The Alchemist: ‘No Country’s Mirth is Better Than Our Own’

Philip Rowe (0:09)

Welcome to the History Of European Theatre podcast, and thanks for joining me on this journey through millennia of theatrical history. Episode 234 The Alchemist No country's mirth is better than our own.

Last time, Shakespeare's Cymbeline took us to ancient Britain and the emerging genre of Tragicomedy. It was a genre that Ben Jonson, it seems, never felt tempted to try. Indeed, at about the time that Shakespeare was exploring Tragicomedy, Jonson was penning what is often considered to be his most comic of comedies. Jonson was well into his middle age, being 38 years old in 1610, and had several years of producing masks for the court behind him. But with the initial failure of Epicene the previous year on the public stage, still no doubt ringing in his ears. How much of that failure influenced Jonson to turn to high comedy in The Alchemist is difficult to say, but the play is still one packed with satire, classical illusion, and comment on current fads and fashions, so still a very Jonsonian play.

The first recorded performance of The Alchemist was in 1610 at Oxford by the Kingsmen. However, it is possible that the play was performed at the Globe or at the Blackfriars earlier that year, before the playhouses were closed thanks to a particularly severe outbreak of plague. Some references within the play suggest that it was intended that it would open at the Blackfriars Theatre, but as things turned out, the Kingsmen were forced to tour the country and wait out permission for the theatres to be reopened in London. The play did eventually get performed in London, and then at court in 1613 and in 1623, suggesting that it was a success and remained popular until the Interregnum.

The plot is of Johnson's creation, but it has been suggested that he was influenced by a play by Thomas Tompkins called Albu-Marser, which is known to have been performed for King James at Cambridge in 1615, but was not a new play by then. The question of influence is complicated because it's quite possible that Tompkins' play was written after he had seen or read The Alchemist and the influence is in fact in the other direction. It is also possible that in 1615 John Dryden, who was presenting the rather obscure and academic Albu-Marser, only invented a connection to Johnson's play in an attempt to big up his own production.

The Alchemist was registered with the Stationer's Office in 1610 and appeared in a quarto edition in 1612 The play was then included in Johnson's folio edition Works in 1616 and in the second edition in 1640 In this edition we can see evidence of Johnson amending the play so that it complied with the new regulations concerning religious utterances on stage. Oaths originally sworn as, for example, God's Will, became the more then acceptable Death on Me.

We know from the cast list in the folio edition that the actors involved in the original production were the leading men of The King's Men. Burbage, Armin, Hemings, Condell are all present. But there is no mention of Shakespeare being involved in the performance on this occasion.

The acrostic argument, with the first letter of each line spelling out the Alchemist, that summarises the play goes as follows.

The sickness hot, a master quit for fear his house in town and left one servant there, ease him corrupted and give means to know a cheater and his punk, who now brought low, leaving their narrow practice, were become cousiners at large, and only wanting some house to set up, with him they here contract each for a share and all begin to act. Much company they draw and much abuse, in casting figures, telling fortunes, news, selling of files, flat-bordy with the stone, till it and they, and all in fume, are gone. But I think we need a bit more than that, so here's a summary of the action of the play.

At Lovwit's house Face, his butler, and his hard-of-hearing associate, Subtle, are involved in a huge but not very clear argument. Their main problem with each other is that each considers himself to be the superior con man. As Dole Common tries to placate them, Face points out that he has supplied the paraphernalia that enables Subtle to perform as the alchemist. And he supplies the gulls that Subtle needs too. Subtle counter argues that it is he who lifted Face out of servitude and taught him everything he knows. Face threatens Subtle with exposure and arrest and it is only Dole who ends the argument by reminding them that their cons can only work if all three of them are involved.

The doorbell rings and they fear it is the return of Master Lovewit, but Face points out that he has fled the town thanks to the plague and won't be back for, he thinks, at least two weeks. In fact, Dapper is at the door, a young man that Face met in the tavern last night. Primed by Face, Dapper has come to acquire a sprite that will allow him to win at gambling. Face stresses the illegality of this, but says the Alchemist will oblige if paid enough. Face and Subtle engage in conversation that they ensure Dapper will overhear, which ends in Subtle declaring that his powers enable him to see that Dapper is highly favoured by the Queen of the Fairies, who he will conjure up for him, and he will be very successful in cleaning out the town's gambling houses. They force Dapper into agreeing to share the £10,000 he is bound to win. There's another knock at the door and they hustle Dapper out of the room.