1 Abstract
This thesis investigates spectator expectations of Milton’s Comus. A comparative analysis between Comus, and Jonson’s Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue and Masque of Queens shows that the first presents, to its original audience, its primary virtue of temperance with important novel characteristics. While Jonson’s two masques were presented to their audiences in a conventional manner, Milton drastically altered the masque’s conventional characteristics and the meaning of the primary virtue to the spectators. This thesis will therefore discuss that Comus’ performance resulted in new manner of presenting a primary virtue. It will prove that in Milton’s masque, contrasting the other two, spectators were confronted, rather than complimented by the conditional nature of temperance.
2 Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the people who have been of great help to me during the thesis process this semester. First of all, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor dr. van Pelt, whose advice and guidance helped me through the entire investigation. She has assisted me greatly in further developing my academic skills. Secondly, I would like to thank my girlfriend, Laura McManus, who, as a native English speaker, gave me important advice on grammatical and stylistic matters. Lastly, I thank my family for having supported me during my research.
3 Table of Contents
Introduction ……….…. 4
Chapter 1 - The Historical Context of the Masque ...……….. 11
Chapter 2 - The Display of Temperance in Comus ………...…. 21
Chapter 3 - The Political Context of the Original Performance ………...… 34
Chapter 4 - The presentation of Virtue in Jonson’ Masque of Queens and Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue ……… 43
Conclusion ………...…... 58
4 Introduction
As an author, Milton has received much scholarly attention. For one, his epic Paradise Lost has been revealed by Lewalski (113) to advocate several of Milton’s complex political ideas. Yet, this epic is not his only political text, as he has also written, among other texts, a masque called Comus. The latter text, even though it has not been investigated as frequently as Paradise Lost, has still received scholarly attention (Brown 25, Coiro 89). Nevertheless, it can still be researched more, because even though the masque’s political and moral framework has been investigated thoroughly by critics such as Marcus (318), its original audience can still receive more examination. While most scholars of Comus have focussed on thematic and political elements of this masque, this thesis will aim to establish a connection between this political framework and the original spectators of Comus. The links between such examinations will show that Milton presents his masque in an unexpected manner to his original audience because, but his protagonist, rather than a monarch, receives central importance and she is responsible for her own temperance. Moreover, the main character is directly confronted by Comus, the greatest anti-masquer of the performance. Precisely with these points, Comus deviates from many other masques, as this thesis will discuss.
First produced in September 1634, Comus presents the virtue of temperance to its original audience. This thesis will argue that temperance is of central importance in the message that Milton attempted to convey to his audience. Marcus has already shed light on this political message and suggested that the performance was a critical response to the rape case of Margery Evans (323), an event that occurred three years before the masque was performed. Furthermore, Mundhenk (141–42) has associated temperance to a cleansing ritual, which was necessary to purify the patrons of the performance, the Egertons. This purification
5 was necessary, because the Egertons had suffered from a sexual scandal within their own family as well. Still, not only political elements differentiate Milton’s Comus, but also textual differences can be discerned between this masque and a number of masques preceding it; because masques were written within a theatrical convention, Milton’s audience would have expected Milton to present the virtue of temperance within such a conventional framework. Yet, as this thesis will show, compared to Jonson’s Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue and his Masque of Queens, Milton presents temperance in a rather different light. These texts offer good comparisons to Milton’s, because they were more conventional court masques presented directly to the king. Also, Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue presents the character of Comus just as Comus does. Furthermore, Masque of Queens has a central female character, similar to Comus’ protagonist, the Lady. Yet, while Milton’s Lady is responsible for her own temperance, Jonson’s masques present their central virtues as being derived from the King of England.
Temperance in Comus, at the same time, includes criticism towards the four civil servants who lived at Ludlow Castle, the place Comus was performed in 1634 (Marcus 295). While in Jonson’s masques, the courtly audience is invited to identify themselves with the performing masquers, not the anti-masquers, Milton’s masque has been analysed by Marcus to blame four officials present through comparing them to the greatest anti-masquer in the text, Comus (316). Moreover, Smialkowska has revealed that in Jonson’s Masque of Queens, the virtuous masquers do not confront the anti-masquers and are thus never actually endangered by vice (268-69). This thesis will thus discuss that the Lady in Comus is in danger of becoming intemperate, because she is, in contrast to Jonson’s masque, is actually directly confronted by temptation. This specific comparison has not been investigated before, but it can contribute to the debate about the spectator expectations of Milton’s Comus.
6 Through detailed analyses of three masques, such expectations will be examined to further understand the context of Comus’ original audience.
In order to fully comprehend the expectations a seventeenth-century audience would have had of Comus, a historical context has to be provided. My first chapter will therefore discuss the historical background of court performances and then it will describe, in detail, the genre of the masque. This approach is necessary, because, before one can go into a detailed analysis of masques, these performances must be placed into the context of Renaissance theatre performances in general. Furthermore, because this thesis is written for a twenty-first-century audience, it is vital to explain the differences in performance expectations between seventeenth-century theatre performances and those of the present day. Moreover, as Milton’s masque differs in many ways to those preceding him, an investigation of the genre of the masque is in order. In this manner, Milton’s text can be placed within the context of this genre, and the important differences become clearer. Therefore, the first chapter will present, firstly, a general discussion about the development of theatre performances in the seventeenth century, and secondly both the origins of the masque as well as the development that masques went through in the Stuart monarchies.
The second chapter will then examine specifically in what manner temperance is displayed in Comus. It will discuss, first, the centrality of the Lady and her ability to make her own moral decisions, which is the reason she remains temperate. Secondly, where the monarch is central in many seventeenth-century masques, in Comus, a monarch is not even mentioned. The performance was at Ludlow castle, rather than at the royal court and celebrated the appointment of the Earl of Bridgewater as the Lord President of Wales. Even so, the influential earl too receives relatively little attention in Comus and is certainly not of central importance. Thirdly, this chapter will discuss how the Lady is in danger of becoming intemperate mostly because she is actually confronted by intemperance. According to
7 Marcus, one of the greatest dangers she faces is to lose her chastity to the evil character of Comus (318). She stands out though, because even though she is confronted with such evil, she is able to recognise the danger and chooses not to give into it. This chapter will thus reveal how Comus would have been conceived as an original performance by its original spectators, because it displayed different characteristics than many conventional masques of the genre.
The third chapter will then discuss the moral and political framework of Comus. It will argue that temperance is associated with the Egerton family’s need to cleanse itself from a rape scandal (Mundhenk 143), as well as the importance of the Evans’ rape case prior to the masque (Marcus 294). As Mundhenk argues, the Lord Egerton, Earl of Bridgewater, was assigned the important official function of Lord President of Wales in 1631, but was unable to actually fill the position until 1634. The prolonging of this appointment was due to a rape scandal in the aristocrat’s own family. This sexual wrongdoing was linked to the Earl’s sister-in-law, the Lady Anne, who had married Mervyn Touchet, Earl of Castlehaven. The marriage proved to be problematic as this lady was maltreated several times by her husband (142), something that will be discussed thoroughly in this chapter. These problems damaged the reputation of the entire family and for this reason Lord Egerton could not receive his appointment earlier, even though he was not involved directly in the offences. According to Mundhenk, Comus was thus presented partly as a release of this damaging family dishonour (143). Nonetheless, this rape crime was not the only legal case preceding and influencing the masque. As Marcus points out, Comus was also directly linked to another famous rape case, called the ‘Margery Evans’ case. This lawsuit included a victim of rape from the lower classes, who had been abused by a member of the gentry (294). Surprisingly, from a modern western perspective, the result was that Margery was thrown into jail, while the felon retained his freedom. The Earl of Egerton was able to right some of this injustice and assisted
8 Margery Evans (295), as will be discussed in more detail in the chapter. Comus thus also offered critique at the deficient legal system of the seventeenth century and, above all, at the court officials whom Marcus believed were present when the masque was staged. These men, Marcus suggests, had been responsible for the malpractice of justice in the legal battle between a lower class girl and an aristocratic official (295). So, as chapter three will show, Comus’ dubious personality symbolises that of the corrupt judges of Margery Evans and thus this anti-masquers actually represents the judges that were present at the performance. This chapter will show, then, that in the demonstration of temperance, part of the audience is criticised because of the very reason that they are forced to identify with Comus. This identification thus makes Comus and its presentation of temperance different than previous masques, where there was no such comparison between spectators and anti-masquers.
Finally, the fourth chapter will compare Comus to Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue and Masque of Queens to show how Comus’s presentation of temperance differs from these preceding masques. The analysis will claim that, based on these earlier masques, Milton’s audience would have expected temperance to be presented according to the convention of the Stuart court masque (as discussed above). Even though the political implications of the performance have been proven by the scholars mentioned above, the effect that the novel display of temperance would have had on the original spectators of Comus has not been discussed before. However, considering how temperance was displayed is important to fully understand any of the political implications Marcus and Mundhenk have unveiled. An obvious way to deliberate the difference of the display of temperance in Comus compared to previous masques is to compare the masque to those mentioned above. Because masques were often played at court, such as Jonson’s, it may not be surprising that Comus, presented at the provincial Ludlow Castle in Wales, would be different. Indeed, the King was not present and receives no central importance in the masque. Amazingly though, neither does
9 the earl of Egerton receive such centrality, while he is the patron of Milton and actually acts similarly to a monarch within his own dominion (Cox 623). The audience must have expected a degree of convention in the aristocratic masque and certainly the Earl, according to convention, should have received more importance than he did in this particular masque. According to Coiro, by convention, lady characters were “silent allegorical ideals” (3), but in Comus the opposite is true. While in Jonson’s two performances the morality of the characters stems from their monarch, who is ultimately responsible for their virtues, in Comus it is the Lady’s own consciousness that prevails over temptation. It is therefore not a monarch and not the earl of Bridgewater who are responsible for the displayed temperance, and for this reason the fifth chapter will show that Milton presents a new attitude of displaying virtues.
Moreover, Milton’s contemporary audience would expect a separation between masquers and anti-masquers, as in Jonson’s Masque of Queens, such a distinction is visible. According to Smialkowska, “the worlds of the anti-masquers and the revels are mutually exclusive, and no confrontation between them is possible” (269). Furthermore, the aristocratic audience is expected to identify with the masquers, who are clearly superior to the anti-masquers (269). As such, an audience from 1634 would expect no confrontation between the two, but a presentation of one after the other. In this setup, Comus is radically different than Jonson’s masques and the Lady is “granted real temptation and formidable enemies” (Coiro 9), because she is actually tempted and confronted by the anti-masquer Comus. What is important here is not only the implication that the Lady’s own moral choice is what makes her temperate. It is also that the conditional nature of temperance was to be noticed by the audience, and most importantly that Comus was also to be identified with a number of corrupt civil servants present.
10 Comus, then, must be seen in the historical context of 1634 and as a performance where the original audience expected certain conventions that were vitally altered in this work. As such, Milton’s efforts brought with them an air of political resonance as critique was delivered on the legal system and particularly on a number of corrupt members of the gentry, who were present at the original masque. Moreover, Milton will have surprised his spectators, as Comus differs much from court masques, particularly because its presentation of temptation was of such unique quality. This thesis explores politically informed spectator experiences in 1634 and will suggest that Milton surprised and possibly shocked his audience with Comus’ display of temperance.
11 Chapter One
The Historical Context of the Masque
Before one can fully research any spectator expectations of Comus’ original performance, one has to place the text into its historical context. Therefore, this chapter will first discuss some general characteristics of seventeenth-century performances, and then it will focus on the origins of the masque, while finally it will consider how the masque developed over time up to 1634, the year that Comus was staged.
First, seventeenth-century performances were either staged at a private or royal court or at a public theatre. According to Orgel, in the Renaissance, court audiences were different from public audiences and presented a different theatrical experience. The actors playing in these performances also had a different social status; the public actors were considered vagabonds of low social status, while the opposite was true for court actors, who were seen as gentlemen (1). Both of these aspects are important to the discussion about spectator expectations, because the actors at court could intertwine with or even consist of members of the audience, as will be explained later in the chapter.
Importantly, the public theatre generated its own audience and was only successful if individual citizens were willing to attend plays. The producers of public performances, Orgel reasons, had a target group in mind and tried to lure them to the theatres (6). The reason for the need of a theatre, Mosely adds, is the insurance they provided. Before these public theatres, actors performed on the streets, but those watching these performances were prone to walk away quicker than when they went to a public theatre. Because in the latter’s case, the visitors knew what they came for, payed for it in advance and were positioned in a closed
12 space. Therefore, they were more reluctant to merely walk away when or if they lost interest (17).
The court performances, then, were entirely different because they were created by the audiences themselves. They were not staged for a certain target group, but they were designed for a particular occasion (Orgel 6). In the seventeenth century, these acts were often there to honour royal power and affirm the dominance of the aristocratic community (8). According to Hadorn, court masques became the prevalent form of entertainment in James I’s
reign and presented an “ideal world which an idealised royal family inhabited” (230). The great difference between public and private performances in the Renaissance was therefore that the former was primarily economic in nature, while the latter was principally social and political (Orgel 8).
This thesis will focus on the court performances, rather than the public ones, of the seventeenth century and the attitudes its Renaissance audience had, because Comus and its spectators belong to this category in this period of time. According to Orgel, in the Elizabethan era, a new spectator attitude started to emerge and this attitude would still be prevalent in 1634, when Comus was performed. As such, court audiences from the late sixteenth century on started to form a division, where the primary viewer was the monarch and the secondary audience consisted of courtiers. The performance itself was directed chiefly at the monarch, while the others present watched not merely the performance itself, but also the monarch at the performance. The monarch, seated on the stage itself was thus often part of the action and was usually acknowledged explicitly (9). Even though the monarch only heard and observed the entertainment, because of the placement at the stage, the monarch became, Hadorn claims, “the most important character in the production” (231).
13 This central setting then culminated in so-called ‘perspective settings’ in 1605, in the reign of King James. These settings, only in use at the courts when royalty was present, centralised the monarch in the performance and this decision created an even greater hierarchy for the audience (10). Orgel explains how these settings worked; these experiences had one focal point, one central point where all the stage effects were directed towards. At this point, the monarch was seated and around the sovereign the courtiers were placed; the closer they were to the monarch, the more royal favour they enjoyed. In this way, the court performances developed into highly political acts (10).
Next, it is vital to view the Renaissance performances as primarily auditory in nature. As Mosely states, during Renaissance performances audiences expected to hear performances and did not visit them to ‘see’ them (16). This view was associated, Mosely suggests, to the Protestant idea that one must not perceive “glazed representations of saints or martyrs” (16), as seen in the Pre-Protestant churches. So, on the stage too, visual illusions were dreaded and not trusted (16). Orgel adds that an actor, rather than merely showing his actions without explanation, tried to convince the audience of the meaning of any actions he performed (17). Even though, the act could be both verbal and visual, the actors were less separated from their audiences than in modern theatres. In the Renaissance performances, spectators were constantly addressed, while in present acts the audience is expected to consist of invisible passive viewers (19). A great part of the action thence included the judgements the audience made, rather than what they merely viewed on stage. Such performances could have expensive machines and visual effects, but these were adopted to intensify the speech, and thus the oral part, of the actors (20). In this manner, dialogue, movement and gesture all reinforced the message of the performance. There was not much action that did not have a rhetorical counterpart, and few gestures went unaided by words (24). Such differences from
14 modern standards therefore are to be taken into account when one researches the expectations Comus’ audience would have had.
Taking the general points about Renaissance court performances discussed above into account, this chapter will proceed to a discussion about the masque. It is necessary to look into the origins of the masque to fully appreciate the setting of Comus and its presentation of temperance to its audience. First of all, Shullenberger claims that masques originated for a great part in folk festivals where fertility and transformation of the seasons were celebrated (49). In these festivals, it was believed that rituals that included dance and music would ensure the continuation of life and the return of spring and thus were believed to ensure that crops and plant life would grow again (49). Because of this thematic element, masques were, according to Brown, always held at the end of the winter season (25). Resetarits adds that the masque originated in this pastoral manner in Italy, but the focus there was mostly on visual spectacle. It was actually the French ballet de cour that had a significant influence on the English masque. Its first performance, called Circe, was staged in 1581 (79) and here, Coiro reasons, so-called anti-masque elements (which will be explained later) were introduced and music became central to the spectacle, both of which would be adopted by the English (90). Yet, it was in England that the masque became the most dramatic, during the combined efforts of Inigo Jones and Ben Jonson between the years 1605-1630. In this period, the masques became strongly related to aristocratic courts (Resetarits 79).
In England, the masque became important because it was able to present an image of the absolute monarch. Orgel reasons that, at the start of the seventeenth century, the original pastoral mode was not adopted by the royal court. Instead, cities and palaces were idealised and contrasted with the wildness of nature and roughness of peasant society (50). Yet, according to Shullenberger, this form of pastoral festival developed and was incorporated into the courts over time, where they became celebrations of the aristocracy and the monarch
15 (49). This incorporation of pastoral elements is then explained by Orgel, who claims that at first Jonson and Jones produced masques that started with settings that were very far away in the wilderness and that they moved towards the court where civilisation was present and symbolised the court itself. At such a courtly end setting, the masquers would join in and perform dance acts. Yet, a change occurs in later masques where the starting point was generally a palace, while the entire performance ended in nature (51). This change in focus was due to the monarchy’s wish to become more centralized. The monarchs in seventeenth-century England became progressively more interested in presenting themselves as pastoral deities, because this presentation made the monarchy seem more benign. The king thus became a controller of nature that was responsible for the return of the light of spring and the restart of the growing of food. There is thence a move from the king as centre of the court to the king as a classical deity, a centre of the universe (52).
A part of this control over nature consisted of controlling human feelings of desire. The Stuart masques therefore started to include many themes of repression of these urges and this suppression in turn can be seen in the three masques that will be discussed in the next chapters of this thesis. The desires then had to be played out against the control of desires and this was established in another ritualist manner. There came a distinction between the masque and the anti-masque where the former represented an orderly and ideal harmony, while the latter represented chaotic desire. These two forms would be enacted, where the first would be played by the courtiers and the last by professional actors (Shullenberger 50). Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue is a good example of the contrast between the two forms. Here, the masquers are introduced as all-knowing heroes:
All lines And signs
16 See how they come and show,
That are but born to know (ll. 167–71).
This scene illustrates that when the courtiers enter the stage, they are presented as those who enjoyed a royal upbringing and, due to their high stations in life, they are born with knowledge. The anti-masquers, on the other hand, are clearly portrayed as beings filled with negative and base desires, an example of which is the belly-God Comus, who “first invented the hogshead and tun, The gimlet and vice too” (ll. 9–10). Here, Comus is introduced as one who has invented vice and one who is clearly a glutton: “Devourer of broiled, baked, roasted, or sod, And emptier of cups, be they even or odd” (ll. 19–20). The contrast between the two forms is very clear, as the first presents wise heroes, while the second introduces creatures filled with negative urges.
A very important consideration to the debate about spectator considerations is the build-up of the masque, as the masquers would follow after the anti-masquers had exited the stage. This presentation is explained by Smialkowska, who stresses that the masquers did not confront the anti-masquers as they the former were considered superior to the latter. The audience present had to identify with the virtuous masquers, and thus this form was the one that ever won over the desires of the anti-masquers. Smialkowska emphasises that the masquers were considered morally supreme, while the anti-masquers were positioned at the other side of the “moral globe” (268). Masques, for this reason, were stressing that the two must be separated and not confronted by one another (269). The two forms were thus to be performed after one another, where the masquers would always claim superiority and were presented last.
The masque then, as a genre, was the opposite of the satire. According to Orgel, it educated through praise, “by creating heroic roles for the leaders of society to fill” (40). He
17 adds that the masque was not just a flattering performance for a proud nobility, but that the aristocracy that lived in the Renaissance firmly believed that one could persuade and transform existing society through the power of art (40). Orgel links this educating role to the views of seventeenth-century monarchies and he claims that a central idea of the period was that the king had an exemplary role towards his subordinates. The appearance of virtue was an important part of this role and the king therefore had to be presented as virtuous as much as possible in masques (42). As one has seen above, the king was presented as responsible for the central virtues of the masques and the victory over negative human desires. For this reason, Charles I, Orgel adds, was not just passively watching masques, but because it involved his own virtuous presentation, he had much influence in their composition. Thus, in his reign, the masque became “an extension of the royal mind” (43). In this manner, the king aimed to incorporate virtues into the masques he and usually also the courtiers perceived as valuable support to the royal cause. Masques therefore celebrated the way the monarch and his courtiers wished to view themselves and this is in turn created a sense that all members present belonged to a leading aristocracy that had a responsible role in society (Orgel 60, Shullenberger 51). Brown adds that, in this way, masques promoted royal philosophies that defended the role of the king as absolute monarch. It also presented such royal philosophies in the imaged good of the country (25).
An important way to present the king as virtuous was to make masques extremely expensive, because Orgel argues, in the reign of James I and Charles I, extravagance was seen as a virtue, and these kings showed their generosity to their courtiers partly through patronising costly courtly masques (38). Shullenberger too classes these court masques as “royalist extravaganzas” (47), which showed, partly through their expense, the Stuarts’ wish for complete authority. It was high-priced because the masques were, according to Shullenberger, multimedia productions that consisted of song, dance, poetry and music (51).
18 Moreover, to reinforce the oral elements, expensive stage machines and exquisite costumes were designed to bring awe to the occasion (Coiro 90).
Yet aside from the important thematic context of Renaissance masques, in order to discuss spectator expectations, one has to take into account the important social divisions during these court performances. There was, most crucially, an important social distinction between masque and anti-masque forms as they were both enacted by persons of different functions at court. Orgel states that these role divisions were due to the positions of the courtiers in real life, because even though they were part of the act, they were not professional actors. The professional actors would therefore perform all the speaking roles, such as narrating the story and later, in the reign of James I, they adopted the roles of anti-masquers, who also had speaking parts (40). Of course, the aristocratic community, for whom the performances were produced, had to claim victory over desires and for this reason the courtiers played the masquers that prevailed over the desires of the anti-masquers. Therefore, masques were celebrations of the court, performed for the court and all the courtiers were part of the acts (Shullenberger 38). In this manner, masques symbolised a centralized society, ruled by a responsible monarch, which overcame the desires found in human existence (47).
A last consideration in the discussion towards Renaissance spectator expectations of the masque is to be made of the participators of the performances. As Mundhenk points out, masques often celebrated monarchs at the royal courts and sometimes even a noble patron in provincial ones. Yet, what many masques share is that the dancers often consisted of family members of the patron. As discussed above, the courtiers present would join in the dances, but the family members of the patron lord would get extra attention and often had more important roles in the dances (141).Yet not just family members, but more specifically women family members were allowed to shine on the stage, more than once with leading roles (Coiro 90). Mundhenk points out that feminine roles can be seen in Comus, where not
19 just the sons of the Lord Egerton were part of the masque, but that indeed the Lady Alice Egerton, the daughter of the Earl of Bridgewater, played the protagonist (141). Coiro also adds that many masques before 1634 involved women with leading roles. The queen Henrietta Maria and her ladies were to be seen in several masques, one of which was Artenice (90), and also of course Jonson’s Masque of Queens gives Queen Anne an important role, and this last masque will therefore receive more attention in the last chapter.
To conclude, this chapter has offered the reader a closer look at the context of the masques in the Renaissance. It has explained that the focus of Renaissance performances was of an oral nature with visual elements reinforcing the central philosophy that the monarch wished to advance. Furthermore, masques originated as pastoral festivals, which were invented to give a sense of ritualistic human control over nature. Precisely this last element, seventeenth-century monarchs found useful to their own centralization of power. Therefore, masques started including depictions and comparisons of the English monarch as classical deity, responsible for the return of spring, regrowth of the vegetation and the arrival of the light of day. The English masque thus took elements from a peasant spring celebration and transformed it into a hierarchical power display with a central role for the monarch and other distinguished parts for his close family members. Its royal message reinforced the sense that an aristocracy ruled society and only this high social class, with the monarch at the lead, was able to overcome base human desires. As such, spectators expected to be involved as masquers who would dance after the anti-masquers were presented. This division was emphasised through a complete separation between the two forms where no confrontation was possible. Masquers and anti-masquers were thus on the other side of morality and would simply not interact. Audiences in the Renaissance would thence have had expectations of the masque based on the points made in this chapter: a monarch as central figure and a clear separation between masquers and anti-masquers, who would not confront one another. The
20 next chapter will reveal that Comus actually presents its main virtue, temperance, in a manner that deviates from these general masque elements and therefore must have surprised its audience with its alternative performance.
21 Chapter Two
The Display of Temperance in Comus
As the previous chapter has shown, seventeenth-century English monarchs took a central role in their court masques. They acted as generous patrons of court performances and because of this role they were described as being primarily responsible for the virtues presented by the masque in question. The previous chapter also examined the different roles of masquers and anti-masquers, which did not confront one another in the conventional court masque, because society believed the represented virtues and vices to be on different sides of morality. Taking these elements into consideration, this second chapter will reveal that, in Comus, the Lady is in fact confronted by Comus, who tempts her with a magic cup, after which they discuss whether or not the Lady should remain temperate. In Comus, there is thus a direct confrontation to be seen between the virtuous Lady and the malevolent Comus. Furthermore, it is not the monarch or even the patron of the performance that is central, but the protagonist is. She has her own conscience with which she is able to decide how to remain temperate and she therefore does not need the king for that responsibility. Consequently, it is her task to recognise seduction and not give in to its temptations. These two significant characteristics present virtue differently than earlier court masques did.
First of all, Comus indicates that he plans to trap a chaste person, in this way inviting a confrontation. In the dark forest, he hears a chaste person near him: “I feel the different space,/ of som chast footing neer about this ground” (ll. 145–46). Next, he expresses the wish to deceive that particular person with his power of his illusion:
My dazzling spells into the spungy ayr, Of power to cheat the eye with blear illusion
22 And give it false presentments, lest the place,
And my quaint habits breed astonishment, And put the Damsel to suspicious flight,
Which must not be, for that’s against my course (ll. 154–59).
This passage illustrates Comus’ wish to entrap the Lady, who he calls ‘Damsel’, and it forewarns a confrontation between the two. In order to trick the protagonist, Comus states that he will portray himself to the Lady as a friendly creature:
I under fair pretence of friendly ends, And well placed words of glozing courtesie, Baited with reasons not unplausible
Wind me into the easie-hearted man, And hug him into snares (ll. 161–64)
Here, Comus is explained to pretend to be friendly and through polite speech he intends to lure the Lady into a snare. He intents, the passage explains, to trick the Lady with reasoning and as such presents a danger this inexperienced, naïve person. His pretence consists of a deception, because the Lady will be more likely to believe him if he pretends to “appear [as]som harmless Villager” (l. 166). His ruse is proven to be effective at first, because she accepts Comus’ lies and follows him; she even explicitly states that she trusts him: “I take thy word,/ and trust thy honest offer’d courtesie” (ll. 321–22). A scene such as this, staged in this dark forest is, according to Resetarits, a symbol for the need to discover oneself (83) and the Lady’s unsuspicious behaviour can therefore be seen as naïve. She will discover, as the next paragraph will show, that one cannot simply trust every harmless-looking person and through this discovery she will learn more about herself and her strength as a character.
23 The danger of a confrontation with Comus is emphasised by the Attendant Spirit, who claims that Comus is:
Deep skill’d in all his mother’s witcheries, And here to every thirsty wanderer, By sly enticement gives his banefull cup,
With many murmurs mixt, whose pleasing poison The visage quite transforms of him that drinks, And the inglorious likeness of a beast
Fixes instead, unmoulding reasons mintage Character’d in the face (ll. 523–30).
This passage clearly shows that Comus, in the past, has been able to turn wandering persons into beasts with his charms and magic. He is able to perform this act with the power of his cup, and those who drink from it are explained to transform into beasts. The change on the victims’ faces then is explained to no longer possess reason, and this consequence of intemperance is the Lady’s greatest danger. Resetarits explains that the original masque included anti-masque revellers that were represented as part animal and part human. These animal-like followers described in the passage are these anti-masquers and according to Resetarits, they have drunk from the cup, which in turn makes them intemperate (83). This transformation from human to beast as a result of the drink is indeed further referred to in the text:
Soon as the Potion works, their human count’nance, Th’express resemblance of the gods, is chang’d into some brutish form (ll. 68–70).
24 The message that this scene portrays is clear: those human being who indulge in the contents of Comus’ cup lose their human characters, their resemblances to rational divine inhabitants, and turn into something instinctive and brutal.
Next, Comus is able to trap his victims, because, the Attendant Spirit explains, he has
Many baits, and guileful spells:
To inveigle and invite th’unwary sense
Of them that pass unweeting by the way (ll. 537–39).
Comus is shown to be dangerous to the Lady here, because he has the ability to overcome his victims’ sense, which results in their drinking from the cup. Indeed, as seen above, Comus does succeed in overcoming her rational thinking, luring the lady into his trap and this confrontation allows him, as will be explained in the next paragraph, the chance to charm her into becoming intemperate.
Comus actually poses a danger to the lady both physically and mentally, and for this reason, Shuger states, she risks losing both her virginity and her temperance (2).When Comus traps the Lady, he notes that he holds physical power over her with his wand: “if I but wave this wand,/ your nerves are all chain’d up” (ll. 659–60). Through controlling her nerves, stopping any form of physical movement, he ensures she cannot flee from him. At the same time, though, he tries to persuade her that she must give in to pleasure: “See here all the pleasures/That fancy can beget on youthful thoughts” (ll. 669–70). This tactic instantly reveals that he holds no mental control over her, and still needs to overwhelm her sense. Comus then continues by claiming that the Lady is cruel to herself, because she does not make use of the body that nature has given her: “why should you be so cruel to your self,/ And to those dainty limms which nature lent” (ll. 679–80). These lines contain Comus’
25 explicit statement that the Lady should use her body for pleasure and therefore suggest that he desires her to lose her innocence. Indeed, Comus explains to her, using her body would be:
Refreshment after toil, ease after pain, That have been tir’d all day without repast, And timely rest have wanted (ll. 687–89).
His strategy here is to present intemperance as pleasure. After all the struggles that the Lady has endured, he now argues that she can rest and be refreshed. Because she refuses to do so, the moral protagonist, according to Comus, “Harshly deal[s] like an ill borrower” (l. 683). The reasoning here is that she borrows her body wrongfully, because she does not use that which nature has lent her: her body parts. What follows is that these two passages show how the Lady is confronted and endangered by Comus, who tries to overpower her sense through different lies and through presenting his illusionary reality to her.
There are more lines that cover Comus’ desire to coax the Lady into sexual acts. In one line, Comus wishes the Lady’s body to be used, because otherwise it would be a “waste fertility” (l. 729). He then explains that it is “foolishness of men” (l. 706), to praise “lean and sallow abstinence” (l. 709). To be temperate, Comus argues, is to be ungrateful to God:
If all the world
Should in a pet of temperance feed on pulse
Drink the clear stream, and nothing wear but Frieze,
Th’All-giver would be unthank’t, would be unprais’d (ll. 720–23).
Comus also claims that the Lady must not be proud of the “Vaunted name Virginity” (l.738). Indeed, she must rather partake in an act that “consists in mutual and partak’n bliss” (l. 741). Even though Comus does not explicitly state that she must lose her virginity, the fact that she
26 must not present herself as a virgin, or waste her fertility, plus the suggestion that mutual bliss is to be enjoyed with nature’s borrowed limbs, create the sense that Comus wishes her to have sexual intercourse with him. These suggestions exemplify why the temptation scene is therefore, as Shuger claims, “clearly a seduction” (2), where the sexual descriptions “identify the danger facing the lady as the threat of rape” (2). The point of the descriptions can indeed be seen as identifications of danger to the lady’s temperance, both physically through sexual acts, and mentally, as she could lose her sense to Comus. Whether or not Comus’ attempts must be interpreted as the threat of rape, giving in to sexual intercourse, and in turn losing her virginity, would surely make the Lady act intemperately.
On the other hand, aside from the dangers the world hides, the masque also explains that virtuous souls are able to win over vice. The weapons to defend oneself against temptation are actually not, as the Attendant Spirit explains to the two Brothers, psychical in nature:
thy sword can do thee little stead; Farr other arms, and other weapons must
Be those that quell the might of hellish charms (ll. 611–13)
Rather than requiring swords to defeat Comus, one needs a strong conscience. Even though Comus presents a danger to the Lady, she explains herself that a virtuous person is assisted by a strong consciousness: “The vertuous mind, […] ever walks attended/ By a strong siding champion Conscience” (ll. 211-12). Moreover, after Comus has revealed his true nature, she states:
Fool do not boast,
Thou canst not touch the freedom of my minde With all thy charms, although this corporal rinde
27 Thou haste immanacl’d, while Heav’n see good (ll. 663–65).
The Lady proves here that she recognises that Comus is in truth evil, even though he pretends not to be, and she states that he is tempting her with his charms. Nevertheless, the Lady does not give in to his attempts to rid her of her chastity, and she stresses that he has no power over her conscience or her freedom of mind, even though he has physically confined her. So again there is an emphasis that the battle to remain temperate is not physical, but mental. This point is made explicit through repetition, because the protection a strong conscience offers one is mentioned earlier in the masque as well, by the Elder Brother, who claims: “Vertue may be assail’d, but never hurt, Surprised by unjust force, but not enthrall’d” (ll. 589–90). He thus foreshadows, but also emphasises what is actually going to happen to the lady, who is assaulted and surprised by Comus, but nonetheless does not lose her temperance.
Before one is able to combat vice though, one must recognise it first. The Lady’s judgement is therefore just as vital as her virtue. For one, she explicitly reasons that Comus attempts to charm her judgement:
This Jugler
Would think to charm my judgement, as mine eyes,
Obtruding from false rules pranckt in reasons garb (ll. 757–59).
Even though Comus, as shown above, attempts to create the illusion that he offers the Lady nothing but pleasure, she recognises that he lies to her. In fact, she explicitly states that Comus does not speak the truth to her: “the truth and honesty/ […] thou hast banish’t from thy tongue with lies” (ll.692–93). She explains to Comus that he, instead of offering her shelter as he had claimed he would do, he
28 with visor’d falsehood and base forgery,
and wouldst […] seek again to trap [her] here
With lickerish baits fit to ensnare brutes” (ll. 697–700).
The Lady, through her recognition of his evil, declines his offer of intemperance: “I would not taste thou treacherous offer” (l. 702). According to the Lady’s judgement, one should rather live according to the “Holy dictate of spare Temperance” (l.767). Living in this faithful manner, rather than through the usage of one’s limbs, as Comus had argued, she believes that “the giver would be better thank’t” (l. 775).
According to Wilkinson, through her refusal of Comus’ offered drink, the audience could see how the protagonist displayed the virtue of chastity. He suggests, though, that the Lady, although physically entrapped, is never in real spiritual danger of becoming intemperate (36). There is only static action and the characters present their virtues in an allegorical manner. The Lady shows the spectator that she conquers Comus’ deceit easily and that therefore there is not a true conflict to be ascertained. He claims that the spectator cannot discern how the Lady succeeds in her triumph over Comus; she just rejects him and is not truly tempted (37). She could not have shown herself to be nearer to danger, because that would, Wilkinson claims, present her as an ignorant character. The idea behind this assumption is, he states, a Platonic one: he or she that is knowledgeable, easily recognizes evil and cannot be persuaded by its vice (37). Wilkinson bases his argument on the Lady’s reaction; she simply rejects Comus’ offer. Wilkinson has thus offered a strong point in questioning the actual danger the Lady finds herself in.
Nonetheless, the danger of desire may be present in other ways. According to Thomas, the characters in the masque are indeed tested by temptations (443). As seen above, the Lady readily believes Comus when he has dressed himself as a harmless villager and she
29 follows him. This naivety is a limitation of the lady’s ability to judge the situation (443). Thomas makes a strong point here, because even though Wilkinson emphasises the lady’s good judgement, she is at first faulty and misjudges the situation. She does not recognize evil instantly and for the spectators there would be tension in that scene, not just static action, as Wilkinson argues (444). As seen above, the masque presents her naivety as a possible danger to herself; she might well have conceded to Comus’ persuasions, because if she believed him at first, why would she not do so later? Moreover, Thomas makes a case of the Lady’s protectors, as women in 1634 were supposed to be under the protection of a male presence. The brothers, as the male characters accompanying their charge, are responsible for their sister’s safety (444). Yet, when the Lady is introduced she claims that her brothers “left [her]” (l. 188). Thus, taking Thomas’ point into account, the lady should not have been left by the inexperienced and young men and through the eyes of an audience in 1634, her loneliness could present a real danger to the Lady’s virtue and virginity. Of course, there is then good reason for her to follow Comus, who she believes at first, as a harmless villager, can take up the role of protector and lead her to safety. Precisely this reasoning actually adds danger to the lady’s predicament, as she needs a male protector and she could find herself trapped when she believes to have found one, which happens of course. Most importantly, Thomas stresses that Comus in the end escapes and the danger of intemperance is not destroyed (445). Indeed, the danger Comus could still pose to the Lady is emphasises by the Attendant Spirit at the end of the masque:
Let us fly this cursed place, Lest the Sorcerer us intice
30 This ending presents a dubious victory for the virtuous characters. The message for the audience could well be that Comus’ danger is still in existence and the spectators need to be able, like the Lady, to recognize temptations and have the right judgement not to give in to them (445).
So far then, the Lady in this masque has been revealed to be the one that, by her own accord, refuses Comus’ tempting offers. By presenting a protagonist with such a central role in overcoming temperance, Comus distinguishes itself from previous court masques. As seen in the previous chapter, the audience would have expected a more central presentation of the masque’s patron, who in this case was the Earl of Bridgewater. Yet, as seen above, he is not responsible for the protagonist’s virtuous behaviour, but she is. Nevertheless, the nobleman is mentioned at the end of the performance:
Not many Furlongs thence Is your Father’s residence, Where many a friend to gratulate His wish’t presence (ll. 946–50).
This scene is clearly positive towards the earl, because his presence is desired. Indeed, later, when the Attendant Spirit presents the young actors (who were at the same time the children of the earl) to their parents, the message is again positive:
Here behold so goodly grown Three fair branches of your own, […]
And sent them here through hard assays […]
To triumph in victorious dance
31 Most importantly, this passage reveals the crucial message that it is the children’s own triumph that is to be praised primarily. Instead of presenting the earl as the victor, in this masque, the children are explicitly described as being tried and most importantly being triumphant in overcoming intemperance. It is therefore not the monarch and certainly not the earl who has received central importance in the masque, and this presentation, as will be shown in the last chapter, differs from conventional court masques. Traditionally, the audience would have expected a different performance, one without this novel and central presentation of the protagonist.
Nevertheless, as the earl and his wife were present themselves during the masque, and as patrons, they were perhaps the most important individuals among the spectators. It is suggested that they had an influence on the manner in which the masque presents its virtues. Resetarits states that the virtues presented are of a rather one-dimensional, and simple nature which was partly because the children were quite young; the daughter was fifteen and the sons even younger. Yet most of all, the presentation of temperance in this straightforward way is what, according to Resetarits, the parents would have desired to see in this family performance (83). The children would be more likely to understand the moral message of their own performance if it presented a fairy-tale like story, where they were expected to side with the virtue, while they should have “antipathy with bad [behaviour]” (83). Wilkinson is also in support of this view and argues that the actors, as children, had roles that were of personal value to the parents and celebrated the strong unity of the family (32). Logically then, Comus presented the children as characters that still have to be educated more in life; it is clear that they still have much to learn, as the lady exemplifies through her naivety, but they are nevertheless exposed as personalities representing a unified and virtuous aristocratic family.
32 The masque thus had some educational message for its actors, and this fact, combined with the straightforward virtue of the Lady’s temperance would be received positively by the parents, in whose honour in the end, the whole performance was staged. The Brothers in this masque are especially in need of learning more about their personalities. Resetarits reasons that these characters have similar roles to their sister, but are less able to be successful (84). The older brother, as shown above, has the proper attitude and morality and even proves right as he argues that the Lady will not give in to intemperance. Yet, even though his foreshadowing proves the triumph of temperance over Comus, he is so concerned with his own thoughts that he does not take immediate action to assist his sister, who is chained up in Comus’ chair (ll. 916–17). The younger brother displays more care, but Resetarits reasons, also takes no action because his feelings are in control. Both these brothers therefore still need to learn to conjoin both wisdom and care in their personalities (84). This display of inexperience makes Comus educational for its actors, which was a beneficial edition to the patron parents.
The personal sphere of the performance is to be taken into account then. Wilkinson suggests that the family and friends watching the spectacle would be enchanted by the action and therefore also concerned with what the actions revealed. He also states that Milton was most conscious of his paying patrons and would aim to incorporate a private importance for the spectators (33). Logically then, the display of a daughter who remains temperate and the sons that are learning to balance between moral thinking and righteous acting would be considered to be of such personal importance and receive positive reactions from a close family audience.
The public nature of the masque also has to be taken into account here. It is precisely remaining temperate, that, Wilkinson argues, was to be emphasised in this performance (34). The words spoken by the Elder Brother in the scene discussed above, which was addressed to
33 his sister, he uttered with the whole household present (34). His moral point, that his sister’s chastity would not fail, and later her confrontation with Comus is where, according to Wilkinson, the greatest interest lay for the audience. The discussion of remaining temperate became a means to compliment Lady Alice, who as a protagonist did not give into temptation, and through her virtue, the family she was associated with was in turn honoured (35).
To conclude this chapter, Comus has been shown to present a Lady that acts as a model of temperance. For its spectators in 1634, the masque offered a number of unconventional characteristics. Alice Egerton, playing the protagonist, received the most important role and with her sense and rational decisions she overcomes the tempting Comus. She is tricked, shackled to a chair, enticed to accept a drink from the magic cup Comus holds into possession, but she remains chastely temperate and her innocent virginity is not corrupted. As a personal member of the family that acted as patrons, her temperance became a compliment to the Earl of Bridgewater and his wife. She and her Brothers might be portrayed as naïve at first, but learn thoroughly that the danger of intemperance lurks in the world and so the masque revealed to the parents that it warned the young actors of these dangers. The audience would therefore not have foreseen Comus’ presentation of temperance because, in conventional masques, patrons were more central and masquers did not confront anti-masquers. Before this difference is highlighted though, this thesis will move on to the political context of the masque. The newly appointed Lord President of Wales was to be complimented not only through his daughter’s display of temperance, but also because of the historical occurrences she symbolised. The next chapter will place Comus in this context to discover more about spectator expectations of the original performance in 1634, based on the judicial events that preceded its presentation.
34 Chapter Three
The Political Context of the Original Performance
The previous chapter discussed how Comus presented its primary virtue of temperance to the original audience in an unconventional manner. The masque became a compliment to the parents of Lady Alice through her proper display of the virtue. Yet, the masque also includes a number of references to scandals that the earl had been involved with. This chapter will progress to discuss these two scandals; one in the aristocrat’s own family, and one that was linked to the law court of Ludlow Castle itself. This chapter will then show how these scandals were associated with Comus and it will also show what effect these relationships would have had on the original audience.
The first scandal was one that profoundly influenced the earl. According to Cox and Mundhenk, it resulted in the family’s public disgrace in 1631 (Cox 623, Mundhenk 142). The chief victims in this belligerent crime were Anne Touchet, who was also the aunt of Alice Egerton, and Anne’s daughter the Lady Elizabeth Audley. Several times, Anne had been sexually abused by her husband, Marvyn Touchet, the earl of Castlehaven. This man was Anne’s second partner, as she had been married before. He was found guilty of a number of sexual offenses against his wife and was consequently put to death in May 1631 (Cox 623). Furthermore, according to Mundhenk, aside arranging a marriage between the twelve year old Elizabeth and his thirteen year old son, Marvyn had also “encouraged his servant Skipton to beget a child on the young Lady Audley”(142). According to Cox, the public received knowledge of the committed crimes in that year, and it became known that there were two other culprits involved, two servants of Marvyn, who were hanged in the same year (Cox 623). Surprising, from a modern Western perspective, is the official response to the victim’s
35 predicament, because Anne Touchet was not granted any royal pardon for her reluctant part in the affair (Mundhenk 142).
The crimes committed by the earl of Castlehaven had publicly affected the Egerton family, because the families were related by blood. For this reason, Mundhenk states that Comus marked the end of three difficult years for the Egertons (142). Even though John had received the position of Lord President in 1631, he was unable to officially fill the position due to the Touchet scandal that was linked to his family (142). Mundhenk states that only when Marvyn’s son had become an adult, appropriate action took place and Marvyn suffered his punishment. Marvyn’s son, Lord Audley, publicly charged his father with the offenses the latter had committed against Anne. As a result of the charges made by his son, Marvyn was condemned to be executed on May 14, 1631 (142). Nevertheless, as mentioned above, the Egerton family suffered humiliation and that is why, when John finally received his Welsh position in 1634, Comus was performed as “deliverance of the entire family from the embarrassment of the recent scandal” (Mundhenk 143). Through its performance, Thomas documents, Comus “appears to reinstate and validate the honor of the Bridgewaters” (442).
There is a clear similarity between Comus and the Castlehaven scandal that offers reasonable evidence that the original audience of the masque was meant to associate Comus with the Castlehaven scandal itself. For one, Thomas reasons that the “sexually transgressive Comus figure suggests […] A Maske ties to [Marvyn] Touchet and the 1631 Castehaven case” (442). Mundhenk then argues that this masque is the only one that shows a victory of virtue over vice through “a test of virginity” (144). The achievement is indeed described in the masque as a victory “O’er sensual Folly and Intemperance” (l. 975). It is thus the sexual theme of the performance that establishes the most logical link to the scandal. Thomas also claims that “the masque must have been at least understood by its audience in the shadow of these concerns about rampant sexuality and female virtue” (442). Thus, the spectators would
36 more likely than not have perceived a relationship between the scandal and the performance. Mundhenk explains that the subject of intemperance must have created a clear association with the offenses committed against Anne Touchet. The victory over vice is thus not merely one that Comus’ Lady enjoys, but it is one that is credited to the entire Egerton family. The fact that the protagonist of the masque was performed by the oldest child of the Egertons only emphasises this point (149). Comus therefore became a performance that was to redeem the Egerton family of crimes they had not committed, but were involuntarily connected with.
Against this historical background, Milton’s masque must thus be placed. The previous chapter has made many comments on the importance that chastity and temperance played in the masque. Cox too associates the presence of chastity to the Castlehaven scandal, yet he reasons that the explicit mentioning of chastity would not simply have involved redeeming the Egerton family in the eyes of the public (624). Rather, the masque included a social debate that had emerged when James 1 ruled and concerned the so-called distinction between “court and country” (624). Milton’s masque then sided with the country party rather than that of the court, because Comus incorporated a perspective that was influenced by country-views. As such, the audience would have identified the masque as anti-court, which will be explained in more detail below. Cox compares the masque to The Court and The Country, written by Nicholas Breton, who advocated that one is independent from any monarch, because of the sole fact that one is able to make moral decisions without a king’s assistance (625). Precisely this element has come forward in chapter two, where the Lady herself is explicitly stated to remain morally temperate. She is able to do so through her own good judgement and the rational decision not to give into Comus’ seductive offers. Most importantly, she was also shown not to be dependent on a monarch. These three findings reinforce Cox’ point and seem to indicate that Milton’s masque was indeed influenced by a country-view. Moreover, Cox adds that the primary virtue that distinguished the country from
37 the court was an attitude towards sexual temperance (626) and it is of course this attitude that Comus, as argued in the second chapter, advocates principally. The idea that Comus merely redeems the family is thus rejected by Cox, who argues that Milton was actually celebrating the earl of Egerton’s decision to move to the country side, and who thus rejected affiliation with the court party (628).
Not only the events at Castle Haven, but a second scandal too has been associated with the masque. It was one that involved the case of Margery Evans, a servant girl who was raped by an associate of the Ludlow court. Marcus explains that this victim, being fourteen years of age, was assaulted in the county of Herefordshire in 1631 by a man called Philbert Burghill and his servant. Margery accused the assailers publicly, after which she herself was thrown into prison. Remarkably, she was able to reach the king’s ear, who responded to her predicament by appointing John Egerton, earl of Bridgewater, to examine the case (293).
Already, taking the previous chapter into account, one may be able to see links between the crime committed against Evans and the threat Comus posed to the Lady in the masque. For this reason, Marcus argues that the masque was not merely a private, but rather a political event (294). She highlights that one of the masque’s most important political points emphasises judicial reform. In Charles I’s reign, attempts were made to improve the judicial
system, and one of his most crucial appointees was John Egerton, who, as Lord President of Wales, controlled an important court of law at Ludlow castle (294).
Even though Wilkinson states that the masque was personal and complimentary to the Egertons, written for its members as a family ritual (32), Marcus’ evidence shows that there was a more public and political dimension to it. It is true that the Comus addresses the Lord and Lady Egerton personally when it presents the parents with their acting children:
38 I have brought ye new delight.
Here behold so goodly grown
Three fair branches of your own (ll. 966–69)
Moreover, when the occasion of Egerton’s ascension to this position was celebrated with Comus on Michaelmas night, Marcus admits that it is unknown how many members of the council of Wales, the court of law mentioned above, attended the masque. Yet, she deduces through logic that the four civil servants that were stationed permanently at Ludlow castle had to have been present, making the performance not just a private, but also a public and political event. These persons were criticised, because they had made corrupt decisions in the Evans’ case in the favour of Burghill. The earl himself had previously been forced to work with them from London, but due to his seat at Ludlow, he was able to control the Welsh court officials much more firmly. Politically, as the new Lord President of Wales, he symbolised the judicial improvements mentioned above (295).
Of course, if the performance was so political in nature, it would have implications for the spectators present. Most principally then, Milton’s Comus celebrated a new symbol of justice in the person of John Egerton, and the masque became a commentary on the judges of the Counsel of Wales. They were supposed to, according to Marcus, “measure their own principles as demonstrated in their conduct of the case against the principles in action in the masque” (295). Temperance, as shown in chapter two, was a conditional virtue; only those with a strong consciousness are able to combat intemperance. Of course, from this perspective, and taking the prejudice against Margery in mind, one can easily see the masque in a light of criticism to the officials present. Marcus adds that the judges of the Marches, the region controlled by the Lord President of Wales, were indeed notoriously corrupt. They often helped family members attain important functions and were prone to place their
