Construction Of Perspective And Its Role In Ben Jonson’s “The Alchemist”
“The alchemists’ gulls do not deserve wealth, but a perfected image.”
The Alchemist has two types of gulls. Jonson’s commentary about his own work reveals that Jonson believed that the gullible characters didn’t deserve either of the typical narrative rewards, wealth or self-refinement, unless they underwent significant changes. In the first acts of The Alchemist, we see our Dapper and Drugger as “gulls” in Jonson’s satiric comedy. The Alchemist’s true gulls are the paying audiences members. Jonson encourages them to be part of the adventure by asking them questions that are ironic. They are sure to think that they are intelligent enough for not being tricked. Afterall the Blackfriars theatre seats cost just a shilling. Jonson tells the audience that fortune favors fools in his prologue. This suggests that the rich audience is fools. Jonson’s ‘Tothe Reader’ promotes us as the reader’, but it is possible that we are not also the understander,’ according to Jonson. Mental wealth is not the same as material wealth. Jonson is a good example of Subtle. Jonson fills his dialogues full of bombast to impress, even though it may not be understood. Remember Subtle’s speech to clients, particularly those to Mammon in Act 2, Scene 2. Here we see that Subtle (or Jonson) is acutely aware the basic principles of practical alchemy. Contemporary alchemists developed theories such as ‘Hermaphrodity of the elements and soul’. This is because attachment to the physical genders would not allow for the necessary balance of mind to find the stone. Subtle even appears unobserved in the beginning scene. Face mentions with gravity that Subtle’s ‘philosopher’s work is being done, and Subtle admits to doing ‘alchemy,’ as well as algebra. Subtle simply adds aggrandizement (or omissions) to the doctrines in an attempt to impress the viewer and make up for his lacks of particular expertise. Jonson is the same. His own observations and interpretations of low London society are put on a face and presented as farce. Because interesting farce is more likely to get the most customers.
Jonson made the comment about Jonson and Subtle as a key part of this reading. Jonson even hinted at it. Jonson hopes that The Alchemist will help men (Prologue), and Jonson’s ultimate goal in writing it is to inspire people to look at the characters. The Alchemist’s characters are often criticised for their familiar tropes. It is clear from the start that the characters’ roles are known as soon as the names Face or Drugger are mentioned. These characters are a perfected version of human qualities. Oscar Wilde appreciated the Jonson’s ready-made’ characters. He wrote that they were not abstractions but types… truely to nature. The characters we know are more relatable to our everyday lives than the unimaginable and outlandish ones. Jonson, in his prologue, tells the audience that he wants to ‘cure’ their vices. He calls them ‘fair correctives’. This is Jonson’s Mousetrap. It uses vice characters to make the audience think about their follies. Jonson recognizes that his goals are not possible and that “the doers might see, yet not possess,” their black deeds.
Jonson liked metatheatricality. He loved the cozening and criticism of this technique. Epicene’s great reveal is a good example. A viewer could be fooled into believing Epicene was male and it would show that they were willing to accept the norms of society constructed rather than the reality. The Alchemist does the same thing. It makes viewers question their behavior by showing them a picture of potential follies. I have one question. What was the reception to these techniques in 17th century England? There wasn’t much demand for subtle plays. They were deemed too low to be performed in London, so they were usually not allowed to be performed there. Henry Jackson observed that Oxford’s premiere was packed.
Let us examine Jonson’s fictional Gulls and consider whether they are worthy of our sympathies. The characters can be seen as a ready-made representation of a human type, and we can easily see ourselves in them. It can also work in the opposite way. It can lead to guilt and cause us to feel guilty about our own sins. But it also makes us more likely to sympathize with them. The Alchemist shows that everyone has a universal desire for escapism. Face hears Dapper say he’ll ‘leave law’ when he has the stone. He then dives into gaming. This man seems unhappy in his life. He only wants a second chance at a well-chosen career. Drugger says he is a ‘young beginner’ and has no idea what to do with his shop. Subtle is Subtle’s business service. Does Drugger not want to take on the burden of managing the store? Before these characters, they sit. They are paying to see a fantasy world constructed with words.
It can be difficult to sympathize with Epicure Mammon, who is ‘covetous’ and full-of-desire for ‘a list if wives and concubines. Mammon discusses each one of these seven deadly sins within his monologues. He is not like other gulls. His fantasies aren’t singular and more of them will resonate with the audience. It is possible that viewers will be envious of the wife of another man or feel inferior towards the stallions of the town. Mammon’s dream is most important. These are plans that he has clearly spent many hours devising. Why is Mammon so obsessed with all of this? It’s because he wants to be able to forget his true self. To be free from the realities of life and to enjoy a world of pleasure. If he needed these fantasies to help him with the real world’s burdens, who would be the man other than the one suffering from unease? Mammon seems to feel despair and dissatisfaction when it comes to romance. The audience goes to the theatre, just like Mammon. They want to escape their worries and focus on the story.
Jonson would rather we do as he wants and not fall prey to the fantasizing escapist. His intention is not for us to ‘wishaway,’ but our fortunes throughout this play (prologue). Because we can’t use The Alchemist to escape reality. We’re no different than the gulls who go to Lovewit to get a brew solution to their problems. Jonson is our Subtle. He attempts to make our fate his own, but instead of fooling, he sets us straight. The statement above is less informative about the gulls. One could argue the gulls’ greatest desires are wealth and a perfected view of themselves. We might agree with Jonson in his prologue. Fortune does not favour fools and it is certainly not a blessing to receive. What about the image that is perfect? One must recognize one’s flaws and create a new image that is true to oneself.
The Alchemist is an inversion to the traditional fable. Jonson challenges readers to look for and identify their own faults and to correct them. This method could not work if the characters weren’t already pre-made and didn’t possess any characteristics that were beyond the realms possible. Jonson could be accused of reducing the moralizing potential of his works if he does not use standard characters. Evidently, his audience, who are gulls in general, deserves an opportunity to work towards becoming a more ethical and refined version of them.
