I

A STUDY OF IRONIC TECHNIQUE IN THREE OF

THOMAS MIDDLETON'S EARLY COMEDIES

David L. Miller

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate School of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

December 1973 Tl

ABSTRACT

Many critics have referred to the rich irony of Thomas Middleton’s early comedies, and some have even examined it specifical­ ly. However, no one has explored the significance of Middleton's use of ironic structures to reinforce the plays’ dramatic reversals and thus create a world within the play which is totally opposite to the characters' expectations. This dissertation examines ironic structure, Middleton’s technique of juxtaposing scenes in such a way that they contradict the meaning or significance of those scenes to which they are related.

This study examines Middleton's three major early comedies, written between 1604-06, Michaelmas Term, A Mad World, My Masters, and A Trick to Catch the Old One. After a brief Introduction (Chapter I), which explains the overall approach and organization, three chapters are devoted to the ironic structures and techniques in each of the three plays. Chapter II reveals the injustices of the social grada­ tions and judicial decisions which make up the ironic world of Michaelmas Term. Chapter III points up the existence, in A Mad World, of an ironic world in which judgments are based upon false knowledge of self and of the real order of the world within the play. Chapter IV reinforces, in A Trick, the ironic fallibility of false judgment and the self-destructiveness of avarice. Each chapter thoroughly examines the pervasive nature of the irony in those worlds within which the plays’ actions develop. Ill

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In the following study all citations and references to

Middleton's works are from the text of A. H. Bullen, Ed. The Works of

Thomas Middleton, 8 vols. Boston: Houghton, 1885. All bibliographic forms are based on the MLA Stylesheet and Bibliography and journals are abbreviated accordingly. I would like to extend my gratitude to everyone who has aided me in the completion of this dissertation, and special thanks are due to my advisor, Dr. Brownell Salomon, who has guided my work over many trying years, and to my wife, without whose patience and understanding I could not have succeeded. IV

CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page

I. INTRODUCTION...... • 1

II. APPEARANCE VERSUS REALITY AND JUDGMENT IN MICHAELMAS TERM...... 11

III. THE MADNESS IN A MAD WORLD, MY MASTERS ...... 44

IV. AVARICE AND SELF-DECEPTION IN A TRICK TO CATCH THE OLD ONE ...... 71

NOTES ...... 90

A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 96 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The following study examines the ironic mode employed by Thomas

Middleton (1580-1627) in three of his early comedies, Michaelmas Term

(ca. 1604-05), A Mad World, My Masters (ca. 1604-05), and A Trick to

Catch the Old One (ca. 1605-06). The study notes the familiar tech­

niques of dramatic and verbal irony, used to reveal ironic discrepan­

cies between what the characters believe and what is actually true, and

between what the characters say and what they mean. It also deals with

the technique of structural irony. By structural irony, I mean that

form of ironic presentation which is expressed in these plays through

the juxtaposition of scenes (or other structural elements), so that the

action of one scene contradicts the tone or meaning of those scenes to which it is connected. This ironic technique is used generally to

reinforce the more obvious levels of dramatic and verbal irony as these devices are used to point up the various themes in these plays.

By use of the above mentioned ironic technique, Middleton has created, in each of these plays, a pattern of ironic expression which presents a view of the world of the play as well as its characters and actions, as basically ironic in structure and significance. What is presented, then, is a group of plays which not only contain ironic elements, but which express within themselves ironic perceptions of their own worlds.

1 2

The focus for this study was suggested for me by a remark of f f Professor H. D. F. Kitto: "I have come to believe more firmly, . . . :7 as a principle of criticism, the idea that in a great work of art . . .

the connexion between the form and the content is so vital that the two

may be said to be ultimately identical."1 Upon examining the drama of

Middleton, I became convinced that such a connection also existed, in

the particular way suggested above, in the comedies which I have

selected for discussion. This unity of form and content is evidenced

through dramatic irony: not only in the limited sense of partial

revelations of action to audience and characters, but in the broader

sense which holds all such structures to be inherently ironic. Each of

these plays is examined in such a way as to demonstrate how theme and

content are combined in each of the plays in order to express the

inherently ironic structure of its individual world.

Many persons have done excellent studies of Middleton’s

comedies, and have, indeed, discussed him as an ironist, but few have

seen how Middleton employed his ironic techniques, and even fewer have

concerned themselves with what he was attempting to do as an ironist.

Most critics, rather, have seen Middleton primarily as a moralist, or

as a realist (or both), who uses, in these comedies, techniques of

satire and irony as incidental methods of developing the didactic or

realistic significance of his drama. For example, Professor Samuel

Schoenbaum expressed the conviction that in much of Middleton's drama,

"ethical judgment is expressed . . . through the instrument of irony.

. . . "2 While Schoenbaum goes on to discuss the extensiveness of 3

Middleton’s use of ironic technique, his emphasis remains upon the use

of ironic technique to express ethical judgment, and not upon the use

of irony as an end in itself—as both the technique and meaning of the play. This view of Middleton’s intention characterizes the work of most critics in regard to the major early comedies.

Indeed, Schoenbaum’s remark is typical of the most common critical opinion about the playwright. As I have suggested, this opinion regards Middleton as a conscious moralist whose satire represents a concerted attempt to mold his audience into the pattern of conventional Christian morality. This position is further developed by

Richard Barker, who points out that "in both his earlier and his later drama Middleton is concerned with . . . vice rather than folly. He has a highly developed sense of sin, which rarely deserts him. . . . Sin is . . . his principal theme, appearing in the farces, which contain some of the most despicable characters in English drama, . . . and in the later tragedies, which deal characteristically with somewhat sordid protagonists."3 Barker further suggests that "what is peculiar to

Middleton is his persistent concern with the irony that invests the sinner's career. His thesis is that sin is blind. He wants to show that the sinner inevitably gropes in a dark world until he stumbles upon the path that leads to inevitable disaster."1* Still, irony is seen as primarily the means to an end.

The opposite view of Middleton, and one finding increasing popularity in recent scholarship, is that the playwright was not concerned at all with an explicit moral or didactic function. Such critics as Felix Schelling5 and Brian Gibbons,6 though some fifty years

separate their works, agree in seeing Middleton’s work as essentially

amoral in tone and meaning. This position is also held by Rowland

Evans, who suggests, in an unpublished dissertation, that Middleton is

not "implicitly or more than momentarily explicitly interested in

dramatizing critical values, moral, social, or intellectual, which

might make indirectly for a better organized understanding by his

audience of . . . contemporary society."7

While Evans believes that Middleton was concerned primarily

with creating an intrigue play in which the primary function is

entertainment, both Schelling and Gibbons see Middleton as generally

involved in creating a realistic representation of life as he saw it

around him. Such criticism presents Middleton as the cool, detached

observer who exposes and examines his citizen characters as they

struggle for survival in a social and economic jungle in which there

is no morality or ethical guidelines. According to this view, he may

occasionally satirize his characters’ machinations, as in A Trick to

Catch the Old One and Michaelmas Term, or point up their ridiculous

posturing, as he does in the latter play as well as in A Mad World, My

Masters, but he always maintains an esthetic, almost clinical reserve.

His function is not to correct or condemn, but to expose and present,

leaving the reader to draw his own conclusions about the social and moral significance of what is revealed.

This uninvolved position has, in fact, caused some readers to

see Middleton as an immoral artist, or, at least, as the author of 5

immoral works. Professor Wilbur Dunkel, in his study of Middleton’s

dramatic technique, points up this problem in a passage that contains

suggestions of other critical approaches to Middleton's work: "In

Middleton's comedies of London life satire on various types of persons

and institutions is the dominant quality of the comic. Although

Middleton vents his ridicule with such bitterness at times that the

personal hatred of the author seems manifest, nevertheless no motive of

reform may be assigned to his satirical thrust. ... In fact, the

lack of application of moral standards has caused Middleton's work to

be frequently regarded as immoral. For although Middleton ridicules

very severly at times, he never points a moral."8

While pointing up the basis for criticism of Middleton's work

as immoral, or amoral, Dunkel has also suggested a view which goes beyond seeing him as only a realist or a dispassionate observer. In

referring to "the dominant quality of the comic," Dunkel points the way

to that group of critics who hold that Middleton's realism and satire are primarily comic devices in which the detached observation is a means to an end, that end being the creation of purely comic intrigues.

Any realistic revelation or ironic commentary which exists, therefore, is not relevant to the presentation of either a moral or an amoral verisimilitude, but only to a comic fantasy, which may, from time to time, draw upon realistic or ironic techniques to achieve its comic effects. In elaborating this viewpoint Stephen Brown suggests that,

"Contemporary and immediate as his materials may be, Middleton's treatment of them is anything but realistic. His concentration upon 6

type characterization, upon racy dialogue, upon the witty tricks and

intrigues of rogue heroes and heroines, and upon the moral ambiguities

of his ironic atmosphere, isolates from the real world a stylized,

comic world where wit and irony reign supreme. Middleton's world of

wit is ultimately a world of play, where children ape in innocent

merriment the harsh realities of their elders."9

Brown goes on to suggest that Middleton's creation of a comic,

somewhat fantastic world is a direct result of the playwright's work

for the Children's companies. But others also hold the view that what

Middleton produced was a world of fantasy and intrigue only remotely

correlative to the realistic mode. Again it is Professor Dunkel who

indicates this comic primacy in plays which, given this view, must have

been designed solely to entertain:

A fundamental element in Middleton's success in his own day and, perhaps, one of the reasons for the neglect of him by scholarship in our time is the theme of roguish intrigue which dominates his comedies in a boisterous manner. . . . Irre­ spective of the particular purpose of their intrigues, the irresponsible rogues seem always to cozen for the undiluted joy derived from their machinations. There is present in these plays a certain spontaneity and bouyancy that can only exist in frolic unrestrained by imminent retribution. The material of these comedies is such stuff as 'problem plays' are made of; and yet the consequences of the rogues' actions are scarcely suggested because no one seems to take his fellows seriously.10

There are indications here of some of the other problems to be found in

Middleton's plays, but the important concern at present is the focus upon farcical gaiety which Dunkel suggests is dominant in these

comedies. 7

There is, finally, a view which is really a mixture of the other major positions already considered. Its adherents, and R. B.

Parker is one, hold that the work of Middleton contains elements of both the realistic and the fantastic and that the plays concern themselves equally with moral considerations and farcical intrigues; however, these scholars see the joining as not an artistically happy one. They see Middleton as engaged in attempting to wrestle into harmony what they apparently conceive of as all but irreconcilable positions. Parker, for example, maintains that "at the heart of

Middleton's very personal comic style is a tension between skill in the presentation of manners and a desire to denounce immorality."11 He further explains that "uneasiness of tone and incredible retribution can be seen in all Middleton's early comedies, caused in each case by his difficulty in bringing immoral comic characters to severe condem­ nation."12 The problem here seems to be one of trying to reconcile apparently unrelated considerations of didacticism and humor, as though the ethical and the comic are concepts which are mutually incompatible.

Without doubt, Parker has recognized a basic tension in Middleton's work, but he sees it as unresolved.

The difficulty in resolving this tension lies, I believe, in the fact that Middleton is not concerned with writing intrigue plays per se, though, without doubt, they are rich in intrigue. Nor was he concerned with presenting a study in contemporary morals or ethics, though such issues are incidentally included in his drama. The lack of relationship between the effect of Middleton's work and such 8

seriousness of purpose as one normally expects in didactic drama was

first pointed out by Madeleine Doran. In comparing the seriousness of

Jonson’s work to that of Middleton she remarks that "the seriousness of

Middleton’s is often very doubtful indeed. Middleton’s satire is

’moral' only in the wide sense that it implies a standard of judgment

about what aspects of human behavior are ridiculous or not; but their

ridiculousness appears to be in no wise disturbing to him."13 The

tension between Middleton as didactic "moralist" and as realistic

farceur is not so much resolved by this approach as it is circumvented.

I feel it is circumvented because in a perception of the world which

sees all occurrence as coincidence and all action as non sequitur, such

considerations miss the point.

What I am contending here, then, as I have suggested earlier,

is that in these three plays Middleton is presenting a vision of the

world which presents all of existence as ironic. I believe that the

basis of that irony lies in man’s persistent belief that his universe

has some kind of order, some kind of system (whether found in conven­

tional Christian morality or some law of balance and regulation found

in the natural order); this flies in the face of the reality, as

Middleton presents it, that the only consistent aspect of the universe

is its inconsistency. The development of the particular plays demon­

strates the comparative success of those people who have a true percep­

tion of this reality compared to those who adhere to a belief in some kind of order upon which they can depend and who, therefore, have only a partial perception of reality. That is, they mistake the hierarchies 9 which man ascribes to different modes of his existence (including codes of morality and ethics) as manifestations of an inherent order in the universe. Those who are most aware, however (that is those who are able to reconcile their existence to this chaos and to utilize it to their own ends), recognize these hierarchies as only social or economic conventions which ultimately have no basis and consequently no validity.

Middleton’s manner of concluding these plays calls for an ironic resolution of the various levels of self-deception in each play with the reality of the world's inconsistent ordering. The ultimate irony of each, however, lies in the implicit (explicit in A Mad World) revelation that, finally, it doesn't seem to matter whether one has a valid perception of the illogicality of the universe or only an imperfect view of it, since, in a consistently inconsistent fashion, rewards and retributions are meted out indiscriminately. Ultimately, then, even the plays' central ironic conflict is treated ironically.

As I have indicated, this approach to the plays resolves most of the conflicts and inconsistencies which critics have hitherto seen in these plays (such problems, for example, as the Dampit scenes in A

Trick, the apparently ineffectual role of the "hero," Easy, in

Michaelmas Term, and the Succubus episode in A Mad World), and it also gives us an approach to Middleton which suggests a consistency in artistic point of view and intention. It may still be unclear whether the playwright regarded the message of his plays for their audience as didactic or realistic, if he considered it at all (indeed, except for 10

some early didactic poetry, biographical evidence to substantiate such

speculation simply does not exist). But it does seem clear, that if

the plays are viewed from this approach such speculations about the

events within the plays themselves become of secondary importance.

While the approach to all of the plays will be essentially the

same (that is, an examination of theme and structure as embodiments of

ironic perception), I have analyzed each of them with somewhat

different emphasis and technique as seemed to befit their particular

circumstances. This occasions some inconsistency in mode of develop­

ment. Michaelmas Term and A Trick are treated both structurally and

thematically, while the focus in A Mad World is essentially only

thematic in nature. I believe this has been necessary, however, to

fully demonstrate the ways in which, in each of these plays, Middleton has utilized ironic techniques to create an ironic perception of the

universe within the plays themselves. CHAPTER II

APPEARANCE VERSUS REALITY AND JUDGMENT IN MICHAELMAS TERM

Michaelmas Term (ca. 1605) is the first of Middleton's plays to present clearly, through its form and content, an ironic view of that world with which the play is concerned. It is true that not all

critics have seen this ironic view of the microcosmic world of the play. Some have seen in it a realistic, albeit satiric, presentation of London life.1 These critics have also, at times, considered some of the ironic aspects of the play, but their focus is upon the play as primarily a mirror of the actual life of Jacobean London. A second group of critics has discussed the play as a moralistic drama; that is, they see the primary intention of the play to be the assertion of the validity of contemporary Jacobean moral standards.2 Finally, there is a small group of critics who have concentrated upon the ironic nature of the play.3 It is this group with whom I am in closest accord. For, while they have not considered Michaelmas Term from the standpoint of the totally ironic world which is contained within the play, they have, nonetheless, discussed many of the ironic effects which the play contains. Indeed, the discussions of these critics led me to a more thorough investigation of the play's ironic structure and meaning.

My own approach to the play demonstrates that Middleton has employed the techniques of both structural and dramatic irony in such a way that the entire play, both in form and expression, becomes a

11 12

statement of the illogicality of man’s attempts to live an orderly life

in a world which has no inherent system of ethical or moral order. The

expression of the ironic existence which results from man seeking goals based upon false concepts of stability is achieved through the presentation of various middle-class characters attempting to achieve acceptance into the ranks of London gentry. This search for social acceptance results from the inability of the characters in the play to correctly assess the disparity between the gentry’s outward appearance

(their civility and sophistication) and the inner reality of vice and corruption which actually characterizes them. This corruption is repeatedly evident in the devotion of Rearage, Salewood, Easy and the pseudo-gentlemen, Shortyard and Lethe, to drunkenness, gambling and lechery. Equally base characteristics are evident, however, in the middle-class citizens themselves, and it is one of their own, Short- yard, who characterizes the citizen, or middle, class and their relationships to the gentry for Richard Easy.

Master Easy, let a man bear himself portly, the whoresons will creep to him on their bellies, and their wives on their backs; there’s a kind of bold grace expected throughout all the parts of a gentleman. Then, for your observances, a man must not so much as spit but within line and fashion. (II.i.102-07)

What is ironic, of course, is that, desirous as the citizens are of escaping their servile status, they do not recognize as undesirable those qualities which, throughout the play, are shown to be character­ istic of the gentry. This failure to recognize the significance of the sameness of what they aspire to (the drunkenness, gaming and lust of the gentry) with their own baseness and corruption is exemplified in 13

all of the characters save Thomasine, and perhaps, the Country Wench's

Father (both of whom will be considered later).

The unthinking social aspirations of these characters are

expressed theatrically through the use of disguise, impersonation, and

role playing. Social aspiration itself is evidenced by false friend­

ship, social status used as a cover for corruption, usury and greed

masked as honesty and equity in business, and the legal machinery

(indeed the Law itself) as the agency of avarice. In each of these

aspects of the play's development some device of disguise, impersona­

tion, or similar activity is employed as the means of creating a false

appearance whereby the impostor may achieve some degree of social

advancement or the means to it. These ironic situations, in turn, are juxtaposed against a world which has, as suggested above, no effectual standard of goodness. Each character is aspiring to be accepted into a social rank which he assumes will afford him respect and happiness, because of the supposedly enviable life style of its members. The fact is, however, that those very members, the gentry of Michaelmas Term, are also, to a man, corrupt and vicious, so that those who seek to climb into the gentry class are, in fact, only exchanging one voracious existence for another. And in a world where all existence is chaotic and self-destructive, respect and happiness are transitory and illusory things. Indeed, the ultimate irony is that there is no other form of existence in the world of the play, so that while characters such as

Lethe and Quomodo may seem vicious, and others like Easy may seem to be innocent victims, the ethical differences are really only a matter of 14

degree. Consequently the devotion of both citizens and gentry to the pursuit of self-aggrandizement and prestige becomes an activity which

is rendered meaningless by the impossibility of securing its objectives

In such an ironic world as these remarks suggest, there is ultimately no system of order or ethics. But, as their pursuit of social acceptance in the face of such a non sequitur existence indi­ cates, the characters of Michaelmas Term fail to recognize the ironic nature of the universe in which their world is suspended. All of their standards are unrealistic in a world which has no order or system itself. Since all of the central characters are grasping and hypocritical, the realistic world which Middleton has created shows the meaninglessness of all differences in social standing, and we need only to recall briefly the major characters of the play in order to see the oneness of their natures and ambitions. If is to demonstrate this singleness of voracious spirit that Middleton draws so complete and realistic a picture of the vice and chicanery of the world of the play.

As Richard Levin explains with regard to Michaelmas Term, "Middleton’s realism ... is not limited to the incidents of his plot but extends to the entire dramatic world in which this plot is located. The setting of Michaelmas Term is the actual life of Jacobean London, vividly rendered by an accomplished satirist with a keen eye for the kind of detail that embodies and exemplifies his social milieu."1* This realistic presentation helps to demonstrate and reinforce the ironic contrasts between what characters seem to be, according to what we are led to believe about them, and what their words and actions actually 15

reveal them to be. Indeed, a brief discussion of the ways in which various characters seek to rise out of their class may well serve as an

introduction to the themes which develop as a result of their endeavors

Richard Easy, the apparent hero of the play, is shown to be not innocent or good, but only naive and gullible when he enters into the gaming, drinking and whoring which characterize his social class.

Indeed, it is this sort of activity that Shortyard, Quomodo’s servant

(disguised as Master Blastfield), uses to run Easy into need so that

Quomodo may gull the young man in a commodity swindle. Easy is so anxious to be accepted as a fully sophisticated member of the gentry that he willingly signs the bond which entraps him rather than appear destitute among his roistering fellows. Ironically, both Rearage and

Salewood, whom Easy seeks to impress, are nearly bankrupt themselves because of these same vicious habits and are forced to live from one rent collection until the next. Indeed, it is Rearage and Salewood themselves who condemn their own gaming, while Shortyard leads Easy in taunting them for their hypocrisy (II.i.133-47). The validity of

Shortyard's condemnation is quickly revealed when the two gentlemen, upon learning of the arrival of their tenants with rent, promptly forget their protestations and arrange for another session at dice.

Quomodo, since he lacks the requisite breeding which Easy possesses, seeks, with the aid of Falselight and Shortyard (alias

Master Blastfield), to acquire social acceptance through wealth. He seeks the possession of land, the symbol of gentry privilege, which he can obtain by taking it away from the gentry themselves. Though 16

Quomodo is familiar with the viciousness and lechery of the gentry, he nonetheless fails to recognize that obtaining land, the symbol of gentry permanence, will give him no more security than the gentry have enjoyed.

The efforts of Andrew Lethe (formerly Andrew Gruel) to acquire genuine social acceptance and wealth through his pretensions to family and connections are a further demonstration of the uniform inability of these characters whom we have been examining to recognize the chaotic oneness of their world. While Quomodo has sought to buy his way into the gentry through the acquisition of land and wealth, Lethe has sought to worm his way into the gentry’s esteem by means of pretended connec­ tions at court and through sycophancy and influence peddling. Lethe, like Quomodo, manages to acquire some wealth and some reputation among the ignorant, but among the gentry he is regarded as an upstart who has denied his own identity by changing his name and affecting a pander and a whore. Lethe regards his lustful activities as an evidence of his affluence and of his claim to membership in the leisure class with its illicit pursuits. Even as Quomodo, he fails to recognize that the identity of his endeavors with the vicious conduct of the gentry indicate that the life he aspires to is no less contemptible than his own and that his efforts, therefore, are ironically futile. Similarly, the Country Wench, whom Lethe procures as his mistress, exemplifies a parallel deracination through her similar denial of origins and through the fashionable apparel which she (as Lethe has done before her) employs to disguise her identity. Both use lust—Lethe as an 17 affectation of wealth, the Country Wench as a source of wealth—as a hoped for means of admission to the gentry class. But lust, as Levin has suggested5 is a self-destructive activity, and its use to obtain ends which are in themselves futile heightens the irony surrounding its use in the play.

The parallels suggested between Lethe's engaging in lust and

Quomodo’s acquisition of property have a doubly ironic effect upon the play’s development, also, for they not only reinforce the meaningless­ ness of the pursuit of social advancement, but the two men, while failing to impress the gentry, do succeed in deluding one another.

Lethe, therefore, seeks to marry Susan Quomodo because of her father’s supposed wealth, and Quomodo urges his daughter to marry the upstart courtier because of his supposed connection at court. Quomodo’s wife,

Thomasine, however, urges her daughter to marry Master Rearage, a true member of the gentry—one, as we have seen above, who squanders his wealth in riotous living.

Thomasine is the one fully developed exception to the earlier statement that each of the main characters is equally vicious and corrupt, and the importance of that difference, which is suggested here, must be carefully examined. Thomasine’s conception of the gentry as civilized and gentlemanly in truth as well as in appearance is, of course, at odds with the perception of the gentry held by her husband,

Lethe, and Susan. For Susan, even though she shares her father’s opinion of the gentry, is willing to marry Lethe to acquire that social position she believes he can give her. This "prostitution" is not 18

unlike the Country Wench's, and equally ironic since the knowledge both

girls have of gentry morals should give them better perception of the

gentry world. Thomasine, however, seeks her daughter’s (and indirectly

her own) happiness through Susan's marriage to what Thomasine supposes

is a civilized and cultured gentleman. Thomasine expects a genuine

improvement in the Quomodos' condition as a result of the marriage, and

the irony, of course, lies in her ability to see Lethe’s fakery, as

contrasted with her failure to penetrate the facade of worth which she believes is inherent in gentle birth (II.iii.62-71). It is this

failure to recognize the true nature of the gentry which causes her to place her allegiance with Richard Easy and which results in her final abandonment and betrayal by both Easy and the law upon which she depends for justice. At the same time, her naivete and her essentially non-vicious attempts at social improvement gain her an audience sympathy which is significant in the play’s final denouement.

That Thomasine's final dependence upon the law is also misplaced has been foreshadowed at the very beginning of the play, in the Induction. Indeed, the total lack of right order which is exempli­ fied in the inconsistent parcelling out of "justice" at the end of the play is set forth in the Induction as the prevailing spirit of Michael­ mas Term. This Induction takes the form of an allegory of term time in which the "character" Michaelmas Term represents the hypocritical standards of, and attitudes toward, justice which pervade the play.

Also, through this character, the Induction introduces the other themes which are presented in the play through the attempts of the characters 19

(which we have examined) to rise socially, and which are central to the

development of the play's ironic world view.

An examination of these themes may well begin in the Induction,

for as Joan Roussel Sargent has remarked, "the Induction really is like

an overture: in the course of its seventy-eight lines it introduces

not the characters we shall meet, but the main themes and images of

Michaelmas Term."6 And, in turn, the full significance of the Induc­

tion becomes more fully apparent when the final resolution of the

themes of the play are seen to have been ironically foreshadowed by

this opening pageant.

The first themes presented in the Induction, as they are expressed in Michaelmas Term’s opening remarks, are those of the disparity between outward appearance and inward condition and of the contrast between the idea of the law and the reality of its employment.

As Michaelmas Term lays aside his "whitish cloak" he tells his Boy:

Lay by my conscience; Give me my gown; that weed is for the country: We must be civil now, and match our evil: Who first made civil black, he pleased the devil. (Ind., 11.3-6)

There is also a sub-theme introduced here—the apparent purity of the country versus the wickedness of the city. This pseudo-virtue is ironically manifested in the play itself as part of that larger contrast between the desired condition of the gentry and the innate baseness and corruption which characterizes them. Rather than this dichotomy what is significant in Michaelmas Term’s speech is the idea that the legal system is evil and corrupt and preys upon the innocence 20

of those who lack that sophistication usually associated with the city;

hence the city-country juxtaposition with which the speech continues.

From wronger and from wronged I have fee; And what by sweat from the rough earth they draw Is to enrich this silver harvest law; And so through wealthy variance and fat brawl, The barn is made but steward to the hall. (Ind,, 11.11-15)

The use of the law to gull the innocent unsophisticate which

Michaelmas Term is describing clearly foreshadows the legal chicanery which Quomodo will perpetrate upon Easy in order to steal his country

estates. Similarly, the attempts of Lethe to raise himself to the position of courtier through deceit and sycophancy are suggested in

Michaelmas Term's own laying aside of his "innocent" country beginnings to take on the civil black of the law—and of evil. The fact that

Michaelmas Term lays aside his conscience as he comes up to town is also an ironic foreshadowing of what we may expect from those characters who have also come up from the country—not only Lethe whose casting off of origins is obvious, but also the gentry themselves who reveal a similar lack of purity and innocence in their city conduct.

This opening exchange between Michaelmas Term and his Boy also sets forth the conflict which exists in personal relationships between the vitality and productivity suggested by affection and concern and the sterility engendered by avarice and lust (see note 5). The failure of avarice, which several characters in this play pursue with that passion which we expect of romantic love, to produce anything but sterile self-satisfaction is indicated when Michaelmas Term remarks,

I have no child. 21

Yet have I wealth would redeem beggary. I think it be a curse both here and foreign Where bags are fruitfulest there the womb’s most barren: The poor has all our children we their wealth. (Ind., 11.22-26)

The excessive concern of Michaelmas Term for the acquisition of gold

has apparently debilitated him to the point of impotency, so that his

accumulation of wealth, an apparently vital activity, must in the end prove to be a sterile occupation. His references to poverty and the poor further emphasize the unconcern and non-productivity of hoarded wealth. Usury and avarice, then, become useless activities which lend only an appearance of success, but which must ultimately come to nothing. This same sense of the ultimate meaninglessness of his endeavors may be what prompts Quomodo to undertake the mad, and other­ wise unjustifiable, scheme which results in his final ruin. Whatever prompts him, it demonstrates the ultimate futility of seeking social and economic prestige.

The excess of lust, on the other hand, may provide progeny—

Michaelmas Term continues a few lines later ("Thou shalt have heirs enough, thou keepest a whore," Ind., 1.30)—but it fails to provide the wherewithal to sustain them, so that the lecher, as we see in the person of Lethe, is forced to depend upon others for sustenance. This excessive devotion of the lecher to the affectation of a whore may also appear, as Michaelmas Term suggests, to be a productive activity, but in reality, because the lecher is a social parasite, his activity produces a social sterility. Lethe's own surrender of identity and his subsequent castigation for this action by society and the law, and 22

Quomodo’s denial of self and family in an effort to safeguard his

wealth demonstrate this same sterility at the expense of vital personal

relationships in the play itself. This total lack of concern of Lethe

and Quomodo for the welfare of their own families (Lethe for his mother

whom he employs as a bawd, and Quomodo for his wife and family whom he

subjects to his supposed death) demonstrate the ironic contrast between

the projected satisfaction of achieving status and the callous indif­

ference of the means which must be employed to acquire it.

The pageant which follows this dialogue between Michaelmas Term

and his Boy carries through the theme of mistakenly seeking social

acceptance in outer appearance. In this allegorical dumb show we are

presented with the other three terms (Hilary, Easter and Trinity) of

the legal year, "the first bringing in a fellow poor, which the other

two advanceth, giving him rich apparel, a page, and a pander: he then

goes out" (Ind., 1.32 s.d.). In response to this dumb show Michaelmas

Term remarks,

What subtility have we here? A fellow Shrugging for life’s benefits, shift arid heat, Crept up in three terms, wrapped in silk and silver, So well appointed too with page and pander! It was a happy gale that blew him hither. (Ind., 11.33-37)

In view of this observation the allegory of the "poor fellow" becomes

clearly ironic. We know from the inferences of Michaelmas Term that

the newly acquired wealth and position (of which the apparel, the page,

and the pander are the appurtenances) of the "poor fellow" are but sham. The gift to him of these affectations to status will assure his downfall, for it is the concern with the having and getting of these 23

outward appearances of worth that makes the gull such easy prey for the usurer and the cheat.

The situation in this pageant, of course, foreshadows the attitudes about acquiring social recognition of Easy, Lethe, and the

Country Wench. Each has come to the city with the intention of achieving social acceptance and popularity, and each seeks to achieve it by emulating the outward manifestations of the gentry as they know them. Hence, Easy, by his attempts to compete with the other gentry

(Rearage, Cockstone and Salewood) in sophistication and prodigality, drives himself into the clutches of Shortyard and Quomodo, while Lethe and the Country Wench, by giving themselves over to lust and sycophancy, expose their baseness to derision and censure. Ironically, each fails to see that the very qualities which they adopt in emulation of the gentry are qualities of viciousness and sterility that characterize the class in which they seek acceptance.

The incidents of the pageant and Michaelmas Term's subsequent remarks reintroduce also the theme of hypocrisy and chicanery in business as a means to elevation in social class. Through the

"shrugging" utilization of the law the "poor fellow" has gained the outward appearance and show of wealth which he has confused with true worth. However, Michaelmas Term's remark that "it was a happy gale that blew him hither" indicates that even as the "poor fellow" has risen through the injustice of the legal system (his advancement by the terms) and the connivances of those who abuse it, he will in turn be sacrificed to that "due process" by which he has been elevated. The 24 plea of the three Terms, which follows Michaelmas Term’s speech about

the "poor fellow," is an ironic revelation of their true nature and

intention. Their request of Michaelmas Term, as the lord of legal chicanery, is to share in the proceeds from gulling the fellow whom they have just favored and flattered. Michaelmas Term agrees to care for them but scorns their servility:

With what a vassal-appetite they gnaw On our reversions, and are proud Coldly to taste our meats, which eight returns Serve in to us as courses! (Ind., 11.57-60)

This depiction of the avarice of the legal system and those who use it for their own gain clearly foreshadows the activities of Quomodo and his associates who also advance the unsuspecting Easy in order to pick him clean through a commodity swindle.

We have presaged, then, in the Induction the main themes of the play. Presenting these themes and the attitudes which accompany them before the play itself begins seems to indicate that the audience is to recognize that avarice, chicanery and hypocrisy are simply the social realities of the times. Indeed, Michaelmas Term himself closes the

Induction with the following explanation that the action of the play

. . . presents those familiar accidents which happened in town in the circumference of those six weeks whereof Michaelmas Term is lord. Sat sapienti: I hope there’s no fools in the house. (Ind., 11.75-78)

That these are "familiar accidents" is clear and that the spirit of

Michaelmas Term reigns, as a sort of lord of perpetual misrule, is significant. By excluding from the Induction any sense of a serious, 25

didactic intent and by emphasizing the spirit of holiday and pageantry associated with Term time, Middleton has created, in the Induction, both a sense of inconsequentialness and of the lack of a coherent, orderly system. This treatment of its themes serves to make the

Induction the referent upon which much of the irony of the play depends. For, if we keep this allegorical preface in mind as the play develops, it will be easy to detect the ironic correlation between the seemingly serious and didactic treatment of the play’s themes and their frivolous and apparently inconsequential disposition in the Induction.

This spirit of gaiety which is suggested both by the pageant and by Michaelmas Term's remarks at the conclusion of the Induction is similar to the situation which is depicted in Jonson’s Bartholomew

Fair. This masterpiece provides the occasion for people to come together to see and be seen and to be cheated and gulled because of their pride and vanity. Michaelmas Term also provides such an oppor­ tunity for people to be caught up in the exciting world of London at

Term time and, as the "poor fellow," to be advanced and ruined by their aspirations to social position and wealth. Though, as Michaelmas Term himself asserts, the title of the play is only occasional in signifi­ cance (i.e., has reference only to the circumstances and setting provided by Term time), it nonetheless, in spite of the Term's disclaimer, creates a legal referent which is continued and sustained by the play's legal imagery.

It is, in fact, this frame of reference out of which the play's ultimate irony is developed, for the legal imagery of bonds, 26

attachments for debt, discharges of same, and, finally, the very

process of judging itself, suggests a world view based upon the premise

that a system of justice and order is inherent in the nature of the

universe. It is, indeed, the presumption of such a system which causes

all of the characters not only to see virtue in social prominence for

its own sake (also a presumption of a system of social gradations whose

highest level automatically possesses respectability and contentment),

but also, ironically, to seek justice from the legal system which each

has used to acquire or protect his status.

As we have seen, however, in a world where all aspire to an

appearance of quality, but where no substance of virtue exists beneath

the appearance, there can be no permanent system or order. And though

the play does seem to contain a world which embodies the principles of

both order and justice, the final scene of the play, in which most of

the characters are brought before a judge, demonstrates the irony which

underlies this apparent restoration of order and distribution of

justice. Actually, what is preserved is the status quo which existed

at the beginning of the play, and which involves a system that seems

indiscriminately to protect the gentry and keep down the citizen class

in spite of the wit or worth of either group.

In effect, then, the ending of the play, with its arbitrary distribution of justice reinforces and perpetuates those vicious social and economic codes which the play has endeavored to expose. Justice may be meted out, but not with reference to any universally recognized system of fair judicial administration—that is, there may be justice 27

in the purely legalistic sense, but there is no real equity. This

inconsistency in the administration of justice may best be seen in the

treatment of Thomasine Quomodo and Richard Easy as it contrasts with

their merit or deserts.

Thomasine has repeatedly spoken for a standard of decency (cf.

II.iii.1-4, II.iii.226-31, III.iv.265-70) and respect for what she

believes to be the admirable, "gentlemanly" qualities of the gentry.7

She wants her daughter to marry Rearage because she wants Susan to find

love and happiness in her marriage. Thomasine recognizes that Lethe is

a corrupt and upstart impostor who will offer Susan no more genuine

affection and concern than Quomodo has shown to Thomasine herself.

Quomodo has always seen his wife only in terms of necessity—she lends

the merchant and his business an air of settled respectability—but

there is no sense of real marital devotion. Indeed Quomodo expresses

this lack of concern during his pretended death when he speculates

about'Thomasine’s grief:

what if my wife should take my death so to heart that she should sicken upon it, nay, swoon, nay die? When did I hear of a woman do so? Let me see; now I remember me, I think it was before my time; yes, I have heard of those wives that have wept, and sobbed, and swooned; marry, I never heard but they recovered again; that's a comfort, la, that's a comfort; and I hope so will mine. (IV.iv.5-12)

Thomasine, in turn, has seen through Quomodo's facade of respectability and condemned his chicanery and deceit. While watching from the balcony, she grieves for Easy and compares Quomodo unfavorably to him:

Why stand I here ... to see that gentleman Alive, in state and credit, executed, Help to rip up himself does all he can? 28

Why am I wife to him that is no man? I suffer in that gentleman’s confusion. (II.iii.226-31)

Out of this mingled motivation of disgust and sympathy,

Thomasine becomes more and more drawn to Richard Easy. When, upon her

husband's supposed death, Thomasine’s affection is returned by Easy,

she marries him.

Thomasine’s desire for Easy must be recognized as partly the

result of her admiration for the gentry class as a whole, but that her

affection for Easy is genuine (though partly based in her hatred of

Quomodo) is demonstrated by her placing Easy in charge of her affairs

and her own statements regarding the young gentleman. After their

first greeting she calls Easy, "a proper springall and a sweet gentle­ man" (II.iii.444-45). At the time of their agreement to wed she tells

Easy: "let this kiss / Restore thee to more wealth., me to more bliss"

(IV.iv.80-81). And again, after their marriage she remarks, "Did he want all, who would not love his care?" (V.i.60).

However, with her only fault a naive trust in Easy and a mistaken respect for the gentry facade, Thomasine is visited with the greatest perversion of justice in the play. For her "return" to

Quomodo,

Quomodo. Your lordship yet will grant she is my wife? Thomasine. 0 heaven! Judge. After some penance and the dues of law I must acknowledge that. (V.iii.57-59) while it may be strictly in accordance with law, is without compassion or concern for the feelings or well-being of Thomasine. She is given back to Quomodo like a piece of property, yet Middleton has obviously 29 taken some care to present her to us as a warm, generous person toward whom we should feel sympathy because of her empathy for Susan and Easy

(cf. II.lii.62-71, III.iv.265-70) and her hatred of vice in Lethe and

Quomodo (cf. II.iii.1-18, IV.i.57). This sharp contrast between the presentation of Thomasine as a sympathetic character and her ultimate consignment to Quomodo as little more than chattel is a sharply ironic comment upon the lack of equity which can be expected from the legal system of a society completely given over to self-seeking and whose members use the law for their own ends.

The disposition of Quomodo’s property and the "restoration" of

Richard Easy to his original status also bring out the disparity between justice and equity in the administration of the law. There is, of course, "poetic justice" in the misadventure in which Quomodo tricks himself into signing away his own property, and in his case justice and equity seem to be coincident. The restoration of Easy's property may also seem equitable, but several circumstances which surround this particular incident necessitate a re-examination of the validity of this return to the status quo from which the play began.

That set of circumstances which calls into question the equity of Easy regaining his property is found in the relationship between

Easy and Quomodo. Joan Roussel Sargent has thrown some light on this connection by observing that "Easy is not a very satisfactory hero of a citizen comedy. In these plays the leading figure is, more often than not, a young rake who eventually scores over the city sharpers who would take from him all he holds dear. But these young 'heroes' all 30

have two qualities that Easy conspicuously lacks—vitality and intelli­

gence. ... It is Quomodo, the ’villain,' who shows intelligence and

snatches at opportunity, and it is in Quomodo’s speeches that we

recognize and respond to a real vitality."6 What is especially worth

notice here is Easy's lack of vitality and intelligence and Quomodo’s

possession of these same qualities. By giving to the "villain,"

Quomodo, those qualities which should be found in the "hero," Easy,

Middleton has taken from Easy any measure of audience identification or

respect, and transferred the chief interest and involvement to the machinations of Quomodo. Indeed, because of his lack of vitality and his own foolish self-deception it is difficult not to see Easy's loss of property as deserved and to regard its restoration with anything but indifference. Therefore, any possibility of equity is effectively neutralized, and we are unprepared at this juncture to feel any clear satisfaction in either Easy's success or Quomodo’s undoing.

What is involved, in fact, is merely the preservation of the status quo, and all its inequities and non-productivity, with which the play began. Again, it may seem that justice has been done to both Easy and Quomodo, but it is at best a haphazard and capricious justice which fails to measure worth or productivity, and which rewards the undeserving at the same time that it punishes the transgressor.

Certainly this is the case with Richard Easy. Indeed, his success is not only undeserved because of his lack of vitality and wit, but his own status as a "heroic," and therefore deserving, character is seriously qualified by his own indifferent treatment of Thomasine. It 31

is difficult to see much distinction between the advantage which

Quomodo takes of the naive and pompous Easy and that which Easy takes

of the equally naive but sincere and generous Thomasine. In fact, the

chicanery of Quomodo seems well matched by the callous indifference of

Easy.

This combination of greed and lack of concern for others

recalls, appropriately, the Induction of the play which provides a mirror for the lack of equity which characterizes this judgment scene.

However, unlike the "poor fellow" of the Induction who affects a pander and a page, Thomasine has scorned the former, and so far from affecting

the latter, has signed over all her wealth and care to Easy. That she should be "returned" to Quomodo, whom she has repeatedly spoken of with loathing and disgust, is a judgment which negates all the apparent equity of punishing Lethe and Quomodo and his assistants and of returning the stolen lands to Easy. The "framework" of law provided by the Induction and the final judgment scene sets up referents of supposed order and justice within the law, with equity stemming from its administration, which makes the chaotic pursuit of wealth and social acceptance highly ironic. However, when we recognize, through

Michaelmas Term's avaricious perversion of the law and the judge's inability to administer justice without depriving Thomasine of equity, that indeed there is no consistent system, that the apparent order of the legal framework is no less chaotic than the grasping for acceptance into the social hierarchy, then we can see the further levels of irony with which the play also deals. 32

We are able to see that system of justice which rewards a

Richard Easy while punishing an Ephestian Quomodo, and which inciden­

tally and indifferently dooms the innocent Thomasine, is a system

devoid of order and continuity. Its decisions must be arbitrary and

illogical, depending entirely upon chance without regard to merit or

upon strict legalism without regard to equity.

In the Induction we have seen the ineffectiveness of justice

when the law becomes the tool of those who apply its workings to serve

their own selfish ends; in the final episode of the play we see that

even without manipulation and interest serving the law is still

incapable of administering justice. Where such a system prevails, it

is obviously foolish and unrealistic to place any value in the protec­

tion of the law. And where there is no dependable system of justice

or order, it is ironically inconsistent to look to the status of a

particular social order to offer stability and happiness. Yet the full

energies of all the characters in the play, with the exception of the

Country Wench's Father,9 are devoted entirely toward the end of

acquiring or retaining membership in the gentry class.

Various techniques and forms of disguise and imposture are used

by the characters to achieve this membership in the gentry class, and

it is through the contrast between appearances and reality which is developed and reinforced by such disguises that the most obvious

expression of the play’s ironic viewpoint is presented. For, while 33

disguise is intended as a means of entry into gentry standing, it

rather brings out the viciousness and corruption of the social system

and of those who seek advancement in it.

The first use of disguise occurs, of course, in the Induction.

Michaelmas Term's cloaking in black represents not only his assumption

of the role of justice, the "civil black," but also the assumption of

the devil's black and the utilization of the law for his own corrupt

purposes. As early as the Induction, then, we are made aware of the

law's corruption through Michaelmas Term's own expression of the ways

in which he uses the law for his own enrichment. The consequent

inability of the law to afford equity to the individual is also

foreshadowed in the allegorical advancement and proposed destruction

of the "poor fellow" at the mercy of the legal system.

Quomodo, on the other hand, is the human manifestation of those

same qualities of selfishness and greed allegorized in the Induction.

Quomodo, too, dons the disguise of legality, through his guise as honest, law-abiding merchant. But his motivation and utilization of

the law for his own ends reechoes the conduct of Michaelmas Term and ties the themes of the play to those presented in the Induction.

However, there is (as we have noted earlier) more connection between the Induction and the play than a simple introduction and reiteration of themes. For, as we can observe through the events in which Quomodo is involved, the Induction provides an ironic touchstone by means of which we can foresee the futile outcome of attempted self-aggrandize­ ment. 34

Like Quomodo, his two familiars, Shortyard and Falselight, bring the abstraction of the Induction to the human level. Even as

Quomodo, with his forcefulness and brilliance, represents the chief

Term, Michaelmas, so Shortyard and Falselight embody the petty greed and "vassal appetites" with which the lesser Terms "gnaw" upon Michael­ mas Term's reversions. They, in their various roles and disguises set up the gull Richard Easy, in the same manner in which the lesser Terms advance the "poor fellow" to be plucked by Michaelmas Term, himself.

They are used by Quomodo in the same way as Michaelmas Term uses the lesser Terms and their prospects are equally dim, as is indicated by

Shortyard's exclamation of joy—"The happiest good that ever Shortyard felt!" (IV.iii.7)—at the supposed death of Quomodo.

When these "two spirits" appear disguised as officers of the law, Shortyard compares their disguises to the ready transformations of spirits that

can change their shapes, and soonest of all into sergeants, because they are cousin-germans to spirits; for there's but two kinds of arrests till doomsday,—the devil for the soul, the sergeant for the body. . . . (Ill.iii.1-5)

This reference to the devil and his near connection with the iniquity of misused justice reminds us of the opening speech of Michaelmas Term in the Induction and his admission that the "civil" black matches the evil of those who misuse the civil law. His additional reference to

"the barn . . . made . . . steward to the hall" (Ind., 1.15) becomes, then, an ironic foreshadowing of the forthcoming attachment of Easy by the law in the persons of Shortyard and Falselight. 35

Easy too provides a concretization of the allegory seen in the

Induction. Like the "poor fellow" who is drawn to his ruination by the lesser Terms, Easy is gulled into self-destruction by those other

"lesser Terms," Shortyard and Falselight. He is gulled because he too has played the role of eager sophisticate; he has been led on by those he thinks to be accepted members of the gentry class of which he has been a hitherto uninitiated member. Easy is deceived by his own role playing and he becomes an "easy," even helpful, victim of his own aspirations to achieve full recognition among the gentry. He enters, like the "poor fellow," into the clutches of those who use the law to their own ends because of his own blind devotion to equally transitory ends. His delusion about social acceptance and his self-deception because of this delusion afford some of the richest examples of the ironic contrast between the appearance and the reality of those ends to which Middleton's characters in this play are totally committed.

The previously mentioned connection of Quomodo with Michaelmas

Term connects, within the play itself, the area of business with the realm of law. Quomodo’s business conduct, with his pose as the equitable and honorable merchant, is like Michaelmas Term's legal conduct with his disguise of civil justice. Though Quomodo appears to be a friend to the gentry, and even tries to talk Easy out of hazarding his estates, he really uses his business, through unethical legal technicalities, to gull young gentlemen of their estates in order to achieve that wealth which is concomitant with the gentry class. 36

This desire to rise into the gentry which dominates Quomodo’s

endeavors causes him to lose sight of the fact that such aspirations

are illusory. His legal chicanery has been successful largely because

of the gull's assumptions that the world rests upon some sort of

dependably ordered system, when, in fact, only the appearances of order

and justice exist. Quomodo’s advantage over these gulls has been his use of their self-importance and their assumption that everyone would wish to serve them as willingly as he pretends to. However, Quomodo’s endeavors do not remain based, as are Michaelmas Term's, upon the pursuit of wealth for its own sake or upon the spiteful desire to ruin the gentry. Instead, Quomodo turns toward the acquisition and mainten­ ance of property for his descendants, and thereby, ironically, succumbs to the aspiration to those very standards and ideals which typify the gentry whom he has so often scorned as fools.

Quomodo, then, who has been presented as the clever intriguer, is really only another of the status seekers in disguise. He pretends not to want Easy's land and only grudgingly takes it "to strengthen it forever to my son and heir" (IV.i.48-49).

With a similar lack of insight, Quomodo seeks to marry his daughter, Susan, to Andrew Lethe. He believes that Lethe, with his assumed connections at court, can give his family the stature and dignity which his money alone cannot. Ironically, Quomodo sees in

Lethe only someone who, like himself, lives off the gentry by playing upon their social foibles. What Quomodo fails to see is that, like himself, Lethe is a scoundrel and a fraud. Lethe desires to marry 37

Susan only for her money so that he can buy the influence at court

which he believes gives him status.

Lethe employs his relationships with women as a direct step to

acquiring social position. He believes himself to be admired by the

gentry, who are themselves anything but chaste, because he maintains a

pimp and a whore. He sees his role as whoremaster as a necessary

adjunct to his achieving acceptance, and his presumption that others

feel as he does about indiscriminate promiscuity is what prompts his

absurd proposition to Thomasine. His use of his own mother as a bawd

reinforces the sense of self-importance which Lethe has assumed in his

role as courtier and gentleman.

While this role may delude Quomodo, Thomasine is not so readily

deceived by the vile Lethe. She, like the gentry she admires, scorns

Lethe as a degenerate fool. She dreams of marrying her daughter to the

gentleman Rearage, who can give her genuine social position and not

"place us behind the cloth like a company of puppets" (II.iii.68-69) as

the phony Lethe would be forced to do. Her husband’s gulling of the

gentry causes Thomasine, who has (as we have seen) little romantic compatibility with Quomodo, to gradually hate him and to grow increas­ ingly fond of the helpless Easy. Unfortunately, while Thomasine can see through the roles played by Lethe and Quomodo, she cannot see the like baseness and insincerity in Easy’s class. She is so blinded by her awe and respect for the gentry's social standing that it is impossible for her to believe that such gentlemen could be sharpers and 38

scoundrels themselves. Hence she is willing to give over everything to

Easy when that gentleman becomes her husband.

The delusion of the Country Wench is partly akin to that of

Thomasine, but is more readily identifiable with Quomodo’s brand of

self-deception. Like Thomasine, she has a natural awe of the gentry—a

respect which is quickly shattered when she sees them without their masks of gentility in Lethe's chambers. What really causes the Country

Wench's undoing, however, is her inability, like Quomodo, to see

through the role played by Lethe. She too believes that Lethe is a

gentleman and that he can offer her entry into the world of such as himself. She is deceived by the clothes and the role which Lethe assumes, and, therefore, assumes that a like disguise will assure her a similar social position. Her inability to distinguish between the outer appearance and the inner reality of a gentleman is underscored by her willingness to believe Lethe's lies. Her naivete is perhaps incredible, but her willingness to prostitute herself for her objec­ tives shows a clear commitment to the acquisition of that position which she believes Lethe represents.

The Country Wench's belief in Lethe's lies about their intended marriage and her future in the gentry class is one of the clearest cases in the realm of personal relationships of a character being victimized by deliberate role playing. Nor is the Country Wench

Lethe's only victim. He lies equally offhandedly to Susan, Thomasine, and even his own mother. Of course, his contacts with his supposed peers, the gentry, are all artificial and hypocritical. Indeed, his 39

conduct is so wholly selfish and debased, that he is finally spurned by

all of the other characters of the play, though few of them can lay

claim to very much humanity. In fact each of the characters

demonstrates a greater or lesser degree of callous indifference to the

emotional well-being of others. It is this form of role playing and

deception which provides, finally, the best examples of both the

characters' inability to distinguish between appearance and reality

and of the ironic revelations which result from such trickery and

self-deception.

The deception of Richard Easy by Quomodo does not, of course,

involve much concern for Easy's personal feelings, but Quomodo has not

pretended to any kind of friendship. The actions of his aide, Short­

yard, however, clearly exemplify the callous indifference which marks

all of the interpersonal relationships in the play (see note 9).

Shortyard's pose as Master Blastfield is, of course, callous, but what

it does reveal, as do most of the disguises adopted in the play, is

that Richard Easy is himself corrupt and hypocritical. Once Easy

believes Shortyard to be a sophisticated gentleman, which Easy also

hopes to become, he is easily led by Shortyard into all kinds of vice.

What is revealed is actually the hypocrisy and artificiality which are

a natural part of Richard Easy. When Shortyard has convinced him that

all city gentry are lazy and corrupt, Easy is perfectly willing not

only to give himself over to such a life style, but to waste his

inheritance and encumber his estates in order to maintain the facade of a London gentleman. 40

Like the Country Wench, Easy reveals the viciousness which

underlies his nature when he is led, as Lethe leads the Country Wench,

to believe that this is the kind of conduct which others expect of him.

Easy, like the Country Wench, and like Lethe and the others as well, is

primarily concerned with being an accepted member of the gentry class

and he has little concern for anything or anyone which does not

contribute to the acquisition of such acceptance. That such status

involves standards of conduct which are selfish and callous is a matter

of little concern to those who aspire to it, and yet, ironically, they

hope to find happiness once they have achieved such a position them­

selves .

Thomasine's fate is perhaps the best example of self-deception

as the result of false appearances. She too, like Easy and the Country

Wench, is duped by the pose of someone she trusts and admires—Richard

Easy. Thomasine's undoing is clearly the most pitiable, and Easy's

conduct, therefore, the most reprehensible, because her trust has been

placed in one she loved and whom she thought loved her. Thomasine,

like the others, seeks an improvement in status for both herself and

Susan, but not, like the others, because of greed and self-importance.

She sincerely believes that she can find personal, emotional happiness with Easy, because she mistakenly believes that a gentleman's heart is as gentle and courtly as his outward bearing. Therefore, she sees

Rearage as a suitor preferable to Lethe for Susan, and finds in Easy a far superior and more sympathetic man than her own greedy and indifferent husband. Easy's callous manner in dropping all claim to 41 her, upon the judge's decision that she must return to Quomodo, is the most cruelly ironic revelation of the effects of confusing outward appearance and inner reality. We should expect some response to

Thomasine’s "Oh, heaven!" (V.iii.58), and Easy's failure to even ask for leniency (while instead he assures himself of his land) seems to leave little doubt that Thomasine has been destroyed by the lack of equity where she has sought for justice.

Quomodo’s own pose as loving husband is not nearly as unscrupulous as that of Easy, for, while he calls his wife by a variety of endearments, he nonetheless considers her as little more than one of the necessary accoutrements of a successful merchant and there is no real affection between them. However, Thomasine knows Quomodo’s attitude, and she counters with scorn for his usury and greed. Both present a pose of affection to the rest of the world, but there is no deception of one another about their true feelings. Quomodo’s final disappointment over Thomasine’s marriage to Easy is really not the result of Thomasine’s deception of Quomodo, but rather of Quomodo’s deception of himself.

This incident is perhaps one of the play's most ironic for it represents the ultimate in a character's inability to distinguish between appearance and reality. Quomodo, because of his superb success in gulling Richard Easy, has become thoroughly convinced of his superior cleverness. This conviction leads him to play dead in order to determine what will become of his wealth upon the advent of his real demise. Quomodo is so taken with self-importance that he assumes that 42 everyone must love him as much as he esteems himself. What he does, in fact, is succumb to that very disguise by which he has taken in so many others.

This action, as an endeavor to guarantee the permanence of his estates and the continuance of his heirs in his property, is an ironic revelation of Quomodo’s ultimate entry into the ranks of those whose aspiration to attain gentry standing dominates their lives. His final commitment to the pursuit of social recognition, with his resulting ruin, links Quomodo to the "poor fellow" of the Induction even as his earlier preying upon gulls linked him with the voracious Michaelmas

Term. At the same time, Richard Easy, who was earlier comparable to the "poor fellow," has now become as voracious as either Quomodo or

Michaelmas Term.

There seems to be no justice or moral intended in this reversal, for Easy's callous using of Thomasine and the law is clearly no less selfish or greedy than has been that self-aggrandizement of

Lethe or Quomodo. What does emerge from this last stripping away of disguises is the reinforcement of the ironic view of man's illogical attempts to find system and order in a universe whose only consistency lies in its inconsistency. Throughout, the emphasis of the play has been upon the irony which results from man's seeking goals which are predicated upon his beliefs in system, hierarchy and permanent order.

The unprepared for (and accidental) reversal of Easy and Quomodo’s fortunes, the rather hypocritical denunciation of Lethe, and the lack of equity bestowed upon Thomasine in this final scene are fitting 43

expressions of that ironic existence which characterizes the world of

Michaelmas Term. CHAPTER III

THE MADNESS IN A MAD WORLD, MY MASTERS

The madness in Thomas Middleton’s A Mad World, My Masters has

too often been evaluated only in terms which tended to ignore the

relationships between the thematic and structural ironies of the play.1

Yet it is these relationships which reflect, in the structural irony so

typical of Middleton’s major comedies, the true form of the madness in

A Mad World.

For in this play, as in Michaelmas Term which preceded it, and, as later I will show, in A Trick to Catch the Old One which followed it, the basis for most of the play’s irony is founded on apparently contra­ dictory types of perception. On the one hand is that perception shared by most of the play’s major characters, including Follywit, Penitent,

Sir Bounteous, and the Harebrains. They see themselves, individually, in terms of some false image or appearance which they have chosen to present to the world. In addition they have come to believe that the world regards them as though it too accepted and believed these false appearances. Ironically, the self-deceptions which these characters insist upon pursuing and upon which they found their judgments and actions are perceived and mocked by others. Thus Sir Bounteous's unmatched bounty, Harebrain's obsession about marital fidelity, Peni­ tent's moral expostulation and Follywit's superior wit, which have all been descried as hypocritical, form the very bases for the "madness" of

44 45

this Mad World.

On the other hand is the perception shared by Frank Gullman and

her mother. Ironically, Frank, the courtesan, possesses a more

accurate vision than that of the apparent wits. She is able to

perceive the true nature of the appearances which the others present to

the world and the foolish self-deceptions of which they are the victims.

Each of them has managed to convince himself that the self-image which

each individually presents to the world is a true representation of

himself. Because of their "blinders," Frank, who sees through all this,

is able to gull each of the other characters at will. Because she

perceives the truth behind the others' false appearances, while they have convinced themselves that the false world is the real one, Frank's actions create much of the play's ironic tone.

In contrast, Frank never has misconceptions about who or what she is, nor about her objectives. This is revealed early in Act I when, upon being catechized in her trade, the courtesan replies, "Mother, I am too deep a scholar grown / To learn my first rules now" (I.i.184-85).

Indeed it is this self-knowledge and assuredness which enables Frank to manipulate Follywit and the others who have accepted their own false appearances as true.

The foolishness and hypocrisy which are the result of their self deception are revealed by both Follywit and Penitent in the opening scene of the play. Ironically, Follywit believes that he is the clever madcap, superior to all his fellows, who flatter him into believing so. Penitent reveals the truth about Follywit, however, when 46

he remarks,

Here’s a mad-brain of the first, whose pranks scorn to have precedents, to be second to any, or walk beneath any madcap’s inventions; has played more tricks than the cards can allow a man, and of the last stamp too, hating imitation; a fellow whose only glory is to be prime of the company; to be sure of which he maintains all the rest: he's the carrion, and they the kites that gorge upon him. (I.i.91-98)

This comment exposes, what Follywit's own actions affirm, Follywit's

true nature and condition. He is a braggart and a self-important

prankster who has come to believe in his own cleverness. Whereas, as

Penitent suggests, his self-image is only the result of his audacity

and the toadying of his hangers-on and not of any really superior

ability.

Penitent's own "madness" is also revealed in this scene when he

discloses his passion for Mistress Harebrain:

But why in others do I check wild passions

And in myself soothe up adulterous motions, And such an appetite that I know damns me, Yet willingly embrace it—love to Harebrain's wife, (I.i.99-105)

Unlike Follywit, Penitent is aware of that which "damns" him, but in

spite of remorse is unable to resist the temptation. Indeed, he feels

"constrained to use the means / Of one that knows no mean, a courtesan"

(I.i.109-10), in order to achieve his objectives. Penitent attempts to make a show of pious regret for the weakness of his flesh and the means he employs to attain his ends. However, his regret is all a pretense by which he hides from himself the true viciousness of his appetite and his means to satisfy it. 47

These misconceptions of each character about his own role and

its significance result in those contradictions of character which are

symbolized in such names as Follywit and Penitent Brothel—the wit

whose brilliance leads him to folly, and the lecher whose penitence, as we shall see, is dependent upon his having satisfied his libidinous

desires. Such contradictions are extended in the play into concepts of

true wit and false wit. Each character (except perhaps Penitent)

perceives himself as a "true wit," and much of the play’s irony results

from the revelations of the actual witlessness of each.

Frank Gullman, however, is cognizant not only of the others’ false wit, but also of their belief in their own individual superiority over those, such as herself, whom they regard as inferior. Indeed, her very name ironically underscores the ignorance of the others and her own superiority over them; for she is an open (frank) guller who makes no secret of her art, but succeeds because the other characters miscon­ strue her role to be that which they expect. The futility of such false perception as Follywit displays, and of trying to live by one's wit without a true perception of appearances, is emphasized by Sir

Bounteous Progress at the conclusion of the play: "Who lives by cunning, mark it, his fate's cast; / When he has gulled all, then is himself the last" (V.ii.298-99).

The ironic note of Sir Bounteous's closing remark and the ironic richness, which is inherent in the conflicting perceptions of appearance suggested above, are given a singular treatment by Middleton in the structure of this comedy. By careful juxtaposition of scenes 48 and events, sometimes in rapid sequence, Middleton has heightened the ironic effect by belying the circumstances or tone of one episode

through contrast with the exposition in those which follow. Therefore, the ordinary dramatic irony with which the play is rich is reinforced by the underlying structure of the entire action. This pervasiveness of ironic effect creates a perception of the world of the play as particularly "mad" or illogical in nature.

Such an approach as I have suggested is perhaps best explicated by an examination of some of the most ironic incidents in the play in order to demonstrate not only the incompleteness of Follywit and his associates’ "mad" view of the world, but also the superiority of

Frank's "full," or true, vision.

A Mad World is a double action play whose first plot concerns the activities by which Follywit and his friends attempt to cheat Sir

Bounteous out of his wealth. In spite of Follywit's excuse that he is only stealing what will be his by inheritance, his motivation is clearly avarice rather than a desire for justice. His frolic attitude revealed at the beginning of Act I, and his self-admission ("Though guilt condemns, 'tis gilt must make us glad," II.ii.31), underscore the shallowness of his rationalizations about justice. The second plot involves the efforts of Penitent Brothel to seduce Mistress Harebrain and his subsequent reformation. In this plot the motivation is more obvious, for Penitent readily admits to his lust and his initial indifference to its damning effects.

Acting as the link between these two plots is Frank Gullman, 49

who is both procuress and paramour, both cause and effect.2 She is

most vital in the events leading up to Mistress Harebrain’s seduction

where she is the dominant cause in the successful completion of that

action. While her role as the object, the effect of Sir Bounteous and

Follywit’s lust, is more passive, her actions there are also carefully

arranged and deliberate; e.g., the opening discussion between Frank and

her mother wherein the scheme is discussed which later ensnares

Follywit in marriage:

And when thou spiest a fool that truly pities The false springs of thine eyes, And honorably dotes upon thy love, If he be rich, set him by for a husband. (I.i.177-80)

In order to illustrate more clearly Frank’s functional inter­

action between the two plots, and to explicate fully her role in

developing the ironic conflicts between true and false perception, it

will perhaps be best to examine briefly each of the plots and the

ironic structure of the episodes within them. The opening scene finds

Follywit railing at his friends because it is always he who must employ

his wit to rescue them from difficulty. Though the superiority of

Follywit's wit is emphasized here (I.i.4-10), in his next speech he

admits to being "quite altered" (11.16-17) and "without order" (1.22).

Still, compared with such as Hoboy and Mawworm, Follywit is apparently

as superior in wit as he, himself, asserts: "Push, I reach past your

fathoms ..." (I.i.82). His subsequent self-assurance in planning the

scheme to rob his grandfather seemingly reaffirms this superiority and his command of the situation. Yet his admission (in the play's opening 50

scene) that he is "without order" has called in doubt the ultimate

soundness and validity of Follywit's perception. Thus, when Follywit

describes Sir Bounteous's inconsistent behavior in denying his

profligate grandson his inheritance, while squandering his own wealth

in an attempt to gain a reputation for bounty, as "the humor of my

frolic grandsire" (I.i.43-44), we are reminded of Follywit's own madcap

nature. Likewise, the remarks of Penitent Brothel (cited above,

I.i.91-98), who appears just as Follywit and his friends are leaving,

reveal Follywit's own mad nature and his failure to perceive that his

parasitic friends are taking advantage of his vanity in order to over­

come his supposedly superior wit.

When next we see Follywit, in Act II, scene i, he has arrived

(in disguise) at his grandfather's home for the purpose of robbing Sir

Bounteous. Follywit remarks that he would not have imposed upon Sir

Bounteous, but that, "your bounteous disposition . . . is to me well known" (II.i.101-02). Sir Bounteous's reply, "Nay, and your lordship know my disposition, you know me better than they that know my person"

(11.103-04), suggests the kind of inconsistency between perception and reality that colors the characters' knowledge of one another, just as

Follywit's earlier remarks have revealed his own lack of consistency in self-evaluation and perception. Follywit's lack of perception is further revealed when Sir Bounteous asks Lord Owemuch to take his grandson, Follywit, into his lordship's service. Sir Bounteous demon­ strates a genuine concern for his grandson when he tells Lord Owemuch,

"I have a grandchild, my lord; I love him; and when I die I'll do 51

somewhat for him: I’ll tell your honor the worst of him, a wild lad he

has been" (II.i.125-27). And again he remarks, in describing Follywit

as heir to his gold, "I love him, yet he shall never find it as long as

I live" (II.i.148-49). Yet Follywit chooses to ignore the fact that

his grandfather has twice professed his love for him, has named him his

heir, and has attempted to secure him a position which would furnish

him at least some measure of the sustenance he desires. Instead Folly­

wit sees Sir Bounteous only as one who unjustly keeps from him the wealth which he feels is rightfully his own.

Sir Bounteous has been blind to Lord Owemuch’s true identity and his foolish acceptance of the appearance of gentility, and his eager efforts to sustain his reputation for bounty are comic. By comparison, however, Follywit's failure to perceive the truth about Sir

Bounteous and to see the real reason for Sir Bounteous's refusal to give him money (Follywit*s own wildness) is even more deserving of comic derision. Ironically, the tone for this whole episode has been set in the aforementioned exchange about "knowing" Sir Bounteous's person.

The actual robbery of Sir Bounteous further demonstrates the non sequitur nature of Follywit's assumptions about the importance of his wit. The scheme itself, of course, is a brilliant trick of which

Follywit is most proud, but Sir Bounteous's incongruous acceptance of the theft, and his willingness to pun about it with the thieves

(II.v.28-45), forms an ironic contrast to Follywit's conception of the robbery as a feat of genius. This inconsistency between Follywit's 52

self-image and the reality of his situation is emphasized in the final

exchange (II.vii.76-90) between Sir Bounteous and Follywit, still

disguised as Lord Owemuch. Follywit's belief in his own superior view

of order is here again undercut by the old man's apparent indifference

to those values which his grandson considers important.

When next he appears (III.iii), Follywit is again boasting

about the superiority of his wit as it was employed in robbing his

"frolic grandsire." And, when Mawworm remarks that it was indeed a

successful "muss" (i.e., a mad-brain prank), Follywit becomes incensed

and launches a moralistic defense (III.iii.7-15) of his trick and its

motivations. Follywit's attitude here goes beyond his earlier emphasis

upon the jest, when he was willing to "hazard a windpipe" (II.v.85)

rather than lose any of the thrill of his mad cap scheme. His point of

view shifts here to a defense of conventional moral order—now that he

has successfully completed his infraction of that order and can afford

the luxury of moralizing—a position not unlike that of Penitent

Brothel after his seduction of Mistress Harebrain. While this shift in

emphasis ignores Mawworm's view of the robbery as a muss, it is, itself,

undermined by Follywit's own declamation on the madness of the world as

represented by Sir Bounteous's hypocritical conjunction of usury and hospitality:

it is his humor, and the humor of most of your rich men in the course of their lives, for, you know, they always feast those mouths that are least needy, and give them more that have too much already. . . . (III.iii.22-26)

Follywit's recent concern with his own antic prank has indicated, 53

however, that this view of Sir Bounteous's madness is incomplete, and

Follywit's failure to recognize its similarity to his own "robbing for

justice" is, indeed, ironic.

The final efforts of Follywit to secure his grandfather's wealth concern Sir Bounteous's whore. In order to prevent her from

perhaps claiming a "widow's" third, Follywit feels he must employ some

device to remove the courtesan from his grandfather's favor. He has an

inspiration for a plan which he sees as the very spirit of invention; however, Mawworm regards it as another mad trick, and Follywit as a mad-brain prankster. Follywit, characteristically, sees this as a compliment, and the whole tone of the scene, with Follywit disguising himself as a woman and bantering with his companions, becomes one of frolic and festivity.

Let me see: where shall I choose two or three for pimps, now? But I cannot choose amiss amongst you all, that's the best. Well, as I am a quean, you were best have a care of me, and guard me sure. I give you warning beforehand; 'tis a monkey­ tailed age. (III.iii.130-34)

The tone of this exchange conveys a sense of the madness of the scheme

(III.iii.70-154) and provides an ironic contrast to Follywit's denun­ ciation of his grandfather's violation of order and decency in keeping the courtesan.

I've known a vicious old thought-acting father Damned only in his dreams, thirsting for game (When his best parts hung down their heads for shame), For his blanched harlot dispossess his son, And make the pox his heir. . . . (III.iii.39-43)

The irony connected with Follywit's inconsistent behavior is further developed (IV.iii) when he encounters Gumwater, Sir Bounteous's 54

steward. Gumwater has also been trying to seduce the courtesan, so

Follywit (in disguise) agrees to an assignation and takes the steward’s

chain as a surety for his appearance. Follywit gloats about his craft

in gulling Gumwater and moralizes over the "justice" of cheating the

steward: "I'll teach the slave to be so bold yet, as once to vault

into his master's saddle, in faith" (IV.iii.37-38). He believes that

Gumwater's loss is deserved because the steward has "unnaturally"

attempted to usurp his master's place in order to satisfy his lust; however, he fails to see that his own theft from Sir Bounteous is an

equally "unnatural" act perpetrated to finance the appetites of

Follywit and his parasitic friends. Thus Follywit himself acts in the inconsistent fashion of those he mocks as inferior, neither perceiving

that he too suffers from their "affliction," nor that the disease is endemic.

When he steals his grandfather's jewels he wonders at the courtesan's ability to have resisted stealing them herself. Follywit apparently believes that all whores are thieves, and therefore, it is not reasonable to believe that the courtesan herself should not have stolen the jewels:

if I do not wonder how the queen escaped tempting, I'm an hermaphrodite! Sure she could lack nothing but the devil to point to it; and I wonder that he should be missing. (IV.iii.44-47)

This remark seems to indicate that Follywit regards the courtesan’s resistance of temptation as unnaturally above a courtesan's abilities.

Yet his own plan to steal the jewels while disguised as Sir Bounteous's 55

whore is predicated upon his belief that Sir Bounteous would cast the

courtesan off for such an action. Indeed, the courtesan’s resistance

of temptation may be "unnatural," but it is also evidence of her

shrewder wit, in light of which Follywit’s inability to see the reason

for the whore's "honesty," in spite of his own "superior wit," is

especially ironic.

Follywit's pursuit of Frank Gullman in Act IV, scene v provides

the final revelation of Follywit's lack of self-knowledge, and, conse­

quently, a lack of knowledge of external reality. For when Follywit

appears he is in hot pursuit of Frank Gullman who has earlier discussed

with her mother (I.i.177-80) the kind of gull to "put aside" for a

husband—a role which Follywit plays out fully. When the courtesan

eludes him, Follywit is left to muse over her reluctance to be courted.

He is unable to comprehend the girl's action (as he has failed to

understand the reluctance of the harlot to rob his grandfather) and, as

a result, is so intrigued that he begins to fall in love with her.

Shall I be madder now than ever I've been? I'm in the way, in faith. Man's never at high height of madness full Until he love, and prove a woman's gull. (IV.v.12-15)

Ironically, he not only acknowledges here his own madness in pursuing a wife, but even admits that he who does so is a woman's gull.3 Against

the superior, because more realistic, vision of Frank Gullman and her mother he is the "gulled man," even as Sir Bounteous and Gumwater have been victimized by him. It now becomes apparent that Follywit's

"superior" wit has been limited by the incompleteness of his vision— 56

he is superior only among those, like Sir Bounteous and Gumwater, who

see the world even less fully, more "humorously," than he does.

Indeed, when he has once again gulled Sir Bounteous by the

theft of his watch and jewels (V.i), Follywit does not make off with

his loot, but instead decides to stay and extend the jest by appearing

before his grandfather’s guests as the Prologue to his ironically

titled play, The Slip.

I’ll stay and speak a prologue . . . I cannot have conscience, in faith, to go away, And never a word to them. My grandsire has given me Three shares here; sure I'll do somewhat for them. (V.i.152-55)

His determination to crown the theft with the richer jest of appearing

as the ironic Prologue produces the complication of his cohorts' arrest,

and Follywit is compelled to follow through with the sham play. This

scene is similar in situation and development to the assignation scene

in Frank's bedchamber with its series of complications and hair-breadth

extrications. Similarly, Follywit's wit carries him through this

crisis, and we see that in skillful employment of wit itself Follywit

is on a par with Frank Gullman. Unlike Frank, however, who never

leaves anything to chance, Follywit overreaches himself and is finally

trapped by circumstance. The chiming clock is a contingency for which he has not provided. Ironically, his fall, which takes place before his new bride, bears out that fallibility which he has admitted earlier

(IV.v.12-15). Frank's presence in this scene also reminds us of her own successful survival.

Frank Gullman's superior ability to survive in this "mad world" is first suggested by Penitent Brothel in that same soliloquy (I.i) in 57

which he mentions Follywit's mad-brain nature. There Penitent admits

(11.99-110) his own inability to cope with his world and reveals that

his own "deadly follies" necessitate his reliance upon the courtesan,

Frank Gullman. Penitent's association of his "deadly follies" with

Follywit's "wild passions" suggests the similar influence which Frank

is to exert over Follywit. But Follywit's surrender to the wiles of

Frank Gullman is the result of his inability to comprehend the type of

person which the courtesan pretends to be:

'Sfoot, this is strange! I've seldom seen a wench Stand upon stricter points: life, she will not Endure to be courted! Does she ever think to prosper? (IV.v.4-6)

Her simple pretense is calculated to throw the vain and gullible off balance; ironically, Follywit, with his supposedly superior wit, becomes her immediate victim.

Penitent Brothel, on the other hand, recognizes his own inabil­ ity to achieve the end which he desires—the seduction of the jealous

Harebrain's wife—and, therefore, he consigns his fortunes to Frank

Gullman's wit and vision. In contrast to Penitent's ineffectiveness,

Frank is certain enough of her ability to succeed that she offers to guarantee her work,

Sigh not, master Penitent; trust the managing of the business with me; tis for my credit now to see it well finished: if I do you no good, sir, you shall give me no money, sir. (I.i.133-36)

The ironic effect of this gesture is not lost upon Penitent, who remarks, "I am arrived at the court of conscience; a Courtesan! 0 admirable times! Honesty is removed to the common-place" (I.i.137-39). 58

However, his satiric remark is more telling as an indication of his own

inadequacy, that must depend upon the courtesan, than as a jibe at her

assumption of ethics.

Indeed, the inadequacy and inconsistency of the whole concept

of an ethical system of right order, which is suggested by Penitent’s

reference to a "court of conscience," is exposed in the exchange

between Frank Gullman and her mother which follows Penitent's depar­

ture. The mother expresses in a long soliloquy the madness of the world and the necessity of being prepared for all its contingencies:

Every part of the world shoots up daily into more subtlety; the very spider weaves her cauls with more art and cunning to entrap the fly.

How does it behoove us then that live by sleight, To have our wits wound up to their stretched height!

'Tis nothing but a politic conveyance, A sincere carriage, a religious eyebrow That throws their charms over the worldling's senses: (I.i.153-76)

Expressed in this speech is the total human concern with appearance and reputation which, in this play, is one of the major manifestations of the world's madness. It may show itself as Follywit's mad-brain attempts to moralize and justify his theft; as Sir Bounteous's humor to entertain more hospitably than any other knight; as Harebrain's fanatically jealous protection of his wife's virtue; or as Penitent's nagging conscience and his reformation with Mistress Harebrain.4 But, however it appears, this concern over living in agreement with one's concept of what constitutes the right order of life is that factor which causes all of the characters excepting, of course, Frank and her 59

mother, to be incapable of coping with the false appearances of the mad

world. The courtesan and her mother, because they recognize the

hypocrisy of the mad world, are not constrained to conform to external

appearances and are therefore able to adapt and manipulate as changing

circumstances may warrant. It is this consistent adaptability, this

preparedness to meet any contingency which marks Frank Gullman’s wit as

superior.

When Frank receives the advice to set the first promising fool who believes her wiles aside for a husband (I.i.177-80), she replies,

"I am too deep a scholar grown / To learn my first rules now" (I.i.184-

85). Though her mother agrees, she nonetheless remains in the back­ ground as a sort of counselor—one can assume that she had, after all, been her daughter’s tutor as well—while in her role as bawd she serves as an extension of Frank and the ideas which she represents in the play.

Her role is underlined by the entrance of Inesse and Possibility5 just after Frank has expressed her attitudes and objectives. They are obvi­ ously complete gulls, and Frank's mother beguiles them easily, with her talk of Frank's abhorrence of vulgarity, into belief in her daughter's chastity and innocence. As two elder brothers, heirs, they apparently represent, within the framework of the play, the total sterility and

"non-productivity" of the landed leisure class. They seem to wander aimlessly in and out of the plot with only the most perfunctory atten­ tion shown to them, until they are finally cozened by Frank and Penitent

Brothel. In fact, they are so insignificant as individuals that they do not appear in the last act of the play and are left out of the final reconciliation at Sir Bounteous's banquet. Indeed, the significance of 60

their inclusion seems to lie in their being such complete non-entities;

for Follywit, Sir Bounteous and the others, in spite of their supposedly

superior wit, are as readily duped by Frank as are Inesse and Possibil­

ity. Indeed, the mother’s handling of the two in this scene is not

unlike her later manipulation of Follywit (IV.v), and the chief function

of the elder brothers seems to be to provide such ironic analogies as

this.

The shift to the jealous Harebrain (I.ii) introduces the first

clear instance in the play of Frank Gullman’s ability, because of her

more realistic perception, to manipulate the humors and self-deception

of others. Harebrain is, of course, obsessed with jealousy, and he is

convinced that married chastity alone is the criterion for right order

in the world. When Frank, whose feigned purity has taken in Harebrain,

complains that Mistress Harebrain believes all sins are damnable, Hare­

brain is outraged:

0, fie, fie wife! . . . how have you lost your time! For shame, be converted. There’s a diabolical opinion indeed ...

Your only deadly sin’s adultery That villainous ringworm, woman's worst requittal; 'Tis only lechery that's damned to the pit-hole: Ah, that's an arch offense, believe it, squall! All sins are venial but venereal. (I.ii.130-42)

He is so concerned with reputation and respectability that he defends without conscience those acts which sustain them, and damns without

reservation that act which destroys a man's reputation by making him cuckold. Ironically his jealousy, as happens with the whims and humors of others in the play, victimizes Harebrain as much as it constrains his wife, for as Mistress Harebrain tells Frank Gullman, 61

My husband’s jealousy, That masters him, as he doth master me; And as a keeper that locks prisoners up Is himself prisoned urider his own key, Even so my husband, in restraining me, With the same ward bars his own liberty. (I.ii.109-14)

It should not surprise us, therefore, that such singleness of percep­

tion as Harebrain displays should lead him to embrace any likely means

to ease him of his fears and the close watch he must keep on his wife.

Because Frank Gullman maintains an appearance and reputation for

chastity and respectability, he ironically enlists her aid to catechize

his wife.6 Thus, his blindness provides the courtesan yet another

opportunity, as all the others have provided opportunities, to take advantage of others’ self-deception.

Frank’s plan to bring Penitent and his paramour together is really only an extension of, or perhaps a capitalization upon, Hare- brain's jealous possessiveness. Because Harebrain is so anxious to have his wife reform by means of Frank’s ministrations, Frank can be reasonably sure that Harebrain will send his wife to visit her when he thinks the courtesan is dying. In order to ensure that Harebrain will insist upon his wife's visitation, however, Frank lets slip that she has remembered Mistress Harebrain in her will. The device, then, plays upon two of Harebrain's weaknesses, his jealousy and his greed. By utilizing the limitations of his perception in this way, Frank is not only able to get Mistress Harebrain free of her husband's watchful eye, but, because of Harebrain's own obstinate insistence that she make the visit, Mistress Harebrain is freed from the suspicion to which she would normally have been subjected. 62

Nor does Frank waste the opportunity which this situation

affords, for she sees it as an excellent opportunity of gulling Inesse

and Possibility into financing her "cure"—and that with the most

expensive medicines. Such an extension of the scheme to include this

related situation not only shows the scope of the courtesan’s vision

and preparation, but it also foreshadows the cleverness with which she also encourages Sir Bounteous to cheat himself into paying for her care

His arrival may be unexpected, but his treatment is the same as Frank has proposed for the elder brothers, and provides us an opportunity once again to observe the means by which the courtesan is able to seize apparent disaster and turn it to her own advantage. As Penitent himself admits in the midst of the episode in Frank's bedroom,

Let me admire thee! The wit of man wanes and decreases soon, But women's wit is ever at full moon. (III.ii.169-71)

His recognition and admission of Frank's dominance and superiority is one of the most significant aspects of this scene, which by underlining

Frank's superiority, helps to create some of the play's most effective irony.

This scene (Ill.ii) is not unlike several other scenes in

Middleton's plays (cf. Michaelmas Term, II,iii) in which trick after trick, intermixed with several near discoveries, are piled one upon another to create an intensely comic effect. The effect here is more than just the creation of a highly comic situation, however, for it is far more significant in terms of its development of Frank's superiority over the other characters. Her complete mastery of the scene continues 63

to its very end in her deception of the listening Harebrain while the

lovers are cuckolding him. Penitent’s final adulation,

Art of ladies! When plots are even past hope, and hang their head, Set with a woman’s hand, they thrive and spread. (Ill.ii.260-62)

reinforces his own debt to her and the subtlety and wit with which she

manipulates those around her.

But the ultimate irony of this scene lies in the unawareness of

those she has gulled that they are victims; in fact, each of them

believes himself to be the one in control. Sir Bounteous’s vanity

prompts him to believe that he has gotten Frank with child—the

courtesan merely remains passive while Sir Bounteous ironically plays

the role she had designed for Inesse and Possibility. When these two

arrive they need no prompting, but give their money away automatically.

They do offer a challenge in another way, however, for they are too

simple-minded to take any subtle hint to leave and finally must be

driven from the room by a trick which is effective because of its very

grossness, and the two scurry away just as Mistress Harebrain is

arriving. Harebrain’s attendance upon his wife creates another crisis which is cleverly handled by Frank in her highly comic mock dialogue with Mistress Harebrain. Again, she capitalizes upon the circumstances

to convince the eavesdropping Harebrain of her own sanctity and his wife’s virtue. The episode is rich in ironic asides, but perhaps its richest irony is Harebrain's own self-delusion.

The gulling of Follywit is obviously made even more ironic by

the fact that when he and Frank are finally brought into a conflict of 64

wills (IV.v) he succumbs as readily and as gullibly as these other

characters who have appeared to be of an inferior nature. Because

Follywit believes everything according to appearances and because

within his experience courtesan’s are supposedly brash importuners, he

is deluded by Frank’s shyness and excessive show of modesty,

Would I might be hanged, if my love do not stretch to her deeper and deeper! Those bashful maiden humors take me prisoner. When there comes a restraint upon flesh we are most greedy upon it:

Give me a woman as she was made at first; simple of herself, without sophistication, like this wench: I cannot abide them when they have tricks, set speeches, and artful entertainments. (IV.v.55-63)

The ironies of this speech are multiple. Her "bashful maiden humors"

are a part of that device of appearing to be pure and chaste which

Frank has used so successfully against Harebrain and the elder gulls.

The "restraint upon flesh" works, as Frank knows that it must—as she

has seen it work upon Penitent Brothel—to make Follywit desire the

more what he cannot have (as he has his grandfather's gold), even

though he has mocked his grandsire and Gumwater for the same defect.

In this respect, Follywit is also like the short-sighted Harebrain, who

insists upon the appearance of virtue while failing to see the

"corruption" underneath.

The final irony of this scene is revealed when Frank's mother

explains to her future son-in-law that Frank brings with her a sizeable

dowry which will keep the newlywed's until Follywit inherits Sir

Bounteous's wealth. Frank, by means of her successful manipulation of

people and circumstances, has been able to put aside a sizeable fortune, 65

while Follywit in spite of his mad-brain pranks and "superior wit" must

still "confess it truly to you both, / My estate is yet but sickly"

(IV.v.101-02). It has already been shown how this circumstance is used

by Middleton to re-emphasize Follywit’s folly in that episode which

leads to the play’s final reconciliation.

One element of the play’s reconciliation is completed before

the final act, however; that of Penitent with his conscience—and,

indirectly, with Harebrain and his wife. It seems necessary, therefore,

to spend some little time on these two scenes before examining the

play’s final resolution. This seems additionally important because,

like the "Dampit scenes" in A Trick to Catch the Old One, these scenes

of reformation have caused considerable confusion and controversy.

One of the more thorough attempts to come to grips with the

Penitent-Succubus episode is found in a recent article by Charles

Hallett,7 who sees the "conversion" of Penitent as entirely consistent

in terms of seventeenth-century psychology and Christian morality. In

Hallett's view Penitent reforms himself by means of reasserting his wit

over his will. He has already accomplished his self-conversion when

the Succubus appears. Hallett further suggests that the Succubus is

actually presented to provide a new temptation which Penitent is now

able to resist because of his already accomplished reformation. "The

Succubus is in this regard a means of suggesting that Penitent's love for Mrs. Harebrain has been an illusion and the banishment of the demon is a way of symbolizing that order has been restored."8

I can agree with Hallett that the appearance of the Succubus is 66

significant in terms of illusion and disorder, but the conclusions

which he draws from this fact are inconsistent with what has occurred

in the rest of the play, both in relation to Penitent and to the other

characters as well. Our first view of Penitent in Act I emphasizes his

ambivalence—his recognition of a Christian moral order which he feels he ought to obey and his concurrent repression of that order so that he may pursue his fleshly appetite. "And such an appetite that I know damns me, / Yet willingly embrace it" (I.i.104-05). This inability of

Penitent’s to bend his appetite to his conviction is indicative of a certain indecisiveness which is demonstrated by his employment of Frank to accomplish his objective. His ineffectiveness is made obvious in

Act II, scene iii in which Frank discloses that she has thought of the means to obtain Mistress Harebrain while Penitent "cannot sleep for sighing" (II.iii.3). Again, in Act II, scene vi, it is Frank who dominates, while Penitent vacillates and finally must depend upon Frank to manage the development of the scheme, and it is Frank who finally devises the means to get rid of the two heirs when their presence threatens the tryst. Indeed, when Mistress Harebrain arrives, it is

Frank who must tell Penitent and Mistress Harebrain to take action before the plot is discovered: "Pish, you're a faint liver; trust yourself with your pleasure, and me with your security; go" (Ill.ii.

183-84). Then, after the assignation has been accomplished, it is still not Penitent who takes action, but rather Mistress Harebrain who suggests the arrangements for a second meeting. Taken altogether, these incidents clearly show a picture of Penitent as a man either 67

unwilling or incapable of thinking for himself and whose morally weak

actions in pursuing his lust are admittedly inconsistent with his

professed belief in a moral order.

Penitent’s "violent" return to morality, then, must leave us

somewhat suspicious. It is, I believe, but replacing one false view

(his virtually mindless submission of will to appetite) by another

(his almost fanatical insistence on moral order). Both perceptions are

the products of excess, the former of lust, the latter of guilt. And

the very excess of his reformation, like the excess of his lust, has

all the characteristics of continued vacillation. And once his

conscience has been satisfied we may well suppose that his moral ardor

will burn itself out, even as his lust had been extinguished earlier.

And we may further suppose that his new found place in the bosom of

Harebrain’s family will hasten the relapse.

The Succubus itself seems to result from two sources—from the

tradition of demonology, and from Penitent’s own subconscious mind—and

we must consider it on both levels. As a demon, or at least within the

scope of Penitent’s belief that it is a demon, the Succubus works, as

Hallett suggests, to test Penitent's new-formed resolution to repent.

As a visitation from his subconscious, however, the Succubus must be

considered as a manifestation of Penitent's guilt. But it also appears

as an indication of his latent inconsistency, his inability to totally

resolve the antithesis of his lust and his sense of morality.9 His

suppression of the Succubus, which he is able to accomplish only by means of an appeal to "celestial soldiers," is a suppression not unlike 68

his earlier suppression of his conscience; his enlistment of divine

intervention is not unlike his earlier enlistment of the courtesan; and

it would seem, in view of Penitent’s own weakness and vacillation, that

his shift from morality to lust to morality is not unlikely to continue

its cyclical progression.

Penitent’s accidental "reward" for his reformation, his accep­

tance into Harebrain’s friendship, includes a readmission into the world of limited vision, of gulls and fools, and therefore, must be

considered as undesirable. In another respect, it is similar to

Follywit’s accidental good fortune in acquiring a dowry from the courtesan. And, like Follywit’s "accident," that of Penitent also foreshadows the general ironic resolution which is brought about in the play's final sequence of reconciliation in Act V.

Penitent Brothel's role in this final development is slight, however. His failure to continue the excessive moral tone of his reformation scenes seems to indicate that once his conscience has been satisfied by the conversion of Mistress Harebrain his zeal in that direction has begun to wane, even as his lust had after its satisfac­ tion. His situation has actually been resolved, of course in Act IV, and his presence in Act V is chiefly significant because it fixes

Penitent as clearly one with the world of incomplete perception which leads to inconsistency and self-deception.

Like Penitent, Frank Gullman also plays a small role in the play's resolution. She needs to say little; her very presence reminds us of her success and we must measure the others' false perceptions 69

against her inherent dominance and superiority. Her consistency and

dedication to her self-preservation are revealed in her observations

about Follywit disguised as the player:

0’ my troth, and I were not married, I could find in my heart to fall in love with that player now, and send for him to a supper. (V.ii.34-36)

Despite her temptation, Frank recognizes the safety of the married condition which she has angled for so many years to achieve. Unlike

Penitent and Mistress Harebrain she is readily able to stay true to purpose and consistent in her actions. She has always recognized that in the "mad world" of the play it is the appearance one maintains which is finally believed, and she has consistently held to that principle.

She is still playing the virtuous role that is expected of her, and it stands her in good stead even in the final scene. Her repentance, when

Follywit discovers the truth about his marriage, is hardly more than a token expression of resolution: "What I have been is past; be that forgiven, / And have a soul true both to thee and heaven!" (V.ii.286-

87). However, we may be certain that the courtesan will keep her promise, because it is in her interest to do so and consistent with her role of pretending to virtue in order to achieve a suitable marriage.

Indeed, part of the irony of this scene lies in the fact that Sir

Bounteous’s spontaneous gift of a thousand marks is occasioned largely by his belief that he was her only paramour and that she was, in fact,

"nearly chaste,"

The best is, sirrah, you pledge none but me; And since I drink the top, take her—and, hark, I spice the bottom with a thousand mark. (V.ii.289-95) 70

To which Follywit replies

By my troth, she is as good a cup of nectar as any bachelor needs to sip at. Tut, give me gold, it makes amends for vice; Maids without coin are caudles without spice. (V.ii.292-95)

Follywit is willing to accept Frank because of the gold—"it makes

amends for vice." Frank’s viewpoint is vindicated finally by this

clear evidence from both Sir Bounteous and Follywit, that in this "mad

world" anything can be sold if it is only given the appearance appro­

priate to the gull.

Her viewpoint is continued in A Trick to Catch the Old One. In

that play, however, the role of dominant wit has been transferred to

the central character, and while the wit of the wiley, perceptive

courtesan plays a vital part in the play’s resolution, it is Witgood,

the "rogue-hero," who holds both our sympathy and our admiration. In

addition, while the same themes of appearance and self-deception are

continued, the themes of greed and hypocrisy are given a new emphasis.

But not in A Trick, nor rarely again in his writing, does Middleton

achieve such a thoroughly ironic perception of the "mad world" as he has in A Mad World, My Masters. CHAPTER IV

AVARICE AND SELF-DECEPTION IN A TRICK TO CATCH THE OLD ONE

A Trick to Catch the Old One has an excellently developed

single story line which is hardly surpassed in the Middleton canon.

This play concentrates upon one relatively uncomplicated plot (Wit-

good's scheme to regain his fortune) and develops it in such a way that

all of the elements related to this plot are clearly and logically

foreshadowed. Even the Dampit scenes, though some critics regard them

as extraneous, are integrated into the development of this single plot

structure.1 Indeed, these scenes, through their juxtaposition with

other scenes more clearly related to Witgood’s scheme, are central to

Middleton’s use of structural irony in this play. In addition these

Dampit scenes are tied to the single plot structure through their con­ tinuance and expansion of the dominant themes of the play.

These dominant themes are essentially twofold. The first of these themes is best expressed by G. J. Watson, when he asserts that the subject matter of A Trick is "avarice, the power of money, and the gullibility of men who pursue it. . . . "2 In addition to this theme, but closely allied with it, there is the theme of false appearance, with an especial emphasis upon hypocrisy and self-deception. The world in which these themes predominate is presented by Middleton without overt comment or judgment. However, as Watson points out, "Middleton suggests that vice is normal, that it is the natural way of the world"

71 72

(p. xx). In addition to the suggestion that vice is normal there is

also the implication that excessive vice receives retribution. Such

retribution is not, however, the result of vice itself, but rather of

excess. In fact, in this play, any kind of excess receives some form

of rebuke at Middleton’s hands. The rebuke is generally self-inflicted

and is almost always treated ironically.

This continual emphasis upon the vices of greed and hypocrisy

and the excesses and self-deception which they produce is the fundamen­

tal characteristic of Middleton’s irony. Every major character in the

play is dedicated to the acquisition of wealth and property. This

passion sharpens the wits of some and dulls the insight of others, but

in one way or another it touches them all. M. C. Bradbrook has gone so far as to declare that "Middleton’s world is one in which money rules so thoroughly that there is no possibility of love or hatred, and scarcely of lust: cupidity is the sole power."3 This estimate is essentially correct, though in the person of Witgood this cupidity may seem to be ameliorated by his apparent good will toward his former paramour.

Witgood has squandered his fortune and lost his property and must decide how he is to survive. In a speech filled with disillusion­ ment and cynicism he rejects the venality that has consumed him and vows to live by his wits and thus recoup his losses. When his

Courtesan enters, he reviles her for having, spider-like, consumed her consort. Her reply that he, in fact, seduced her and that the loss of her virginity, unlike his wealth, is not reclaimable, produces an 73

apparent change in Witgood. He acknowledges his error and craves her

pardon; whereupon the Courtesan enters into a pact with Witgood to

enable him to regain his estate and to help her to a better condition.

From this pact the plot to gull Lucre is born.

This plot does not here clearly assume a face of greed, for

Witgood seeks only the return of his own partimony; however, the cal­

lousness and opportunism of his speech ("Any trick out of the compass

of law now would come happily to me" I.i.27-28), show, no repentance

for his dedication to a life of physical pleasure, but rather an affir­

mation of that predominant cupidity suggested by Bradbrook. His bitter

experience, the loss of his wealth, has blunted his lust and any love

that may have existed for his Courtesan. When Witgood admits his error

in chastening the Courtesan and acknowledges his complicity in her

downfall: "Forgive: I do thee wrong / To make thee sin, and then to chide thee for it" (I.i.41-42), he is not, in fact, revealing any particular compassion, but rather an awareness of the futility of invective and blame. And when, a few lines later, he says, "Fate has so cast it that all my means I must derive from thee" (11.51-52), he indicates that his compassion for the Courtesan has indeed, an ulterior motive. This is not to say that he has no feelings for the Courtesan, but rather that such feelings are now subordinated to the ultimate goal of the restoration of his wealth. The chief means to that restoration lie in Witgood’s own wit,1* and his decision to present the Courtesan as a wealthy widow and himself as her still naive suitor (I.i.88-94) com­ bines his desire for self-aggrandizement with the play’s most fully 74

ironic example of false appearance.

These qualities of greed and self-seeking which Witgood mani­

fests are characteristic of the play’s other characters as well. In

most of the other characters, however, avariciousness is developed to

the point of excess. This excessive pursuit of property, in turn,

blinds the rational faculties of such as Lucre and Hoard and causes

them to be deceived by false appearances and other tricks. Indeed,

Watson suggests (p. xviii) that it is in fact the greed of Lucre, Hoard,

and the others which solves all of Witgood’s difficulties rather than

any effort of his own, and it is certainly their greed which Witgood

manipulates in order to gull the gullers. The revelations of this

greed and the techniques which Witgood employs to capitalize upon it

form the bases for most of the play's ironic effects. These ironic

effects are achieved by a juxtaposition of scenes which enables Middle-

ton to bely the tone and effect of one scene by its immediate connec­

tion with another which undercuts its apparent emphasis. As a brief

examination of the play will show this structural technique, in com­

bination with the more familiar dramatic irony, provides an irony the

pervasiveness of which encompasses the entire world of the play.

Such an ironic juxtaposition is revealed in the discussion

between Hoard's brother, Onesiphorus, and his friends, Limber and Kix,

who have appeared just as Witgood and the Courtesan are leaving. When

Onesiphorus inquires about Witgood, Limber replies, "0, the common

rioter; take no note of him" (I.i.109). Limber describes the "old"

Witgood, but following as it does upon that gallant's new found 75

resolution and initiative, this judgment is ironic, and the irony is

reinforced by the immediately following scene (I.ii). In this episode

Witgood tricks the Host into aiding with the plan to deceive Lucre,

underlining Limber’s mistake in casually dismissing Witgood as the

"common rioter." Then in Act I, scene iii, the soon-to-be gulled Lucre

and Hoard, also unaware of Witgood's new resolve discuss his folly and

vice (cf. 11. 27-37). It is by means of such rapidly repeated inver­

sions that Middleton has succeeded in adding the dimension of structural

reinforcement to the more common technique of dramatic irony.

The themes of hypocrisy and avarice are also reinforced in the

conversation between Onesiphorus Hoard and his friends, for Onesiphorus related there the story of how Lucre and Hoard became bitter enemies

(I.i.113-24). This story reinforces what Witgood has revealed about his uncle's cupidity and also suggests one source for Witgood's insight into the characters of Lucre and Hoard, for he too knows of their enmity. Miss Bradbrook saw the significance of this feud in relation to the other themes which affect these usurers: "... the mutual hatred of the two old men, Hoard and Lucre, which is the most passionate feature of the play, depends on their common devotion to wealth."5

Their avarice is apparently boundless.

Our first introduction to the two, late in Act I, finds them again engaged in the quarrel which Hoard's brother described in scene i.

Their hypocrisy requires that they justify those actions which society normally finds reprehensible. So, while they admit their usurous occupation to one another, Lucre is resentful when Hoard taunts him, in 76

front of others, for cheating his own nephew. Lucre attempts to

justify his actions to himself as well as to Hoard and their friends

(I. iii.33-37). His defensive rejection of the responsibility for

cheating Witgood is symptomatic of the indifference which both Lucre

and Hoard display toward their victims. At the same time it shows

their mutual recognition of the desirability of maintaining a respect­

able facade. This continual contrasting of the old men's attempts to

assume outward respectability with the reality of their inner charac­

ters is ironic in both intention and effect.

The dominant role which avarice plays in motivating these old

men, and in subjugating gentler passions, is displayed at the conclu­

sion of I.iii. Hoard and Lucre have departed with their associates,

leaving behind Lucre’s stepson, Sam Freedom and one Moneylove, both of whom are suitors to Joyce, Hoard’s niece. The brief confrontation which ensues between these insignificant adversaries is in marked

contrast with several features of the preceding argument between Lucre and Hoard. The two usurers have engaged in bombastic and malicious

invective: Hoard, in addition, swears a bitterly scornful oath to see himself avenged upon Lucre (I.iii.40-44). This is notable malice, and it apparently offers ample motivation for the lengths to which the two old men go to discomfit one another later on.

Immediately following this exchange, we find Sam Freedom awkwardly threatening to challenge Moneylove. His challenge is pathe­ tic and inept, and Moneylove cuffs his ears for his trouble, whereupon

Sam threatens to charge him with assault. His resolve to duel his 77

adversary has melted in the face of Moneylove’s physical rejoinder.

The boasting and insults of the two old men, who are supposedly

dignified citizens, are especially grotesque. However, when we then

view the pitiable conduct of Sam Freedom, and consider that his quarrel

is for love, we are brought to several realizations about what these

characters and incidents represent in the play. The avariciousness of

Lucre and Hoard has produced an untoward passion in the two old men.

They become incensed and exchange dire threats over the loss of a

chance to cheat a gull of his property. On the other hand, Sam, whom we should expect to act, out of love, with more chivalry, is too cowardly to do more than threaten vague legal action. Apparently the usurers’ love of wealth is sufficiently strong to inspire them to unusual vigor and activity, while the supposedly vital motivation of love fails to overcome the doltishness of Sam. Such a comparison, founded as it is on such nearly similar and closely aligned circum­ stances, cannot fail to call attention to the debased position which romantic love holds in this play—and to the vital and active role assigned to the pursuit and acquisition of wealth.

Witgood’s love song to his restored property, for example, shows the sort of emotion he never displays toward his wife:

Thou soul of my estate, I kiss thee; I miss life’s comfort when I miss thee. 0, never will we part again, Until I leave the sight of men! (IV.ii.91-94)

The amatory diction of this passage is not unlike Volpone's hymn to his gold, and like that passage is indicative of the degree to which wealth 78

has been elevated. From a substance whose pursuit, in conventional

moral terms, was associated with sterility and death, property has been

raised to the status of a love object. The full extent of this

debasement of romantic love is born out again by Hoard after his

marriage to the "Widow."

What a sweet blessing hast thou, master Hoard,

not only a wife large in possessions, but spacious in content; she’s rich, she’s young, she’s fair, she’s wise: when I wake, I think of her lands—that revives me; when I go to bed, I dream of her beauty—and that’s enough for me: she’s worth four hundred a year in her very smock, if a man knew how to use it. (IV.iv.1,5-10)

This ironic expression of avarice in terms of physical and spiritual

love epitomizes the inversion of the significance of love and wealth in

the world of the play.

Nor are Witgood, Lucre and Hoard alone in their devotion to wealth. Similar to these two in avarice and rapacity are the three

Creditors who beset Witgood at every rise in his fortunes. Their exact relationship to the two old men and to the theme of avarice is suggested by Miss Sargent.

Excessive greed is the hallmark of nearly everyone in the play. It is certainly noticeable in the choric Creditors. These three tradesmen . . . are not differentiated. They do not exist as real characters; instead their speeches and actions are important because in an impersonal way they shadow Lucre's and Hoard's. Being so impersonal, they are, as it were, uni­ versalized. Lucre and Hoard act as they do because they are who they are, but the Creditors by their choric nature suggest that this is the way of the world, at least of the society of which Lucre and Hoard are members. What they do and say shows to a lesser degree the same motivations and character traits as those of the two old men: they are rapacious, cruel and conscienceless. . . . (pp. 89-90) 79

Like "the two old Men," also, they are easily manipulated by Witgood,

and the gullibility of these cheaters further emphasizes the power of

excessive greed to blind the individual to the machinations of those

who would deceive him. In their first appearance (Act III, scene i),

Witgood utilizes their avarice to blind them to the reality of his

situation. They want their money and he is still destitute, but, because Witgood appeals to their greed, they aid him with more money

and try to cheat one another (III.i.11-16). The creditors are so

tempted by the chance to win Witgood's good favor, because he is to marry the rich "Widow," that they not only acquiesce to his ploy but even attempt to out maneuver one another by secretly offering Witgood loans—in addition to his present loans which they came to collect.

When they discover this deception—and self-deception—they are so outraged that when they appear again (Act IV, scene iii), they will not even listen to Witgood, but have him arrested. His attempts to plead for more time are ignored by them, and they threaten to let him rot in recompense for his debt (IV.iii.48-52). Unlike Lucre and Hoard, however, who are ready, ultimately, to risk all for revenge, the three

Creditors agree to allow Witgood to sue to his friends. They may hate

Witgood, but they are too coldly avaricious to allow their animosity to stand in the way of the recovery of their loans.

Indeed, they seem to be even with Witgood for the trick he has played upon them earlier, but this "balance" is ironically undercut when we see, in Act IV, scene iv, Witgood’s resolution of his dilemma.

He devises the scheme of the pre-contract to squeeze Hoard, through 80

threat of Lucre's bringing legal action, into discharging Witgood’s

debts. Witgood, however, pretends to injured honor and refuses Hoard’s

offer, whereupon the Creditors urge him to accept the money and, in

order to persuade him, offer to help him to another "Widow." When

Witgood reluctantly accepts their offer they are so eager to get their

gold that they allow Hoard to shortchange them without mumur. When

Witgood asks about the Widow they have promised, they jeer at him in

smug self-satisfaction. But Witgood has clearly been on to their device all along; and the fact that his feigned innocence has allowed him to cozen them once more underscores the ironic themes of greed and its concomitant: self-deception.

The dehumanization which has been apparent in the Creditors’ cold, callous persecution of Witgood is reiterated in the person of

Dampit, "the trampler of time." He first appears in Act I, scene iv, when he and his colleague Gulf encounter Witgood and the Host on the street. Witgood has borrowed money from Dampit and his description of the usurer to the Host serves as an introduction to Dampit’s nature:

a famous infamous trampler of time; his own phrase. Note him well; that Dampit sirrah, he in the uneven beard and the serge cloak, is the most notorious, usuring, blasphemous, atheistical, brothel-vomiting rascal, that we have in these latter times now extant. . . . (I.iv.10-15)

This description of Dampit emphasizes his unkempt appearance and iniquitous tendencies, but what really sets him apart from the other usurers are the epithets "blasphemous" and "atheistical." In the second scene with the Creditors, Witgood referred to them as devils and 81

their lack of feeling toward him justified this un-human cognomen. His

references to Dampit, however, go beyond a mere angry epithet. As

Professor Sargent points out, "at one point Witgood suggests that

Dampit is the devil's footman (I.iv.31-32), but Middleton himself

suggests rather more than this. For surely the name Dampit is a

portmanteau word: damned pit, that is, hell. Furthermore Witgood

greets him as: '. . .my old Harry!' (I.iv.39)."8 This and many other

references to Dampit as the Devil, the Devil's footman, or in some way

connected with fiends, establishes him, more than any of the other

usurers, as thoroughly evil and debased. He is of the same cut as

Lucre, Hoard, and the Creditors, but, "he represents absolute moral

corruption. . . . "7

The first meeting, in which Witgood offers us the description

already given, presents Dampit as boastful, boorish and gross. He is

proud of his avariciousness and of his usury, and especially of the mastery which his "trampling" gives him over other men (I.iv.60-66).

Lucre and Hoard have both shown normal human passions of greed, malice

and a desire for revenge, but they also manifest some evidence of

family loyalty and affection. Their tendency toward dehumanizing characteristics is excessive, but they are presented as ultimately human and, to some extent, worthy of our empathy. On the other hand the three Creditors are so trivial and so totally lacking in Lucre and

Hoard’s more humane qualities that we cannot respond to them except with scorn and indifference. Dampit's crimes are basically no different from these others, but the colossal depth of his iniquity, 82

and his absolute pleasure in it, are repellent. Yet while Dampit's

assertions of his villainy are grotesque, they are also ludicrous;

while we may find him disconcerting, we must also find his hyperbole

laughable. The explanation for this mixed reaction lies, I believe, in

Middleton’s careful expression of ironic juxtapositions in his treat­

ment of Dampit and those scenes in which he appears.

In their first encounter, Witgood’s asides and insults prompt

Dampit's own humor; they also serve to undercut the intensity of Dam-

pit’s malice and disdain for humanity. They serve to stabilize the

"normal" view of the Jacobean audience toward the usurer and to affix

Dampit’s speech as a grotesque self-exposure, which Dampit sees as

complimentary, but which others view as ludicrous. Such self-revela­

tion is continued when Damput appears again (Ill.iv). Dampit is

returning home from a drunken revelry, and is confused and rambles

about his prayers. His inability to recall when last he said them is

comically expressed (III.iv.1-5), but it also points up Dampit’s

separation from and indifference to anything godly. He prays only when

great disasters threaten him, and the prayers themselves are tied to

material goods and material desires. Clearly there is nothing reveren­

tial about Dampit, and his confused musing about when he last prayed—

some years ago at least—reflects his indifference about the state of

his soul. The remainder of the scene demonstrates his extreme gross­ ness. When Audrey, his maid, appears, Dampit rails at her and demands more to drink. He then launches into a tirade of obscenities

(III.iv.49-53) and gross jests. 83

His excessive behaviour has been comic to this point; however,

upon the point of retiring, he complains about a stench which fills his

nostrils:

Fah! I think they burn horns in Barnard's Inn. If ever I smelt such an abominable stink, usury forsake me. (III.iv.73-75)

The stink of burning horns calls to mind the earlier references to the devils and hell, while Audrey’s rejoinder that what he smells are the nails of his own trampling feet brings the association back upon Dampit himself. In addition, while Dampit's opening speech in this scene has demonstrated his lack of association with or concern for godly things, his closing speech "usury forsake me", clearly ties him to a practice which was associated in the Jacobean mind with the Devil and deserving of damnation. The ludicrousness of this scene and its somewhat grim ending further alienate Dampit from our sympathies.

Dampit's last appearance (IV.v) begins with Dampit lying in bed. so drunk that he must be chained there to keep him from falling out.

Whie Dampit calls for more drink, Audrey sings a song about the damna­ tions of usurers in this world and the next. As Dampit lies drinking,

Lamprey and Spichcock enter and Lamprey remarks:

Look you; did not I tell you he lay like the devil in chains, when he was bound for a thousand years? (IV.v.7-8)

Having put forth his view of Dampit as a veritable devil, Lamprey proceeds to condemn the usurer in conventional moral terms (IV.v.19-21).

Sir Launcelot and the others enter and all the "Gentlemen" proceed to mock Dampit and play tricks upon him. Dampit grows more and more 84

irrational and grotesque and the humor in the scene becomes increasing­

ly grim. Professor Sargent has offered an excellent analysis of this

scene, and while she does not explore the irony of the situation, her

remarks point up the kind of contrast which Middleton has consistently

employed to establish his ironic perception:

The scene is obviously suggesting that Dampit lying helpless in bed is like a devil lying helpless in hell; but it achieves more than this statement. Viewed objectively the scene is one of low comedy ... at the same time it is possible to look at the scene as it appears to Dampit. He is near the point of delirium tremens: he is not sure what is real and what is not; he can barely focus, has no span of concentration, and is utterly confused. So he lies, helpless, while his visitors, his tormentors, who realize his state, amuse themselves at his expense. They play a number of tricks on him, which from his point of view, make the scene a complete phantasmagoria. (pp. 104-05)

Dampit has reached the lowest level of non-human action. He is alter­

nately foul-mouthed, threatening, grotesque, ludicrous and pitiful, but

even at the edge of coma he maintains his usurous desires and attempts

to deceive his acquaintances. Since they have created the situations

to which he responds, however, he succeeds in deceiving only himself

and in revealing the depths of his dishonesty and depravity. When

Hoard arrives to invite Dampit to his wedding feast Dampit makes

obscene jokes and double-entendres about Hoard’s bride, and replies uncivilly to Hoard's invitation.

What such enormities imply in relation to the rest of the play has not, hitherto, been fully considered. G. J. Watson has suggested that "the extravagant presence of Dampit, the typical stage usurer and lawyer, with his insatiable appetite for alcohol, serves to emphasize 85

by contrast the normality and even, in a curious way, the respectabil­

ity of Lucre and Hoard."8 Richard Levin’s evaluation is similar: "By

making Dampit so despicable, Middleton can more easily reduce Lucre and

Hoard to ridiculous butts, who never really threaten the protagonist

and therefore can be let off at the end with relatively mild, comic

discomfiture.1,8 Such views do indeed explain how the Dampit scenes

call attention to the characters of Lucre and Hoard and how, through

them, they reiterate the themes of greed, deception, hypocrisy and excess which we have examined. In addition, if the intermediate level of vice, represented by the Creditors, is also considered here, one may then see fully how Middleton has emphasized the necessity of moderation and the rejection of excess. The "punishment" of Lucre and Hoard is, indeed, mild and generally comic; but that of the Creditors, while it is abstract, is, in terms of its impact, more severe, for they receive

Witgood’s.scorn and indifference and that of the audience as well.

Dampit receives the same scorn, but because of his gross obscenity and drunkenness and his obvious affinities for devils and hell, he also merits our aversion and disgust. He is not only outside the circle of society’s empathy, but he revels in his exclusion. The Creditors, too, are excluded, but they are ignorant of the consequences of their actions; they are, generally, ciphers. Dampit is boastfully proud of his iniquities and revels in his vice. In view of the way he has been presented he can receive no justification and he deserves no sympathy.

The final irony of this sequence comes when the obsequious Gulf, whom Witgood has called a caterpillar, enters the sickroom and begins 86

to pronounce moral judgments upon Dampit (IV.v.165-67). Such pious

hypocrisy is too much even for Dampit and the scene degenerates into a

grotesque near-brawl between the bedfast Dampit and the dwarfish Gulf.

The ironically self-destructive and self-perpetuating nature of avarice

and excess are powerfully set forth in the climax of this scene.

In addition to their significance in developing these themes,

the Dampit scenes serve also as structural "signposts" which guide the readers attention to the effects of greed and excess upon the lives of

Lucre and Hoard. Levin notes, in regard to Act I, scene iv: "Since

Dampit’s appearance follows immediately after the introduction of Lucre and Hoard, we tend to associate both usurers with him; but we also note the striking difference between their petulant, pointless bickering and his completely self-assured dominance of his scene and of Gulf, his fellow usurer."10 As Levin has pointed out, Dampit’s appearance not only reminds us of the preceding episode involving Lucre and Hoard, but it also undercuts the pomposity and self-importance of these two gulls.

Because of Dampit’s hyperbole and his gargantuan avarice the juxtaposi­ tion of this scene ironically deflates the apparent importance of Lucre and Hoard established in Act I, scene iii. The irony of this structure is reinforced when immediately after our introduction to Dampit in

I.iv., we again see (II.i) Lucre ranting over his previous meeting with

Hoard.

A similar juxtaposition occurs in Act III, scene iv, the second of the Dampit scenes. Perhaps the greatest irony in this scene is the result of the juxtaposition between Dampit's scurrility and double­ 87

entendre in this scene, and the clear joy of wedded bliss which Hoard's

friends expect him and the widow to enjoy at the opening of IV.i which

follows. Also, looking both backward and forward, Act III, scene iv

links the action in Act III with that in Act IV by means of a grimly

ironic contrast. In III.iii, we see Lucre determined, by means of wit

and duplicity, to rescue the Widow; in IV.i, we see Hoard smugly sure

that he has outsmarted his adversary. We know, of course, that Lucre

is an inept gull and Hoard has been cozened, while Dampit, drunken, petulant, and finally unsure stands as a stark reminder of the poten­ tial decline of those who engage in avarice, excess and self-deception.

The discomfiture of Lucre and Hoard is certainly forecast in this scene—and I would agree with Richard Levin that "the Dampit scenes are placed with some care at the strategic points in the main action in order to exploit both their contrasts and their affinities to it" (p.

147). The final Dampit scene (IV.v) reveals Dampit chained to his bed, near the point of delirium tremens. For the first time we are aware of the contrast that now exists between the fortunes of Dampit and the apparent success of Lucre and Hoard. The grotesque fate of Dampit becomes a grim reminder of the likely prospect for those who pursue

Dampit's excessive desires; for if such an awful "trampler" as he may succumb to his own excesses, what hope have the two petulant old men to escape unscathed?

Nor have the machinations of Witgood left any doubt that the two, Lucre and Hoard, will be thoroughly duped for the benefit of he and the Courtesan. For, with the exception of the brief interruptions 88

by the Creditors,11 there has never been any time when Witgood's plot

has not gone steadily forward, and the presence of the Dampit scenes,

as noted above, has largely underscored the implications of the effects

of Witgood’s scheme upon Lucre and Hoard. That these two have not only

been the victims of Witgood's scheme, but also its "willing" accom­

plices is the epitome of the play’s ironic development. Indeed, their

eagerness to acquire wealth and their unscrupulousness in doing so make

them the perfect illustration of the themes of avarice and self-decep­

tion as a result of false appearance and excess.

The play’s final irony, however, is two-edged. The jingling

rhyme which Witgood and the Courtesan employ12 both as a means of

promising reformation and as a barely concealed calendar of lascivious

delights, seems to mock both the usurers they have gulled and the

conventional moral with which such plays often ended. Yet their speeches smack of the same kind of excess which characterized Follywit in A Mad World and Quomodo in Michaelmas Term, and Hoard’s concluding speech, "Who seem most crafty prove ofttimes most fools" (V.ii.207), suggests the future for Witgood and the Courtesan.

In A Trick, then, Middleton has achieved, as he had done in

Michaelmas Term and A Mad World, an ironic presentation of mankind’s susceptibility to hypocrisy, self-deception and excess in the pursuit of wealth and property. Especially, through the use of structural juxtaposition, he has developed a pervasive sense of the ironic within 89 the world of each of these plays, and has presented in each a world in which irony itself becomes the dominant motif. 90

NOTES

Chapter I

1H. D. F. Kitto, Form and Meaning in Drama (1956; rpt. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1960), p. v.

2Samuel Schoenbaum, Middleton’s Tragedies: A Critical Study (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1955), pp. 168-69.

3Richard Barker, Thomas Middleton (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1958), p. 151. Other critics who share this view of Middleton as a clear moralist include William L. Power, "The Ethical Pattern in the Plays of Thomas Middleton," Diss. Vanderbilt 1955; Marilyn William­ son, "A Critical Study of Thomas Middleton’s Early Comedies," Diss. Duke 1956; and David Holmes, The Art of Thomas Middleton: A Critical Study (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1970).

^Barker, p. 151.

5Felix E. Schelling, Elizabethan Drama, 1558-1642, 2nd ed. (Boston and New York: Houghton, 1911), I, 515 ff.

6Brian Gibbons, Jacobean City Comedy: A Study of Satiric Plays by Jonson, Marston and Middleton (London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1968), pp. 24-25 ff.

7Rowland Evans, "Realism and Convention in the Action of Middleton's Comedy," Diss. Johns Hopkins 1942, p. 179.

8Wilbur Dunkel, The Dramatic Technique of Thomas Middleton in His Comedies of London Life. Private Edition (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1925), p. 87.

3Stephen Brown, "World of Wit, A Study of Middleton's Early Comedy," Diss. Yale 1959, p. 195.

10Dunkel, pp. 9-10.

Hr. B. Parker, "Middleton's Experiments with Comedy and Judge­ ment," Jacobean Theatre, ed. J. R. Brown and Bernard Harris, Stratford- Upon-Avon Series, 1 (New York: St. Martin’s, 1960), p. 179.

12Ibid., p. 183.

13Madeleine Doran, Endeavors of Art: A Study of Form in Eliza- bethan Drama (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1954), pp. 166-67. 91

Chapter II

■’•For this view see Richard Levin, ed., "Introduction," Michaelmas Term, Regents Renaissance Drama Series (London: Arnold, 1967); Anne B. Howells, "Bravery and the Observation of the Inevitable: A Study of Beaumont and Fletcher, Ford, and Middleton," Diss. Washing­ ton 1968; Francis R. Olley, "Romantic Elements in the Plays of Thomas Middleton," Diss. Fordham 1965, who sees the realistic villains in Michaelmas Term as not wholly separate from the world of romance; and Madeleine Doran, Endeavors of Art: A Study of Form in Elizabethan Drama (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1954). Miss Doran’s discus­ sion of the realistic treatment of the ridiculousness of human behavior deals with some ironic aspects of Middleton’s play as well.

2Most notable for this approach are Y. S. Bains, "A Critical Study of Thomas Middleton's Comedies for the Children of Paul's," Diss. Syracuse 1964; Ruby Chatterji, "Unity and Disparity in Michaelmas Term," SEL, 8 (1968), 349-63; Joan Roussel Sargent, "Theme and Struc­ ture in the Plays of Thomas Middleton," Diss. London 1966; Rowland H. Evans, "Realism and Convention in the Action of Middleton's Comedy," Diss. Johns Hopkins 1942, who bases his view of the moral conflict in the play upon the impropriety of rising out of one's social class; and Norman Rabkin, "The Double Plot in Elizabethan Drama," Diss. Harvard 1959.

3This view of Michaelmas Term is shared by Wilbur Dunkel, Dramatic Technique of Thomas Middleton in His Comedies of London Life (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press [Private Edition], 1925); Brian Gibbons, Jacobean City Comedy: A Study of Satiric Plays by Jonson, Marston and Middleton (London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1968); and Stephen J. Brown, "World of Wit, A Study of Middleton's Early Comedy," Diss. Yale 1959. Brown's work was particularly valuable to the present study both for discussions of specific uses of irony and for hints into the significance of the play's ironic nature.

^Levin, p. xiv.

^Richard Levin, "Sexual Equations in the Elizabethan Double Plot," Literature and Psychology, 16 (1967), 2-14. Levin's thesis is that the pursuit of money and lust are mutually exclusive, as the devotion to achieving one so debilitates a character that he is then unable to achieve success in pursuing the other. This would, according to Levin, account for Lethe's success in lechery but his failure to achieve wealth, and also Quomodo’s success in business and his failure to satisfy his wife. He argues, then, that each drive represents a kind of non-productivity, a sterility which results from a fixation upon wealth, and a social inadequacy which stems from the debilitation of lechery. It is this concept of sterility, ironically unrecognized 92

by Lethe and Quomodo, who seek social acceptance, with which I am concerned here.

8Sargent, p. 54.

7Bains, p. 113.

8Sargent, p. 77.

9The relationship between the Country Wench and her Father might be an exception to this premise, but their contacts are so quarrelsome that it is difficult to posit any.kind of very warm rela­ tionship between them. It is true that the Father has come to "rescue" his daughter, but the inability of the two to recognize each other must qualify this deep-felt devotion of the Father, as must the cavalier departure of his daughter for the life she has "long desired" (II.ii. 13). In addition the Father's pose as regained sinner is conventional and little short of pompous and must certainly have been intended as humorous rather than as a representation of Middleton's resolution of this play's "moral dilemma." Rearage must certainly have seen him as a pompous, but useful bumpkin in their mutual scheme to undo Lethe, though the abrupt disappearance of the Father must keep all specula­ tions about his ultimate role a matter of conjecture.

Chapter III

•'•Most critics have seen the play from a limited perspective which has prevented them from seeing the full development and signifi­ cance of the play. For example, R. B. Parker ("Middleton's Experiments with Comedy and Judgment," Jacobean Theatre, eds. J. R. Brown and Bernard Harris, Stratford-Upon-Avon Series, 1 [New York: St. Martin's Press, 1960], p. 185) feels that Middleton's "first impulse was to denounce vice, no matter how comic." Other critics than Parker have held Middleton's drama to be clearly moralistic. William Slights, "The Trickster-Hero and Middleton's A Mad World, My Masters," CompD, 3 (1969) , concludes that "this is a world in which intended knavery in­ variably issues in actual right action" (pp. 87-89). In moral terms, A Mad World illustrates the ability of good to perpetuate itself ..." (p. 93). Others, such as J. Roussel Sargent, "Theme and Structure in the Plays of Thomas Middleton," Diss. London 1966, p. 150, believe that the play "is not really about anything; it has no signification. . . . And if the play 'says' nothing we must remember its title. It is a mad world. ..." This view of the play as having no moral significance is shared by Robert Williams, in "Skepticism in the Jacobean Comedies of Thomas Middleton, Ben Jonson, and John Fletcher," Diss. California 1966. 93

Between these two extremes is another group of critics, e.g., Wilbur Dunke1, The Dramatic Techniques of Thomas Middleton in His Comedies of London Life (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press [Private Edition], 1925), who see that, "although Middleton ridicules very severely at times he never points a moral" (p. 87). 9 I have used the concept of cause and effect here in keeping with Levin’s explanation of an "efficient" cause: cf. The Multiple Plot in English Renaissance Drama (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971), pp. 8ff. However, as I have indicated, I do not agree with Levin that Frank is a casual rather than a causal factor in the interaction of these two plots.

3The irony of this moment is made even more rich by the courtesan’s names: Frank—which she is not—and Gullman—which she does but which her victims do not suspect.

^Mistress Harebrain is a character who, like the Country Wench in Michaelmas Term, is apparently in a transitional stage. She is not still fully a dupe (She is a willing participant in gulling her hus­ band) , nor yet fully initiated into the ranks of the skillful rogue (She is apparently genuinely swayed by Penitent’s reformation). Indeed, her passivity seems to indicate that she may never equal the clever, incisive perception of her tutor, Frank Gullman, and her chief function may be only to serve as a foil to the pompous Harebrain and Penitent, as Inesse and Possibility have served as foils to Sir Bounteous and Harebrain.

5Standish Henning, ed., "Introduction," A Mad World, My Masters. Regents Renaissance Drama Series (London: Edward Arnold, 1965), p. xvii, calls Inesse and Possibility "odd allegorical gulls." Their names, of course, have legal reference to their roles as heirs; their estates are variously in hand (in esse) or possible (expected). In terms of allegory they seem to represent, as I suggest, the wealthy indolence and sterility of the gentry class and its materialistic values.

6Harebrain's faith in the courtesan, like that displayed by Follywit, is made to appear ironic by the self-contradiction which is implied in her two names.

7Charles A. Hallett, "Penitent Brothel, the Succubus and Parson’s Resolution: A Reappraisal of Penitent’s Position in Middle­ ton’s Canon," SP, 69 (1972), 72-86. It is significant, of course, that Middleton himself has Harebrain refer to Parson’s book as the catechet­ ical text for his wife (I.ii.49-50).

6Ibid., p. 81. 94

9For a detailed discussion of the seventeenth-century view of the way in which such moral ambivalence affected the human conscious­ ness see Thomas Wright, The Passions of the Minde in Generali, introd. by Thomas Sloan (1604; facs. rpt. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1971). Wright says, in part, "the passion therefore which hindereth and stoppeth the eyes of the understanding from the consideration of those means which might move the mind to withdraw itself from that action, may well be said to blind the wit ... by hindering it from action" (p. 50).

Chapter IV

^The Dampit scenes have been generally discounted, even by such notable scholars as R. H. Barker and R. B. Parker; and of those critics who have made real efforts to accommodate them to the thematic and structural integrity of the play few have succeeded. The most complete and useful examinations of the Dampit scenes are to be found in Joan R. Sargent, "Theme and Structure in the Plays of Thomas Middleton," Diss. London 1966, pp. 97-105; G. J. Watson’s Introduction to his edition of A Trick to Catch the Old One, The New Mermaids Series (London: Ernest Benn, 1968), pp. xxix-xxxi; and Richard Levin, "The Dampit Scenes in A Trick to Catch the Old One," MLQ, 25 (1964), 140-52.

2Watson, p. xvii.

3M. C. Bradbrook, The Growth and Structure of Elizabethan Comedy (1955; rpt. London: Peregrine Books, 1963), p. 166.

^Middleton's use here of the name Witgood (good wit) is reminiscent of his similar use of names in A Mad World, My Masters. Witgood's name, his only one, in fact, is a constant reminder of the irony which underlies the mistaken perceptions of Lucre and Hoard.

5Bradbrook, p. 166.

6Sargent, p. 101. My debt to Professor Sargent for the devel­ opment of this view of Dampit is considerable. Her explanation of the "bed scene" is particularly cogent, and, since I have been unable to improve upon much of her argument, I have made extensive use of it.

7Y. S. Bains, "A Critical Study of Thomas Middleton's Comedies for the Children of Paul's," Diss. Syracuse 1964, p. 152.

8Watson, p. xxxi. 95

9Levin, p. 147.

10Ibid., p. 148.

^Indeed, the appearance of the three Creditors, rather than disrupting Witgood’s plan, seems rather to affirm his real abilities to persevere under the most adverse conditions. In addition their final interruption underscores the parallel wit of the Courtesan and prepares us fully for the ultimate gulling of Hoard.

12E.g., the following from the Courtesan’s concluding speech: Lo, gentlemen, before you all In true reclaimed form I fall Henceforth for ever I defy The glances of a sinful eye. (V.i.167-70) 96

A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aristotle. The Ethics of Aristotle [Nicomachean Ethics]. Trans. J. A. K. Thomas. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1955.

Bains, Y. S. A Critical Study of Thomas Middleton's Comedies for the Children of Paul's. Diss. Syracuse, 1964.

Baker, George P. Dramatic Technique. Boston: Houghton, 1919.

Bald, R. C. "The Chronology of Thomas Middleton's Plays," MLR, 32 (1937), 33-43.

______. "The Sources of Middleton's City Comedies," JEGP, 33 (1934), 373-87.

Barker, Richard H. Thomas Middleton. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1958.

Bradbrook, M. C. The Growth and Structure of Elizabethan Comedy. 1954; rpt. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963.

Brown, Stephen J. World of Wit, A Study of Middleton's Early Comedy. Diss. Yale, 1959.

Bullock, Helene B. "Thomas Middleton and the Fashion in Playmaking," PMLA, 42 (1927), 766-76.

Caputi, Anthony. John Marston, Satirist. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1961.

Chatterji, Ruby. "Unity and Disparity in Michaelmas Term," SEL, 8 (1968), 349-63.

Christian, Mildred G. "Middleton's Acquaintance with the Merrie Conceited Jests of George Peele," PMLA, 50 (1935), 753-60.

Clancy, Joseph P. Structure in the Plays of Thomas Middleton. Diss. Fordham, 1957.

Colie, Rosalie L. Paradoxia Epidemica: The Renaissance Tradition of Paradox. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1966.

Corrigan, Robert W., Ed. Comedy: Meaning and Form. San Francisco: Chandler, 1965.

Creizenach, Wilhelm. The English Drama in the Age of Shakespeare. Trans. Cecile Hugon. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1916. 97

Dodson, Daniel B. Thomas Middleton's City Comedies. Diss. Columbia, 1954.

Doran, Madeleine. Endeavors of Art: A Study of Form in Elizabethan Drama. 1954; rpt. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1964.

Dunkel, Wilbur. The Dramatic Technique of Thomas Middleton in His Drama of London Life. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press [Private Edition], 1925.

Eberle, Gerald J. A Critical Edition of Thomas Middleton's A Mad World, My Masters. Diss. Wisconsin, 1944.

Eccles, Mark. "Thomas Middleton a Poett," SP, 54 (1957), 516-36.

Eliot, T. S. "Ben Jonson," The Sacred Wood. 1920; rpt. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1960, pp. 104-22.

______. "Thomas Middleton," TLS, 30 (June, 1927), 445-46.

Ellis-Fermor, Una. The Jacobean Drama: An Introduction. 1935; rpt. New York: Vintage Books, 1964.

Enck, John J. Jonson and the Comic Truth. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1957.

Evans, Rowland H. Realism and Convention in the Action of Middleton's Comedy. Diss. Johns Hopkins, 1942.

Freeburg, Victor. Disguise Plots in Elizabethan Drama: A Study in Stage Tradition. Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature. 1915; rpt. New York: Benjamin Blom, 1965.

Gibbons, Brian. Jacobean City Comedy: A Study of Satiric Plays by Jonson, Marston and Middleton. London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1968.

Greenfield, Thelma N. The Induction in Elizabethan Drama. Eugene: Univ. of Oregon Press, 1969.

Gum, Coburn. The Aristophanic Comedies of Ben Jonson. Diss. Duke, 1962.

Hallett, Charles A. "Penitent Brothel, the Succubus and Parson’s Resolution: A Reappraisal of Penitent’s Position in Middleton's Canon," SP, 69 (1972), 72-86.

Harbage, Alfred. Shakespeare and the Rival Traditions. New York: Macmillan, 1952. 98

Herrick, Marvin T. Comic Theory in the Sixteenth Century. 1950; rpt. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1964.

Holmes, David M. The Art of Thomas Middleton: A Critical Study. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1970.

Howells, Anne B. Bravery and the Observation of the Inevitable: A Study of Beaumont and Fletcher, Ford, and Middleton. Diss. Univ. of Washington, 1968.

Jackson, Gabriele. Vision and Judgment in Ben Jonson's Drama. New Haven and London: Yale Univ. Press, 1968.

Kirsch, Arthur C. Jacobean Dramatic Perspectives. Charlottesville: The Univ. Press of Virginia, 1972.

Kitto, H. D. F. Form and Meaning in Drama: A Study of Six Greek Plays and of Hamlet. 1956; rpt. London: Methuen, 1960.

______. Greek Tragedy: A Literary Study. 1954; rpt. Garden City: Doubleday, 1962.

Knights, L. C. Drama and Society in the Age of Jonson. 1937; rpt. London: Chatto & Windus, 1962.

Lane, Ralph H. Thomas Middleton's A Mad World, My Masters. Diss. George Washington, 1946.

Levin, Richard. "The Dampit Scenes in A Trick to Catch the Old One," MLQ, 25 (1964), 140-52.

______. The Multiple Plot in English Renaissance Drama. Chicago and London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971.

______. "Sexual Equations in the Elizabethan Double Plot," L&P, 16 (1967), 2-14.

Lisca, Peter. "The Revenger's Tragedy: A Study in Irony," PQ, 38 (1959), 242-51; reprinted in Shakespeare's Contemporaries. 2nd ed. Eds. Max Bluestone and Norman Rabkin. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970.

Lynch, Kathleen M. The Social Mode of Restoration Comedy. Univ. of Michigan Publications in Language and Literature, III. New York: Macmillan, 1926.

Marotti, Arthur F. "The Method in the Madness of A Mad World, My Masters," TSL, 15 (1971), 99-108. 99

Marotti, Arthur F. Middleton's Mature Drama (1611-1623): A Study in Artistic Continuity. Diss. Johns Hopkins, 1965.

Maxwell, Baldwin. "Middleton's Michaelmas Term," PQ, 22 (1943), 29-35.

Middleton, Thomas. A Mad World, My Masters. Ed Standish Henning. Regents Renaissance Drama Series. London: Edward Arnold, 1965.

______. Michaelmas Term. Ed. Richard Levin. Regents Renaissance Drama Series. London: Edward Arnold, 1966.

_____ A Trick to Catch the Old One. Ed. Charles Barber. Fountainhill Drama Texts. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1968.

______. A Trick to Catch the Old One. Ed. G. J. Watson. The New Mermaids Series. London: Ernest Benn, 1968.

______. The Works of Thomas Middleton. 8 vols. Ed. A. H. Bullen. Boston: Houghton, 1885.

Muir, Kenneth. "Swinburne on Middleton," TLS, 25 (February, 1945), 91.

Olley, Francis R. Romantic Elements in the Plays of Thomas Middleton. Diss. Fordham, 1965.

Parker, R. B. "Middleton's Experiments with Comedy and Judgement," Jacobean Theatre. Eds. John R. Brown and Bernard Harris. Stratford-Upon-Avon Series, 1. New York: St. Martin's, 1960, pp. 179-99.

Power, W. "Thomas Middleton vs. King James," N&Q, N.S., 4 (1957), 526-34.

Power, William L. The Ethical Pattern in the Plays of Thomas Middleton. Diss. Vanderbilt, 1955.

Price, George. A Critical Edition of Thomas Middleton's Michaelmas Term. Diss. Wisconsin, 1941.

______. "The Early Editions of A Trick to Catch the Old One," Library, 5th Series, 22 (1967), 205-27.

Rabkin, Norman. The Double Plot in Elizabethan Drama. Diss. Harvard, 1959.

Sargent, J. Roussel. Theme and Structure in the Plays of Thomas Middleton. Diss. London, 1966. 100

Schelling, Felix E. Elizabethan Drama, 1558-1642. 2 vols. 2nd ed., 1908; rpt. Boston: Houghton, 1911.

______. "Some Features of the Supernatural as Represented in Plays of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James," MP, 1 (1903), 31-47.

Schoenbaum, Samuel. Middleton's Tragedies: A Critical Study. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1955.

Sharpe, Robert B. Irony in the Drama. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1959.

Slights, William. "The Trickster-Hero and Middleton's A Mad World, My Masters," CompD, 3 (1969), 87-98.

Stonex, A. R. "The Usurer in Elizabethan Drama," PMLA, 31 (1916), 190-210.

Swinburne, Algernon Charles. "Thomas Middleton," The Nineteenth Century, 19 (1886), 138-53.

Taylor, Michael. A Critical Old-Spelling Edition of Thomas Middleton's A Mad World, My Masters (1608), and an Annotated Bibliography of Thomas Middleton, 1940-61. Diss. Birmingham, 1963.

______. "Realism and Morality in Middleton's A Mad World, My Masters," L&P, 18 (1968), 166-78.

Thompson, Alan R. The Dry Mock: A Study of Irony in Drama. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1948.

Williams, Robert. Skepticism in the Jacobean Comedies of Thomas Middleton, Ben Jonson, and John Fletcher. Diss. Univ. of California, Berkeley, 1966.

Williamson, Marilyn. A Critical Study of Thomas Middleton's Early Comedies. Diss. Duke, 1956.

Wright, Louis B. Middle-Class Culture in Elizabethan England. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1935.

Wright, Thomas. The Passions of the Minde in Generali. Introduction by Thomas Sloan. 1604; rpt. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1971.