No More Learning

60 f. ) can be
appreciated. Merecraft assures Fitzdottrel that this occupation, in
reality the refuge only of the Shifts and Bobadills of the city, is a
new and important office about to be formally established by the state.
In spite of all their speaking against dueling, he says, they have
come to see the evident necessity of a public tribunal to which all
quarrels may be referred. It is by means of this pretended office that
Merecraft attempts to swindle Fitzdottrel out of his entire estate,
from which disaster he is saved only by the clever interposition of
Wittipol.

[67] Cf. also Gosson, _School of Abuse_, 1579; Dekker, _A Knight's
Conjuring_, 1607; Overbury, _Characters_, ed. Morley, p. 66.

[68] See _New Inn_ 2. 2; _Every Man in_ 1. 5; B. & Fl. ,
_Love's Pilgrimage_, _Wks. _ 11. 317, 320.

[69] Cf. _Albumazar_, _O. Pl. _ 7. 185-6; _Rom. and Jul. _ 2. 4.
26; _Twelfth Night_ 3. 4. 335; _L. L. L. _ 1. 2. 183; Massinger,
_Guardian_, _Wks. _, p. 346. Mercutio evidently refers to Saviolo's
book and the use of the rapier in _Rom. and Jul. _ 3. 1. 93. Here the
expression, 'fight by the book', first occurs, used again by B. &
Fl. , _Elder Brother_, _Wks. _ 10. 284; Dekker, _Guls Horne-booke_, ch.
4; _As You Like it_ 5. 4. Dekker speaks of Saviolo, _Non-dram.
Wks. _ 1. 120.

[70] Overbury, ed. Morley, p. 72.

[71] _Ibid. _, p. 66.

[72] _Every Man in_, _Wks. _ 1. 35.


2. _The Monopoly System_

Jonson's severest satire in _The Devil is an Ass_ is directed against
the projector. Through him the whole system of Monopolies is indirectly
criticised. To understand the importance and timeliness of this attack,
as well as the poet's own attitude on the subject, it is necessary to
give a brief historical discussion of the system as it had developed
and then existed.

Royal grants with the avowed intention of instructing the English in
a new industry had been made as early as the fourteenth century,[73]
and the system had become gradually modified during the Tudor dynasty.
In the sixteenth century a capitalist middle class rose to wealth and
political influence. During the reign of Elizabeth a large part of
Cecil's energies was directed toward the economic development of the
country. This was most effectually accomplished by granting patents to
men who had enterprise enough to introduce a new art or manufacture,
whether an importation from a foreign country or their own invention.
The capitalist was encouraged to make this attempt by the grant of
special privileges of manufacture for a limited period. [74] The
condition of monopoly did not belong to the mediaeval system, but was
first introduced under Elizabeth. So far the system had its economic
justification, but unfortunately it did not stop here. Abuses began to
creep in. Not only the manufacture, but the exclusive trade in certain
articles, was given over to grantees, and commodities of the most
common utility were 'ingrossed into the hands of these blood-suckers
of the commonwealth. [75] A remonstrance of Parliament was made to
Elizabeth in 1597, and again in 1601, and in consequence the Queen
thought best to promise the annulling of all monopolies then existing,
a promise which she in large measure fulfilled. But the immense growth
of commerce under Elizabeth made it necessary for her successor, James
I. , to establish a system of delegation, and he accordingly adapted
the system of granting patents to the existing needs. [76] Many new
monopolies were granted during the early years of his reign, but in
1607 Parliament again protested, and he followed Elizabeth's example by
revoking them all. After the suspension of Parliamentary government in
1614 the system grew up again, and the old abuses became more obnoxious
than ever. In 1621 Parliament addressed a second remonstrance to James.
The king professed ignorance, but promised redress, and in 1624 all the
existing monopolies were abolished by the Statute 21 James I. c. 3. In
Parliament's address to James 'the tender point of prerogative' was
not disturbed, and it was contrived that all the blame and punishment
should fall on the patentees. [77]

Of all the patents granted during this time, that which seems to have
most attracted the attention of the dramatists was one for draining the
Fens of Lincolnshire. Similar projects had frequently been attempted
during the sixteenth century. In the list of patents before 1597,
catalogued by Hulme, seven deal with water drainage in some form or
other. The low lands on the east coast of England are exposed to
inundation. [78] During the Roman occupation large embankments had been
built, and during the Middle Ages these had been kept up partly through
a commission appointed by the Crown, and partly through the efforts of
the monasteries at Ramsey and Crowland. After the dissolution of these
monasteries it became necessary to take up anew the work of reclaiming
the fen-land. An abortive attempt by the Earl of Lincoln had already
been made when the Statute 43 Eliz. c. 10. 11. was passed in the year
1601. This made legal the action of projectors in the recovery of marsh
land. Many difficulties, however, such as lack of funds and opposition
on the part of the inhabitants and neighbors of the fens, still stood
in their way. In 1605 Sir John Popham and Sir Thomas Fleming headed a
company which undertook to drain the Great Level of the Cambridgeshire
fens, consisting of more than 300,000 acres, at their own cost, on the
understanding that 130,000 acres of the reclaimed land should fall
to their share. The project was a complete failure. Another statute
granting a patent for draining the fens is found in the seventh year of
Jac. I. c. 20, and the attempt was renewed from time to time throughout
the reigns of James and Charles I. It was not, however, until the
Restoration that these efforts were finally crowned with success.

When the remonstrance was made to James in 1621, the object of the
petitioners was gained, as we have seen, by throwing all the blame upon
the patentees and projectors. Similarly, the dramatists often prefer
to make their attack, not by assailing the institution of monopolies,
but by ridicule of the offending subjects. [79] Two agents are regularly
distinguished. There is the patentee, sometimes also called the
projector, whose part it is to supply the funds for the establishment
of the monopoly, and, if possible, the necessary influence at Court;
and the actual projector or inventor, who undertakes to furnish his
patron with various projects of his own device.

Jonson's is probably the earliest dramatic representation of the
projector. Merecraft is a swindler, pure and simple, whose schemes are
directed not so much against the people whom he aims to plunder by the
establishment of a monopoly as against the adventurer who furnishes
the funds for putting the project into operation:

. . . Wee poore Gentlemen, that want acres,
Must for our needs, turne fooles vp and plough _Ladies_.

Both Fitzdottrel and Lady Tailbush are drawn into these schemes so
far as to part with their money. Merecraft himself pretends that he
possesses sufficient influence at Court. He flatters Fitzdottrel, who
is persuaded by the mere display of projects in a buckram bag, by
demanding of him 'his count'nance, t'appeare in't to great men'
(2. 1. 39). Lady Tailbush is not so easily fooled, and Merecraft has
some difficulty in persuading her of the power of his friends at Court
(Act 4. Sc. 1).

Merecraft's chief project, the recovery of the drowned lands, is also
satirized by Randolph:

I have a rare device to set Dutch windmills
Upon Newmarket Heath, and Salisbury Plain,
To drain the fens. [80]

and in _Holland's Leaguer_, Act 1. Sc. 5 (cited by Gifford):

Our projector
Will undertake the making of bay salt,
For a penny a bushel, to serve all the state;
Another dreams of building waterworkes,
Drying of fenns and marshes, like the Dutchmen.

In the later drama the figure of the projector appears several times,
but it lacks the timeliness of Jonson's satire, and the conception
must have been largely derived from literary sources. Jonson's
influence is often apparent. In Brome's _Court Beggar_ the patentee is
Mendicant, a country gentleman who has left his rustic life and sold
his property, in order to raise his state by court-suits. The projects
which he presents at court are the invention of three projectors. Like
Merecraft, they promise to make Mendicant a lord, and succeed only in
reducing him to poverty. The character of the Court Beggar is given in
these words: 'He is a Knight that hanckers about the court ambitious
to make himselfe a Lord by begging. His braine is all Projects, and
his soule nothing but Court-suits. He has begun more Knavish suits at
Court, then ever the Kings Taylor honestly finish'd, but never thriv'd
by any: so that now hee's almost fallen from a Palace Begger to a
Spittle one'.

In the _Antipodes_ Brome introduces 'a States-man studious for the
Commonwealth, solicited by Projectors of the Country'. Brome's list of
projects (quoted in Gifford's edition) is a broad caricature. Wilson,
in the Restoration drama, produced a play called _The Projectors_, in
which Jonson's influence is apparent (see Introduction, p. lxxv).

Among the _characters_, of which the seventeenth century writers were
so fond, the projector is a favorite figure. John Taylor,[81] the
water-poet, furnishes us with a cartoon entitled 'The complaint of M.
Tenterhooke the _Projector_ and Sir _T_homas Dodger the Patentee'. In
the rimes beneath the picture the distinction between the projector,
who 'had the Art to cheat the Common-weale', and the patentee, who
was possessed of 'tricks and slights to pass the seale', is brought
out with especial distinctness. Samuel Butler's character[82] of the
projector is of less importance, since it was not published until
1759. The real importance of Jonson's satire lies in the fact that it
appeared in the midst of the most active discussion on the subject of
monopolies. Drummond says that he was 'accused upon' the play, and that
the King 'desired him to conceal it'. [83] Whether the subject which
gave offense was the one which we have been considering or that of
witchcraft, it is, however, impossible to determine.

[73] Letters to John Kempe, 1331, Rymer's _Foedera_; Hulme, _Law
Quarterly Rev. _, vol. 12.

[74] Cunningham, _Eng. Industry_, Part I, p. 75.

[75] D'Ewes, _Complete Journal of the Houses of Lords and Commons_,
p. 646.

[76] Cunningham, p. 21.

[77] Craik 2. 24. Rushworth, _Collection_ 1. 24.

[78] For a more detailed account of the drainage of the Lincolnshire
fens see Cunningham, pp. 112-119.

[79] Cf. Dekker, _Non-dram. Wks. _ 3. 367.

[80] _Muse's Looking Glass_, _O. Pl. _ 9. 180 (cited by Gifford).

[81] _Works_, 1641, reprinted by the Spenser Society.

[82] _Character Writings_, ed. Morley, p. 350.

[83] See p. xix.


3. _Witchcraft_

Witchcraft in Jonson's time was not an outworn belief, but a living
issue. It is remarkable that the persecutions which followed upon this
terrible delusion were comparatively infrequent during the Middle
Ages, and reached their maximum only in the seventeenth century.

The first English Act against witchcraft after the Norman Conquest was
passed in 1541 (33 Hen. VIII. c. 8). This Act, which was of a general
nature, and directed against various kinds of sorceries, was followed
by another in 1562 (5 Eliz. c. 16). At the accession of James I. in
1603 was passed 1 Jac. I. c. 12, which continued law for more than a
century.

During this entire period charges of witchcraft were frequent. In
Scotland they were especially numerous, upwards of fifty being recorded
during the years 1596-7. [84] The trial of Anne Turner in 1615, in
which charges of witchcraft were joined with those of poisoning,
especially attracted the attention of Jonson. In 1593 occurred the
trial of the 'three Witches of Warboys', in 1606 that of Mary Smith,
in 1612 that of the earlier Lancashire Witches, and of the later
in 1633. These are only a few of the more famous cases. 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.