Chapter V: Act 4: is largely devoted to a satire of Spanish fashions. In 4. 2. 71 (1)

there is a possible allusion to the Infanta Maria, for whose marriage with Prince Charles secret negotiations were being carried on at this time. We learn that Commissioners were sent to Spain on November 9 (_Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser._), and from a letter of January 1, 1617, that ‘the Spanish tongue, dress, etc. are all in fashion’ (_ibid._).

These indications are all of slight importance, but from their united evidence we may feel reasonably secure in assigning the date of presentation to late November or early December, 1616.

The play was not printed until 1631. It seems never to have been popular, but was revived after the Restoration, and is given by Downes[10] in the list of old plays acted in the New Theatre in Drury Lane after April 8, 1663. He continues: ‘These being Old Plays, were Acted but now and then; yet being well Perform’d were very Satisfactory to the Town’. The other plays of Jonson revived by this company were _The Fox_, _The Alchemist_, _Epicoene_, _Catiline_, _Every Man out of his Humor_, _Every Man in his Humor_, and _Sejanus_. Genest gives us no information of any later revival.

[9] Collier, _Annals_ 3. 275, 302; Fleay, _Hist._ 190.

[10] _Roscius Anglicanus_, p. 8.

C. THE DEVIL IS AN ASS

Jonson’s characteristic conception of comedy as a vehicle for the study of ‘humors’ passed in _Every Man out of his Humor_ into caricature, and in _Cynthia’s Revels_ and _Poetaster_ into allegory. The process was perfectly natural. In the humor study each character is represented as absorbed by a single vice or folly. In the allegorical treatment the abstraction is the starting-point, and the human element the means of interpretation. Either type of drama, by a shifting of emphasis, may readily pass over into the other. The failure of _Cynthia’s Revels_, in spite of the poet’s arrogant boast at its close, had an important effect upon his development, and the plays of Jonson’s middle period, from _Sejanus_ to _The Devil is an Ass_, show more restraint in the handling of character, as well as far greater care in construction. The figures are typical rather than allegorical, and the plot in general centres about certain definite objects of satire. Both plot and characterization are more closely unified.

_The Devil is an Ass_ marks a return to the supernatural and allegorical. The main action, however, belongs strictly to the type of the later drama, especially as exemplified by _The Alchemist_. The fanciful motive of the infernal visitant to earth was found to be of too slight texture for Jonson’s sternly moral and satirical purpose. In the development of the drama it breaks down completely, and is crowded out by the realistic plot. Thus what promised at first to be the chief, and remains in some respects the happiest, motive of the play comes in the final execution to be little better than an inartistic and inharmonious excrescence. Yet Jonson’s words to Drummond seem to indicate that he still looked upon it as the real kernel of the play.[11]

The action is thus easily divisible into two main lines; the devil-plot, involving the fortunes of Satan, Pug and Iniquity, and the satirical or main plot. This division is the more satisfactory, since Satan and Iniquity are not once brought into contact with the chief actors, while Pug’s connection with them is wholly external, and affects only his own fortunes. He is, as Herford has already pointed out, merely ‘the fly upon the engine-wheel, fortunate to escape with a bruising’ (_Studies_, p. 320). He forms, however, the connecting link between the two plots, and his function in the drama must be regarded from two different points of view, according as it shares in the realistic or the supernatural element.

[11] ‘A play of his, upon which he was accused, The Divell is ane Ass; according to _Comedia Vetus_, in England the Divell was brought in either with one Vice or other: the play done the Divel caried away the Vice, he brings in the Divel so overcome with the wickedness of this age that thought himself ane Ass. Παρεργους [incidentally] is discoursed of the Duke of Drounland: the King desired him to conceal it’.--_Conversations with William Drummond_, Jonson’s _Wks._ 9. 400-1.

I. THE DEVIL-PLOT

Jonson’s title, _The Devil is an Ass_, expresses with perfect adequacy the familiarity and contempt with which this once terrible personage had come to be regarded in the later Elizabethan period. The poet, of course, is deliberately archaizing, and the figures of devil and Vice are made largely conformable to the purposes of satire. Several years before, in the Dedication to _The Fox_,[12] Jonson had expressed his contempt for the introduction of ‘fools and devils and those antique relics of barbarism’, characterizing them as ‘ridiculous and exploded follies’. He treats the same subject with biting satire in _The Staple of News_.[13] Yet with all his devotion to realism in matters of petty detail, of local color, and of contemporary allusion, he was, as we have seen, not without an inclination toward allegory. Thus in _Every Man out of his Humor_ the figure of Macilente is very close to a purely allegorical expression of envy. In _Cynthia’s Revels_ the process was perfectly conscious, for in the Induction to that play the characters are spoken of as Virtues and Vices. In _Poetaster_ again we have the purging of Demetrius and Crispinus. Jonson’s return to this field in _The Devil is an Ass_ is largely prophetic of the future course of his drama. The allegory of _The Staple of News_ is more closely woven into the texture of the play than is that of _The Devil is an Ass_; and the conception of Pecunia and her retinue is worked out with much elaboration. In the Second Intermean the purpose of this play is explained as a refinement of method in the use of allegory. For the old Vice with his wooden dagger to snap at everybody he met, or Iniquity, appareled ‘like Hokos Pokos, in a juggler’s jerkin’, he substitutes ‘vices male and female’, ‘attired like men and women of the time’. This of course is only a more philosophical and abstract statement of the idea which he expresses in _The Devil is an Ass_ (1. 1. 120 f.) of a world where the vices are not distinguishable by any outward sign from the virtues:

They weare the same clothes, eate the same meate,
Sleep i’ the self-same beds, ride i’ those coaches.
Or very like, foure horses in a coach,
As the best men and women.

_The New Inn_ and _The Magnetic Lady_ are also penetrated with allegory of a sporadic and trivial nature. Jonson’s use of devil and Vice in the present play is threefold. It is in part earnestly allegorical, especially in Satan’s long speech in the first scene; it is in part a satire upon the employment of what he regarded as barbarous devices; and it is, to no small extent, itself a resort for the sake of comic effect to the very devices which he ridiculed.

Jonson’s conception of the devil was naturally very far from mediæval, and he relied for the effectiveness of his portrait upon current disbelief in this conception. Yet mediævalism had not wholly died out, and remnants of the morality-play are to be found in many plays of the Elizabethan and Jacobean drama. Rev. John Upton, in his _Critical Observations on Shakespeare_, 1746, was the first to point out the historical connection between Jonson’s Vice and devils and those of the pre-Shakespearian drama. In modern times the history of the devil and the Vice as dramatic figures has been thoroughly investigated, the latest works being those of Dr. L.W. Cushman and Dr. E. Eckhardt, at whose hands the subject has received exhaustive treatment. The connection with Machiavelli’s novella of _Belfagor_ was pointed out by Count Baudissin,[14] _Ben Jonson und seine Schule_, Leipzig 1836, and has been worked out exhaustively by Dr. E. Hollstein in a Halle dissertation, 1901. Dr. C.H. Herford, however, had already suggested that the chief source of the devil-plot was to be found in the legend of Friar Rush.

[12] _Wks._ 3. 158.

[13] _Wks._ 5. 105 f. Cf. also Shirley, Prologue to _The Doubtful Heir_.

[14] Count Baudissin translated two of Jonson’s comedies into German,
_The Alchemist_ and _The Devil is an Ass_ (_Der Dumme Teufel_).

1. _The Devil in the pre-Shakespearian Drama_

The sources for the conception of the devil in the mediæval drama are to be sought in a large body of non-dramatic literature. In this literature the devil was conceived of as a fallen angel, the enemy of God and his hierarchy, and the champion of evil. As such he makes his appearance in the mystery-plays. The mysteries derived their subjects from Bible history, showed comparatively little pliancy, and dealt always with serious themes. In them the devil is with few exceptions a serious figure. Occasionally, however, even at this early date, comedy and satire find place. The most prominent example is the figure of Titivillus in the Towneley cycle.

In the early moralities the devil is still of primary importance, and is always serious. But as the Vice became a more and more prominent figure, the devil became less and less so, and in the later drama his part is always subordinate. The play of _Nature_ (c. 1500) is the first morality without a devil. Out of fifteen moralities of later date tabulated by Cushman, only four are provided with this character.

The degeneration of the devil as a dramatic figure was inevitable. His grotesque appearance, at first calculated to inspire terror, by its very exaggeration produced, when once familiar, a wholly comic effect. When the active comic parts were assumed by the Vice, he became a mere butt, and finally disappears.

One of the earliest comic figures in the religious drama is that of the clumsy or uncouth servant.[15] Closely allied to him is the under-devil, who appears as early as _The Harrowing of Hell_, and this figure is constantly employed as a comic personage in the later drama.[16] The figure of the servant later developed into that of the clown, and in this type the character of the devil finally merged.[17]

[15] Eckhardt, p. 42 f.]

[16] _Ibid._, p. 67 f.]

[17] In general the devil is more closely related to the clown, and the Vice to the fool. In some cases, however, the devil is to be identified with the fool, and the Vice with the clown.

2. _Jonson’s Treatment of the Devil_

In the present play the devil-type is represented by the arch-fiend Satan and his stupid subordinate, Pug. Of these two Satan received more of the formal conventional elements of the older drama, while Pug for the most part represents the later or clownish figure. As in the morality-play Satan’s chief function is the instruction of his emissary of evil. In no scene does he come into contact with human beings, and he is always jealously careful for the best interests of his state. In addition Jonson employs one purely conventional attribute belonging to the tradition of the church- and morality-plays. This is the cry of ‘Ho, ho!’, with which Satan makes his entrance upon the stage in the first scene.[18] Other expressions of emotion were also used, but ‘Ho, ho!’ came in later days to be recognized as the conventional cry of the fiend upon making his entrance.[19]

How the character of Satan was to be represented is of course impossible to determine. The devil in the pre-Shakespearian drama was always a grotesque figure, often provided with the head of a beast and a cow’s tail.[20] In the presentation of Jonson’s play the ancient tradition was probably followed. Satan’s speeches, however, are not undignified, and too great grotesqueness of costume must have resulted in considerable incongruity.

In the figure of Pug few of the formal elements of the pre-Shakespearian devil are exhibited. He remains, of course, the ostensible champion of evil, but is far surpassed by his earthly associates, both in malice and in intellect. In personal appearance he is brought by the assumption of the body and dress of a human being into harmony with his environment. A single conventional episode, with a reversal of the customary proceeding, is retained from the morality-play. While Pug is languishing in prison, Iniquity appears, Pug mounts upon his back, and is carried off to hell. Iniquity comments upon it:

The Diuell was wont to carry away the euill;
But, now, the Euill out-carries the Diuell.

That the practice above referred to was a regular or even a frequent feature of the morality-play has been disputed, but the evidence seems fairly conclusive that it was common in the later and more degenerate moralities. At any rate, like the cry of ‘Ho, ho!’ it had come to be looked upon as part of the regular stock in trade, and this was enough for Jonson’s purpose.[21] This motive of the Vice riding the devil had changed from a passive to an active comic part. Instead of the devil’s prey he had become in the eyes of the spectators the devil’s tormentor. Jonson may be looked upon as reverting, perhaps unconsciously, to the original and truer conception.

In other respects Pug exhibits only the characteristics of the inheritor of the devil’s comedy part, the butt or clown. As we have seen, one of the chief sources, as well as one of the constant modes of manifestation, of this figure was the servant or man of low social rank. Pug, too, on coming to earth immediately attaches himself to Fitzdottrel as a servant, and throughout his brief sojourn on earth he continues to exhibit the wonted stupidity and clumsy uncouthness of the clown. He appears, to be sure, in a fine suit of clothes, but he soon shows himself unfit for the position of gentleman-usher, and his stupidity appears at every turn. The important element in the clown’s comedy part, of a contrast between intention and accomplishment, is of course exactly the sort of fun inspired by Pug’s repeated discomfiture. With the clown it often takes the form of blunders in speech, and his desire to appear fine and say the correct thing frequently leads him into gross absurdities. This is brought out with broad humor in 4. 4. 219, where Pug, on being catechized as to what he should consider ‘the height of his employment’, stumbles upon the unfortunate suggestion: ‘To find out a good _Corne-cutter_’. His receiving blows at the hand of his master further distinguishes him as a clown. The investing of Pug with such attributes was, as we have seen, no startling innovation on Jonson’s part. Moreover, it fell into line with his purpose in this play, and was the more acceptable since it allowed him to make use of the methods of realism instead of forcing him to draw a purely conventional figure. Pug, of course, even in his character of clown, is not the unrelated stock-figure, introduced merely for the sake of inconsequent comic dialogue and rough horse-play. His part is important and definite, though not sufficiently developed.

[18] In the Digby group of miracle-plays roaring by the devil is a prominent feature. Stage directions in _Paul_ provide for ‘cryeing and rorying’ and Belial enters with the cry, ‘Ho, ho, behold me’. Among the moralities _The Disobedient Child_ may be mentioned.

[19] So in _Gammer Gurton’s Needle_, c 1562, we read: ‘But Diccon, Diccon, did not the devil cry ho, ho, ho?’ Cf. also the translation of Goulart’s Histories, 1607 (quoted by Sharp, p. 59): ‘The fellow--coming to the stove--sawe the Diuills in horrible formes, some sitting, some standing, others walking, some ramping against the walles, but al of them, assoone as they beheld him, crying Hoh, hoh, what makest thou here?’

[20] Cf. the words of Robin Goodfellow in _Wily Beguiled_ (_O. Pl._, 4th ed., 9. 268): ‘I’ll put me on my great carnation-nose, and wrap me in a rowsing calf-skin suit and come like some hobgoblin, or some devil ascended from the grisly pit of hell’.

[21] Cushman points out that it occurs in only one drama, that of _Like will to Like_. He attributes the currency of the notion that this mode of exit was the regular one to the famous passage in Harsnet’s _Declaration of Popish Impostures_ (p. 114, 1603): ‘It was a pretty part in the old church-playes, when the nimble Vice would skip up nimbly like a jackanapes into the devil’s necke, and ride the devil a course, and belabour him with his wooden dagger, till he made him roare, whereat the people would laugh to see the devil so vice-haunted’. The moralities and tragedies give no indication of hostility between Vice and devil. Cushman believes therefore that Harsnet refers either to some lost morality or to ‘Punch and Judy’. It is significant, however, that in ‘Punch and Judy’, which gives indications of being a debased descendant of the morality, the devil enters with the evident intention of carrying the hero off to hell. The joke consists as in the present play in a reversal of the usual proceeding. Eckhardt (p. 85 n.) points out that the Vice’s cudgeling of the devil was probably a mere mirth-provoking device, and indicated no enmity between the two. Moreover the motive of the devil as an animal for riding is not infrequent. In the _Castle of Perseverance_ the devil carries away the hero, Humanum Genus. The motive appears also in Greene’s _Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_ and Lodge and Greene’s _Looking Glass for London and England_, and especially in _Histriomastix_, where the Vice rides a roaring devil (Eckhardt, pp. 86 f.). We have also another bit of evidence from Jonson himself. In _The Staple of News_ Mirth relates her reminiscences of the old comedy. In speaking of the devil she says: ‘He would carry away the Vice on his back quick to hell in every play’.

3. _The Influence of Robin Goodfellow and of Popular Legend_

A constant element of the popular demonology was the belief in the kobold or elfish sprite. This figure appears in the mysteries in the shape of Titivillus, but is not found in the moralities. Robin Goodfellow, however, makes his appearance in at least three comedies, _Midsummer Night’s Dream_, 1593-4, _Grim, the Collier of Croyden_, c 1600, and _Wily Beguiled_, 1606. The last of these especially approaches Jonson’s conception. Here Robin Goodfellow is a malicious intriguer, whose nature, whether human or diabolical, is left somewhat in doubt. His plans are completely frustrated, he is treated with contempt, and is beaten by Fortunatus. The character was a favorite with Jonson. In the masque of _The Satyr_, 1603,[22] that character is addressed as Pug, which here seems evidently equivalent to Puck or Robin Goodfellow. Similarly Thomas Heywood makes Kobald, Hobgoblin, Robin Goodfellow, and Pug practically identical.[23] Butler, in the _Hudibras_,[24] gives him the combination-title of good ‘Pug-Robin’. Jonson’s character of Pug was certainly influenced in some degree both by the popular and the literary conception of this ‘lubber fiend’.

The theme of a stupid or outwitted devil occurred also both in ballad literature[25] and in popular legend. Roskoff[26] places the change in attitude toward the devil from a feeling of fear to one of superiority at about the end of the eleventh century. The idea of a baffled devil may have been partially due to the legends of the saints, where the devil is constantly defeated, though he is seldom made to appear stupid or ridiculous. The notion of a ‘stupid devil’ is not very common in English, but occasionally appears. In the Virgilius legend the fiend is cheated of his reward by stupidly putting himself into the physical power of the wizard. In the Friar Bacon legend the necromancer delivers an Oxford gentleman by a trick of sophistry.[27] In the story upon which the drama of _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_ was founded, the devil is not only cleverly outwitted, but appears weak and docile in his indulgence of the wizard’s plea for a temporary respite. It may be said in passing, in spite of Herford’s assertion to the contrary, that the supernatural machinery in this play has considerably less connection with the plot than in _The Devil is an Ass_. Both show a survival of a past interest, of which the dramatist himself realizes the obsolete character.

[22] Cf. also _Love Restored_, 1610-11, and the
character of Puck Hairy in _The Sad Shepherd_.

[23] _Hierarchie of the Blessed Angels_ 9.

[24] Part 3. Cant. 1, l. 1415.

[25] Cf. _Devil in Britain and America_, ch. 2.

[26] _Geschichte des Teufels_ 1. 316, 395.

[27] Hazlitt, _Tales_, pp. 39, 83.

4. _Friar Rush and Dekker_

It was the familiar legend of Friar Rush which furnished the groundwork of Jonson’s play. The story seems to be of Danish origin, and first makes its appearance in England in the form of a prose history during the latter half of the sixteenth century. It is entered in the _Stationer’s Register_ 1567-8, and mentioned by Reginald Scot in 1584.[28] As early as 1566, however, the figure of Friar Rush on a ‘painted cloth’ was a familiar one, and is so mentioned in _Gammer Gurton’s Needle_.[29] The first extant edition dates from 1620, and has been reprinted by W. J. Thoms.[30] The character had already become partially identified with that of Robin Goodfellow,[31] and this identification, as we have seen, Jonson was inclined to accept.

In spite of many variations of detail the kernel of the Rush story is precisely that of Jonson’s play, the visit of a devil to earth with the purpose of corrupting men. Both Rush and Pug assume human bodies, the former being ‘put in rayment like an earthly creature’, while the latter is made subject ‘to all impressions of the flesh’.

Rush, unlike his counterpart, is not otherwise bound to definite conditions, but he too becomes a servant. The adventure is not of his own seeking; he is chosen by agreement of the council, and no mention is made of the emissary’s willingness or unwillingness to perform his part. Later, however, we read that he stood at the gate of the religious house ‘all alone and with a heavie countenance’. In the beginning, therefore, he has little of Pug’s thirst for adventure, but his object is at bottom the same, ‘to goe and dwell among these religious men for to maintaine them the longer in their ungracious living’. Like Pug, whose request for a Vice is denied him, he goes unaccompanied, and presents himself at the priory in the guise of a young man seeking service: ‘Sir, I am a poore young man, and am out of service, and faine would have a maister’.[32]

Most of the remaining incidents of the Rush story could not be used in Jonson’s play. Two incidents may be mentioned. Rush furthers the amours of his master, as Pug attempts to do those of his mistress. In the later history of Rush the motive of demoniacal possession is worked into the plot. In a very important respect, however, the legend differs from the play. Up to the time of discovery Rush is popular and successful. He is nowhere made ridiculous, and his mission of corruption is in large measure fulfilled. The two stories come together in their conclusion. The discovery that a real devil has been among them is the means of the friars’ conversion and future right living. A precisely similar effect takes place in the case of Fitzdottrel.

The legend of Friar Rush had already twice been used in the drama before it was adopted by Jonson. The play by Day and Haughton to which Henslowe refers[33] is not extant; Dekker’s drama, _If this be not a good Play, the Diuell is in it_, appeared in 1612. Jonson in roundabout fashion acknowledged his indebtedness to this play by the closing line of his prologue.

If this Play doe not like, the Diuell is in’t.

Dekker’s play adds few new elements to the story. The first scene is in the infernal regions; not, however, the Christian hell, as in the prose history, but the classical Hades. This change seems to have been adopted from Machiavelli. Three devils are sent to earth with the object of corrupting men and replenishing hell. They return, on the whole, successful, though the corrupted king of Naples is finally redeemed.

In certain respects, however, the play stands closer to Jonson’s drama than the history. In the first place, the doctrine that hell’s vices are both old-fashioned and outdone by men, upon which Satan lays so much stress in his instructions to Pug in the first scene, receives a like emphasis in Dekker:

... ’tis thought
That men to find hell, now, new waies have sought,
As Spaniards did to the Indies.

and again:

... aboue vs dwell,
Diuells brauer, and more subtill then in Hell.[34]

and finally:

They scorne thy hell, hauing better of their owne.

In the second place Lurchall, unlike Rush, but in the same way as Pug, finds himself inferior to his earthly associates. He acknowledges himself overreached by Bartervile, and confesses:

I came to teach, but now (me thinkes) must learne.

A single correspondence of lesser importance may be added. Both devils, when asked whence they come, obscurely intimate their hellish origin. Pug says that he comes from the Devil’s Cavern in Derbyshire. Rufman asserts that his home is Helvetia.[35]

[28] _Discovery_, p. 522.

[29] _O. Pl._, 4th ed., 3. 213.

[30] _Early Eng. Prose Romances_, London 1858.

[31] See Herford’s discussion, _Studies_, p. 305; also _Quarterly Rev._ 22. 358. The frequently quoted passage from Harsnet’s _Declaration_ (ch. 20, p. 134), is as follows: ‘And if that the bowle of curds and cream were not duly set out for Robin Goodfellow, the Friar, and Sisse the dairy-maide, why then either the pottage was burnt the next day, or the cheese would not curdle’, etc. Cf. also Scot, _Discovery_, p. 67: ‘Robin could both eate and drinke, as being a cousening idle frier, or some such roge, that wanted nothing either belonging to lecherie or knaverie, &c’.

[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 Niccolò 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 rôle 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 rôles 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 preëminent 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.