147-8), as well as the jargon of
languages
(p.
Ben Jonson - The Devil's Association
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_The Devil is an Ass_ will always remain valuable as a historical
document, and as a record of Jonson's own attitude towards the abuses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?
In other respects Jonson's handling of the story displays his
characteristic methods. Boccaccio spends very few words in description
of either husband or suitor. Jonson, however, is careful to make plain
the despicable character of Fitzdottrel, while Wittipol is represented
as an attractive and high-minded young man. Further than this, both
Mrs. Fitzdottrel and Wittipol soon recover completely from their
infatuation.
Koeppel has suggested a second source from the _Decameron_, Day 3,
Novella 3. The title is: 'Sotto spezie di confessione e di purissima
coscienza una donna, innamorata d'un giovane, induce un solenne frate,
senza avvedersene egli, a dar modo che'l piacer di lei avessi intero
effetto'. The story is briefly this. A lady makes her confessor the
means of establishing an acquaintance with a young man with whom she
has fallen in love. Her directions are conveyed to him under the guise
of indignant prohibitions. By a series of messages of similar character
she finally succeeds in informing him of the absence of her husband
and the possibility of gaining admittance to her chamber by climbing a
tree in the garden. Thus the friar becomes the unwitting instrument of
the very thing which he is trying to prevent. So in Act 2. Sc. 2 and 6,
Mrs. Fitzdottrel suspects Pug of being her husband's spy. She dares not
therefore send Wittipol a direct message, but requests him to cease his
attentions to her
At the Gentlemans chamber-window in _Lincolnes-Inne_ there,
That opens to my gallery.
Wittipol takes the hint, and promptly appears at the place indicated.
Von Rapp[61] has mentioned certain other scenes as probably of
Italian origin, but, as he advances no proofs, his suggestions may be
neglected. It seems to me possible that in the scene above referred
to, where the lover occupies a house adjoining that of his mistress,
and their secret amour is discovered by her servant and reported to
his master, Jonson had in mind the same incident in Plautus' _Miles
Gloriosus_, Act. 2. Sc. 1 f.
The trait of jealousy which distinguishes Fitzdottrel was suggested
to some extent by the character of Euclio in the _Aulularia_, and a
passage of considerable length[62] is freely paraphrased from that
play. The play and the passage had already been used in _The Case is
Altered_.
Miss Woodbridge has noticed that the scene in which Lady Tailbush and
her friends entertain Wittipol disguised as a Spanish lady is similar
to Act 3. Sc. 2 of _The Silent Woman_, where the collegiate ladies call
upon Epicoene. The trick of disguising a servant as a woman occurs in
Plautus' _Casina_, Acts 4 and 5.
For the final scene, where Fitzdottrel plays the part of a bewitched
person, Jonson made free use of contemporary books and tracts. The
motive of pretended possession had already appeared in _The Fox_
(_Wks. _ 3. 312), where symptoms identical with or similar to those in
the present passage are mentioned--swelling of the belly, vomiting
crooked pins, staring of the eyes, and foaming at the mouth. The
immediate suggestion in this place may have come either through the
Rush story or through Machiavelli's novella. That Jonson's materials
can be traced exclusively to any one source is hardly to be expected.
Not only were trials for witchcraft numerous, but they must have formed
a common subject of speculation and discussion. The ordinary evidences
of possession were doubtless familiar to the well-informed man without
the need of reference to particular records. And it is of the ordinary
evidences that the poet chiefly makes use. Nearly all these are found
repeatedly in the literature of the period.
We know, on the other hand, that Jonson often preferred to get his
information through the medium of books. It is not surprising,
therefore, that Merecraft proposes to imitate 'little Darrel's tricks',
and to find that the dramatist has resorted in large measure to this
particular source. [63]
The Darrel controversy was carried on through a number of years between
John Darrel, a clergyman (see note 5. 3. 6), on the one hand, and
Bishop Samuel Harsnet, John Deacon and John Walker, on the other. Of
the tracts produced in this controversy the two most important are
Harsnet's _Discovery of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel_,[64]
1599, and Darrel's _True Narration of the Strange and Grevous
Vexation by the Devil of 7 Persons in Lancashire and William Somers
of Nottingham_, . . . 1600. The story is retold in Francis Hutchinson's
_Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft_, London, 1720.
Jonson follows the story as told in these two books with considerable
fidelity. The accompaniments of demonic possession which Fitzdottrel
exhibits in the last scene are enumerated in two previous speeches.
Practically all of these are to be found in Darrel's account:
. . . roule but wi' your eyes,
And foam at th' mouth. (Text, 5. 3. 2-3)
. . . to make your belly swell,
And your eyes turne, to foame, to stare, to gnash
Your teeth together, and to beate your selfe,
Laugh loud, and faine six voices. (5. 5. 25 f. )
They may be compared with the description given by Darrel: 'He was
often seene . . . to beate his head and other parts of his body against
the ground and bedstead. In most of his fitts, he did swell in his
body; . . . if he were standing when the fit came he wold be cast
headlong upon the ground, or fall doune, drawing then his lips awry,
gnashing with his teeth, wallowing and foaming. . . . Presently after he
would laughe loud and shrill, his mouth being shut close'. (Darrel,
p. 181. ) 'He was also continually torne in very fearfull manner, and
disfigured in his face . . . now he gnashed with his teeth; now he fomed
like to the horse or boare, . . . not to say anything of his fearfull
staring with his eyes, and incredible gaping'. (Darrel, p. 183. ) The
swelling, foaming, gnashing, staring, etc. , are also mentioned by
Harsnet (pp.
147-8), as well as the jargon of languages (p. 165).
The scene is prepared before Merecraft's appearance (Text, 5. 5. 40.
Cf. _Detection_, p. 92), and Fitzdottrel is discovered lying in bed
(Text, 5. 5. 39; 5. 8. 40). Similarly, Somers performed many of his
tricks 'under a coverlet' (_Detection_, p. 104). Sir Paul Eitherside
then enters and 'interprets all'. This is imitated directly from
Harsnet, where we read: 'So. [Somers] acting those gestures M. Dar.
did expound them very learnedlye, to signify this or that sinne that
raigned in Nott. [Nottingham]. ' Paul's first words are: 'This is the
_Diuell_ speakes and laughes in him'. So Harsnet tells us that 'M. Dar.
vpon his first comming vnto Som. affirmed that it was not So. that
spake in his fitts, but the diuell by him'. Both Fitzdottrel (Text, 5.
8. 115) and Somers (_Narration_, p. 182) talk in Greek. The devil in
Fitzdottrel proposes to 'break his necke in jest' (Text, 5. 8. 117),
and a little later to borrow money (5. 8. 119). The same threat is
twice made in the _True Narration_ (pp. 178 and 180). In the second of
these passages Somers is met by an old woman, who tries to frighten him
into giving her money. Otherwise, she declares, 'I will throwe thee
into this pit, and breake thy neck'. The mouse 'that should ha' come
forth' (Text, 5. 8. 144) is mentioned by both narrators (_Detection_,
p. 140; _Narration_, p. 184), and the pricking of the body with
pins and needles (Text, 5. 8. 49) is found in slightly altered form
(_Detection_, p. 135; _Narration_, p. 174). Finally the clapping of the
hands (Text. 5. 8. 76) is a common feature (_Narration_, p. 182). The
last mentioned passage finds a still closer parallel in a couplet from
the contemporary ballad, which Gifford quotes from Hutchinson (p. 249):
And by the clapping of his Hands
He shew'd the starching of our Bands.
Of the apparatus supplied by Merecraft for the imposture, the soap,
nutshell, tow, and touchwood (Text, 5. 3. 3-5), the bladders and
bellows (Text, 5. 5. 48), some are doubtless taken from Harsnet's
_Discovery_, though Darrel does not quote these passages in the
_Detection_. We find, however, that Darrel was accused of supplying
Somers with black lead to foam with (_Detection_, p. 160), and Gifford
says that the _soap_ and _bellows_ are also mentioned in the 'Bishop's
book'.
Though Jonson drew so largely upon this source, many details are
supplied by his own imagination. Ridiculous as much of it may seem to
the modern reader, it is by no means overdrawn. In fact it may safely
be affirmed that no such realistic depiction of witchcraft exists
elsewhere in the whole range of dramatic literature.
[56] Langbaine, _Eng. Dram. Poets_, p. 289.
[57] _Quellen Studien_, p. 15.
[58] 2. 2. 69.
[59] Mentioned by Koeppel, p. 15.
[60] So spelled in 1573 ed. In earlier editions 'palafreno'.
[61] _Studien_, p. 232.
[62] See note 2. 1. 168 f.
[63] Gifford points out the general resemblance. He uses Hutchinson's
book for comparison.
[64] This book, so far as I know, is not to be found in any American
library. My knowledge of its contents is derived wholly from
Darrel's answer, _A Detection of that sinnful, shamful, lying and
ridiculous Discours, of Samuel Harshnet, entituled: A Discoverie,
etc. . . . Imprinted 1600_, which apparently cites all of Harsnet's more
important points for refutation. It has been lent me through the
kindness of Professor George L. Burr from the Cornell Library. The
quotations from Harsnet in the following pages are accordingly taken
from the excerpts in the _Detection_.
3. _Prototypes of the leading Characters_
The position of the leading characters has already been indicated. Pug,
as the comic butt and innocent gull, is allied to Master Stephen and
Master Matthew of _Every Man in his Humor_, Dapper of _The Alchemist_,
and Cokes of _Bartholomew Fair_. Fitzdottrel, another type of the gull,
is more closely related to _Tribulation Wholesome_ in _The Alchemist_,
and even in some respects to Corvino and Voltore in _The Fox_. Wittipol
and Manly, the chief intriguers, hold approximately the same position
as Wellbred and Knowell in _Every Man in his Humor_, Winwife and
Quarlous in _Bartholomew Fair_, and Dauphine, Clerimont, and Truewit in
_The Silent Woman_. Merecraft is related in his character of swindler
to Subtle in _The Alchemist_, and in his character of projector to Sir
Politick Wouldbe in _The Fox_.
The contemptible 'lady of spirit and woman of fashion' is one of
Jonson's favorite types. She first appears in the persons of Fallace
and Saviolina in _Every Man out of his Humor_; then in _Cynthia's
Revels_, where Moria and her friends play the part; then as Cytheris in
_Poetaster_, Lady Politick in _The Alchemist_, the collegiate ladies
in _The Silent Woman_, and Fulvia and Sempronia in _Catiline_. The same
affectations and vices are satirized repeatedly. An evident prototype
of Justice Eitherside is found in the person of Adam Overdo in
_Bartholomew Fair_. Both are justices of the peace, both are officious,
puritanical, and obstinate. Justice Eitherside's denunciation of the
devotees of tobacco finds its counterpart in a speech in _Bartholomew
Fair_, and his repeated 'I do detest it' reminds one of Overdo's
frequent expressions of horror at the enormities which he constantly
discovers.
4. _Minor Sources_
_The Devil is an Ass_ is not deeply indebted to the classics. Jonson
borrows twice from Horace, 1. 6. 131, and 2. 4. 27 f. The half dozen
lines in which the former passage occurs (1. 6. 126-132) are written in
evident imitation of the Horatian style. Two passages are also borrowed
from Plautus, 2. 1. 168 f. , already mentioned, and 3. 6. 38-9. A single
passage (2. 6. 104 f. ) shows the influence of Martial. These passages
are all quoted in the notes.
The source of Wittipol's description of the 'Cioppino', and the mishap
attendant upon its use, was probably taken from a contemporary book
of travels. A passage in Coryat's _Crudities_ furnishes the necessary
information and a similar anecdote, and was doubtless used by Jonson
(see note 4. 4. 69). Coryat was patronized by the poet. Similarly,
another passage in the _Crudities_ seems to have suggested the project
of the forks (see note 5. 4. 17).
A curious resemblance is further to be noted between several passages
in _The Devil is an Ass_ and _Underwoods 62_. The first draft of this
poem may have been written not long before the present play (see Fleay,
_Chron. _ 1. 329-30) and so have been still fresh in the poet's mind.
The passage _DA. _ 3. 2. 44-6 shows unmistakably that the play was
the borrower, and not the poem. Gifford suggests that both passages
were quoted from a contemporary posture-book, but the passage in the
epigram gives no indication of being a quotation.
The chief parallels are as follows: _U. 62. _ 10-14 and _DA. _ 3. 3.
165-6; _U. 62. _ 21-2 and _DA. _ 3. 3. 169-72; _U. 62. _ 25-6 and _DA. _ 3.
2. 44-6; _U. 62. _ 45-8 and _DA. _ 2. 8. 19-22. These passages are all
quoted in the notes. In addition, there are a few striking words and
phrases that occur in both productions, but the important likenesses
are all noted above. In no other poem except _Charis_, _The Gipsies_,
and _Underwoods 36_,[65] where the borrowings are unmistakably
intentional, is there any thing like the same reworking of material as
in this instance.
III. SPECIFIC OBJECTS OF SATIRE
_The Devil is an Ass_ has been called of all Jonson's plays since
_Cynthia's Revels_ the most obsolete in the subjects of its satire. [66]
The criticism is true, and it is only with some knowledge of the abuses
which Jonson assails that we can appreciate the keenness and precision
of his thrusts. The play is a colossal expose of social abuses. It
attacks the aping of foreign fashions, the vices of society, and above
all the cheats and impositions of the unscrupulous swindler. But we
miss its point if we fail to see that Jonson's arraignment of the
society which permitted itself to be gulled is no less severe than that
of the swindler who practised upon its credulity. Three institutions
especially demand an explanation both for their own sake and for their
bearing upon the plot. These are the duello, the monopoly, and the
pretended demoniacal possession.
[65] See Introduction, Section C. IV.
[66] Swinburne, p. 65.
1. _The Duello_
The origin of private dueling is a matter of some obscurity. It was
formerly supposed to be merely a development of the judicial duel or
combat, but this is uncertain. Dueling flourished on the Continent,
and was especially prevalent in France during the reign of Henry III.
Jonson speaks of the frequency of the practice in France in _The
Magnetic Lady_.
No private duel seems to have occurred in England before the sixteenth
century, and the custom was comparatively rare until the reign of
James I. Its introduction was largely due to the substitution of the
rapier for the broadsword. Not long after this change in weapons
fencing-schools began to be established and were soon very popular.
Donald Lupton, in his _London and the Countrey carbonadoed_, 1632,
says they were usually set up by 'some low-country soldier, who to
keep himself honest from further inconveniences, as also to maintain
himself, thought upon this course and practises it'. [67]
The etiquette of the duel was a matter of especial concern. The two
chief authorities seem to have been Jerome Carranza, the author of a
book entitled _Filosofia de las Armas_,[68] and Vincentio Saviolo,
whose _Practise_ was translated into English in 1595. It contained two
parts, the first 'intreating of the vse of the rapier and dagger', the
second 'of honor and honorable quarrels'. The rules laid down in these
books were mercilessly ridiculed by the dramatists; and the duello was
a frequent subject of satire. [69]
By 1616 dueling must have become very common. Frequent references
to the subject are found about this time in the _Calendar of State
Papers_. Under date of December 9, 1613, we read that all persons who
go abroad to fight duels are to be censured in the Star Chamber. On
February 17, 1614, 'a proclamation, with a book annexed', was issued
against duels, and on February 13, 1617, the King made a Star Chamber
speech against dueling, 'on which he before published a sharp edict'.
The passion for dueling was turned to advantage by a set of improvident
bravos, who styled themselves 'sword-men' or 'masters of dependencies,'
a _dependence_ being the accepted name for an impending quarrel. These
men undertook to examine into the causes of a duel, and to settle or
'take it up' according to the rules laid down by the authorities on
this subject. Their prey were the young men of fashion in the city,
and especially 'country gulls', who were newly come to town and
were anxious to become sophisticated. The profession must have been
profitable, for we hear of their methods being employed by the 'roaring
boys'[70] and the masters of the fencing schools.
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?
In other respects Jonson's handling of the story displays his
characteristic methods. Boccaccio spends very few words in description
of either husband or suitor. Jonson, however, is careful to make plain
the despicable character of Fitzdottrel, while Wittipol is represented
as an attractive and high-minded young man. Further than this, both
Mrs. Fitzdottrel and Wittipol soon recover completely from their
infatuation.
Koeppel has suggested a second source from the _Decameron_, Day 3,
Novella 3. The title is: 'Sotto spezie di confessione e di purissima
coscienza una donna, innamorata d'un giovane, induce un solenne frate,
senza avvedersene egli, a dar modo che'l piacer di lei avessi intero
effetto'. The story is briefly this. A lady makes her confessor the
means of establishing an acquaintance with a young man with whom she
has fallen in love. Her directions are conveyed to him under the guise
of indignant prohibitions. By a series of messages of similar character
she finally succeeds in informing him of the absence of her husband
and the possibility of gaining admittance to her chamber by climbing a
tree in the garden. Thus the friar becomes the unwitting instrument of
the very thing which he is trying to prevent. So in Act 2. Sc. 2 and 6,
Mrs. Fitzdottrel suspects Pug of being her husband's spy. She dares not
therefore send Wittipol a direct message, but requests him to cease his
attentions to her
At the Gentlemans chamber-window in _Lincolnes-Inne_ there,
That opens to my gallery.
Wittipol takes the hint, and promptly appears at the place indicated.
Von Rapp[61] has mentioned certain other scenes as probably of
Italian origin, but, as he advances no proofs, his suggestions may be
neglected. It seems to me possible that in the scene above referred
to, where the lover occupies a house adjoining that of his mistress,
and their secret amour is discovered by her servant and reported to
his master, Jonson had in mind the same incident in Plautus' _Miles
Gloriosus_, Act. 2. Sc. 1 f.
The trait of jealousy which distinguishes Fitzdottrel was suggested
to some extent by the character of Euclio in the _Aulularia_, and a
passage of considerable length[62] is freely paraphrased from that
play. The play and the passage had already been used in _The Case is
Altered_.
Miss Woodbridge has noticed that the scene in which Lady Tailbush and
her friends entertain Wittipol disguised as a Spanish lady is similar
to Act 3. Sc. 2 of _The Silent Woman_, where the collegiate ladies call
upon Epicoene. The trick of disguising a servant as a woman occurs in
Plautus' _Casina_, Acts 4 and 5.
For the final scene, where Fitzdottrel plays the part of a bewitched
person, Jonson made free use of contemporary books and tracts. The
motive of pretended possession had already appeared in _The Fox_
(_Wks. _ 3. 312), where symptoms identical with or similar to those in
the present passage are mentioned--swelling of the belly, vomiting
crooked pins, staring of the eyes, and foaming at the mouth. The
immediate suggestion in this place may have come either through the
Rush story or through Machiavelli's novella. That Jonson's materials
can be traced exclusively to any one source is hardly to be expected.
Not only were trials for witchcraft numerous, but they must have formed
a common subject of speculation and discussion. The ordinary evidences
of possession were doubtless familiar to the well-informed man without
the need of reference to particular records. And it is of the ordinary
evidences that the poet chiefly makes use. Nearly all these are found
repeatedly in the literature of the period.
We know, on the other hand, that Jonson often preferred to get his
information through the medium of books. It is not surprising,
therefore, that Merecraft proposes to imitate 'little Darrel's tricks',
and to find that the dramatist has resorted in large measure to this
particular source. [63]
The Darrel controversy was carried on through a number of years between
John Darrel, a clergyman (see note 5. 3. 6), on the one hand, and
Bishop Samuel Harsnet, John Deacon and John Walker, on the other. Of
the tracts produced in this controversy the two most important are
Harsnet's _Discovery of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel_,[64]
1599, and Darrel's _True Narration of the Strange and Grevous
Vexation by the Devil of 7 Persons in Lancashire and William Somers
of Nottingham_, . . . 1600. The story is retold in Francis Hutchinson's
_Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft_, London, 1720.
Jonson follows the story as told in these two books with considerable
fidelity. The accompaniments of demonic possession which Fitzdottrel
exhibits in the last scene are enumerated in two previous speeches.
Practically all of these are to be found in Darrel's account:
. . . roule but wi' your eyes,
And foam at th' mouth. (Text, 5. 3. 2-3)
. . . to make your belly swell,
And your eyes turne, to foame, to stare, to gnash
Your teeth together, and to beate your selfe,
Laugh loud, and faine six voices. (5. 5. 25 f. )
They may be compared with the description given by Darrel: 'He was
often seene . . . to beate his head and other parts of his body against
the ground and bedstead. In most of his fitts, he did swell in his
body; . . . if he were standing when the fit came he wold be cast
headlong upon the ground, or fall doune, drawing then his lips awry,
gnashing with his teeth, wallowing and foaming. . . . Presently after he
would laughe loud and shrill, his mouth being shut close'. (Darrel,
p. 181. ) 'He was also continually torne in very fearfull manner, and
disfigured in his face . . . now he gnashed with his teeth; now he fomed
like to the horse or boare, . . . not to say anything of his fearfull
staring with his eyes, and incredible gaping'. (Darrel, p. 183. ) The
swelling, foaming, gnashing, staring, etc. , are also mentioned by
Harsnet (pp.
147-8), as well as the jargon of languages (p. 165).
The scene is prepared before Merecraft's appearance (Text, 5. 5. 40.
Cf. _Detection_, p. 92), and Fitzdottrel is discovered lying in bed
(Text, 5. 5. 39; 5. 8. 40). Similarly, Somers performed many of his
tricks 'under a coverlet' (_Detection_, p. 104). Sir Paul Eitherside
then enters and 'interprets all'. This is imitated directly from
Harsnet, where we read: 'So. [Somers] acting those gestures M. Dar.
did expound them very learnedlye, to signify this or that sinne that
raigned in Nott. [Nottingham]. ' Paul's first words are: 'This is the
_Diuell_ speakes and laughes in him'. So Harsnet tells us that 'M. Dar.
vpon his first comming vnto Som. affirmed that it was not So. that
spake in his fitts, but the diuell by him'. Both Fitzdottrel (Text, 5.
8. 115) and Somers (_Narration_, p. 182) talk in Greek. The devil in
Fitzdottrel proposes to 'break his necke in jest' (Text, 5. 8. 117),
and a little later to borrow money (5. 8. 119). The same threat is
twice made in the _True Narration_ (pp. 178 and 180). In the second of
these passages Somers is met by an old woman, who tries to frighten him
into giving her money. Otherwise, she declares, 'I will throwe thee
into this pit, and breake thy neck'. The mouse 'that should ha' come
forth' (Text, 5. 8. 144) is mentioned by both narrators (_Detection_,
p. 140; _Narration_, p. 184), and the pricking of the body with
pins and needles (Text, 5. 8. 49) is found in slightly altered form
(_Detection_, p. 135; _Narration_, p. 174). Finally the clapping of the
hands (Text. 5. 8. 76) is a common feature (_Narration_, p. 182). The
last mentioned passage finds a still closer parallel in a couplet from
the contemporary ballad, which Gifford quotes from Hutchinson (p. 249):
And by the clapping of his Hands
He shew'd the starching of our Bands.
Of the apparatus supplied by Merecraft for the imposture, the soap,
nutshell, tow, and touchwood (Text, 5. 3. 3-5), the bladders and
bellows (Text, 5. 5. 48), some are doubtless taken from Harsnet's
_Discovery_, though Darrel does not quote these passages in the
_Detection_. We find, however, that Darrel was accused of supplying
Somers with black lead to foam with (_Detection_, p. 160), and Gifford
says that the _soap_ and _bellows_ are also mentioned in the 'Bishop's
book'.
Though Jonson drew so largely upon this source, many details are
supplied by his own imagination. Ridiculous as much of it may seem to
the modern reader, it is by no means overdrawn. In fact it may safely
be affirmed that no such realistic depiction of witchcraft exists
elsewhere in the whole range of dramatic literature.
[56] Langbaine, _Eng. Dram. Poets_, p. 289.
[57] _Quellen Studien_, p. 15.
[58] 2. 2. 69.
[59] Mentioned by Koeppel, p. 15.
[60] So spelled in 1573 ed. In earlier editions 'palafreno'.
[61] _Studien_, p. 232.
[62] See note 2. 1. 168 f.
[63] Gifford points out the general resemblance. He uses Hutchinson's
book for comparison.
[64] This book, so far as I know, is not to be found in any American
library. My knowledge of its contents is derived wholly from
Darrel's answer, _A Detection of that sinnful, shamful, lying and
ridiculous Discours, of Samuel Harshnet, entituled: A Discoverie,
etc. . . . Imprinted 1600_, which apparently cites all of Harsnet's more
important points for refutation. It has been lent me through the
kindness of Professor George L. Burr from the Cornell Library. The
quotations from Harsnet in the following pages are accordingly taken
from the excerpts in the _Detection_.
3. _Prototypes of the leading Characters_
The position of the leading characters has already been indicated. Pug,
as the comic butt and innocent gull, is allied to Master Stephen and
Master Matthew of _Every Man in his Humor_, Dapper of _The Alchemist_,
and Cokes of _Bartholomew Fair_. Fitzdottrel, another type of the gull,
is more closely related to _Tribulation Wholesome_ in _The Alchemist_,
and even in some respects to Corvino and Voltore in _The Fox_. Wittipol
and Manly, the chief intriguers, hold approximately the same position
as Wellbred and Knowell in _Every Man in his Humor_, Winwife and
Quarlous in _Bartholomew Fair_, and Dauphine, Clerimont, and Truewit in
_The Silent Woman_. Merecraft is related in his character of swindler
to Subtle in _The Alchemist_, and in his character of projector to Sir
Politick Wouldbe in _The Fox_.
The contemptible 'lady of spirit and woman of fashion' is one of
Jonson's favorite types. She first appears in the persons of Fallace
and Saviolina in _Every Man out of his Humor_; then in _Cynthia's
Revels_, where Moria and her friends play the part; then as Cytheris in
_Poetaster_, Lady Politick in _The Alchemist_, the collegiate ladies
in _The Silent Woman_, and Fulvia and Sempronia in _Catiline_. The same
affectations and vices are satirized repeatedly. An evident prototype
of Justice Eitherside is found in the person of Adam Overdo in
_Bartholomew Fair_. Both are justices of the peace, both are officious,
puritanical, and obstinate. Justice Eitherside's denunciation of the
devotees of tobacco finds its counterpart in a speech in _Bartholomew
Fair_, and his repeated 'I do detest it' reminds one of Overdo's
frequent expressions of horror at the enormities which he constantly
discovers.
4. _Minor Sources_
_The Devil is an Ass_ is not deeply indebted to the classics. Jonson
borrows twice from Horace, 1. 6. 131, and 2. 4. 27 f. The half dozen
lines in which the former passage occurs (1. 6. 126-132) are written in
evident imitation of the Horatian style. Two passages are also borrowed
from Plautus, 2. 1. 168 f. , already mentioned, and 3. 6. 38-9. A single
passage (2. 6. 104 f. ) shows the influence of Martial. These passages
are all quoted in the notes.
The source of Wittipol's description of the 'Cioppino', and the mishap
attendant upon its use, was probably taken from a contemporary book
of travels. A passage in Coryat's _Crudities_ furnishes the necessary
information and a similar anecdote, and was doubtless used by Jonson
(see note 4. 4. 69). Coryat was patronized by the poet. Similarly,
another passage in the _Crudities_ seems to have suggested the project
of the forks (see note 5. 4. 17).
A curious resemblance is further to be noted between several passages
in _The Devil is an Ass_ and _Underwoods 62_. The first draft of this
poem may have been written not long before the present play (see Fleay,
_Chron. _ 1. 329-30) and so have been still fresh in the poet's mind.
The passage _DA. _ 3. 2. 44-6 shows unmistakably that the play was
the borrower, and not the poem. Gifford suggests that both passages
were quoted from a contemporary posture-book, but the passage in the
epigram gives no indication of being a quotation.
The chief parallels are as follows: _U. 62. _ 10-14 and _DA. _ 3. 3.
165-6; _U. 62. _ 21-2 and _DA. _ 3. 3. 169-72; _U. 62. _ 25-6 and _DA. _ 3.
2. 44-6; _U. 62. _ 45-8 and _DA. _ 2. 8. 19-22. These passages are all
quoted in the notes. In addition, there are a few striking words and
phrases that occur in both productions, but the important likenesses
are all noted above. In no other poem except _Charis_, _The Gipsies_,
and _Underwoods 36_,[65] where the borrowings are unmistakably
intentional, is there any thing like the same reworking of material as
in this instance.
III. SPECIFIC OBJECTS OF SATIRE
_The Devil is an Ass_ has been called of all Jonson's plays since
_Cynthia's Revels_ the most obsolete in the subjects of its satire. [66]
The criticism is true, and it is only with some knowledge of the abuses
which Jonson assails that we can appreciate the keenness and precision
of his thrusts. The play is a colossal expose of social abuses. It
attacks the aping of foreign fashions, the vices of society, and above
all the cheats and impositions of the unscrupulous swindler. But we
miss its point if we fail to see that Jonson's arraignment of the
society which permitted itself to be gulled is no less severe than that
of the swindler who practised upon its credulity. Three institutions
especially demand an explanation both for their own sake and for their
bearing upon the plot. These are the duello, the monopoly, and the
pretended demoniacal possession.
[65] See Introduction, Section C. IV.
[66] Swinburne, p. 65.
1. _The Duello_
The origin of private dueling is a matter of some obscurity. It was
formerly supposed to be merely a development of the judicial duel or
combat, but this is uncertain. Dueling flourished on the Continent,
and was especially prevalent in France during the reign of Henry III.
Jonson speaks of the frequency of the practice in France in _The
Magnetic Lady_.
No private duel seems to have occurred in England before the sixteenth
century, and the custom was comparatively rare until the reign of
James I. Its introduction was largely due to the substitution of the
rapier for the broadsword. Not long after this change in weapons
fencing-schools began to be established and were soon very popular.
Donald Lupton, in his _London and the Countrey carbonadoed_, 1632,
says they were usually set up by 'some low-country soldier, who to
keep himself honest from further inconveniences, as also to maintain
himself, thought upon this course and practises it'. [67]
The etiquette of the duel was a matter of especial concern. The two
chief authorities seem to have been Jerome Carranza, the author of a
book entitled _Filosofia de las Armas_,[68] and Vincentio Saviolo,
whose _Practise_ was translated into English in 1595. It contained two
parts, the first 'intreating of the vse of the rapier and dagger', the
second 'of honor and honorable quarrels'. The rules laid down in these
books were mercilessly ridiculed by the dramatists; and the duello was
a frequent subject of satire. [69]
By 1616 dueling must have become very common. Frequent references
to the subject are found about this time in the _Calendar of State
Papers_. Under date of December 9, 1613, we read that all persons who
go abroad to fight duels are to be censured in the Star Chamber. On
February 17, 1614, 'a proclamation, with a book annexed', was issued
against duels, and on February 13, 1617, the King made a Star Chamber
speech against dueling, 'on which he before published a sharp edict'.
The passion for dueling was turned to advantage by a set of improvident
bravos, who styled themselves 'sword-men' or 'masters of dependencies,'
a _dependence_ being the accepted name for an impending quarrel. These
men undertook to examine into the causes of a duel, and to settle or
'take it up' according to the rules laid down by the authorities on
this subject. Their prey were the young men of fashion in the city,
and especially 'country gulls', who were newly come to town and
were anxious to become sophisticated. The profession must have been
profitable, for we hear of their methods being employed by the 'roaring
boys'[70] and the masters of the fencing schools.
