1/ This is the first Ben Jonson play I’ve read.
My first impression confirms what I have heard—that Ben Jonson, unlike Shakespeare, shows off his learning in his plays. Or to use Bill Bryson’s words, his learning “hangs like bunting on every word”. For example:
“SUBTLE
The thumb, in chiromanty, we give Venus;
The forefinger to Jove; the midst, to Saturn;
The ring to Sol; the least, to Mercury;
Who was the lord, sir, of his horoscope,
Is house of life being Libra, which foreshowed,
He should be a merchant, and should trade with balance.”
(Act 1 scene 3)
Subtle is the alchemist (well, a con artist), and he is talking to Abel Drugger, a tobacco-man that he’s trying to scam.
Later:
“SUBTLE
Make me your door, then, south; your broad side, west;
And on the east side of your shop, aloft,
Write Mathlai, Tarmiel, and Baraborat;
Upon the north part, Rael, Velel, Thiel.
They are the names of those mercurial spirits,
That do fright flies from boxes.”
(ibid.)
My New Mermaids edition says that the “Mathlai… Thiel” part is quoted from the Heptameron, seu Elementa magica Pietri Abano Philosophi. No idea what that is.
Let’s look at another passage. A knight named Epicure Mammon thinks he’s about to get the philosopher’s stone from Subtle, and tries to convince his incredulous companion Surly, a gamester, that the philosopher’s stone is real and has been written about by Moses, Salomon, and Adam.
“MAMMON
‘Tis like your Irish wood,
‘Gainst cobwebs. I have a piece of Jason’s fleece, too,
Which was no other, than a book of alchemy,
Writ in large sheepskin, a good fat ram-vellum.
Such was Pythagoras’s thigh, Pandora’s tub;
And, all that fable of Medea’s charms,
And manner of our work: the bulls, our furnace,
The breathing fire; our argent-vive, the dragon;
The dragon’s teeth, mercury sublimate,
That keeps the whiteness, hardness, and the biting;
And they are gathered, into Jason’s helm,
(Th’ alembic) and then sowed in Mars his field,
And, thence, sublimed so often, till they are fixed.
Both this, th’ Hesperian garden, Cadmus’s story,
Jove’s shower, the boon of Midas, Argus’ eyes,
Boccace his Demogorgon, thousands more,
All abstract riddles of our stone…”
(Act 2 scene 1)
I mean, take it easy there, Ben?
As it turns out, there are a lot more names and concepts and archaic words and Latin in the scenes between Subtle, Mammon, and Surly.
Compared to Shakespeare, Ben Jonson seems more interested in the London around him, setting the play in Blackfriars during a plague and mentioning places or people that his audience would probably have recognised. He also refers more to contemporary issues and events explicitly: in Act 1 scene 2 for example, there are references to figures such as Simon Read, Chiause, Clim o’ the Cloughs (Adam Bell), etc.; and he writes about contemporary ideas and practices such as alchemy, horoscope, palmistry, the humours, etc.
I’m not saying that The Alchemist is no longer relevant or relatable today (whatever it means), but in some ways the play seems to be more rooted in its time and place, whereas Shakespeare transcends his time and country.
2/ From earlier on, I’ve noticed that Epicure Mammon sounds like an overreacher, like Doctor Faustus. In his conversation with Surly, and later with Face (Subtle’s accomplice), he talks about all the powers he thinks the philosopher’s stone would give him, and all the stuff he would do with it.
Something gets my attention however:
“MAMMON
[…] Where I spy
A wealthy citizen, or rich lawyer,
Have a sublimed pure wife, unto that fellow
I’ll send a thousand pound, to be my cuckold.”
(Act 2 scene 2)
Yikes.
Compared to the 2 previous victims, Mammon isn’t very sympathetic—does anyone feel bad that such a man get scammed?
3/ Unlike Shakespeare in most of his plays, Ben Jonson does obey the 3 unities of classical drama: unity of action (a single action of Subtle and Face scamming people, with no subplot), unity of place (everything takes place in or just outside Lovewit’s house), and unity of time (the action is more or less continuous and takes place within the course of a day).
The comedy of The Alchemist is very different from Shakespeare’s comedy. Once in a while there’s a sexual innuendo, whereas Shakespeare’s plays, including the tragedies and histories, are filled with puns and sex jokes. Ben Jonson doesn’t seem to like puns much.
His comedy is more satirical: mocking the vices of humankind such as greed, lust, gullibility, and hypocrisy.
Ben Jonson does play with language, but not in the same way as Shakespeare.
The con-men, especially Subtle (but also Face), put on different roles and speak different kinds of language. When Subtle talks to Abel Drugger for example, he uses the jargon of metoposcopy (the art of reading character from physiognomy), chiromanty (palmistry), and horoscope. In front of Mammon, Subtle talks like some kind of priest or holy man, then he and Face use the jargon of alchemy.
Now take this scene, when a deacon named Ananias comes and asks for them.
“SUBTLE
[…] Who are you?
ANANIAS
A faithful Brother, if it please you.
SUBTLE
What’s that?
A Lullianist? A Ripley? Filius artis?
Can you sublime, and dulcify? Calcine?
Know you the sapor pontic? Sapor styptic?
Or, what is homogene, or heterogene?
ANANIAS
I understand no heathen language, truly.”
(Act 2 scene 5)
I get exhausted reading that.
“ANANIAS
All’s heathen, but the Hebrew.
SUBTLE
Sirrah, my varlet, stand you forth, and speak to him
Like a philosopher: answer, i’ the language.
Name the vexations, and the martyrizations
Of metals, in the work.
FACE
Sir, Putrefaction,
Solution, Ablution, Sublimation,
Cohobation, Calcination, Ceration, and
Fixation.
SUBTLE
This is heathen Greek, to you, now?
And when comes Vivification?
FACE
After Mortification.
SUBTLE
What’s Cohobation?
FACE
‘Tis the pouring on.
Your Aqua Regis, and then drawing him off,
To the trine circle of the seven spheres.
SUBTLE
What’s the proper passion of metals?
FACE
Malleation.
SUBTLE
What’s your ultimum supplicium auri?
FACE
Antimonium.”
(ibid.)
See what I mean? I put up a long quote so you get the idea that it goes on and on—the language is packed with Latin and archaic words and unfamiliar terms.
Perhaps the way to read it is to accept feeling lost sometimes—Subtle uses language to dazzle and confuse and dwindle others.
4/ Mammon’s language is fun. Take this speech to Dol, a prostitute and partner-in-crime of Subtle and Face that Mammon thinks is a lady and a scholar.
“MAMMON
It is a noble humour. But this form
Was not intended to so dark a use!
Had you been crooked, foul, of some coarse mould,
A cloister had done well; but such a feature
That might stand up the glory of a kingdom,
To live recluse!—is a mere solecism,
Though in a nunnery. It must not be…”
(Act 4 scene 1)
She’s too hot to be a recluse, he says. A short while later:
“MAMMON
I am pleased, the glory of her sex should know,
This nook, here of the Friars, is no climate
For her, to live obscurely in, to learn
Physic, and surgery, for the Constable’s wife
Of some odd Hundred in Essex; but come forth,
And taste the air of places; eat, drink
The toils of emp’rics, and their boasted practice;
Tincture of pearl, and coral, gold, and amber;
Be seen at feasts, and triumphs; have it asked,
What miracle she is? Set all the eyes
Of court afire, like a burning glass,
And work ‘em in cinders; when the jewels
Of twenty states adorn thee; and the light
Strikes out the stars; that, when thy name is mentioned,
Queens may look pale; and, we but showing our love,
Nero’s Poppaea may be lost in story!
Thus, will we have it!”
(ibid.)
Mammon is pompous and his language is bombastic. In The Alchemist, Ben Jonson satirises different types of people, Mammon is probably the one that stands out the most—at least to me.
Sometime in the play, Surly calls him “the Faustus”.
5/ One good thing about Ben Jonson putting his learning in the play is that I now know he knew Don Quixote. What a surprise.
(Another unexpected thing is that the word “dildo” appears in the play, near the end).
6/ The best part of The Alchemist, I reckon, is the tightly structured plot—it becomes denser and denser as the victims go in and out at the wrong time or new ones unexpectedly arrive and they clash with each other, forcing the con-men to improvise as they go along.
The ending is good—unexpected.
Some of the "learnedness" may be specific to "The Alchemist" - all of that phony-baloney con-artist smoke. I remember "Volpone" and "The Silent Woman" having quite a bit less. I might remember wrongly, though. And "Bartholomew Fair" much much less, but that one is the pure, deep London play.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I was wondering about that, but I'll probably read another Marlowe before reading another Jonson, hahahha.
DeleteHow is Every Man in His Humour?
I remember it being kinda thin compared to the later comedies.
DeleteAny good? I thought it's one of the popular ones.
DeleteYes, it's worth reading sometime.
DeleteBill Bryson’s words, his learning “hangs like bunting on every word” Nifty way to put it.
ReplyDelete"but in some ways the play seems to be more rooted in its time and place, whereas Shakespeare transcends his time and country" Shakepeare is universal and timeless and has such insight into the human condition. To me those are the most compelling parts of his genius in addition to his singular and spectacular use of language.
Maybe this is sort, kinda what Bloom was suggesting in his subtitle to his Shakespeare book: The Invention of the Human"?
Hahaha, this is the full Bill Bryson passage:
Delete"Shakespeare’s genius was not really to do with facts, but with ambition, intrigue, love, suffering – things that aren’t taught in school. He had a kind of assimilative intelligence, which allowed him to pull together lots of disparate fragments of knowledge, but there is almost nothing in his plays that speaks of hard intellectual application – unlike, say, Ben Jonson, whose learning hangs like bunting on every word. Nothing we find in Shakespeare betrays any acquaintance with Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius or others who influenced Jonson and were second nature to Francis Bacon. That is a good thing – a very good thing indeed – for he would almost certainly have been less a Shakespeare and more a showoff had he been better read. As John Dryden put it in 1668: ‘Those who accuse him to have wanted learning, give him the greater commendation: he was naturally learn’d.’"
That is his book Shakespeare. It's a good, funny book.
I agree about Shakespeare's universality and timelessness, but I have no idea what Bloom means, especially when there are writers like Cao Xueqin for example, who are great at characters and never knew about Shakespeare.
This is probably not the best comparison, but A. Lincoln, who's writing wow's me (content and style), had just a few weeks here and there of formal schooling. He mainly taught himself in the evening in front of the fire, after he did a day's worth of chores and manual labor to help keep his impoverished family going.
ReplyDeleteTotal aside: Bill Bryson grew up on a farm in Iowa!
I know what you mean. A writer doesn't need a lot of formal education to be a good or even great writer.
DeleteI didn't know that about Bill Bryson. He's mostly a travel writer, I think?
I believe he is. And I'm certainly glad he wrote his book about Shakespeare - off the beaten path for him in terms of genre.
ReplyDeleteI just realized when I talk about universality, I'm thinking about Western literature which is all I can read. Does culture affect universality? I.e., is a book that's universal in Western culture also universal in Viet Nam and visa versa? And if it's not then it's not truly universal.
It depends on how you define universality. But I mainly read Western literature & can recognise the feelings & many types of people.
DeleteI think you should pick up The Pillow Book from Japan & Hong lou meng (Dream of the Red Chamber or The Story of the Stone) from China & see what you think. Customs & traditions may be different, but people aren't that different across cultures.
I think very highly of Hong lou meng.
https://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2020/12/why-you-should-read-hong-lou-meng-10.html
Delete