“Who lives by cunning, mark it, his fate‘s cast:
When he has gulled all, then is himself the last."
A Mad World, My Masters (last lines)
I may be biased because he is the subject of my current project, but I think Thomas Middleton is awesome and everyone should read his plays.
When I set out to write a new sample for my applications, I wanted to avoid the more popular names of English Literature, ie Shakespeare and Milton. If I wanted to set myself apart from other applicants, I thought I should probably avoid the authors and texts everyone seems to have already written about. Though Middleton is a “big” name in the early modern world (and there is PLENTY written about him), I doubted many students had been exposed to his works (based on my experience: in 6 years of school I only read one of his plays as opposed to more than half of Shakespeare’s works). At first, I did not decide to research “The Ghost of Lucrece” (his narrative poem) because I liked it but because very little has been written about it (which is very exciting when your field has been around for 400 years and usually you find that the essay you were thinking about writing has already been published and is better written). In fact, the first time I read the poem was in conjunction with Shakespeare’s version of the legend, and I thought Middleton’s version…well, kind of sucked in comparison. But it’s funny how almost 2 years away from a work can change your mind. (By the way, I don't think it sucks anymore).
For the past two and half months I have become very close to Middleton and his body of work, and I have found him fascinating. He may not be as “quotable” and his universes aren’t as “neatly” constructed as Shakespeare’s, but I find his cynical reality at this moment in time so much more fascinating and very… modern. Very often when I finish his plays and the Tyrant has just molested the corpse of the woman he’s been lusting after and an entire stage of players have killed each other in such a fashion that would put Hamlet to shame, I have that moment of, “What just happened?” It’s almost absurd. (in a good way) Bear in mind that I am no expert in Jacobean plays and this era generally tends to me be more cynical than that of the Elizabethan plays, but I have read enough Jonson and Heywood to at least feel that Middleton’s work is distinctly unique and so entertaining.
Firstly, his plays have this tension between wanting to moralize his audience and yet wanting nothing more than to entertain them; between tragedy and comedy; between laughing at the world and judging them; between the most bawdy humor and dirty jokes and the most penitent characters. His is a “mad” world full of contradictions; he can be scathing in his assessment of the state of society yet so playful in his treatment of vice. I think A Mad World, My Masters epitomizes these contradictions: a whore tricks her way into a wealthy marriage, the penitent adulterer is forgiven of his sins, and the adulteress gets away with tricking her silly husband and he ends up none the wiser. Yet in the end, they are all “gulled” in their own way. His universe works “quid pro quo” but is in no way "fair" (in fact, I think his plays redefine/question what that word means or if its even possible that fairness exist). He seems to believe that the world is rotten to the core but doesn’t want to give up hope yet. And, it is this double personality that makes his work not only entertaining but so interesting as well.
And, what’s more is the kind of “equal” showing he gives to women. He is no way a “feminist”-- which is kind of a superfluous title to throw at early modern writers anyway -- but I think the way he constructs female characters again is unique. Both men and women are criticized equally throughout his plays. It is not as if he blames the world’s failings on women; in fact, he seems to lay the responsibility on men. It is their inability to control themselves properly that has caused the downfall in the court and the kingdom. The idea that they “need to control their women better” is in itself misogynistic to modern thinkers, but the men in the plays who are “too controlling” are made to be the villains: the father who wants to force his daughter into a loveless marriage, the jealous husband who hides his wife in a closet, the suspicious husband who no longer touches his wife because he is so afraid she will cheat on him, the tyrant who overthrows the king for a woman. Yes women are constructed as second to men, but they are just as desiring, just as deceitful and just as complex as their male counterparts.
Now, it is not to say that we shouldn’t be reading Shakespeare and Milton (those close to me know that my love for Milton is borderline inappropriate), but I really think we should expand our reading beyond that of names familiar to all. I know this is easier said than done as the early modern department already suffers a lack of new enthusiastic fans. Most have only heard of Shakespeare so that is the only class that can fill easily--even Milton courses are having trouble with attendance. Our departments and students seem drawn to “trendy” literature and technology gimmicks that we miss out on great literature. And, what is truly sad is that the current trend is to make people feel guilty about studying dead white men. But these are the works that our the foundation of our culture and it bothers me that it is being dismissed as too exclusive. I just have trouble seeing why we can’t embrace our dead white male authors and not be yelled at for limiting the canon. And, what’s more, is most modern authors allude to the greats more often than not, which should make them necessary (you can’t study Romantic poets without have first reading Milton). It’s not about devaluing the minority it’s only about maintaining the value of our beginning.
And, this is why I think Middleton would be fun to teach even in high school. He is slightly easier to read than Shakespeare because his language isn’t as poetic, but his ideas and struggles are as thought-provoking and interesting. And, his cynical tone I think is so relevant to teens who seem to be getting more cynical by the year. There are very few great Heroes in his work, and I think his universe so aptly fits that of our modern world and has the same contradictions we post-modern thinkers struggle with. I think highlighting “new” authors from a period that seems “dated” to most students can possibly make it more exciting. Again it isn’t about saying Shakespeare doesn’t deserve his fame, but showing that there was a literary world beyond Shakespeare. There was a market and competition, and I think it could make the period seem more real to kids who see Shakespeare as a sole god from a shiny period. So instead of reading 3 Shakespeare plays they read 2 and a Middleton…(and, dear god, give them something other than Romeo and Juliet).
So, even if you aren’t a student or a teacher, I think we should create a new readership for Middleton--that is outside of early modern scholars. I don’t think he is as daunting as Milton and Shakespeare, and, he is very funny. I suggest diving in with some of his comedies and working your way to the tragedies. Maybe if we create a new audience, I could actually find a performance of one of his plays. And, now that there is actually an edition of his collected works, hopefully it will happen.
I too have a problem with the idea that white/male/dead=bad, and agree wholeheartedly that one cannot know Romantic or Victorian or Modernist literature without first knowing the "greats" of earlier eras. I'm considering a Spenser/Gaddis comparative essay at some point!
ReplyDelete