The
name is changed to Balthasar, but the main incidents are the same.
name is changed to Balthasar, but the main incidents are the same.
Ben Jonson - The Devil's Association
In _The Staple of News_ Mirth relates her reminiscences
of the old comedy. In speaking of the devil she says: 'He
would carry away the Vice on his back quick to hell in every play'.
3. _The Influence of Robin Goodfellow and of Popular Legend_
A constant element of the popular demonology was the belief in the
kobold or elfish sprite. This figure appears in the mysteries in
the shape of Titivillus, but is not found in the moralities. Robin
Goodfellow, however, makes his appearance in at least three comedies,
_Midsummer Night's Dream_, 1593-4, _Grim, the Collier of Croyden_,
c 1600, and _Wily Beguiled_, 1606. The last of these especially
approaches Jonson's conception. Here Robin Goodfellow is a malicious
intriguer, whose nature, whether human or diabolical, is left somewhat
in doubt. His plans are completely frustrated, he is treated with
contempt, and is beaten by Fortunatus. The character was a favorite
with Jonson. In the masque of _The Satyr_, 1603,[22] that character
is addressed as Pug, which here seems evidently equivalent to Puck or
Robin Goodfellow. Similarly Thomas Heywood makes Kobald, Hobgoblin,
Robin Goodfellow, and Pug practically identical. [23] Butler, in the
_Hudibras_,[24] gives him the combination-title of good 'Pug-Robin'.
Jonson's character of Pug was certainly influenced in some degree both
by the popular and the literary conception of this 'lubber fiend'.
The theme of a stupid or outwitted devil occurred also both in ballad
literature[25] and in popular legend. Roskoff[26] places the change in
attitude toward the devil from a feeling of fear to one of superiority
at about the end of the eleventh century. The idea of a baffled devil
may have been partially due to the legends of the saints, where the
devil is constantly defeated, though he is seldom made to appear stupid
or ridiculous. The notion of a 'stupid devil' is not very common in
English, but occasionally appears. In the Virgilius legend the fiend
is cheated of his reward by stupidly putting himself into the physical
power of the wizard. In the Friar Bacon legend the necromancer delivers
an Oxford gentleman by a trick of sophistry. [27] In the story upon
which the drama of _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_ was founded, the devil
is not only cleverly outwitted, but appears weak and docile in his
indulgence of the wizard's plea for a temporary respite. It may be said
in passing, in spite of Herford's assertion to the contrary, that the
supernatural machinery in this play has considerably less connection
with the plot than in _The Devil is an Ass_. Both show a survival of
a past interest, of which the dramatist himself realizes the obsolete
character.
[22] Cf. also _Love Restored_, 1610-11, and the
character of Puck Hairy in _The Sad Shepherd_.
[23] _Hierarchie of the Blessed Angels_ 9.
[24] Part 3. Cant. 1, l. 1415.
[25] Cf. _Devil in Britain and America_, ch. 2.
[26] _Geschichte des Teufels_ 1. 316, 395.
[27] Hazlitt, _Tales_, pp. 39, 83.
4. _Friar Rush and Dekker_
It was the familiar legend of Friar Rush which furnished the groundwork
of Jonson's play. The story seems to be of Danish origin, and first
makes its appearance in England in the form of a prose history
during the latter half of the sixteenth century. It is entered in
the _Stationer's Register_ 1567-8, and mentioned by Reginald Scot in
1584. [28] As early as 1566, however, the figure of Friar Rush on a
'painted cloth' was a familiar one, and is so mentioned in _Gammer
Gurton's Needle_. [29] The first extant edition dates from 1620, and has
been reprinted by W. J. Thoms. [30] The character had already become
partially identified with that of Robin Goodfellow,[31] and this
identification, as we have seen, Jonson was inclined to accept.
In spite of many variations of detail the kernel of the Rush story is
precisely that of Jonson's play, the visit of a devil to earth with
the purpose of corrupting men. Both Rush and Pug assume human bodies,
the former being 'put in rayment like an earthly creature', while the
latter is made subject 'to all impressions of the flesh'.
Rush, unlike his counterpart, is not otherwise bound to definite
conditions, but he too becomes a servant. The adventure is not of his
own seeking; he is chosen by agreement of the council, and no mention
is made of the emissary's willingness or unwillingness to perform
his part. Later, however, we read that he stood at the gate of the
religious house 'all alone and with a heavie countenance'. In the
beginning, therefore, he has little of Pug's thirst for adventure,
but his object is at bottom the same, 'to goe and dwell among these
religious men for to maintaine them the longer in their ungracious
living'. Like Pug, whose request for a Vice is denied him, he goes
unaccompanied, and presents himself at the priory in the guise of a
young man seeking service: 'Sir, I am a poore young man, and am out of
service, and faine would have a maister'. [32]
Most of the remaining incidents of the Rush story could not be used
in Jonson's play. Two incidents may be mentioned. Rush furthers the
amours of his master, as Pug attempts to do those of his mistress.
In the later history of Rush the motive of demoniacal possession is
worked into the plot. In a very important respect, however, the legend
differs from the play. Up to the time of discovery Rush is popular
and successful. He is nowhere made ridiculous, and his mission of
corruption is in large measure fulfilled. The two stories come together
in their conclusion. The discovery that a real devil has been among
them is the means of the friars' conversion and future right living. A
precisely similar effect takes place in the case of Fitzdottrel.
The legend of Friar Rush had already twice been used
in the drama before it was adopted by Jonson. The play
by Day and Haughton to which Henslowe refers[33] is not
extant; Dekker's drama, _If this be not a good Play, the
Diuell is in it_, appeared in 1612. Jonson in roundabout
fashion acknowledged his indebtedness to this play by the
closing line of his prologue.
If this Play doe not like, the Diuell is in't.
Dekker's play adds few new elements to the story. The first scene is
in the infernal regions; not, however, the Christian hell, as in the
prose history, but the classical Hades. This change seems to have
been adopted from Machiavelli. Three devils are sent to earth with
the object of corrupting men and replenishing hell. They return, on
the whole, successful, though the corrupted king of Naples is finally
redeemed.
In certain respects, however, the play stands closer to Jonson's drama
than the history. In the first place, the doctrine that hell's vices
are both old-fashioned and outdone by men, upon which Satan lays so
much stress in his instructions to Pug in the first scene, receives a
like emphasis in Dekker:
. . . 'tis thought
That men to find hell, now, new waies have sought,
As Spaniards did to the Indies.
and again:
. . . aboue vs dwell,
Diuells brauer, and more subtill then in Hell. [34]
and finally:
They scorne thy hell, hauing better of their owne.
In the second place Lurchall, unlike Rush, but in the same way
as Pug, finds himself inferior to his earthly associates. He
acknowledges himself overreached by Bartervile, and confesses:
I came to teach, but now (me thinkes) must learne.
A single correspondence of lesser importance may be added. Both devils,
when asked whence they come, obscurely intimate their hellish origin.
Pug says that he comes from the Devil's Cavern in Derbyshire. Rufman
asserts that his home is Helvetia. [35]
[28] _Discovery_, p. 522.
[29] _O. Pl. _, 4th ed. , 3. 213.
[30] _Early Eng. Prose Romances_, London 1858.
[31] See Herford's discussion, _Studies_, p. 305; also _Quarterly
Rev. _ 22. 358. The frequently quoted passage from Harsnet's
_Declaration_ (ch. 20, p. 134), is as follows: 'And if that the bowle
of curds and cream were not duly set out for Robin Goodfellow, the
Friar, and Sisse the dairy-maide, why then either the pottage was
burnt the next day, or the cheese would not curdle', etc. Cf. also
Scot, _Discovery_, p. 67: 'Robin could both eate and drinke, as being
a cousening idle frier, or some such roge, that wanted nothing either
belonging to lecherie or knaverie, &c'.
[32] Cf. Pug's words, 1. 3. 1 f.
[33] See Herford, p. 308.
[34] A similar passage is found in Dekker, _Whore of Babylon_,
_Wks. _ 2. 355. The sentiment is not original with Dekker.
Cf. Middleton, _Black Book_, 1604:
. . . And were it number'd well,
There are more devils on earth than are in hell.
[35] Dekker makes a similar pun on Helicon in _News from
Hell_, _Non-dram Wks. _ 2. 95.
5. _The Novella of Belfagor and the Comedy of Grim_
The relation between Jonson's play and the novella attributed to
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1522) has been treated in much detail by Dr.
Ernst Hollstein. Dr. Hollstein compares the play with the first known
English translation, that by the Marquis of Wharton in 1674. [36] It is
probable, however, that Jonson knew the novella in its Italian shape,
if he knew it at all. [37] The Italian text has therefore been taken as
the basis of the present discussion, while Dr. Hollstein's results, so
far as they have appeared adequate or important, have been freely used.
. . . And were it number'd well,
There are more devils on earth than are in hell.
]
Both novella and play depart from the same idea, the visit of a devil
to earth to lead a human life. Both devils are bound by certain
definite conditions. Belfagor must choose a wife, and live with her ten
years; Pug must return at midnight. Belfagor, like Pug, must be subject
to 'ogni infortunio nel quale gli uomini scorrono'.
In certain important respects Machiavelli's story differs essentially
from Jonson's. Both Dekker and Machiavelli place the opening scene in
the classical Hades instead of in the Christian hell. But Dekker's
treatment of the situation is far more like Jonson's than is the
novella's. Herford makes the distinction clear: 'Macchiavelli's Hades
is the council-chamber of an Italian Senate, Dekker's might pass for
some tavern haunt of Thames watermen. Dekker's fiends are the drudges
of Pluto, abused for their indolence, flogged at will, and peremptorily
sent where he chooses. Machiavelli's are fiends whose advice he
requests with the gravest courtesy and deference, and who give it
with dignity and independence'. Further, the whole object of the
visit, instead of being the corruption of men, is a mere sociological
investigation. Pug is eager to undertake his mission; Belfagor is
chosen by lot, and very loath to go. Pug becomes a servant, Belfagor a
nobleman.
But in one very important matter the stories coincide, that of the
general character and fate of the two devils. As Hollstein points out,
each comes with a firm resolve to do his best, each finds at once that
his opponents are too strong for him, each through his own docility
and stupidity meets repulse after repulse, ending in ruin, and each is
glad to return to hell. This, of course, involves the very essence of
Jonson's drama, and on its resemblance to the novella must be based any
theory that Jonson was familiar with the latter.
Of resemblance of specific details not much can be made. The two
stories have in common the feature of demoniacal possession, but
this, as we have seen, occurs also in the Rush legend. The fact that
the princess speaks Latin, while Fitzdottrel surprises his auditors
by his 'several languages', is of no more significance. This is one
of the stock indications of witchcraft. It is mentioned by Darrel,
and Jonson could not have overlooked a device so obvious. Certain
other resemblances pointed out by Dr. Hollstein are of only the most
superficial nature. On the whole we are not warranted in concluding
with any certainty that Jonson knew the novella at all.
On the other hand, he must have been acquainted with
the comedy of _Grim, the Collier of Croydon_ (c 1600).
Herford makes no allusion to this play, and, though it was
mentioned as a possible source by A. W. Ward,[38] the subject
has never been investigated. The author of _Grim_ uses the
Belfagor legend for the groundwork of his plot, but handles
his material freely. In many respects the play is a close
parallel to _The Devil is an Ass_. The same respect for the
vices of earth is felt as in Dekker's and Jonson's plays.
Belphegor sets out to
. . . make experiment
If hell be not on earth as well as here.
The circumstances of the sending bear a strong resemblance to the
instructions given to Pug:
Thou shalt be subject unto human chance,
So far as common wit cannot relieve thee.
But whatsover happens in that time,
Look not from us for succour or relief.
This shalt thou do, and when the time's expired,
Bring word to us what thou hast seen and done.
So in Jonson:
. . . but become subject
To all impression of the flesh, you take,
So farre as humane frailty: . . .
But as you make your soone at nights relation,
And we shall find, it merits from the State,
You shall haue both trust from vs, and imployment.
Belphegor is described as 'patient, mild, and pitiful'; and during his
sojourn on earth he shows little aptitude for mischief, but becomes
merely a butt and object of abuse. Belphegor's request for a companion,
unlike that of Pug, is granted. He chooses his servant Akercock,
who takes the form of Robin Goodfellow. Robin expresses many of the
sentiments to be found in the mouth of Pug. With the latter's monologue
(Text, 5. 2) compare Robin's exclamation:
Zounds, I had rather be in hell than here.
Neither Pug (Text, 2. 5. 3-4) nor Robin dares to return without
authority:
What shall I do? to hell I dare not go,
Until my master's twelve months be expir'd.
Like Pug (Text, 5. 6. 3-10) Belphegor worries over his reception in
hell:
How shall I give my verdict up to Pluto
Of all these accidents?
Finally Belphegor's sensational disappearance through the
yawning earth comes somewhat nearer to Jonson than does
the Italian original. The English comedy seems, indeed,
to account adequately for all traces of the Belfagor story
to be found in Jonson's play.
[36] A paraphrase of _Belfagor_ occurs in the Conclusion of
Barnaby Riche's _Riche his Farewell to Militarie Profession_, 1581,
published for the Shakespeare Society by J. P. Collier, 1846.
The
name is changed to Balthasar, but the main incidents are the same.
[37] Jonson refers to Machiavelli's political writings in
_Timber_ (ed. Schelling, p. 38).
[38] _Eng. Dram. Lit. _ 2. 606.
6. _Summary_
It is certain that of the two leading ideas of Jonson's comedy, the
sending of a devil to earth with the object of corrupting men is
derived from the Rush legend. It is probable that the no less important
motive of a baffled devil, happy to make his return to hell, is due
either directly or indirectly to Machiavelli's influence. This motive,
as we have seen, was strengthened by a body of legend and by the
treatment of the devil in the morality play.
7. _The Figure of the Vice_
It is the figure of the Vice which makes Jonson's satire on the
out-of-date moralities most unmistakable. This character has been
the subject of much study and discussion, and there is to-day no
universally accepted theory as to his origin and development. In the
literature of Jonson's day the term Vice is almost equivalent to
harlequin. But whether this element of buffoonery is the fundamental
trait of the character, and that of intrigue is due to a confusion
in the meaning of the word, or whether the element of intrigue is
original, and that of buffoonery has taken its place by a process of
degeneration in the Vice himself, is still a disputed question.
The theory of Cushman and of Eckhardt is substantially the same,
and may be stated as follows. Whether or not the Vice be a direct
descendant of the devil, it is certain that he falls heir to his
predecessor's position in the drama, and that his development is
strongly influenced by that character. Originally, like the devil, he
represents the principle of evil and may be regarded as the summation
of the seven deadly sins. From the beginning, however, he possessed
more comic elements, much being ready made for him through the partial
degeneration of the devil, while the material of the moralities was
by no means so limited in scope as that of the mysteries. This comic
element, comparatively slight at first, soon began to be cultivated
intentionally, and gradually assumed the chief function, while the
allegorical element was largely displaced. In course of time the
transformation from the intriguer to the buffoon became complete. [39]
Moreover, the rapidity of the transformation was hastened by the
influence of the fool, a new dramatic figure of independent origin,
but the partial successor upon the stage of the Vice's comedy part. As
early as 1570 the union of fool and Vice is plainly visible. [40] In
1576 we find express stage directions given for the Vice to fill in
the pauses with improvised jests. [41] Two years later a Vice plays the
leading role for the last time. [42] By 1584 the Vice has completely
lost his character of intriguer[43], and in the later drama he appears
only as an antiquated figure, where he is usually considered as
identical with the fool or jester. [44] Cushman enumerates the three
chief roles of the Vice as the opponent of the Good; the corrupter of
man; and the buffoon.
The Vice, however, is not confined to the moralities, but appears
frequently in the comic interludes. According to the theory of Cushman,
the name Vice stands in the beginning for a moral and abstract idea,
that of the principle of evil in the world, and must have originated
in the moralities; and since it is applied to a comic personage in
the interludes, this borrowing must have taken place after the period
of degeneration had already begun. To this theory Chambers[45] offers
certain important objections. He points out that, although 'vices in
the ordinary sense of the word are of course familiar personages in the
morals', the term Vice is not applied specifically to a character in
'any pre-Elizabethan moral interlude except the Marian _Respublica_',
1553. Furthermore, 'as a matter of fact, he comes into the interlude
through the avenue of the farce'. The term is first applied to the
leading comic characters in the farces of John Heywood, _Love_ and
_The Weather_, 1520-30. These characters have traits more nearly
resembling those of the fool and clown than those of the intriguer of
the moralities. Chambers concludes therefore that 'the character of the
vice is derived from that of the domestic fool or jester', and that
the term was borrowed by the authors of the moralities from the comic
interludes.
These two views are widely divergent, and seem at first wholly
irreconcilable. The facts of the case, however, are, I believe,
sufficiently clear to warrant the following conclusions: (1) The early
moralities possessed many allegorical characters representing vices
in the ordinary sense of the word. (2) From among these vices we may
distinguish in nearly every play a single character as in a preeminent
degree the embodiment of evil. (3) To this chief character the name of
Vice was applied about 1553, and with increasing frequency after that
date. (4) Whatever may have been the original meaning of the word, it
must have been generally understood in the moralities in the sense
now usually attributed to it; for (5) The term was applied in the
moralities only to a character in some degree evil. Chambers instances
_The Tide tarrieth for No Man_ and the tragedy of _Horestes_, where
the Vice bears the name of Courage, as exceptions. The cases, however,
are misleading. In the former, Courage is equivalent to 'Purpose',
'Desire', and is a distinctly evil character. [46] In the latter he
reveals himself in the second half of the play as Revenge, and although
he incites Horestes to an act of justice, he is plainly opposed to
'Amyte', and he is finally rejected and discountenanced. Moreover
he is here a serious figure, and only occasionally exhibits comic
traits. He cannot therefore be considered as supporting the theory
of the original identity of the fool and the Vice. (6) The Vice of
the comic interludes and the leading character of the moralities are
distinct figures. The former was from the beginning a comic figure or
buffoon;[47] the latter was in the beginning serious, and continued to
the end to preserve serious traits. With which of these two figures
the term Vice originated, and by which it was borrowed from the other,
is a matter of uncertainty and is of minor consequence. These facts,
however, seem certain, and for the present discussion sufficient: that
the vices of the earlier and of the later moralities represent the
same stock figure; that this figure stood originally for the principle
of evil, and only in later days became confused with the domestic
fool or jester; that the process of degeneration was continuous and
gradual, and took place substantially in the manner outlined by Cushman
and Eckhardt; and that, while to the playwright of Jonson's day the
term was suggestive primarily of the buffoon, it meant also an evil
personage, who continued to preserve certain lingering traits from the
character of intriguer in the earlier moralities.
[39] Eckhardt, p. 195.
[40] In W. Wager's _The longer thou livest, the more fool thou art_.
[41] In Wapull's _The Tide tarrieth for No Man_.
[42] Subtle Shift in _The History of Sir Clyomon and Sir Clamydes_.
[43] In Wilson's _The Three Ladies of London_.
[44] He is so identified in Chapman's _Alphonsus, Emperor of Germany_
c 1590 (_Wks. _, ed. 1873, 3. 216), and in Stubbes' _Anat. _, 1583.
Nash speaks of the Vice as an antiquated figure as early as 1592
(_Wks. _ 2. 203).
[45] _Med. Stage_, pp. 203-5.
[46] Eckhardt, p. 145.
[47] Sometimes he is even a virtuous character. See Eckhardt's
remarks on _Archipropheta_, p. 170. Merry Report in Heywood's
_Weather_ constantly moralizes, and speaks of himself as the servant
of God in contrast with the devil.
8. _Jonson's Use of the Vice_
The position of the Vice has been discussed at some length because
of its very important bearing on Jonson's comedy. It is evident,
even upon a cursory reading, that Jonson has not confined himself to
the conception of the Vice obtainable from a familiarity with the
interludes alone, as shown in Heywood's farces or the comedy of _Jack
Juggler_. The character of Iniquity, though fully identified with the
buffoon of the later plays, is nevertheless closely connected in the
author's mind with the intriguer of the old moralities. This is clear
above all from the use of the name Iniquity, from his association with
the devil, and from Pug's desire to use him as a means of corrupting
his playfellows. Thus, consciously or unconsciously on Jonson's part,
Iniquity presents in epitome the history of the Vice.
His very name, as we have said, links him with the morality-play. In
fact, all the Vices suggested, Iniquity, Fraud, Covetousness, and Lady
Vanity, are taken from the moralities. The choice of Iniquity was
not without meaning, and was doubtless due to its more general and
inclusive significance. In Shakespeare's time Vice and Iniquity seem
to have been synonymous terms (see Schmidt), from which it has been
inferred that Iniquity was the Vice in many lost moralities. [48]
Of the original Vice-traits Iniquity lays vigorous claim to that of the
corrupter of man. Pug desires a Vice that he may 'practice there-with
any play-fellow', and Iniquity comes upon the stage with voluble
promises to teach his pupil to 'cheat, lie, cog and swagger'. He offers
also to lead him into all the disreputable precincts of the city.
Iniquity appears in only two scenes, Act 1. Sc. 1 and Act 5. Sc. 6. In
the latter he reverses the usual process and carries away the devil to
hell. This point has already been discussed (p. xxiv).
Aside from these two particulars, Iniquity is far nearer to the fool
than to the original Vice. As he comes skipping upon the stage in the
first scene, reciting his galloping doggerel couplets, we see plainly
that the element of buffoonery is uppermost in Jonson's mind. Further
evidence may be derived from the particularity with which Iniquity
describes the costume which he promises to Pug, and which we are
doubtless to understand as descriptive of his own. Attention should
be directed especially to the wooden dagger, the long cloak, and the
slouch hat. Cushman says (p. 125): 'The vice enjoys the greatest
freedom in the matter of dress; he is not confined to any stereotyped
costume; . . . the opinion that he is always or usually dressed in a
fool's costume has absolutely no justification'. The wooden dagger, a
relic of the Roman stage,[49] is the most frequently mentioned article
of equipment. It is first found (1553-8) as part of the apparel of Jack
Juggler in a print illustrating that play, reproduced by Dodsley. It is
also mentioned in _Like Will to Like_, _Hickescorner_, _King Darius_,
etc. The wooden dagger was borrowed, however, from the fool's costume,
and is an indication of the growing identification of the Vice with
the house-fool. That Jonson recognized it as such is evident from his
_Expostulation with Inigo Jones_:
No velvet suit you wear will alter kind;
A wooden dagger is a dagger of wood.
The long cloak, twice mentioned (1. 1. 51 and 85), is another
property borrowed from the fool. The natural fool usually wore a
long gown-like dress,[50] and this was later adopted as a dress for
the artificial fool. Muckle John, the court fool of Charles I. , was
provided with 'a long coat and suit of scarlet-colour serge'. [51]
Satan's reply to Pug's request for a Vice is, however, the most
important passage on this subject. He begins by saying that the Vice,
whom he identifies with the house fool, is fifty years out of date.
Only trivial and absurd parts are left for Iniquity to play, the
mountebank tricks of the city and the tavern fools. Douce (pp. 499
f. ) mentions nine kinds of fools, among which the following appear:
1. The general domestic fool. 4. The city or corporation fool. 5.
Tavern fools. Satan compares Iniquity with each of these in turn. The
day has gone by, he says:
When euery great man had his _Vice_ stand by him,
In his long coat, shaking his wooden dagger.
Then he intimates that Iniquity may be able to play the
tavern fool:
Where canst thou carry him? except to Tauernes?
To mount vp ona joynt-stoole, with a _Iewes_-trumpe,
To put downe _Cokeley_, and that must be to Citizens?
And finally he compares him with the city fool:
Hee may perchance, in taile of a Sheriffes dinner,
Skip with a rime o' the table, from _New-nothing_,
And take his _Almaine_-leape into a custard.
Thus not only does Jonson identify the Vice with the fool, but with the
fool in his senility. The characteristic functions of the jester in the
Shakespearian drama, with his abundant store of improvised jests, witty
retorts, and irresistible impudence, have no part in this character. He
is merely the mountebank who climbs upon a tavern stool, skips over the
table, and leaps into corporation custards.
Iniquity, then, plays no real part in the drama. His introduction is
merely for the purpose of satire. In _The Staple of News_ the subject
is renewed, and treated with greater directness:
'_Tat. _ I would fain see the fool, gossip; the fool is the
finest man in the company, they say, and has all the wit:
he is the very justice o' peace o' the play, and can commit
whom he will and what he will, error, absurdity, as the toy
takes him, and no man say black is his eye, but laugh at him'.
In _Epigram 115, On the Town's Honest Man_, Jonson
again identifies the Vice with the mountebank, almost in
the same way as he does in _The Devil is an Ass_:
. . . this is one
Suffers no name but a description
Being no vicious person but the Vice
About the town; . . .
At every meal, where it doth dine or sup,
The cloth's no sooner gone, but it gets up,
And shifting of its faces, doth play more
Parts than the Italian could do with his door.
Acts old Iniquity and in the fit
Of miming gets the opinion of a wit.
[48] This designation for the Vice first appears in _Nice Wanton_,
1547-53, then in _King Darius_, 1565, and _Histriomastix_, 1599
(printed 1610).
[49] Wright, _Hist. of Caricature_, p. 106.
[50] Doran, p. 182.
[51] _Ibid. _, p. 210.
II. THE SATIRICAL DRAMA
It was from Aristophanes[52] that Jonson learned to combine with
such boldness the palpable with the visionary, the material with the
abstract. He surpassed even his master in the power of rendering the
combination a convincing one, and his method was always the same. Fond
as he was of occasional flights of fancy, his mind was fundamentally
satirical, so that the process of welding the apparently discordant
elements was always one of rationalizing the fanciful rather than
of investing the actual with a far-away and poetic atmosphere. Thus
even his purely supernatural scenes present little incongruity. Satan
and Iniquity discuss strong waters and tobacco, Whitechapel and
Billingsgate, with the utmost familiarity; even hell's 'most exquisite
tortures' are adapted in part from the homely proverbs of the people.
In the use of his sources three tendencies are especially noticeable:
the motivation of borrowed incidents; the adjusting of action on a
moral basis: the reworking of his own favorite themes and incidents.
[52] See Herford, p. 318.
1. _General Treatment of the Plot_
For the main plot we have no direct source. It represents, however,
Jonson's typical method. It has been pointed out[53] that the
characteristic Jonsonian comedy always consists of two groups, the
intriguers and the victims. In _The Devil is an Ass_ the most purely
comic motive of the play is furnished by a reversal of the usual
relation subsisting between these two groups. Here the devil, who was
wont to be looked upon as arch-intriguer, is constantly 'fooled off
and beaten', and thus takes his position as the comic butt. Pug, in a
sense, represents a satirical trend. Through him Jonson satirizes the
outgrown supernaturalism which still clung to the skirts of Jacobean
realism, and at the same time paints in lively colors the vice of a
society against which hell itself is powerless to contend. It is only,
however, in a general way, where the devil stands for a principle, that
Pug may be considered as in any degree satirical. In the particular
incident he is always a purely comic figure, and furnishes the mirth
which results from a sense of the incongruity between anticipation and
accomplishment.
Fitzdottrel, on the other hand, is mainly satirical. Through him Jonson
passes censure upon the city gallant, the attendant at the theatre, the
victim of the prevalent superstitions, and even the pretended demoniac.
His dupery, as in the case of his bargain with Wittipol, excites
indignation rather than mirth, and his final discomfiture affords us
almost a sense of poetic justice. This character stands in the position
of chief victim.
In an intermediate position are Merecraft and Everill. They succeed in
swindling Fitzdottrel and Lady Tailbush, but are in turn played upon by
the chief intriguer, Wittipol, with his friend Manly. Jonson's moral
purpose is here plainly visible, especially in contrast to Plautus,
with whom the youthful intriguer is also the stock figure. The motive
of the young man's trickery in the Latin comedy is usually unworthy and
selfish. That of Wittipol, on the other hand, is wholly disinterested,
since he is represented as having already philosophically accepted the
rejection of his advances at the hands of Mrs. Fitzdottrel.
In construction the play suffers from overabundance of material.
Instead of a single main line of action, which is given clear
precedence, there is rather a succession of elaborated episodes,
carefully connected and motivated, but not properly subordinated. The
plot is coherent and intricate rather than unified. This is further
aggravated by the fact that the chief objects of satire are imperfectly
understood by readers of the present day.
Jonson observes unity of time, Pug coming to earth in
the morning and returning at midnight. With the exception
of the first scene, which is indeterminate, and seems at
one moment to be hell, and the next London, the action is
confined to the City, but hovers between Lincoln's Inn,
Newgate, and the house of Lady Tailbush. Unity of action
is of course broken by the interference of the devil-plot and
the episodic nature of the satirical plot. The main lines
of action may be discussed separately.
In the first act chief prominence is given to the intrigue
between Wittipol and Mrs. Fitzdottrel. This interest is
continued through the second act, but practically dropped
after this point. In Act 4 we find that both lovers have
recovered from their infatuation, and the intrigue ends by
mutual consent.
The second act opens with the episode of Merecraft's plot to gull
Fitzdottrel.
of the old comedy. In speaking of the devil she says: 'He
would carry away the Vice on his back quick to hell in every play'.
3. _The Influence of Robin Goodfellow and of Popular Legend_
A constant element of the popular demonology was the belief in the
kobold or elfish sprite. This figure appears in the mysteries in
the shape of Titivillus, but is not found in the moralities. Robin
Goodfellow, however, makes his appearance in at least three comedies,
_Midsummer Night's Dream_, 1593-4, _Grim, the Collier of Croyden_,
c 1600, and _Wily Beguiled_, 1606. The last of these especially
approaches Jonson's conception. Here Robin Goodfellow is a malicious
intriguer, whose nature, whether human or diabolical, is left somewhat
in doubt. His plans are completely frustrated, he is treated with
contempt, and is beaten by Fortunatus. The character was a favorite
with Jonson. In the masque of _The Satyr_, 1603,[22] that character
is addressed as Pug, which here seems evidently equivalent to Puck or
Robin Goodfellow. Similarly Thomas Heywood makes Kobald, Hobgoblin,
Robin Goodfellow, and Pug practically identical. [23] Butler, in the
_Hudibras_,[24] gives him the combination-title of good 'Pug-Robin'.
Jonson's character of Pug was certainly influenced in some degree both
by the popular and the literary conception of this 'lubber fiend'.
The theme of a stupid or outwitted devil occurred also both in ballad
literature[25] and in popular legend. Roskoff[26] places the change in
attitude toward the devil from a feeling of fear to one of superiority
at about the end of the eleventh century. The idea of a baffled devil
may have been partially due to the legends of the saints, where the
devil is constantly defeated, though he is seldom made to appear stupid
or ridiculous. The notion of a 'stupid devil' is not very common in
English, but occasionally appears. In the Virgilius legend the fiend
is cheated of his reward by stupidly putting himself into the physical
power of the wizard. In the Friar Bacon legend the necromancer delivers
an Oxford gentleman by a trick of sophistry. [27] In the story upon
which the drama of _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_ was founded, the devil
is not only cleverly outwitted, but appears weak and docile in his
indulgence of the wizard's plea for a temporary respite. It may be said
in passing, in spite of Herford's assertion to the contrary, that the
supernatural machinery in this play has considerably less connection
with the plot than in _The Devil is an Ass_. Both show a survival of
a past interest, of which the dramatist himself realizes the obsolete
character.
[22] Cf. also _Love Restored_, 1610-11, and the
character of Puck Hairy in _The Sad Shepherd_.
[23] _Hierarchie of the Blessed Angels_ 9.
[24] Part 3. Cant. 1, l. 1415.
[25] Cf. _Devil in Britain and America_, ch. 2.
[26] _Geschichte des Teufels_ 1. 316, 395.
[27] Hazlitt, _Tales_, pp. 39, 83.
4. _Friar Rush and Dekker_
It was the familiar legend of Friar Rush which furnished the groundwork
of Jonson's play. The story seems to be of Danish origin, and first
makes its appearance in England in the form of a prose history
during the latter half of the sixteenth century. It is entered in
the _Stationer's Register_ 1567-8, and mentioned by Reginald Scot in
1584. [28] As early as 1566, however, the figure of Friar Rush on a
'painted cloth' was a familiar one, and is so mentioned in _Gammer
Gurton's Needle_. [29] The first extant edition dates from 1620, and has
been reprinted by W. J. Thoms. [30] The character had already become
partially identified with that of Robin Goodfellow,[31] and this
identification, as we have seen, Jonson was inclined to accept.
In spite of many variations of detail the kernel of the Rush story is
precisely that of Jonson's play, the visit of a devil to earth with
the purpose of corrupting men. Both Rush and Pug assume human bodies,
the former being 'put in rayment like an earthly creature', while the
latter is made subject 'to all impressions of the flesh'.
Rush, unlike his counterpart, is not otherwise bound to definite
conditions, but he too becomes a servant. The adventure is not of his
own seeking; he is chosen by agreement of the council, and no mention
is made of the emissary's willingness or unwillingness to perform
his part. Later, however, we read that he stood at the gate of the
religious house 'all alone and with a heavie countenance'. In the
beginning, therefore, he has little of Pug's thirst for adventure,
but his object is at bottom the same, 'to goe and dwell among these
religious men for to maintaine them the longer in their ungracious
living'. Like Pug, whose request for a Vice is denied him, he goes
unaccompanied, and presents himself at the priory in the guise of a
young man seeking service: 'Sir, I am a poore young man, and am out of
service, and faine would have a maister'. [32]
Most of the remaining incidents of the Rush story could not be used
in Jonson's play. Two incidents may be mentioned. Rush furthers the
amours of his master, as Pug attempts to do those of his mistress.
In the later history of Rush the motive of demoniacal possession is
worked into the plot. In a very important respect, however, the legend
differs from the play. Up to the time of discovery Rush is popular
and successful. He is nowhere made ridiculous, and his mission of
corruption is in large measure fulfilled. The two stories come together
in their conclusion. The discovery that a real devil has been among
them is the means of the friars' conversion and future right living. A
precisely similar effect takes place in the case of Fitzdottrel.
The legend of Friar Rush had already twice been used
in the drama before it was adopted by Jonson. The play
by Day and Haughton to which Henslowe refers[33] is not
extant; Dekker's drama, _If this be not a good Play, the
Diuell is in it_, appeared in 1612. Jonson in roundabout
fashion acknowledged his indebtedness to this play by the
closing line of his prologue.
If this Play doe not like, the Diuell is in't.
Dekker's play adds few new elements to the story. The first scene is
in the infernal regions; not, however, the Christian hell, as in the
prose history, but the classical Hades. This change seems to have
been adopted from Machiavelli. Three devils are sent to earth with
the object of corrupting men and replenishing hell. They return, on
the whole, successful, though the corrupted king of Naples is finally
redeemed.
In certain respects, however, the play stands closer to Jonson's drama
than the history. In the first place, the doctrine that hell's vices
are both old-fashioned and outdone by men, upon which Satan lays so
much stress in his instructions to Pug in the first scene, receives a
like emphasis in Dekker:
. . . 'tis thought
That men to find hell, now, new waies have sought,
As Spaniards did to the Indies.
and again:
. . . aboue vs dwell,
Diuells brauer, and more subtill then in Hell. [34]
and finally:
They scorne thy hell, hauing better of their owne.
In the second place Lurchall, unlike Rush, but in the same way
as Pug, finds himself inferior to his earthly associates. He
acknowledges himself overreached by Bartervile, and confesses:
I came to teach, but now (me thinkes) must learne.
A single correspondence of lesser importance may be added. Both devils,
when asked whence they come, obscurely intimate their hellish origin.
Pug says that he comes from the Devil's Cavern in Derbyshire. Rufman
asserts that his home is Helvetia. [35]
[28] _Discovery_, p. 522.
[29] _O. Pl. _, 4th ed. , 3. 213.
[30] _Early Eng. Prose Romances_, London 1858.
[31] See Herford's discussion, _Studies_, p. 305; also _Quarterly
Rev. _ 22. 358. The frequently quoted passage from Harsnet's
_Declaration_ (ch. 20, p. 134), is as follows: 'And if that the bowle
of curds and cream were not duly set out for Robin Goodfellow, the
Friar, and Sisse the dairy-maide, why then either the pottage was
burnt the next day, or the cheese would not curdle', etc. Cf. also
Scot, _Discovery_, p. 67: 'Robin could both eate and drinke, as being
a cousening idle frier, or some such roge, that wanted nothing either
belonging to lecherie or knaverie, &c'.
[32] Cf. Pug's words, 1. 3. 1 f.
[33] See Herford, p. 308.
[34] A similar passage is found in Dekker, _Whore of Babylon_,
_Wks. _ 2. 355. The sentiment is not original with Dekker.
Cf. Middleton, _Black Book_, 1604:
. . . And were it number'd well,
There are more devils on earth than are in hell.
[35] Dekker makes a similar pun on Helicon in _News from
Hell_, _Non-dram Wks. _ 2. 95.
5. _The Novella of Belfagor and the Comedy of Grim_
The relation between Jonson's play and the novella attributed to
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1522) has been treated in much detail by Dr.
Ernst Hollstein. Dr. Hollstein compares the play with the first known
English translation, that by the Marquis of Wharton in 1674. [36] It is
probable, however, that Jonson knew the novella in its Italian shape,
if he knew it at all. [37] The Italian text has therefore been taken as
the basis of the present discussion, while Dr. Hollstein's results, so
far as they have appeared adequate or important, have been freely used.
. . . And were it number'd well,
There are more devils on earth than are in hell.
]
Both novella and play depart from the same idea, the visit of a devil
to earth to lead a human life. Both devils are bound by certain
definite conditions. Belfagor must choose a wife, and live with her ten
years; Pug must return at midnight. Belfagor, like Pug, must be subject
to 'ogni infortunio nel quale gli uomini scorrono'.
In certain important respects Machiavelli's story differs essentially
from Jonson's. Both Dekker and Machiavelli place the opening scene in
the classical Hades instead of in the Christian hell. But Dekker's
treatment of the situation is far more like Jonson's than is the
novella's. Herford makes the distinction clear: 'Macchiavelli's Hades
is the council-chamber of an Italian Senate, Dekker's might pass for
some tavern haunt of Thames watermen. Dekker's fiends are the drudges
of Pluto, abused for their indolence, flogged at will, and peremptorily
sent where he chooses. Machiavelli's are fiends whose advice he
requests with the gravest courtesy and deference, and who give it
with dignity and independence'. Further, the whole object of the
visit, instead of being the corruption of men, is a mere sociological
investigation. Pug is eager to undertake his mission; Belfagor is
chosen by lot, and very loath to go. Pug becomes a servant, Belfagor a
nobleman.
But in one very important matter the stories coincide, that of the
general character and fate of the two devils. As Hollstein points out,
each comes with a firm resolve to do his best, each finds at once that
his opponents are too strong for him, each through his own docility
and stupidity meets repulse after repulse, ending in ruin, and each is
glad to return to hell. This, of course, involves the very essence of
Jonson's drama, and on its resemblance to the novella must be based any
theory that Jonson was familiar with the latter.
Of resemblance of specific details not much can be made. The two
stories have in common the feature of demoniacal possession, but
this, as we have seen, occurs also in the Rush legend. The fact that
the princess speaks Latin, while Fitzdottrel surprises his auditors
by his 'several languages', is of no more significance. This is one
of the stock indications of witchcraft. It is mentioned by Darrel,
and Jonson could not have overlooked a device so obvious. Certain
other resemblances pointed out by Dr. Hollstein are of only the most
superficial nature. On the whole we are not warranted in concluding
with any certainty that Jonson knew the novella at all.
On the other hand, he must have been acquainted with
the comedy of _Grim, the Collier of Croydon_ (c 1600).
Herford makes no allusion to this play, and, though it was
mentioned as a possible source by A. W. Ward,[38] the subject
has never been investigated. The author of _Grim_ uses the
Belfagor legend for the groundwork of his plot, but handles
his material freely. In many respects the play is a close
parallel to _The Devil is an Ass_. The same respect for the
vices of earth is felt as in Dekker's and Jonson's plays.
Belphegor sets out to
. . . make experiment
If hell be not on earth as well as here.
The circumstances of the sending bear a strong resemblance to the
instructions given to Pug:
Thou shalt be subject unto human chance,
So far as common wit cannot relieve thee.
But whatsover happens in that time,
Look not from us for succour or relief.
This shalt thou do, and when the time's expired,
Bring word to us what thou hast seen and done.
So in Jonson:
. . . but become subject
To all impression of the flesh, you take,
So farre as humane frailty: . . .
But as you make your soone at nights relation,
And we shall find, it merits from the State,
You shall haue both trust from vs, and imployment.
Belphegor is described as 'patient, mild, and pitiful'; and during his
sojourn on earth he shows little aptitude for mischief, but becomes
merely a butt and object of abuse. Belphegor's request for a companion,
unlike that of Pug, is granted. He chooses his servant Akercock,
who takes the form of Robin Goodfellow. Robin expresses many of the
sentiments to be found in the mouth of Pug. With the latter's monologue
(Text, 5. 2) compare Robin's exclamation:
Zounds, I had rather be in hell than here.
Neither Pug (Text, 2. 5. 3-4) nor Robin dares to return without
authority:
What shall I do? to hell I dare not go,
Until my master's twelve months be expir'd.
Like Pug (Text, 5. 6. 3-10) Belphegor worries over his reception in
hell:
How shall I give my verdict up to Pluto
Of all these accidents?
Finally Belphegor's sensational disappearance through the
yawning earth comes somewhat nearer to Jonson than does
the Italian original. The English comedy seems, indeed,
to account adequately for all traces of the Belfagor story
to be found in Jonson's play.
[36] A paraphrase of _Belfagor_ occurs in the Conclusion of
Barnaby Riche's _Riche his Farewell to Militarie Profession_, 1581,
published for the Shakespeare Society by J. P. Collier, 1846.
The
name is changed to Balthasar, but the main incidents are the same.
[37] Jonson refers to Machiavelli's political writings in
_Timber_ (ed. Schelling, p. 38).
[38] _Eng. Dram. Lit. _ 2. 606.
6. _Summary_
It is certain that of the two leading ideas of Jonson's comedy, the
sending of a devil to earth with the object of corrupting men is
derived from the Rush legend. It is probable that the no less important
motive of a baffled devil, happy to make his return to hell, is due
either directly or indirectly to Machiavelli's influence. This motive,
as we have seen, was strengthened by a body of legend and by the
treatment of the devil in the morality play.
7. _The Figure of the Vice_
It is the figure of the Vice which makes Jonson's satire on the
out-of-date moralities most unmistakable. This character has been
the subject of much study and discussion, and there is to-day no
universally accepted theory as to his origin and development. In the
literature of Jonson's day the term Vice is almost equivalent to
harlequin. But whether this element of buffoonery is the fundamental
trait of the character, and that of intrigue is due to a confusion
in the meaning of the word, or whether the element of intrigue is
original, and that of buffoonery has taken its place by a process of
degeneration in the Vice himself, is still a disputed question.
The theory of Cushman and of Eckhardt is substantially the same,
and may be stated as follows. Whether or not the Vice be a direct
descendant of the devil, it is certain that he falls heir to his
predecessor's position in the drama, and that his development is
strongly influenced by that character. Originally, like the devil, he
represents the principle of evil and may be regarded as the summation
of the seven deadly sins. From the beginning, however, he possessed
more comic elements, much being ready made for him through the partial
degeneration of the devil, while the material of the moralities was
by no means so limited in scope as that of the mysteries. This comic
element, comparatively slight at first, soon began to be cultivated
intentionally, and gradually assumed the chief function, while the
allegorical element was largely displaced. In course of time the
transformation from the intriguer to the buffoon became complete. [39]
Moreover, the rapidity of the transformation was hastened by the
influence of the fool, a new dramatic figure of independent origin,
but the partial successor upon the stage of the Vice's comedy part. As
early as 1570 the union of fool and Vice is plainly visible. [40] In
1576 we find express stage directions given for the Vice to fill in
the pauses with improvised jests. [41] Two years later a Vice plays the
leading role for the last time. [42] By 1584 the Vice has completely
lost his character of intriguer[43], and in the later drama he appears
only as an antiquated figure, where he is usually considered as
identical with the fool or jester. [44] Cushman enumerates the three
chief roles of the Vice as the opponent of the Good; the corrupter of
man; and the buffoon.
The Vice, however, is not confined to the moralities, but appears
frequently in the comic interludes. According to the theory of Cushman,
the name Vice stands in the beginning for a moral and abstract idea,
that of the principle of evil in the world, and must have originated
in the moralities; and since it is applied to a comic personage in
the interludes, this borrowing must have taken place after the period
of degeneration had already begun. To this theory Chambers[45] offers
certain important objections. He points out that, although 'vices in
the ordinary sense of the word are of course familiar personages in the
morals', the term Vice is not applied specifically to a character in
'any pre-Elizabethan moral interlude except the Marian _Respublica_',
1553. Furthermore, 'as a matter of fact, he comes into the interlude
through the avenue of the farce'. The term is first applied to the
leading comic characters in the farces of John Heywood, _Love_ and
_The Weather_, 1520-30. These characters have traits more nearly
resembling those of the fool and clown than those of the intriguer of
the moralities. Chambers concludes therefore that 'the character of the
vice is derived from that of the domestic fool or jester', and that
the term was borrowed by the authors of the moralities from the comic
interludes.
These two views are widely divergent, and seem at first wholly
irreconcilable. The facts of the case, however, are, I believe,
sufficiently clear to warrant the following conclusions: (1) The early
moralities possessed many allegorical characters representing vices
in the ordinary sense of the word. (2) From among these vices we may
distinguish in nearly every play a single character as in a preeminent
degree the embodiment of evil. (3) To this chief character the name of
Vice was applied about 1553, and with increasing frequency after that
date. (4) Whatever may have been the original meaning of the word, it
must have been generally understood in the moralities in the sense
now usually attributed to it; for (5) The term was applied in the
moralities only to a character in some degree evil. Chambers instances
_The Tide tarrieth for No Man_ and the tragedy of _Horestes_, where
the Vice bears the name of Courage, as exceptions. The cases, however,
are misleading. In the former, Courage is equivalent to 'Purpose',
'Desire', and is a distinctly evil character. [46] In the latter he
reveals himself in the second half of the play as Revenge, and although
he incites Horestes to an act of justice, he is plainly opposed to
'Amyte', and he is finally rejected and discountenanced. Moreover
he is here a serious figure, and only occasionally exhibits comic
traits. He cannot therefore be considered as supporting the theory
of the original identity of the fool and the Vice. (6) The Vice of
the comic interludes and the leading character of the moralities are
distinct figures. The former was from the beginning a comic figure or
buffoon;[47] the latter was in the beginning serious, and continued to
the end to preserve serious traits. With which of these two figures
the term Vice originated, and by which it was borrowed from the other,
is a matter of uncertainty and is of minor consequence. These facts,
however, seem certain, and for the present discussion sufficient: that
the vices of the earlier and of the later moralities represent the
same stock figure; that this figure stood originally for the principle
of evil, and only in later days became confused with the domestic
fool or jester; that the process of degeneration was continuous and
gradual, and took place substantially in the manner outlined by Cushman
and Eckhardt; and that, while to the playwright of Jonson's day the
term was suggestive primarily of the buffoon, it meant also an evil
personage, who continued to preserve certain lingering traits from the
character of intriguer in the earlier moralities.
[39] Eckhardt, p. 195.
[40] In W. Wager's _The longer thou livest, the more fool thou art_.
[41] In Wapull's _The Tide tarrieth for No Man_.
[42] Subtle Shift in _The History of Sir Clyomon and Sir Clamydes_.
[43] In Wilson's _The Three Ladies of London_.
[44] He is so identified in Chapman's _Alphonsus, Emperor of Germany_
c 1590 (_Wks. _, ed. 1873, 3. 216), and in Stubbes' _Anat. _, 1583.
Nash speaks of the Vice as an antiquated figure as early as 1592
(_Wks. _ 2. 203).
[45] _Med. Stage_, pp. 203-5.
[46] Eckhardt, p. 145.
[47] Sometimes he is even a virtuous character. See Eckhardt's
remarks on _Archipropheta_, p. 170. Merry Report in Heywood's
_Weather_ constantly moralizes, and speaks of himself as the servant
of God in contrast with the devil.
8. _Jonson's Use of the Vice_
The position of the Vice has been discussed at some length because
of its very important bearing on Jonson's comedy. It is evident,
even upon a cursory reading, that Jonson has not confined himself to
the conception of the Vice obtainable from a familiarity with the
interludes alone, as shown in Heywood's farces or the comedy of _Jack
Juggler_. The character of Iniquity, though fully identified with the
buffoon of the later plays, is nevertheless closely connected in the
author's mind with the intriguer of the old moralities. This is clear
above all from the use of the name Iniquity, from his association with
the devil, and from Pug's desire to use him as a means of corrupting
his playfellows. Thus, consciously or unconsciously on Jonson's part,
Iniquity presents in epitome the history of the Vice.
His very name, as we have said, links him with the morality-play. In
fact, all the Vices suggested, Iniquity, Fraud, Covetousness, and Lady
Vanity, are taken from the moralities. The choice of Iniquity was
not without meaning, and was doubtless due to its more general and
inclusive significance. In Shakespeare's time Vice and Iniquity seem
to have been synonymous terms (see Schmidt), from which it has been
inferred that Iniquity was the Vice in many lost moralities. [48]
Of the original Vice-traits Iniquity lays vigorous claim to that of the
corrupter of man. Pug desires a Vice that he may 'practice there-with
any play-fellow', and Iniquity comes upon the stage with voluble
promises to teach his pupil to 'cheat, lie, cog and swagger'. He offers
also to lead him into all the disreputable precincts of the city.
Iniquity appears in only two scenes, Act 1. Sc. 1 and Act 5. Sc. 6. In
the latter he reverses the usual process and carries away the devil to
hell. This point has already been discussed (p. xxiv).
Aside from these two particulars, Iniquity is far nearer to the fool
than to the original Vice. As he comes skipping upon the stage in the
first scene, reciting his galloping doggerel couplets, we see plainly
that the element of buffoonery is uppermost in Jonson's mind. Further
evidence may be derived from the particularity with which Iniquity
describes the costume which he promises to Pug, and which we are
doubtless to understand as descriptive of his own. Attention should
be directed especially to the wooden dagger, the long cloak, and the
slouch hat. Cushman says (p. 125): 'The vice enjoys the greatest
freedom in the matter of dress; he is not confined to any stereotyped
costume; . . . the opinion that he is always or usually dressed in a
fool's costume has absolutely no justification'. The wooden dagger, a
relic of the Roman stage,[49] is the most frequently mentioned article
of equipment. It is first found (1553-8) as part of the apparel of Jack
Juggler in a print illustrating that play, reproduced by Dodsley. It is
also mentioned in _Like Will to Like_, _Hickescorner_, _King Darius_,
etc. The wooden dagger was borrowed, however, from the fool's costume,
and is an indication of the growing identification of the Vice with
the house-fool. That Jonson recognized it as such is evident from his
_Expostulation with Inigo Jones_:
No velvet suit you wear will alter kind;
A wooden dagger is a dagger of wood.
The long cloak, twice mentioned (1. 1. 51 and 85), is another
property borrowed from the fool. The natural fool usually wore a
long gown-like dress,[50] and this was later adopted as a dress for
the artificial fool. Muckle John, the court fool of Charles I. , was
provided with 'a long coat and suit of scarlet-colour serge'. [51]
Satan's reply to Pug's request for a Vice is, however, the most
important passage on this subject. He begins by saying that the Vice,
whom he identifies with the house fool, is fifty years out of date.
Only trivial and absurd parts are left for Iniquity to play, the
mountebank tricks of the city and the tavern fools. Douce (pp. 499
f. ) mentions nine kinds of fools, among which the following appear:
1. The general domestic fool. 4. The city or corporation fool. 5.
Tavern fools. Satan compares Iniquity with each of these in turn. The
day has gone by, he says:
When euery great man had his _Vice_ stand by him,
In his long coat, shaking his wooden dagger.
Then he intimates that Iniquity may be able to play the
tavern fool:
Where canst thou carry him? except to Tauernes?
To mount vp ona joynt-stoole, with a _Iewes_-trumpe,
To put downe _Cokeley_, and that must be to Citizens?
And finally he compares him with the city fool:
Hee may perchance, in taile of a Sheriffes dinner,
Skip with a rime o' the table, from _New-nothing_,
And take his _Almaine_-leape into a custard.
Thus not only does Jonson identify the Vice with the fool, but with the
fool in his senility. The characteristic functions of the jester in the
Shakespearian drama, with his abundant store of improvised jests, witty
retorts, and irresistible impudence, have no part in this character. He
is merely the mountebank who climbs upon a tavern stool, skips over the
table, and leaps into corporation custards.
Iniquity, then, plays no real part in the drama. His introduction is
merely for the purpose of satire. In _The Staple of News_ the subject
is renewed, and treated with greater directness:
'_Tat. _ I would fain see the fool, gossip; the fool is the
finest man in the company, they say, and has all the wit:
he is the very justice o' peace o' the play, and can commit
whom he will and what he will, error, absurdity, as the toy
takes him, and no man say black is his eye, but laugh at him'.
In _Epigram 115, On the Town's Honest Man_, Jonson
again identifies the Vice with the mountebank, almost in
the same way as he does in _The Devil is an Ass_:
. . . this is one
Suffers no name but a description
Being no vicious person but the Vice
About the town; . . .
At every meal, where it doth dine or sup,
The cloth's no sooner gone, but it gets up,
And shifting of its faces, doth play more
Parts than the Italian could do with his door.
Acts old Iniquity and in the fit
Of miming gets the opinion of a wit.
[48] This designation for the Vice first appears in _Nice Wanton_,
1547-53, then in _King Darius_, 1565, and _Histriomastix_, 1599
(printed 1610).
[49] Wright, _Hist. of Caricature_, p. 106.
[50] Doran, p. 182.
[51] _Ibid. _, p. 210.
II. THE SATIRICAL DRAMA
It was from Aristophanes[52] that Jonson learned to combine with
such boldness the palpable with the visionary, the material with the
abstract. He surpassed even his master in the power of rendering the
combination a convincing one, and his method was always the same. Fond
as he was of occasional flights of fancy, his mind was fundamentally
satirical, so that the process of welding the apparently discordant
elements was always one of rationalizing the fanciful rather than
of investing the actual with a far-away and poetic atmosphere. Thus
even his purely supernatural scenes present little incongruity. Satan
and Iniquity discuss strong waters and tobacco, Whitechapel and
Billingsgate, with the utmost familiarity; even hell's 'most exquisite
tortures' are adapted in part from the homely proverbs of the people.
In the use of his sources three tendencies are especially noticeable:
the motivation of borrowed incidents; the adjusting of action on a
moral basis: the reworking of his own favorite themes and incidents.
[52] See Herford, p. 318.
1. _General Treatment of the Plot_
For the main plot we have no direct source. It represents, however,
Jonson's typical method. It has been pointed out[53] that the
characteristic Jonsonian comedy always consists of two groups, the
intriguers and the victims. In _The Devil is an Ass_ the most purely
comic motive of the play is furnished by a reversal of the usual
relation subsisting between these two groups. Here the devil, who was
wont to be looked upon as arch-intriguer, is constantly 'fooled off
and beaten', and thus takes his position as the comic butt. Pug, in a
sense, represents a satirical trend. Through him Jonson satirizes the
outgrown supernaturalism which still clung to the skirts of Jacobean
realism, and at the same time paints in lively colors the vice of a
society against which hell itself is powerless to contend. It is only,
however, in a general way, where the devil stands for a principle, that
Pug may be considered as in any degree satirical. In the particular
incident he is always a purely comic figure, and furnishes the mirth
which results from a sense of the incongruity between anticipation and
accomplishment.
Fitzdottrel, on the other hand, is mainly satirical. Through him Jonson
passes censure upon the city gallant, the attendant at the theatre, the
victim of the prevalent superstitions, and even the pretended demoniac.
His dupery, as in the case of his bargain with Wittipol, excites
indignation rather than mirth, and his final discomfiture affords us
almost a sense of poetic justice. This character stands in the position
of chief victim.
In an intermediate position are Merecraft and Everill. They succeed in
swindling Fitzdottrel and Lady Tailbush, but are in turn played upon by
the chief intriguer, Wittipol, with his friend Manly. Jonson's moral
purpose is here plainly visible, especially in contrast to Plautus,
with whom the youthful intriguer is also the stock figure. The motive
of the young man's trickery in the Latin comedy is usually unworthy and
selfish. That of Wittipol, on the other hand, is wholly disinterested,
since he is represented as having already philosophically accepted the
rejection of his advances at the hands of Mrs. Fitzdottrel.
In construction the play suffers from overabundance of material.
Instead of a single main line of action, which is given clear
precedence, there is rather a succession of elaborated episodes,
carefully connected and motivated, but not properly subordinated. The
plot is coherent and intricate rather than unified. This is further
aggravated by the fact that the chief objects of satire are imperfectly
understood by readers of the present day.
Jonson observes unity of time, Pug coming to earth in
the morning and returning at midnight. With the exception
of the first scene, which is indeterminate, and seems at
one moment to be hell, and the next London, the action is
confined to the City, but hovers between Lincoln's Inn,
Newgate, and the house of Lady Tailbush. Unity of action
is of course broken by the interference of the devil-plot and
the episodic nature of the satirical plot. The main lines
of action may be discussed separately.
In the first act chief prominence is given to the intrigue
between Wittipol and Mrs. Fitzdottrel. This interest is
continued through the second act, but practically dropped
after this point. In Act 4 we find that both lovers have
recovered from their infatuation, and the intrigue ends by
mutual consent.
The second act opens with the episode of Merecraft's plot to gull
Fitzdottrel.
