Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Renaissance classicism and Roman sexuality: Ben Jonson’s marginalia and the trope ofOs impurum

  • Published:
International Journal of the Classical Tradition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The marginalia to Ben Jonson's personal copy of the 1619 Scriverius edition of Martial's epigrams display a recurring interest in the most scabrous elements of Roman satirical discourse, including Martial's frequent and abusive references to the acts of oral sex. Not only do Jonson's marginal notes explicate the Roman trope ofos impurum; they also tend to supply it in situations where it is not necessary for interpretation of the epigrams in question. In the process, Jonson's marginalia may offer a measure of insight into the marked distaste for love and sex that the poet displays in his published works. Likewise, these marginal notes may help to explain the recurring emphasis upon patterns of oral pollution that is characteristic of Jonsonian satire.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Thomas Greene,The Light in Troy: Imitation and Discovery in Renaissance Poetry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), p. 273

    Google Scholar 

  2. William Drummond,Informations be Ben Johnston to W. D. when he came to Scotland upon foot, Il. 420–423, in: C.H. Herford and Percy and Evelyn Simpson, eds.,Ben Jonson (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925-1952), 11 vols. (here 1: 144). All references to Drummond and all references to Jonson's work are taken from this edition.

    Google Scholar 

  3. The most important recent work in this vein is Robert Evans,Habits of Mind: Evidence and Effects of Ben Jonson's Reading (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1995), a study which does not deal at length with the annotations to Jonson's Martial. For other examples of recent research on Jonson's marginalia, see James Riddell and Stanley Stewart,Jonson's Spenser: Evidence and Historical Criticism (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1995), passim, which offers a book-length reading of the marginalia in Jonson's personal copy ofThe Faerie Queene; A.W. Johnson,Ben Jonson: Poetry and Architecture (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), pp. 9–35, which concentrates upon the notes in Jonson's edition of Vitruvius; and Robert Evans and Jan Dudle, “Ben Jonson and the Wisdom of the Law” (a paper presented at the South Atlantic Modern Language Association, Atlanta, Georgia, November 4, 1995), passim. Stella Revard has also briefly mentioned Jonson's oral-sex marginalia in her work on the poet's debt to Latin and neo-Latin lyric traditions (“Classicism and Neo-Classicism in Jonson'sEpigrammes andThe Forest,” in: Jennifer Brady and W.H. Herendeen, eds.,Ben Jonson's 1616 Folio [Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1991], p. 166). For a recent study that includes brief mention of Jonson's annotations to theApophoreta, see Bruce Thomas Boehrer,The Fury of Men's Gullets: Ben Jonson and the Digestive Canal (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997), esp. pp. 96–98.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Among the remains of Ben Jonson's library are three copies of Martial's epigrams: the 1615 edition by Thomas Farnaby (cf. Frank-Rutger Hausmann, “Martialis,” in: Edward Cranz and Paul Oskar Kristeller, eds.,Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries 4 [Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1980], p. 258), the 1617 Parisian edition of Claudius Morellus (Cranz and Kristeller 4:260), and Scriverius' edition of 1619 (Cranz and Kristeller 4:260). For details of these volumes, see David McPherson, “Ben Jonson's Library and Marginalia: An Annotated Catalogue,”Studies in Philology 71.5 (December, 1974), pp. 67–70. In compiling the present study I have consulted the first and third of these volumes, both of which are at the Folger Shakespeare Library. The second of the three volumes, now housed at the Bodleian Library, is listed by McPherson as containing “no marks” other than Jonson's motto and some underlining in the prefatory matter (McPherson 68).

    Google Scholar 

  5. McPherson 69 (see previous note).

  6. Evans,Habits 21 (n. 3 above).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Peter Howell,A Commentary on Book One of the Epigrams of Martial (London: Athlone, 1980), p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  8. For more thorough discussion of Jonson's individual debts to Martial, see D. Heyward Brock,A Ben Jonson Companion (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980), pp. 89–90, 169, and T.K. Whipple,Martial and the English Epigram from Sir Thomas Wyatt to Ben Jonson (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1925), pp. 384–406. For Martial'sNachleben in general, see Howell 14–18, J.P. Sullivan,Martial: The Unexpected Classic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 253–312, and Michael von Albrecht,Geschichte der Römischen Literatur (Munich: K.G. Saur, 1994), 2 vols., 2:832–835.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Whipple 104; Sullivan 286 (see previous note).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Katharine Maus,Ben Jonson and the roman Frame of Mind (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), p. 3. Maus's book-length study of Jonson's classicism mentions Martial five times, as opposed to seventy-four mentions of the younger Seneca; Richard Peterson (Imitation and Praise in the Poems of Ben Jonson [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981]) mentions Martial thirteen times and Seneca forty-seven. This disproportion by no means constitutes an indictment of Maus's and Peterson's important work, but it does suggest that Martial's influence upon Jonson deserves further study.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jonathan Haynes,The Social Relations of Jonson's Theater (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Peterson (n. 10 above). 57–58

    Google Scholar 

  13. For more extended discussion of the classical objection to oral sexuality, see Paul Veyne, “L'homosexualité à Rome,”Communications 35 (1982), pp. 26–35; Aline Rousselle, “Personal Status and Sexual Practice in the Roman Empire,” trans. Janet Lloyd, in: Michel Feher, ed.,Fragments for a History of the Human Body: Part Three (New York: Zone Books, 1989), pp. 300–333; J.N. Adams,The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (London: Duckworth, 1982), pp. 125–135, 211–213; Friedrich Forberg,Manual of Classical Erotology (De Figura Veneris) (1844; rpt. New York: Grove Press, 1966), 2 vols. in 1, 2:89–223; and Bruce Smith,Homosexual Desire in Shakespeare's England: A Cultural Poetics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. 170–171. Janet Halley has recently drawn attention to the unstable manner in which fellatio has been assimilated to anal intercourse within modern Euro-American legal discourse (“Bowers vs. Hardwick in the Renaissance,” in: Jonathan Goldberg, ed.,Queering the Renaissance [Durham: Duke University Press, 1994], pp. 15–39).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Adams (see previous note)., 127

    Google Scholar 

  15. See Amy Richlin,The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), passim, esp. pp. 132, 245–246; Adams 125–135, 211-213; Jeffrey Henderson,The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2nd ed., 1991), pp. 183–186; and W. Jeffrey Tatum, “Catullus 79: Personal Invective or Political Discourse?,”Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 7 (1993), pp. 35–37 for recent discussions of this material. For a much earlier survey of the same subject, see Forberg 2:89–223 (n. 13 above).Manual of Classical Erotology (De Figura Veneris) (1844; rpt, New York: Grove Press, 1966)

    Google Scholar 

  16. James Brundage,Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), p. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rousselle 311 (n. 13 above) “.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Veyne 30, 29 (n. 13 above) “.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. K.J. Dover,Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978), p. 106.

    Google Scholar 

  20. For an extended account of theos impurum motif's occurrences in Greek and Latin literature, see Forberg (n. 13 above),, 1:190–227, 2:48–107

    Google Scholar 

  21. Forberg 1:215–216 (n. 13 above).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Vern Bullough,Sexual Variance in Society and History (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1976), p. 355.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Brundage 567 (n. 16 above),.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Brundage 167 (n. 16 above).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Roger Thompson,Sex in Middlesex: Popular Mores in a Mass. County, 1649–1699 (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1986), p. 74.

    Google Scholar 

  26. G.R. Quaife,Wanton Wenches and Wayward Wives: Peasants and Illicit Sex in Early Seventeenth Century England (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1979), pp. 165, 168.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Geoffrey Chaucer,The Canterbury Tales, in: Larry Benson et al., eds.,The Riverside Chaucer (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1978), “The Miller's Tale,” l. 3276.

    Google Scholar 

  28. See McPherson 89 (n. 4 above) “Ben Jonson's Library and Marginalia: An Annotated Catalogue,”Studies in Philology 71.5 (December, 1974), for more discussion of Jonson's defense of Martial; Jonson's marginalia are cited by signature number with reference to Jonson's personal copy, now in the Folger Library, ofM. Val. Martialis Nova Editio. Ex Museo Petri Scriverii (Leyden, 1619).

  29. McPherson (n. 4 above) “Ben Jonson's Library and Marginalia: An Annotated Catalogue,”Studies in Philology 71.5 (December, 1974). 69

  30. Qtd. in Howell 15 (n. 7 above).

    Google Scholar 

  31. George Gordon, Lord Byron,Don Juan, ed. T.G. Steffan et al. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), 1.43.8.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sullivan 189 (n. 8 above).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Martial,Epigrams, trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey, ser. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993), 4 vols., 2.28. All references to and translations of Martial are drawn from this edition.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Desiderius Erasmus,Adagia I.x.78, trans. Margaret Mann Phillips and R.A.B. Mynors, in: Peter Bietholz et al., eds.,Collected Works of Erasmus 32 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989), p. 270.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Shackleton Bailey 3.324 (n. 33 above).

    Google Scholar 

  36. See J. P. Sullivan 96 n. 32 (n. 8 above) and Bruce Boehrer, “Ben Jonson and theTraditio Basiorum: Catullan Imitation inThe Forrest 5 and 6,”Papers on Language and Literature 32.1 (1996), pp. 66–67 for discussions of the parodic dimension to “Non amo te, Sabide.” The fact that this poem clearly burlesques Catullus' “Odi et amo” (Catullus 85) to my mind only accentuates the degree to which it may also be taken as a burlesque of Martial's own standard epigrammatic procedure. In addition, Howell (n. 7 above)A Commentary on Book One of the Epigrams of Martial (London: Athlone, 1980), p. 17. rejects the idea that “Non amo te” is anos impurum poem, calls that idea “unlikely,” and maintains that “the point of the epigram is simply unanalysable dislike” (175).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sullivan 249 (n. 8 above).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Seneca,Moral Essays, trans. John W. Basore, ser. Loeb Classical Library (London: William Heinemann, 1935), 3 vols., 4.31. For another such reference from the work of the same author seeEpistula 87. As Richard Peterson has shown (9–11, 88–89, 101–102, etc.), Jonson drew heavily upon the work of the younger Seneca and would thus very probably have encountered these and/or similar passages.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Thomas Farnaby, ed.,M. Val. Martialis Epigrammaton Libri (London, 1633), sig. A5v.

  40. Pietro Crinito, ed.,M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammatum Libri XV (Paris, 1607), sig. H4r.

  41. Farnaby, sig. B4v (n. 39 above). Thomas Farnaby, ed.,M. Val. Martialis Epigrammaton Libri (London, 1633), sig. A5v.

  42. Crinito, sig. O4r (n. 40 above) Pietro Crinito, ed.,M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammatum Libri XV (Paris, 1607), sig. H4r.

  43. See George Rowe,Distinguishing Jonson: Imitation, Rivalry, and the Direction of a Dramatic Career (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1988), passim; Robert Watson,Ben Jonson's Parodic Strategy: Literary Imprialism in the Comedies (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), passim, and David Riggs,Ben Jonson: A Life (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), passim, esp. pp. 49–85.

    Google Scholar 

  44. John Donne,Satire 4.128, in Herbert Grierson, ed.,The Poems of John Donne (Oxford: Clarendon, 1938), 2 vols. Although selections of Donne's work have appeared in more recent editions (and although John Shawcross's 1967 edition of the complete poetry is of note), Grierson's is probably still the single most authoritative edition of the complete poetical works. For Donne's debt to classical models of satire (particularly Juvenal and Persius), see James Baumlin,John Donne and the Rhetorics of Renaissance Discourse (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1991), pp. 81–87, 104–115 and 122–131.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Joseph Hall,Virgedemiae 1.9.21–24, in: Philip Wynter, ed.,The Works of the Right Reverend Joseph Hall, D. D. (Oxford, 1863; rpt. New York: AMS Press, 1969), 9:235. For a critical discussion of Hall, Marston, and their debt to Roman satire, see Raman Selden,English Verse Satire 1590–1765 (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1978), pp. 65–72. Selden claims that “If Hall's satirist is ... the Horatian Stoic manque, then Marston's is the apotheosis of the Elizabethan ideal type, the wild man of the woods” (69). Finally, for a discussion of early English verse satire that pays particular attention to Ben Jonson's debt to Juvenal and Horace, see William Kupersmith,Roman Satirists in Seventeenth-Century England (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1985), esp. pp. 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  46. John Marston,The Scourge of Villainy 1.3.37–42, in: Arnold Davenport, ed.,The Poems of John Marston (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1961).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Riggs 37–38 (n. 43 above).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Marc Shell,The End of Kinship: “Measure for Measure,” Incest, and the Idea of Universal Siblinghood (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988), pp. 4–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English, Florida State University, 406 Williams Building, 32306, Tallahassee, FL, USA

    Bruce Thomas Boehrer

Authors
  1. Bruce Thomas Boehrer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boehrer, B.T. Renaissance classicism and Roman sexuality: Ben Jonson’s marginalia and the trope ofOs impurum . Int class trad 4, 364–380 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686423

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686423

Keywords

Search

Navigation