“The Changeling” is full of instances where characters happen to be at the right place at the right time.  However, I find Scene III, Act iii to be particularly interesting.  In the asylum, Isabella is looking at the different madmen.  When she is left alone with Antonio, he reveals himself to be faking his craziness, and he professes love to and kisses Isabella.  While she doesn’t seem entirely supportive of the actions, she doesn’t do much to fight him, either.  During this entire scenario, Lollio was watching from above.  He escorts Antonio away and when he returns, he is in a position of power over Isabella because of what he witnessed.  Even though this play is “consumed with changeability” there are still moments where location and timing are critical, and this moment is one of them.  Because of what Lollio saw, he is now in a position to take advantage of Isabella in nearly any way he sees fit (and, at that moment, does attempt to kiss her, and calls her a prostitute).  Isabella is married, and of course should not be fooling around with anyone (especially her husband’s patients)—which Lollio knows and will take full advantage of.

Fate vs Free Will

De Flores seems to make it clear in Act II scene 2 that he has once been much better off than he is now and his hard fate thrust him into servitude, also saying that yes, he looks ugly but others worse looking then him have better fates (pp 54-55).  Perhaps this implies randomness and irony of fate but perhaps Beatrice and other people in his life are the ones making the decisions that make his life horrible, because next he says "she turns her blessed eye upon me now,/and I'll endure all storms before I part with't" (l. 50-51).  Other people are the ones making De Flores's life hard and I don't think that he would say that it is fate that makes Beatrice not like him or else he would turn from her and not try to convince her or not try to pursue her.

I see these characters in a world supposedly ruled by a random wheel of fate but yet to me it seems impossible to believe that with some of the things humans do, that we would believe that it is solely up to fate that another person interacts with us in a certain way.  So in this way there is talk of free will and fate and examples of free will because that is the only thing that can be seen.  The fate business is pushed upon unpleasant situations where one would rather not put blame on someone else or one's self.  Perhaps De Flores fall from grace is his own, which would be typical of tragedy and perhaps Beatrice has it within her to make a change in his life without being induced by Lady Fate.

If you're gonna do it...don't do it in front of a church.

The inconstancy of Beatrice in the play points to an unavoidable bad end for the woman. Beatrice begins early in the play by questioning her own ‘eyes’ after she catches a glimpse of Alsemero outside of the church. She asks herself if her own eyes lied about her desire for Piracquo since they seem to be telling her the same about Alsemero. De Flores ‘entrance marks another comment about Beatrice’s eyes and their issues of perception, she views De Flores as a sort of Basilisk, but instead of turning her to stone, his looks turn her into a nasty and mean person. De Flores is referred to as a poison by Beatrice that, “Which to a thousand other tastes were wholesome.”, this too could be seen as foreshadowing since her nastiness is also observed in the shadow of the church. Alsemero himself alludes to his own undoing within the shadows of the church when he notes that “The temple’s vane to turn full in my face; I know ‘tis against me.” (1.1.19-20) I find it appropriate that Beatrice then leaves the church and spies Alsemero. Both Beatrice and Alsemero seem to commit their first acts of inconstancy right in the church yard, in essence inviting the wrath of god to judge them both.

A Pendulum of Fate

It is somewhat difficult to determine whether being in the right place at the right time is a result of one’s resolve or chance. There is much support to be found in the first three acts for both arguments causing me to believe it is a combination of both. In Act 1 De Flores states, “Here’s a favor come, with a mischief!  Now I know/ She had rather wear my pelt tanned in a pair/ Of dancing pumps than I should thrust my fingers/ Into her sockets here, I know she hates me,/ Yet cannot choose but love her./ No matter; if but to vex her, I’ll haunt her still./ Though I get nothing else, I have my will.”(1.1.233-239) This line seems to be a reflection of how the rest of the play seems to try and find a balance between happenstance and the actual drive of the characters in determining their fates. In this line, De Flores speaks concerning the occasion where he returns Beatrice’s glove and his feelings on the matter. There is some controversy on whether or not Beatrice drops her glove on accident or on purpose to lure De Flores into helping her. Here we see question of chance reiterated. If Beatrice had dropped the glove accidentally, De Flores resolve concerning his relationship with her would have been strengthened by a random occurrence. On the other hand, had she dropped the glove on purpose, his resolve would have been strengthened by her doing making his actions a result of her conscious effort. De Flores goes on to explain how he cannot help but love her, which gives the idea that we are slave to fate. He goes on to claim that he will have his will, coming back to the idea that the characters are in control of what happens. We see this pendulum swing back and forth between chance and character resolve throughout the entirety of the play. Perhaps we are meant to understand that while the characters seem to have their own choices, they are still part of a “master” plan (the plot of the play) that cannot be denied. 

Little too late...

One very intersting factor that comes up very early in the play s the idea of being at "the right place at the right time". For this scene in particular, the character's timing is off and unfortunately creates a problem for those involved. In Act I is where we see Alsemero confessing his love to Beatrice, which seems very hasty and forward. Alsemero says "But I am further, lady; YESTERDAY was mine eyes' employment, and hither now they brought my judgement, where are both agreed"(Act I.i).
When Beatrice replies, she says "Oh, there's one above me, sir."(speaking of her father and his right/duty to marry his daughter off to a well-suited man). In her aside she states "For five days past to be recalled! Sure, mine eyes were mistaken; This was the man was meant me. That he should come so near his time, and miss it!"(ll84-87). Beatrice is speaking of the fact that Alsemero was just five days too late of confessing his love. She has already promised to marry another, and is now faced with a complex because she believes that she has not only made the wrong decision, but Alsemero s the only one for her. The way she speaks about this horrible misfortune makes it obvious that her and Alsemero are destined to be together-and she will find a way to scheme out of the current marriage proposal. It is so interesting that Alsemero was so close to being able to have Beatrice without any sort of conflict-had he just come a few days sooner. However, this very scene sets the stage for the fulfillment of destiny which will take place through the fight to be together.

Fickle Fate

As has been covered, "The Changeling" is full of instances in which the main characters, believing themselves to be blessed by fate, are in fact undone by it. Beatrice's chance meeting with Alsemero, De Flores' glimpse of their loving conversation, the remarkable ease with which Antonio's plan progresses, all of these seemingly positive occurrences ultimately cause their undoing. The "right place, right time" phenomena is soundly disproven by the main cast of the changeling, the initial boon rendered poisonous over time. But, if chance spells the doom of the protagonists, it does it by aiding the supporting cast, often by exposing the crimes of the former. Take this instance, when Jasperino informs Alsemero of Beatrice and De Flores' relationship: "Twas Diaphanta's chance...to leave me in a back part of the house...She was no sooner gone but instantly I heard your bride's voice in the next room to me and, lending more attention, found De Flores' louder than she (IV.ii. 90-97)." Chance is explicitly invoked (specifically "Diaphanta's chance") as the cause of Jasperino's startling discovery. Another example comes in the form of Tomazo's exasperated decision to leave to chance his search for his brother's killer. "I must think all men villains, and the next I meet, whoe'er he be, the murderer of my most worthy brother," he says, only to immediately run into De Flores, the true murderer, which fills De Flores with overwhelming guilt (V.ii. 6-10).
The constant presence of chance within the play, and its mutable benefit for a host of characters, lends a new meaning to the title. In a play so caught up with notions of disguise and treason, could it be that luck is the ultimate changeling? Middleton shows chance to be a force that can appear to you as pure benefit, give you all you desire, and then stab you in the back. Sometimes literally.

Unholy Matrimony

"'Twas in the temple where I first beheld her,

and now again the same; what omen yet

follows of that?  None but imaginary.

Why should my hopes or fate be timorous?"  

As many have pointed out, the first four lines of The Changeling introduce us to the idea of omens, fate and time.  What strikes me about Alsemero's first four lines is that while he claims to put no stock in fate or omens, there still seems to be a hint of doubt.  He formulates questions, not declarations.  If his hopes and fate are not, in fact, timorous, then why is he wondering if they should be?  Though he justifies his union with Beatrice-Joanna with the fact that they met in a holy place, the temple, I wonder just how sure he is of their "holy" union.  As we discussed in class, the last thing one should be doing in church is flirting with potential conquests, especially conquests that are already claimed!  It seems to me that Alsemero is misreading "the signs", misreading his own assuredness: he thinks his union with Beatrice-Joanna shall succeed because they met in a holy place, yet he "forgets" that it was in an unholy manner.  Perhaps from the very onset, Beatrice-Joanna and Alsemero are not blessed, but doomed by God because of their sacrilegious conduct.  

No Changelings Here

If the first scene in a play is supposed to provide the audience with a roadmap of sorts filled with major themes, then the opening of The Changeling definitely introduces the idea of fate and happenstance. From the very first lines Alsemero describes his apparently accidental first sighting of Beatrice-Joanna:

"'Twas in the temple where I first beheld her,
And now again the same; what omen yet
Follows of that? None but imaginary...
The church hath first begun our interview,
And that's the place must join us into one,"
(I.1.1-3, 10-11)

Judging by his words, he doesn't seem to believe that any omen marks his sighting as being particularly significant, and yet he grants a great amount of importance to the place of their meeting. This is a direct contradiction: how can he claim that he sees no omen in his first seeing Beatrice-Joanna and yet place such a degree of symbolism on an accidental rendezvous? Furthermore, the fact that he saw Beatrice-Joanna and not Diaphanta, and that it was Alsemero and not Jasperino who saw her, seem both entirely unplanned and absolutely necessary. Jasperino is focused on leaving Alicante, but who's to say that if their positions were reversed Alsemero wouldn't have been just as eager to leave? The crucial difference between the two lies in the fact that Alsemero's father had an unknown connection with Beatrice-Joanna's father. Who could have predicted this - and yet, if there were no such connection, it seems very unlikely that Vermandero would have invited a strange man to stay in his home with his engaged daughter in residence. In a very real way, Alsemero had to be the man who falls in love - the one could not be exchanged for the other. Similarly, if Alsemero fell in love at first sight with the eligible Diaphanta, instead of the betrothed Beatrice-Joanna, there would have been no plot because there would have been no inconvenient fiance to eliminate. These characters act as they do, appear where they do because if they didn't, there would be no play, no drama. Whether the hand of fate or of the playwrites, the characters in The Changeling are who they must be. In the original sense of the word "changeling", the play seems most inappropriately titled: the characters clearly aren't interchangeable at all.

Wondrous Luck, Uncommonly Cruel Fate

One of the more interesting illustrations of chance and fate is found in Beatrice’s use of De Flores to dispatch of Alonzo. After hatching this plan, Beatrice exclaims, “Why, men of art make much of poison,/ Keep one to expel another; where was my art?” (II.ii.46-47). By referring to this apt proverb about one poison inoculating against another poison, (as explained in the gloss) Beatrice seems to bask in the convenience -or luck- of having a ready and eager dupe to do remove her irritating fiancé.

However, Beatrice’s luck is not as rosy as it first appears. After he kills Alonzo, De Flores comes to claim his payment, but he is not interested in the monetary reward Beatrice had in mind. Instead, De Flores uses this as an opportunity –or excuse- to fulfill his obsession with Beatrice by raping her at end of Act III. At the close of the act, Beatrice laments this dark turn of events, saying,

Vengeance begins,
Murder I see is followed by more sins.
Was my creation in the womb so cursed
It must engender with a viper first?
(III.iv.163-67)

With this pitiful outcry, Beatrice bemoans the foul turn in her fortune. This unforeseen turn from promising to horrifying follows her comments earlier in the play on judgment:

Our eyes are sentinels unto our judgements,
And should give certain judgement what they see;
But they are rash sometimes and tell us wonders
Of common things…
(I.i.73-76)

Just as she forewarned, Beatrice has fallen prey to a terrible error in judgment and is now suffering the sadistic side of fate.

Even though she believes that this fate is some sort of “vengeance” for orchestrating the murder of Alonzo, she does not fully acknowledge this as a consequence of her own decisions and actions. Rather, she calls herself “cursed” and casts these events in the light of predestination, believing not that she had control or a choice in the outcome, but instead that all these events were set in motion since she was born.

Stalking Members of Time

Although this play has many scenes that are influenced by being in the right place at the right time, the scene that most interested me was when De Flores witnesses the lovers' interlude in Act 2, Scene 2. The meeting is supposed to be private and secret, yet De Flores views the interlude without being caught. He overhears the conversation held between Beatrice and Alsemero. In this one instance of being in the right place at the right time, De Flores sets the action in motion that will later cause the tragedy of the play. As he states, "I have watched this meeting, and do wonder much/what shall become of t'other; I'm sure both/Cannot be served unless she transgress," he is devulging information about not only his agency in the play but also his inability to stop his obsession with his desire for her body (Act 2, Scene 2, lines 57-59). This part of the play insinuates that there is an overlap between what is chance and what is choice. For instance, De Flores chose to follow Beatrice because of his obessession for her. He chose to confront her after witnessing this scene. He even chose to murder for her. However, it was also chance, and possibly destiny/fate, working for him when he happened to watch the meeting between Beatrice and Alsemero (since it was supposed to be private). It was also fate that led him to be the one Beatrice chose to employ as assassin. This scene, this chance encounter he's witnessed, led him to believe that she would "fly from one point, from him she makes a husband,/she spreads and mounts then like arithmetic--/one, ten, a hundred, a thousand, then thousand," that she would go to bed with him (Act 2, scene 2, lines 61-63). She gives him hope that she will be willing to "mount" him as well.

Thus, we are left with the question: what is the chance and what is the choice of this play, of this scene? In all reality, this question does not have a direct answer, but rather a concordance between the two. For without his stalkish and obsessive behavior, De Flores might never have stumbled upon the lovers' interlude; yet, without the chance encounter, he might never have murdered for her or had the power to force her to bed with him. As such, I would venture to say that the relationship between the agency of the characters, especially De Flores, and the idea of being in the right place at the right time is one of interdependency. One cannot exist without the other. The play could not procede without both.

Wrong Time, Wrong Place

In a play that contains so much substitution and masked identities, it appears that one cannot assume that being in "the right place at the right time" is actually a good place to be.  In fact, there are multiple instances in the play when characters believe themselves to be positions of good fortune and great luck, when they are actually in great peril and ominous danger.  

It all starts with Beatrice and Alsemero meeting.  Alsemero is enamored by his newly found love and insists that his love is authentic, saying, "yesterday / Was mine eyes' employment, and hither now / They brought my judgement, where both are agreed (1.i. 78-80)."  He seems quite sure that his feelings and judgement have sent him in the right direction, however, it is later discovered that his love for Beatrice leads to her moral downfall and eventual death.  This is clearly not the right place or time for Alsemero to fall in love.

Antonio also seems to have luck on his side in the beginning of the play.  He masquerades as a mad man in order to get closer to Isabella and gain her love.  His wishes seem to be coming true, but he ends up being less lucky than he thought.  When Vermandero starts investigating Alonzo's murder, Antonio is determined to be one of those at fault.  Upon hearing that Antonio and Franciscus have been absent from the castle for ten days, Vermandero says, "The time accuses 'em (IV.ii 9)" and their fate seems to be sealed.

Diaphanta's luck also runs out just when she thinks she is getting her wish.  Throughout the play, she flirts with Alsemero and displays quite a bit of affection for him.  She is quite willing (and even overjoyed) to take Beatrice's place in bed with Alsemero.  Unfortunately, Beatrice becomes jealous because her replacement stays with Alsemero a rather long time and seems to be enjoying herself too much.  Just when Diaphanta thinks she is getting her wish, she is killed for it.

Till the Time Opens: Fate and Mutability

The Changeling opens with an almost obsessive compulsive parsing of omens and astrological significances. For example, Jasperino urges Alsemero to seize the propitious conditions for his sea voyage:

“’Tis the critical day, it seems, and the sign in Aquarius” (1.1.49)

Perhaps, the ensuing tragedy could have been avoided if Alsemero had heeded the signs. In contrast, De Flores replies to Beatrice-Joanna’s urging to be “wondrous careful in the execution” of their plot, by suggesting “Why, are not both our lives upon the cast?” (2.2.139-140).

In an attempt to consider what Middleton and Rowley are up to in The Changeling we will address the relationship between destiny and chance, between predestination and the roll of the dice.

Lorenzo Spirito. "Wheel of Fortune with the Zodiac Sign of the Moon" 
in Libro de la Ventura (Book of Fortune), 1508.

The following are images taken from an almanac and astrological guidebook written in 1622:

Richard Allestree, 1622 a new almanack and prognosti[cation] ... of our Lord God, ... being the 2 from bissextil yeer: calculated and properly referred to the longitude and sublimity of the Pole Articke of the famous towne of Derby, & may serue generally for the most part of Great-Brittaine

Your task for this week’s blog is to attempt to make sense of the relationship between the characters’ fixation on marking auspicious, promising, or providential circumstances and the actual agency of the characters in determining their fate. Put simply, what does it mean to be in the right place at the right time in a play consumed with changeability and substitution? Draw on a specific moment in the text to support your answer.

The opposite of subtle, Justice

There are many levels to the Justice's character in this play. His personality has depth as do his actions. In justice's name he disguises himself as a fool. All of his actions are written off in the name of the commonwealth, for the king and for justice. But is it justice to dress up and trick people? To serve justice through means of trickery? Isn't one form of trickery just as bad as cutpurse trickery? It is also interesting to think about the implications of one dressing up as a fool, it begs to question which really is the costume and the true character, justice or fool? That is just an initial thought; the particular speech I wanted to talk about is his rant against tobacco and beer. While he is sitting at a bar, and has finished one drink already and has called for another and called for company and an audience. He truly seems to be enjoying himself in his affrontery, and then denounces that which he just partook in. He rants against the wrongs of tobacco and beer in act 2 scene 6, and ends his speech with, "And still the bottle-ale slavereth, and the tobacco stinketh" (2.6.85-86). This is but one instance of the humor to be had by outright hypocracy, the joke is not a subtle one, but is still funny nonetheless. I am excited to keep an eye on this character in particular. If this were a horserace or a sporting event I would like to put my money on Knockem as the guy I like or the horse I want to bet on. He seems like a good fellow to me, his obsession with "Vapours" reminds me of a peaceful guy who is concerned about good vibes, and if you don't spread good vibes then don't project your bad vibes on him. He reminds me of Merrythought.

Justice Overdo "Over-does" It Again

A character I find particularly interesting in Jonson’s Bartholomew Fair is the Justice. Despite his attempts to remain inconspicuous (at least during parts of the play), he constantly finds himself in the middle of drama and difficult situations.  In a way, there is irony simply in the fact that Justice Overdo is supposed to be the Justice of the Peace—his duty is to maintain justice and peace, yet he is continually in the midst of chaotic scenarios.  In Act three, scene three, the Justice does himself a sort of in-justice (cheesey pun not-really-inteded J ) and goes into an overly long soliloquy.  The very first lines he speaks is that he “will make no more orations shall draw / on these tragical conclusions.” (Act 3, scene 3, lines 1-2)  Justice Overdo then proceeds to speak for forty-two straight lines—about said “tragical conclusions,” no less.  This soliloquy is the longest (so far as I remember, and can tell from skimming the rest of the play) single, solid section spoken by one character!  The fact that Justice “Over-do” overdoes his speech, as well as hypocritically stating that he will no longer speak of the very situation that he ends up giving a speech about, reveals that the Justice is yet another character whose own spoken words lead to a minor sort of self-demise. 

You Are What You Eat

In Act II, Jonson finally introduces us to Ursla, the infamous pig seller as she cries, "Quickly, a bottle of ale to quench me, rascal.  I am all fire and all fat, Nightengale; I shall e'en melt away to the first woman, a rib again, I am afraid.  I do water the ground in knots as I go, like a great garden-pot; you may follow me by the S's I make." (Act II, scene ii, lines 49-53).  This line conjures the image of a great woman, sweating profusely as she ambles about her stand.  However, though literally, the line says that we can follow the marks left on the dirt by herdrops of sweat, the footnote tells us that the "S's" she makes on the ground is a joke that implicates those S's are her own urine.  Indeed, "S's" calls to mind the sound in the word "pissing" as well as the sound urine makes.  Here we have a woman who is not only drenched in her own sweat (sweating like a pig, in fact), but waddling around in her own filth.  Very pig-like, no?  Not even a minute into her first appearance on-stage, Ursla unwittingly admits that she herself has become the very thing she sells and eats: an overweight, dirty, gluttonous swine.  Even the comment that she will melt away to "the first woman, a rib again" can implicate her piggishness... pork ribs are quite a tasty treat!  Ursla seems to have conquered the famous adage, "you are what you eat."  The question is, since many of the characters in the play, including the Puritans set out to the fair to eat Ursla's pigs, are they what they eat, too?  Might Jonson be suggesting we are all gluttonous pigs?

Kiss and Tell

The word proctor, initially was understood as a person involved in the legal field with a specialty in church law, wills etc.[1] I agreed with Robbie in my assumption that this position 'should' tale a certain amount of intelligence and "wit" to execute. Littlewit's parading of Win-the-Fight in un-puritan dress and his insistence that Win accept the kisses of both Winwife and Quarlous seem to prove that Littlewit has no wit at all. Johnson presents us with a man that seems to be willing to trade his wife's honor for the security of being in favor with the future husband of the duchess. The Duchess clearly has a hand in the support of Littlewit's household, Johnson seems to imply that the women will just have to adjust and accommodate everyone until a suitor is chosen by the Duchess. I think it is particularly scandalous that Littlewit allows two unmarried men, outside the immediate family, to kiss his pregnant wife despite her protests. Perhaps Littlewit is only 'witty' because he knows how to manipulate the perception of his family to his advantage. Is a man kissing another man's wife only a concern in modern times?

Bzzzzzz.....

Wasp is just one among the many appropriately-named individuals inhabiting Bartholomew Fair. He is always running around complaining and chastising in everyone's ears. In Act I, scene 4, Wasp declares how rushed he is: "Ay, quickly, good mistress, I pray you...(Now I am in haste.) " and yet less than a hundred lines later he stays to complain with Littlewit, even though Littlewit reminds him of his insistence on the need for quick delivery of the box: "you were in haste e'en now, Master Numps,"(14, 19, 99). Wasp agrees, but in a choice between hurrying off and telling everyone about how much he suffers because of his charge Bartholomew Cokes, complaining wins out. He acknowledges his need to leave, but nonetheless says, "yet I will stay too," (100). He then proceeds to bash poor Win as well as Cokes for their lack of wit and common sense. Like Polonius in Hamlet, Wasp seems to delight in the sound of his own voice, speaking at quite length even after receiving the package for which he waited so impatiently. In fact, he talks for so long that by the time he stops, his charge has met up with him! All his fuss and bother was for nothing – Wasp has been unveiled as being utterly ridiculous.

The humor of this moment lies in the fact that until the moment when Cokes walks in with Grace and Mistress Overdo, readers believe that Wasp is the ridiculous member of their little party. He’s rushing off to deliver this box to the poor young man that will be getting married shortly. Readers have no need to doubt who the clown is. Yet immediately upon meeting Cokes, readers become aware of the true measure of insanity with which Wasp has been forced to deal. Even the most unsympathetic of readers must wince at the annoying sound of Cokes voice, which is evident even when silently printed on a page. Wasp’s previous moaning and groaning becomes instantly understandable – who wouldn’t act the same when forced to reign in such an utterly brainless twit?

The Moral Lens

Although most of Johnson’s scathing critiques of society in “Bartholomew Fair” are highly entertaining, I found his satire concerning Busy in Act III to be quite interesting. Busy’s actions in scene 2 seem to reveal Johnson’s opinion on human morality quite clearly.  While Johnson uses the entire play to achieve this same critique, I felt this scene was particularly intense.  The religious fervor with which Busy addresses every aspect of the Fair is quite apparent throughout the play but we finally see his true personality in his search for the pig flesh.  In this scene, Busy does not hesitate to twist one of his frequent sermons into a way to justify his actions. Using Busy, Johnson shows the audience that one man (in this case an extremely religious man) is no better than any other. While this is no new concept, it seems like Johnson is telling us much more. He effectively shows that any man will succumb to his basic desires as long as he can find a way to fool himself into believing his actions are justified. Busy consistently builds up his religious pride to the point where he convinces himself and those around him that his search for fleshly satisfaction is more of a service to his companions. He shows how a man that sets moral standards for himself is bound to those morals primarily by the extent to which he can translate them. Although Johnson does not condone the actions of the clearly vulgar characters in the play, he gives the audience a sense that perhaps they have more moral fiber than the characters that express such religious zeal. By openly embracing their desire to satisfy themselves, they seem to achieve a level of honesty impossible for a man like Busy. Johnson shows us that Busy’s ideals are little more than a lens through which he can view himself as a righteous man no matter what his actions may be. The only problem with the lens is that it is imited to influencing Busy's perception.

Littlewit's little wit

In the opening act of the play, Littlewit, Win, Quarlous, and Winwife are engaged in a conversation, during which, Littlewit blatantly allows the other gentlemen to kiss his wife.  Win is very much in protest against this action and finds it ridiculous that her husband allows, if not, encourages it.  After Quarlous's kiss, she exclaims, "Why, John? Do you see this, John? Look you! Help me, John (1.3. 37-38)."  Littlewit replies by telling his wife that she has no need for objection, saying, "They'll do you no harm, Win, they are both our worshipful good friends (1.3 45-46)."  It seems quite strange for a man to allow others to kiss his wife, especially while she protests.  As we learned from "A Woman Killed with Kindness," extra-marital affection was scoffed at (to say the least) in this time period.  Littlewit's attitude seems to be quite a contrast to that of Frankford in "Woman Killed."  Having said that, what are we to expect from a character with such a name as "Littlewit?"  Jonson seems to be offering a glimpse into this man's apparently dim psyche right off the bat in the play.  This first act seems to set Littlewit up for complete failure as a husband and as the learned man he is expected to be (I'm not sure what a "proctor" was at this time, but I'm assuming it is a profession similar to that of a lawyer).

Busy Hypocrisy

The criticism Jonson makes about religion, class, and society as a whole are harsh in Bartholomew Fair, and sometimes downright cruel. Through his language and verse Jonson reveals the true nature of Bartholomew's characters, each upholding to thier own foolishness and hyprocrisy in different ways and actions. Zeal-of-the-land Busy illistrates this technique of Jonsons in end of Act I. While the fair and all its glory is the heat of the conversation in Act I, Busy speaks against it and all its evils: "The place is not much, not very much; we may be religious in midst of the profane, so it be eaten with a reformed mouth, with sobriety and humbleness, not gorged in with gluttony or greediness" (Act I, scene I.6, lines 73-78). Busy is referring to the pig that Win is "craving," although she is only faking so her and Littlewit have an excuse to go to the fair. Although Busy belittles the fair, he himself succombs to the fair, perhaps due to his own personal desires to attend but is too proud to admit. In the end of Act I he says: "In the way of comfort of the weak, I will go, and eat...There may be good use made of it, too, not I think on 't: by the public eating of swine's flesh, to profess our hate and loathing of Judiasm, whereof the brethren stand taxed. I will thereofre eat, yea, I will eat exceedingly" (Act I, scene I.6, lines 95-100). Through this last declaration, Busy proves himself a hypocrite. He has made an excuse to "eat exceedingly" although he has previously denounced his hate for the fair. Jonson is also criticizing religion (Puritans) as well in this verse, for Busy hates on the Jews, but Busy does not even hold up to his own religious values and beliefs, which portrays his religion as destorted and undisplined, which are characteristics he says are of the Jews. Busy is no better than "fools" he speaks of at the fair, for he attends and plans to eat pig, which helps the fair make profit and continue their services. Through his language and actions Busy proves himself a hypocrite without ever intentionally trying to do so.