Save Story Save this story for later. The English were only a small, ragged band of men—Raleigh had sent no women at this exploratory stage—in a vast, uncharted land inhabited by well-organized, prosperous, and proud peoples. Harriot saw that they could not be effortlessly subjugated. And the new arrivals, though small in number, had an additional advantage. The disease also so strange, that they neither knew what it was, nor how to cure it, the like by report of the oldest men in the country never happened before, time out of mind. They speculated that the handful of colonists was only the beginning.
|Genre:||Health and Food|
|Published (Last):||4 March 2011|
|PDF File Size:||12.52 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.49 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Mark Derdzinski. His intention, clearly, is "to look less at the presumed center of the literary domain than at its borders, to try to track what can only be glimpsed, as it were, at the margins of the text" 4. In his first chapter, Greenblatt defines this reciprocal process of historical influence and textual creation as the reflection of influences he identifies as "social energy" 4.
He then applies this approach to seemingly unrelated texts, usually a chronicle and a play of the same period, to exemplify the trace of a particular form of social energy. It is very simple. Instead, I will attempt to refine his criteria for social energy and social practice by extending the conceptual and historiographical method.
In "Social Energy," Greenblatt confesses his desire to "speak with the dead" 1. He intends to recreate a historical moment through analysis of contemporary texts that operate synchronously. These traces are extant in metaphor, symbol, synecdoche, and metonymy He is not so much interested in whether a play accurately reflects a social institution, but whether there is an exchange between the play and a given institution: Inquiries into the relation between Renaissance theater and society have been situated most often at the level of reflection: images of the monarchy, the lower classes, the legal profession, the church, and so forth.
Such studies are essential, but they rarely engage questions of dynamic exchange. They tend instead to posit two separate, autonomous systems and then try to gauge how accurately or effectively the one represents the other The exchange of social energy is limited by what he lists as "certain abjurations": "1. There can be no appeals to genius as the sole origin of the energies of great art.
There can be no motiveless creation. There can be no transcendent or timeless or unchanging representation. There can be no autonomous artifacts. There can be no expression without an origin and an object, a from and a for. There can be no art without social energy. There can be no spontaneous generation of social energy" If there is reciprocity of energy between society and the artist, then one of the two needs to initiate a particular discourse.
Even if one were to suppose that "agents of exchange […] appear to be individuals," but are "themselves the products of collective exchange" 12 , there is artistic singularity that differentiates authors and the texts they produce.
Here a social practice or other mode of social energy is transferred to the stage by means of representation. No cash payment is made, but the object acquired is not in the realm of things indifferent, and something is implicitly or explicitly given in return for it.
The transferring agency has its purposes, which may be more or less overt. He admits "[t]here can be no expression without an origin and an object, a from and a for" The complex logical attempt to formulate art as the equal influences of the artist and society ultimately returns to the primary role of the artist. Accordingly, his concept of a "transferring agency" that recognizes an origin of some sort ultimately asks the question of artistic intention.
Again, Greenblatt compromises his balance between artist and society by stating that "[t]here can be no motiveless creation" From this point forward he uses the concept of intention as the fulcrum to support his assertions of social energy in Harriot and Shakespeare.
Before analyzing the intentions Greenblatt identifies in A Brief and True Report and Henry V, it is necessary to examine his perspective on Elizabethan theater companies and the role of intention in the exchange of social energy. In the second section of "Invisible Bullets," Greenblatt states that "Elizabethan playing companies contrived to absorb, refashion, and exploit some of the fundamental energies of a political authority that was itself already committed to histrionic display and hence was ripe for appropriation" Why would they, considering the dire consequences of such overt action?
Certainly, this is an intense exchange of social energy, but it is doubtful that an Elizabethan theater company would purposely implicate itself in a potentially life and death controversy over treason. Nonetheless, Greenblatt is correct in identifying a transference of social energy between artist and society. Even without a clearly discernible intention, a work of art can both feed and consume such social energy.
This artifact is not autonomous in the sense that it cannot be interpreted or traced, but rather its composition is the flint upon which both artist and society are kindled. For Richard II, this artifact is constituted by the previous histories and plays dealing with the career of Richard II. The story itself is loaded with potential controversy; the play was produced in and then used by the Essex faction six years later.
Although Patterson specifically focuses on the Chronicles, and I will be returning to her work for my discussion of Henry V, she utilizes an approach that is also useful for the discussion of Harriot. Indeed, for Habermas, most contemporary thinkers "have lost all sense of historical perspective by forgetting their origins in early modern Europe" Greenblatt admits that "the historical evidence is unreliable; even in the absence of social pressure, people lie readily about their most intimate beliefs" He does, however, equate atheism with political subversion as impacting sixteenth century society.
He implies that religious leaders use religion and the fear of the unknown to maintain civil order. Greenblatt also traces this idea in The Prince. Nor is it concerned with religion. And though we should not consider Moses, because he was simply an agent sent by God to do certain things, he still should be admired, if only for that grace which made him worthy of talking with God" Moses, then, does not quite fit the mold of the pragmatic politician; he is, as attested by Machiavelli, an agent of God and separate.
He refers to Ralegh as a "poet and a freethinker" and the charge of treason makes it easier for Greenblatt to lump the charge of atheism on top of it. He justifies this with a very tidy syllogism; he asserts that "no one who actually loved and feared God would allow himself to rebel against an anointed ruler, and atheism, conversely, would lead inevitably to treason" Augustine, who was utilized by both Catholics and Protestants in the sixteenth century, clearly sets God apart from both man and angels: "there can be no unchangeable good except our one, true, and blessed God" XII.
The closest that man can achieve is a poor image of God. Aside from his exclusion of degrees of sin and the nature of conscience, Greenblatt would require some evidence that Elizabeth I considered herself to be God and not just the representative of God. He then segues into the Algonquin religious system and its class of priests and their deference to the English; this becomes "the very core of the Machiavellian anthropology that posited the origin of religion in an imposition of socially coercive doctrines by an educated and sophisticated lawgiver on a simple people" It must be remembered that Harriot prefaces his report as a correction to other reports of Virginia which "have not done a little wrong to many that otherwise would have also favored and adventured in the action, to the honor and benefit of our nation, besides the particular profit and credit which would redound to themselves […]" 1.
Harriot is setting out to entice investors and farmers into settling the territory in the New World. Harriot would most likely persuade such "adventurers" by using recognizable metaphors; it makes more familiar what is seemingly foreign. Greenblatt infers that Harriot sees the natives as simplistic with regard to religion because they saw European technology as divinely inspired Indeed, Harriot, an Englishman, is seemingly more tolerant of the Indians than he would be of Catholics.
Harriot claims to have "[…] made declaration of the contents of the Bible; that therein was set forth the true and only God, and his mightie works that therein was contained the true doctrine of salvation through Christ" After all, Harriot was hounded through his whole life by charges of atheism […]" Once again, this argument faces its toughest opposition from Harriot himself who closes his Brief and True Report by thanking God for the opportunity to serve his country through his exploration and report.
His pronouncement echoes Augustine with regard to the singularity of God. What is remarkable is that Harriot couches his praise in terms that most resemble the words of a subject addressing a lord: "Thus referring my relation to your favorable constructions, expecting good success of the action, from him which is to be acknowledged the author and governor not only of this but all things else, I take my leave of you, this month of February, " He defers to his social superiors yet keeps them temporally separate from Godhead.
These operations serve a paradoxical function. They enforce the official ideological position of a society while subverting it at the same time. The facets of Indian culture, in this case religion, are wrong because they are not Christian. Those similarities in the English religion, though not wrong, are questioned because of the comparison to Indian culture.
The momentary sense of instability or plenitude—the existence of other voices—is produced by the monolithic power that ultimately denied the possibility of plenitude, just as the subversive hypothesis about European religion is tested and confirmed only by the imposition of that religion.
The key to unlocking the subversity within the careful, officially recognized text lies within what is not said, rather than what is stated. Patterson identifies the necessity of multiple voices to represent various opinions. Wherever possible, moreover, diversity should be expressed as multivocality, with the Chronicles recording verbatim what they found in earlier historians or contemporary witnesses. A corollary of this principle was that although the individual chroniclers might hold and express strong opinions of their own, especially on religion, the effect of the work as a whole would be of incoherence […].
Layered within this multivocality is the voice of authoritative erudition. In the margins of the Chronicles lie learned references to past recordings of the history. This strategy allows an individual chronicler to fit within an officially recognized precedent, but at the same time break from that tradition by blending the past account with the contemporary account.
Patterson states that "[…] the typographical strategy of the Chronicles was to indicate the source of a particular passage in the margin, although it is not clear when an older authority is no longer speaking, and the convention is not scrupulously observed" It is this very process that Greenblatt touches upon but does not fully explore in his analysis of Henry V.
Regarding Henry V, Greenblatt correctly states that "we have all along been both colonizer and colonized, king and subject" Regarding the chorus, Greenblatt points to the fact that the audience is prodded by constant reminders of a gap between real and ideal […] the ideal king must be in a large part the invention of the audience […]. This echoes his earlier equation between king and God. Henry exclaims, "God keep me so" 4. In reference to Charles and Isabel of France, Henry states that he honors them "as it fitteth and seemeth so worthie a prince and princesse to be worshipped, principallie before all other temporall persons of the world" Once again, Greenblatt has taken a conceptual potential to a monolithic, if not dubious conclusion.
Greenblatt states that "by yoking together diverse peoples—represented in the play by the Welshman Fluellen, the Irishman Macmorris, and Scotsman Jamy, who fight at Agincourt alongside the loyal Englishmen—Hal symbolically tames the last wild areas in the British Isles […]" Greenblatt takes advantage of this departure from Holinshed to analyze the recording of the various dialects of the represented tribes. He is, however, mistaken when he claims that "the verbal tics of such characters interest us because they represent not what is alien but what is predictable and automatic" Greenblatt states that "the moment is potentially devastating" Good husband, come home presently" 2.
As soon as Fluellen finishes his analysis, the king triumphantly enters. Greenblatt also sees the hanging of Bardolph as another incriminating moment that is subsumed within the greater political event of war I speak but in the figures and comparisons of it […]" 4. Because Greenblatt cannot discern authorial intention behind the dialogue between Fluellen and Gower, he assumes that subversion was not complete.
The people of the countries there—about, hearing of such zeale in him, to the maintenance of justice, ministered to his armie victuals, and other necessaries, although by open proclamation so to doo they were prohibited" The marginal notations beside this account read, "Justice in warre" and "Note the force of justice. There cannot be open antagonism toward the monarch, either in the play or in reality; it has to come in the "gap between the real and ideal" Greenblatt As Fluellen points out, he speaks in figures and comparisons.
Like the marginalia in the Chronicles, Fluellen uses a reference to the past as a springboard into a commentary on the present.
Stephen Greenblatt - Invisible Bullets
As civilisation was purportedly impossible without Christianity , this was to be imposed upon the Native Americans. Firstly, that the natives had a degree of religion to their culture of which Harriot drew parallels to Christianity. Secondly, he noticed that everyday non- divine objects caused the natives to believe in the divinity of the invaders, noting "Most things they saw with us, as mathematical instruments, sea compasses, the virtue of the lodestone in drawing iron, a perspective glass whereby was shown many strange sights, burning glasses, wildfire works, gun, book, writing and reading, spring clocks that seemed to go off by themselves, and many other things that we had, were so strange unto them and so far exceeded their capabilities to comprehend the reason and means how they should be made and done that they thought they were rather the works of gods than of men, or at the leastwise they had been given and taught us of the gods"  It would seem that Harriot used this to impose Christianity upon the natives. At one point, as the native crop was scarce one year, Harriot suggested that the Christian God would provide better for their land. This theory immediately implies maliciousness and Machiavellian callousness; this is not always the case. Greenblatt takes pains to stress that Harriot may not have been acting maliciously. If the subversion and containment were invisible to Harriot , he would be merely an agent of hegemony.
GREENBLATT INVISIBLE BULLETS PDF
Invisible Bullets: What Lucretius Taught Us About Pandemics