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

_The Devil is an Ass_ will always remain valuable as a historical document, and as a record of Jonson’s own attitude towards the abuses of his times.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’incominciò 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 è 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 exposé 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.[71] Fletcher in _The Elder Brother_, _Wks._ 10. 283, speaks of

... the masters of dependencies
That by compounding differences ’tween others
Supply their own necessities,

and Massinger makes similar comment in _The Guardian_, _Wks._, p. 343:

When two heirs quarrel,
The swordsmen of the city shortly after
Appear in plush, for their grave consultations
In taking up the difference; some, I know,
Make a set living on’t.

Another function of the office is mentioned by Ford in _Fancies Chaste and Noble_, _Wks._ 2. 241. The master would upon occasion ‘brave’ a quarrel with the novice for the sake of ‘gilding his reputation’, and Massinger in _The Maid of Honor_, _Wks._, p. 190, asserts that he would even consent ‘for a cloak with thrice-died velvet, and a cast suit’ to be ‘kick’d down the stairs’. In _A King and No King_, B. & Fl., _Wks._ 2. 310 f., Bessus consults with two of these ‘Gentlemen of the Sword’ in a ridiculous scene, in which the sword-men profess the greatest scrupulousness in examining every word and phrase, affirming that they cannot be ‘too subtle in this business’.

Jonson never loses an opportunity of satirizing these despicable bullies, who were not only ridiculous in their affectations, but who proved by their ‘fomenting bloody quarrels’ to be no small danger to the state. Bobadill, who is described as a Paul’s Man, was in addition a pretender to this craft. Matthew complains that Downright has threatened him with the bastinado, whereupon Bobadill cries out immediately that it is ‘a most proper and sufficient dependence’ and adds: ‘Come hither, you shall chartel him; I’ll shew you a trick or two, you shall kill him with at pleasure’.[72] Cavalier Shift, in _Every Man out of his Humor_, among various other occupations has the reputation of being able to ‘manage a quarrel the best that ever you saw, for terms and circumstances’. We have an excellent picture of the ambitious novice in the person of Kastrill in _The Alchemist_. Kastrill, who is described as an ‘angry boy’, comes to consult Subtle as to how to ‘carry a business, manage a quarrel fairly’. Face assures him that Dr. Subtle is able to ‘take the height’ of any quarrel whatsoever, to tell ‘in what degree of safety it lies’, ‘how it may be borne’, etc.

From this description of the ‘master of dependencies’ the exquisite humor of the passage in _The Devil is an Ass_ (3. 3. 60 f.) can be appreciated. Merecraft assures Fitzdottrel that this occupation, in reality the refuge only of the Shifts and Bobadills of the city, is a new and important office about to be formally established by the state. In spite of all their speaking against dueling, he says, they have come to see the evident necessity of a public tribunal to which all quarrels may be referred. It is by means of this pretended office that Merecraft attempts to swindle Fitzdottrel out of his entire estate, from which disaster he is saved only by the clever interposition of Wittipol.

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

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

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

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

[71] _Ibid._, p. 66.

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

2. _The Monopoly System_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[76] Cunningham, p. 21.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[83] See p. xix.

3. _Witchcraft_

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

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

During this entire period charges of witchcraft were frequent. In Scotland they were especially numerous, upwards of fifty being recorded during the years 1596-7.[84] The trial of Anne Turner in 1615, in which charges of witchcraft were joined with those of poisoning, especially attracted the attention of Jonson. In 1593 occurred the trial of the ‘three Witches of Warboys’, in 1606 that of Mary Smith, in 1612 that of the earlier Lancashire Witches, and of the later in 1633. These are only a few of the more famous cases. Of no less importance in this connection is the attitude of the King himself. In the famous _Demonology_[85] he allied himself unhesitatingly with the cause of superstition. Witchcraft was of course not without its opponents, but these were for the most part obscure men and of little personal influence. While Bacon and Raleigh were inclining to a belief in witchcraft, and Sir Thomas Browne was offering his support to persecution, the cause of reason was intrusted to such champions as Reginald Scot, the author of the famous _Discovery of Witchcraft_, 1584, a work which fearlessly exposes the prevailing follies and crimes. It is on this side that Jonson places himself. That he should make a categorical statement as to his belief or disbelief in witchcraft is not to be expected. It is enough that he presents a picture of the pretended demoniac, that he makes it as sordid and hateful as possible, that he draws for us in the person of Justice Eitherside the portrait of the bigoted, unreasonable, and unjust judge, and that he openly ridicules the series of cases which he used as the source of his witch scenes (cf. Act. 5. Sc. 3).

To form an adequate conception of the poet’s satirical purpose in this play one should compare the methods used here with the treatment followed in Jonson’s other dramas where the witch motive occurs. In _The Masque of Queens_, 1609, and in _The Sad Shepherd_, Jonson employed the lore of witchcraft more freely, but in a quite different way. Here, instead of hard realism with all its hideous details, the more picturesque beliefs and traditions are used for purely imaginative and poetical purposes.

_The Masque of Queens_ was presented at Whitehall, and dedicated to Prince Henry. Naturally Jonson’s attitude toward witchcraft would here be respectful. It is to be observed, however, that in the copious notes which are appended to the masque no contemporary trials are referred to. The poet relies upon the learned compilations of Bodin, Remigius, Cornelius Agrippa, and Paracelsus, together with many of the classical authors. He is clearly dealing with the mythology of witchcraft. Nightshade and henbane, sulphur, vapors, the eggshell boat, and the cobweb sail are the properties which he uses in this poetic drama. The treatment does not differ essentially from that of Middleton and Shakespeare.

In _The Sad Shepherd_ the purpose is still different. We have none of the wild unearthliness of the masque. Maudlin is a witch of a decidedly vulgar type, but there is no satirical intent. Jonson, for the purpose of his play, accepts for the moment the prevailing attitude toward witchcraft, and the satisfaction in Maudlin’s discomfiture doubtless assumed an acquiescence in the popular belief. At the same time the poetical aspect is not wholly forgotten, and appears with especial prominence in the beautiful passage which describes the witch’s forest haunt, beginning: ‘Within a gloomy dimble she doth dwell’. _The Sad Shepherd_ and the masque are far more akin to each other in their treatment of witchcraft than is either to _The Devil is an Ass_.

[84] See _Trials for Witchcraft 1596-7_, vol. 1, _Miscellany of the
Spalding Club_, Aberdeen, 1841.

[85] First appeared in 1597. _Workes_, fol. ed., appeared 1616, the
year of this play.

IV. PERSONAL SATIRE

The detection of personal satire in Jonson’s drama is difficult, and at best unsatisfactory. Jonson himself always resented it as an impertinence.[86] In the present case Fleay suggests that the motto, _Ficta, voluptatis causa, sint proxima veris_, is an indication that we are to look upon the characters as real persons. But Jonson twice took the pains to explain that this is precisely the opposite of his own interpretation of Horace’s meaning.[87] The subject of personal satire was a favorite one with him, and in _The Magnetic Lady_ he makes the sufficiently explicit statement: ‘A play, though it apparel and present vices in general, flies from all particularities in persons’.

On the other hand we know that Jonson did occasionally indulge in personal satire. Carlo Buffone,[88] Antonio Balladino,[89] and the clerk Nathaniel[90] are instances sufficiently authenticated. Of these Jonson advances a plea of justification: ‘Where have I been particular? where personal? except to a mimic, cheater, bawd or buffoon, creatures, for their insolencies, worthy to be taxed? yet to which of these so pointingly, as he might not either ingenuously have confest, or wisely dissembled his disease?’[91]

In only one play do we know that the principal characters represent real people. But between _Poetaster_ and _The Devil is an Ass_ there is a vast difference of treatment. In _Poetaster_ (1) the attitude is undisguisedly satirical. The allusions in the prologues and notices to the reader are direct and unmistakable. (2) The character-drawing is partly caricature, partly allegorical. This method is easily distinguishable from the typical, which aims to satirize a class. (3) Jonson does not draw upon historical events, but personal idiosyncrasies. (4) The chief motive is in the spirit of Aristophanes, the great master of personal satire. These methods are what we should naturally expect in a composition of this sort. Of such internal evidence we find little or nothing in _The Devil is an Ass_. Several plausible identifications, however, have been proposed, and these we must consider separately.

The chief characters are identified by Fleay as follows: Wittipol is Jonson. He has returned from travel, and had seen Mrs. Fitzdottrel before he went. Mrs. Fitzdottrel is the Lady Elizabeth Hatton. Fitzdottrel is her husband, Sir Edward Coke.

=Mrs. Fitzdottrel=. The identification is based upon a series of correspondences between a passage in _The Devil is an Ass_ (2. 6. 57-113) and a number of passages scattered through Jonson’s works. The most important of these are quoted in the note to the above passage. To them has been added an important passage from _A Challenge at Tilt_, 1613. Fleay’s deductions are these: (1) _Underwoods 36_ and _Charis_ must be addressed to the same lady (cf. especially _Ch._, part 5). (2) Charis and Mrs. Fitzdottrel are identical. The song (2. 6. 94 f.) is found complete in the _Celebration of Charis_. In Wittipol’s preceding speech we find the phrases ‘milk and roses’ and ‘bank of kisses’, which occur in _Charis_ and in _U. 36_, and a reference to the husband who is the ‘just excuse’ for the wife’s infidelity, which occurs in _U. 36_. (3) Charis is Lady Hatton. Fleay believes that _Charis_, part 1, in which the poet speaks of himself as writing ‘fifty years’, was written c 1622-3; but that parts 2-10 were written c 1608. In reference to these parts he says: ‘Written in reference to a mask in which Charis represented Venus riding in a chariot drawn by swans and doves (_Charis_, part 4), at a marriage, and leading the Graces in a dance at Whitehall, worthy to be envied of the Queen (6), in which Cupid had a part (2, 3, 5), at which Charis kissed him (6, 7), and afterwards kept up a close intimacy with him (8, 9, 10). The mask of 1608, Feb. 9, exactly fulfils these conditions, and the Venus of that mask was probably L. Elizabeth Hatton, the most beautiful of the then court ladies. She had appeared in the mask of Beauty, 1608, Jan. 10, but in no other year traceable by me. From the Elegy, G. 36, manifestly written to the same lady (compare it with the lines in 5 as to “the bank of kisses” and “the bath of milk and roses”), we learn that Charis had “a husband that is the just excuse of all that can be done him”. This was her second husband, Sir Edward Coke, to whom she was married in 1593’.

Fleay’s theory rests chiefly upon (1) his interpretation of _The Celebration of Claris_; (2) the identity of Charis and Mrs. Fitzdottrel. A study of the poem has led me to conclusions of a very different nature from those of Fleay. They may be stated as follows:

_Charis_ 1. This was evidently written in 1622-3. Jonson plainly says: ‘Though I now write fifty years’. Charis is here seemingly identified with Lady Purbeck, daughter of Lady Hatton. Compare the last two lines with the passage from _The Gipsies_. Fleay believes the compliments were transferred in the masque at Lady Hatton’s request.

_Charis_ 4 and 7 have every mark of being insertions. (1) They are in different metres from each other and from the other sections, which in this respect are uniform. (2) They are not in harmony with the rest of the poem. They entirely lack the easy, familiar, half jocular style which characterizes the eight other parts. (3) Each is a somewhat ambitious effort, complete in itself, and distinctly lyrical. (4) In neither is there any mention of or reference to Charis. (5) It is evident, therefore, that they were not written for the _Charis_ poem, but merely interpolated. They are, then, of all the parts the least valuable for the purpose of identification, nor are we justified in looking upon them as continuing a definite narrative with the rest of the poem. (6) The evident reason for introducing them is their own intrinsic lyrical merit.

_Charis_ 4 was apparently written in praise of some pageant, probably a court masque. The representation of Venus drawn in a chariot by swans and doves, the birds sacred to her, may have been common enough. That this is an accurate description of the masque of February 9, 1608 is, however, a striking fact, and it is possible that the lady referred to is the same who represented Venus in that masque. But (1) we do not even know that Jonson refers to a masque of his own, or a masque at all. (2) We have no trustworthy evidence that Lady Hatton was the Venus of that masque. Fleay’s identification is little better than a guess. (3) Evidence is derived from the first stanza alone. This does not appear in _The Devil is an Ass_, and probably was not written at the time. Otherwise there is no reason for its omission in that place. It seems to have been added for the purpose of connecting the lyric interpolation with the rest of the poem.

_Charis_ 5 seems to be a late production. (1) Jonson combines in this single section a large number of figures used in other places. (2) That it was not the origin of these figures seems to be intimated by the words of the poem. Cupid is talking. He had lately found Jonson describing his lady, and Jonson’s words, he says, are descriptive of Cupid’s own mother, Venus. So Homer had spoken of her hair, so Anacreon of her face. He continues:

By her looks I do her know
_Which you call_ my shafts.

The italicized words may refer to _U. 36._ 3-4. They correspond, however, much more closely to _Challenge_, _2 Cup._ The ‘bath your verse discloses’ (l. 21) may refer to _DA._ 2. 6. 82-3. _U. 36._ 7-8 or _Gipsies_ 15-6.

... the bank of kisses,
Where _you say_ men gather blisses

is mentioned in _U. 36._ 9-10. ‘The passages in _DA._ and _Gipsies_[92] are less close. The ‘valley _called_ my nest’ may be a reference to _DA._ 2. 6. 74 f. Jonson had already spoken of the ‘girdle ’bout her waist’ in _Challenge_, _2 Cup._ _Charis_ 5 seems then to have been written later than _U. 36_, _Challenge_, 1613, and probably _Devil is an Ass_, 1616. The evidence is strong, though not conclusive.

_Charis_ 6 evidently refers to a marriage at Whitehall. That Cupid, who is referred to in 2, 3, 5, had any part in the marriage of _Charis_ 6 is nowhere even intimated. That Charis led the Graces in a dance is a conjecture equally unfounded. Jonson of course takes the obvious opportunity (ll. 20, 26) of playing on the name Charis. That this occasion was the same as that celebrated in 4 we have no reason to believe. It applies equally well, for instance, to _A Challenge at Tilt_, but we are by no means justified in so limiting it. It may have been imaginary.

_Charis_ 7 was written before 1618, since Jonson quoted a part of it to Drummond during his visit in Scotland (cf. _Conversations_ 5). It was a favorite of the poet’s and this furnishes sufficient reason for its insertion here. It is worthy of note that the two sections of _Charis_, which we know by external proof to have been in existence before 1623, are those which give internal evidence of being interpolations.

_Summary._ The poem was probably a late production and of composite nature. There is no reason for supposing that the greater part was not written in 1622-3. The fourth and seventh parts are interpolations. The first stanza of the fourth part, upon which the identification largely rests, seems not to have been written until the poem was put together in 1622-3. If it was written at the same time as the other two stanzas, we cannot expect to find it forming part of a connected narrative. The events described in the fourth and sixth parts are not necessarily the same. There is practically no evidence that Lady Hatton was the Venus of 1608, or that _Charis_ is addressed to any particular lady.

The other link in Fleay’s chain of evidence is of still weaker substance. The mere repetition of compliments does not necessarily prove the recipient to be the same person. In fact we find in these very pieces the same phrases applied indiscriminately to Lady Purbeck, Lady Frances Howard, Mrs. Fitzdottrel, perhaps to Lady Hatton, and even to the Earl of Somerset. Of what value, then, can such evidence be?

Fleay’s whole theory rests on this poem, and biographical evidence is unnecessary. It is sufficient to notice that Lady Hatton was a proud woman, that marriage with so eminent a man as Sir Edward Coke was considered a great condescension (_Chamberlain’s Letters_, Camden Soc., p. 29), and that an amour with Jonson is extremely improbable.

=Fitzdottrel.= Fleay’s identification of Fitzdottrel with Coke rests chiefly on the fact that Coke was Lady Hatton’s husband. The following considerations are added. Fitzdottrel is a ‘squire of Norfolk’. Sir E. Coke was a native of Norfolk, and had held office in Norwich. Fitzdottrel’s rôle as sham demoniac is a covert allusion to Coke’s adoption of the popular witch doctrines in the Overbury trial. His jealousy of his wife was shown in the same trial, where he refused to read the document of ‘what ladies loved what lords’, because, as was popularly supposed, his own wife’s name headed the list. Jonson is taking advantage of Coke’s disgrace in November, 1616. He had flattered him in 1613 (_U. 64_).