Ben Jonson's Theme of Reality Vs Illusion with Special Reference To

Electronic Research Journal of Literature, Volume 3 (2021) ISSN: 2708-3675 www.erjliterature.com

Ben Jonson’s theme of reality vs illusion with special reference to The Alchemist

Hazhar Ramadhan Ahmed Lecturer and PhD Researcher, University of Raparin College of Basic Education, Kurdistan Regional Government, Iraq Email: [email protected]

Abstract:

Keywords: Ben Jonson, theme of The Alchemist, reality in The Alchemist, Illusion in The Alchemist, etc.

Introduction:

The contrast between reality and illusion is a prominent theme in the Alchemist. People are not what they seem to be. They are not what they say they are. They are not able to maintain or sustain their true identities. They either mask their identities deliberately or are made to forget their identities by others. In short, there is a marked disparity between what is and what seems to be. To begin with the conspirators, the chief villain among them is Subtle because without him the conspiracy would have no legs to stand upon. At the very outset, Dol addresses him as “sovereign”; and the audience is bound to feel impressed and even awed if he had not used the obscene word “far” in his first remark. In any case, the reality of this man is exposed almost immediately afterward by Face who reveals that Subtle had originally been starving and that he had been walking around food-shops, looking like the “father of hunger” (Amir and Ahmad, 2020a; 2020b). Face then also points out that Subtle, with all his alchemy, his algebra, his minerals, his vegetal, his animals, his conjuring, his cozening, and his dozen of trades did not even have a rag on his body (Amir and Aurangzeb, 2020). Face claims that it was he who had provided Subtle with all the apparatus, the materials, and the furnace to establish a sort of laboratory for his so-called alchemical process by means of which he could throw the dust into the eyes of his clients and thus rob them. Face now threatens to punish Subtle’s hollowness and his empty pretensions. Face goes on to say that he will advertise all Subtle’s impostures and would expose the falsity of his claims regarding the philosopher’s stone (Ouellette, 2005). Thus it is obvious that there is a big disparity between what Subtle claims to be and what he really is.

9 Electronic Research Journal of Literature, Volume 3 (2021) ISSN: 2708-3675 www.erjliterature.com

The Case of Face and of Dol: If Dol addresses Subtle at the beginning as “sovereign,” she addresses Face as “general.” Later, Face’s reality is exposed at once by Subtle in the course of the quarrel between them. Subtle reveals that Face was originally a “livery-three-pound-thrum” and that later he was translated into a bogus soldier wearing a captain’s uniform. According to Subtle, Face used to live by selling his master’s provisions which were actually meant for distribution among the poor. Subtle claims that he had picked up Face out of the dung and that Face was then a poor, wretched man having no living creature as his companion except a spider. Subtle says that it was he who had “sublimed” Face, “exalted him, and raised him to the highest pitch of refinement.” It was he who had taught Face “how to swear, how to quarrel, and how to make money at horse-races, at the cock-pit, at cards, and at dice.” Subtle further says that, but for him, Face would still have been living in underground cellars in the midst of horse-dung or in an ale-house darker than a toilet which is out of order. But for subtle, this man would have been lost to all mankind except to washerwomen and barmen. These exposures of the two men by each other are then confirmed by the exchange of abusive words between them. “Cheater, bawd, cow-herd, conjurer, cut-purse, and witch;” such are the compliments which they pay to each other. Subtle says: “Away, you trencher-rascal;” while Face says to him: “Out, you dog-leech, the vomit of all prisons.” Later, the same Dol, who had previously addressed them as “sovereign” and as “general” respectively, comes out with the truth about them. She addresses them as “perpetual curs.” She describes Face as a “whoreson, an upstart, a fake captain,” adding that not “a Puritan in this locality would have trusted him for so much as a feather.” She also tells Subtle that he has no business “to claim primacy in this tripartite venture.” When Dol intervenes in the quarrel, Face contemptuously calls her “a bitch.” However, when the quarrel is made up, Subtle describes this woman as “royal Dol” who has “spoken like Claridiana,” while Face says that she would no longer be described as “Dol Common” but as “Dol proper” and as “Dol Singular”, who would sit in triumph at supper that night (Ouellette, 2005).

False Roles Assumed by Subtle: All these facts about the three conspirators are brought out in the opening scene. In other words, it is revealed what they are actually and what they have been posing to be. Later, this contrast between reality and illusion takes another shape. Subtle is thought by all his clients to be the alchemist, the miracle-worker. When Mammon arrives in the company of Surly at Subtle’s establishment, Subtle and Face begin to talk to each other in detail about the alchemical process which is supposed to be going on in the laboratory inside. Face reports that the liquid on the furnace is changing its color, while Subtle gives him further instructions as to what is to be done (Ouellette, 2005). The men use alchemical jargon like specialists in their art to impress visitors. Subtle says that two of his inferior works are at fixation and that the third is in ascension. When Mammon, who also has picked up some of the technical vocabularies, asks when Subtle would make the projection. Subtle replies that there should be no haste in doing so because the longer the time he takes to do so, the more powerful and the more effective would the philosopher’s stone become. He then directs Mammon to send all his metallic goods to the laboratory for conversion into gold. The matter does not end here. In order to satisfy Surly, the alchemist propounds the theory of alchemy, providing a scientific basis for it. He says that gold did not originally exist as gold but that it existed as “prime matter” which, in the course of the ages, developed into gold after passing through many intermediate stages (Amir and Aurangzeb, 2020). However, Surly remains

10 Electronic Research Journal of Literature, Volume 3 (2021) ISSN: 2708-3675 www.erjliterature.com

unconvinced and repudiates Subtle’s arguments. In this scene, Subtle, Face and Mammon are all on one side while Surly is on the opposite side, disputing the claims made by the others. Then comes Ananias as a representative of the Anabaptists at Amsterdam. The Anabaptists have already paid Subtle a certain amount of money for the production of the philosopher’s stone, and Ananias has now come to find out if the philosopher’s stone is ready. Once again Subtle, in an effort to impress his client, uses much technical jargon. In fact, he interrogates Face regarding the alchemical process, putting a long series of questions to him, with Face giving the correct answers. However, Ananias too remains unconvinced, as Surly did. Ananias describes all this jargon as “heathen language”. When Ananias refuses to pay any more money to Subtle, Subtle drives him away, with the threat that, if the Anabaptists do not send him the additional money, he would wreck the alchemist process which is expected to yield the philosopher’s stone. Thus here the disparity between reality and appearance is emphasized. Drugger also pays a second visit to obtain a sign of good luck; and Subtle gives him the required sign, while Face says that Drugger’s fortune is now made. Face’s praise of Subtle here is noteworthy. He tells Drugger that the doctor is the only man in Christendom who can teach Kastril the true art of quarrelling. Face says that Subtle has devised a table with mathematical demonstrations regarding the art of quarrelling. Subtle would give Kastril an instrument to quarrel by. Face then asks Drugger to bring both Kastril and Kastril’s sister to the doctor, directing him also to bring a new damask suit for the doctor. Mammon’s high praise of Subtle as the alchemist and Face’s equally high praise of that man, combined with Subtle’s exposition of the theory of alchemy, (Amir and Aurangzeb, 2020) build up a really exalted image of Subtle; but this image is impressive only in the eyes of Subtle’s clients. So far as the audience are concerned, they would side with Surly and, like Surly, they are aware of the reality of the man. Subsequently, this alchemist appears in the guise of a priest of the Queen of Fairies. Still, later he plays the role of an intriguer by hatching a plot with Dol against Face (Aurangzeb, 2019).

Face’s Several Faces: Face himself appears in various guises in the course of the play. His reality has already been made known by Subtle in the Scene where it is learnt that Face was living all alone in his master’s house when he met Subtle. Now it is revealed that Face has been trained by Subtle as an alchemist’s assistant to whom Mammon refers to as “Lungs.” At the same time, it is also learnt that Face often wears the uniform of a captain in order to hoodwink people. It is in a captain’s uniform that he goes to meet Surly at the appointed place in order to try to gull him. Subsequently, Face acts as a procurer to Mammon by introducing him to Dol; and he acts as a procurer to Surly by introducing him to Dame Pliant who has, under Face’s persuasion, agreed to surrender her body to Surly for Surly’s sexual pleasure. Then in one of the scenes, Face imitates the language of a fairy in order to hoodwink Dapper. However, Dol still addresses him as “general” and as “lord general” (Ouellette, 2005). He gives her an impression that Spanish Don is coming to meet her, and that the Don would become a prisoner of her beauty and charm. Face deals effectively with Kastril also. He assures Kastril that the doctor would do a great deal for him and for his sister. Finally, Face appears in his true colours as Jeremy the butler. Thus this man undergoes several transformations in the course of the play and each time he has to wear different clothes suiting his pretensions of the moment. Throughout the play, the irony of the situation exists and the contrast between what Face seems to the others to be and what he is really is evident. Even at the end, his

11 Electronic Research Journal of Literature, Volume 3 (2021) ISSN: 2708-3675 www.erjliterature.com

reality does not become known to the ex-clients of the doctor because none of them can recognize him in his butler’s uniform and with his beard shaved.

The Multiple Personality of Dol: Dol too has a dual or multiple personality. In the opening scene, she is one of the three partners in the fraud which is being practiced upon the various customers and clients. Later she is introduced to Mammon as a lord’s sister who, being subject to fits of madness, has been sent to Subtle for treatment. Face tells Mammon that this lady is most rare scholar who has gone mad with studying the works of the Hebrew scholar, Hugh Broughton. Mammon is so fascinated by Dol that he begins to pay glowing tributes to her, comparing her features and countenance to those of the members of royal families. Dol, in her replies to these tributes, speaks as if she really belonged to a royal family. In other words, she is as much of a counterfeit at this time as either of her partners. A little later she pretends to have got into a fit of madness. Still later she appears as the Queen of fairies in order to gull Dapper. She tells Dapper that she would have felt annoyed with him for his slackness but that she is so charmed by his sweet face that all her annoyance has melted away. She then says to him (Aurangzeb, 2019):

“Much, nephew, shalt thou win; much shalt thou spend;/Much shalt thou give away; much shalt thou tend.” Eventually, she too turns hostile to Face and joins Subtle’s plot against him.

The Cases of Dapper and Drugger: There are dupes in the play also. Dapper is actually a lawyer’s clerk but he would like to give up his job in order to become a whole-time gambler, his object being to acquire wealth with the help of the familiar or the attendant spirit to be provided to him by the alchemist (Lake and Questier, 2002). Thus this man wishes to give up his real identity in order to acquire a new identity which, however, eludes him. But that is not all. He is also told that he is a nephew of the Queen of Fairies. In order to receive his aunt’s blessings, he even allows himself to be blindfolded, gagged and stowed away in the toilet. Subsequently, when Dol appears in the disguise of the Queen of Fairies, he actually believes that he is in the presence of his aunt who has come to shower her blessing on him and thus to make him rich. Drugger is, in reality, a petty shopkeeper, a tobacconist, described by Face as a miserable rogue who lives with cheese and who has the worms (in his stomach). Such is the reality of this man but when he comes to the doctor, he is introduced by Face to the doctor as a highly sophisticated tobacconist who keeps his tobacco in fine lily-pots, giving to it the flavor of roses of French beans. Subtle thereupon says that very soon Drugger would be offered the post of a sheriff and that there are greater things waiting for him in the future. Subtle examines the lines on Drugger’s forehead and on Drugger’s palm and reads his fortune in a most flattering manner, saying that Drugger would become a most prosperous merchant and trader (Foley, 1949: Ahmed 2020a; 2020b; 2020c; 2020d). Later he is given the “thriving sign” by the doctor and is given an assurance that he would be married to the widow, Dame Pliant. He feels fully convinced that his marriage to the widow would materialize and, to that end, he brings a Spanish dress and also a priest who is expected to perform the wedding ceremony. But Drugger finds himself cheated of all his hopes, like the other dupes. Thus, in this case, too, the disparity between appearance and reality is striking.

12 Electronic Research Journal of Literature, Volume 3 (2021) ISSN: 2708-3675 www.erjliterature.com

The Case of the Anabaptists: The Anabaptists stand in a class by itself. They represent the Puritan creed; and Jonson was bitterly opposed to the Puritans, chiefly because they condemned the theatre and the dramatic performances (Malin, 1992). Jonson was also opposed to them because of their hypocrisy (Lake and Questier, 2002). In the play, Tribulation and Ananias is depicted as greedy and hypocritical, their piety is only a pose. Subtle gets an excellent opportunity to expose their hypocritical ways and devices. They are depicted as avaricious and dishonest. They are ready to accept false dollars from the alchemist, and they propose to become temporal lords. In every sense of the words, these men are worldly-minded; and yet they pretend to be full of religious zeal (Russell, 1929).

The Case of Mammon: The case of Mammon further reinforces the theme of the between reality and illusion. Mammon’s grandiose speeches about the wealth he aspires to, and the sexual pleasures which he hopes to enjoy are highly poetic and eloquent (Arnold, 1965). He entertains radiant visions of his future, comparing himself in wealth and luxury to the ancient King Solomon. He has some generous impulses also because he speaks of curing people of their diseases and of establishing hospitals and other institutions of public welfare. But essentially he is obsessed by his visions of wealth, grandeur, luxury, and unlimited and endless sexual pleasure. He would turn everything into gold by means of the philosopher’s stone, and he would maintain a large harem of mistresses and concubines (Malin, 1992). Through the philosopher’s stone, he would acquire enough strength to perform sexual intercourse with fifty women in one night. However, all these visions collapse through a manipulated explosion in the laboratory. The explosion is attributed to Mammon’s lustful indulgence on the sacred premises. Mammon, a fool as he is, admits his error and goes away, feeling ashamed of his disgraceful conduct (Dykeman, 1988; Arora, 2020). Eventually, he declares that he would mount a turnip-cart and announce to the people that the world would end within the next two months. Thus in the end, he is a deeply frustrated and disappointed man.

The Case of Surly: Surly is an Englishman and a friend of Mammon. However, at one point he comes to Subtle’s bathhouse in the disguise of a rich Spanish Don. He pretends that he knows no English and that he can speak only Spanish. Face and Subtle are unable to see through the disguise, and they treat him as really a Spanish Don knowing no English. This gives rise to an ironic situation in which it makes fun of Surly pretending not to understand the mocking remarks which Face and Subtle make to each other about him. Here again, the disparity between what a man is and what he says he is, is observed (Arnold, 1965). Even Dame Pliant is made to believe that she has to deal with a Spanish Don, and that she must submit to his love-making in case she wants to become a Spanish countess. Subsequently, of course, Surly discloses his true identity not only to Dame Pliant but also to the rogues, one of whom receives a beating from him though at the end of this scene Surly has to beat a hasty retreat from this place in order to save his own skin.

The Case of Lovewit: When Lovewit appears on the scene, he is expected to expose all the rogues and to side with the gulls who have been robbed of their money and valuables. But in this case, once more,

13 Electronic Research Journal of Literature, Volume 3 (2021) ISSN: 2708-3675 www.erjliterature.com

the contrast between reality and illusion is evident. The expectation, that Lovewit would take suitable action against the rogues and restore the looted cash and valuables to the respective owners, is completely belied (Craig, 1999; Donaldson, 1997). The thought that Lovewit would prove to be a man of honesty and integrity, is not materialized but Lovewit promptly accepts the bride offered to him by his butler, the bride being Lovewit’s marriage to Dame Pliant; and Lovewit then sides with his butler whole-heartedly. Subtle and Dol having already been made to escape from the house by Face, Lovewit now undertakes to deal with the gulls, and he does deal with them effectively and sternly, driving all of them away, one after the other.

Conclusion:

References and Bibliography:

Ahmed, H. R. (2020a). Philosophy of Feminism and Suffering of Western Women Concurring to Charlotte Bronte’s Novel ‘Jane Eyre.’ Electronic Research Journal of Literature, 2: 45-52.

Ahmed, H. R. (2020b). Poet as a Messenger of Aesthetic among Society. Journal of Arts, Literature, Humanities and Social Sciences,48: 452-456.

Ahmed, H. R. (2020c). The Formularization of the East Simulacrum in the Poetic Consonance of Walter De La Mare. Journal of University of Raparin, 7 (1):563-574.

Ahmed, H. R. (2020d). The Impersonation of Nature in the Poetic Consonance of Emily Dickinson. Journal of Arts, Literature, Humanities and Social Sciences, 55: 373-383.

Akhtar, M. (2019). The Character of Shylock as Unredeemed Monster of Medieval Imagination: An Analysis with respect to “The Merchant of Venice” by William Shakespeare. Electronic Research Journal of Literature, 1: 41-47.

Amir, S., and Ahmad, F. (2020a). “The Alchemist” as a moral comedy portraying natural follies; an analysis of ben Jonson’s poetic justice. Innovare Journal of Education, 8 (III):1-3.

Amir, S., and Ahmad, F. (2020b). Jonson’s Comic and Satirical Genius: An Analysis of Satiric Portraits and Comic Elements in the Alchemist. Scopia International Journal for Science, Commerce & Arts, 1(1):14-18.

Amir, S., Aurangzeb, M. (2020). The importance of Alchemy as a theme: An analysis of “The Alchemist” by Ben Jonson. Angloamericanae Journal, 5 (I):1-9.

14 Electronic Research Journal of Literature, Volume 3 (2021) ISSN: 2708-3675 www.erjliterature.com

Arnold, J. B. (1965). Form and meaning in the comedies of Ben Johnson. Thesis (Ph.D.) University of Connecticut.

Arora, M. P. (2020). Emerging Issues Related To Validity And Reliability: A Case Study Of Vivek Agnihotri’s The Tashkent Files. Electronic Research Journal of Literature, 2 (2020): 1-8.

Aurangzeb, M. (2019). Merits and Flaws in the Plot and Structure of “The Alchemist” by Ben Jonson. Electronic Research Journal of Literature, 1 (2019): 33-40.

Craig, D. H. (1999). Ben Jonson: The Critical Heritage. London: Routledge

Donaldson, I. (1997). Jonson's Magic Houses: Essays in Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press

Dykeman, W. (1988). A Lasting, High and Happy Memory; Ben Johnson (1603). Appalachian Heritage, 16 (2): 4-6.

Foley, L. (1949). The doctrine of humors in the comedies of Ben Johnson. Thesis (M.A.) Boston University

Greenhill, P. (1993). Ben Johnson Jokes: Flaws in the Canadian Mosaic. Fabula, 34 (1-2): 78-89

Gurr, A. (1996). Play-going in Shakespeare's London. 2nd edition; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Iyanda, R. O. (2019). Fables As Panacea To Unethical Behaviours in Societies. Electronic Research Journal of Literature 1 (2019): 1-8.

Lake, P. & Questier, M. (2002). The Anti-Christ’s Lewd Hat: Protestants, Papists & Players in Post-Reformation England. Yale University Press

Malin, C. J. (1992). The concept and clinical applications: William Ben Jonson, DDS. Journal of Endodontics 18 (8): 418–419.

Ouellette, A. (2005). The Alchemist and the Emerging Adult Private Playhouse. SEL: Studies in English Literature 1500–1900, p. 45

Prithivirajan, S. (2019). Critical Reading of the Character: Vishwamitra in Amish Tripathi’s “Sita: Warrior of Mithila.” Electronic Research Journal of Literature 1 (2019): 26-29.

Priyadharshni, M. S. (2019). Unity of All Life in P. L. Travers’ “Mary Poppins.” Electronic Research Journal of Literature 1 (2019): 30-32.

Russell, M. E. (1929). The classical drama as interpreted by Ben Jonson and Racine. Thesis (M.A.). Catholic University of America

15 Electronic Research Journal of Literature, Volume 3 (2021) ISSN: 2708-3675 www.erjliterature.com

Talha., and Bashar, K. (2019). Human Conscience in Walter de la Mare’s The Listener: An Allegorical Exploration. Electronic Research Journal of Literature, 1 (2019): 48-54.

Waheed, A. (2019). Say ‘No’ to Female Stereotyping: A Case Study of ‘Bhag Amina Bhag.’ Electronic Research Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 1 (II): 8-20.

Waheed, A. (2019). The Eve, The Modern Media and Centuries Old Ideologies. Electronic Research Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 1 (III): 54-58.