Malta, Shakespeare’s early plays, The Merchant of Venice, and Othello) that a shift is discernible towards a marked ambivalence in the role of the “outsider”. The “malcontent” type is discussed as a variant of the “outsider”. (iv) engages in a similar discussion of the “upstart”, pointing out that his very existence necessarily violated orthodox concepts of order, but that he, too, is treated ambiguously. The discussion includes consideration of Doctor Faustus, and several plays of Shakespeare, Marston, Webster, Chapman, Jonson, and Massinger. (v) deals with evidence that basic moral values changed on a number of significant matters during the Renaissance, and exemplifies this by the manner in which suicide, conscience, and astrology and supernatural influence are treated in the plays of the period. In all these matters, emphasis is laid on the apparent influence of Seneca and the Stoic philosophy. CHAPTER 3 discusses themes associated with kingship and political power, and is divided into seven sections: (i) surveys orthodox Elizabethan beliefs about political power generally, and discusses the extent to which these beliefs were questioned by Renaissance Englishmen, and the extent to which they involved basic contradictions or allowed room for differing interpretations and emphases. (ii) discusses the basic ambivalence of the treatment of the theme of order and degree, especially in the Shakespearean passages normally cited as evidence that orthodox doctrine on this question was universally approved. (iii) deals with the doctrine of the divinity of Kingship, and indicates the qualifications and questionings to which this doctrine is subjected in plays of Marlowe, Shakespeare, Marston, Chapman, and Massinger. The relevance of Stoic attitudes to kingship is considered. (iv) discusses the absolute opposition of orthodox doctrine to usurpation and regicide, and contrasts this with the much more ambivalent attitude exemplified in Shakespeare, and also in Marston and Chapman. It also considers how relevant to this ambivalence may be the influence of Machiavelli and Seneca. (v) considers the apparent contradictions of orthodox doctrine of the questions of justice, revenge, and mercy. It points out the connexions between orthodox belief in revenge as God’s prerogative and the Tudor achievement of a “monopolisation of violence” by the State, and contrasts this with the ambivalence implicit in the treatment of revenge and justice themes in the drama. The orthodox doctrine of mercy is discussed in relation to traditional Christian doctrine and to the Stoic doctrines expounded by Seneca, and a strong strain of Stoic influence is seen in the characteristic Shakespearean presentation of this theme. (vi) deals with the multiple strands of contemporary belief about war and its justification, Christian and Stoic views being contrasted with Machiavellian views, and official doctrine being seen as primarily reflecting the latter. A detailed discussion of several Marlowe and Shakespeare plays, and of passages from other dramatists, leads to the conclusion that the treatment of war in the drama is difficult to align with orthodox doctrine. (vii) explores the vexed question of the limits of power and obedience, theoretical and practical. It mentions evidence for a widespread Senecan influence on opinion about these questions, both in the drama and in theoretical writings, and suggests that while some early plays clearly reflect orthodox doctrine on obedience, later plays are almost invariably ambivalent. The reflection of the hierarchical structure and obedience doctrine in the microcosm of the family is considered in relation to the treatment of the theme of filial obedience in the plays, which appears to diverge widely from orthodox doctrine. A detailed discussion of Measure for Measure, King Lear, and the political tragedies of Chapman concludes that Stoic teaching was more influential on the dramatists than orthodox teaching. CHAPTER 4 discusses themes associated with money and private property. It is separated into three sections: (i) discusses the traditional Christian view of avarice, and its relationship to actual economic changes taking place in England during the Renaissance, and considers the relevance of the Stoic contempt for wealth. A discussion is opened on the changing attitudes apparent towards different means of accumulating wealth, in particular, merchant enterprise and money-lending. (ii) contains a detailed discussion of The Jew of Malta and The Merchant of Venice as illuminating these changing attitudes to usurers and merchants. It reaches the conclusion that irony and ambivalence in the latter play direct our attention to similarities as much as to differences between the two kinds of money-making. (iii) discusses the broad attack on the values of an acquisitive society exemplified in the citizen comedies of Jonson and Massinger, and in Shakespeare’s Timon of Athens. There is some consideration of the extent to which this attack reflects the steady growth of economic individualism in contemporary England, and the attractions of Stoic values. CHAPTER 5 attempts to draw some general conclusions about the ideological orientation of the playwrights. Its two sections approach the task as follows: (i) endeavours to isolate the viewpoint of the individual dramatists as far as it can be deduced form the poetry and total impact of their plays, and from anything we know of their opinions outside their plays, and concludes that none of them seems disposed to confine his political judgements within the pale of orthodox doctrine. In most cases, the influence of Stoicism is seem as a strong element in their attitudes to political questions. (ii) examines the particular widely held notion that Shakespeare’s history plays subserve the “Tudor Myth” by a detailed consideration of Richard III. The evidence it produces of an ironical treatment of a whole range of ideas associated with the “Tudor Myth” leads to the conclusion that the notion of Shakespeare as a time-server is itself a myth with little basis. CHAPTER 6 summarizes the principal conclusions of the whole work, namely that (a) the simplistic dogmas of contemporary political orthodox are a totally inadequate guide to the treatment of political themes in English Renaissance drama; (b) the characteristic political tendency of the drama involves the envisioning of an organic “Commonwealth” as an ideal with which the real world of politics is contrasted to its disadvantage; (c) the influence of Seneca’s stoicism on the value system implicit in this political tendency is very much greater than is usually acknowledged.