PRINCIPLE TYPES OF COMEDY – COMEDY OF HUMOURS

 

    Comedy of humours represents a type of comic play brought into fashion in the 16^th century by the dramatist Ben Jonson. His play Everyman in his Humour first performed in 1598 is generally regarded as inaugurating the vogue for humour comedies on the English stage. Regarded as by far its greatest exponent, Jonson’s other important plays that served to establish the subgenre include Everyman Out of his Humour (1599), Volpone or The Fox (1606), Epicoene or The Silent Woman (1609), The Alchemist (1610) and Bartholomew Fair (1614). Beside Jonson, the playwright George Chapman is generally identified as a noteworthy exponent of this form of comedy. In fact, his play A Humorous Days Mirth (1597) is perhaps the first humour comedy to be produced, from which it is surmised Jonson derived his formula for Everyman in his Humour. Some other notable humour comedies by Chapman are All Fools (1609) and The Gentleman Usher (1610). In dealing with the comedy of humours, arguably the most influential factor that we need to consider is the medical theory of humour, whose origin dates back to classical antiquity. According to this theory, the human body apparently consists of four humours or fluids, which are responsible for an individual’s overall medical condition. The theory posits that as long as the four humours namely blood, phlegm, choler and black bile, are in equal proportion to each other in the body, a subject would remain healthy. Illness sets in when the balance in the relative proportion of the humours becomes disturbed due to some stimulus, and at such occasions the duty of the physician called upon to cure the patient, would be to essentially restore the imbalance suffered. The interesting point to note here is that the humours were not merely regarded as accountable for a person’s physical well-being, but also the psychological makeup. Each humour for instance was assigned with a specific character trait, and it was believed that a physiological imbalance in the humours would invariably result in a psychological imbalance. The character traits assigned to each of the humours are, sanguinity for blood, lethargy for phlegm, peevishness for choler, and melancholy for black bile. In designing his comedies, Jonson basically obtained his conceptual impetus from the theory of humours, which explains why they are called comedy of humours. Of specific significance in this regard is the logic by which he devised the characters in his plays, which has been elaborated below as one of the distinctive features of this subgenre. It must be said that after Jonson, comedy of humours went out of favour, and no attempts have been instituted by any prospective playwright ever since to resurrect its fortune. However, Jonson’s own comedies remained popular post the renaissance, and much in demand during especially the restoration era when they became the staple source of inspiration for the comedy of manners. Some of the distinguishing features of the comedy of humours could be set forth as follows.

 

Classical Framework: No other playwright in the annals of English drama has more thoroughly and successfully upheld the classical norms of dramatic composition in his plays than Jonson. His comedies which are by far the more popular of his productions for the stage, bear out this point most tellingly. To begin with, the characters in his comedies are drawn from either the middle or lower walks of life, and meet with the Aristotlian criterion of being worse than those found in the world. They are also portrayed as conversing in a crisp but plain and colloquial style of speaking, far from being lyrical or poetic. Most important of all, they closely adhere to the idea of the three unities, which demand that a play ought to have but one central theme, must not exceed a duration of 24 hours in timespan, and should be confined to a single locale. It is however noteworthy that in imitating the Greek and Roman models, Jonson does not forget to invest his comedies with an imaginative and contemporary flavour that makes them appealing to the audience of his times. He was a staunch adherent of the classics, but ensured his plays remained relevant and individualistic in scope.

Humour Characterisation: The most characteristic feature of Jonson’s comedy pertains to characterization, which is conceived along the lines of the medical theory of humours outlined above. The central character in a Jonsonian comedy typically tends to be a personage whose entire personality is definitively marked by a single trait, which apparently emanates from the preponderance of one of the four humours in the body. The bias in the personality naturally reflects the bias in the humours, which is to say, the trait that comes to define the whole disposition of the humour character in question would be that assigned to the humour which is dominant. A representative instance to consider would be that of Morose in Epicoene or The Silent Woman, whose whole character is so thoroughly defined by a pathological aversion to noise, emanating from a preponderance of choler. The main character in a Jonson comedy is thus a one dimensional personage or oddity, suffering from a humour imbalance. Though it might seem artificial in scope, the attempt made by Jonson to devise character types on a medical theory exemplifies a sound enterprise. For one thing, it typifies an endeavor to merge mind and body together, by seeking to explain psychic disposition in terms of physiology. This is indeed a novel attempt for it reinforced how the mental makeup of a person is for the most part founded on the physical constitution of an individual subject.

 

Urban milieu: London typifies the staple setting of all Jonson’s principal comedies, and there are two essential factors that underlie this point. The first which is personal in scope relates to the point that Jonson is fundamentally a man of the metropolis, whose sensibility was deeply rooted in the rhythms, meanings and structures of city life. Though it is undeniable that he dealt with a vast spectrum of concerns as a dramatist, his basic experience of life as he lived and perceived it was to a large extent shaped by urban topographies. As an individual Jonson could never disengage himself from the city, and its various aspects concomitantly proved to be the most telling determining influence of his career. The second fact that makes London so pivotal in the scheme of Jonson’s comedies emanates from the point that it served as an ideal milieu for his critical impulse as an artist. Filled to bursting with myriad personages, trades and practices, London typified a vast reservoir of folly and evil, which presented Jonson with an apparently endless range of subjects that lent themselves readily to satirical dissection. The fact that he worked a few years as a brick layers apprentice, amplified this prospect by obtaining him an intimate knowledge of the city’s low life. Thus, London it must be said does not merely exemplify a material ground of action in Jonson’s comedies, but the very soul and spirit that animates its core.

 

Satirical Intent: Jonson’s comedies are basically satirical in intent in that they take as their central concern a prevalent evil or folly, and subject it to ridicule. In this regard, his plays perhaps closely resemble than any other English dramatist, those of the Greek comedian Aristophanes. Aristophanes could indeed be recognized as the single most important influence on Jonson as a playwright, but in mentioning this point, it must be also specified that the latter’s comic productions are tellingly topical in character. This is to say, as the plays of Aristophanes are firmly rooted in the Agora of Athens, those of Jonson’s are concretely anchored in the renaissance of the 16^th century. His The Alchemist which satirizes the folly of human greed through invoking the pseudoscientific practice of turning baser metals into gold, exemplifies a classic case in point. It must however be stipulated that the satirical vigor exuded by Jonson in his comedies would have amounted to nothing, if not for the strain of grim realism that underpins their conception. If Shakespeare’s comedies take us into an idealized rainbow world where love reigns supreme, Jonson’s parades us through the murky alleyways of contemporary London where cut throats and scoundrels abound. Shakespeare perennially strives to take the audience away from the real world with all its mundane drabness, Jonson conversely seeks to portray that real world with all its distasteful imperfections. These imperfections ultimately become the conceptual cornerstones of his plays, providing him with the much needed impetus for satirical mockery.