under his own eye, and he is accountable for nothing beyond it.' Gifford misses the main point. Of course Jonson had nothing to do with the publication of the version which appeared after his death; but that does not argue that he was not the author of it, and responsible for the sentiments expressed therein. Gifford himself says that the version of The Gipsies Metamorphosed which appeared in the little volume of 1640 was printed from a copy which had stolen abroad; ' and again, in the same paragraph, he speaks of it as 'the surreptitious copy.' The copy of the Ode which was included in Okes' volume had probably stolen abroad in the same surreptitious manner from the papers left by Jonson at his death. A moment's reflection is sufficient to convince one that the use of the word 'sweepings' is utterly flat without a reference to Brome, and that Jonson could not have employed it without such intention. Gifford shows that he was acquainted with a very significant fact when he writes: "Very shortly after the condemnation of The New Inn, Brome produced a successful piece.' It was 'very shortly'-exactly three weeks, as we learn from Malone, from whom Gifford drew his information: 'Very soon indeed after the ill success of Jonson's piece, the King's Company brought out at the same theatre a new play called The Love-sick Maid, or the Honour of Young Ladies, which was licensed by Sir Henry Herbert on the 9th of February, 1628-9, and acted with extraordinary applause. This play, which was written by Jonson's own servant, Richard Brome, was so popular, that the managers of the King's Company, on the 10th of March, presented the Master of the Revels with two • Ed. of Shakespeare I. 403. 1 Wks. 7. 350. pounds, "on the good success of The Honour of Ladies;" the only instance I have met with of such a compliment being paid him.' With such facts before one, how easy it is to understand the mention of 'Broomes sweeping' in Jonson's Ode, on the supposition that it was written while illness and the sting of failure combined to make him express resentment at the success of one he knew was his inferior; and how natural it was that when two years had worn off the bitterness of such an experience, he should be unwilling to perpetuate the abuse of his old servant. These things were known to Gifford, but he was bent on defending Jonson, and construed facts to suit his case; he has done invaluable service in refuting many of the calumnies that were spread abroad by Steevens, Malone, and others, but the reader who accepts his statements without question will find himself swinging to the other extreme of an undue reverence for the author of this Ode. An instance of this dependence on the authority of Gifford is Ward's assertion that 'in a eulogistic parody on the indignant Ode addressed by Jonson to himself on the failure of the New Inn in 1629, Randolph refers to "What Brome swept from" the master; and in an edition of the Ode published three years after his death the reading "Brome's sweepings" was introduced into its text.' 1 Such statements have nothing to support them but the argument that Jonson was on friendly terms with Brome, and so of course would not say anything 1 Hist. Eng. Dram. Lit. 3. 126. A statement to the same effect is made by Ward in the Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. Brome. Fleay is the only critic who declares 'Broome's sweepings' to be 'undoubtedly the original reading' (Chron. Drama 1. 352). ་ against him. But to appreciate how little dependence can be placed on that conception of the poet's character, one need but study the Ode and the answers which were made to it, for in these we see Ben as he was, and as his contemporaries knew him, and no one can furnish better evidence in the case.1 In order that the reader may better judge for himself, I have gathered together in an appendix, at the end of the text, all the material obtainable in the way of parodies on the Ode, replies to it, and the like. And when he hears Feltham say: Yett, yff men vouch not; thinges apocriphall or Randolph chide more gently: This only in my Ben I faulty find, He's angry, they'll not see him that are blind : or Carew question pertinently: Why should the follies then of this dull age When thine own tongue proclaimes thy ytch of praise? -when all these lights have been thrown on Ben Jonson and his Ode, there will appear in Gifford's picture of the 'sick lion' a great many false lines. For this partisan commentator, though he wrote of Feltham's parody, 'its good sense and pertinacity 1 It is a noteworthy fact that, of the replies to the Ode, 'The Countreys Censure' is the only one which gives evidence of having been written after the publication of The New Inn. Those by Feltham, Randolph, and Carew contain nothing but what might owe its inspiration to the Ode alone. This goes to support the theory that they saw in manuscript the copy of the Ode which contains 'Broomes sweeping,' a reading which Jonson saw fit to alter before publication two years later. See the note to the version of Carew's poem which is included in the Appendix. cannot be denied,' yet failed to carry that admission to its legitimate conclusion in a modification of his portrait of the poet. I shall be extremely sorry if what has been said in this chapter seems to send Ben Jonson back to the limbo of Steevens and Malone, from which he was freed by Gifford. Such a result is far from my purpose, certainly. But a study of the poet's relations with the public at the time of The New Inn causes many of the rosy hues in Gifford's picture to fade away, and brings into prominence certain unlovely traits. The best characterization I can give is that which he himself applies to Macilente; and although Fleay,1 Nicholson,2 and Penniman3 are wrong in assuming that in this rôle Jonson meant to portray himself, it is in these words that I find my conception of the poet's character realized: 'A man well parted, a sufficient scholar, and travelled; who, wanting that place in the world's account which he thinks his merit capable of, falls into such an envious apoplexy, with which his judgment is so dazzled and distasted, that he grows violently impatient of any opposite happiness in another.' WHY THE NEW INN FAILED. Nearly three hundred years have elapsed since the 'hundred fastidious impertinents' passed judgment on The New Inn as a dramatic performance, and in these succeeding centuries no voice has been heard to dispute the justice of their sentence; for although various critics have called attention to portions of 1 Chron. Drama 1. 359. 2 Jonson's Plays, Mermaid Ser., p. 113. Every Man Out, Wks. 2. 5. the play possessing undoubted poetic merit, yet the very passages which deserve recognition on this score are of a nature which would contribute largely to the failure of The New Inn as an acting play, and no one with any pretensions to judgment could fail to agree with Gifford, Malone, and Fleay that it was 'completely,' 'deservedly,' and ' unequivocally' damned. But although the judgments on the intrinsic worth of this comedy have been just, and even merciful, the general misconception of its relation to Jonson's other plays seems due to a disregard of certain important facts. Ever since Dryden characterized Jonson's last plays as his 'dotages,'1 there has been a tendency to apply this term particularly to The New Inn-a judgment suggested perhaps by the poet himself in his epilogue, but one which is not supported by the play. That is, any attempt to characterize this play as a unique instance of mental imbecility and failing powers due to age and infirmity fails to reason from the evidence presented in The New Inn, and in the plays which preceded and followed it. Swinburne, who may be taken as expressing the general opinion of The New Inn, writes: 'But that the work shows portentous signs of mental decay, or at all events of temporary collapse in judgment and in sense, can be questioned by no sane reader of so much as the argument. To rank any preceding play of Jonson's among those dismissed by Dryden as his "dotages" would be to attribute to Dryden a verdict displaying the veriest imbecility of impudence: but to the New Inn that rough and somewhat brutal phrase is on the whole but too plausibly applicable.' A few An Essay of Dramatic Poesy, Wks., ed. Scott, 15. 353. |