Every Man in His Humor — Inside the Classic
Edition facts
Every Man in His Humor — Inside the Classic can be approached with a clearer sense of reading commitment from its source measurements: 50,399 words, 3 hr 40 min estimated reading time, and 8 detected text sections.
The text analysis averages about 13.3 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.
Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “English drama (Comedy),” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.
Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.
How this score is calculated
- Description quality20 pts
- Title & short description10 pts
- Source metadata20 pts
- Text length15 pts
- Chapters / structure15 pts
- EPUB file integrity20 pts
Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.
Read the Text
Jonson was cited to appear before the Lord Chief Justice to answer certain charges to the effect that he had attacked lawyers and soldiers in "Poetaster," nothing came of this complaint. It may be suspected that much of this furious clatter and give-and-take was pure playing to the gallery. The town was agog with the strife, and on no less an authority than Shakespeare ("Hamlet," ii. 2), we learn that the children's company (acting the plays of Jonson) did "so berattle the common stages...that many, wearing rapiers, are afraid of goose-quills, and dare scarce come thither."
Several other plays have been thought to bear a greater or less part in the war of the theatres. Among them the most important is a college play, entitled "The Return from Parnassus," dating 1601-02. In it a much-quoted passage makes Burbage, as a character, declare: "Why here's our fellow Shakespeare puts them all down; aye and Ben Jonson, too. O that Ben Jonson is a pestilent fellow; he brought up Horace, giving the poets a pill, but our fellow Shakespeare hath given him a purge that made him bewray his credit." Was Shakespeare then concerned in this war of the stages? And what could have been the nature of this "purge"? Among several suggestions, "Troilus and Cressida" has been thought by some to be the play in which Shakespeare thus "put down" his friend, Jonson. A wiser interpretation finds the "purge" in "Satiromastix," which, though not written by Shakespeare, was staged by his company, and therefore with his approval and under his direction as one of the leaders of that company.
The last years of the reign of Elizabeth thus saw Jonson recognised as a dramatist second only to Shakespeare, and not second even to him as a dramatic satirist. But Jonson now turned his talents to new fields. Plays on subjects derived from classical story and myth had held the stage from the beginning of the drama, so that Shakespeare was making no new departure when he wrote his "Julius Caesar" about 1600. Therefore when Jonson staged "Sejanus," three years later and with Shakespeare'scompany once more, he was only following in the elder dramatist's footsteps. But Jonson's idea of a play on classical history, on the one hand, and Shakespeare's and the elder popular dramatists, on the other, were very different. Heywood some years before had put five straggling plays on the stage in quick succession, all derived from stories in Ovid and dramatised with little taste or discrimination. Shakespeare had a finer conception of form, but even he was contented to take all his ancient history from North's translation of Plutarch and dramatise his subject without further inquiry. Jonson was a scholar and a classical antiquarian. He reprobated this slipshod amateurishness, and wrote his "Sejanus" like a scholar, reading Tacitus, Suetonius, and other authorities, to be certain of his facts, his setting, and his atmosphere, and somewhat pedantically noting his authorities in the margin when he came to print. "Sejanus" is a tragedy of genuine dramatic power in which is told with discriminating taste the story of the haughty favourite of Tiberius with his tragical overthrow. Our drama presents no truer nor more painstaking representation of ancient Roman life than may be found in Jonson's "Sejanus" and "Catiline his Conspiracy," which followed in 1611. A passage in the address of the former play to the reader, in which Jonson refers to a collaboration in an earlier version, has led to the surmise that Shakespeare may have been that "worthier pen." There is no evidence to determine the matter.
In 1605, we find Jonson in active collaboration with Chapman and Marston in the admirable comedy of London life entitled "Eastward Hoe." In the previous year, Marston had dedicated his "Malcontent," in terms of fervid admiration, to Jonson; so that the wounds of the war of the theatres must have been long since healed. Between Jonson and Chapman there was the kinship of similar scholarly ideals. The two continued friends throughout life. "Eastward Hoe" achieved the extraordinary popularity represented in a demand for three issues in one year. But this was not due entirely to the merits of the play. In its earliest version a passage which an irritable courtier conceived to be derogatory to his nation, the Scots, sent both Chapman and Jonson to jail; but the matter was soon patched up, for by this time Jonson had influence at court.
Ben Jonson's Every Man in His Humor opens not with a single protagonist but with a network of characters defined by their dominant 'humours'—obsessive traits that drive their speech and actions. The play's structure relies on swift alternations between domestic interiors, city streets, and the chambers of Justice Clement, creating a rhythm of intrusion and retreat. Recurring images of tobacco, swords, and legal documents weave through the dialogue, linking the physical and the social. The excerpts show a world where a quarrel over smoking can land a man in jail, and where a soldier's bravado is undercut by his threadbare appearance. This editorial note examines how Jonson uses movement between scenes and repeated motifs to build a comic anatomy of London life.
Scene Shifts and Social Geography
The play's action moves briskly between Kitely's house, Cob's neighborhood, and Justice Clement's court. These shifts are not merely functional; they map a social geography where each location carries its own comic register. In Kitely's home, domestic anxiety prevails; on the street, braggarts and gulls collide; in Clement's chamber, legal farce takes over. Jonson often signals a change of scene with a character's entrance or exit, as when Cob is hauled off to jail and the scene immediately cuts to Kitely's interior. This technique keeps the multiple plots in constant motion, preventing any single humour from dominating for long.
Tobacco as a Recurring Image
Tobacco appears repeatedly as a marker of affectation and conflict. Cob's complaint against Captain Bobadill begins because he 'spake against their vagrant tobacco.' Justice Clement, despite his authority, erupts at the idea of a 'thread-bare rascal' disputing the herb's virtue, praising its use in 'courts of princes' and 'cabins of soldiers.' The substance thus becomes a litmus test for social pretension: those who defend it claim sophistication, while those who attack it risk punishment. Jonson does not moralize but lets the recurring image accumulate comic weight through each character's reaction.
Legal Language and Physical Comedy
Justice Clement's courtroom scenes blend legal jargon with slapstick. Cob's plea for a 'warrant' against Bobadill twists into a request to be 'beaten again' rather than imprisoned. Clement's clerk Formal mechanically repeats commands, reducing justice to a parrot-like echo. The humour arises from the gap between legal forms and bodily reality: Cob displays his bruises as 'colour enough' for a complaint, and Clement threatens jail for a verbal offense against tobacco. Jonson uses the law's rigidity to expose the absurdity of characters who take their humours too seriously.
Disguise and Misrecognition
Though the excerpts do not reveal the full plot, they hint at a pattern of disguise and mistaken identity. Knowell's son is mentioned as old enough to govern himself, suggesting a generational conflict that may involve deception. The braggart soldier Bobadill, with his exaggerated claims of martial prowess, is himself a kind of disguise—a performance of valour that the play's structure repeatedly undercuts. Jonson's movement between scenes often hinges on characters failing to recognize one another's true natures, a comic device that reinforces the theme of humours as masks.
Readers attentive to Jonson's stagecraft will notice how each scene's entrance and exit mirrors the ebb and flow of a humour—a character's obsession swelling until it is punctured by another's. The play rewards attention to repeated props and phrases: tobacco, warrants, and the word 'sweet' applied ironically to Oliver Cob. Rather than a linear plot, Every Man in His Humor offers a mosaic of collisions, best enjoyed by following the rhythm of its scene changes and the echoes of its imagery.
Reading about Jonson’s watchful old men and their staged deceits, I remembered my own father’s quiet suspicions during my teenage years—how we all played parts to keep the peace. Candida — A Closer Reading once gave me that same ache of recognizing how love hides inside clumsy restraint. Both books feel like rooms where everyone is half-listening. I’m still thinking about that.
There are no reviews for this eBook.
Your personal reading reflection
Build a private reading journal entry for this title.