No More Learning

Berdan for the privilege of consulting his copy of the Folio; to
Mr. Andrew Keogh and to Mr. Henry A. Gruener, for aid in bibliographical
matters; and to Professor George L. Burr for the loan of books from
the Cornell Library.

A portion of the expense of printing this book has been borne by the
Modern Language Club of Yale University from funds placed at its
disposal by the generosity of Mr. George E. Dimock of Elizabeth,
New Jersey, a graduate of Yale in the Class of 1874.

W. S. J.

YALE UNIVERSITY,
August 30, 1905.




CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION PAGE

A. EDITIONS OF THE TEXT xi

B. DATE AND PRESENTATION xvii

C. THE DEVIL IS AN ASS xix

I. THE DEVIL PLOT xx
1. The Devil in the pre-Shakespearian Drama xxii
2. Jonson's Treatment of the Devil xxiii
3. The Influence of Robin Goodfellow
and of Popular Legend xxvi
4. Friar Rush and Dekker xxvii
5. The Novella of _Belfagor_ and the
Comedy of _Grim_ xxx
6. Summary xxxiv
7. The Figure of the Vice xxxiv
8. Jonson's Use of the Vice xxxvii

II. THE SATIRICAL DRAMA xli
1. General Treatment of the Plot xli
2. Chief Sources of the Plot xlv
3. Prototypes of the leading Characters lii
4. Minor Sources liii

III. SPECIFIC OBJECTS OF SATIRE liv
1. The Duello liv
2. The Monopoly System lviii
3. Witchcraft lxii

IV. PERSONAL SATIRE lxv
Mrs. Fitzdottrel lxvi
Fitzdottrel lxx
Wittipol lxxi
Justice Eitherside lxxi
Merecraft lxxii
Plutarchus Guilthead lxxiii
The Noble House lxxiv

D. AFTER-INFLUENCE OF THE DEVIL IS AN ASS lxxiv

APPENDIX--EXTRACTS FROM THE CRITICS lxxvi

TEXT 1

NOTES 123

GLOSSARY 213

BIBILIOGRAPHY 237

INDEX 243




INTRODUCTION


A. EDITIONS OF THE TEXT


_The Devil is an Ass_ was first printed in 1631, and was probably put
into circulation at that time, either as a separate pamphlet or bound
with _Bartholomew Fair_ and _The Staple of News_. Copies of this
original edition were, in 1640-1, bound into the second volume of the
First Folio of Jonson's collected works. [1] In 1641 a variant reprint
edition of _The Devil is an Ass_, apparently small, was issued
in pamphlet form. The play reappears in all subsequent collected
editions. These are: (1) the 'Third Folio', 1692; (2) a bookseller's
edition, 1716 [1717]; (3) Whalley's edition, 1756; (4) John
Stockdale's reprint of Whalley's edition (together with the works
of Beaumont and Fletcher), 1811; (5) Gifford's edition, 1816; (6)
Barry Cornwall's one-volume edition, 1838; (7) Lieut. Col. Francis
Cunningham's three-volume reissue (with some minor variations) of
Gifford's edition, 1871; (8) another reissue by Cunningham, in
nine volumes (with additional notes), 1875. The _Catalogue_ of the
British Museum shows that Jonson's works were printed in two volumes
at Dublin in 1729. Of these editions only the first two call for
detailed description, and of the others only the first, second,
third, fifth, and eighth will be discussed.

=1631. = Owing to irregularity in contents and arrangement in
different copies, the second volume of the First Folio has been
much discussed. Gifford speaks of it as the edition of 1631-41. [2]
Miss Bates, copying from Lowndes, gives it as belonging to 1631,
reprinted in 1640 and in 1641. [3] Ward says substantially the
same thing. [4] In 1870, however, Brinsley Nicholson, by a careful
collation,[5] arrived at the following results. (1) The so-called
editions of the second volume assigned to 1631, 1640, and 1641 form
only a single edition. (2) The belief in the existence of 'the
so-called first edition of the second volume in 1631' is due to the
dates prefixed to the opening plays. (3) The belief in the existence
of the volume of 1641 arose from the dates of _Mortimer_ and the
_Discoveries_, 'all the copies of which are dated 1641', and of
the variant edition of _The Devil is an Ass_, which will next be
described. (4) The 1640 edition supplies for some copies a general
title-page, 'R. Meighen, 1640', but the plays printed in 1631 are
reprinted from the same forms. Hazlitt arrives at practically the
same conclusions. [6]

The volume is a folio by measurement, but the signatures
are in fours.

Collation: Five leaves, the second with the signature A_3 B-M in
fours. Aa-Bb; Cc-Cc_2 (two leaves); C_3 (one leaf); one leaf; D-I in
fours; two leaves. [N]-Y in fours; B-Q in fours; R (two leaves); S-X
in fours; Y (two leaves); Z-Oo in fours. Pp (two leaves). Qq; A-K in
fours. L (two leaves). [M]-R in fours. A-P in fours. Q (two leaves).
[R]-V in fours.

The volume opens with _Bartholomew Fayre_, which occupies pages
[1-10], 1-88 (pages 12, 13, and 31 misnumbered), or the first group
of signatures given above.

2. _The Staple of Newes_, paged independently, [1]-[76]
(pages 19, 22, and 63 misnumbered), and signatured independently
as in the second group above.

3. _The Diuell is an Asse_, [N]-Y, paged [91]-170 (pages 99, 132,
and 137 misnumbered). [N] recto contains the title page (verso blank).
N_2 contains a vignette and the persons of the play on the recto, a
vignette and the prologue on the verso. N_3 to the end contains the
play proper; the epilogue being on the last leaf verso.

One leaf (pages 89-90) is thus unaccounted for; but it is evident
from the signatures and pagination that _The Diuell is an Asse_ was
printed with a view to having it follow _Bartholomew Fayre_. These
three plays were all printed by I. B. for Robert Allot in 1631.
Hazlitt says that they are often found together in a separate volume,
and that they were probably intended by Jonson to supplement the
folio of 1616. [7]

Collation made from copy in the library of Yale University at
New Haven.

It was the opinion of both Whalley and Gifford that the publication
of _The Devil is an Ass_ in 1631 was made without the personal
supervision of the author. Gifford did not believe that Jonson
'concerned himself with the revision of the folio, . . . or, indeed,
ever saw it'. The letter to the Earl of Newcastle (_Harl. MS. _ 4955),
quoted in Gifford's memoir, sufficiently disproves this supposition,
at least so far as _Bartholomew Fair_ and _The Devil is an Ass_
are concerned. In this letter, written according to Gifford about 1632,
Jonson says: 'It is the lewd printer's fault that I can send your
lordship no more of my book. I sent you one piece before, The Fair,
. . . and now I send you this other morsel, The fine gentleman that
walks the town, The Fiend; but before he will perfect the rest I fear
he will come himself to be a part under the title of The Absolute
Knave, which he hath played with me'. In 1870 Brinsley Nicholson
quoted this letter in _Notes and Queries_ (4th S. 5. 574), and
pointed out that the jocular allusions are evidently to _Bartholomew
Fair_ and _The Devil is an Ass_.

Although Gifford is to some extent justified in his contempt for the
edition, it is on the whole fairly correct.

The misprints are not numerous. The play is overpunctuated.
Thus the words 'now' and 'again' are usually marked off by
commas. Occasionally the punctuation is misleading. The mark of
interrogation is generally, but not invariably, used for that of
exclamation. The apostrophe is often a metrical device, and indicates
the blending of two words without actual elision of either. The most
serious defect is perhaps the wrong assignment of speeches, though
later emendations are to be accepted only with caution. The present
text aims to be an exact reproduction of that of the 1631 edition.

1641. The pamphlet quarto of 1641 is merely a poor reprint of the
1631 edition. It abounds in printer's errors. Few if any intentional
changes, even of spelling and punctuation, are introduced. Little
intelligence is shown by the printer, as in the change 5. I. 34 SN.
(references are to act, scene, and line) He flags] He stags. It is
however of some slight importance, inasmuch as it seems to have been
followed in some instances by succeeding editions (cf. the omission
of the side notes 2. I. 20, 22, 33, followed by 1692, 1716, and W;
also 2. I. 46 his] a 1641, f. ).

The title-page of this edition is copied, as far as the quotation
from Horace, from the title-page of the 1631 edition. For the
wood-cut of that edition, however, is substituted the device of a
swan, with the legend 'God is my helper'. Then follow the words:
'Imprinted at London, 1641. '

Folio by measurement; signatures in fours.

Collation: one leaf, containing the title-page on the recto, verso
blank; second leaf with signature A_2 (? ), containing a device (St.
Francis preaching to the birds [? ]), and the persons of the play on
the recto, and a device (a saint pointing to heaven and hell) and the
prologue on the verso. Then the play proper; B-I in fours; K (one
leaf). The first two leaves are unnumbered; then 1-66 (35 wrongly
numbered 39).

1692. The edition of 1692[8] is a reprint of 1631, but furnishes
evidence of some editing. Most of the nouns are capitalized, and
a change of speaker is indicated by breaking the lines; obvious
misprints are corrected: e. g. , 1. 1. 98, 101; the spelling is
modernized: e. g. , 1. 1. 140 Tiborne] Tyburn; and the punctuation is
improved. Sometimes a word undergoes a considerable morphological
change: e. g. , 1. 1. 67 Belins-gate] Billings-gate; 1. 6. 172, 175
venter] venture. Etymology is sometimes indicated by an apostrophe,
not always correctly: e. g. , 2. 6. 75 salts] 'salts. Several changes
are uniform throughout the edition, and have been followed by all
later editors. The chief of these are: inough] enough; tother]
t'other; coozen] cozen; ha's] has; then] than; 'hem] 'em (except G
sometimes); injoy] enjoy. Several changes of wording occur: e. 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.