Cakes & ale
The character of Orsino, Duke of Illyria in Twelfth Night, & for that matter the beautiful Countess Olivia whom he woos in his overstated way, are wonderful reminders that narcissism is not a modern invention. The parade of “feelings” — which begins in what might be truly felt, & ends in keeping up the appearances — has been wending through the City of Man since it was first incorporated. The narcissism isn’t in the feelings, of course. It is in the parade.
Things may have been worse in Shakespeare’s day, when people could more skilfully articulate their feelings, in dress & manner as well as words; when they could sing, & dance, & play upon musical instruments. Shakespeare gives us full in the face what today would slap quite noodling — stale & wet & second-hand. Our own narcissistic performances seem less rehearsed, than taped. The Elizabethans knew far better how to emote for attention. It was less like whining, more like physical attack.
Nor is the self-righteous Malvolio other than a character we still see all around us — differing only in facundity, his ability to express himself. He is humourless, officious, conceited, & a prig. It is evident his own creator hates him, & it is interesting to learn that the subplot, in which the story of Malvolio nearly takes over the play, was entirely of Shakespeare’s invention. The rest of the machinery he lifted from the usual Italian sources, making a few startling improvements; but the Malvolio subplot was all his own.
Malvolio is high steward in the young widow Olivia’s extensive household, but his like may be observed today in every government department, or mixing into any controversy as uptight spokesman for the “politically correct.” A person who brashly presents himself as a moral improvement on the rest of mankind; whose interest is excited exclusively by power. “The personal is the political” for him, & the focus is upon personal advancement. He is a character who flourishes in business, too — I’ve seen him climbing corporate ladders, & one cannot watch one’s back too carefully when the office politician is about. I’ve even seen his like in the Church hierarchy.
At the other extreme, Sir Toby Belch, Olivia’s drunken uncle, rowdy & careless to a fault, whose frolicsome nature is untainted by any ambition higher than a practical joke; & whose Sancho, Sir Andrew Aguecheek, would be characterized today as “a complete idiot.” The whole play, it seems to me, is about the art of making a spectacle of oneself, but Sir Andrew is presented as artless. He thinks he can do things like speak French, & boogie, but no one could take offence at his pretensions. His suit of Olivia is all but ignored. Still, he serves his loyal turn by Sir Toby’s side when the gloves come off, & the fight is starting.
The whole play turns, in my obsequiously humble opinion, on the scene where these two are returning to the household from the evening’s revels — the worse for wear, but wanting more wine. They are confronted by the august Malvolio, there as ever to lay down the law. Maria, Olivia’s magnificent gentlewoman, has already warned our knights what it is that they are stepping into. Feste, Olivia’s Fool or Clown, is trying to run some interference. But the full horror of Malvolio’s Puritanism — & through Maria & Sir Andrew, Shakespeare drops the “P” word in plain sight — has commoved the household. Something must be done.
Sir Toby is still merrily singing when the Clown intervenes for his own good. Taking the Clown for Malvolio’s proxy, Sir Toby observes: “Out o’tune sir.”
Then taunts: “Art any more then a Steward?”
Then throws down the gauntlet entirely: “Dost thou thinke because thou art vertuous, there shall be no more Cakes & Ale?”
“Yes by Saint Anne,” saith the Clown, still perhaps trying to lower the temperature. “And Ginger shall bee hotte y’th mouth too.”
Malvolio tells Maria that her job is as secure as his next report to her Lady, then marches sternly off.
But Maria, clever girl, has conceived a scheme that will see Malvolio into the madhouse, & the others join heartily in. She has mastered her mistress’s handwriting, & will write a note to Malvolio, as if from Olivia. It will persuade him that Olivia herself would welcome his romantic advances, & tell him in ludicrous detail how he may dress & behave to please her. It will be a list, naturally, of everything the Countess most detests.
And Malvolio, easily seized by ambition, & totally incapable of smoaking a jest, takes it hook line & sinker. He makes a side-splitting fool of himself, after which he is carted away as insane.
The main plot — the usual Plautine round of twins & mistaken identities, comic love triangles, messages & messengers gone astray, nefarious manoeuvres dissolving into farce — with cross-dressing for additional sport — proceeds to a triple-deck ending, & happy marriages all round. Each character gets better than he deserves, & as the conspiracy finally unravels, even Malvolio gets released from the loony bin. By the tradition of the times, in England, the twelfth day of Christmas leading into Twelfth Night (eve to the Epiphany), was a jolly party. The play is in this spirit, & the subtitle, “What You Will,” promises only slapstick entertainment.
The thrill is entirely in the subplot; in the wicked glee with which the playwright drags Malvolio across the stage, & administers the kicking.
*
Long before I became a Catholic myself, I realized that Shakespeare was one: as Catholic as so many of the nobles, artists, musicians & composers at the Court of Bad Queen Bess. I did not come to this conclusion because some recusant document had fallen into my hands, or because I subscribed to any silly acrostic some over-ingenious scholar had found, woven into a patch of otherwise harmless text. My view came rather from reading the plays; the Histories especially. But everywhere, Shakespeare’s outlook & attitudes are palpably Catholic, to say nothing of reactionary. He can be discreet; but in his loyalty to the old Roman worldview, he is unwavering. That he came from Warwickshire tells us plenty to start: the county remained all but impenetrable to Protestant agents & hitmen, well into Shakespeare’s time.
As something of a courtier himself, in later years, he would have fit right into a regal environment in which candles & crucifixes were diligently maintained, the clergy were cap’d, coped, & surpliced, the cult of the saints was still alive, & outwardly one might not think anything had changed from the reign of the late Queen Mary.
The politics were immensely complicated; we will get into them some other day. The point to take here is that the war on Catholics was happening not inside, but outside the Court. Inside, practising Catholics were relatively safe, so long as they did not make a big scene of it. It was outside that Queen Elizabeth I walked her tightrope, above murderously contending factions. She found herself appeasing a Calvinist constituency for which she had no sympathy, yet which was rapidly becoming the main threat to her rule, more dangerous than any Jesuits or Spaniards. Quite apart from the bloodshed, those were interesting times, in every part of which we must look for motives to immediate context, before anywhere else. Eliza was herself a ruthless, even fiendish politician; but in her tastes, of the old school.
Twelfth Night was first performed at Court (in Whitehall probably), & despite some cute references to the town — for instance to the Elephant, a Southwark pub (transposed to Illyria) — it was pitched to an audience that only went there slumming. Had it been played instead before the pit at the Globe, I doubt the author would have left in the tongue-lash Maria delivers on the Puritan “dogs.” This would have been equally acceptable to Catholic & Anglican at Court, for whom Puritans were the common enemy. But “out there,” budding Roundheads could be scattered through the audience, maybe looking for trouble. Things might not have ended so well. The Globe theatre cost money to build, & was made of wood entirely; you wouldn’t want to tease them.
In this respect we are in a parallel situation today, with our contemporary “progressive” canines. Behind their backs, we say what we think, but it would be unwise to say it to their faces, for their pride is sensitive to the slightest nudging, & they play for keeps. Prudence dictates Maria’s more subtle strategy of revenge: set them up to perform their own self-destruction.
David, I really enjoy most of your writing but I have to comment on one of the devices you use that is a pet peeve of mine. That is your use of quotation marks around words like liberal, progressive, or any descriptive word that you have derision towards. I understand the tactic, and it is used by all ends of the political spectrum.
By equating these terms to stupid decisions or acts, you attempt to tar everyone who considers themselves a liberal or progressive with the same brush. Replacing “Christmas” with “holidays” is a “liberal” act. This in spite of the fact that many conservatives and large corporations do the same thing. Being opposed to same sex marriage is “conservative” or from the “religious right,” in spite of the fact that many people on the left also oppose it.
Although this device can be very effective (Fox News and Sun News have raised it to an art form) it is unethical, misleading and just plain lazy. You have often presented very good arguments to support your opinions but then slide this device into your prose. Rather than add to your arguments, this detracts from them.
I realize that you are not likely to change your style because of one little rant, but one can always dream. Regardless, I will continue to read.
Acartia, I have received this criticism before, & one day will perhaps write a post, “In defence of labels & labelling.” It will necessarily be a qualified defence, for I’m myself opposed to using labels merely for the sake of smearing. One should go to some trouble to explain precisely what one means by each of his labels, & for years I have been going to that trouble.
Let me make just one point to be getting on with. It is a principle of my Church to attack the sin & not the sinner. Occasionally I do sling a rhetorical stone towards some specific & immediate Samson — always I hope at a man big enough to defend himself, or at least, bigger than I am. But as a general rule I try to target the evil. Let the reader attend what I mean by “progressive,” “liberal,” “puritan” & so forth: I have tried to make it all clear. And let him exclude himself if, in his heart, he does not believe he is, say, “progressive” according to my definition. He might even benefit from having to consider what he means by the term.
Conversely, I would say, “If the shoe fits wear it.”
The liberal use of “scare quotes” calls attention to the term in question: the author intends readers to discover a meaning that differs from the commonly acknowledged one. To those who already know and who share the author’s meaning, it can be akin to an inside joke.
Here is a brief recap of the “evolution” of the term “liberal.”
* The word liberal is derived from the Latin liber, free. Up to the end of the 18th century it signified only what was “worthy of a free man.”
* Later the term was applied also to those qualities of intellect and character that were considered an ornament becoming those who occupied a higher social position on account of their wealth and education. Thus liberal got the meaning of intellectually independent, broad-minded, magnanimous, frank, open, and genial.
* Again Liberalism may mean a political system or tendency opposed to centralization and absolutism. In this sense Liberalism — better known as corporatism — is not at variance with the spirit and teaching of the Catholic Church.
* Since the end of the eighteenth century, the word has been applied to certain tendencies in the intellectual, religious, political, and economical life which implied a divorce of man from the moral, spiritual, and Divine order. It asserts an absolute freedom of thought, religion, conscience, creed, speech, press, and politics. The necessary consequences of this are the abolition of the Divine right and of every kind of authority derived from God; the relegation of religion from the public life into the private domain of one’s individual conscience; the absolute ignoring of Christianity and the Church as public, legal, and social institutions; the putting into practice of the absolute autonomy of every man and citizen along all lines of human activity; and the concentration of all public authority in one self-referential, self-aggrandizing “sovereignty of the people.” A fundamental principle of this type of Liberalism is the denial of all true authority, for authority necessarily presupposes a power outside and above man to bind him morally.
This last is the form of liberalism holds that no one — not even God — can tell a fellow what to do. It is manifestly brutal towards anything that militates in a different direction. Thus, modern liberalism as the term is commonly used today is not at all intellectually independent, broad-minded, magnanimous, frank, open, and genial; just the opposite.
Fair enough David. Don’t get me wrong. I probably fall to some degree within your definition of liberal and progressive but I did not take offence. This being said, I also fall into the conservative side for others. I suspect that this is the case for most people whether they admit it or not. For example, I support welfare and employment assistance, with the proper checks and balances. But I don’t think that we should be funding the arts and many of the other things that are being funded. I believe in universal health care but I think that the private sector should have a much greater role in it. And so on.
I look forward to an article on labels.
It does help to distinguish between liberalism as it was and that which sails under the false colors of modern “liberalism.” The same might be said of reactionary “progressivism.” For example, one might be entirely in favor of relief for victims of winter storm Sandy but opposed to a bill appropriating $150 million for Alaskan fisheries, $2 million for roof repair at the Smithsonian in Washington, $17 billion for activists groups for “community development” and “social service” grants. That is, one may be liberal without being “liberal.”
I’ve experienced bewilderment and a touch of spleen coming from right-leaning friends whenever I’ve used the term “neoliberal” in a discussion of economics. They assume I’m talking about some “socialist” policy of the Obama administration. It’s surprising how many terms and labels are used by people in semi-ignorance.
Labels have intrigued me for decades. I’ve known so-called liberals whose personal lifestyles were far more conservative than many declared “conservatives.” And vice versa.
“Social conservatives” whose lives were characterized by infidelity, dishonesty, and unhappiness. “Social liberals” whose lives were characterized by fidelity, integrity, and contentment. Vice versa applies here as well.
Maurice Manning writes:
“The latest Republican administration got us enmeshed in two wars, neither of which was winnable, and both of which have cost us blood and treasure, as the old saying goes, that cannot be calculated. A small number of extremely elite ‘conservatives’ have even profited from these ventures. Is that conservatism?
“It was obvious from the beginning that our national economic woes come from Wall Street, not the government. Yet our ‘conservative’ leaders think we should do away with oversight and regulation and give the financial world absolutely free reign. It is a freedom that has not been earned. And allowing our financiers to run unchecked is about as conservative as leaving the faucet running. Financial regulations discourage waste and fraud, two values that ought to be at the forefront of any conservative mindset.”
I personally like something else he says: “The root of the word comes from the Latin word ‘conservare’, which means ‘to keep and preserve’. It’s interesting that the origin is a verb and not a noun, a term that implies action and duty, rather than merely a stance. Other meanings suggested by conservative have to do with frugality, modesty and the preservation of tradition.”
Count me in.
On labels: there are apparently “cafeteria” liberals and progressives (although the term “liberal” has drifted as noted above). Yet the shoot rises from a root or worldview. If one is a consistent “progressive” (ha!), one believes that human nature is the clay and the modern elite technocrat is the potter – hence “progress”. For every moral problem there is a technological answer. AIDs is an issue? Find a cure. Murder getting out of hand? Ban weapons. People cheating? Watch them with hidden cameras. Fix the environment and the people in it will change their behavior. Cafeteria “progressives” are merely confused and confusing. It is the worldview that sets them apart at the root.
Without getting into the minutiae of policies as liberal or conservative, I take David’s usual careful choice of words to indicate that his use of quotes, in the cases mentioned above, is a shorthand but precise way of conveying additional meaning.
As Sean nicely outlines, when we say liberal today we mean the opposite, precisely. Same with progressive, which has come to be synonymous with a contemporary romantic impulse that embodies an allegiance to the narcissistic core that lurks within and yearns to return to the breast. It is regressive in the extreme.
I see nothing unethical or misleading about the use of “” as raised here, and it seems more efficient than lazy.
MKD raises a point that brought to mind the common misunderanding of the term “liberal.”
The word “evolution” is generally understood to be an organic development. In my previous remarks I put the word “evolution” in quotation marks to describe the change of meaning for “liberal” because the development was arbitrary and cynical, not organic.
Thus, the progress from “worthy of a free man” to “intellectually independent, broad-minded, magnanimous, frank, open, and genial” is readily understood.
But then the Enlightenment revolutionaries came on the scene, and they co-opted the word “liberal” — not because theirs was a liberal view (it was not), but because being liberal was a laudable thing, and they wanted their ideas to be received with favor. It was a cosmetic makeover that has persisted. Who said only moderns are susceptible to shallow propaganda?
There was nothing worthy of a free man or magnanimous about the ideas of the libertine Rousseau, the sneering Voltaire, or the murderous Robespierre; to the contrary, they all promoted dreadful ideas (and lived dreadful lives).
Similarly, there is nothing liberal about modern so-called social liberals who promote easy divorce for others, abort babies by the millions, try to enforce draconian and racist zero-population quotas in third-world countries, and whose marital lives can be characterized by fidelity, integrity, and contentment.
Other Joe touches on the heart of the problem: we’re mud, and the elites are the ones to shape us. As Adam and Eve demonstrated, even a preternaturally perfect intellect can have a bad day — and modern minds are nowhere near as sharp as those of our first parents.
The liberal failing is not chiefly intellectual, it is moral. The modern accepted wisdom — materialist, evolutionist — is that all old standards are steeped in religion, and therefore can be passed over; only modern, secular values uncontaminated by religious notions need be considered. If people really are their own self-referential authors of right and wrong then everything really is relative, which means there is no God, which also means that there is no reason to submit to any constraint of my conduct unless I feel like it. It is the ultimate in worship of one’s own ego.
Which is what the serpent told Eve in the Garden: eat of the forbidden fruit, and you shall be like God, knowing right from wrong. He didn’t hiss “you will be like God in that you can perform miracles and even create whole worlds,” but “you will replace God as the supreme moral arbiter.” Establishing right and wrong is, after all, a Divine prerogative, not a mortal one.
Allow me to express bewilderment & a touch of spleen at the invocation above of Maurice Manning as an authority on anything at all, though I will reserve judgement on his poetry until I have read some.
Like Wendell Berry & the other gallants of the Kentucky poet-farmer school of ecological thinking, his heart is in the right place but his mind is otherwise engaged. (May the sainted Guy Davenport rest in peace.) While I share their distaste for war, waste, Walmart, & Wall Street, they prescribe solutions that are as we say in Thai, “bababullah.” (Rough English translation: “nuts.”)
Read recently to the end of Berry’s The Unsettling of America: Culture & Agriculture. Everything he wants is well & good, & everything he disparages, I’m with him. But at the end of this book he advances twelve “public remedies” which, though he does not understand, would each require the creation of another centralized government megabureaucracy of exactly the kind he has eloquently condemned.
Maurice Manning above: “Financial regulations discourage waste & fraud.” Omigod this is crazy. One could spend months explaining how fatuous it is, but in half a sentence, cumbersome regulatory systems are at the root of the post-modern explosion of waste & fraud.
Berry himself half-grasps this when he moans about e.g. “the colonization of the American farm by the petrochemical industry.” It was achieved with the help of vast regulatory bureaucracies just as much as the Fannie Mae meltdown in the American mortgage market. Oh, where to start? …
We need laws, not regulations; laws that are as plain & simple as can be written & are consistently enforced, to protect the individual human being in his natural familial & neighbourhood setting from molestation by vast government & corporate entities (to say nothing of little punks). This was the whole purport of the British common law tradition — the defence of the little against the big; of the powerless against the powerful — & what has been overthrown by knowing & unknowing “progressives” who think the government is there to help you.
By the way, has anyone ever read Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night?
I can happily recommend Anthony Esolen’s analysis of Twelfth Night in “Ironies of Faith” as an excellent companion to the play.
For the sake of clarity, I didn’t quote Mr Manning because I regard him as an authority, but simply because I felt he made a good general point about the meaning of conservatism. On the other hand, it was a careless choice, since I too have not read his poetry. My apologies.
Laws are of course preferable to regulations, but how are laws to be enforced? And who is to enforce them? I am not by posing such questions putting myself forward as an advocate of “big government.” Not by any means! But I do wonder what is meant exactly by those who advocate “small government.” Here, in Texas, it generally means no guvment at all until the farm goes broke, or a hurricane hits, etc.
I will readily admit the present state of affairs in the United States stems from the partnership/collusion of vast government and vast corporate entities. Like you I applaud the British common law tradition.
I too have read Berry, and mostly agree with your comments about him.
Yes, I’ve read Twelfth Night, but it has been a long while.
Himself inquires, “Has anyone ever read Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night?”
David, you seem like one who perhaps is not intrigued by a crowd that steps on the heels of his Shakespeare essay to pontificate on their favoured topics. Ah well, as Clown would say, “Look then to be well edified when the fool delivers the madman.”
Yes, I’ve read the play. I don’t recommend the Trevor Nunn treatment, talented cast notwithstanding: some are born great, some achieve greatness, some have greatness thrown upon them, and some imitate greatness but simply fall short.
MKD asks, “How are laws to be enforced? And who is to enforce them? … I do wonder what is meant exactly by those who advocate ‘small government’.”
As a guideline, the corporatist rule for small government is that:
(1) a necessary function or task should be undertaken by the lowest level of government capable of performing the function or task and no higher, and
(2) the chief ones to ask about when to escalate to the higher level are the people at the lower levels.
This guideline supposes a hierarchy for governing. Considerations at the highest level can trump the lower, but those who travel in the the higher levels also have obligations to the lower that they ignore or trounce at their peril. Custom and tradition, then, override the western positivist approach to legislative matters (cf. British common law).
Well said, Sean, especially concerning a hierarchy for governing.
Down here, in young multicultural Texas (or Tejas), “custom and tradition” ain’t easy to nail down, even on a small scale. (If memory serves, the ancient Greeks felt the polis must be small scale and personal in nature. Otherwise …)
Sometimes, stuck in Houston traffic listening to the radio news or at home watching news and commentary on television, or flipping through magazines and newspapers, I recall Burrough’s imaginary yet often prescient Interzone where:
“We have a new type of rule now. Not one-man rule, or rule of aristocracy or plutocracy, but of small groups elevated to positions of absolute power by random pressures, and subject to political and economic factors that leave little room for decision. They are representatives of abstract forces that have reached power through surrender of self. The iron-willed dictator is a thing of the past. There will be no more Stalins, no more Hitlers. The rulers of this most insecure of all worlds are rulers by accident, inept, frightened pilots at the contols of a vast machine they cannot understand, calling in experts to tell them which buttons to push.”
Custom and tradition — these necessarily emerge from the culture. In the traditional sense, the culture is far more than a refined sense of the arts, or a set of behaviors and notions germane to a particular group. Rather, a culture is a product of a group’s religious belief and worship — its cult, in the sense of its ceremonies and its liturgy.
Catholic culture traditionally centers on the sacrifice of the Mass. Western mores and traditions, art and architecture, literature and music — they all emerge from and reflect the significance of this central act. Change the liturgy, change the worship, change the belief, and you have necessarily changed and — as the post-1962 period has demonstrated — ruined the culture, the customs, and the traditions.
Sean, your first paragraph is beautiful, and I daresay even a non-Christian thinker like Ananda K. Coomaraswamy would agree.
But (correct me if I’m wrong) your second paragraph states that the Catholic Mass is the source for Western mores and traditions, art and architecture, literature and music. This is not entirely true, as the influence of ancient Greece and Rome on all aspects of Western culture was, for centuries, substantial.
On the other hand, are you speaking only of the mores and traditions, art and architecture, literature and music of the Catholic world?
Very kind. The first paragraph is just a textbook definition of what a culture is.
The Catholic Mass is not the only matter, but it was the chief matter. Until the “Renaissance” and the “Enlightenment,” the other elements fell into line behind it. From a cultural standpoint, most everything orbited it.
Am I correct in perceiving that by putting Renaissance and Enlightenment in quotation marks, you mean to say the Renaissance is not really a renaissance, and the Enlightenment not really (a period of) enlightenment?
Otherwise, your point is clear.
I confess to taking the cake & ale approach to the use of quotation marks.
Renaissance: A period of rebirth. Presumably this is the rebirth of something hale, hearty and healthy. Instead the Europeans recycled too many stale old pagan notions; thus, “Renaissance.”
Enlightenment: The elevation of human reason (which is fine in its place) at the expense of the spiritual and supernatural (with predictable sad results). This was about as enlightening as putting one’s head in a sack and marveling at the new perspective.