1
Fitzdottrel
speaks of Bretnor as occupying the position
once held by the conspirators in the Overbury case.
once held by the conspirators in the Overbury case.
Ben Jonson - The Devil's Association
g.
, 2.
1. 53 an] my; etc.
1716. The edition of 1716 is a bookseller's reprint of 1692. It
follows that edition in the capitalization of nouns, the breaking up
of the lines, and usually in the punctuation. In 2. 1. 78-80 over two
lines are omitted by both editions. Independent editing, however, is
not altogether lacking. We find occasional new elisions: e. g. , 1.
6. 121 I'have] I've; at least one change of wording: 2. 3. 25 where]
were; and one in the order of words: 4. 2. 22 not love] love not. In
4. 4. 75-76 and 76-78 it corrects two wrong assignments of speeches.
A regular change followed by all editors is wiues] wife's.
1756. The edition of Peter Whalley, 1756, purports to be 'collated
with all the former editions, and corrected', but according to
modern standards it cannot be called a critical text. Not only
does it follow 1716 in modernization of spelling; alteration of
contractions: e. g. , 2. 8. 69 To'a] T'a; 3. 1. 20 In t'one] Int' one;
and changes in wording: e. g. , 1. 1. 24 strengths] strength: 3. 6.
26 Gentleman] Gentlewoman; but it is evident that Whalley considered
the 1716 edition as the correct standard for a critical text, and
made his correction by a process of occasional restoration of the
original reading. Thus in restoring 'Crane', 1. 4. 50, he uses the
expression,--'which is authorized by the folio of 1640. ' Again in 2.
1. 124 he retains 'petty' from 1716, although he says: 'The edit.
of 1640, as I think more justly,--_Some_ pretty _principality_. '
This reverence for the 1716 text is inexplicable. In the matter of
capitalization Whalley forsakes his model, and he makes emendations
of his own with considerable freedom. He still further modernizes the
spelling; he spells out elided words: e. g. , 1. 3. 15 H' has] he has;
makes new elisions: e. g. , 1. 6. 143 Yo' are] You're; 1. 6. 211 I am]
I'm; grammatical changes, sometimes of doubtful correctness: e. g. ,
1. 3. 21 I'le] I'd; morphological changes: e. g. , 1. 6. 121 To scape]
T'escape; metrical changes by insertions: e. g. , 1. 1. 48 'to'; 4. 7.
38 'but now'; changes of wording: e. g. , 1. 6. 195 sad] said; in the
order of words: e. g. , 3. 4. 59 is hee] he is; and in the assignment
of speeches: e. g. , 3. 6. 61. Several printer's errors occur: e. g. ,
2. 6. 21 and 24.
1816. William Gifford's edition is more carefully printed than
that of Whalley, whom he criticizes freely. In many indefensible
changes, however, he follows his predecessor, even to the insertion
of words in 1. 1. 48 and 4. 7. 38, 39 (see above). He makes further
morphological changes, even when involving a change of metre: e. g. ,
1. 1. 11 Totnam] Tottenham; 1. 4. 88 phantsie] phantasie; makes new
elisions: e. g. , 1. 6. 226 I ha'] I've; changes in wording: e. g. ,
2. 1. 97 O'] O! ; and in assignment of speeches: e. g. , 4. 4. 17. He
usually omits parentheses, and the following changes in contracted
words occur, only exceptions being noted in the variants: fro']
from; gi'] give; h'] he; ha'] have; 'hem] them (but often 'em); i']
in; o'] on, of; t'] to; th'] the; upo'] upon; wi'] with, will; yo']
you. Gifford's greatest changes are in the stage directions and
side notes of the 1631 edition. The latter he considered as of 'the
most trite and trifling nature', and 'a worthless incumbrance'. He
accordingly cut or omitted with the utmost freedom, introducing new
and elaborate stage directions of his own. He reduced the number of
scenes from thirty-six to seventeen. In this, as Hathaway points out,
he followed the regular English usage, dividing the scenes according
to actual changes of place. Jonson adhered to classical tradition,
and looked upon a scene as a situation. Gifford made his alterations
by combining whole scenes, except in the case of Act 2. 3, which
begins at Folio Act 2. 7. 23 (middle of line); of Act 3. 2, which
begins at Folio Act 3. 5. 65 and of Act 3. 3, which begins at Folio
Act 3. 5. 78 (middle of line). He considered himself justified in
his mutilation of the side notes on the ground that they were not
from the hand of Jonson. Evidence has already been adduced to show
that they were at any rate printed with his sanction. I am, however,
inclined to believe with Gifford that they were written by another
hand. Gifford's criticism of them is to a large extent just. The note
on '_Niaise_', 1. 6. 18, is of especially doubtful value (see note).
1875. 'Cunningham's reissue, 1875, reprints Gifford's text without
change. Cunningham, however, frequently expresses his disapproval of
Gifford's licence in changing the text' (Winter).
[1] The first volume of this folio appeared in 1616. A reprint of
this volume in 1640 is sometimes called the Second Folio. It should
not be confused with the 1631-41 Edition of the second volume.
[2] Note prefixed to _Bartholomew Fair_.
[3] _Eng. Drama_, p. 78.
[4] _Eng. Drama_ 2. 296.
[5] _N. & Q. _ 4th Ser. 5. 573.
[6] _Bibliog. Col. _, 2d Ser. p. 320.
[7] _Bibliog. Col. _, p. 320. For a more detailed description of this
volume see Winter, pp. xii-xiii.
[8] For a collation of this edition, see Mallory, pp. xv-xvii.
B. DATE AND PRESENTATION
We learn from the title-page that this comedy was acted
in 1616 by the King's Majesty's Servants. This is further
confirmed by a passage in 1. 1. 80-81:
Now? As Vice stands this present yeere? Remember,
What number it is. _Six hundred_ and _sixteene_.
Another passage (1. 6. 31) tells us that the performance
took place in the Blackfriars Theatre:
Today, I goe to the _Black-fryers Play-house_.
That Fitzdottrel is to see _The Devil is an Ass_ we learn later
(3. 5. 38). The performance was to take place after dinner (3. 5. 34).
At this time the King's Men were in possession of two theatres,
the Globe and the Blackfriars. The former was used in the summer,
so that _The Devil is an Ass_ was evidently not performed during
that season. [9] These are all the facts that we can determine with
certainty.
Jonson's masque, _The Golden Age Restored_, was presented, according
to Fleay, on January 1 and 6. His next masque was _Christmas, his
Masque_, December 25, 1616. Between these dates he must have been
busy on _The Devil is an Ass_. Fleay, who identifies Fitzdottrel
with Coke, conjectures that the date of the play is probably late in
1616, after Coke's discharge in November. If Coke is satirized either
in the person of Fitzdottrel or in that of Justice Eitherside (see
Introduction, pp. lxx, lxxii), the conjecture may be allowed to have
some weight.
In 1. 2.
1 Fitzdottrel speaks of Bretnor as occupying the position
once held by the conspirators in the Overbury case. Franklin, who
is mentioned, was not brought to trial until November 18, 1615.
Jonson does not speak of the trial as of a contemporary or nearly
contemporary event.
Act 4 is largely devoted to a satire of Spanish fashions. In 4. 2. 71
there is a possible allusion to the Infanta Maria, for whose marriage
with Prince Charles secret negotiations were being carried on at this
time. We learn that Commissioners were sent to Spain on November
9 (_Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser. _), and from a letter of January
1, 1617, that 'the Spanish tongue, dress, etc. are all in fashion'
(_ibid. _).
These indications are all of slight importance, but from their united
evidence we may feel reasonably secure in assigning the date of
presentation to late November or early December, 1616.
The play was not printed until 1631. It seems never to have been
popular, but was revived after the Restoration, and is given by
Downes[10] in the list of old plays acted in the New Theatre in Drury
Lane after April 8, 1663. He continues: 'These being Old Plays,
were Acted but now and then; yet being well Perform'd were very
Satisfactory to the Town'. The other plays of Jonson revived by this
company were _The Fox_, _The Alchemist_, _Epicoene_, _Catiline_,
_Every Man out of his Humor_, _Every Man in his Humor_, and
_Sejanus_. Genest gives us no information of any later revival.
[9] Collier, _Annals_ 3. 275, 302; Fleay, _Hist. _ 190.
[10] _Roscius Anglicanus_, p. 8.
C. THE DEVIL IS AN ASS
Jonson's characteristic conception of comedy as a vehicle for the
study of 'humors' passed in _Every Man out of his Humor_ into
caricature, and in _Cynthia's Revels_ and _Poetaster_ into allegory.
The process was perfectly natural. In the humor study each character
is represented as absorbed by a single vice or folly. In the
allegorical treatment the abstraction is the starting-point, and the
human element the means of interpretation. Either type of drama, by
a shifting of emphasis, may readily pass over into the other. The
failure of _Cynthia's Revels_, in spite of the poet's arrogant boast
at its close, had an important effect upon his development, and the
plays of Jonson's middle period, from _Sejanus_ to _The Devil is an
Ass_, show more restraint in the handling of character, as well as
far greater care in construction. The figures are typical rather than
allegorical, and the plot in general centres about certain definite
objects of satire. Both plot and characterization are more closely
unified.
_The Devil is an Ass_ marks a return to the supernatural and
allegorical. The main action, however, belongs strictly to the type
of the later drama, especially as exemplified by _The Alchemist_.
The fanciful motive of the infernal visitant to earth was found to
be of too slight texture for Jonson's sternly moral and satirical
purpose. In the development of the drama it breaks down completely,
and is crowded out by the realistic plot. Thus what promised at first
to be the chief, and remains in some respects the happiest, motive
of the play comes in the final execution to be little better than
an inartistic and inharmonious excrescence. Yet Jonson's words to
Drummond seem to indicate that he still looked upon it as the real
kernel of the play. [11]
The action is thus easily divisible into two main lines; the
devil-plot, involving the fortunes of Satan, Pug and Iniquity, and
the satirical or main plot. This division is the more satisfactory,
since Satan and Iniquity are not once brought into contact with the
chief actors, while Pug's connection with them is wholly external,
and affects only his own fortunes. He is, as Herford has already
pointed out, merely 'the fly upon the engine-wheel, fortunate to
escape with a bruising' (_Studies_, p. 320). He forms, however, the
connecting link between the two plots, and his function in the drama
must be regarded from two different points of view, according as it
shares in the realistic or the supernatural element.
[11] 'A play of his, upon which he was accused, The Divell
is ane Ass; according to _Comedia Vetus_, in England the Divell
was brought in either with one Vice or other: the play done the Divel
caried away the Vice, he brings in the Divel so overcome with the
wickedness of this age that thought himself ane Ass. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
[incidentally] is discoursed of the Duke of Drounland: the King
desired him to conceal it'. --_Conversations with William Drummond_,
Jonson's _Wks. _ 9. 400-1.
I. THE DEVIL-PLOT
Jonson's title, _The Devil is an Ass_, expresses with perfect adequacy
the familiarity and contempt with which this once terrible personage
had come to be regarded in the later Elizabethan period. The poet, of
course, is deliberately archaizing, and the figures of devil and Vice
are made largely conformable to the purposes of satire. Several years
before, in the Dedication to _The Fox_,[12] Jonson had expressed his
contempt for the introduction of 'fools and devils and those antique
relics of barbarism', characterizing them as 'ridiculous and exploded
follies'. He treats the same subject with biting satire in _The Staple
of News_. [13] Yet with all his devotion to realism in matters of petty
detail, of local color, and of contemporary allusion, he was, as we
have seen, not without an inclination toward allegory. Thus in _Every
Man out of his Humor_ the figure of Macilente is very close to a purely
allegorical expression of envy. In _Cynthia's Revels_ the process was
perfectly conscious, for in the Induction to that play the characters
are spoken of as Virtues and Vices. In _Poetaster_ again we have the
purging of Demetrius and Crispinus. Jonson's return to this field
in _The Devil is an Ass_ is largely prophetic of the future course
of his drama. The allegory of _The Staple of News_ is more closely
woven into the texture of the play than is that of _The Devil is an
Ass_; and the conception of Pecunia and her retinue is worked out with
much elaboration. In the Second Intermean the purpose of this play is
explained as a refinement of method in the use of allegory. For the old
Vice with his wooden dagger to snap at everybody he met, or Iniquity,
appareled 'like Hokos Pokos, in a juggler's jerkin', he substitutes
'vices male and female', 'attired like men and women of the time'. This
of course is only a more philosophical and abstract statement of the
idea which he expresses in _The Devil is an Ass_ (1. 1. 120 f. ) of a
world where the vices are not distinguishable by any outward sign from
the virtues:
They weare the same clothes, eate the same meate,
Sleep i' the self-same beds, ride i' those coaches.
Or very like, foure horses in a coach,
As the best men and women.
_The New Inn_ and _The Magnetic Lady_ are also penetrated
with allegory of a sporadic and trivial nature. Jonson's
use of devil and Vice in the present play is threefold. It
is in part earnestly allegorical, especially in Satan's long
speech in the first scene; it is in part a satire upon the
employment of what he regarded as barbarous devices; and
it is, to no small extent, itself a resort for the sake of comic
effect to the very devices which he ridiculed.
Jonson's conception of the devil was naturally very far from mediaeval,
and he relied for the effectiveness of his portrait upon current
disbelief in this conception. Yet mediaevalism had not wholly died out,
and remnants of the morality-play are to be found in many plays of
the Elizabethan and Jacobean drama. Rev. John Upton, in his _Critical
Observations on Shakespeare_, 1746, was the first to point out the
historical connection between Jonson's Vice and devils and those of
the pre-Shakespearian drama. In modern times the history of the devil
and the Vice as dramatic figures has been thoroughly investigated, the
latest works being those of Dr. L. W. Cushman and Dr. E. Eckhardt,
at whose hands the subject has received exhaustive treatment. The
connection with Machiavelli's novella of _Belfagor_ was pointed out
by Count Baudissin,[14] _Ben Jonson und seine Schule_, Leipzig 1836,
and has been worked out exhaustively by Dr. E. Hollstein in a Halle
dissertation, 1901. Dr. C. H. Herford, however, had already suggested
that the chief source of the devil-plot was to be found in the legend
of Friar Rush.
[12] _Wks. _ 3. 158.
[13] _Wks. _ 5. 105 f. Cf. also Shirley, Prologue to _The Doubtful Heir_.
[14] Count Baudissin translated two of Jonson's comedies into German,
_The Alchemist_ and _The Devil is an Ass_ (_Der Dumme Teufel_).
1. _The Devil in the pre-Shakespearian Drama_
The sources for the conception of the devil in the mediaeval drama
are to be sought in a large body of non-dramatic literature. In this
literature the devil was conceived of as a fallen angel, the enemy of
God and his hierarchy, and the champion of evil. As such he makes his
appearance in the mystery-plays. The mysteries derived their subjects
from Bible history, showed comparatively little pliancy, and dealt
always with serious themes. In them the devil is with few exceptions a
serious figure. Occasionally, however, even at this early date, comedy
and satire find place. The most prominent example is the figure of
Titivillus in the Towneley cycle.
In the early moralities the devil is still of primary importance, and
is always serious. But as the Vice became a more and more prominent
figure, the devil became less and less so, and in the later drama his
part is always subordinate. The play of _Nature_ (c. 1500) is the first
morality without a devil. Out of fifteen moralities of later date
tabulated by Cushman, only four are provided with this character.
The degeneration of the devil as a dramatic figure was inevitable. His
grotesque appearance, at first calculated to inspire terror, by its
very exaggeration produced, when once familiar, a wholly comic effect.
When the active comic parts were assumed by the Vice, he became a mere
butt, and finally disappears.
One of the earliest comic figures in the religious drama
is that of the clumsy or uncouth servant. [15] Closely allied
to him is the under-devil, who appears as early as _The
Harrowing of Hell_, and this figure is constantly employed
as a comic personage in the later drama. [16] The figure of
the servant later developed into that of the clown, and in
this type the character of the devil finally merged. [17]
[15] Eckhardt, p. 42 f. ]
[16] _Ibid. _, p. 67 f. ]
[17] In general the devil is more closely related to the
clown, and the Vice to the fool. In some cases, however, the devil
is to be identified with the fool, and the Vice with the clown.
2. _Jonson's Treatment of the Devil_
In the present play the devil-type is represented by the arch-fiend
Satan and his stupid subordinate, Pug. Of these two Satan received
more of the formal conventional elements of the older drama, while Pug
for the most part represents the later or clownish figure. As in the
morality-play Satan's chief function is the instruction of his emissary
of evil. In no scene does he come into contact with human beings, and
he is always jealously careful for the best interests of his state. In
addition Jonson employs one purely conventional attribute belonging to
the tradition of the church- and morality-plays. This is the cry of
'Ho, ho! ', with which Satan makes his entrance upon the stage in the
first scene. [18] Other expressions of emotion were also used, but 'Ho,
ho! ' came in later days to be recognized as the conventional cry of the
fiend upon making his entrance. [19]
How the character of Satan was to be represented is of course
impossible to determine. The devil in the pre-Shakespearian drama was
always a grotesque figure, often provided with the head of a beast and
a cow's tail. [20] In the presentation of Jonson's play the ancient
tradition was probably followed. Satan's speeches, however, are not
undignified, and too great grotesqueness of costume must have resulted
in considerable incongruity.
In the figure of Pug few of the formal elements of the
pre-Shakespearian devil are exhibited. He remains, of course, the
ostensible champion of evil, but is far surpassed by his earthly
associates, both in malice and in intellect. In personal appearance he
is brought by the assumption of the body and dress of a human being
into harmony with his environment. A single conventional episode,
with a reversal of the customary proceeding, is retained from the
morality-play. While Pug is languishing in prison, Iniquity appears,
Pug mounts upon his back, and is carried off to hell. Iniquity comments
upon it:
The Diuell was wont to carry away the euill;
But, now, the Euill out-carries the Diuell.
That the practice above referred to was a regular or even
a frequent feature of the morality-play has been disputed,
but the evidence seems fairly conclusive that it was common
in the later and more degenerate moralities. At any rate,
like the cry of 'Ho, ho! ' it had come to be looked upon
as part of the regular stock in trade, and this was enough
for Jonson's purpose. [21] This motive of the Vice riding the
devil had changed from a passive to an active comic part.
Instead of the devil's prey he had become in the eyes of
the spectators the devil's tormentor. Jonson may be looked
upon as reverting, perhaps unconsciously, to the original
and truer conception.
In other respects Pug exhibits only the characteristics of the
inheritor of the devil's comedy part, the butt or clown. As we have
seen, one of the chief sources, as well as one of the constant modes
of manifestation, of this figure was the servant or man of low social
rank. Pug, too, on coming to earth immediately attaches himself to
Fitzdottrel as a servant, and throughout his brief sojourn on earth he
continues to exhibit the wonted stupidity and clumsy uncouthness of
the clown. He appears, to be sure, in a fine suit of clothes, but he
soon shows himself unfit for the position of gentleman-usher, and his
stupidity appears at every turn. The important element in the clown's
comedy part, of a contrast between intention and accomplishment,
is of course exactly the sort of fun inspired by Pug's repeated
discomfiture. With the clown it often takes the form of blunders
in speech, and his desire to appear fine and say the correct thing
frequently leads him into gross absurdities. This is brought out with
broad humor in 4. 4. 219, where Pug, on being catechized as to what
he should consider 'the height of his employment', stumbles upon the
unfortunate suggestion: 'To find out a good _Corne-cutter_'. His
receiving blows at the hand of his master further distinguishes him
as a clown. The investing of Pug with such attributes was, as we have
seen, no startling innovation on Jonson's part. Moreover, it fell
into line with his purpose in this play, and was the more acceptable
since it allowed him to make use of the methods of realism instead
of forcing him to draw a purely conventional figure. Pug, of course,
even in his character of clown, is not the unrelated stock-figure,
introduced merely for the sake of inconsequent comic dialogue and rough
horse-play. His part is important and definite, though not sufficiently
developed.
[18] In the Digby group of miracle-plays roaring by the devil is a
prominent feature. Stage directions in _Paul_ provide for 'cryeing
and rorying' and Belial enters with the cry, 'Ho, ho, behold me'.
Among the moralities _The Disobedient Child_ may be mentioned.
[19] So in _Gammer Gurton's Needle_, c 1562, we read: 'But
Diccon, Diccon, did not the devil cry ho, ho, ho? ' Cf. also the
translation of Goulart's Histories, 1607 (quoted by Sharp, p. 59):
'The fellow--coming to the stove--sawe the Diuills in horrible
formes, some sitting, some standing, others walking, some ramping
against the walles, but al of them, assoone as they beheld him,
crying Hoh, hoh, what makest thou here? '
[20] Cf. the words of Robin Goodfellow in _Wily Beguiled_
(_O. Pl. _, 4th ed. , 9. 268): 'I'll put me on my great carnation-nose,
and wrap me in a rowsing calf-skin suit and come like some hobgoblin,
or some devil ascended from the grisly pit of hell'.
[21] Cushman points out that it occurs in only one drama,
that of _Like will to Like_. He attributes the currency of the notion
that this mode of exit was the regular one to the famous passage in
Harsnet's _Declaration of Popish Impostures_ (p. 114, 1603): 'It was
a pretty part in the old church-playes, when the nimble Vice would
skip up nimbly like a jackanapes into the devil's necke, and ride the
devil a course, and belabour him with his wooden dagger, till he made
him roare, whereat the people would laugh to see the devil so
vice-haunted'. The moralities and tragedies give no indication of
hostility between Vice and devil. Cushman believes therefore that
Harsnet refers either to some lost morality or to 'Punch and Judy'.
It is significant, however, that in 'Punch and Judy', which gives
indications of being a debased descendant of the morality, the devil
enters with the evident intention of carrying the hero off to hell.
The joke consists as in the present play in a reversal of the usual
proceeding. Eckhardt (p. 85 n. ) points out that the Vice's cudgeling
of the devil was probably a mere mirth-provoking device, and
indicated no enmity between the two. Moreover the motive of the
devil as an animal for riding is not infrequent. In the _Castle of
Perseverance_ the devil carries away the hero, Humanum Genus. The
motive appears also in Greene's _Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_ and
Lodge and Greene's _Looking Glass for London and England_, and
especially in _Histriomastix_, where the Vice rides a roaring devil
(Eckhardt, pp. 86 f. ). We have also another bit of evidence from
Jonson himself. In _The Staple of News_ Mirth relates her reminiscences
of the old comedy.
1. 53 an] my; etc.
1716. The edition of 1716 is a bookseller's reprint of 1692. It
follows that edition in the capitalization of nouns, the breaking up
of the lines, and usually in the punctuation. In 2. 1. 78-80 over two
lines are omitted by both editions. Independent editing, however, is
not altogether lacking. We find occasional new elisions: e. g. , 1.
6. 121 I'have] I've; at least one change of wording: 2. 3. 25 where]
were; and one in the order of words: 4. 2. 22 not love] love not. In
4. 4. 75-76 and 76-78 it corrects two wrong assignments of speeches.
A regular change followed by all editors is wiues] wife's.
1756. The edition of Peter Whalley, 1756, purports to be 'collated
with all the former editions, and corrected', but according to
modern standards it cannot be called a critical text. Not only
does it follow 1716 in modernization of spelling; alteration of
contractions: e. g. , 2. 8. 69 To'a] T'a; 3. 1. 20 In t'one] Int' one;
and changes in wording: e. g. , 1. 1. 24 strengths] strength: 3. 6.
26 Gentleman] Gentlewoman; but it is evident that Whalley considered
the 1716 edition as the correct standard for a critical text, and
made his correction by a process of occasional restoration of the
original reading. Thus in restoring 'Crane', 1. 4. 50, he uses the
expression,--'which is authorized by the folio of 1640. ' Again in 2.
1. 124 he retains 'petty' from 1716, although he says: 'The edit.
of 1640, as I think more justly,--_Some_ pretty _principality_. '
This reverence for the 1716 text is inexplicable. In the matter of
capitalization Whalley forsakes his model, and he makes emendations
of his own with considerable freedom. He still further modernizes the
spelling; he spells out elided words: e. g. , 1. 3. 15 H' has] he has;
makes new elisions: e. g. , 1. 6. 143 Yo' are] You're; 1. 6. 211 I am]
I'm; grammatical changes, sometimes of doubtful correctness: e. g. ,
1. 3. 21 I'le] I'd; morphological changes: e. g. , 1. 6. 121 To scape]
T'escape; metrical changes by insertions: e. g. , 1. 1. 48 'to'; 4. 7.
38 'but now'; changes of wording: e. g. , 1. 6. 195 sad] said; in the
order of words: e. g. , 3. 4. 59 is hee] he is; and in the assignment
of speeches: e. g. , 3. 6. 61. Several printer's errors occur: e. g. ,
2. 6. 21 and 24.
1816. William Gifford's edition is more carefully printed than
that of Whalley, whom he criticizes freely. In many indefensible
changes, however, he follows his predecessor, even to the insertion
of words in 1. 1. 48 and 4. 7. 38, 39 (see above). He makes further
morphological changes, even when involving a change of metre: e. g. ,
1. 1. 11 Totnam] Tottenham; 1. 4. 88 phantsie] phantasie; makes new
elisions: e. g. , 1. 6. 226 I ha'] I've; changes in wording: e. g. ,
2. 1. 97 O'] O! ; and in assignment of speeches: e. g. , 4. 4. 17. He
usually omits parentheses, and the following changes in contracted
words occur, only exceptions being noted in the variants: fro']
from; gi'] give; h'] he; ha'] have; 'hem] them (but often 'em); i']
in; o'] on, of; t'] to; th'] the; upo'] upon; wi'] with, will; yo']
you. Gifford's greatest changes are in the stage directions and
side notes of the 1631 edition. The latter he considered as of 'the
most trite and trifling nature', and 'a worthless incumbrance'. He
accordingly cut or omitted with the utmost freedom, introducing new
and elaborate stage directions of his own. He reduced the number of
scenes from thirty-six to seventeen. In this, as Hathaway points out,
he followed the regular English usage, dividing the scenes according
to actual changes of place. Jonson adhered to classical tradition,
and looked upon a scene as a situation. Gifford made his alterations
by combining whole scenes, except in the case of Act 2. 3, which
begins at Folio Act 2. 7. 23 (middle of line); of Act 3. 2, which
begins at Folio Act 3. 5. 65 and of Act 3. 3, which begins at Folio
Act 3. 5. 78 (middle of line). He considered himself justified in
his mutilation of the side notes on the ground that they were not
from the hand of Jonson. Evidence has already been adduced to show
that they were at any rate printed with his sanction. I am, however,
inclined to believe with Gifford that they were written by another
hand. Gifford's criticism of them is to a large extent just. The note
on '_Niaise_', 1. 6. 18, is of especially doubtful value (see note).
1875. 'Cunningham's reissue, 1875, reprints Gifford's text without
change. Cunningham, however, frequently expresses his disapproval of
Gifford's licence in changing the text' (Winter).
[1] The first volume of this folio appeared in 1616. A reprint of
this volume in 1640 is sometimes called the Second Folio. It should
not be confused with the 1631-41 Edition of the second volume.
[2] Note prefixed to _Bartholomew Fair_.
[3] _Eng. Drama_, p. 78.
[4] _Eng. Drama_ 2. 296.
[5] _N. & Q. _ 4th Ser. 5. 573.
[6] _Bibliog. Col. _, 2d Ser. p. 320.
[7] _Bibliog. Col. _, p. 320. For a more detailed description of this
volume see Winter, pp. xii-xiii.
[8] For a collation of this edition, see Mallory, pp. xv-xvii.
B. DATE AND PRESENTATION
We learn from the title-page that this comedy was acted
in 1616 by the King's Majesty's Servants. This is further
confirmed by a passage in 1. 1. 80-81:
Now? As Vice stands this present yeere? Remember,
What number it is. _Six hundred_ and _sixteene_.
Another passage (1. 6. 31) tells us that the performance
took place in the Blackfriars Theatre:
Today, I goe to the _Black-fryers Play-house_.
That Fitzdottrel is to see _The Devil is an Ass_ we learn later
(3. 5. 38). The performance was to take place after dinner (3. 5. 34).
At this time the King's Men were in possession of two theatres,
the Globe and the Blackfriars. The former was used in the summer,
so that _The Devil is an Ass_ was evidently not performed during
that season. [9] These are all the facts that we can determine with
certainty.
Jonson's masque, _The Golden Age Restored_, was presented, according
to Fleay, on January 1 and 6. His next masque was _Christmas, his
Masque_, December 25, 1616. Between these dates he must have been
busy on _The Devil is an Ass_. Fleay, who identifies Fitzdottrel
with Coke, conjectures that the date of the play is probably late in
1616, after Coke's discharge in November. If Coke is satirized either
in the person of Fitzdottrel or in that of Justice Eitherside (see
Introduction, pp. lxx, lxxii), the conjecture may be allowed to have
some weight.
In 1. 2.
1 Fitzdottrel speaks of Bretnor as occupying the position
once held by the conspirators in the Overbury case. Franklin, who
is mentioned, was not brought to trial until November 18, 1615.
Jonson does not speak of the trial as of a contemporary or nearly
contemporary event.
Act 4 is largely devoted to a satire of Spanish fashions. In 4. 2. 71
there is a possible allusion to the Infanta Maria, for whose marriage
with Prince Charles secret negotiations were being carried on at this
time. We learn that Commissioners were sent to Spain on November
9 (_Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser. _), and from a letter of January
1, 1617, that 'the Spanish tongue, dress, etc. are all in fashion'
(_ibid. _).
These indications are all of slight importance, but from their united
evidence we may feel reasonably secure in assigning the date of
presentation to late November or early December, 1616.
The play was not printed until 1631. It seems never to have been
popular, but was revived after the Restoration, and is given by
Downes[10] in the list of old plays acted in the New Theatre in Drury
Lane after April 8, 1663. He continues: 'These being Old Plays,
were Acted but now and then; yet being well Perform'd were very
Satisfactory to the Town'. The other plays of Jonson revived by this
company were _The Fox_, _The Alchemist_, _Epicoene_, _Catiline_,
_Every Man out of his Humor_, _Every Man in his Humor_, and
_Sejanus_. Genest gives us no information of any later revival.
[9] Collier, _Annals_ 3. 275, 302; Fleay, _Hist. _ 190.
[10] _Roscius Anglicanus_, p. 8.
C. THE DEVIL IS AN ASS
Jonson's characteristic conception of comedy as a vehicle for the
study of 'humors' passed in _Every Man out of his Humor_ into
caricature, and in _Cynthia's Revels_ and _Poetaster_ into allegory.
The process was perfectly natural. In the humor study each character
is represented as absorbed by a single vice or folly. In the
allegorical treatment the abstraction is the starting-point, and the
human element the means of interpretation. Either type of drama, by
a shifting of emphasis, may readily pass over into the other. The
failure of _Cynthia's Revels_, in spite of the poet's arrogant boast
at its close, had an important effect upon his development, and the
plays of Jonson's middle period, from _Sejanus_ to _The Devil is an
Ass_, show more restraint in the handling of character, as well as
far greater care in construction. The figures are typical rather than
allegorical, and the plot in general centres about certain definite
objects of satire. Both plot and characterization are more closely
unified.
_The Devil is an Ass_ marks a return to the supernatural and
allegorical. The main action, however, belongs strictly to the type
of the later drama, especially as exemplified by _The Alchemist_.
The fanciful motive of the infernal visitant to earth was found to
be of too slight texture for Jonson's sternly moral and satirical
purpose. In the development of the drama it breaks down completely,
and is crowded out by the realistic plot. Thus what promised at first
to be the chief, and remains in some respects the happiest, motive
of the play comes in the final execution to be little better than
an inartistic and inharmonious excrescence. Yet Jonson's words to
Drummond seem to indicate that he still looked upon it as the real
kernel of the play. [11]
The action is thus easily divisible into two main lines; the
devil-plot, involving the fortunes of Satan, Pug and Iniquity, and
the satirical or main plot. This division is the more satisfactory,
since Satan and Iniquity are not once brought into contact with the
chief actors, while Pug's connection with them is wholly external,
and affects only his own fortunes. He is, as Herford has already
pointed out, merely 'the fly upon the engine-wheel, fortunate to
escape with a bruising' (_Studies_, p. 320). He forms, however, the
connecting link between the two plots, and his function in the drama
must be regarded from two different points of view, according as it
shares in the realistic or the supernatural element.
[11] 'A play of his, upon which he was accused, The Divell
is ane Ass; according to _Comedia Vetus_, in England the Divell
was brought in either with one Vice or other: the play done the Divel
caried away the Vice, he brings in the Divel so overcome with the
wickedness of this age that thought himself ane Ass. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
[incidentally] is discoursed of the Duke of Drounland: the King
desired him to conceal it'. --_Conversations with William Drummond_,
Jonson's _Wks. _ 9. 400-1.
I. THE DEVIL-PLOT
Jonson's title, _The Devil is an Ass_, expresses with perfect adequacy
the familiarity and contempt with which this once terrible personage
had come to be regarded in the later Elizabethan period. The poet, of
course, is deliberately archaizing, and the figures of devil and Vice
are made largely conformable to the purposes of satire. Several years
before, in the Dedication to _The Fox_,[12] Jonson had expressed his
contempt for the introduction of 'fools and devils and those antique
relics of barbarism', characterizing them as 'ridiculous and exploded
follies'. He treats the same subject with biting satire in _The Staple
of News_. [13] Yet with all his devotion to realism in matters of petty
detail, of local color, and of contemporary allusion, he was, as we
have seen, not without an inclination toward allegory. Thus in _Every
Man out of his Humor_ the figure of Macilente is very close to a purely
allegorical expression of envy. In _Cynthia's Revels_ the process was
perfectly conscious, for in the Induction to that play the characters
are spoken of as Virtues and Vices. In _Poetaster_ again we have the
purging of Demetrius and Crispinus. Jonson's return to this field
in _The Devil is an Ass_ is largely prophetic of the future course
of his drama. The allegory of _The Staple of News_ is more closely
woven into the texture of the play than is that of _The Devil is an
Ass_; and the conception of Pecunia and her retinue is worked out with
much elaboration. In the Second Intermean the purpose of this play is
explained as a refinement of method in the use of allegory. For the old
Vice with his wooden dagger to snap at everybody he met, or Iniquity,
appareled 'like Hokos Pokos, in a juggler's jerkin', he substitutes
'vices male and female', 'attired like men and women of the time'. This
of course is only a more philosophical and abstract statement of the
idea which he expresses in _The Devil is an Ass_ (1. 1. 120 f. ) of a
world where the vices are not distinguishable by any outward sign from
the virtues:
They weare the same clothes, eate the same meate,
Sleep i' the self-same beds, ride i' those coaches.
Or very like, foure horses in a coach,
As the best men and women.
_The New Inn_ and _The Magnetic Lady_ are also penetrated
with allegory of a sporadic and trivial nature. Jonson's
use of devil and Vice in the present play is threefold. It
is in part earnestly allegorical, especially in Satan's long
speech in the first scene; it is in part a satire upon the
employment of what he regarded as barbarous devices; and
it is, to no small extent, itself a resort for the sake of comic
effect to the very devices which he ridiculed.
Jonson's conception of the devil was naturally very far from mediaeval,
and he relied for the effectiveness of his portrait upon current
disbelief in this conception. Yet mediaevalism had not wholly died out,
and remnants of the morality-play are to be found in many plays of
the Elizabethan and Jacobean drama. Rev. John Upton, in his _Critical
Observations on Shakespeare_, 1746, was the first to point out the
historical connection between Jonson's Vice and devils and those of
the pre-Shakespearian drama. In modern times the history of the devil
and the Vice as dramatic figures has been thoroughly investigated, the
latest works being those of Dr. L. W. Cushman and Dr. E. Eckhardt,
at whose hands the subject has received exhaustive treatment. The
connection with Machiavelli's novella of _Belfagor_ was pointed out
by Count Baudissin,[14] _Ben Jonson und seine Schule_, Leipzig 1836,
and has been worked out exhaustively by Dr. E. Hollstein in a Halle
dissertation, 1901. Dr. C. H. Herford, however, had already suggested
that the chief source of the devil-plot was to be found in the legend
of Friar Rush.
[12] _Wks. _ 3. 158.
[13] _Wks. _ 5. 105 f. Cf. also Shirley, Prologue to _The Doubtful Heir_.
[14] Count Baudissin translated two of Jonson's comedies into German,
_The Alchemist_ and _The Devil is an Ass_ (_Der Dumme Teufel_).
1. _The Devil in the pre-Shakespearian Drama_
The sources for the conception of the devil in the mediaeval drama
are to be sought in a large body of non-dramatic literature. In this
literature the devil was conceived of as a fallen angel, the enemy of
God and his hierarchy, and the champion of evil. As such he makes his
appearance in the mystery-plays. The mysteries derived their subjects
from Bible history, showed comparatively little pliancy, and dealt
always with serious themes. In them the devil is with few exceptions a
serious figure. Occasionally, however, even at this early date, comedy
and satire find place. The most prominent example is the figure of
Titivillus in the Towneley cycle.
In the early moralities the devil is still of primary importance, and
is always serious. But as the Vice became a more and more prominent
figure, the devil became less and less so, and in the later drama his
part is always subordinate. The play of _Nature_ (c. 1500) is the first
morality without a devil. Out of fifteen moralities of later date
tabulated by Cushman, only four are provided with this character.
The degeneration of the devil as a dramatic figure was inevitable. His
grotesque appearance, at first calculated to inspire terror, by its
very exaggeration produced, when once familiar, a wholly comic effect.
When the active comic parts were assumed by the Vice, he became a mere
butt, and finally disappears.
One of the earliest comic figures in the religious drama
is that of the clumsy or uncouth servant. [15] Closely allied
to him is the under-devil, who appears as early as _The
Harrowing of Hell_, and this figure is constantly employed
as a comic personage in the later drama. [16] The figure of
the servant later developed into that of the clown, and in
this type the character of the devil finally merged. [17]
[15] Eckhardt, p. 42 f. ]
[16] _Ibid. _, p. 67 f. ]
[17] In general the devil is more closely related to the
clown, and the Vice to the fool. In some cases, however, the devil
is to be identified with the fool, and the Vice with the clown.
2. _Jonson's Treatment of the Devil_
In the present play the devil-type is represented by the arch-fiend
Satan and his stupid subordinate, Pug. Of these two Satan received
more of the formal conventional elements of the older drama, while Pug
for the most part represents the later or clownish figure. As in the
morality-play Satan's chief function is the instruction of his emissary
of evil. In no scene does he come into contact with human beings, and
he is always jealously careful for the best interests of his state. In
addition Jonson employs one purely conventional attribute belonging to
the tradition of the church- and morality-plays. This is the cry of
'Ho, ho! ', with which Satan makes his entrance upon the stage in the
first scene. [18] Other expressions of emotion were also used, but 'Ho,
ho! ' came in later days to be recognized as the conventional cry of the
fiend upon making his entrance. [19]
How the character of Satan was to be represented is of course
impossible to determine. The devil in the pre-Shakespearian drama was
always a grotesque figure, often provided with the head of a beast and
a cow's tail. [20] In the presentation of Jonson's play the ancient
tradition was probably followed. Satan's speeches, however, are not
undignified, and too great grotesqueness of costume must have resulted
in considerable incongruity.
In the figure of Pug few of the formal elements of the
pre-Shakespearian devil are exhibited. He remains, of course, the
ostensible champion of evil, but is far surpassed by his earthly
associates, both in malice and in intellect. In personal appearance he
is brought by the assumption of the body and dress of a human being
into harmony with his environment. A single conventional episode,
with a reversal of the customary proceeding, is retained from the
morality-play. While Pug is languishing in prison, Iniquity appears,
Pug mounts upon his back, and is carried off to hell. Iniquity comments
upon it:
The Diuell was wont to carry away the euill;
But, now, the Euill out-carries the Diuell.
That the practice above referred to was a regular or even
a frequent feature of the morality-play has been disputed,
but the evidence seems fairly conclusive that it was common
in the later and more degenerate moralities. At any rate,
like the cry of 'Ho, ho! ' it had come to be looked upon
as part of the regular stock in trade, and this was enough
for Jonson's purpose. [21] This motive of the Vice riding the
devil had changed from a passive to an active comic part.
Instead of the devil's prey he had become in the eyes of
the spectators the devil's tormentor. Jonson may be looked
upon as reverting, perhaps unconsciously, to the original
and truer conception.
In other respects Pug exhibits only the characteristics of the
inheritor of the devil's comedy part, the butt or clown. As we have
seen, one of the chief sources, as well as one of the constant modes
of manifestation, of this figure was the servant or man of low social
rank. Pug, too, on coming to earth immediately attaches himself to
Fitzdottrel as a servant, and throughout his brief sojourn on earth he
continues to exhibit the wonted stupidity and clumsy uncouthness of
the clown. He appears, to be sure, in a fine suit of clothes, but he
soon shows himself unfit for the position of gentleman-usher, and his
stupidity appears at every turn. The important element in the clown's
comedy part, of a contrast between intention and accomplishment,
is of course exactly the sort of fun inspired by Pug's repeated
discomfiture. With the clown it often takes the form of blunders
in speech, and his desire to appear fine and say the correct thing
frequently leads him into gross absurdities. This is brought out with
broad humor in 4. 4. 219, where Pug, on being catechized as to what
he should consider 'the height of his employment', stumbles upon the
unfortunate suggestion: 'To find out a good _Corne-cutter_'. His
receiving blows at the hand of his master further distinguishes him
as a clown. The investing of Pug with such attributes was, as we have
seen, no startling innovation on Jonson's part. Moreover, it fell
into line with his purpose in this play, and was the more acceptable
since it allowed him to make use of the methods of realism instead
of forcing him to draw a purely conventional figure. Pug, of course,
even in his character of clown, is not the unrelated stock-figure,
introduced merely for the sake of inconsequent comic dialogue and rough
horse-play. His part is important and definite, though not sufficiently
developed.
[18] In the Digby group of miracle-plays roaring by the devil is a
prominent feature. Stage directions in _Paul_ provide for 'cryeing
and rorying' and Belial enters with the cry, 'Ho, ho, behold me'.
Among the moralities _The Disobedient Child_ may be mentioned.
[19] So in _Gammer Gurton's Needle_, c 1562, we read: 'But
Diccon, Diccon, did not the devil cry ho, ho, ho? ' Cf. also the
translation of Goulart's Histories, 1607 (quoted by Sharp, p. 59):
'The fellow--coming to the stove--sawe the Diuills in horrible
formes, some sitting, some standing, others walking, some ramping
against the walles, but al of them, assoone as they beheld him,
crying Hoh, hoh, what makest thou here? '
[20] Cf. the words of Robin Goodfellow in _Wily Beguiled_
(_O. Pl. _, 4th ed. , 9. 268): 'I'll put me on my great carnation-nose,
and wrap me in a rowsing calf-skin suit and come like some hobgoblin,
or some devil ascended from the grisly pit of hell'.
[21] Cushman points out that it occurs in only one drama,
that of _Like will to Like_. He attributes the currency of the notion
that this mode of exit was the regular one to the famous passage in
Harsnet's _Declaration of Popish Impostures_ (p. 114, 1603): 'It was
a pretty part in the old church-playes, when the nimble Vice would
skip up nimbly like a jackanapes into the devil's necke, and ride the
devil a course, and belabour him with his wooden dagger, till he made
him roare, whereat the people would laugh to see the devil so
vice-haunted'. The moralities and tragedies give no indication of
hostility between Vice and devil. Cushman believes therefore that
Harsnet refers either to some lost morality or to 'Punch and Judy'.
It is significant, however, that in 'Punch and Judy', which gives
indications of being a debased descendant of the morality, the devil
enters with the evident intention of carrying the hero off to hell.
The joke consists as in the present play in a reversal of the usual
proceeding. Eckhardt (p. 85 n. ) points out that the Vice's cudgeling
of the devil was probably a mere mirth-provoking device, and
indicated no enmity between the two. Moreover the motive of the
devil as an animal for riding is not infrequent. In the _Castle of
Perseverance_ the devil carries away the hero, Humanum Genus. The
motive appears also in Greene's _Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_ and
Lodge and Greene's _Looking Glass for London and England_, and
especially in _Histriomastix_, where the Vice rides a roaring devil
(Eckhardt, pp. 86 f. ). We have also another bit of evidence from
Jonson himself. In _The Staple of News_ Mirth relates her reminiscences
of the old comedy.
