Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely...

Category: Footnote Fodder

On reading a plague pamphlet and shaking hands again

I’ve been reading Thomas Dekker’s Plague Pamphlets, particularly A Road for Run-awayes published in 1625. Not because this is now in vogue, namely, the pandemic themed readings, but because I was scouring the internet to identify an image I was about to use in illustrating the scurrilous Elizabethan attitude towards theater especially during the summer when the playhouses were closed “lest the resort unto them should ingender a plague or rather disperse it, being already begonne” (William Harrison, 1572). This is the image (without the title for help) I was trying to identify:

But as it often happens, I was easily seduced and — instead of progressing with my writing (with the illustration now securely referenced) — I ended up reading the pamphlet. Should you be interested too, it is available both as a facsimile edition (in an Oxford Clarendon Press edition published in 1925 via archive.org) and as a more-easily read transcript (thanks to Early English Books Online – Text Creation Partnership Phase I). The passage I would like to share is this:

We are punished with a Sicknesse, which is dreadfull three manner of wayes: In the generall spreading; in the quicknesse of the stroke; and in the terror which waites vpon it. It is general: for the spotted wings of it couer all the face of the Kingdome. It is quicke: for it kills suddenly; it is full of terror, for the Father dares not come neere the infected Son, nor the Son come to take a blessing from the Father, lest hee bee poysoned by it: the Mother abhors to kiss her owne Children, or to touch the sides of her owne Husband: no friend in this battell will relieue his wounded friend, no Brother shake his brother by the hand at a farewell. (B1)

And herein lies our answer to the question on whether Covid-19 will have a lasting affect on our human affairs — it will not. We are prone to think of our own experience as earth-shattering and life changing but, as a matter of fact, we will shake hands again. As people indeed shook hands after the plague was “begonne.” This is of course good news…

… but not without a negative ramification. The way I see it, we are a race* of amnesiacs in that we are exceptionally lousy at retaining information and memory gained from past misdeeds, fails, and losses. Perhaps because we do not like to be reminded of our misdeeds, fails, and losses. We also seem to be singularly self-possessed in that we tend to think of our emotions and experiences as absolutely unique — nobody gets us, especially not our parents. Unfortunately, this is sometimes the case, but mostly because our parents too like to pretend (as self-deluding amnesiacs) that they have never made our mistakes (in a misguided attempt to retain our respect when in fact nothing damages it as much as obvious hypocrisy). By the time we realize (facing our own children) how frustrating this attitude of I-know-it-all/you-know-nothing is (in both directions, not to mention what an obstacle it is in avoiding previous mistakes) we ourselves have become old and are no longer reckoned with (either because we too start pretending and/or because our off-springs cannot fathom us having had similar experiences). A cosmic irony of a sort!

So, is there hope? Or are we cursed to repeat history over and over again? I think there is, albeit a special brand of hope. Hope against hope. The possibility for us to remember — when the time comes to shake hands again and to hug again — that all is transient in this world, both the good (which is kind of bad) and the bad (which is definitely good). Hoping against hope that one would, therefore, stand for good the more and shun bad as much as possible.

And in case we want to play the deliberate amnesiac card again by waxing all philosophical about what is good or bad… Let us remember this simple guide to decent human behavior: “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” (Please note the positive/proactive wording as opposed to the negative/ passive one as in “Whatever is hurtful to you, do not do to any other person.” Doing, not just avoiding, makes all the difference.)


* There is but one human race despite of what some of us profess in order to feel superior to others.
** Hmm, what about that saying that one cannot step into the same river twice? I guess if we don’t build a bridge we are still bound to end up with wet and cold feet.

What’s in his ROMANCE kiss?

[Happy New Year — 2020 — to you all! I decided to launch a series of posts under the category of Footnote Fodder containing tidbits from my readings that I find curious and genuinely interesting but have, as of yet, no way to incorporate in any of my publishing projects. They seem too good/bizarre not to share. Enjoy! ;)]

If your brain is anything like mine then you are sometimes plagued with random songs like I am. In my case, the songs materialize triggered by semantic knowledge (i.e. encounter with words reminiscent of the lyrics) and stay lodged in my brain’s auditory cortex. So, I have Thomas Heywood to blame for “The Shoop Shoop Song” running in loop on my brain. And it runs like an ironical commentary in Cher’s voice:

If you want to know if he loves you so
It’s in his kiss
That’s where it is
Whoa oh it’s in his kiss
That’s where it is.

Why ironical? Because reading Thomas Heywood’s Gynaikeion: or, Nine books of various history concerning women inscribed by ye names of ye nine Muses (London: Printed by Adam Islip, 1624), in “The Third Book of Women, inscribed Thalia” one comes upon the alleged origin of kisses:

… the use of Wine was not knowne amongst them [the Roman matrons and virgins]; for that woman was taxed with immodestie, whose breath was knowne to smell of grape. Pliny in his natural historie, saith, That Cato was of opinion, That the vse of kissing first began betwixt kinsman and kinswoman, howsoeuer neere allide or farra off, onelie by that to know whether their wiues, daughters, or neeces, had tasted any wine: to this Iuuenall seems to allude in these verses:

Paucae adeo cereris vittas contingere Digna
Quarum non time at pater oscula. (p. 118)*

Well, if this does not throw a nasty wrench into the romantic notion about kisses. Sorry Jules, nothing personal.

Of course, Heywood is quick to dismiss the above as a custom of bygone days (and places) acknowledging that “kissing and drinking both are now growne (it seems) to a greater custome amongst vs that in those days with the Romans: nor am I so austeare to forbid the vse of either…” (ibid).

But it certainly puts the following two verses from the Song of Songs into a different perspective:

How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! And the smell of thine ointments than all spices! Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue… (4:10-11)

Also, are we talking about a French or a Roman kiss? Comment if you know. Until you come up with a veritable source, I am opting for Romance Kiss — as in Romance languages, nothing romantic really 😉


*There are so few worthy to touch the fillets of Ceres,
Whose kisses a father would not fear.
(Transl. by Martin Madan. In A New and Literal Translation of Juvenal and Persius, vol. 1. London, 1789, p. 231)

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén