3

of Tibullus in Poetaster. I suppose it is the occurrence of the name Delia in Poetaster 1. 3. 33 that lead Fleay to guess that Daniel and Elizabeth Carey were represented in the play. But Plautia, by which name 'Delia' is known throughout the Poetaster, is too perfectly accounted for artistically and historically to warrant our giving her a new and merely fanciful raison d'être. And in any case, Fleay does not tell us which Elizabeth Carey he has in mind, the elder, daughter of Sir John Spencer of Althorpe, kinswoman of Spenser the poet, wife of Sir George Carey, patroness of Spenser,1 Nash,2 and Dowland; or Elizabeth, daughter of the preceding, patroness of Nash, wife of Sir Thomas Berkeley. The dates of the mother's birth and death are not known; the daughter died in 1635. The former must have been nearer Daniel's age, and therefore it may be she to whom Fleay refers. Daniel's fifty sonnets, Delia, were entered S. R. Feb. 4, 1591-2. It is not even ascertained that Delia represented either Elizabeth Carey, for the identity of Daniel's Delia is not established (cf. Daniel's Complete Works, ed. Grosart, Intr. xvii.). Now Plautia, as we have said, is a faithful enough representative of the historical mistress of Tibullus: let us recall what that involves. As Delia, she is spoken of by Tibullus as a married woman, El. 2. 21, but again as assisted in her intrigues by a lena, El. 1. 5. 47. It is at all events clear that the Delia of Tibullus, and therefore the Plautia of Poetaster, was of a class and a character such that no English patroness of poets could have felt honored by being represented under her name and surely Jonson was not given to insulting women. I conclude that Tibullus and Plautia represent no contemporaries of Jonson.

Trebatius plays no actual part in Poetaster, and, as Gifford suggests, may never have appeared on the stage. He has therefore escaped identification and can be allowed to rest in peace.

1

1 Muiopotmos, Ded.

Terrors of the Night, Ded.

"Christ's Tears, Ded.

Tucca. One Plotius Tucca was a friend of Horace and Virgil (cf. Horace, Sat. 1. 5. 40; 1. 10. 81). It might thus seem to an auditor acquainted with the Augustans that Jonson had not been quite happy in his choice of the name for his skeldering Captain. But it will appear below that the dramatist may not have gone back to Horace for the name Tucca. As for Pantilius, that served the purpose perfectly well; for Horace (Sat. 1. 10. 78) speaks of cimex [lit., 'the bug'] Pantilius; and some one has guessed that the name may have been derived originally from πάν+τίλλειν, to pluck or pull out, as hair or feathers (cf. Aristophanes, the Acharnians 31). It has been suggested by Small (Stage-Quarrel 26) that Jonson may have drawn the name Tucca from Guilpin's Skialetheia, 1598, wherein occur (see Satyre Preludium) the following lines:

A third that falls more roundly to his worke,
Meaning to moue her were she lewe or Turke,
Writes perfect Cat and fidle, wantonly,
Tickling her thoughts with masking bawdry:
Which read to Captaine Tucca, he doth sweare,
And scratch, and sweare, and scratch to heare
His owne discourse discours'd: and by the Lord
It's passing good: oh good! at euery word
When his Cock-sparrow thoughts to itch begin,
He with a shrug swearest a most sweet sinne.

As this passage furnishes us 'Captain Tucca' and gives him a character as licentious as that of the Captain in Poetaster, we may well conclude that Jonson had recourse to the classics for Pantilius, but not for Tucca.

Herford remarks (Ben Jonson, Mermaid Ser., I. xxxi): 'Tucca, who, rather than Demetrius, represents the Anaides of the Revels, is the most picturesque ruffian of the Elizabethan stage, a Bobadill in condition, but, instead of his foppish melancholy, overflowing with the boisterous spirits and the rich vocabulary of his contemporary, Sir Toby Belch.' While Tucca's relationship to Anaides is scarcely such as Herford thinks, it is certain that the Captain is

quite Jonsonian; and I fear we must confess that he is the only really vitalized and individual character in Poetaster. Fleay has noticed his resemblance to Shift of Every Man Out (see the Char. of the Persons).

Fleay asserts (Chr. 1. 368) that Tucca purveys boys, the two Pyrgi, for the Pembroke's company; while on the next page he remarks: . Tucca's having served in the wars against Mark Antony, his being only known for a "motion" [can he be Captain Pod, and did he exhibit at Paris Garden?]' Of 'Captain Pod' we know only what Jonson tells us; cf. Epigram 97; Every Man Out 4. 4, Macilente loq.; and Barth. Fair 5. 1: 'O the motions that I Lanthorn Leatherhead have given light to, in my time, since my master Pod died.' On this we have Jonson's note, fol. 1640: 'Pod was a master of motions before him.' Fleay concludes (Chr. 1. 369) with the pious hope that 'Tucca's subornation of the poetasters and his bifronted punishment may perhaps some time lead to his identification.'

One word as to Penniman's conjecture (War of the Theatres 115): 'Tucca and the two Pyrgi belonged to another company for which Crispinus was a writer. This company may have been the Children of Paul's, for whom Marston had been writing.' Now if Tucca were a player or member of any company, he would not be tolerated by Lupus and the elder Ovid, nor say what he does to them concerning players, nor could he bulldoze Histrio as in act 3. Moreover, Crispinus and Tucca are not old acquaintances and fellow-workers, but meet for the first time in 3. 4.

An identification of Tucca has been made by one who may well be considered a better authority than any of the commentators or critics. In Satiromastix (To the World), Dekker says: 'A second Cat-a-mountaine mewes, and calls me Barren, because my braines could bring foorth no other Stigmaticke than Tucca whome Horace had put to making, and begot to my hand: but I wonder what language Tucca would haue spoke, if honest Capten Hannam had bin borne

without a tongue? Ist not as law full then for mee to imitate Horace, as Horace Hannam? Who this honest Captain Hannam was, we shall probably never know; and the charge of staging him may or may not be deserved by Jonson. We should remember, however, that with or without the outline in Guilpin's Skialetheia, the creator of Bobadil, Shift, and Brainworm would not have to go far afield for a Captain Tucca.

Virgil. Critics generally have insisted upon identifying the Virgil of Poetaster with Shakespeare or with Chapman. We begin with the view of Gifford, who, after asserting that the real Virgil is well characterized in 5. 1. 100-115 of Poetaster, but that in lines 116-138, the speeches of Tibullus and Horace, he is not, continues: 'Jonson could not think that Virgil was the poet of common life, as Tibullus affirms; or, as Horace, that he was unostentatious of literature, and averse from echoing the terms of others: whereas all this is as undoubtedly true of Shakspeare, as if it were pointedly written to describe him. Indeed, the speech of Tibullus is so characteristic of our great poet, that I am persuaded nothing but the ignorance of his numerous editors of the existence of such a passage, has prevented its being taken for the motto of his works.' Sidney Lee (Shakespeare 174) takes a similar view. Brandes (Shakespeare 1. 394-5) quotes lines 118-138, and agrees with Gifford's conclusion. Symonds (Ben Jonson 40) says: 'It is probable that by Virgil Jonson intended some dramatic poet of his day; and, on the whole, his description suits none better than Shakespeare.' Fleay (Chr. 1. 367) takes a different view: '. Virgil, [is] Chapman (already at work on his Homer).' Ward (Eng. Dram. Lit. 2. 360) believes Chapman to be meant by Virgil, and adds in a foot-note: 'It is odd, by-thebye, that Gifford should deny the appropriateness to the author of the Georgics of the praise involved in the lines,

"That which he hath writ

Is with such judgment laboured and distilled
Through all the common uses of our lives," &c."'

In his introduction to the Mermaid Edition of Ben Jonson (1. xxxiii-xxxiv), Herford asserts that Virgil cannot possibly be intended for Shakespeare, but is in all probability Chapman.

We have thus to consider three distinct assertions: 1) that Virgil in Poetaster is not the historical Virgil; 2) that he is Shakespeare; or, 3) that he is Chapman. Now the first and the fair assumption of any unprejudiced hearer or reader of Poetaster must be that, in presenting the character Virgil, Jonson had in mind the Augustan poet; while a second assumption, scarcely less natural, would be that if Jonson meant not the historical Virgil, but some Elizabethan poet, the condition of mere dramatic effectiveness would be to give the audience clear evidence that this eulogy was intended for such or such a contemporary of the author. The burden of proof therefore rests with those who take up the cudgels in favor of Shakespeare or of Chapman. In our inquiry we shall ask and try to answer three questions, suggested by the assertions recorded above: 1) is the characterization of Virgil in Poetaster 5. 1. 100-138 one that, in the Elizabethan period and by a man so imbued with the spirit of the classics as was Jonson, might naturally be applied to the real Virgil? 2) is this characterization, in whole or in part, such as Jonson is likely to have written of Shakespeare? 3) is this characterization, in whole or in part, such as Jonson is likely to have written of Chapman? In our investigation of these questions we must try to take the views both of Jonson's time and of Jonson himself— something not easy to do, since these views inevitably differ from our own, particularly in respect to literary estimates of classical and of Elizabethan poets.

To begin with, all of the critics seem explicitly or implicitly to accept as aimed at the real Virgil lines 100-115, in which Horace and Gallus dwell upon the culture, selfscrutiny and literary fastidiousness of the greatest of the Augustans. Gifford takes issue, however, upon the speech of Tibullus (118-123):