augustan poetry.pdf

7/30/2019 augustan poetry.pdf

1/16

Language and Body in Augustan PoeticAuthor(s): Thomas E. MarescaReviewed work(s):Source: ELH, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 374-388Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2872311 .

Accessed: 30/03/2012 05:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

ELH.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2872311?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2872311?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup


2/16

LANGUAGE AND BODY IN AUGUSTAN POETICBY THOMAS E. MARESCA

When wift's eolists,wollenwith heir ivinewinds, elivertheir pinions y eructationnd " affirmheGiftofBELCHING,to be thenoblestAct of a RationalCreature,"' heiropinion,howeverwiftianndextreme,asmany ounterpartsnAugustansatire. They stand,chronologicallynd ideologically, idwaybetween he swollen,latulent,ndaverbal hadwell fDryden'sMacFlecknoe nd thestultifyingawnof Dulness,whose un-creating ord (IV. 654) concludes heDunciad. Among heseworks ndthose f othermajorAugustanwritersxtends net-work fideas that tiestogetheranguage nd body,wordandthing, ithknots fpeculiar omplexity. hepaperthatfollowsis an attempt o loosen omeof thoseknots.InMacFlecknoe, ryden oncentrateshemain lementsfhisattack n Shadwell nthe well-knowninesofFlecknoe's peningsoliloquy,n the course f which heaged prince eviews ll ofthecharacteristicshatqualify hadwell or he empire f non-sense: Shadwell s meaningless,erbose, autological,n essenceexactly ike his putativefather lecknoe. As Flecknoehimselfsays," Sh alonemy perfectmagebears (15) 2 We havelongknown hat Drydensatirizes lecknoe and Shadwellbyattributingothem hree ffices hich heygrossly istort,hoseofprophet, riest,ndking. Not coincidentally,rthodox hris-tianityraditionallyttributeshose fficeso Christ.DrydennMacFlecknoe onsistentlyppropriates orhis satiricpurposesideasdrawn rom hristicheology,articularlyromhe heologyoftheLogos. The Logos,the secondperson ftheTrinity, lsobearsthe" perfectmage ofhisfather.The situationnMac-Flecknoee ost esemblesheFather's nnouncementf theking-shipofhisSonin BookV ofParadiseLost,but t also andmore

1A Tale ofa Tub, ed. HerbertDavis (Oxford, 957), Sect.VIII, p. 96. All quota-tionsfromA Tale are to this edition.2 quotationsfromDryden are fromThe Poems of JohnDryden,ed. JamesKinsley Oxford, 958).

374 Language and Body in Augustan Poetic


3/16

importantlyraws pon he ame ort fconceptionshatMiltonutilizednBook II, thedialoguenHeaven betweenheFatherandtheSon aboutthefateofman. Therethesecondpersonselaboratelyresentedn his capacity s theLogos,theperfectexpressionf heFather,ndthedialogue etween he wodrama-tizesexplicitlyhe mplicitelationshipetweenhem.The rela-tionships, nhuman erms,autological.What heFather peaks,theSonembodies ndrepeats. n Milton'swords,n theSon" allhisFather hone Substantiallyxpress'd" (III. 139-140)3 Tomaketherelationshipvenmoreclear,MiltonbuildsChrist'sspeech ut of almost very evice frepetitionnown oRenais-sancerhetoric-forxample:

ForshouldManfinallye lost, houldManThycreatureatesolov'd, hyyoungestonFallcircumventedhus yfraud,houghoin'dWith isownfolly?hatbe fromhee ar,Thatfar e fromhee, ather, ho rt udgeOf llthings ade,nd udgestnly ight.Orshall heAdversaryhus btainHis end, ndfrustratehine,hallhefulfillHismalice,nd hy oodnessringonaught...?(III. 150-58)Thewhole ialoguesformedromustsuchdramatizationfthebasic theological elationship,nd I suggest hat DrydeninMacFlecknoedraws ponthis amerelationship. few inesfur-ther n,Drydenmakes hisexplicitwhenhe has Flecknoe eferto Shadwellas a Christic nti-type f his 'Old Testament'precursors:

Heywood ndShirleywere utTypes f hee,Thou astgreat rophetfTautology.... (929-30)The fundamentalointofthisrestson the roleoftheLogosincreation.Godcreates yandthroughheWord; heWord stheagent ndmodelofcreation.WhatFlecknoe nd Shadwellproduce mounts o a travestyfthisdivine reativity. od istautological: is essence ndexistencere dentical.He expresseshimselfn tautologies:n the Logos,whomirrors im; n hisdeclarationoMoses, I amthat am"; inhiscreationfmaninhisown mage.ButGod stautologicalecause here snothing3 All quotationsfromMilton are fromJohnMilton: CompletePoems and MajorProse, d. Merritt . Hughes (New York,1957).

ThomasE. Maresca 375


4/16

outsidehimselfo which e can refer; e encompassesll beingandprovidestsgroundndsource.Godcreates utofthisfull-nessofbeing; lecknoe ndShadwell reate utof their acuity.There s nodistinctionetweenhem ndtheir reations,ust asthere an be no distinctionetween hem s persons.Here,ofcourse,ies he otaldifferenceetween heirreativityndGod's:hiscreations reallydistinct rom im, ust as theSon is reallydistinctrom heFather. The divine autologyesultsninfinitevariety,hehuman nein mererepetition. od unites hreenone,butFlecknoe ndShadwellmerely epeat ne in two (thusShadwell's ame n thepoem-MacFlecknoe).TheLogosbridgeshegapbetween uman nddivine, etweenmaterialndspiritual;lecknoendShadwell everse hatprocessanduse theword o divide, o subtractoulfrom ody. Theircreationsremarked otby ife utbycorporeality.heer hysi-calbulk s their istinguishingharacteristic:lecknoeallsShad-well A Tun ofMan ' (195); "his goodly abrick ills heeye(25); "loads of ShA-.- almost choakt the way (103).Appropriately,rydendepicts hisby meansof an essentiallyblightedexualityndubiquitouscatology. hadwell's hroneserected nthe cene f"Lewdloves, ndofpollutedoys (71);he earlypracticed he lore of Love's Kingdom 124) Psychesprungrom is oins 1925)surelyanunlikelyource or syche.Flecknoe fferso teachhim Pangswithout irth,ndfruitlessIndustry" 148), a lessonhe seemsnot to need, incehe beginsthepoem big withHymn (41) andends t stillflatulentndswollen, "mountain elly with " tympanyf ense (193-94)certainlyhe longest alsepregnancyn literature. ryden'sconsistent se of the abbreviation Shy-," frequentlye-mands, espitehemeter,monosyllabicndscatologicaleading.I doubt hat when heechoes all from Pissing-Ally (47) itis " Shadwell they resaying-especiallyince, fewines ater,Shadwell's ong s said to attract helittlefishes s does " theMorning oast, that Floats along (50). At any rate,all ofthisdefineshenature fFlecknoe's nd Shadwell's rt. Com-pletelymaterial,trepresentsheoverflowf ife ndenergynlyinthemostgrossly arodic ense; t is formedromheremnantsof ife atherhanfromife tself.

Drydenforces s to see Shadwell s a travesty f Christ,reductio d absurdumf thedivine autology. he satiremakesShadwell's lesh, is modeofexistence,xclusivelyerbal,while376 Language ndBodyinAugustan oetic


5/16

at the sametimedemonstratingowhe convertsll words oflesh,educeshem o nertmatter. hadwell,autologicalneveryrespect, ecomes hevehicle orhisownvery iteralncarnationof the word: he is " Swell'dwiththe Pride of [his]Celestialcharge; hebears hewordwithin im, big withHymn."Theobverseof thisconfusionf literaturend reality, pirit ndmatter,an be seen n Flecknoe'saterdescriptionfShadwell," A Tun ofMan in thyLarge bulk is writ" (195), wherethewordonce again merges nto the flesh. In these imageswe aredealingwitha parody,a debasement, f the centralmomentofChristian istory. f theIncarnation fChristprovides henexusof humanand divine,of flesh nd spirit, hadwell's falsepreg-nancy hattershatconnection.Whatheproduces s thecompletereification,he total corporealization, f word and spirit. Hisflatulence arodiesthe idea of the Word withinthe word,andhisverbaland physical onstipation or heduration fthepoem(Shadwell neverspeaks in MacFleckno'e) quite literally mbodythetotalsterilitynd self-enclosuref hisworks.Allofthiselaborate heological araphernalia rovides hebasisfor hepoem'smode ofprocedure:theplayingwiththetheologyof the Logos subverts he frameworkf realityand brings ntobeing an exclusivelyverbal world-but a verbal worldthat isparadoxically rapped n matter. If God, in creating hrough heWord,made a materialworld apable ofrising o spirit, hadwellthroughhedegradation fthe wordcreates n immaterial, erbalworld which s quicklysinking nto matter. In an ambivalentsense, hisworldpossessesno reality utsidetheprinted age. Itexists s literaturexists nddraws tssustenance rom-and onlyfrom-literature;hisexplainsthesuperabundant llusionswhichpunctuatethepoem. On the otherhand, iterature xists n thisworld s onlythephysicalreality f theprintedpage-" loads ofSio- almost choakt the way" (103). Such a world closesupon itself. t cannothave referenceo anyreality utside tselfand so mustbe tautological.Ultimatelyn sucha world he artifact chievesthesame levelofexistence s the artist-or vice versa-and the artistpays thepriceforhis ownhackwork, s does the " yet declaimingBard"(9213)at the end ofMacFlecknoe. His inability o make cleardistinctionsn the realmof art produces, n the realm of being,a worldwhich s all Love's Kingdom,populatedonlybyHumor-ists,Hypocrites, nd Virtuosos.Sloppy art,Dryden is arguing,ThomasE. Maresca 377


6/16

effectsconfusionnreality; r,putanother ay, ur rt mbodiestherealitywe ive n,thereforeonfusionn art and confusionnreality re necessary orollaries f each other. This relationbetweenrtandrealitys essentiallyherelationshipf thefirstand second ersonsf heTrinity,autological,woversionsf hesamething.Thus theincoherencefFlecknoe's nd Shadwell'sminds s the ncoherencefthe world hey reate round hem,andthey hemselvesre no more r essrealthan heir haractersBruceorLongvil.Elements fthis amesituation re discerniblenAbsalom ndAchitophel,here ryden mploys odies s debasingmetaphorsin a quitesimilarway. He describes ll of thepoem'svillainsas markedly orporeal nd leaves the poem'sheroesvaguelyethereal ndspiritual. bsalom's illains xist n our maginationsprimarilys physicalentities-"that unfeather'd,wo Leg'dthing,"Achitophel'son (170); Achitophel imself, ho "o'rinform'dhis] enementfClay" (158); Corahwith is" Moses'sFace " (649); and even" The wellhungBalaam" (574). Cor-poreal magerymarks ll therebels nd their ctivities,raggingthemdown from he realmof spirit heywouldusurpto theworld fmatter.mages f atingndoffood boundnthepoem,frequentlyn semi-blasphemousontexts.Jewish abbis andJebusitesgreethatit is theirduty"Tespouse his Cause bywhom hey at anddrink (107). The plot tselfs " swallow'din theMass,unchew'd nd Crude" (113). Nadab "made newporridgeor hePaschalLamb" (576). Thefinal ransformationofthis magerynd its ideological limax n thepoemoccur nDavid's concludingpeech.The processof corporealizationowhich herebelshave all beensubjected here eachests nadirin a symbolicannibalism:AgainsthemselvesheirWitnessesill wear,TillViper-likeheirMother lotthey ear:And uck orNutrimenthatbloody oreWhichwastheir rinciplefLifebefore. (1012-15)Thesestrikingorporealmages ll achieve common ffectnthepoem: theyconstitute symbolicnactment,n themoralrealm, f the publicrebellionnd its concomitant ithdrawalfromrace.Theydebase he mage fhismaker hatDavid bearsbyreducinghat mage n the ndividual nd nsociety oa merephysical ffigy, thing o be torn, sed,consumed.They are,378 Language ndBodyinAugustan oetic


7/16

ifyou will, imply ther ersionsf thegolden alftowhich herebelswouldreduceDavid (66).In the ncarnation,hrist omesticatedheWord n therealmofflesh.Dryden'sFlecknoe nd Shadwellreversedhatactionby themselvesecomingnlywords-notsymbols,nlywords.They have referenceo nothing utsidethemselves: hey arecompletelyelf-referentialndtautological. hebody nthisviewis nota symbol fa spiritual r intellectualtatebutrather sthespiritualr ntellectualtatebecause hattoohas beenthor-oughlyorporealized:he" shapeless ump (172),Achitophel'sson, sbothhisfather'shudledNotions (171) and" Anarchy(172). Opposed othe ncarnationf heWord tands he iterali-zationoftheflesh.Swift's racticewithLilliputians,robding-nagians,ndLaputansobviously earsonthis;his louyhnhnmsperfectlyxemplifyhe total literalizationnd consequent e-humanizationf an intellectualonstruct,nimalrationale.ThePlatos,Virgils,Wottons,ndBentleys f theBattleoftheBooksplayout thesameprocess nd illustrates nicely s doesMac-Flecknoe hat n theprocess fmaking verythingiterature emakeeverythingnlything-justbooks,physical bjectsto beshelved, orted, eparated, tc. Swift'sbrief omment n theevolution f zeal in A Tale of a Tub summarizeshe wholeprocess:However,or hisMeddly fHumor,Jack]made Shift o findvery lausible ame,honoringt with he TitleofZeal; whichs,perhaps,hemost ignificantord hathath een veryetproducedinanyLanguage; s, think, havefully roved nmy excellentAnalyticaliscourse pon hatSubject;wherein have deducedHistori-theo-physi-logiccdccount fZeal, shewing owit first ro-ceeded romNotionnto Word,ndfromhencen a hotSummer,ripnednto tangibleubstance. Sect.VI, p.86)This, think,s thecentral ituation fAugustan oetic.TheIncarnationrovides field, point fcontact etween he ntel-lectually onceived erbal nd thesensually erceived hysical:it offers,n effect, guarantee f the validity f thoughtndpoetrynd an assurance f hereality f heextra-subjectiveni-verse.Consequentlyhebestpoetrys not usta vision ftruth,but is truth;t offershe" goldenworld thatSidney pokeofand which o muchofNeoplatonic stheticsustified. n goodpoetry, he verbal and the real coincide nd truthmanifestsitself.At theopposite xtreme,n theveryworst oetry,hereThomasE. Maresca 379


8/16

is no correlationetween heverbalworld nd therealworld.Rather, hemalformederbal onstruct irrorsxactly hedis-tortedntellectualision hat ngenderedtanda strangeravestyof the Platonicvision of truth ppears: such poetry s self-supportingndinternallyonsistentecause tnever scapes hedistinctworlds fwordand thing o enter heworldof spiritwhichwouldcontradictt. It possessesn superabundanceheexcellence e presentlyraise n contemporaryoetry,nternalcoherence,ecause tpossesses nly hereality foneconscious-ness. It implicitlyejects nalogy s actually xistingnd pre-sents rathera totallysubjectiveuniverse-thusShadwell schosen ecausehemostresembles lecknoe ndbecause n turnhis charactersmost resemble im. When anguage s properlyemployed, rt approximatesature;when t is improperlym-ployed,rtproduceshe rtificial.Some satiric sesofthetraditional etaphorf the mirrorfartmayhelpto clarifyll of this. The essential ointof thecommonplacese ofthemirrormetaphors,ofcourse, hatartimitateseality, hetherhatrealitys conceivedf as a physicalparticular r a Platonic dea or anything etween hosetwoextremes.n satiric ses of themetaphor,tresss laiduponthesuperficialatureof the reflectionnvolved:onlysurfaces rereproduced;heimitations confinednlyto thematerial,hebody lone.Thefollowings from Tale ofa Tub:A certainAuthor, hoseWorkshavemanyAgessincebeen, ntirelylost,does nhis fifthookand eighth hapter,ay ofGriticks,hattheirWritings re the MirrorsofLearning. This I understand n aliteral Sense, and suppose our Author must mean, that whoeverdesigns o be a perfectWriter,must nspect ntothe Books ofCriticks,and correcthis Inventionthere as in a Mirror. Now, whoever con-sidersthat theMirrors ftheAntientsweremade ofBrass, and sineMercurio,may presently pply the two PrincipalQualifications f aTrue Modern Critick, nd consequently,must needs conclude, thatthese have always been, and must be forever he same. For, Brassis an Emblem of Duration, and when it is skillfully urnished,willcast Reflections rom ts own Superficies,withoutany assistance ofMercury frombehind. All the otherTalents of a Critick will notrequire a particularmention,being included, or easily deducible tothese. (Sect. III, p. 63)Let uspassover henarrator'snterestingiteralismndthepos-sible significationsof Mercury and brass to concentrate on theextremelycorporeal version of artistic reflection hat Swift here380 Language and Body in Augu-stan oetic


9/16

describes. he mirrortselfs presenteds a solidsurface hatresists enetration;he image s quitephysicallyhrown ackfrom his superficies. he conception nd the languageareLucretian; his s in factLucretius' escriptionfthebehaviorof atoms n theformationf reflectedmages.4 uch languageand sucha sourcefirmlyock thekind of reflection,riticism,and artSwifts talking bout n an absolutelyorporealworld,a world hat s exhaustivelyescribeds bodies nmotion;piritis totally bsent.Suchcriticismorms he adequatebase fromwhichGrubean rtdevelops.That art, ikethecriticalmirror,reveals tself s a series fpeculiarlympenetrableutsides, ur-faceswith no content,uch as the tub itself.SwiftdescribesGrubeanrt nexactlyhismannerarlyn theTale:. . . theGrubaean ageshavealways hosen o convey heir receptsand theirArts, hutup within heVehicles f Types and Fables,which aving eenperhapsmore areful ndcurious nadorning,hanwas altogetherecessary,t has faredwiththeseVehicles fter heusual Fate ofCoaches ver-finelyainted ndgilt; hatthetransitoryGazershave so dazzledtheir yes,andfill'd heirmaginations iththeoutward ustre, s neithero regard r consider, he PersonorthePartsof theOwnerwithin. Introduction,. 40)Such surface dornment,uch artificiality,s exactlythe art andlearning of Pope's dunces,who, in Aristarchus'words, "Likebuoys,thatneversink ntotheflood, On Learning's urfacewebut lie and nod" (IV. 241-2) 5 And such,too,is the artBelindapractices n TheRape oftheLock.The scene ofBelinda's toilet n Canto I of The Rape of theLockfurnishesn elaborate ndimportant seofthemirrormage.ThereBelinda engages n a complexartificewhichparodiestheprocessoftrue art and produces a verycorporealversionof thegoldenworldofart as she " Sees by Degreesa purerBlush arise,And keenerLightnings uickenin her Eyes " (I. 148-44). The"heav'nly Image" (I. 125) she sees in the glass imitatesanddebasesthe dea seen nthemirrorfthemindand reproducednthemirror fart-a conception hatformshebasis ofmostNeo-platonic esthetics. The whole situation simply literalizesthemetaphorof themirror f art and reifies he art work. Signifi-cantly, he artwork n thiscase is not themirrortself, or s it

' Cf. De Rerutm atura, V. 97ff. nd IV. 150ff.' All quotationsfromPope are fromthe TwickenhamEdition, ed. John Butt(Londonand New Haven, 1939-1961).ThomasE. Maresca 381


10/16

inthemirror,ut s rather elindaherself. heperforms com-pletelyautological,eflexivect,beginningndendingnherself;she is bothpriestessnd goddessofherowncult,worshipperand worshipped,rtist nd artifact. uch an artifact ot onlydistortsidney's eoplatonicersionf he rtwork,utrecreatesquiteexactlyhekind fartthatPlato banned rom isrepublic.Belinda xplicitlymitates n imitation,he ronicallyheav'nlyImage" shesees in themirror.We cannotforgett thispointthatPlatopejorativelyinked rtandthemirrors both llusory,bothrepresentersfa falsely-seemingeality,o that Belinda'sadornmentfthemirrormage emoves eryetfurtherromheideallyconceived eal. Let me citethe concludingemarks fthis ection fPlato'sargument:Wemayconclude,hen,hat llpoetry,rom omer nwards,onsistsinrepresentingsemblance f tssubject,whatevertmaybe, nclud-inganykindofhuman xcellence, ithno graspofthereality. . .Stripwhat thepoethas to say ofits poetical oloring,nd I thinkyou musthave seenwhat t comes o inplainprose. t is like a facewhichwas never eallyhandsome, hen t has lostthe fresh loomofyouth.6Plato's judgment s fartoo harshto be applied literally o thefragileBelinda, but it does forceanotherperspective n Pope'sambiguous use of comparatives n " keener Lightnings and" purerBlush."Taken in itswidest mplication,hispassageparodiesthewholelate Renaissancenotionof the poet and his relationto the cor-poreal and the ideal worlds. Belinda is explicitly creatorgodwhosefiat" calls forth ll theWondersofherFace " (42), andshe engages n the samekind ofworld-buildinghatRenaissancepoetssaw as thehighest eachof their raft.7 his lies behindherinvoking theCosmetic -rather thancosmic-" Pow'rs" (124)and her selectingfrom"The various Off'ringsf the World"(130) . It accounts oo for hepresencehereoftheunited ortoiseand elephant,miniaturizednto combs: althoughtheyare onlysuperficialrtifacts ere,surelytheybringwiththemechoes oftheirfamous ppearance nLocke's discussion ffalsenotionsofsubstanceas an illusory xplanation f the structure fthe uni-

6 The Republic of Plato, trans. F. M. Cornford (New York, 1963), X. 600, p. 331.7See, for example, Sidney's Defenceof Poesie or Tasso's Reflectionspon HeroicPoetry.

382 Language ndBodyinAugustan oetic


11/16

verse.8Here their nion orms step n the formationf a falseworldof false art that extendsfrom he generaldisorder f"Unnumbered reasures" (129) and "The variousOff'ringsof the World" (130) to the fully ealizedbut still disorderedplenitude f " Here Files of Pins extend heir hining ows,Puffs, owders,Patches,Bibles Billet-doux" (137-38). Belindacreates a Whiggishworld, highly rnamented,npatternedplenitude fwhichhe s center ndexemplar-whichs precisely,insmall, errole nthewhole f TheRape of theLock.9The same confusion f artistand artifact hat we saw inMacFlecknoe rovideshe ore fPope's passage: Belindapaints,and what he paints s herself. hemirrornly eturns surfaceappearance:what s affecteds not the intellectual ision, utonlythecorporealurface, f Belinda'sface. Pope's linesmakeprominentlso anotherspectof thisweb of deas: the reflexivenature f bad art. It is always, n the anguage f MacFlecknoe,tautological.t begins ndends n itself.We cannot mphasizethispoint oomuch, ecause tis so antitheticalo whatwe haveallbeen aught orecognizes a virtuen poetry. y these tand-ards of udgment, oetry ailswhen t does not go outside tself,when t is self-contained,hen t is the subjective xpressionof a subjectiveworld-likeBelinda's, venwhenthat world sinternallyonsistentnd self-supporting-likeelinda's. Popeelegantlynsists n thispoint t theendofThe Rape oftheLockwhen heMuse,with quickPoeticEyes," sees Belinda's ockmetamorphosedntoa star. Belinda,who has beenthe sun inherown miscreated niverse,s movedby properpoetry, yPope'sownMuse,fromenterocircumference,rom alse ivinityto truepoetic mmortality.he poem openswith thoseEyesthat musteclipse he Day" (I. 14) andBelinda'svision fthe

8'Essayon Human Understanding,I. xxiii. .'Ralph Cohen, n "The AugustanMode in English Poetry,"Eighteenth-CenturyStudies, (1967), 3-32,arguesthat these inespresent an inverted rospect (12).It seemsto me thatthe " prospect is not inverted t all, culminatings it does ina fully ealizedmicrocosm.Rather, he seriousflawwouldappear to be the prospectitself, implying world ocatable in Newtonian pace and time, eading (thoughnot necessarily) o an infinity eyondman's comprehension (31): these are thevery spectsoftheprospecthatPope apparentlyegardswithhorror nd whichmadeit a naturalvehicle orBelinda'sperversionf art ntomaterial, ime-boundrtificiality.Thus I would have to argue that in Pope's view-and implicitlyn Dryden's andSwift's-the prospect s not one of themajormodesofAugustanpoetry, ut one ofthethreats o it.

ThomasE. Maresca 383


12/16

" heav'nly mage in theGlass" (I. 1925); t closes withthesettingof " thosefairSuns" (V. 147) and the inscription f Belinda'sname" midsttheStars" (V. 150) by theMuse.So then: style s not sufficient. onsistencys not sufficient.Aninformingision snotsufficient. ere words re notsufficient,and most of all body is. not sufficient. y extrapolation, hisAugustanpoetic demands a poetrythat weds word and body,thought nd thing, n small as the Incarnationdid in large. Itdemandstoo thatpoetrybe in that same wayhistorically erifi-able, at least to the extentthat its consistencynd integrity emeasurednotby ts ownrulesorthesubjective ulesof tscreator,but by somevalid externalyardstick. t demands,that is, thatpoetry pilloverinto ife: " pureart,"" artforart's sake," even"doing yourownthing" or any ofa dozenrecent liches-theseare its enemy. It presupposesa verifiable nd usable cosmicstructure gainstwhicha poet can measure his work, n whichhe can locate it,and to whichhe can appeal to provehis poem'struthand permanence-just as, to give a briefexamplewhichsumsup muchofthis,Tom Jonescan appeal to the substantialand the deal Sophia toprovehistruth nd constancy:He replied,Don't believemeuponmyword; have a betterecurity,a pledge ormyconstancy,hich t is impossibleo see anddoubt.'-'What is that?' saidSophia, little urprised.-' will howyou,mycharmingngel,'criedJones, eizingherhand and carrying ertotheglass. 'There,behold t theren that ovelyfigure,n thatface,thatshape,thoseeyes, hat mindwhich hines hroughheseeyes.Can themanwhoshallbe inpossession fthesebe inconstant?m-possible!My Sophia;theywouldfix Dorimant, LordRochester.You couldnotdoubt t, fyoucouldseeyourself ith nyeyesbutyourown.' (Tomw ones,Book XVII, ch. 12)10

The quotationfromTom'Jonesmakes explicit nother spectofthispoetic: the convention fwhatwe mustcall the " trans-lucent body,throughwhichthe ideal form eveals tself.Swiftuses it explicitlyn a birthday oemto Stella whenhe notesthat"Although [her] Size and Years are doubled,"her form s not,"Made up so largely n [her]Mind... ." HiDrydentoo employsthe concept n the almost disembodiedheroesof Absalom andAchitophel,nd particularlyn " GodlikeDavid " (14), " Israel's10 The text quoted is that of Edmund Gosse (New York, 1898), VI, p. 392."On Stella's Birthday. WrittenA.D. 1717-/19/, he Poems of Jonathan wift,ed. Harold Williams (Oxford, 1958), II, 721-22.

384 Language and Body in AugustanPoetic


13/16

Monarch, fterHeaven'sownheart (7), at whoseword HisTraintheirMaker n theirMasterhear>" 988).The corollary o this n the satiric raditionwe have beenexaminings exactly hat" opaque bodywhich as recurrednworkfterwork-Shadwell's TunofMan,"Achitophel'spigmybody ifrettedodecay, hegrotesqueistortionftheLaputans,thehideous egenerationftheStruldbrugs,he tubbornpacityofthewoman layed,heGrubean Nut,which nlessyouchoosewithJudgment, ay ostyoua Tooth, ndpay you withnothingbuta Worm (Tale,Sect. , p. 40). It is thesameopaque bodywhich elinda dorns ndwhose heav'nlymage sheworships,thesametotally orporeal, aterial,eifiedodythatmarks hedunces s, governedy purelymechanicalawsofmotion, heyfollow ulness" by sureAttractioned,/And strongmpulsivegravityf Head" (Dunciad V. 75-6). These arehumanbodiesconceivedltimatelyithoutumanity,odymanifestingtself sthing,s object.The opposite ndequally ppalling rrors thebody smereword,hat s as sound, reath,meaninglesshetoric:Swift'sAeolists elchingheir aisond'etre.Shadwell s almostuniquenthathe combines oth f hese xtremes,imultaneouslya "mountain belly" and a "tympany of sense," swollen and" bigwithHymn."His onlycompetitors Dulnessherself, hois both eadenand windy, nd whosecareer ulminatesn thereductionfall words o their ltimate nintelligiblearody ntheunarticulatedocal breath fher pocalypticalawn.Words hemselveshare hesamefateas humanbodies: theybecomemere hings,rthey rereducedoonly ounds,tomisticfragmentsavingnomeaningutside fthefortuitousombina-tions hey all nto.Swiftllustratesoth hese xtremesnBookIII of Gulliver's ravels, mong hevariousprojectorsf theAcademy fLagado. Pope shows n evengreater isintegrationof anguagentomaterialartsnthe ourse fAristarchus'peechin The Dunciad:'Tistrue, nWordss still urwhole ebate,Disputes fMe orTe,of utorat,To sound r sinkncano, orA,OrgiveupCicero oC orK. (IV.219-292)For furtherllustration,e must ookpast Swift nd Pope toSterne o see a world onceived s governedywordswhich rematerialndobeymechanicalaws,andhumanbeingswho canThomasE. Maresca 385


14/16

only xist hroughhefaultymedia ofthosewords, uch as WalterShandy or Tristram himself.The basic language of TristramSharndys atomism:theword onceived fas a solid, mpenetrablematerial object, moving throughinfinite pace and formingmomentaryonstellationsfmeaning s it collideswith, lidesoff,circles roundor inkswithotherdissimilar articles-even as thecharacters fTristram handybehave,thosebewildered olkwhocan onlyexplicate hemselveshroughomemoreor lessmaterialversion of art,Toby throughhis miniaturebattlefields,Walterwithauxiliary erbs,Tristramwiththemadly ntransigent ordsof his own biography. n Sterne'sworld,wordsare bodies andmove bodies,and bodiesfrequently re words, s in the case ofDr. Slop's famous quirt, r as in answer o thequestion Wherewas Uncle Toby wounded?" In such a world,bodies behavegrammatically-as does Trim's whenhe reads the sermon-andwords mechanicallyand atomistically--asdo "bridge" and" nose" and " whiskers." t is a mistaketo thinkthat Sterne'sworld s Locke's,withonlya greater mphasisplaced on theasso-ciationof deas; Locke's version ftheassociation f deas is onlyanotherone of Walter Shandy's (inaccurately ecounted) con-sistentlynadequate attemptsto explain the worldhe lives in.The Shandyworld s the world of dawning Westernscience,aworld wherethe atomic hypothesishas triumphedover Aris-toteliangeneraand Platonic ideas and its atomistic mplicationsarebeginningo be felt.I do not mean this in any loose or haphazardway: I meanprecisely hatthekind of ideas about language and body I havebeendiscussingwere shapedby thepremises nd implications fwhattheAugustansknewas thecorpuscularheory.AlmostfromtheRestoration nwards, omeform fatomictheory ominatedscientificnvestigation, anishingolder ideas of the nature ofbodies and alongwiththemestablishednotionsof the relation-shipsof bodies and souls and spiritsof all sorts."2Once again,Swiftmakes the implications nd importance f atomic theoryexplicitby castingthe mad narrator f A Tale of a Tub as alatter-day ucretius;the epigraph nd his numerous uotationsfrom e RerumNatura trailwiththemtheunmistakable ura ofEpicureanmaterialismnd atheism.'3Swift'shack evenpresents

12 For the importancef atomictheoryn thisperiod, ee R. IH.Kargon,Atomimnnin EnglandfromHariot to Newton (Oxford, 966).13 The followings a translation f the Tale's epigraph nd the inesfollowingt in

386 Language and Body in AugustanPoetic


15/16

an impeccableorpuscularasefor hematerialaturendeffectof language,araphrasingnd quoting ucretiuso theeffectthat ir ndwordsreheavy odieseavingonsequentlyaterialimpressionsn mplicitlyaterial inds.He quotes herelevantLucretianines,which give nCreech'sranslation:'Tiscertain,hen,hatVoice hat hus anwoundIs allMaterial; ody veryound. (Introduction,.36)Such notionf anguage,ven llowingor wiftianxaggera-tions,tandsta far emoveromny ttempto seecorrelationsbetweennobject's ame nd tsnature,r ny f he ess xtremeformshenaive aithnthevalidityf anguageastaken.Con-trasttonlywithhe deaof anguages mirrorfman's nmostnature-summedp in Ben Jonson'serse Speak, hat mayseethee '4-and thegulf etweenheconceptionsecomes lear.It is thepossibilityf thisnotion,hechance hatbad artcancall intobeing chaotic, urelymaterialworld, hatalarmsDrydennd Pope and Swift,nd their ltimateondemnationofall their illains-Flecknoe,hadwell,heGrub treet ack,Belinda, ulness ndherminions-ishat heyre creatingustsucha world.Paradoxically,hey-thevillains-can nlydothisbecause ftheshared aith fDryden, wiftndPope inthe bilityf anguageo reflectndtoaffecteality. onversely,andequally aradoxically,nSterne, hereheLucretianwirlofatoms as becomeheonly eality,anguages powerlessocontrolhephysical orld t all,orevento adequatelyeflectit,because hevery iversitythelps o create verwhelmst.Allthat anbeachieveds a cock ndbull tory,imultaneouslyendlessndunbegun,nclusivend nconsequential.There reof ourse ther onsiderationsehindhe elationsfbody nd anguage. or nstance,ehave lreadymentionedheNeoplatonicotion hat rtisticanguagemitatesndrecreatestheworld f ideas rather hanmerely hysical eality-theSidneyan olden orldfart s opposedo thebrazenworldfLucretius: " I love to pluckfresh lowers,nd to seek an illustrious haplet for myhead fromfieldswhenceere this the Muses have crowned he browsof none, firstbecause my teaching s of highmatters nd I proceedto unloose the mind fromthe closeknotsof religion. . ." De RerumNatura,rans.W. H. D. Rouse, LoebLibrary London,1924), I. 928-32." Timber, r Discoveries,n CriticalEssays of theSeventeenth entury, d. J. E.Spingarn Oxford, 957), T,41.

Thomas E. Maresca 387


16/16

nature.A corollaryo that heorys, ofcourse,heconventionfthe translucent'world ndthe opaque"'world s they ppearinart; heoneenables s to seethroughtto the dealorspiritualworld eyond; heother topsour vision t itself, orcings toaccept ts merely hysical eality nd consequentlyo see it asdeprived fspirit nd grace. (Swift's razen, ucretianmirrorfurnishesn excellentnstance fbothofthese.) And there retoo the simpler otions, reservedmainly n thepictorial rts,ofbodies s ononehand deal,Apollonian,nd ontheother andas privations,s bearingnthemselveshemarks fthefallandthe ossofgrace.But atomism egated hesemodes nd replacedthemwith new nd terrifyingision fthebody otallywithoutgrace, corporealityhatexcluded ll other orms f existence,all othermodes fbeing. t is this hat ccountsn argepartforthepeculiaratiric sesofbodies s debasing evicesnAugustanliterature;t is this hatfinally adically ltered herelationshipof anguage ndbodyforAugustanndall subsequentrt.

StateUniversityfNew YorkStonyBrook

388 Language ndBodyinAugu-stanoetic

augustan poetry.pdf

Documents

Transcript of augustan poetry.pdf