No More Learning

? The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Devil is an Ass, by Ben Jonson

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www. gutenberg. org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have
to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.



Title: The Devil is an Ass

Author: Ben Jonson

Editor: William Savage Johnson
Albert S. Cook

Release Date: October 7, 2015 [EBook #50150]

Language: English

Character set encoding: UTF-8

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE DEVIL IS AN ASS ***




Produced by Charlene Taylor, Paul Marshall and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www. pgdp. net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)






Transcriber's Note:

Underscores before and after a word or phrase indicate _italics_
in the original text.
Equal signs before and after a word or phrase indicate =bold=
in the original text.
Caret symbols indicate superscript text.
Small capitals have been converted to ALL CAPITALS.
Old or archaic spellings have been preserved.
In the text of the actual play, lowercase "s" has been replaced by
the "long s", "? ". The capital letter "W" is often replaced with
"VV", the letter "v" and the letter "u" are used interchangeably,
and the letters "i" and "j" are also used interchangeably.
Many of the characters names in the play have various spellings,
e. g. , MERE-CRAFT and MERECRAFT, MEERECRAFT
EVER-ILL and EVERILL
FITZ-DOTTEREL and FITZDOTTEREL
PIT_FAL and PITFALL
DIVEL and DIVELL.
The footnotes in the actual play were added by the author as part of
his thesis. The references for these footnotes are the line numbers.
Since each scene begins the line numbers over at 1, these footnotes
have been collected at the end of each scene, and refer to the
appropriate line in the preceding scene.




YALE STUDIES IN ENGLISH
ALBERT S. COOK, EDITOR

XXIX

THE DEVIL IS AN ASS

BY BEN JONSON

Edited with Introduction, Notes, and Glossary

BY WILLIAM SAVAGE JOHNSON, Ph. D.
_Instructor in English in Yale University_

A Thesis presented to
the Faculty of the Graduate School of Yale University
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

[Illustration]

NEW YORK
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY
1905

Copyright by William Savage Johnson, 1905

PRESS OF THE TUTTLE, MOREHOUSE & TAYLOR COMPANY

TO MY MOTHER




PREFACE


In _The Devil is an Ass_ Jonson may be studied, first, as a student;
secondly, as an observer. Separated by only two years from the
preceding play, _Bartholomew Fair_, and by nine from the following,
_The Staple of News_, the present play marks the close of an epoch in
the poet's life, the period of his vigorous maturity. Its relations
with the plays of his earlier periods are therefore of especial
interest.

The results of the present editor's study of these and other
literary connections are presented, partly in the Notes, and partly
in the Introduction to this book. After the discussion of the
purely technical problems in Sections A and B, the larger features
are taken up in Section C, I and II. These involve a study of the
author's indebtedness to English, Italian, and classical sources, and
especially to the early English drama; as well as of his own dramatic
methods in previous plays. The more minute relations to contemporary
dramatists and to his own former work, especially in regard to
current words and phrases, are dealt with in the Notes.

As an observer, Jonson appears as a student of London, and a satirist
of its manners and vices; and, in a broader way, as a critic of
contemporary England. The life and aspect of London are treated, for
the most part, in the Notes; the issues of state involved in Jonson's
satire are presented in historical discussions in Section C, III.
Personal satire is treated in the division following.

I desire to express my sincere thanks to Professor Albert S. Cook
for advice in matters of form and for inspiration in the work; to
Professor Henry A. Beers for painstaking discussion of difficult
questions; to Dr. De Winter for help and criticism; to Dr. John M.
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.
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.