both hemispheres.’13 Modern psychological studies of the structure of incongruity in humour and laughter seem separated from the classical and Renaissance origins and foundations of the four elements and humours as psychological and creative instruments. This secession from the past leads into a no-man’s-land of theory. I aim to remedy that incongruity, to bridge the lacuna, by bringing back the culture of the four humours.
In the second part of the book I search for the ridiculous in diplomacy, building on the insights of the first part and my own experience in, arguably, the oldest profession in the world. The four humours have moved, smoothly and almost unnoticeably, into modern psychology and diplomatic leadership and behaviour. In recent years symposia have been organized to address the relationship between diplomacy and literature, bringing practitioners and scholars, the ambassador and the author together and inviting writer-diplomats to the events, looking at the role of the envoy past and present.14
A colourful group of people appear on my stage in supporting roles, but the main actors are the playwrights and novelists, their characters in plays and novels and the non-fictional types from the diplomatic theatre of the absurd.
They have much in common in a shared persiflage.
2Erich Trunz (ed), Goethe, Faust, ‘Studierzimmer’ Erster Teil, ll. 1224–37, (Wort, Logos, means Weltgeist, Weltvernunft in Greek philosophy and it was adopted by Christianity to mean die göttlische Vernunft, footnote p. 505), Christian Wegner Verlag, 1963.
3Mind, intellect, understanding, observation.
4Ability, strength
5Mary Beard, Laughter in Ancient Rome, University of California Press, 2014, 24–5.
6Ibid., 73–5. In Greek, Norwegian and English the words smile and laugh come from separate etymology (cf smîlen, hleahtor) but languages descending from Latin like French and Italian do not. The etymology of ridere is uncertain but its root may be associated with brightness (a bright smile?).
7Homer, The Odyssey, OUP, 1980, XX, 301–302.
8Stephen Halliwell, Greek Laughter, CUP, 471.
9Gyldendal, 1973, 175.
10 Dial. Frag. Apoc.
11Essayes of Certaine Paradoxes, ed. Th. Thorp, London, 1616 (Wood 498, Bodleian).
12Horace, quoted on the title page in James Miller, The Humours of Oxford, 1730 (printed by S. Powell, reproduction from the British Library).
13Peter Derks, ‘Twenty Years of Research on Humor: A View from the Edge’, in Chapman and Foot, Humor and Laughter, Theory, Research and Application, Transaction Publishers, 2007, xvii.
14The Ambassadorship of Literature, symposium at New York University, 2012.
Chapter 1
BEN JONSON AND HIS SOURCES
CLASSICAL LITERARY SOURCES
Decorum
Who soever hath bene diligent to read advisedlie over, Terence, Seneca, Virgil, Horace … he shall easily perceive, what is fitte and decorum in evrie one.15
DECORUM SETS DOWN that characters in plays must behave according to their age and social position, to be defined in a fixed way by the playwright and remain within these limits.16 Cicero defined the Latin term decorum, based on a Greek word used by Pythagoras to indicate balance and appropriateness: ‘In an oration, as in life, nothing is harder than to determine what is appropriate. The Greek call it kairos; let us call it decorum.’17 Aristotle had used a similar concept, to prepon, to denote decorum.
The static identity of decorum may seem anathema to serious characterization and development, what you see in the beginning is what you get in the end. Indeed, such dramatic propriety could appear suffocating, a limitation and fencing in of the creative process, but inside the wall great comedy appeared as the expanding elements fused with a new artistic decorum.
The search for Jonson’s sources begins in his library, but as Vulcan (fire) and Necessity (poverty), as he himself admits, took an unfair share of the grant he had received from Lord Pembroke, many books in the original library collection have disappeared from the records. What remains is still comprehensive and impressive. This rare stage scholar was an omnivorous reader. At the same time, his approach to books and sources made him both selective and dogmatic. His choices reveal distinct preferences and an essential part of the focus lies in the field of classical literature and neo-classical literary theory. Works by Aristophanes, Terence, Aelius Donatus, Erasmus, Julius Caesar Scalinger, Martin de Roa, Juan Luis Vives, Daniel Heinsius and George Puttenham were found on the shelves, as were works by Aristotle, Cicero and Horace.18
Of particular interest is the annotated fifteenth century manuscript of Horace’s Ars Poetica, a letter, an epistle, a reflection on art and literary propriety. The closest I got inside Jonson’s own library was to hold in my hand this book from his collection. It is an important source to help understand his preoccupation with the ancient masters of Greece and Rome, how they would influence his writing and his humorous characters. ‘At his death in 1637 he was celebrated as the founder and chief representative of an English literary culture to rival that of the ancients.’19
I was welcomed to the library of St. John’s College, Oxford. The annotated fifteenth century manuscript was carefully placed in front of me at the desk.20 It had Ben Jonson’s own signature. This was a renaissance moment for an enthusiastic student. It was more than circumstantial evidence, not only of ownership, but a book that Jonson had studied in detail. His confident underlinings proved his presence. In the second part of the manuscript there are annotations and monograms both by Sir John Radcliffe and Ben Jonson.21 I could detect Jonson’s hand; he had even corrected grammar and spelling. The underlinings, as in this example, indicated critical curiosity, insight and moral purpose: Scribendi recte sapere est et principium et fons rem tibi Socraticae poterunt ostendere chartae, verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur. (The source and fount of good writing is wisdom. The Socratic pages can show you the matter and when it is in hand words will not be loath to follow.)
Jonson highlights the qualities the playwright must establish to maintain the illusion and the attention of the audience:
Non satis est pulchra esse poemata; dulcia sunto
Et quocumque volent animum auditoris agunto.
Ut ridentibus arrident, ita flentibus adsunt
Humani vultus: si vis me flere, dolendum est
Primūm ipsī tibi; tūnc tua me īnfortunia laedent.
(It is not enough for poems to have beauty; they must have charm and lead the hearer’s soul where they will. As men’s faces smile on those who smile, so they respond to those who weep. If you would have me weep, you must first feel grief yourself.)
Then
