No More Learning

[32] Cf. Pug's words, 1. 3. 1 f.

[33] See Herford, p. 308.

[34] A similar passage is found in Dekker, _Whore of Babylon_,
_Wks. _ 2. 355. The sentiment is not original with Dekker.
Cf. Middleton, _Black Book_, 1604:

. . . And were it number'd well,
There are more devils on earth than are in hell.

[35] Dekker makes a similar pun on Helicon in _News from
Hell_, _Non-dram Wks. _ 2. 95.


5. _The Novella of Belfagor and the Comedy of Grim_

The relation between Jonson's play and the novella attributed to
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1522) has been treated in much detail by Dr.
Ernst Hollstein. Dr. Hollstein compares the play with the first known
English translation, that by the Marquis of Wharton in 1674. [36] It is
probable, however, that Jonson knew the novella in its Italian shape,
if he knew it at all. [37] The Italian text has therefore been taken as
the basis of the present discussion, while Dr. Hollstein's results, so
far as they have appeared adequate or important, have been freely used.

. . . And were it number'd well,
There are more devils on earth than are in hell.

]


Both novella and play depart from the same idea, the visit of a devil
to earth to lead a human life. Both devils are bound by certain
definite conditions. Belfagor must choose a wife, and live with her ten
years; Pug must return at midnight. Belfagor, like Pug, must be subject
to 'ogni infortunio nel quale gli uomini scorrono'.

In certain important respects Machiavelli's story differs essentially
from Jonson's. Both Dekker and Machiavelli place the opening scene in
the classical Hades instead of in the Christian hell. But Dekker's
treatment of the situation is far more like Jonson's than is the
novella's. Herford makes the distinction clear: 'Macchiavelli's Hades
is the council-chamber of an Italian Senate, Dekker's might pass for
some tavern haunt of Thames watermen. Dekker's fiends are the drudges
of Pluto, abused for their indolence, flogged at will, and peremptorily
sent where he chooses. Machiavelli's are fiends whose advice he
requests with the gravest courtesy and deference, and who give it
with dignity and independence'. Further, the whole object of the
visit, instead of being the corruption of men, is a mere sociological
investigation. Pug is eager to undertake his mission; Belfagor is
chosen by lot, and very loath to go. Pug becomes a servant, Belfagor a
nobleman.

But in one very important matter the stories coincide, that of the
general character and fate of the two devils. As Hollstein points out,
each comes with a firm resolve to do his best, each finds at once that
his opponents are too strong for him, each through his own docility
and stupidity meets repulse after repulse, ending in ruin, and each is
glad to return to hell. This, of course, involves the very essence of
Jonson's drama, and on its resemblance to the novella must be based any
theory that Jonson was familiar with the latter.

Of resemblance of specific details not much can be made. The two
stories have in common the feature of demoniacal possession, but
this, as we have seen, occurs also in the Rush legend. The fact that
the princess speaks Latin, while Fitzdottrel surprises his auditors
by his 'several languages', is of no more significance. This is one
of the stock indications of witchcraft. It is mentioned by Darrel,
and Jonson could not have overlooked a device so obvious. Certain
other resemblances pointed out by Dr. Hollstein are of only the most
superficial nature. On the whole we are not warranted in concluding
with any certainty that Jonson knew the novella at all.

On the other hand, he must have been acquainted with
the comedy of _Grim, the Collier of Croydon_ (c 1600).
Herford makes no allusion to this play, and, though it was
mentioned as a possible source by A. W. Ward,[38] the subject
has never been investigated. The author of _Grim_ uses the
Belfagor legend for the groundwork of his plot, but handles
his material freely. In many respects the play is a close
parallel to _The Devil is an Ass_. The same respect for the
vices of earth is felt as in Dekker's and Jonson's plays.
Belphegor sets out to

. . . make experiment
If hell be not on earth as well as here.

The circumstances of the sending bear a strong resemblance to the
instructions given to Pug:

Thou shalt be subject unto human chance,
So far as common wit cannot relieve thee.
But whatsover happens in that time,
Look not from us for succour or relief.
This shalt thou do, and when the time's expired,
Bring word to us what thou hast seen and done.

So in Jonson:

. . . but become subject
To all impression of the flesh, you take,
So farre as humane frailty: . . .
But as you make your soone at nights relation,
And we shall find, it merits from the State,
You shall haue both trust from vs, and imployment.

Belphegor is described as 'patient, mild, and pitiful'; and during his
sojourn on earth he shows little aptitude for mischief, but becomes
merely a butt and object of abuse. Belphegor's request for a companion,
unlike that of Pug, is granted. He chooses his servant Akercock,
who takes the form of Robin Goodfellow. Robin expresses many of the
sentiments to be found in the mouth of Pug. With the latter's monologue
(Text, 5. 2) compare Robin's exclamation:

Zounds, I had rather be in hell than here.

Neither Pug (Text, 2. 5. 3-4) nor Robin dares to return without
authority:

What shall I do? to hell I dare not go,
Until my master's twelve months be expir'd.

Like Pug (Text, 5. 6. 3-10) Belphegor worries over his reception in
hell:

How shall I give my verdict up to Pluto
Of all these accidents?

Finally Belphegor's sensational disappearance through the
yawning earth comes somewhat nearer to Jonson than does
the Italian original. The English comedy seems, indeed,
to account adequately for all traces of the Belfagor story
to be found in Jonson's play.

[36] A paraphrase of _Belfagor_ occurs in the Conclusion of
Barnaby Riche's _Riche his Farewell to Militarie Profession_, 1581,
published for the Shakespeare Society by J. P. Collier, 1846. The
name is changed to Balthasar, but the main incidents are the same.

[37] Jonson refers to Machiavelli's political writings in
_Timber_ (ed. Schelling, p. 38).

[38] _Eng. Dram. Lit. _ 2. 606.


6. _Summary_

It is certain that of the two leading ideas of Jonson's comedy, the
sending of a devil to earth with the object of corrupting men is
derived from the Rush legend. It is probable that the no less important
motive of a baffled devil, happy to make his return to hell, is due
either directly or indirectly to Machiavelli's influence. This motive,
as we have seen, was strengthened by a body of legend and by the
treatment of the devil in the morality play.


7. _The Figure of the Vice_

It is the figure of the Vice which makes Jonson's satire on the
out-of-date moralities most unmistakable. This character has been
the subject of much study and discussion, and there is to-day no
universally accepted theory as to his origin and development. In the
literature of Jonson's day the term Vice is almost equivalent to
harlequin. But whether this element of buffoonery is the fundamental
trait of the character, and that of intrigue is due to a confusion
in the meaning of the word, or whether the element of intrigue is
original, and that of buffoonery has taken its place by a process of
degeneration in the Vice himself, is still a disputed question.

The theory of Cushman and of Eckhardt is substantially the same,
and may be stated as follows. Whether or not the Vice be a direct
descendant of the devil, it is certain that he falls heir to his
predecessor's position in the drama, and that his development is
strongly influenced by that character. Originally, like the devil, he
represents the principle of evil and may be regarded as the summation
of the seven deadly sins. From the beginning, however, he possessed
more comic elements, much being ready made for him through the partial
degeneration of the devil, while the material of the moralities was
by no means so limited in scope as that of the mysteries. This comic
element, comparatively slight at first, soon began to be cultivated
intentionally, and gradually assumed the chief function, while the
allegorical element was largely displaced. In course of time the
transformation from the intriguer to the buffoon became complete. [39]
Moreover, the rapidity of the transformation was hastened by the
influence of the fool, a new dramatic figure of independent origin,
but the partial successor upon the stage of the Vice's comedy part. As
early as 1570 the union of fool and Vice is plainly visible. [40] In
1576 we find express stage directions given for the Vice to fill in
the pauses with improvised jests. [41] Two years later a Vice plays the
leading role for the last time. [42] By 1584 the Vice has completely
lost his character of intriguer[43], and in the later drama he appears
only as an antiquated figure, where he is usually considered as
identical with the fool or jester. [44] Cushman enumerates the three
chief roles of the Vice as the opponent of the Good; the corrupter of
man; and the buffoon.

The Vice, however, is not confined to the moralities, but appears
frequently in the comic interludes. According to the theory of Cushman,
the name Vice stands in the beginning for a moral and abstract idea,
that of the principle of evil in the world, and must have originated
in the moralities; and since it is applied to a comic personage in
the interludes, this borrowing must have taken place after the period
of degeneration had already begun. To this theory Chambers[45] offers
certain important objections. He points out that, although 'vices in
the ordinary sense of the word are of course familiar personages in the
morals', the term Vice is not applied specifically to a character in
'any pre-Elizabethan moral interlude except the Marian _Respublica_',
1553. Furthermore, 'as a matter of fact, he comes into the interlude
through the avenue of the farce'. The term is first applied to the
leading comic characters in the farces of John Heywood, _Love_ and
_The Weather_, 1520-30. These characters have traits more nearly
resembling those of the fool and clown than those of the intriguer of
the moralities. Chambers concludes therefore that 'the character of the
vice is derived from that of the domestic fool or jester', and that
the term was borrowed by the authors of the moralities from the comic
interludes.

These two views are widely divergent, and seem at first wholly
irreconcilable. The facts of the case, however, are, I believe,
sufficiently clear to warrant the following conclusions: (1) The early
moralities possessed many allegorical characters representing vices
in the ordinary sense of the word. (2) From among these vices we may
distinguish in nearly every play a single character as in a preeminent
degree the embodiment of evil. (3) To this chief character the name of
Vice was applied about 1553, and with increasing frequency after that
date. (4) Whatever may have been the original meaning of the word, it
must have been generally understood in the moralities in the sense
now usually attributed to it; for (5) The term was applied in the
moralities only to a character in some degree evil. Chambers instances
_The Tide tarrieth for No Man_ and the tragedy of _Horestes_, where
the Vice bears the name of Courage, as exceptions. The cases, however,
are misleading. In the former, Courage is equivalent to 'Purpose',
'Desire', and is a distinctly evil character. [46] In the latter he
reveals himself in the second half of the play as Revenge, and although
he incites Horestes to an act of justice, he is plainly opposed to
'Amyte', and he is finally rejected and discountenanced. Moreover
he is here a serious figure, and only occasionally exhibits comic
traits. He cannot therefore be considered as supporting the theory
of the original identity of the fool and the Vice. (6) The Vice of
the comic interludes and the leading character of the moralities are
distinct figures. The former was from the beginning a comic figure or
buffoon;[47] the latter was in the beginning serious, and continued to
the end to preserve serious traits. With which of these two figures
the term Vice originated, and by which it was borrowed from the other,
is a matter of uncertainty and is of minor consequence. These facts,
however, seem certain, and for the present discussion sufficient: that
the vices of the earlier and of the later moralities represent the
same stock figure; that this figure stood originally for the principle
of evil, and only in later days became confused with the domestic
fool or jester; that the process of degeneration was continuous and
gradual, and took place substantially in the manner outlined by Cushman
and Eckhardt; and that, while to the playwright of Jonson's day the
term was suggestive primarily of the buffoon, it meant also an evil
personage, who continued to preserve certain lingering traits from the
character of intriguer in the earlier moralities.

[39] Eckhardt, p. 195.

[40] In W. Wager's _The longer thou livest, the more fool thou art_.

[41] In Wapull's _The Tide tarrieth for No Man_.

[42] Subtle Shift in _The History of Sir Clyomon and Sir Clamydes_.

[43] In Wilson's _The Three Ladies of London_.

[44] He is so identified in Chapman's _Alphonsus, Emperor of Germany_
c 1590 (_Wks. _, ed. 1873, 3. 216), and in Stubbes' _Anat. _, 1583.
Nash speaks of the Vice as an antiquated figure as early as 1592
(_Wks. _ 2. 203).

[45] _Med. Stage_, pp. 203-5.

[46] Eckhardt, p. 145.

[47] Sometimes he is even a virtuous character. See Eckhardt's
remarks on _Archipropheta_, p. 170. Merry Report in Heywood's
_Weather_ constantly moralizes, and speaks of himself as the servant
of God in contrast with the devil.


8. _Jonson's Use of the Vice_

The position of the Vice has been discussed at some length because
of its very important bearing on Jonson's comedy. It is evident,
even upon a cursory reading, that Jonson has not confined himself to
the conception of the Vice obtainable from a familiarity with the
interludes alone, as shown in Heywood's farces or the comedy of _Jack
Juggler_. The character of Iniquity, though fully identified with the
buffoon of the later plays, is nevertheless closely connected in the
author's mind with the intriguer of the old moralities. This is clear
above all from the use of the name Iniquity, from his association with
the devil, and from Pug's desire to use him as a means of corrupting
his playfellows. Thus, consciously or unconsciously on Jonson's part,
Iniquity presents in epitome the history of the Vice.

His very name, as we have said, links him with the morality-play. In
fact, all the Vices suggested, Iniquity, Fraud, Covetousness, and Lady
Vanity, are taken from the moralities. The choice of Iniquity was
not without meaning, and was doubtless due to its more general and
inclusive significance. In Shakespeare's time Vice and Iniquity seem
to have been synonymous terms (see Schmidt), from which it has been
inferred that Iniquity was the Vice in many lost moralities. [48]

Of the original Vice-traits Iniquity lays vigorous claim to that of the
corrupter of man. Pug desires a Vice that he may 'practice there-with
any play-fellow', and Iniquity comes upon the stage with voluble
promises to teach his pupil to 'cheat, lie, cog and swagger'. He offers
also to lead him into all the disreputable precincts of the city.
Iniquity appears in only two scenes, Act 1. Sc. 1 and Act 5. Sc. 6. In
the latter he reverses the usual process and carries away the devil to
hell. This point has already been discussed (p. xxiv).

Aside from these two particulars, Iniquity is far nearer to the fool
than to the original Vice. As he comes skipping upon the stage in the
first scene, reciting his galloping doggerel couplets, we see plainly
that the element of buffoonery is uppermost in Jonson's mind. Further
evidence may be derived from the particularity with which Iniquity
describes the costume which he promises to Pug, and which we are
doubtless to understand as descriptive of his own. Attention should
be directed especially to the wooden dagger, the long cloak, and the
slouch hat. Cushman says (p. 125): 'The vice enjoys the greatest
freedom in the matter of dress; he is not confined to any stereotyped
costume; . . . the opinion that he is always or usually dressed in a
fool's costume has absolutely no justification'.
The wooden dagger, a
relic of the Roman stage,[49] is the most frequently mentioned article
of equipment. It is first found (1553-8) as part of the apparel of Jack
Juggler in a print illustrating that play, reproduced by Dodsley. It is
also mentioned in _Like Will to Like_, _Hickescorner_, _King Darius_,
etc. The wooden dagger was borrowed, however, from the fool's costume,
and is an indication of the growing identification of the Vice with
the house-fool. That Jonson recognized it as such is evident from his
_Expostulation with Inigo Jones_:

No velvet suit you wear will alter kind;
A wooden dagger is a dagger of wood.

The long cloak, twice mentioned (1. 1. 51 and 85), is another
property borrowed from the fool. The natural fool usually wore a
long gown-like dress,[50] and this was later adopted as a dress for
the artificial fool. Muckle John, the court fool of Charles I. , was
provided with 'a long coat and suit of scarlet-colour serge'. [51]

Satan's reply to Pug's request for a Vice is, however, the most
important passage on this subject. He begins by saying that the Vice,
whom he identifies with the house fool, is fifty years out of date.
Only trivial and absurd parts are left for Iniquity to play, the
mountebank tricks of the city and the tavern fools. Douce (pp. 499
f. ) mentions nine kinds of fools, among which the following appear:
1. The general domestic fool. 4. The city or corporation fool. 5.
Tavern fools. Satan compares Iniquity with each of these in turn. The
day has gone by, he says:

When euery great man had his _Vice_ stand by him,
In his long coat, shaking his wooden dagger.

Then he intimates that Iniquity may be able to play the
tavern fool:

Where canst thou carry him? except to Tauernes?
To mount vp ona joynt-stoole, with a _Iewes_-trumpe,
To put downe _Cokeley_, and that must be to Citizens?

And finally he compares him with the city fool:

Hee may perchance, in taile of a Sheriffes dinner,
Skip with a rime o' the table, from _New-nothing_,
And take his _Almaine_-leape into a custard.

Thus not only does Jonson identify the Vice with the fool, but with the
fool in his senility. The characteristic functions of the jester in the
Shakespearian drama, with his abundant store of improvised jests, witty
retorts, and irresistible impudence, have no part in this character. He
is merely the mountebank who climbs upon a tavern stool, skips over the
table, and leaps into corporation custards.

Iniquity, then, plays no real part in the drama. His introduction is
merely for the purpose of satire. In _The Staple of News_ the subject
is renewed, and treated with greater directness:

'_Tat. _ I would fain see the fool, gossip; the fool is the
finest man in the company, they say, and has all the wit:
he is the very justice o' peace o' the play, and can commit
whom he will and what he will, error, absurdity, as the toy
takes him, and no man say black is his eye, but laugh at him'.

In _Epigram 115, On the Town's Honest Man_, Jonson
again identifies the Vice with the mountebank, almost in
the same way as he does in _The Devil is an Ass_:

. . . this is one
Suffers no name but a description
Being no vicious person but the Vice
About the town; . . .
At every meal, where it doth dine or sup,
The cloth's no sooner gone, but it gets up,
And shifting of its faces, doth play more
Parts than the Italian could do with his door.
Acts old Iniquity and in the fit
Of miming gets the opinion of a wit.

[48] This designation for the Vice first appears in _Nice Wanton_,
1547-53, then in _King Darius_, 1565, and _Histriomastix_, 1599
(printed 1610).

[49] Wright, _Hist. of Caricature_, p. 106.

[50] Doran, p. 182.

[51] _Ibid. _, p. 210.




II. THE SATIRICAL DRAMA


It was from Aristophanes[52] that Jonson learned to combine with
such boldness the palpable with the visionary, the material with the
abstract. He surpassed even his master in the power of rendering the
combination a convincing one, and his method was always the same. Fond
as he was of occasional flights of fancy, his mind was fundamentally
satirical, so that the process of welding the apparently discordant
elements was always one of rationalizing the fanciful rather than
of investing the actual with a far-away and poetic atmosphere. Thus
even his purely supernatural scenes present little incongruity. Satan
and Iniquity discuss strong waters and tobacco, Whitechapel and
Billingsgate, with the utmost familiarity; even hell's 'most exquisite
tortures' are adapted in part from the homely proverbs of the people.
In the use of his sources three tendencies are especially noticeable:
the motivation of borrowed incidents; the adjusting of action on a
moral basis: the reworking of his own favorite themes and incidents.

[52] See Herford, p. 318.


1. _General Treatment of the Plot_

For the main plot we have no direct source. It represents, however,
Jonson's typical method. It has been pointed out[53] that the
characteristic Jonsonian comedy always consists of two groups, the
intriguers and the victims. In _The Devil is an Ass_ the most purely
comic motive of the play is furnished by a reversal of the usual
relation subsisting between these two groups. Here the devil, who was
wont to be looked upon as arch-intriguer, is constantly 'fooled off
and beaten', and thus takes his position as the comic butt. Pug, in a
sense, represents a satirical trend. Through him Jonson satirizes the
outgrown supernaturalism which still clung to the skirts of Jacobean
realism, and at the same time paints in lively colors the vice of a
society against which hell itself is powerless to contend. It is only,
however, in a general way, where the devil stands for a principle, that
Pug may be considered as in any degree satirical. In the particular
incident he is always a purely comic figure, and furnishes the mirth
which results from a sense of the incongruity between anticipation and
accomplishment.

Fitzdottrel, on the other hand, is mainly satirical. Through him Jonson
passes censure upon the city gallant, the attendant at the theatre, the
victim of the prevalent superstitions, and even the pretended demoniac.
His dupery, as in the case of his bargain with Wittipol, excites
indignation rather than mirth, and his final discomfiture affords us
almost a sense of poetic justice. This character stands in the position
of chief victim.

In an intermediate position are Merecraft and Everill. They succeed in
swindling Fitzdottrel and Lady Tailbush, but are in turn played upon by
the chief intriguer, Wittipol, with his friend Manly. Jonson's moral
purpose is here plainly visible, especially in contrast to Plautus,
with whom the youthful intriguer is also the stock figure. The motive
of the young man's trickery in the Latin comedy is usually unworthy and
selfish. That of Wittipol, on the other hand, is wholly disinterested,
since he is represented as having already philosophically accepted the
rejection of his advances at the hands of Mrs. Fitzdottrel.

In construction the play suffers from overabundance of material.
Instead of a single main line of action, which is given clear
precedence, there is rather a succession of elaborated episodes,
carefully connected and motivated, but not properly subordinated. The
plot is coherent and intricate rather than unified. This is further
aggravated by the fact that the chief objects of satire are imperfectly
understood by readers of the present day.

Jonson observes unity of time, Pug coming to earth in
the morning and returning at midnight. With the exception
of the first scene, which is indeterminate, and seems at
one moment to be hell, and the next London, the action is
confined to the City, but hovers between Lincoln's Inn,
Newgate, and the house of Lady Tailbush. Unity of action
is of course broken by the interference of the devil-plot and
the episodic nature of the satirical plot. The main lines
of action may be discussed separately.

In the first act chief prominence is given to the intrigue
between Wittipol and Mrs. Fitzdottrel. This interest is
continued through the second act, but practically dropped
after this point. In Act 4 we find that both lovers have
recovered from their infatuation, and the intrigue ends by
mutual consent.

The second act opens with the episode of Merecraft's plot to gull
Fitzdottrel. The project of the dukedom of Drownedland is given chief
place, and attention is centred upon it both here and in the following
scenes. Little use, however, is made of it in the motivation of
action. This is left for another project, the office of the Master of
Dependencies (quarrels) in the next act. This device is introduced in
an incidental way, and we are not prepared for the important place
which it takes in the development of the plot. Merecraft, goaded by
Everill, hits upon it merely as a temporary makeshift to extort money
from Fitzdottrel. The latter determines to make use of the office in
prosecuting his quarrel with Wittipol. In preparation for the duel,
and in accordance with the course of procedure laid down by Everill,
he resolves to settle his estate. Merecraft and Everill endeavor to
have the deed drawn in their own favor, but through the interference
of Wittipol the whole estate is made over to Manly, who restores it to
Mrs. Fitzdottrel. This project becomes then the real turning-point of
the play.

The episode of Guilthead and Plutarchus in Act 3 is only slightly
connected with the main plot. That of Wittipol's disguise as a Spanish
lady, touched upon in the first two acts, becomes the chief interest of
the fourth. It furnishes much comic material, and the characters of
Lady Tailbush and Lady Eitherside offer the poet the opportunity for
some of his cleverest touches in characterization and contrast. [54] The
scene, however, is introduced for incidental purposes, the satirization
of foreign fashions and the follies of London society, and is
overelaborated. The catalogue of cosmetics is an instance of Jonson's
intimate acquaintance with recondite knowledge standing in the way of
his art.

Merecraft's 'after game' in the fifth act is of the nature of an
appendix. The play might well have ended with the frustration of his
plan to get possession of the estate. This act is introduced chiefly
for the sake of a satire upon pretended demoniacs and witch-finders. It
also contains the conclusion of the devil-plot.

_The Devil is an Ass_ will always remain valuable as a historical
document, and as a record of Jonson's own attitude towards the abuses
of his times. In the treatment of Fitzdottrel and Merecraft among the
chief persons, and of Plutarchus Guilthead among the lesser, this
play belongs to Jonson's character-drama. [55] It does not, however,
belong to the pure humor-comedy. Like _The Alchemist_, and in marked
contrast to _Every Man out of his Humor_, interest is sought in plot
development. In the scene between Lady Tailbush and Lady Eitherside,
the play becomes a comedy of manners, and in its attack upon state
abuses it is semi-political in nature. Both Gifford and Swinburne have
observed the ethical treatment of the main motives.

With the exception of Prologue and Epilogue, the doggerel couplets
spoken by Iniquity, Wittipol's song (2. 6. 94), and some of the
lines quoted by Fitzdottrel in the last scene, the play is written
in blank verse throughout. Occasional lines of eight (2. 2. 122),
nine (2. 1. 1), twelve (1. 1. 33) or thirteen (1. 1. 113) syllables
are introduced. Most of these could easily be normalized by a slight
emendation or the slurring of a syllable in pronunciation. Many of
the lines, however, are rough and difficult of scansion. Most of the
dialogue is vigorous, though Wittipol's language is sometimes affected
and unnatural (cf. Act 1. Sc. 1). His speech, 1. 6. 111-148, is
classical in tone, but fragmentary and not perfectly assimilated. The
song already referred to possesses delicacy and some beauty of imagery,
but lacks Jonson's customary polish and smoothness.

As a work of art the play must rely chiefly upon the vigor of its
satiric dialogue and the cleverness of its character sketches. It lacks
the chief excellences of construction--unity of interest, subordination
of detail, steady and uninterrupted development, and prompt conclusion.

[53] Woodbridge, _Studies_, p. 33.

[54] Contrasted companion-characters are a favorite device with
Jonson. Compare Corvino, Corbaccio, and Voltore in _The Fox_, Ananias
and Tribulation Wholesome in _The Alchemist_, etc.

[55] It should be noticed that in the case of Merecraft the method
employed is the caricature of a profession, as well as the exposition
of personality.


2. _Chief Sources of the Plot_

The first source to be pointed out was that of Act 1. Sc. 4-6. [56]
This was again noticed by Koeppel, who mentions one of the
word-for-word borrowings, and points out the moralistic tendency in
Jonson's treatment of the husband, and his rejection of the Italian
story's licentious conclusion. [57] The original is from Boccaccio's
_Decameron_, the fifth novella of the third day. Boccaccio's title
is as follows: 'Il Zima dona a messer Francesco Vergellesi un suo
pallafreno, e per quello con licenzia di lui parla alla sua donna, ed
ella tacendo, egli in persona di lei si risponde, e secondo la sua
risposta poi l'effetto segue'. The substance of the story is this. Il
Zima, with the bribe of a palfrey, makes a bargain with Francesco. For
the gift he is granted an interview with the wife of Francesco and in
the latter's presence. This interview, however, unlike that in _The
Devil is an Ass_, is not in the husband's hearing. To guard against any
mishap, Francesco secretly commands his wife to make no answer to the
lover, warning her that he will be on the lookout for any communication
on her part. The wife, like Mrs. Fitzdottrel, upbraids her husband,
but is obliged to submit. Il Zima begins his courtship, but, though
apparently deeply affected, she makes no answer. The young man then
suspects the husband's trick (e poscia s'incomincio ad accorgere dell'
arte usata dal cavaliere). He accordingly hits upon the device of
supposing himself in her place and makes an answer for her, granting an
assignation. As a signal he suggests the hanging out of the window of
two handkerchiefs. He then answers again in his own person. Upon the
husband's rejoining them he pretends to be deeply chagrined, complains
that he has met a statue of marble (una statua di marmo) and adds:
'Voi avete comperato il pallafreno, e io non l'ho venduto'. Il Zima is
successful in his ruse, and Francesco's wife yields completely to his
seduction.

A close comparison of this important source is highly instructive.
Verbal borrowings show either that Jonson had the book before him, or
that he remembered many of the passages literally. Thus Boccaccio's
'una statua di marmo' finds its counterpart in a later scene[58] where
Mrs. Fitzdottrel says: 'I would not haue him thinke hee met a statue'.
Fitzdottrel's satisfaction at the result of the bargain is like that
of Francesco: 'I ha' kept the contract, and the cloake is mine' (omai
e ben mio il pallafreno, che fu tuo). Again Wittipol's parting words
resemble Il Zima's: 'It may fall out, that you ha' bought it deare,
though I ha' not sold it'. [59] In the mouths of the two heroes,
however, these words mean exactly opposite things. With Il Zima it is a
complaint, and means: 'You have won the cloak, but I have got nothing
in return'. With Wittipol, on the other hand, it is an open sneer, and
hints at further developments. The display of handkerchiefs at the
window is another borrowing. Fitzdottrel says sarcastically:

. . . I'll take carefull order,
That shee shall hang forth ensignes at the window.

Finally Wittipol, like Il Zima, suspects a trick when Mrs.
Fitzdottrel refuses to answer:

How! not any word? Nay, then, I taste a tricke in't.

But precisely here Jonson blunders badly. In Boccaccio's story the
trick was a genuine one. Il Zima stands waiting for an answer. When no
response is made he begins to suspect the husband's secret admonition,
and to thwart it hits upon the device of answering himself. But in
Jonson there is no trick at all. Fitzdottrel does indeed require his
wife to remain silent, but by no means secretly. His command is placed
in the midst of a rambling discourse addressed alternately to his wife
and to the young men. There is not the slightest hint that any part
of this speech is whispered in his wife's ear, and Wittipol enters
upon his courtship with full knowledge of the situation. This fact
deprives Wittipol's speech in the person of Mrs. Fitzdottrel of its
character as a clever device, so that the whole point of Boccaccio's
story is weakened, if not destroyed. I cannot refrain in conclusion
from making a somewhat doubtful conjecture. It is noticeable that while
Jonson follows so many of the details of this story with the greatest
fidelity he substitutes the gift of a cloak for that of the original
'pallafreno' (palfrey). [60] The word is usually written 'palafreno' and
so occurs in Florio. Is it possible that Jonson was unfamiliar with the
word, and, not being able to find it in a dictionary, conjectured that
it was identical with 'palla', a cloak?