Timon and the collapse of feudalismPeter J. Leithart, November 07, 2007 I want to try to bridge the gap between medieval and Renaissance obsession with gift and gratitude and the Enlightenment where these are either privatized or reduced or ignored altogether. Let me begin with some additional thoughts on Timon of Athens, following the argument of an insightful 1947 article by EC Pettet. Pettet argues in essence that Timon is not an abstract consideration of profligacy or excessive prodigality, but "a straightforward tract for the times." During Elizabeth's reign, traditional feudal lords, with their wealth bound up in land, were in trouble: "As a class these feudalists had been severely hit by the sharp rise in prices throughout the century, for while the bulk of their income derived from the land, rents remained at a relatively low, customary level. Some were shrewd enough to turn their attention to mining the industry; others attempted to reorganize their estates and screw up the level of rents. But these entrepreneurs and 'improving' landlords were the exceptions, and most of the nobility, lacking either the energy and initiative or the ruthlessness to adopt other measures, had recourse to the only other way out of their difficulty – the money-lender. The results of this were what we should expect: by the end of the sixteenth century many landowners, including some of the greatest noblemen in the country, were in debt to thousands of pounds, while a considerable amount of land had fallen, through mortgage, into the hands of City merchants, tradesmen, and lawyers." Nobles were caught in cross-fire. On the one hand, traditional manorly, feudal behavior demanded that they open their homes and stores generously to others. Robert Greene reported, concerning Sir Christopher Hatton, that the knight kept no Christmas house for once a year, On the other hand, keeping up this kind of generous hospitality meant that the gentry were putting themselves at the mercy of lenders, and submitting themselves to an economic system that they were ill-prepared to participate in. Timon is the type of the generous feudal Lord who gives without thought to the cost. He is, Pettet says, "the ideal feudal lord living up to the full obligation of bounty and housekeeping." He is sincere when he says "Methinks I could deal kingdoms to my friends, and ne'er be weary" (1.2.228). Like a feudal lord, Timon sees his gifts in personal terms, not as contractual or purely monetary transactions. He recognizes what Lewis Hyde describes as the "erotic" dimension of exchanges – exchange that establishes relations and forges bonds rather than merely meeting mutual self interest. Timon's commitment to this older ethic of giving is evident in his discussion with the old Athenian about Lucillus's love for the man's daughter. Timon's questions are all about character and relation: He tells the Athenian that Lucillus is honest and asks if they love one another. The old Athenian sees their relation in purely financial terms: Lucillus has nothing, and he tries to bring his daughter to order by threatening to remove her inheritance (1.1.128-36). Timon shares the traditional beliefs in service, responsibility, obligation, solidarity, the "social nature of the good," a set of beliefs evident in his speech on friends in Act 1, scene 2: O you gods, think I, what need we have any friends, if we should ne'er have need of 'em? they were the most needless creatures living, should we ne'er have use for 'em, and would most resemble sweet instruments hung up in cases that keep their sounds to themselves. Why, I have often wished myself poorer, that I might come nearer to you. We are born to do benefits: and what better or properer can we can our own than the riches of our friends? O, what a precious comfort 'tis, to have so many, like brothers, commanding one another's fortunes! O joy, e'en made away ere 't can be born! Mine eyes cannot hold out water, methinks: to forget their faults, I drink to you.
The world Timon sees around him is a world dominated by self-interest, which Shakespeare, significantly, describes as "a usuring kindness," a kindness lent out only for advantage, something that Timon sees as no different from institutionalized theft. In a vituperative speech, he commends open thieves because they are at least honest about their thieving, in contrast to the thieves that assume "holier shapes" (3.438ff): Yet thanks I must you con This can only dissolve the world. Pettet says that Shakespeare is right to see that "the new economic forces did destroy the old religious, political, and moral order," as feudal society was replaced by bourgeois society. Timon describes the shift in apocalyptic terms: O thou wall, At the heart of the new system is the power of money, which Timon condemns in several speeches (4.3.26-43; 383-94). Pettet summarizes the two points of the speeches: "First, there is [money's] omnipotence, for, being able to buy everything, it can mediate all things to itself – not just economic commodities, but love, religion, political and religious power. Secondly, money is 'visible god,' having the miraculous power of uniting and changing opposites As an individual a man may be 'foul,' yet money gives him the power to buy in marriage the 'fair,' that is to say, the opposite of himself." Above all, money is "the dissolvent, the dynamic agent of change," which is the reason the conservative Shakespeare worries about its effects. Gold, Timon says, is the "common whore of mankind" (4.3.42), an image he uses several times. Pettet explains that both usury and prostitution "from Shakespeare's medieval viewpoint, are morally reprehensible because they are the degeneration of a human relationship into a purely material one." Christian charity was to be given for nothing, without thought of return, but usurers lend for financial advantage. Usury turns the "erotic" exchange of gift and gratitude into an exchange motivated only by common self-interest. It is no surprise, then, that two prostitutes appear late in the play, and that Timon sends them away with money with the instruction to spread syphilis in the city of Athens. Usury, self-interest, commercialization, for Shakespeare, bring a plague on social relations. Be a whore still: they love thee not that use thee; |
http://www.leithart.com/archives/print/003419.php