the pattern of saturnalian comedy: the social …€¦ · and the alchemist, it is difficult to...
TRANSCRIPT
THE PATTERN OF SATURNALIAN COMEDY:
THE SOCIAL DYNAMICS OF BARTHOLOMEW FAIR
YUKO oueHI
Over centuries, Bartholomew Fair, the culmination of Ben Jonson's Satiric
genius, has both bewitched and troubled critics with its abounding energy
and verisimilitude and its seeming lack of coherent message. Using one of the
most famous London events - wkich was held annually on August 24th (for
three days) - as the background, the dramatist succeeds in vividly depicting
the earthly hubbub created by the clamorous Londoners. The fair, as Herford
and Simpson point out, "is indeed the true subject of the play, the salient,
obsessive, uncircumventable, ubiquitous fact to which all the bewildering
multiplicity of persons and interests have relation." 1
This construction of the play along the activities of the Fair, however,
renders its overall scheme more difficult to comprehend. In consequence of
the fluid setting which permits the visitors of the F air to move around from
booth to booth (not to mention their incessant entering and leaving of the
stage), it becomes impossible for the audience to find the simple clear
story-line to which they can cling to the end. Perhaps it is this seeming lack
of one coherent plot that draws a certain kind of criticism on Bartholomew
Fair that it is episodic in nature and less structurally organized compared to
Jonson's earlier comedies like Volpone and The Alchemist. But as Freda L.
Townsend points out, the play does not suffer at all from this lack of
well-defined unity of plot, since "Jonson's immense constructive skill is here
fully employed - not in the manipulation of plot, but in manipulation
without it." 2 What we should look for in the play, then, for the full
understanding of its structural organization is not a set of well-connected
[27J
28
events but the overall flow of the synchronized and coordinated movement
and desires of the characters. Only through this kind of detached analysis
and examination of the dynamic social movement in Bartholomew Fair, can
we truly grasp the whole thematic messege from J onson skillfully knitted into
the dramatic structure.
One of the most orthodox views of Bartholomew Fair appears in Michael
Jamieson's Introduction for Three Comedies: Ben Jonson:
Bartholomew Fair is a 'panoramic' structure, looser and more comprehensive than Jonson's other great comedies ... The appeal of [the play] is in the rich and vivid execution rather than in any moral content ... Jonson, in an almost pedantic way, crammed a great mass of Jacobean life, idiom, and local colour, into Bartholomew Fair 3
As the above passage reveals, this fixed view of Jonson's Bartholomew Fair
- rich in language, vivid in scenes, and essentially lively and realistic, but
loose in structure and morality - has often been the predominant one among
the critics. This kind of view would partly stem from the fact that in
Bartholomew Fair, Jonson deals with a new subject and setting which he
never dealt with before so that for the readers who try to observe the play in
the same manner they did in Jonson's earlier comic masterpieces like Volpone
and The Alchemist, it is difficult to comprehend and appreciate its real
strategic scheme.
Let us discuss for a moment the structure of The Alchemist. The play starts
with the quarrel scene in which the two main characters, Face and Subtle,
defy each other's ability as an impostor. Meanwhile, the first gull Dapper
appears, and through the conversation between the cozeners and the gull, the
audience soon learns what kind of fraudulence is going on. Thus, before the
end of the Act I, the core pattern of the comedy becomes clear. It is a story
about the interaction between the cozeners' inflammatory illusions and the
29
gulls' driving obsessions. Although the gulls' pilgrimage to the cozeners'
house continues after Act II adding new varieties to the impostor-dupe
relationship, the basic pattern we perceive in Act I remains as the core
structure of the comedy. And it becomes pretty predictable for the audience
that at the end of the multiplication and the expansion of this pattern, the
play is destined to end with the deceivers' failure and the deflation of the
dupes' delusions.
If we looked for the same kind of structural pattern in Bartholomew Fair,
the result would be an unsatisfuctory one. First of all, it is not the fixed
relation between the impostors and the gulls that the play is dealing with.
Though some naive visitors like Cokes and Win Littlewit are tricked by the
pickpockets and pimps of Smithfield, having no other ambition than to see
the Fair and eat Bartholomew pork, these pigeons essentially remain as the
part of the innocent sightseers. This fair-goers' passivity, combined with
their mobile nature as the crowd, naturally reduces the dramatic tension of
the impostor-dupe contention which is so enjoyable in ] onson's earlier
works. In The Alchemist, we see the inevitability of the dupes being hooked by
the swindlers' tricks - it is the greed and obsession in themselves that draw
them so forcefully toward the deceivers' illusions - but not in Bartholomew
Fair. The mentality of the sightseers has nothing to do with driving lust or
obsession of the hyena-like dupes of Volpone or The Alchemist, and
consequently, the Bartholomew rogues must rely much on their moment's
agility and the circumstantial opportunity in playing their tricks. There is no
other way, since the arbitrary actions and movement of the roaming piqeons
does not permit any room for well-calculated fraudulence. This rogues'
reliance on accidental opportunity should be noticed, for as long as the
cozener-dupe relationship is established on arbitrary chance, the audience
cannot possibly use it in defining the core pattern of the play.
If the dramatic structure of Bartholomew Fair cannot wholly be determined
30
by the repetitive fusion of lust and delusion, then, with what kind of
framework can we bind its varied human activities together? Is the play
really a'loosely organized episodic work as J amieson suggests? Thomas
Cartelli in his "Bartholomew Fair as Urban Arcadia" certainly disagrees with
such an opposition, After clarifying the distinction between satiric comedy
and saturnalian comedy - that the former deals with relations between
social classes and the aberrant movements between them, while the latter
seeks its dramatic clarification of conflicts in "the movement through
release,,4
- Cartelli proceeds to argue that Bartholomew Fair is the very instance of
Jonson's acceptance of the pattern of saturnalian comedy into his satiric
subject, and that "the method employed by J onson to effect this breakthrough
into saturnalian clarification owes much to the methods employed ,by
Shakespeare in his pastoral comedies, , ,and romances,,,5
According to him, the common pattern Shakespeare often employed in his
pastoral comedies (e,g., A Midsummer Night's Dream and As You Like It) and
romances (e.g., The Tempest) is "the pattern of withdrawal and return.,,6 It
basically involves the movement of a group of characters away from the
original society filled with conflicts and injustice into another world in
which the refugees are allowed to work out their problems free of oppressive
restrictions of the real world. (In A Midsummer Night's Dream or As You Like
it, this temporal sanctuary is a forest, while in The Tempest, it becomes an
island.) But once the conflicts are resolved to their satisfaction, there is no
reason for the visitors to stay, and the group, somewhat changed, returns to
the world they came from.
It is this pattern Ben J onson chose to adopt in composing his new satire.
Like Shakespeare's pastoral comedies and romances, Bartholomew Fair is
structured in the framework of the characters' movement from the boundaries
of London everyday life into a space artificially made for the Fair. Of course,
31
this Bartholomew wonderland is not an ideal or peaceful place by any
account. On the contrary, the audience sees enough of thievery, obscenity
and corruption before the curtain falls. Even so, the world of the Fair fulfills
an important function in the play, for only there, the characters can evade the
yokes of everyday restrictions and make themselves relatively free from the
first world's custom, pretensions, pretensions, and prejudices. A passage by
Cartelli may be helpful in clarifying this point further:
J onson chooses ... to move his version of Arcadia even farther away from Paradise than Shakespeare's Arden, into a plainly "fallen" urban setting ... Whereas Shakespeare takes his characters on a kind of therapeutic vacation halfway out of this world in order to make them whole, J onson rubs the faces of his characters in the dirt of this-worldly experience in order to relieve them of their pretensions and unnaturalness, to make them, if not whole, at least a bit more acclimated to "things as they are."?
At this point, one question arises. When Cartelli talks about rubbing "the
faces of his characters in the dirt" to make them "acclimated to 'things as they
are. ", there is no doubt about that he has characters like justice Overdo and
Busy in mind. But what about other fair-goers? If the dramatist's intention is
only to humiliate those hypocrite moralizers and make them recognize their
own frailty as human beings, there is certainly no need to drag the rest of the
characters around the Fair. And indeed, though Cartelli's interest seems to
focus on the part of the disintegration of hierarchy through the fall of
authoritative figures in Bartholomew Fair, we must not forget that the
levelling of classes is only half of the whole process of saturnalian comedy.
Just as the expatriates in Shakespeare's pastoral comedies and romances had
to reorganize themselves and leave their Arcadia to be reconciled to the
world they deserted, the social group of fair-goers must redefine their
relationship with one another in the festive chaos of Bartholomew Fair, and
32
once the temporary suspension of the social order in the festivity is lifted, 8
they must go back to their original but reconstituted world. Let us, then,
examine what kind of potential problems and conflicts .are there in the
original social group before their visit to Smithfield.
The play starts from the household of the Littlewits in which we hear the
couple's conversation:
Littlewit: Good Win, go a little; I would fain see thee pace, pretty Win! By this fine cap, I could never leave kissing on't. Mistress Littlewit : Come, indeed la, you are such a fool, still' (I. i. 337)
The conversation sounds to us much like that of a simple care-free young
couple. But is it so? We soon come to learn something strange about this
couple when Littlewit addresses himself to Winwife on his arrival: "Win and
I both wish you well; by this licence here, would your had her [Dame
Purecraft], that your two names were as fast in it, as here are a couple" (I, ii.
339). Unmistakably, the Littlewits are supporting (or rather cheering)
Winwife's courtship to Dame Purecraft, their widowed mother. .What can
their motive be? After all, Winwife is an utter fortune-hunter as Quarlous'
cynical comment on his friend's courtship reveals: "And all this [tribulation
of marriage life), for the hope of two apostle-spoons, to suffer' And a cup to
eat a caudle in' For that will be thy legacy" (I, iii. 344). From the financial
perspective at least, to receive such a fortune-hunter as the Mother's suitor
must be unwelcome for any young couple - if the sittuation is normal.
The reason for the Littlewits' bizarre response to their mother's possible
marriage becomes gradually plain as their con'versation turns on to Busy,
their mother's religious counseller (and the couple's inspector, so to speak)
and Win makes a comment on the nature of his governance: "We have such a
tedious life with him for his diet, and his clothes too" (I. ii. 340). Putting the
above statement and John's later comment together - "Our mother is a most
33
elect hypocrite, and has maintained us all this seven years with it, like
gentlefolks" (1. v. 354) - it is not difficult to detect the Littlewits' hidden
discontent. Apparently, they are growing weary of Busy and their mother's
"straitlaced" (1. v. 353) way of life. And of course, if they wish to get rid of
their mother's scrutinizing supervision decently, there is no better way than
to let her marry to somebody: other than their mother's present joint
governor, Busy. Undoubtedly, this tragicomical situation of the young
couple is one of the hidden discontent that is on the verge of coming to the
surface. Regarding the matter in this way, the couple's expedition to
Smithfield comes to have much broader significance than mere pleasure
seeking: for them, "longing" for the Bartholomew pigs and the Fair is a part
of their attempt to loosen their old authorities' iron hands (if not to break out
from them).
Meanwhile, another potential conflict appears with the arrival of Cokes
and his party - Dame Overdo and Grace Well born - When he starts arguing
with his governor Wasp about Whether he (Cokes) can see his marriage
licence. The argument ends in agreement that Wasp should keep the licence
and Cokes can have the box of the licence. This current contention between
Cokes and Wasp for leadership, norsensical as it is, is also a disquieting
issue in the Bartholomew's small social group.
But more than any other covert or overt conflicts, Grace Wellborn's
unpleasant situation should be counted as the most problematic one. Early as
Act 1, scene v, Winwife already notices something unusual about Grace:
"what a restrained scorn she casts upon all his [Cokes'] behaviour and
speeches!" (1. v. 350) The discontent he perceived in Cokes' future wife soon
gets confirmed verbally 'when she utters an aside in response to Cokes'
frivolous joke that he would marry Win: "So would I [Grace], or anybody
else, so I might 'scape you [Cokes]" (1. v. 351).
At this stage, the audience does not understand why Grace has to be
34
engaged to Cokes while her disinclination is so obvious. But in any rate, we
definitely learn three things about this play by the end of Act I after which
the setting moves into Smithfield. Firstly, there are two social units: 1) the
household of the Littlewits which is under the supervision of Dame
Purecraft and Busy, and 2) the household of the Overdos in whose custody
Grace and Cokes (under Wasp's supervision) is. Secondly the youngers of
the two household apparently are discontented with their elders. In the case
of the Littlewits, this feeling finds expression in their "longing" for pig,
whereas Grace limits her expression to "a restrained scorn." As for Cokes, he
simply quarrels with Wasp. This rather confused picture of the society gets
framed at last by the presence of the two aristocratic gentlemen - with sense
and education, but no money or position - who are deeply interested in the
affairs of these families. The comprehension of the original social structure
of the Fair-visitors and their inner conflicts is very important, for it later
becomes the significant key to the understanding of the whole organization
of the play.
Act I ends with' the scene in which Busy, one of the authorities of the
original world before the fair, toils to "make [the eating of the Bartholomew
pig] as lawful as [he] can" (1. vi. 356) in compliance with Win's "carnal
disease" (Ill. ii .. 355);
It [pig] may be eaten, and in the Fair, I take it, in a booth, the tents of the wicked. The place is not much, not very much; we may be religious in midst of the profane, so it be eaten with a reformed mouth, with sobriety, and humbleness; not gorged in with gluttony or greediness. (1. vi. 356-57)
Although we already know something about Busy's hypocritical nature
through some previous comments like that of Quarlous - "a notable
hypocritical vermin" (1. ii. 345) - nothing is more effective than the above
35
illogical rationalization in illuminating the true personality of the Banbury
man, In laughter, the audience learns that this "vermin" is a complete fool
who even lacks enough wit to disguise his own hypocrisy,
Another authoritative figure, Adam Overdo, appears on the stage for the
first time at the beginning of Act 11. Disguised as a madman, the Judge'
declares to the audience his intention of detecting the "enormities" of the
Fair without being noticed by the people, His disguise somewhat reminds us
of the Duke of Vienna in Shakespeare's Measure for Measure, But is Overdo
such a creditable character as the Duke? Let us listen to Adam's idea of of
what a "worthy worshipful man" should do:
what would he do in all these shapes? Marry, go you into every ale-house, and down into every cellar; measure the length of puddings, take the gauge of black pots and cans, ay, and custards, with a stick; and their circumference, with a thread, (11. i, 358-59)
The absurdity of the Justice's declaration of enormity-finding clearly
suggests that far from being the English version of the Duke Vincencio, the
man is completely out of touch with the reality of the everyday life, This
indication of the lack of insight and balanced sense on the part of Overdo
rapidly gains substantiation as he repeatedly misinterprets every incident in
Smithfield, but without waiting for such confirmation, the audience already
knows that there is another fool in the Fair.
As soon as the Fair begins, Overdo takes himself to minute fault-finding,
In the Justice's eyes, the place must be full of corruptions, for he soon
gathers a ~ouple of "enormities" to put into his black book. And as time goes
on, his initial plan to simply collect the evidences of "enormities" expands,
and the man even starts preaching on the "venom" of tobacco and ale, As
Mistress Overdo's comment on the disguised preacher indicates - "He
[disguised Adam] has something of Master Overdo, methinks" (11. vi, 376)-
36
to make this kind of bombastic speech must have been the Justice's
customary habit while he was at his home. But Smithfield apparently does
not belong to his domain, and such a pompous attitude of a faultfinder cannot
be tolerated for long . Adam receives blows from Wasp on the charge of
causing the stealing of Cokes' purse with his ridiculous speech, and is later
led to the stocks on the suspicion of stealing his purse (Ill. v. 399).
Almost immediately after the humiliation of Adam, the audience receives
new information about the characther of the man who has just disappeared.
The source is Grace Well born, and she discloses to Quarlous that she has
been sold to Justice Overdo in the notorious Court of Wards and that unless
she be married to his wife's brother, Cokes, she "must pay value 0' [her] land"
(Ill. v. 400). Grace testifies most bitterly - "they that cannot work their
fetters off must wear' em" (Ill. v. 400) - perhaps because she sees the
situation she is trapped in with undisguised clarity. As her later words
indicates - "I must have a husband I must love, or I cannot live with him"
(IV. iii. 413) - Grace clearly perceives that if she "be yoked with" her
appointed bridegroom, there will be no acceptable or even bearable future for
her, and yet she also knows that if she refuses to wear the "fetters" before her,
she will probably loose her position in the class of gentry in consequence of
being left destitute. As the audience's sympathy for her increases with their
understanding of the roots of her cynicism and frustration, the last fragment
of credit that has been left in Overdo shatters. Now, he is not only a "serious
ass" (Ill. v. 400) as Quarlous calls him but also a pimp; for in faith, from the
ethical perspective, there is not much difference between pimping a
prostitute and forcing marriage to one's reluctant ward. Thus, Overdo's grand
espionage in Bartholomew Fair ends in the ironical exposure of his own
"enormity."
Thinking of the matter in this way, the scene in which Mistress Overdo
accuses her disguised husband of being a cutpurse is somewhat prophetic:
37
"now I see he is a lewd and pernicious enormity" (Ill. v. 398). But for the
matter of forcing Grace to marry Cokes, Mistress Overdo herself cannot
escape the responsibility. Being Adam's spouse, she is also guilty of taking
the part of her husband's pimping. The punishment comes from Punk Alice
- the quarter that has certain link with the Overdos in one sense - when she
beats the Justice's wife crying, "The poor common whores can ha' no traffic
for the privy rich ones; your caps and hootls of velvet call away our
customers" (IV. v. 425). Alice's treatment of Mistress Overdo as a sheer bawd
gives an ironical illumination to the ethical status of the socially reputable
couple.
Later, similar kind of exposure made on Adam also assaults Busy. After
filling his belly with pig, the comical decryer starts taunting at his
surrounding sight as usual - "Thou art the seat of the Beast, 0 Smithfield"
(Ill. vi. 402) - and soon gets caught for public disturbance and disappears to
the stocks. And while the clamorous man is out, Dame Purecraft, mysterious
ly falling in love with Quarlous disguised as Trouble-all, the Madman,
notifies him of Busy's past fraudulent activities along with her own: "I know
him [Busy] to be the capital knave of the land, making himself rich by being
made feoffee in trust to deceased Brethren, and coz'ning their heirs by
swearing the absolute gift of their inheritance" (V. ii. 435).
Through these exposition scenes, the audience sees that the two groups of
people - the inhabitants of Smithfield and the two authorities who accuse
them for various enormities - are essentially equal. And when one is asked
which of the two is more palatable, the answer is self-evident. Although
Smithfield is a clamorous quarter filled with unrest, nudging, and "vapours,"
and its inhabitants noisy and aggressive, the place and its people does not at
least give a malicious impression. The Bartholomew rogues taunt each other
when they have nothing to tend, but conspire together when the opportunity
of trick arrives. And if the occasion should arrive, the unmistakable sense of
38
solidarity emerges in the community. When Ursula, the pig-woman, scalds
her own leg in consequence of the fight against Quarlous, the neighbours
immediately rush to her rescue and show extra attentiveness; nursing her,
dressing her wound, taking care of her business while she rests. Though the
community may somewhat be steeped in. cheap offences like snatching and
pimping, still it apparently retains a strong sense of humanity and
cooperation.
When we juxtapose this frankness and humanity of the clamorous
underworld with the self-righteous absurdity of the two professed moral
leaders of the London society, the necessity of dragging down their
pretension on the stocks becomes clear. As Thomas Cartelli suggested in his
argument on J onson's comic form, the levelling of the moral stands of
different classes is an important process of saturnalian comedy, and
therefore, the advocation of tolerance through the aggressive attack on the
intolerant snobocracy is indispensable. The following passage may expli
cate the point more clearly:
What has not been noted is that the play's comparative benevolence is closely bound up with J onson's ongoing attempt to "break through" and move beyond the "aberrations" that conventionally characterize the relations between social classes in purely satiric comedy. 9
But what Cartelli fails to mention in his statement above is that this process
of breaking the restraint of fixed social order is only one half of the whole
movementt of saturnalian pattern. That is to say, if there is the movement
toward release through the disintegration or original society, then, there also
must be the movement toward restraint for the reconstruction of new society.
Considering the matter in this way, a couple of questions arise: who would
replace the authorities of the old world, and in what aspect are they superior
to their predecessors? The former question is easier to answer, since we all
39
know that Quarlous and Win wife are the only people who had any substantial
gain after the Fair. And of the two gentlemen, Quarlous, of course, is the
more potent one, acting as the central figure in the scene of denouement,
while Winwife seldom speaks except for his declaration of intended
matrimony with Grace. The reason for the difference in their attitude soon
becomes clear as we continue to listen to Quarlous' flowing account of what
has truly happened and what he has gained in the Fair: dowry of 6,000
pounds with an old wife and the wardship of a young woman (Grace) with
substantial fortune to extract. No wonder the man is so talkative and his
friend, Win wife, who has found out that his only gain was a handsome wife
with no fortune) is kept in such sour silence. The brief scene gives us a full
illumination of the moral status of the new leaders: they are no better than
their predecessors.
If there is any difference between them and the fallen preachers, it is that
the former has enough discretion and sense, while the latter has none of them.
But this possession or lack of sense has a vital meaning in the Fair, where
the Festive suspension of social order creates a resulting effect of chaos.
And in such a lawless place where the Darwinian style of struggle for
survival prevails, cunning and mercenariness is much more important than
any moral restraints. 10 It is an ironical fact to know that when this movement
of chaotic release is over, a new society will be constructed under the
supervision of the champions of the urban wilderness. The play ends with
Quarlous recommending Overdo to remember that he is "but Adam, flesh and
blood!" (V. vi. 459), and it is still unknown what kind of social structure will
actually be constructed by this somewhat likable but audacious man. Yet one
thing is clear that whatever direction this saturnalian pattern leads him in his
drama, this born satirist will never leave "his view of man as a weak urban
creature with innate vice."ll
As we have discussed, using shakespearean pattern of "withdrawal and
40
return," Ben J onson dexteriously constructs a framework for his comedy.
The play starts from the domestic scene in the Littlewits' house, and with the
arrival of Cokes and his party, the audience catches the basic social structure
of the party and the existence of discontent among them under the surface of
comical conversation. The act ends with the scene of the Littlewits'
"longing," in which they succeed to tempt Busy to let them go to the "tents of
the wicked" under the condition of his special "supervision." Then, act II
begins with the disguised Justice's harsh criticism on the "enormities" of the
Smithfield c<.?mmunity.
Why these authorities show such extreme dislike for Smithfield seems
rather incomprehensible, but perhaps it is because they instinctively know
that the free open atmosphere of the Fair would weaken their established
power over the social group they preside. And indeed, as the two authorities
try to practice their usual domineering habits in the Fair, they face the utter
rejection from the surrounding people. Followed by the humiliation in the
stocks, the exposure of their own enormities to the audience symbolically
announces the final fall of the former power.
In this light, the marriages of Quarlous to Dame Purecraft and Winwife to
Grace are significant, for the establishment of the new households by these
younger generations - 1) the household of Quarlous and Dame Purecraft
(the Littlewits under their supervision), and 2) the household of Winwife and
Grace (yoked to Quarlous but freed from Cokes) - clearly means that there
will be the rise of a new independent power that will eventually replace the
influence of the old authorities.
Of course, it is clear that J onson does not expect any coming of the ideal
world from this new cycle. Whatever the result is, the initial motivation of
the marriage of the two men, Quarlous and Winwife, is money. And it is
undeniable that these future fathers will make authorities as calculating as
the former generation. But in the benign atmosphere of the ending in which
41
all the characters of the play are invited to Overdo's house, Jonson does not
peck at their "enormities" any farther. After all, what John Littlewit says may
be quite right: "Win; you are the tother half: man and wife make one fool,
Win" (1. i. 338).
NOTES
C.H. Herford, and Percy Simpson, Ben Jonson: The Man and His Work. (Oxford:
The Clarendon Press, 1925)(11. 137)
2 F reda L. T owns end, Apologie for Bartholmew Fayre: The Art of Jonson's
Comedies.(London: Oxford University Press, 1974)73.
3 Ben Jonson, Three Comedies: Ben Jonson. (ed.) Michael Jamieson. (London:
Penguin Books Ltd., 1985) 23-26.
4 Thomas Cartelli, "Bartholomew Fair as Urban Arcadia: Jonson Responds to
Shakespeare." Renaissance Drama. 14 (1983): 153.
5 Thomas Cartelli, 155.
6 loco cit.
7 Thomas Cartelli, 157.
8 see Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World (trans.) Helene Iswolsky.
(Cambridge: M.LT.Press, 1968) 155.
9 Thomas Cartelli, 155.
10 see Jonathan Haynes, "Festivity and the Dramatic Economy of Jonson's
Bartholomew Fair." ELH. 51 (1984).
11 Frances Teague, The Curious History of Bartholomew Fair. (Lewisburg:
Bucknell University Press, 1985)135.