446
NOTES AND QUERIES
doi:10.1093/notesj/gjw106 ß The Author (2016). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email:
[email protected] Advance Access publication 6 August, 2016
A COMMENTARY ON THE TEMPEST, II.I.154: ‘NO USE OF . . . CORN, OR WINE OR OIL’ As Elizabeth R. Hooker implies, Edward Capell was apparently the first scholar to point out that Gonzalo’s vision of his commonwealth in The Tempest, II.i draws on Florio’s 1603 translation of Montaigne’s essay ‘Of the Caniballes.’1 The French essayist 1 R. E. Hooker, ‘The Relation of Shakespeare to Montaigne’, PMLA, xvii (1902), 312–13.
pictures certain Brazilian natives as having ‘no use of wine, corne, or mettle’,2 which Shakespeare, in fact, transforms into Gonzalo’s ‘no use of . . . corn, or wine or oil’ (emphasis added).3 As Naseeb Shaheen explains, ‘Shakespeare transformed Florio’s ‘‘wine, corne, mettle’’ into a clear biblical reference.’4 The critic suggests that the playwright acquired the knowledge of the expression ‘corn, wine and oil’ from the Psalter version of Psalm 4:8 (4:7, Geneva, Bishops’)5 where it is said that: ‘their [the Israelites’] corne and wine and oyle increased’.6 However, the Psalm is not the only biblical text where ‘corn, wine and oil’ are mentioned as a metonymic image of wealth, plenitude, and above all, God’s blessing. There were from fourteen to twenty-two occurrences of the expression in the printed English Bible translations available in Shakespeare’s day.7 2 M. de Montaigne, The Essayes, or Morall, Politike and Millitarie Discourses of Lord Michaell de Montaigne, trans. John Florio (Menston, UK, 1969), 102. 3 The Tempest, II. i. 154. All references are to The Tempest, ed. Virginia M. Vaughan and Alden T. Vaughan, Rev. ed. (London, 2011). 4 Naseeb Shaheen, Biblical References in Shakespeare’s Plays (Newark, 2002), 743–4. 5 The Coverdale Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Taverner Bible, and the Great Bible were not divided into verses. The Bible versions I have consulted are Coverdale 1553; Matthew 1537; Taverner 1539; Great Bible 1553; Geneva 1582; Bishops’ 1584. These are STC 2090, 2066, 2067, 2091, 2133, 2141. 6 I quote the Psalter from the 1584 edition of the Bishops’ Bible (STC 2141). 7 All the English Bible versions that Shakespeare may have read during his lifetime such as the Coverdale Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Taverner Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible have ‘corn, wine and oil’ in Deuteronomy 7:13; 12:17; 14:23; 18:4; 2 Chronicles 31:5; Nehemiah 5:11; 10:39; 13:5, 12; Hosea 2:8, 22; Joel 1:10; 2:19, and Haggai 1:11. All of the above mentioned Bible translations except the Geneva Bible have ‘corn, wine and oil’ also in Deuteronomy 11:14; 28:51; 2 Kings 18:32; 2 Chronicles 32:28; Jeremiah 40:10 (with ‘corn’ preceded by ‘wine’) and Joel 2:24. Moreover, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Taverner Bible, and the Great Bible have ‘oyle . . . wine, and . . . corne’ in Numbers 18:12. All of the above mentioned biblical passages except 2 Chronicles 31:5 and 32:28 were read at church according to the Bible reading schedule of the Prayer Book. When the Bishops’ Bible substituted the Great Bible as the official version used in the Church of England (Shaheen, Biblical References, 22–23, 29–30), the fragment of Numbers 18:12 as read at church ceased to contain the expression ‘oyle . . . wine, and . . . corne.’ In addition, Psalm 4 of the Great Bible exclusively has ‘corn’ and ‘wine’ with the insertion of ‘&
Downloaded from http://nq.oxfordjournals.org/ at Warsaw University on September 24, 2016
context for considering the possible meanings of Sycorax’s ultimate fate. In addition to Ariel’s important performance as a harpy (noted above), there are abundant avian references to consider. Gonzalo, Sebastian, and Antonio explicitly pun on foul/fowl weather (II.i.141– 143,181). Demonstrating his knowledge of birds and control over them, Caliban promises to find a ‘jay’s nest’ and ‘[y]oung seamews’ (II.ii.161,164) and to ‘hoodwink . . . mischance’ in service of Stefano and Trinculo (IV.i.205). These, along with passing allusions to peacocks and sparrows in the pageant of Ceres and Iris (IV.i.74,100) illustrate the play’s repeated emphasis on birds. Finally, Prospero’s reference to Ariel as ‘my bird’ once again links the emphases on sorcery, hierarchy, and family with avian-inspired language (IV.i.184). Together with Ariel’s performance as a harpy in the spectacle that serves as a visual centrepiece of the play, characters’ continual discussion of birds, their characteristics and their capture, supplement the sundry significances of ‘hoope’ that complicate our understanding of Sycorax beyond bending and cycles. The hoopoe’s connections with sorcery, low/filthy nature, and filial love help to inform the legacy of a character who never graces the stage yet whose shadow remains in the language of characters associated with magic, an inferior nature, and amor parentum. WALTER EVANS AND AND BLAIRE ZEIDERS Augusta University
September 2016
September 2016
NOTES AND QUERIES
oyle’ in brackets which was completely incorporated into the text of the Prayer Book Psalter which was ‘the version of the Psalms that was said or sung daily in Morning and Evening Prayer, and used in all the services of the Church of England’ (Shaheen, Biblical References, 11). As a matter of fact, Naseeb Shaheen does not mention the following biblical passages with the expression ‘corn, wine and oil’ which Shakespeare may have referred to while creating Gonzalo’s speech: Numbers 18:12 (with the expression ‘oyle . . . wine, and . . . corne’); Deuteronomy 11:14; 28:51; 2 Kings 18:32; 2 Chronicles 32:28; Jeremiah 40:10 (with ‘corn’ preceded by ‘wine’); Hosea 2:8, 22; Joel 1:10 and 2:19, 24. 8 The references are to The Book of Common Prayer, 1559: the Elizabethan prayer book, ed. John E. Booty (University Press of Virginia, 2005). As far as the 1604 Book of Common Prayer is concerned, I have consulted the sixteen editions published from 1604 to 1615 (STC 16327, 16328, 16328.5, 16329, 16329a5, 16330, 16330.3, 16333.5, 16334, 16335.5, 16337a7, 16342.7, 16343.5, 16345, 16345.5, 16346), which all have Deuteronomy 12 on 28 February in the reading schedule of the Bible. At the same time, I have ignored the other twelve editions of the 1604 Prayer Book published from 1607 to 1616 (STC 16318.5, 16332, 16336, 16337a5, 16338, 16341, 16341.5, 16344, 16344.5, 16347, 16347a, 16348a), which instead have Deuteronomy 13, as well as the five editions which are either incomplete (STC 16332.8, 16342.3), or contain printing errors (STC 16329a, 16332.2, 16343). All the above-mentioned editions of the 1604 Prayer Book are available on the EEBO. 9 Shaheen, Biblical References, 53. 10 Shaheen, Biblical References, 53. 11 Shaheen, Biblical References, 53.
should be noted that all the aforementioned biblical passages which were read at church on Sundays and holy days present corn, wine, and oil as the most valuable fruits of the land of Canaan.13 They draw our attention to the presence of corn, wine, and oil (whose abundance is directly associated with God’s blessing in Deuteronomy 7:13 and Joel 2:19, 24), whereas Gonzalo postulates the lack of these products in his vision of the commonwealth. Interestingly enough, as much as the abundance of corn, wine, and oil in the Bible demonstrates God’s approval and blessing for Israel, the lack of these products signifies His concomitant displeasure. I therefore wish to suggest that while transforming Florio’s ‘no use of wine, corne, or mettle’ into Gonzalo’s ‘no use of . . . corn, or wine, or oil’ (emphasis added), the playwright may have had in mind one of the three biblical passages which suggest the lack of ‘corn, wine and oil,’ which is tantamount to God’s disapproval, that is Deuteronomy 28:51, Joel 1:10, or Haggai 1:11.14 The fact that Gonzalo changes Montaigne’s account into a clearly recognizable biblical phrase encourages us to discern in this gesture the playwright’s attempt to comment on the 12 As has been said, only the Great Bible has the expression ‘corne & wyne’ in Psalm 4 with the insertion of ‘& oyle’ in brackets among all the printed Bible translations available in Shakespeare’s times. In addition, the expression ‘corn, wine, and oil’ appeared in Psalm 4 of the Prayer Book Psalter, which displaced the Bishops’ version of the Psalms in several editions of the Bishops’ Bible (Shaheen, Biblical References, 30). 13 I would like to thank Rev. Adam Kubis´ , Ph.D. (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland) for his valuable assistance in interpreting the biblical expression ‘corn, wine, and oil.’ As William John Lyons notes, ‘The threefold produce of corn, wine, and oil was the major agricultural crop of Israel, and their abundance was considered a sign of blessing’ (‘Possessing the Land: The Qumran Sect and the Eschatological Victory’, Dead Sea Discoveries, iii (1996), 147). Conversely, crop failures were perceived as ‘a sign of God’s displeasure’ (Morris Jastrow, Jr. ‘Wine in the Pentateuchal Codes’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, xxxiii (1913), 182). 14 As I mentioned before, Shaheen enumerates neither Deuteronomy 28:51 nor Joel 1:10 as possible biblical references in Gonzalo’s speech. If Shakespeare used Deuteronomy 28:51, Joel 1:10, or Haggai 1:11 as the possible sources of the quoted passage in The Tempest, then he seems to have relied in this case on a private reading of the Scripture, since the above-mentioned three passages were not read on Sundays or holy days according to the Bible reading schedule of the Prayer Book.
Downloaded from http://nq.oxfordjournals.org/ at Warsaw University on September 24, 2016
Moreover, Psalm 4:8 was not the only biblical passage with the expression ‘corn, wine and oil’, which was read in the Church of England according to the Bible-reading schedule of the Prayer Book.8 Since Shakespeare’s company was staging plays at the same time that Evening Prayer (held in the afternoon) was in progress,9 and plays were apparently prohibited from being staged on Sundays,10 it is reasonable to assume, as Shaheen does, that Shakespeare’s ‘usual practice was probably to attend church, when required, on Sundays and holy days’ (my emphasis).11 If so, Shakespeare seems to have heard at church only the Psalter version of Psalm 4:8 as well as Deuteronomy 7:13; 12:17; 18:4; 2 Kings 18:32, and Joel 2:19, 24. In fact, Shaheen is hardly convincing when he suggests that the Psalter version of Psalm 4:8 should prove more relevant in the context of Gonzalo’s speech than other biblical sources. To begin with, let us not forget that the expression ‘corn, wine, and oil’ was hardly present in Psalm 4 of the Bible translations printed in Shakespeare’s day.12 In addition, it
447
448
NOTES AND QUERIES
Warsaw University
DANIEL KACZYN´SKI
doi:10.1093/notesj/gjw110 ß The Author (2016). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email:
[email protected] Advance Access publication 22 July, 2016
THE ‘THYESTIAN’ MOTIF IN ANTONIO’S REVENGE AND INTERPOLATED STAGE DIRECTIONS FOR over a century, an interpolated stage direction at the climax of John Marston’s Antonio’s Revenge has gone unchallenged, thereby implying that the revengers condone not only murder but also cannibalism, while also inflating the Senecan influence on the genre of revenge tragedy more generally. Such an interpolation is easily contested, but the fact that it has gone unchecked until Emma Smith’s edition of 2012 indicates that the bloodlust associated with early modern revenge tragedy is in part a product of modern editors, and not simply a reflection of Elizabethan vengefulness. As Antonio takes his revenge in the final act of Antonio’s Revenge, he taunts his enemy
Piero with the line ‘Here lies a dish to feast thy father’s gorge. / Here’s flesh and blood, which I am sure thou lovest’ (5.5.50–51).1 Having earlier killed Piero’s son Julio, Antonio presents the corpse to his enemy, and we are told in the quarto stage direction ‘Piero seems to condole his son’. Since Bullen’s edition of The Works of John Marston in 1887, the original stage direction has been supplemented with another that describes Antonio ‘[Uncovering the dish that contains Julio’s limbs]’ at this point.2 This has been replicated by twentieth-century editors of the play including Hunter (1965), Gair (1978), Jackson and Neill (1986), and Sturgess (1997).3 Yet from a textual and dramaturgical perspective, there is no clear evidence to suggest that Julio has been butchered as the interpolated stage direction implies. Here I seek to weigh up the evidence on both sides, in order to see whether editorial intervention is necessary to make sense of the stage action during this scene. The notion of a cannibalistic feast can be traced to Seneca’s Thyestes, which certainly circulated in early modern London by the time of Marston’s writing. Thomas Newton had compiled Seneca his tenne tragedies in 1581, which included a translation of Thyestes by Jasper Heywood.4 Marston borrows lines from Seneca’s plays at several points, in both Latin and English (2.4.21; 2.5.49; 3.1.51; 5.1.1). The influence of Seneca is clear in many revenge tragedies of the time, most notably in the cannibalistic feast in the final scene of Titus Andronicus. But does this 1 Line references are here taken from the most recent and widely available edition, Five Revenge Tragedies, ed. Emma Smith (Oxford, 2012), which also offers the least amount of editorial intervention. I would like to thank Emma Smith for corresponding with me in relation to this stage direction. 2 The Works of John Marston, ed. A. H. Bullen (London, 1887), I, 186, 5.2.80. 3 The precise line reference differs in each case. Antonio’s Revenge, ed. G. K. Hunter (London, 1965), 82, 5.3.80; Antonio’s Revenge, ed. W. Reavley Gair (Manchester, 1978), 154, 5.5.49; The Selected Plays of John Marston, ed. Macdonald P. Jackson and Michael Neill (Cambridge, 1986), 180, 5.3.81; The Malcontent and Other Plays, ed. Keith Sturgess (Oxford, 1997), 113, 5.3.81. The interpolated stage direction is not to be found in The Works of John Marston, ed. J. O. Halliwell (London, 1856), nor The Works of the British Dramatists, ed. John S. Keltie (Edinburgh, 1873). 4 (STC 22221; London, 1581).
Downloaded from http://nq.oxfordjournals.org/ at Warsaw University on September 24, 2016
utopian project of the ‘plantation of this isle’ (II.i.144). Is Shakespeare voicing here his implicit criticism of colonization? Is he trying to say that in his opinion any efforts made to subdue foreign nations and exploit their goods will eventually incur God’s displeasure and will be ultimately doomed to failure? To say the least, Shakespeare seems to undermine Gonzalo’s credibility, whilst partly siding with the courtier’s main opponents, Antonio and Sebastian, who teasingly point to inconsistencies in the councillor’s vision of the commonwealth. After all, whereas Shakespeare makes Gonzalo utter a biblical passage which suggests the absence of divine blessing in the context of his imaginary commonwealth, the courtiers point out that ‘The latter end of [Gonzalo’s] commonwealth forgets the beginning’ since the councillor wishes to make himself a king in the community with ‘no sovereignty’ (II.i.157–159).
September 2016
