SOURCE: Gottwald, Maria. “Every Man in His Humour: Classical and Native Elements in the First Comedy of Humours.” In Satirical Elements in Ben Jonson's Comedy, pp. 25-33. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich Wydawinctwo, 1969.

[In the following essay, Gottwald analyzes the structural content of Jonson's Every Man in His Humour, traces its classical and English roots, and explores its own distinctive features.]

The 1616 Folio of Jonson's works is headed by the two so-called humour comedies, Every Man in his Humour (1598) and Every Man out of his Humour (1599). Though the titles sound very much alike the two plays differ so much that they cannot be placed in one row.¹ The significant subtitle of the later, “a comicall satyre” suggests that Every Man out of his Humour is rather related to the two subsequent works, Cynthia's Revels and Poetaster. It would, therefore, be bore expedient to treat Every Man in his Humour as a category by itself.

Our discussion will be based on the English version of the play, the one that Jonson prepared for the Folio. A full comparative study of two versions, that of the 1601 Quarto, or the Italian, and a later one, or the English, was provided by the editors of the Oxford Jonson,² and a more recent paper by A. J. Bryant deals with modifications in the plot structure,³ so we are not going back to these questions unless they affect the problem of satire, as e. g., the substitution of the English setting for the Italian one or the modification of the notion of humour⁴ and the resulting mitigation of the punishment allotted to Stephen and Bobadill. Our chief task is the analysis of the play from the standpoint of its satirical content; a recourse to classical models will help us to isolate the individual features of the play.

Every Man in his Humour represents a conscious attempt by the author to pull contemporary drama in the direction of satirical comedy. This intention is transparent in the Prologue to the Folio edition, which, in addition to the criticism of romantic comedy as well as history plays,⁵ contains a constructive programme, devised for the new form of comedy; the latter is to deal with

          deeds, and language, such as men doe vse:
And persons, such as Comoedie would chuse,
Then she would show an Image of the times,
And sport with humane follies, not with crimes.(6)

Every Man in his Humour is a pioneer work and this has told on its structure. For its two basic components—the plot which can be traced back to the traditions of New Comedy and the satirical material, shaped as humour types, are not altogether integrated.

The action of the comedy is woven around the amusing adventures of a young London gentleman, Edward Knowell who, assisted by his friend Wellbred and his servant Brainworm, has managed to emancipate himself from his father's tutelage and will assert his independence by means of his marriage.

The leading figures of the play and many a situation have counterparts in Roman comedy. There are both family types and professional types as, e.g., in Plautine comedy.⁷ Edward Knowell, his father and Wellbred belong to the former group, Brainworm and Bobadill to the latter. Edward reminds us of the iuvenis, a nice youth but rather helpless, especially when he has fallen in love. In Wellbred we can recognize another variation of the youth type, reckless and playful though a devoted friend. Old Knowell, Edward's provident, distrustful father is an echo of Plautine senex or Horatian pater ardens who would keep his son trammelled until he has taught him that increasing his possessions should always be his first consideration. Among professional types, cunning and resourceful Brainworm is a direct heir of the Roman slave (servus currens, servus fallax) who helps his master both because he is sure of reward and also because he likes practical jokes. The second representative of this group, captain Bobadill is a descendant of a long line of bragging soldiers (milites gloriosi) so well represented in the comedies by Plautus and Terence.⁸

Some situations in Every Man in his Humour are also distinctly Plautine. The principle falli senem has been applied here, for the intrigue is directed against Knowell the father; its success, like in Plautus, depends on a scheming servant. Brainworm's alliance with his young master, the youths' friendship, the triple alliance Edward-Knowell—Brainworm, and Edward's love-affair—all these are typical of New Comedy. It is from the same source that Jonson borrowed the idea of organizing the plot: all the strings of the intrigue are pulled by Brainworm, an analogue to a cunning slave.

Having recognized Jonson's indebtedness to New Comedy it is time to consider these features of Every Man in his Humour which determine its distinctive character. If we were to select some special trait which differentiates Jonson's play from the Plautine tradition we could not fail to single out its pervasive tendency. The English author is not merely content to provide fun; his ambition is rather to educate and admonish through laughter. Jonson's comedy has characteristic satirical undertones. The young lover's adventures which play such a prominent part in the action in Plautine comedy, are quite negligible here—Edward's intentions towards Bridget are revealed only in Act IV se. v. Young Knowell's escapade is just a pretext furnishing a convenient framework for introducing and deriding humourous types, such as old Knowell, Downright and Kitely, on the one hand, and Bobadill, Matthew and Stephen on the other.

The first three are presented conventionally. Edward's father has a number of features common to elderly people. His character corresponds, on the whole, to Aristotelian description⁹—he is distrustful and even suspicious, his interest being preponderantly practical. But he is neither mean or small-minded and does not really have the foibles peculiar to Plautine senex. His speech on what makes a true man is a good specimen of his intellectual and moral make-up. It is his meddling with his son's affairs that makes him ridiculous.

Young Downright is a classical example of a choleric type. Of an impatient and unbalanced mind, he is unable to exercise self-control and easily flies into a passion. His very looks (his half-brother tells us be is tall and lean) were meant to indicate a choleric temperament.

Kitely, a prosperous merchant, rather far on in life, does not trust his young wife; he comes to be obsessed by the idea that he might turn a cuckold—hence his reactions to quite innocent and meaningless events become absurd. The ludicrousness of the situation is intensified by the fact that Mrs. Kitely begins to suspect her husband of being unfaithful to her. The merchant's jealousy is further burlesqued by the water-bearer Cob.

Far more interesting are the figures of Bobadill, Matthew and Stephen as they clearly bear the stamp of their time. Bobadill is a specimen of the bragging soldier, a genus rich in tradition in the ancient, especially Roman comedy.¹⁰ He takes some broad characteristics after his Roman predecessors. He would boast and storm boisterously at his adversary but when attacked he invariably proves a coward. Bragging and faint-heartedness combined with the ensuing comic abasement also relate Bobadill to a native hero in the morality tradition; Baskervill¹¹ and Boughner¹² have convincingly shown the affinity of the Renaissance braggart to Vice.

More important still are Bobadill's individual features differentiating him both from the ancient and the native ancestors. In the first place, he is a pauper. Far from squandering money like Pyrgopolinices, he can hardly produce as much as halfpence; and instead of paying a rent (he shares a modest room with a water-bearer and his wife), he keeps borrowing little sums from his landlord. His is the fate of many a veteran of the wars in Flanders; as often as not they were unable or unwilling to work and turned to beggars or even highway robbers. Jonson who had volunteered to fight in Flanders some years ago had a first-hand knowledge of their life; and though he holds up to ridicule their tricks and affectations he is not unsympathetic. He thus confers on Bobadill certain likable characteristics. The braggart has some sense of dignity which prevents him from begging or making his poverty an excuse for dishonesty. On the contrary, he resorts to elaborate subterfuge to conceal his desperate position when surprised in his humble lodgings by a visitor. (This peculiar self-respect does not, however, preclude his mildly enduring abusive language as well as blows. Such an attitude is apparently typical of a swaggerer.)

Another individual feature consists in Bobadill's affecting a gallant; he must have a sash and silk stockings (though he does not care if he has a spare shirt), he pretends to be a heavy smoker, a master of fencing and an expert in duelling, and he displays a real proficiency in absurd swearing. These fashionable “accomplishments” are proved to have a practical motivation—the Captain gives himself airs and graces of a preceptor because in return for his tuition he hopes to secure an invitation to a meal, however modest. In this respect Bobadill reminds us of the ancient parasite, but then again he lacks some other features characteristic of parasitus edax—neither does he flatter nor is he officious; he keeps aloof, and in relation to the young he assumes a patronizing tone.

Finally, Bobadill differs from the classical models by his attitude to the fair sex. He makes no attempt to brag of his success in love, and his amorous court paid to Bridget is rather reminiscent of the medieval concept of courtly love. Unsuccessful wooing makes him melancholy, but again melancholy was at the height of fashion.

Bodadill's affectations are punctiliously imitated by young Matthew. The latter has been described by the author as a town gull to distinguish him from the country gull Stephen. Both youths apparently come from the City; but Stephen has obviously managed to provide himself with a landed estate, hence his affiliation to the country. Both of them earnestly desire to get assimilated with gilded youth and they imagine this can best be achieved by aping the follies of fashionable gallants.

Matthew's distinctive trait, as compared with Stephen, consists in his literary ambitions. He wants to parade as a poet, because dabbling in poetry happens to be in vogue, so he bores his company with paltry verses which he has copied from someone and tries to pass for his own. A mean parodist, be turns out to be a better though unintended zany of some fashionable fads.

Stephen's motto runs as follows: “I will be more proud, and melancholy, and gentleman-like, then I haue beene.”¹³ The gull's “pride” is expressed by his contemptuous tone and arrogant bearing towards the people who, he thinks, are below him; also in boasting about his wealth and in his ridiculous vanity, as when he orders Brainworn to praise his legs. His “gentleman-like” qualities consist in mimicking the whims and fads of the upper classes; thus “melancholy” is his favourite pose, for he thinks it is refined; he is particularly impressed by “gentlemanly” pastimes, such as hawking and hunting, smoking, and, of course, swearing.

It is the external appurtenances that appeal to his imagination; he is rash enough to get himself a hawk though he has no idea what to do with it, or, in defiance to his cousin's sensible advice, he gets himself a “Toledo” rapier which proves to be a piece of rubbish. He is looking for a textbook of hunting jargon because, he says, it is a fashionable accomplishment, and therefore far more important than the knowledge of Latin or Greek.¹⁴

Stupidity and ignorance do not preclude greed since Stephen is not ashamed to admit that he is looking forward to his cousin's death (though he is of the same age), because he hopes to be his heir. Nor does wealth prevent rapacity since the newly-established landlord will not hesitate to appropriate Downright's cloak forgotten in the brawl. His purse is his most treasured possession to be lamented bitterly when it is seemingly lost, and it is in vain to appeal to his generosity unless he wants to make a show of it.

Stephen's portrait is that of an upstart at his worst: he is a rich burgher who has bought himself an estate in the country to strengthen his position. Jonson exposes his avarice and meanness; mocks his snobbery and readiness to waste his fortune on newfangled caprice; taunts his obstinate ignorance and contempt for learning, especially when combined with false pretence.

The presentation of humorous types is ingenious, a variety of methods being used to enhance the effectiveness of satirical portraits. The writer is not satisfied with direct characterization or self-analysis but chiefly relies on building the situations stimulating the characters' action in which their weaknesses are naturally revealed. Some of the foibles are made particularly prominent by being exemplified in more than one character, and this device is spectacularly effective with burlesque, as when Bobadill's sophisticated oaths are reverberated in Stephen or Cob's language, or Kitely's jealousy projected to the plane of Cob and Tib. The subplots are interwoven into the main action and dramatic conflict is resolved in accordance with the motivation—humorous characters are admonished or punished according to their fault. In the original version of the play, the administration of justice is rather stern while in the English version the verdict affecting Bobadill and his two disciples becomes more relenting. The alleviation of the allotted punishment and a slight modification of the tone of the play is an expression of the change in the author's general attitude.¹⁵

In Every Man in his Humour Jonson has demonstrated that he can adapt the Roman comedy of intrigue to new tasks. Being convinced that comedy should educate the audience by provoking ridicule and censure of bad manners, he exploited for this purpose some of the conventions of the ancient stage, notably some Plautine stock characters. But while with Plautus stock types are used to shape the action into a certain pattern and are chiefly responsible for comical effects, with the English dramatist this device, transformed into “humorous” characters, becomes an effective weapon of satire. The plot of Every Man in his Humour, modelled on New Comedy, has not yet been thoroughly welded with the satirical element which has chiefly been moulded into humorous types.

The task of satire is greatly facilitated by the introduction, in the Folio edition, of the native scenery. Such characters as Bobadill, Matthew and Stephen with their specific snobbery, or some genuine Cockney figures such as Cob, have the greater appeal than the corresponding figures in the original, Italian setting. The wealth of small detail and topical allusions, such as Cob's complaining of fish days, or a reference to Drake's vessel, as well as some characteristic situations, as that exemplifying the operation of the English system of justice through the agency of benevolent Clement, add fresh colour to the “image of the times” and make satire more palatable.

Notes

1. Prof. Campbell has demonstrated that the two humour comedies represent two distinct modes of approach and use different techniques (O. J. Campbell, Comicall Satyre and Shakespeare's “Troilus and Cressida”, San Marino, California, 1938, pp. 55-56).

2. Oxford Jonson., ed. C. H. Herford and Percy and Evelyn Simpson, 1925–1952, I, pp. 358-370, Appendix V.

3. “Jonson's Revision of Every Man in his Humour”, Studies in Philology, LIX (1962), pp. 641-650. While comparing the two versions of the play the author concentrates on two points, (1) the curtailment of Edward Knowell's eulogy of poetry, and (2) raising the follies of Knowell the father (Lorenzo Senior in the Quarto) and those of the merchant Kitely (Thorello in the Quarto) to the rank of humours. The significance of the first point has successfully been established; one might only add that the omission in the Folio version becomes self-evident when we realize that he had exploited the theme of the defence of poetry in Poetaster.

   On the other hand, it would seem that too much significance has been attributed to the second point. “In the Folio”, we read, “it is Knowell's humour that sets the whole action in motion and that section in turn brings about the rectification of all the genuine humours and the exposure of all folly” (Ibid., p. 648; see also 647-649). Actually Knowell's suspiciousness and the ensuing decision to follow in Edward's steps initiate the action only indirectly, i.e., by provoking Brainworm to take the lead in the intrigue. Otherwise Knowell's share in the action is limited to unintentionally arousing Kitely's jealousy (IV. x.).

4. Cf. M. Gotwald, “Jonsonowska koncepcja humorów”, Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis, No 45, Germanica Wratislaviensia XI, Wroclaw 1967.

5. E.M.I., Prol., 6-20. The gibes at romantic comedies and the histories are to prove that their subject-matter is beyond the scope of realistic presentation in the conditions of the theatre and can only result in a debasement of the dramatic art.

6. Prol., 21-24.

7. Cf. C. Przychodzki, Platus, Kraków 1925, Chap. V.

8. See D. C. Boughner, The Braggart in Renaissance Comedy. A Study of Comparative Drama from Aristophanes to Shakespeare, Minneapolis 1951, Chap. I; and, by the same author, “Vice Braggart and Falstaff”, Anglia, LXXII (1954), pp. 35-61. Professor Botghner has pointed out that the English braggart has also some characteristics of Vice from the morality plays.

9. Cf. Rhetoric, Book II, Chap. 13.

10. The list of Bobadill's forerunners is particularly impressive with Plautus; it starts with an unnamed officer in Epiolicus, to be followed by Cleomachus (Bacchides), Polymachaeroplagides (Pseudolus), Theropontigonus Platogidorus (Curculio), Antamenides (Poenulus), Stratophanes (Truculentus), to culminate in Pyrgopolinices (Miles Gloriosus). Terentian Thraso (Eunuchus) provides another outstanding example. Little has been known of the prototype of Miles Gloriosus in the Greek comedy. Prof. Boughner finds models of the braggart both in Old (Kleonymus in Frogs by Aristophanes and Euripidean Dionysus) and New Comedy (Bias in Kolax, Stratophanes in Sicyonios and Thrasonides in Misoumenos by Menander). Cf. The Braggart in Renaissance Comedy, pp. 7 ff.

11. C. R. Baskervill, English Elements in Jonson's Early Comedy, Austin, Texas, 1911, pp. 122-130.

12. Boughner, Braggart, Chaps. 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8 and the paper “Vice Braggart”, pp. 35-61.

13. E.M.I., I. iii. 129-131.

14. Ibid., I.i. 40-44.

15. Cf. Chap. IX.