No More Learning

Of no less
importance in this connection is the attitude of the King himself.
In the famous _Demonology_[85] he allied himself unhesitatingly with
the cause of superstition. Witchcraft was of course not without
its opponents, but these were for the most part obscure men and of
little personal influence. While Bacon and Raleigh were inclining
to a belief in witchcraft, and Sir Thomas Browne was offering his
support to persecution, the cause of reason was intrusted to such
champions as Reginald Scot, the author of the famous _Discovery of
Witchcraft_, 1584, a work which fearlessly exposes the prevailing
follies and crimes. It is on this side that Jonson places himself. That
he should make a categorical statement as to his belief or disbelief
in witchcraft is not to be expected. It is enough that he presents
a picture of the pretended demoniac, that he makes it as sordid and
hateful as possible, that he draws for us in the person of Justice
Eitherside the portrait of the bigoted, unreasonable, and unjust judge,
and that he openly ridicules the series of cases which he used as the
source of his witch scenes (cf. Act. 5. Sc. 3).

To form an adequate conception of the poet's satirical purpose in
this play one should compare the methods used here with the treatment
followed in Jonson's other dramas where the witch motive occurs.
In _The Masque of Queens_, 1609, and in _The Sad Shepherd_, Jonson
employed the lore of witchcraft more freely, but in a quite different
way. Here, instead of hard realism with all its hideous details, the
more picturesque beliefs and traditions are used for purely imaginative
and poetical purposes.

_The Masque of Queens_ was presented at Whitehall, and dedicated to
Prince Henry. Naturally Jonson's attitude toward witchcraft would here
be respectful. It is to be observed, however, that in the copious notes
which are appended to the masque no contemporary trials are referred
to. The poet relies upon the learned compilations of Bodin, Remigius,
Cornelius Agrippa, and Paracelsus, together with many of the classical
authors. He is clearly dealing with the mythology of witchcraft.
Nightshade and henbane, sulphur, vapors, the eggshell boat, and the
cobweb sail are the properties which he uses in this poetic drama.
The treatment does not differ essentially from that of Middleton and
Shakespeare.

In _The Sad Shepherd_ the purpose is still different. We have none of
the wild unearthliness of the masque. Maudlin is a witch of a decidedly
vulgar type, but there is no satirical intent. Jonson, for the purpose
of his play, accepts for the moment the prevailing attitude toward
witchcraft, and the satisfaction in Maudlin's discomfiture doubtless
assumed an acquiescence in the popular belief. At the same time the
poetical aspect is not wholly forgotten, and appears with especial
prominence in the beautiful passage which describes the witch's forest
haunt, beginning: 'Within a gloomy dimble she doth dwell'. _The Sad
Shepherd_ and the masque are far more akin to each other in their
treatment of witchcraft than is either to _The Devil is an Ass_.

[84] See _Trials for Witchcraft 1596-7_, vol. 1, _Miscellany of the
Spalding Club_, Aberdeen, 1841.

[85] First appeared in 1597. _Workes_, fol. ed. , appeared 1616, the
year of this play.




IV. PERSONAL SATIRE


The detection of personal satire in Jonson's drama is difficult,
and at best unsatisfactory. Jonson himself always resented it as an
impertinence. [86] In the present case Fleay suggests that the motto,
_Ficta, voluptatis causa, sint proxima veris_, is an indication that we
are to look upon the characters as real persons. But Jonson twice took
the pains to explain that this is precisely the opposite of his own
interpretation of Horace's meaning. [87] The subject of personal satire
was a favorite one with him, and in _The Magnetic Lady_ he makes the
sufficiently explicit statement: 'A play, though it apparel and present
vices in general, flies from all particularities in persons'.

On the other hand we know that Jonson did occasionally indulge in
personal satire. Carlo Buffone,[88] Antonio Balladino,[89] and the
clerk Nathaniel[90] are instances sufficiently authenticated. Of these
Jonson advances a plea of justification: 'Where have I been particular?
where personal? except to a mimic, cheater, bawd or buffoon, creatures,
for their insolencies, worthy to be taxed? yet to which of these so
pointingly, as he might not either ingenuously have confest, or wisely
dissembled his disease? '[91]

In only one play do we know that the principal characters represent
real people. But between _Poetaster_ and _The Devil is an Ass_ there
is a vast difference of treatment. In _Poetaster_ (1) the attitude is
undisguisedly satirical. The allusions in the prologues and notices
to the reader are direct and unmistakable. (2) The character-drawing
is partly caricature, partly allegorical. This method is easily
distinguishable from the typical, which aims to satirize a class.
(3) Jonson does not draw upon historical events, but personal
idiosyncrasies. (4) The chief motive is in the spirit of Aristophanes,
the great master of personal satire. These methods are what we should
naturally expect in a composition of this sort. Of such internal
evidence we find little or nothing in _The Devil is an Ass_. Several
plausible identifications, however, have been proposed, and these we
must consider separately.

The chief characters are identified by Fleay as follows: Wittipol is
Jonson. He has returned from travel, and had seen Mrs. Fitzdottrel
before he went. Mrs. Fitzdottrel is the Lady Elizabeth Hatton.
Fitzdottrel is her husband, Sir Edward Coke.

=Mrs. Fitzdottrel=. The identification is based upon a series of
correspondences between a passage in _The Devil is an Ass_ (2. 6.
57-113) and a number of passages scattered through Jonson's works. The
most important of these are quoted in the note to the above passage. To
them has been added an important passage from _A Challenge at Tilt_,
1613. Fleay's deductions are these: (1) _Underwoods 36_ and _Charis_
must be addressed to the same lady (cf. especially _Ch. _, part 5). (2)
Charis and Mrs. Fitzdottrel are identical. The song (2. 6. 94 f. ) is
found complete in the _Celebration of Charis_. In Wittipol's preceding
speech we find the phrases 'milk and roses' and 'bank of kisses', which
occur in _Charis_ and in _U. 36_, and a reference to the husband who
is the 'just excuse' for the wife's infidelity, which occurs in _U.
36_. (3) Charis is Lady Hatton. Fleay believes that _Charis_, part
1, in which the poet speaks of himself as writing 'fifty years', was
written c 1622-3; but that parts 2-10 were written c 1608. In reference
to these parts he says: 'Written in reference to a mask in which
Charis represented Venus riding in a chariot drawn by swans and doves
(_Charis_, part 4), at a marriage, and leading the Graces in a dance
at Whitehall, worthy to be envied of the Queen (6), in which Cupid had
a part (2, 3, 5), at which Charis kissed him (6, 7), and afterwards
kept up a close intimacy with him (8, 9, 10). The mask of 1608, Feb.
9, exactly fulfils these conditions, and the Venus of that mask was
probably L. Elizabeth Hatton, the most beautiful of the then court
ladies. She had appeared in the mask of Beauty, 1608, Jan. 10, but
in no other year traceable by me. From the Elegy, G. 36, manifestly
written to the same lady (compare it with the lines in 5 as to "the
bank of kisses" and "the bath of milk and roses"), we learn that Charis
had "a husband that is the just excuse of all that can be done him".
This was her second husband, Sir Edward Coke, to whom she was married
in 1593'.

Fleay's theory rests chiefly upon (1) his interpretation of _The
Celebration of Claris_; (2) the identity of Charis and Mrs.
Fitzdottrel. A study of the poem has led me to conclusions of a very
different nature from those of Fleay. They may be stated as follows:

_Charis_ 1. This was evidently written in 1622-3. Jonson plainly says:
'Though I now write fifty years'. Charis is here seemingly identified
with Lady Purbeck, daughter of Lady Hatton. Compare the last two lines
with the passage from _The Gipsies_. Fleay believes the compliments
were transferred in the masque at Lady Hatton's request.

_Charis_ 4 and 7 have every mark of being insertions. (1) They are in
different metres from each other and from the other sections, which in
this respect are uniform. (2) They are not in harmony with the rest of
the poem. They entirely lack the easy, familiar, half jocular style
which characterizes the eight other parts. (3) Each is a somewhat
ambitious effort, complete in itself, and distinctly lyrical. (4) In
neither is there any mention of or reference to Charis. (5) It is
evident, therefore, that they were not written for the _Charis_ poem,
but merely interpolated. They are, then, of all the parts the least
valuable for the purpose of identification, nor are we justified in
looking upon them as continuing a definite narrative with the rest of
the poem. (6) The evident reason for introducing them is their own
intrinsic lyrical merit.

_Charis_ 4 was apparently written in praise of some pageant, probably a
court masque. The representation of Venus drawn in a chariot by swans
and doves, the birds sacred to her, may have been common enough. That
this is an accurate description of the masque of February 9, 1608 is,
however, a striking fact, and it is possible that the lady referred
to is the same who represented Venus in that masque. But (1) we do
not even know that Jonson refers to a masque of his own, or a masque
at all. (2) We have no trustworthy evidence that Lady Hatton was the
Venus of that masque. Fleay's identification is little better than a
guess. (3) Evidence is derived from the first stanza alone. This does
not appear in _The Devil is an Ass_, and probably was not written at
the time. Otherwise there is no reason for its omission in that place.
It seems to have been added for the purpose of connecting the lyric
interpolation with the rest of the poem.

_Charis_ 5 seems to be a late production. (1) Jonson combines in this
single section a large number of figures used in other places. (2)
That it was not the origin of these figures seems to be intimated by
the words of the poem. Cupid is talking. He had lately found Jonson
describing his lady, and Jonson's words, he says, are descriptive of
Cupid's own mother, Venus. So Homer had spoken of her hair, so Anacreon
of her face. He continues:

By her looks I do her know
_Which you call_ my shafts.

The italicized words may refer to _U. 36. _ 3-4. They correspond,
however, much more closely to _Challenge_, _2 Cup. _ The 'bath your
verse discloses' (l. 21) may refer to _DA. _ 2. 6. 82-3. _U. 36. _ 7-8
or _Gipsies_ 15-6.

. . . the bank of kisses,
Where _you say_ men gather blisses

is mentioned in _U. 36. _ 9-10. 'The passages in _DA. _ and _Gipsies_[92]
are less close. The 'valley _called_ my nest' may be a reference to
_DA. _ 2. 6. 74 f. Jonson had already spoken of the 'girdle 'bout her
waist' in _Challenge_, _2 Cup. _ _Charis_ 5 seems then to have been
written later than _U. 36_, _Challenge_, 1613, and probably _Devil is
an Ass_, 1616. The evidence is strong, though not conclusive.

_Charis_ 6 evidently refers to a marriage at Whitehall. That Cupid, who
is referred to in 2, 3, 5, had any part in the marriage of _Charis_ 6
is nowhere even intimated. That Charis led the Graces in a dance is
a conjecture equally unfounded. Jonson of course takes the obvious
opportunity (ll. 20, 26) of playing on the name Charis. That this
occasion was the same as that celebrated in 4 we have no reason to
believe. It applies equally well, for instance, to _A Challenge at
Tilt_, but we are by no means justified in so limiting it. It may have
been imaginary.

_Charis_ 7 was written before 1618, since Jonson quoted a part of it to
Drummond during his visit in Scotland (cf. _Conversations_ 5). It was
a favorite of the poet's and this furnishes sufficient reason for its
insertion here. It is worthy of note that the two sections of _Charis_,
which we know by external proof to have been in existence before 1623,
are those which give internal evidence of being interpolations.

_Summary. _ The poem was probably a late production and of composite
nature. There is no reason for supposing that the greater part was not
written in 1622-3. The fourth and seventh parts are interpolations.
The first stanza of the fourth part, upon which the identification
largely rests, seems not to have been written until the poem was put
together in 1622-3. If it was written at the same time as the other
two stanzas, we cannot expect to find it forming part of a connected
narrative. The events described in the fourth and sixth parts are not
necessarily the same. There is practically no evidence that Lady Hatton
was the Venus of 1608, or that _Charis_ is addressed to any particular
lady.

The other link in Fleay's chain of evidence is of still weaker
substance. The mere repetition of compliments does not necessarily
prove the recipient to be the same person. In fact we find in these
very pieces the same phrases applied indiscriminately to Lady Purbeck,
Lady Frances Howard, Mrs. Fitzdottrel, perhaps to Lady Hatton, and even
to the Earl of Somerset. Of what value, then, can such evidence be?

Fleay's whole theory rests on this poem, and biographical evidence is
unnecessary. It is sufficient to notice that Lady Hatton was a proud
woman, that marriage with so eminent a man as Sir Edward Coke was
considered a great condescension (_Chamberlain's Letters_, Camden Soc. ,
p. 29), and that an amour with Jonson is extremely improbable.

=Fitzdottrel. = Fleay's identification of Fitzdottrel with Coke rests
chiefly on the fact that Coke was Lady Hatton's husband. The following
considerations are added. Fitzdottrel is a 'squire of Norfolk'. Sir
E. Coke was a native of Norfolk, and had held office in Norwich.
Fitzdottrel's role as sham demoniac is a covert allusion to Coke's
adoption of the popular witch doctrines in the Overbury trial. His
jealousy of his wife was shown in the same trial, where he refused to
read the document of 'what ladies loved what lords', because, as was
popularly supposed, his own wife's name headed the list. Jonson is
taking advantage of Coke's disgrace in November, 1616. He had flattered
him in 1613 (_U. 64_).

Our reasons for rejecting this theory are as follows: (1) The natural
inference is that Jonson would not deliberately attack the man whom
he had highly praised three years before. I do not understand Fleay's
assertion that Jonson was always ready to attack the fallen. (2) The
compliment paid to Coke in 1613 (_U. 64_) was not the flattery of an
hour of triumph. The appointment to the king's bench was displeasing to
Coke, and made at the suggestion of Bacon with the object of removing
him to a place where he would come less often into contact with the
king.
(3) Fitzdottrel is a light-headed man of fashion, who spends his
time in frequenting theatres and public places, and in conjuring evil
spirits. Coke was sixty-four years old, the greatest lawyer of his
time, and a man of the highest gifts and attainments. (4) The attempted
parallel between Fitzdottrel, the pretended demoniac, and Coke, as
judge in the Overbury trial, is patently absurd. (5) If Lady Hatton had
not been selected for identification with Mrs. Fitzdottrel, Coke would
never have been dreamed of as a possible Fitzdottrel.

=Wittipol. = He is a young man just returned from travel, which
apparently has been of considerable duration. He saw Mrs. Fitzdottrel
once before he went, and upon returning immediately seeks her out.
How does this correspond to Jonson's life? _The Hue and Cry_ was
played February 9, 1608. According to Fleay's interpretation, this was
followed by an intimacy with Lady Hatton. Five years later, in 1613,
Drummond tells us that Jonson went to France with the son of Sir Walter
Raleigh. He returned the same year in time to compose _A Challenge at
Tilt_, December 27. Three years later he wrote _The Devil is an Ass_ at
the age of forty-three.

Wittipol intimates that he is Mrs. Fitzdottrel's equal in years, in
fashion (1. 6. 124-5), and in blood (1. 6. 168). For Jonson to say this
to Lady Hatton would have been preposterous.

=Justice Eitherside. = Only the desire to prove a theory at all costs
could have prevented Fleay from seeing that Coke's counterpart is
not Fitzdottrel, but Justice Eitherside. In obstinacy, bigotry, and
vanity this character represents the class of judges with which
Coke identified himself in the Overbury trial. Nor are these merely
class-traits. They are distinctly the faults which marred Coke's career
from the beginning. It is certain that Coke is partially responsible
for this portraiture. Overbury was a personal friend of the poet, and
the trial, begun in the previous year, had extended into 1616. Jonson
must have followed it eagerly. On the other hand, it is improbable that
the picture was aimed exclusively at Coke. He merely furnished traits
for a typical and not uncommon character. As we have seen, it is in
line with Jonson's usual practise to confine personal satire to the
lesser characters.

=Merecraft. = Fleay's identification with Sir Giles Mompesson has very
little to commend it. Mompesson was connected by marriage with James
I. 's powerful favorite, George Villiers, later Duke of Buckingham. In
1616 he suggested to Villiers the creation of a special commission for
the purpose of granting licenses to keepers of inns and ale-houses.
The suggestion was adopted by Villiers; Mompesson was appointed to the
Commission in October, 1616, and knighted on November 18 of that year.
The patent was not sealed until March, 1617. His high-handed conduct
soon became unpopular, but he continued in favor with Villiers and
James, and his disgrace did not come until 1621.

It will readily be seen that Mompesson's position and career conform
in no particular to those of Merecraft in the present play. Mompesson
was a knight, a friend of the king's favorite, and in favor with
the king. Merecraft is a mere needy adventurer without influence at
court, and the associate of ruffians, who frequent the 'Straits' and
the 'Bermudas'. Mompesson was himself the recipient of a patent (see
section III. 2). Merecraft is merely the projector who devises clever
projects for more powerful patrons. Mompesson's project bears no
resemblance to those suggested by Merecraft, and he could hardly have
attracted any popular dislike at the time when _The Devil is an Ass_
was presented, since, as we have seen, his patent was not even sealed
until the following year. Finally, Jonson would hardly have attacked a
man who stood so high at court as did Mompesson in 1616.

It is evident that Jonson had particularly in mind those projectors
whose object it was to drain the fens of Lincolnshire. The attempts, as
we have seen, were numerous, and it is highly improbable that Jonson
wished to satirize any one of them more severely than another. In a
single passage, however, it seems possible that Sir John Popham (see
page lx) is referred to. In Act 4. Sc. 1 Merecraft speaks of a Sir John
Monie-man as a projector who was able to 'jump a business quickly'
because 'he had great friends'. That Popham is referred to seems not
unlikely from the fact that he was the most important personage who
had embarked upon an enterprise of this sort, that his scheme was one
of the earliest, that he was not a strict contemporary (d. 1607), and
that his scheme had been very unpopular. This is proved by an anonymous
letter to the king, in which complaint is made that 'the "covetous
bloody Popham" will ruin many poor men by his offer to drain the fens'
(_Cal. State Papers_, Mar. 14? , 1606).

=Plutarchus Guilthead. = Fleay's identification with Edmund Howes I am
prepared to accept, although biographical data are very meagre. Fleay
says: 'Plutarchus Gilthead, who is writing the lives of the great
men in the city; the captain who writes of the Artillery Garden "to
train the youth", etc. [3. 2. 45], is, I think, Edmond Howes, whose
continuation of Stow's Chronicle was published in 1615. '

Howes' undertaking was a matter of considerable ridicule to his
acquaintances. In his 1631 edition he speaks of the heavy blows and
great discouragements he received from his friends. He was in the habit
of signing himself 'Gentleman' and this seems to be satirized in 3. 1,
where Guilthead says repeatedly: 'This is to make you a Gentleman' (see
_N. & Q. _ 1st Ser. 6. 199. ).

=The Noble House. = Two proposed identifications of the 'noble house',
which pretends to a duke's title, mentioned at 2. 4. 15-6. have been
made. The expenditure of much energy in the attempt to fix so veiled
an allusion is hardly worth while. Jonson of course depended upon
contemporary rumor, for which we have no data.

Cunningham's suggestion that Buckingham is referred to is not
convincing. Buckingham's father was Sir George Villiers of Brooksby in
Leicestershire. He was not himself raised to the nobility until August
27, 1616, when he was created Viscount Villiers and Baron Waddon. It
was not until January 5, 1617 (not 1616, as Cunningham says), that he
became Earl of Buckingham, and it is unlikely that before this time
any allusion to Villiers' aspiration to a dukedom would have been
intelligible to Jonson's audience.

Fleay's theory that the 'noble house' was that of Stuart may be
accepted provisionally. Lodowick was made Earl of Richmond in 1613, and
Duke in 1623. He was acceptable to king and people, and in this very
year was made steward of the household.

[86] See Dedication to _The Fox_, Second Prologue to _The Silent
Woman_, Induction to _Bartholomew Fair_, _Staple of News_
(Second Intermean), _Magnetic Lady_ (Second Intermean).

[87] See the note prefixed to _Staple of News_, Act 3, and
the second Prologue for _The Silent Woman_.

[88] _Ev. Man in. _

[89] _Case is Altered. _

[90] _Staple of News. _

[91] Dedication to _The Fox_.

[92] The passage from the _Gipsies_ especially finds a close parallel
in the fragment of a song in Marston's _Dutch Courtezan_, 1605, _Wks. _
2. 46:

Purest lips, soft banks of blisses,
Self alone deserving kisses.

Are not these lines from Jonson's hand? This was the year of his
collaboration with Marston in _Eastward Ho_.




D. AFTER-INFLUENCE OF THE DEVIL IS AN ASS


A few instances of the subsequent rehandling of certain motives in
this play are too striking to be completely overlooked. John Wilson,
1627-c 1696, a faithful student and close imitator of Jonson, produced
in 1690 a drama called _Belphegor_, or _The Marriage of the Devil,
a Tragi-comedy_. While it is founded on the English translation of
Machiavelli's novella, which appeared in 1674, and closely adheres
to the lines of the original, it shows clear evidence of Jonson's
influence. The subject has been fully investigated by Hollstein (cf.
_Verhaltnis_, pp. 22-24, 28-30, 35, 43, 50).

_The Cheats_, 1662, apparently refers to _The Devil is an Ass_ in
the _Prologue_. The characters of Bilboe and Titere Tu belong to the
same class of low bullies as Merecraft and Everill, but the evident
prototypes of these characters are Subtle and Face in _The Alchemist_.

A third play of Wilson's, _The Projectors_, 1664, shows unmistakable
influence of _The Devil is an Ass_. The chief object of satire is
of course the same, and the character of Sir Gudgeon Credulous is
modeled after that of Fitzdottrel. The scenes in which the projects are
explained, 2. 1 and 3. 1, are similar to the corresponding passages in
Jonson. The _Aulularia_ of Plautus is a partial source, so that the
play in some features resembles _The Case is Altered_. In 2. 1 Wilson
imitates the passage in the _Aulularia_, which closes Act 2. Sc. 1 of
_The Devil is an Ass_ (see note 2. 1. 168).

Brome, Jonson's old servant and friend, also handled the subject of
monopolies (see page lxi). Jonson's influence is especially marked in
_The Court Beggar_. The project of perukes (_Wks. _ 1. 192) should be
compared with Merecraft's project of toothpicks.

Mrs. Susanna Centlivre's _Busie Body_ uses the motives borrowed from
Boccaccio (see pp. xlv ff. ). The scenes in which these appear must have
been suggested by Jonson's play (Genest 2. 419), though the author
seems to have been acquainted with the _Decameron_ also. In Act. 1.
Sc. 1 Sir George Airy makes a bargain with Sir Francis Gripe similar
to Wittipol's bargain with Fitzdottrel. In exchange for the sum of a
hundred guineas he is admitted into the house for the purpose of moving
his suit to Miranda. 'for the space of ten minutes, without lett or
molestation', provided Sir Francis remain in the same room, though out
of ear shot (2d ed. , p. 8). In Act 2. Sc. 1 the bargain is carried out
in much the same way as in Boccaccio and in Jonson. Miranda remaining
dumb and Sir George answering for her.

In Act 3. Sc. 4 (2d ed. , p. 38) Miranda in the presence of her
guardian sends a message by Marplot not to saunter at the garden gate
about eight o'clock as he has been accustomed to do, thus making an
assignation with him (compare _DA. _ 2. 2. 52).

Other motives which seem to show some influence of _The Devil is an
Ass_ are Miranda's trick to have the estate settled upon her, Charles'
disguise as a Spaniard, and Traffick's jealous care of Isabinda. The
character of Marplot as comic butt resembles that of Pug.

The song in _The Devil is an Ass_ 2. 6. 94 (see note) was imitated by
Sir John Suckling.




APPENDIX EXTRACTS FROM THE CRITICS


GIFFORD: There is much good writing in this comedy. All the speeches
of Satan are replete with the most biting satire, delivered with an
appropriate degree of spirit. Fitzdottrel is one of those characters
which Jonson delighted to draw, and in which he stood unrivalled, a
_gull_, i. e. , a confident coxcomb, selfish, cunning, and conceited.
Mrs. Fitzdottrel possesses somewhat more interest than the generality
of our author's females, and is indeed a well sustained character. In
action the principal amusement of the scene (exclusive of the admirable
burlesque of witchery in the conclusion) was probably derived from the
mortification of poor Pug, whose stupid stare of amazement at finding
himself made an _ass_ of on every possible occasion must, if portrayed
as some then on the stage were well able to portray it, have been
exquisitely comic.

This play is strictly moral in its conception and conduct. Knavery and
folly are shamed and corrected, virtue is strengthened and rewarded,
and the ends of dramatic justice are sufficiently answered by the
simple exposure of those whose errors are merely subservient to the
minor interests of the piece.

HERFORD (_Studies in the Literary Relations of England and Germany_,
pp. 318-20): Jonson had in fact so far the Aristophanic quality of
genius, that he was at once a most elaborate and minute student of the
actual world, and a poet of the airiest and boldest fancy, and that he
loved to bring the two roles into the closest possible combination. No
one so capable of holding up the mirror to contemporary society without
distorting the slenderest thread of its complex tissue of usages; no
one, on the other hand, who so keenly delighted in startling away
the illusion or carefully undermining it by some palpably fantastic
invention. His most elaborate reproductions of the everyday world are
hardly ever without an infusion of equally elaborate caprice,--a leaven
of recondite and fantastic legend and grotesque myth, redolent of old
libraries and antique scholarship, furtively planted, as it were, in
the heart of that everyday world of London life, and so subtly blending
with it that the whole motley throng of merchants and apprentices,
gulls and gallants, discover nothing unusual in it, and engage with the
most perfectly matter of fact air in the business of working it out.
The purging of Crispinus in the _Poetaster_, the Aristophanic motive
of the _Magnetic Lady_, even the farcical horror of noise which is the
mainspring of the _Epicoene_, are only less elaborate and sustained
examples of this fantastic realism than the adventure of a Stupid
Devil in the play before us. Nothing more anomalous in the London of
Jonson's day could be conceived; yet it is so managed that it loses
all its strangeness. So perfectly is the supernatural element welded
with the human, that it almost ceases to appear supernatural. Pug, the
hero of the adventure, is a pretty, petulant boy, more human by many
degrees than the half fairy Puck of Shakespeare, which doubtless helped
to suggest him, and the arch-fiend Satan is a bluff old politician,
anxious to ward off the perils of London from his young simpleton of a
son, who is equally eager to plunge into them. The old savage horror
fades away before Jonson's humanising touch, the infernal world loses
all its privilege of peculiar terror and strength, and sinks to the
footing of a mere rival state, whose merchandise can be kept out of the
market and its citizens put in the Counter or carted to Tyburn.

A. W. WARD (_Eng. Dram. Lit. _, pp. 372-3): The oddly-named comedy
of _The Devil is an Ass_, acted in 1616, seems already to exhibit a
certain degree of decay in the dramatic powers which had so signally
called forth its predecessor. Yet this comedy possesses a considerable
literary interest, as adapting both to Jonson's dramatic method, and
to the general moral atmosphere of his age, a theme connecting itself
with some of the most notable creations of the earlier Elizabethan
drama. . . . The idea of the play is as healthy as its plot is ingenious;
but apart from the circumstance that the latter is rather slow in
preparation, and by no means, I think, gains in perspicuousness as it
proceeds, the design itself suffers from one radical mistake. Pug's
intelligence is so much below par that he suffers as largely on account
of his clumsiness as on account of his viciousness, while remaining
absolutely without influence upon the course of the action. The comedy
is at the same time full of humor, particularly in the entire character
of Fitzdottrel.

SWINBURNE (_Study of Ben Jonson_, pp. 65-7): If _The Devil is an Ass_
cannot be ranked among the crowning masterpieces of its author, it is
not because the play shows any sign of decadence in literary power or
in humorous invention. The writing is admirable, the wealth of comic
matter is only too copious, the characters are as firm in outline or as
rich in color as any but the most triumphant examples of his satirical
or sympathetic skill in finished delineation and demarcation of humors.
On the other hand, it is of all Ben Jonson's comedies since the date
of _Cynthia's Revels_ the most obsolete in subject of satire, the most
temporary in its allusions and applications: the want of fusion or even
connection (except of the most mechanical or casual kind) between the
various parts of its structure and the alternate topics of its ridicule
makes the action more difficult to follow than that of many more
complicated plots: and, finally, the admixture of serious sentiment and
noble emotion is not so skilfully managed as to evade the imputation of
incongruity. [The dialogue between Lady Tailbush and Lady Eitherside
in Act 4. Sc. 1 has some touches 'worthy of Moliere himself. ' In Act
4. Sc.