POST-SHAKESPEAREAN DRAMA (1625-42)

Causes of the Decline of Drama in Post-Shakespearean England
Drama in Post-Shakespearean England began to deline and lost the wide catholicity of appeal which distinguished Shakespearean drama. The plain causes which led to the decline of drama are given below:
(i) Exhaustion of Creative Spirit: W. J. Long remarks: "It was inevitable that the drama should decline after Shakespeare, for the simple reason that there was no dramatist great enough to fill his place." The early dramatists in England wrote to please their audiences. The drama rose in England because the patriotic people wanted to see something of the stirring life of the times reflected on the stage. As there were no Papers or Magazines in those days, people came to the theatre not only to be amused but to be informed. Shakespeare catered to the needs of the people and gave them what they wanted. Long writes: "He gave them their story, and his genius was great enough to show in every play not only their own life and passions but something of the meaning of all life, and of that eternal justice which uses the war of human passions for its own great ends. Thus good and evil mingle freely in his dramas, but the evil is never attractive, and the good triumphs as inevitably as fate. Though his language is sometimes coarse, we are to remember that it was the custom of his age to speak somewhat coarsely, and that in language, as in thought and feeling, Shakespeare is far above most of his contemporaries."
Everything changed with Shakespeare's successors. The audience itself had gradually changed, and in place of plain people eager for a story and for information, we see a larger and larger proportion of those who went to play because they had nothing else to do. Instead of profitable information and the knowledge of human life and nature, they called for sensational amusement. Shakespeare's successors, writes W. J. Long, "catered to the depraved tastes of the new audience: They lacked not only Shakespeare's genius, but his broad charity, his moral insight into life. With the exception of Ben Jonson, they neglected the simple fact that man in his deepest nature is a moral being, and that not only a play which satisfies the whole nature of man by showing the triumph of moral law can ever satisfy an audience or a people. Beaumont and Fletcher, forgetting the deep meaning of life, strove for effect by increasing the sensationalism of their plays; Webster revealed in tragedies of blood and thunder; Massinger and Ford made another step downward, producing evil and licentious scenes for their own sake, making characters and situations more immoral till, notwithstanding these dramatists' ability, the stage had become insincere, frivolous and bad. Ben Jonson's ode, "Come, Leave the Loathed Stage" is the judgement of a large and honest nature grown weary of the plays and the players of the time. We read with a sense of relief that in 1642, only twenty-six years after Shakespeare's death, both houses of Parliament voted to close the theatres as breeders of lies and immorality."
(ii) Changed Atmosphere: Quickly though insensibly, the temper of the nation suffered eclipse. The high hopes and the ardency of the reign of Elizabeth saddened into a profound pessimism and gloom into that of James. Its causes are broad enough. "To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive." The Elizabethans were, if ever any were, hopeful travellers. The winds blew them to the four quarters of the world; they navigated all seas; they sacked rich cities. They beat off the great Armada, and harried the very coasts of Spain. They pushed discovery to the ends of the world and amassed great wealth. Under James all these things were over. Peace was made with Spain, national pride was wounded by the solicitous anxiety of the King for a Spanish marriage for the heir of the throne. The court which had been a centre of flashing and gleaming brilliance degenerated into a group of sycophants humouring the pragmatic and self-important folly of a King in whom'were embodied all the vices of the Scots and none of their virtues. The bright day was done and they were for the dark. The uprising of Puritanism and the shadow of impending religious strife darkened the temper of the time. The age of action, which is the soul of drama, was gone. All these changes affected drama. The decline of moral values gave unpleasant themes to drama, the themes of incest, sexual infidelity, murder and horror.
(iii) Loss of National Appeal: While Beaumont and Fletcher were writing, the theatre was gradually but surely losing its hold on the lower and middle classes. In the historical plays of Shakespeare the spirit of the age had found full expression, Shakespeare had spoken for all classes, and all classes had been among his audiences. But first Ben Jonson, though still making in his great comedies a strong popular appeal, began to speak more particularly to the classically educated with his classical allusions and influences, and then Beaumont, and Fletcher wrote their plays for courtiers, and with their wit and gallantry, their talks of intrigue and their insidious indecency, expressed the gentlemanly view of life, not the national view. The playwrights, who were confined to a narrow class, lost the wide national appeal.
Religious: Rise of Puritanism. Such were a few of the political reasons which help to account for the mood of misgiving, apprehension and uncertainty which spread throughout the thinking world, and is reflected with particular clearness in the drama. Besides these political causes, there were religious causes also for this mood of fear and anxiety which overtook the nation during the early years of the 17th century. It was during this period that Puritanism emerged as the great controlling moral and social force. Let us here first consider what we exactly mean by Puritanism and then proceed to examine the political, social and religious causes that gave rise to it, and its impact on the literature of the period.
In the broadest sense, Puritanism may be regarded as the renais­sance of the moral sense of man. The Greco-Roman Renaissance of 15th and 16th centuries was largely pagan and sensuous. It did not touch the moral nature of man, it did nothing for his religious, political and social emancipation. The Puritan movement, on the other hand, was the greatest movement for moral and political reform. Its aims were: (1) religious liberty, i.e., that man should be free to worship according to their con­science, and (2) that they should enjoyed full civil liberty. The Puritans wanted to make men honest and to make them free. They insisted on the purity of life.
In matters of religion the Puritans were fanatics. They were ex­tremists. There had been Puritanseven during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. They did not accept the Anglican Church, which was essentially a com­promise between Catholicism and Protestantism. They considered its creeds and public worship as too much like Popery. They advocated Church reform. Moreover, they had very strict views about life and conduct. They laid down very austere ideals of life. They were against common pleasures, even innocent ones, e.g., drama and considered singing and dancing as immoral, and hence in the beginning the term 'Puritan' was a term of contempt applied to such extremists. We find frequent satirical references to them in the plays of Shakespeare. The general tendency of the Puritan was anti social, "Beauty in his eyes was a snare and pleasure a sin; the only mode of social intercourse which he approved was a sermon". As Macaulay puts it, he hated bear- baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectator. The Puritans thus stood for (1) church reform, (2) for the reform of social life according to their austere ideals, (3) for the ideal of liberty both religious and political — man should be free to worship according to his own conscience unhampered by the state.
The wise Elizabethan compromise in matters of religion broke down with the accession of James I to the throne. The extremists—the Puritans and the Jesuits (extreme catholics) — had never taken kindly to the Church of England, based largely on a compromise between the Catholic and Protestant claims. But these extremists dared not raise their voice as long as the popular and tactful Queen ruled the destiny of the nation. But the extravagance and immorality of the Court under James I, his ignorance of the English tongue, and the consequent failure to communicate with the people, his uncouth appearance and awkward manners, his theory of the Divine Right of Kings advanced as a justification of his despotic rule, and the fact that his Queen was a Catholic, all contributed to his unpopularity and the antagonism of the people.
The Critical Temper—Impact on Literature
This was a great gain for the Puritans. The ordinary citizen sym­pathised increasingly with Puritans, with thier emphasis on thrift and economy, and the purity of the home. Criticism of the church and the court increasingly became more vocal and wide -spread and resulted ultimately in the civil war and the beheading of Charles I. The critical temper of the age is reflected in its literature — poetry, prose and drama. The times were out of joint and pesimism and satire are the natural result of the dissatisfac­tion with the existing order. The 'melancholy pose' of the 1590's and the early years of the 17th century is not a mere affectation: it is an expression of the inner gloom and frustration of the age. It is also seen in the morbid pre-occupation of the writers of the age with the themes of decay; dissolution, disease, sickness and death.
Tactlessness of Charles I
James I was sufficiently clever and died just sufficiently soon, and thus in his reign there was no open conflict between the King and his people. But he left behind him serious problems for his son Charles I (1625). Charles was handsome, cultured and graceful, just such a king as was likely to win the heart of his people. However, he was tactless and did not attach much importance to public sentiments. He surrounded himself with evil councillors — and with their help tried to enforce the divine right theory of Kings. His absolutism roused the apprehensions of the people. In politics he was entirely unscrupulous. Moreover, he had a Catholic Queen and was himself suspected of having Catholic leanings. His Policies, both religious and political, both in Scotland and Ireland, were complete and object failures. The treasury was already bankrupt and he and his courtiers were not only profligates but also highly extravagant. In dire need of funds, he appealed to the Parliament which demanded even greater privileges for itself. No compromise was possible between the despotic Charles and the Parliament consisting mainly of elements hostile to the King. The stress and strain in national life increased resulting in The Civil War between the King and the Parliament which broke out in 1640. The nation was divided into two factions — the supporters of the King, known as the Cavaliers', and the supporters of the Parliament, mainly Puritans, known as 'the Round Heads.' The war had an adverse effect on literary activity and there was a general decline in stardards. As a result of Puritan opposition there was a complete collapse of drama, and the theatres where closed down in 1642; King Charles I was beheaded in 1649, and the royal family together with a few staunch supporters, sought shelter in France. A strong Puritan government or commonwealth, headed by Cromwell, was founded in 1649. For twelve years till the death of Cromwell in 1659, the Puritans ruled the country, and entertainment of every kind was banned.
The Influence of Machiavelli
The bewilderment and confusion of the age is made worse con­founded by certain new and materialistic interpretations of the world order. The most potent influence in this connection is that of Machiavelli. Machiavelli's The Prince was widely read, but its teachings were largely misunderstood. Machiavelli was understood to provide a materialistic and Satanic interpretation of the world order. Spiritual and moral theories of the governance of the universe were rejected. It was not God but Satan who was the supreme power. That is why weakness, ingratitude, ill- will, wickedness, cruelty, etc., are essential elements of human character and society, and religion is merely an instrument of exploitation in the hands of kings and princes. This materialistic view, tinged with Satanism, clashed with the Biblical and Christian interpretations, and a diabolic creed, a faith in cynical self-seeking and agression, was thus inculcated. Under the impact of such theories, the hero turned villain on the Jacoban stage, and diabolism-ruthless self-seeking to the utter disregard of all moral and humanitarian considerations—became the dominant theme even of such great dramatists as Webster and Tourneur. Faith in the older world-order was thus shaken, but a new and more stable order had not yet evolved. Man was literally caught between 'two worlds' and disillusiodment, fear and anxiety, born of uncertainty, were the natural result.
The Two Worlds
Indeed, in more ways than one the medieval world-order was disintegrating in the first half of the 17th Century. This is so much so the case that it has become usual to speak of "the two worlds" of writers like Donne—the disintegrating medieval world of Scholastic Philosophy, Science and Metaphysics, and the rising world of the New Philosophy.
The Medieval World: Chief Features
Even upto the last quarter of the 16th century, the medieval scholas­tic philosophy and world-view still held the day. The chief features of this medieval world-picture may be summarised as follows:
(a) The universe was still conceived, according to the old Ptolemaic astronomy, as a vast system of concentric spheres with the earth at the centre. The spheres carried the moon, the sun, the planets, and the stars; the substance of these celestial bodies increased in refinement and purity in proportion to their distance from the earth, and beyond the outermost sphere lay Empyrean heaven, the abode of God. The whole system was bound together in a divinely appointed order always thought of as hier achical.
(b) Frome more matter upto God there stretched a continuous `chain of being' in which man formed the vital central link; below him animal, vegetable, and inanimate matter, above him celestial intelligences and the various orders of angels.
(c) A complicated harmony was manifest in constant correspon­dences between different planes of existance; the order of the cosmos was paralleled in the order of the State; the State, or 'body politic', was an organic unity analogous to man himself; and man was the 'microcosm', a little world, reflected in miniature the organization of the whole universe.
(d) As the whole universe was composed of different combinations of the four elements, fire, air, water, and earth, so human temperament was the result of varying blends of the four corresponding bodily fluids or `humours', choler, blood , phlegm and melancholy (black bile).
(e) In such a conception of the world and man's place in it, physics, physiology, psychology, philosophy and religion seem to the modern mind to be hopelessly intermingled; they have not yet been recognized as com­pletely sparate studies with distinct disciplines. Yet, a the beginning of our period, these ideas were still receiving serious and eloquent expression by, for example, Raleigh and Shakespeare, and they were to remain for many years a commonly accepted background to thought.
(f) Knowledge was still based to a considerable extent on the authority of earlier writers, on deduction from traditional theology, or on the ingenious working our of analogies, rather than on observation and experiment. The road to learning was still the traditional one of grammar, rhetoric, and logic, and university education was still largely medieval in conception and method.
(g) Above all Faith and Reason were not commonly set in opposi­tion to each other, and their spheres were not sharply distinguished.
The New Philosophy
But by the turn of the century this medieval view of the order and structure of the universe was being shaken by, "the New philosophy", the term which was used to designate experimental or empirical science. The Renaissance itself had done much to widen the mental horizons of the age, and induce newer modes of thought. The discoveries of Columbus and the other navigators and explores had changed the map of the word and fired imagination with immense possibilities and opened out new vistas. The re-discovery of Greco- Roman humanistic culture, an and literature, gave a knock-out blow to medieval ascetic and other worldly outlook. The medieval cosmology and philosophy were shaken by the rise of the New philosophy. The 'new philosophy' was already a catchword at the beginnig of the century, and by the Restoration scientific experiment was achieving a fashionable status."
The Breakdown of Medieval Ideas
The new astronomers exploded the Cosmology of Aristotle and Ptolemy. The earth no longer remained the centre of the universe: the sun was no longer supposed to move round it, but it was shown that it was the earth which moved round the sun. Thus Man's faith in his own impor­tance and that of his planet was shaken. The invasion of the old Cosmology by the New Philosophy brought a sense of disorder, dissolution and decay of the Cosmos. This sense of disorder and decay is the subject of the works of many writers. It was an age of transition in which the old order collided with the new, and writer like Donne were virtually suspended between two worlds, the Old World of Decay and the New World of Progress.
The collision of the two worlds is best seen in the changes that were introduced in university curriculum. Logic, rhetoric and theology were the main subjects of study in the medieval set-up; now growing importance was attached to the study of astronomy, mathematics, physics, chemistry and other sciences. The Royal Society for Science was founded and Scholasticism came to be regarded as a term of contempt. Faith in Alchemy was soon gone, and its place was taken by the study of chemistry.
(iv) Pathos and Sentimentality: Sentiment in the plays of decadent dramatists, particularly in those of Beaumont and Fletcher usurps the place of action and character-portrayal. Eloquent and moving speeches and fine figures are no longer subservient to the presentation of character in action, but are set down for their own sake. "What strange self­trumpeteers and tongue bullies all the brave soldiers of Beaumont and Fletcher are," said Coleridge. When they die, they die to the -music of their own virtue. When dreadful deeds are done they are described not with that authentic and lurid vividness which throws light on the workings of the human heart as in Shakespeare or to some extent in Webster but in tedious rhetoric. Resignation, not fortitude, is the authors' forte and they play upon it amazingly. The sterner tones of their predecessors melt into long-drawn broken accents of pathos and woe. Beaumont and Fletcher cultivate indecency. They make their subject not their master but their plaything, or an occasion for the convenient exercise of their own powers of figure and rhetoric.
(v) Decline in Technique and Blank Verse: The post-Shakespearean drama is decadent from the viewpoint of technique. Beaumont, Fletcher and others used those variations and licences with which Shakespeare in his later plays diversified the blank verse without restraint or measure. "Weak endings" and "double endings" i.e., lines which end either on a conjunction or proposition or some other unstressed word, or lines in which there is a syllable too many— abound in their plays. They destroyed blank verse as a resonant and poetic instrument by letting this element of variety outrun the sparing and skilfull use which alone could justify it.
With Massinger and Ford romantic drama died a natural death and the Puritans' closing of the theatres in 1642 gave it a coup de grace. In England it has had no second birth.
I
BEN JONSON (1573-1637)
Born in Westminster about the year 1573, Ben Jonson was educated at Westminster School. His father died before his birth and he had to adopt the trade of his stepfather who was a bricklayer. It did not satisfy him for long, and Ben Jonson became a soldier, serving in the Low Countries. From this he turned to acting'and writing plays. He engaged himself with the Lord Admiral's company. Ben Jonson shared all the adventures and convivality of the time. He took part freely in the squabbles of the time, and in 1598 he killed a fellow-actor in a duel, narrowly escaping the gallows.
On the accession of James I in 1603 the fashion for picturesque pageants, known as masques, came into existence. Ben Jonson skilfully and industriously supplied this demand. He commanded great respect and in 1617 he was created poet to the King. His best work was produced between 1603-1615. At the close of James' reign Ben Jonson was considered the undisputed ruler of English Literature.
A frequent visitor to Mermaid Tavern, Ben Jonson was well acquainted with the lower classes of London — dupes, drunkards, cheats, gamblers etc. He knew their vices and with the passion of a moral satirist he aimed at reforming them. Ben Jonson was powerful and dominating literary personality of his time. Many contemporaries like Herrick came under his all-pervading influence and were proud to call themselves as the "Tribe of Ben" and "Sons of Ben".
Ben Jonson died in 1637. The epitaph inscribed on his grave "O, rare Ben Jonson" expresses his greatness as a man, poet and dramatist.
Ben Jonson's Plays
Jonson's works show the unity of aim underlying his work. In the words of Edward Albert: "Jonson was the first great English neoclassic. Like Donne, he was in revolt against the artistic principles of his contemporaries, and he sought in the classics a cure for the uncontrolled, romantic exuberance of Elizabethan literature. In all branches of his writings he is the conscious artist and reformer, working on clearly defined principles. To him the chief function of literature was to instruct."
All his plays are neoclassic in spirit and aim at reforming and instructing society and individuals.
Ben Jonson's first play The Case is Altered (1598) is purely experimental in character. Every Man in His Humour (1598) stormed his career into popularity and success. Its famous Prologue sets forth a definite programme by discarding chronical history plays, romantic tragedies and histories. It pioneers both realism and neoclassicism:
Deeds and language such as men do use,
And persons, such as comedy would choose,
When she should show an image of the times
And sport with human follies, not with crimes.
It propounds his theory of humours. It is the first of three satires. Its special aim was to ridicule the humours of the city. The second, The Cynthia's Revels (1 600) satirizes the humours of the court, and the third, The Poetaster (1600), the result of a quarrel with his contemporaries, was levelled at the false standards of the poets of the age.
Every Man Out of His Humour (1599) is the first fine comical satire in which Jonson further elaborates his theory of humours. It is a London play, full of the atmosphere of contemporary London.
The three well-known of Jonson's comedies are Volpone or The Fox (1605), Epicone or The Silent Woman (1609) and The Alchemist (1610). Volpone is a keen and merciless analysis of a man governed by an overwhelming love of money for its own sake. The Alchemist, a study of quackery on one side and of gullibility on the other, is an almost perfect specimen of the best English drama. Epicone or The Silent Woman is a well-constructed prose comedy. It abounds' in fun and unexpected situations.
The Bartholomew Fair (1614) is the most expansive of Jonson's mature satiric comedies and the most English in atmosphere. In it Jonson "sports with human follies and not with crimes."
Jonson's later comedies, The Devil in An Ass (1616), The Staple of News (1625), The New Inn or The Light Heart (1629), The Magnetic Lady or Humour Reconciled (1632) and A Tale of A Tub (1633), show signs of decadence.
Besides these comedies, Ben Jonson wrote two great tragedies, Sejanus (1603) and Cataline (1611) upon severe classical lines.
Ben Jonson also wrote many masques in honour of James I and of Queen Anne. Some of his best-known masques are The Satyr, The Penates, Masque of Blackness, Masque of Beauty, The Masque of Queens etc.
Ben Jonson's Theory of Comedy
Ben Jonson discarded the romantic comedy and tragicomedy in which the classical unities of time, place and action were not observed. Romance and realism were jostled together in the comedies of Greene, Lyly and Shakespeare. They sought an escape from life rather than an escape into it. The language of these plays was marked by ridiculous bombast and the settings were often fantastic. To a man of Ben Jonson's temperament the whole situation demanded a drastic remedy. He made up his mind to cure the drama of all the evils that had accumulated in the last quarter of the century. He formulated his own theory of comedy which was based on the art of classical comedy as formulated by Renaissance critics, particularly by Sir Philip Sidney. A. Nicoll writes: "Boldly as was his way, he set himself to cure the theatrical evils of the time by establishing a comic and a tragic form based on the classic example. In the latter endeavour he had no success, in the former he succeeded in making himself the greatest figure of the age." He will always remain the chief and dominating dramatist of the satirical comedy. The following are the main traits of Ben Jonson's conception of comedy:
1. Realism: Jonson claimed that comedy must, above all things, be realistic and its aim should be to hold "a mirror up to nature" for the bettering of morals. Instead of dealing with far-fetched romantic situations and characters, it must strictly confine itself to the familiar world of everyday experience and it should renew its lost connections with the present. Not only the themes and the characters were to be borrowed from real life but the language too was to be the normal speech of common persons. In his first great comedy, Every Man in His Humour, Benson Jonson enunciated his theory of comedy:
Deeds and language such as men do use,
And persons, such as comedy would choose,
When she should shew an image of the times,
And sport with human follies, not with crimes.
Ben Jonson follows in practice his own conception of comedy. Nowhere else than in Jonson can we find a better picture of the early seventeenth century London society. Its customs, fashions, follies and turns of speech have been reproduced with a faithfulness which can hardly be surpassed. Jonson seldom strays outside London. He was well acquainted with all facets of contemporary England and painted them with great fidelity and authenticity. W. J. Long writes: "In one respect his comedies are worthy of careful reading, they are intensely realistic, presenting men and women of the time exactly as they were. From a few of Jonson's scenes we can understand, better than from all the plays of Shakespeare, how men talked and acted during the Age of Elizabeth." He aimed at presenting a satiric picture of his own age. He wrote with cool irony of contemporary foibles, as he considered Plautus and Terence had done. In The Alchemist we find a perfect' realistic picture of early seventeenth century England. He exposes the hypocrisy of Puritans, throws light on the experiments and possibilities of Alchemy, which were in the air, and ridicules the weaknesses of the lower class of London society. Jonson's characters are drawn not from books but from personal observation.
Ben Jonson turned his observation to the uglier side of human nature. Depravity and moral failings attract his attention. The realism, the vivid picture of London life make Jonson's comedies among the most interesting plays of the period. From Jonson's'comedies alone it would be possible to reconstruct whole areas of Elizabethan society.
(ii) Exclusion of the Comic and the Tragic Elements: According to Jonson the inclusion of tragic elements into comedy was not permissible. The purpose of tragedy is to create laughter to the end that men's lesser faults may be made to appear ridiculous and so may be avoided. As tragedy works out its morality by the ends of pity and fear, so comedy achieves its aim, which is also ethical, by mockery of baseness and folly in their lesser degrees, by "sporting" as Jonson puts it "with human follies and not with crimes." In Jonson's comedies the process is cathartic and corrective. According to Jonson the chief aim of comedy was correction through amusement. He threw light on the dangers of exulting laughter overmuch and shows that "there may be delight without laughter" and that comedy must not "stir laughter in sinful things which are rather execrable than ridiculous."
Jonson knew the dangers of exaggeration. Exaggeration, he would hold, is the undoer of comedy even more than it is of tragedy. Exaggeration in situation is the main spring of farce, and farce is the lowest kind of drama.
(iii) Purpose of Comedy: To Ben Jonson the purpose of comedy is cathartic and corrective. He writes in the "Prologue" of Volpone:
And gall and copper from his ink he draineth
Only a little salt remaineth
Wherewith he'll rub your cheeks, till red with laughter
They shall look fresh a week after.
The moral tone necessitated the presence of satire in Ben Jonson's comedies. G. Smith writes: "As for satire he was committed to it by his conception of the purpose of comedy. The audience must laugh to some end and the play must deal with some folly and cure it by its ridiculous presentation. A comedy was a “comical satire” as he styled more than one of his plays….. To prove his theory and to secure in practice his double Purpose of realism and satire he applied himself mainly in two directions, to the development of the device of Humours and to the treatment of plot. The first is the more important and the most characteristic, and the second is corollary."
(iv) Jonson's Theory of Humours: Ben Jonson derived the idea of humours from medieval naedicine. In the older physiology the four major humours corresponding with the four elements and possessing the qualities of moisture, dryness, heat and cold in different combinations, formed, according to their proportionate allowance in each body, the "temperament" or "complexion" or "constitution" of a man and declare his character. Variations in the relative strength of these humours disclosed the individual differences. The disturbance of the natural balance is dangerous and it results in different ailments of the body. In order to order to restore the natural balance many purgings, bleedings and other painful reductions were effected in medieval times.
Ben Jonson, however, used this term in vague derisive term. It was employed to include vices as well as follies, cruelty as well as jealousy. It was also used in the sense of mere caprice or trick of manner or Every of dress. It also included infatuated vanity and affectation. In Every Man Out of His Humour, Ben Jonson lucidly explained the term "humour":
In every human body,
The choler, melancholy, phlegm and blood
By reason that they flow continually
In some are part, and are continent,
Receive the name of humours. Now thus, far
It may, by metaphor, may apply itself,
Unto the general disposition.
As when someone peculiar quality
Doth so possess a man, that it doth draw
All his effects, his spirits and his powers,
In his conflunctions, all to run one way,
This may be truly said to be a humour.
Jonson believed that the excess of one of the humours beyond reasonable limits produced in the mind a certain obsession which rendered one ridiculous by colouring all one's actions. One who was possessed by a passion not too much was said to be in his humour, while one whose humours exceeded all reasonable limits and became a disease, had to be cured of them by a severe punishment and was then, spoken of as having been out of his humour. Jonson's "humr" is a satirical term human follies engendered by the preponderance of any one quality overcall all other qualities in a man. To Jonson humour meant affectations of all sorts and eccentricities in dress and speech. He writes:
If an idiot
Have but an apish or fantastic strain
It is his humour.
Jonson regarded it as one of the main functions of comedy to expose the excesses, vanities and affectations of human character, which disturbed the balance of human personality. He exposed the fool and lashed the knave by faithfully representing their follies on the stage:
I will scourge those apes
And to those courteous eyes oppose a mirror
As large as is the stage' whereon we act
Where they shall see the time's deformity
Anatomised in every nerve and sinew,
With constant courage and contempt of fear.
Jonson, at first, interpreted Humour to mean only personal temperament as in Every Man in His Humour. But gradually his conception broadened and it came to embrace social manners too. In Volpone and The Alchemist where he reproduces society in all its veracity, its low morals inducing people to prostitute their wives and disinherit their sons for wealth, the chicanery and greed of gold hunters, the ridiculous belief in such pseudo-sciences as alchemy and astrology, the petty intrigues and vulgar tavern manners, the fashions, festivals and fairs of the age; the term is to be understood in its broader sense.
Summing up Jonson's position as a dramatist Dryden writes: "Among the English, by humour is meant some extravagant habit, passion or affection, particularly to some one person, by the oddness of which he is distinguished from the rest of men; which being lively and naturally represented, most frequently begets that malicious pleasure in the audience which is testified by laughter; as all things that are deviations from custom are ever the aptest to reproduce it. The description of these humours, drawn from the knowledge and observation of particular persons was the peculiar genius and talent of Ben Jonson."
Ben Jonson's Comedy of Humours is intellectual and classical. It is the product rather of learning, skill and conscientious effort than of creative power. In his comedies Ben Jonson appears as the real founder of what is known as the comedy of manners, and his influence on succeeding dramatists was very great.
Ben Jonson's Dramatic Craftsmanship
As a dramatist Ben Jonson was a classicist and stood against the romantic comedy of the Elizabethan Age, and advocated the practice of realistic comedy with a marked accent on realism and satire. He wished the drama to return as far as possible to the purposes and methods of the Greeks and the Romans and he thought that the task could be accomplished by obedience to certain laws that were derived from classical practice. He is the undisputable pioneer of classical and realistic comedy. He pleaded for greater order and decorum in comedy, and sought to limit it to the representation of London life in a satirical vein so that certain well-marked reforms could be introduced in London society. Jonson's immaculate classicism and love for order and decorum are clearly seen in his plot construction.
(i) Plot Construction: Praising Jonson's skill for plot construction T. S. Eliot writes in The Sacred Wood: "Jonson employs immense dramatic constructive skill: it is not so much skill in plot as skill in doing Without a plot. He never manipulates as complicated a plot as that of The Merchant of Venice, he has in his best plays nothing like the intrigue of. Restoration comedy. In Bartholomew Fair it is hardly a plot at all; the the of the play is the bewildering rapid chaotic action of the fair, it is (he fair itself, not anything that happens to take place in the fair. In Volpone or The Alchemist or The Silent Woman the plot is enough to keep the players in motion, it is rather an action than plot. The plot does not hold the play together, what holds the play together is a unity of inspiration that radiates into plot and personages alike."
According to Ben Jonson, "the bound" or "the extent" of the play should not exceed the compass of one day but there should be "place left for digression and art". The second is concerned with the complexity of plot. It should be one and entire. G. Smith writes: "It is conceived that he would allow a second plot of equal magnitude with his first, as a relief to the first and its enhancement, but as a rule there must be a dominant action, as is generally a dominant humour………..In both the essential facts are that there is combination, and that in the combination the effect is of a whole rather than of a series of parts, of a complete and individual character and a complete and simple action..... He was more concerned with the delineation of character, and his method of displaying it, made a stirring action less necessary. This method will perhaps explain why in some of his plays there is hardly any plot, just as in those of his successors in the comedy of manners at the close of the century there is little or none — a neglect which has made the occasion of some ill-judged criticism. His manner of introducing minor episodes and illustrations freely, with the set purpose of rounding off each character, sometimes obscures the action. Hence probably the modern reader rushes to the conclusion that his plots are not really simple." Despite apparent complexity Ben Jonson's plots are simple. They aim at creating unity of impression. Minor episodes and illustrations are used only to strengthen the unity of effect.
In Volpone the entire action takes place in a single day. In Volpone and The Alchemist the unity is even not by simplifying the multiplicity of minor actions but "by compelling them to become integral parts of the single all-embracing action". Thus Ben Jonson
.....presents quick comedy refined
As best critics have defined,
The laws of time, place, persons he observeth,
From no needful rule he swerveth.
(ii) Characterisation: Ben Jonson's characters are taken from the motley crowd about him. Although they show the influence of Seneca and Terence, they are fresh from Tudor caverns and gaming houses. His characters, tavern hunters, gamblers, cheats, vagabonds and ruffians, sham knights, are all drawn directly from life but they are not allowed to remain as such. They are slightly made to suit the dramatist's purpose and are a little different from what they were in real life. They are loaded with all the knowledge of classics at the dramatist's command. Though their language is racy of the slang and full of popular affectations and topical allusions, it is often encumbered by the almost unbearable weight of their creator's ponderous learning. It is this pedantic affection that gives them an artificiality so much in conflict with their realistic portrayal.
Jonson's characters are dominated by a ruling passion or habit which is reflected in all their actions. They are types and not individuals. Their typical qualities are emphasised at the expense of their individual ones. T. S. Eliot remarks in this connection: "Largely on the evidence of the two humour plays, it is sometimes assumed that Jonson is occupied with types; typical exaggerations, or exaggeration of type. The Humour definition, the expressed intention of Jonson, may be satisfactory for these two plays [Every Man in His Humour and Every Man Out of His Humour]." His characters live and move and have their being in one quality alone. They become personifications of vices and virtues rather than creatures of flesh and blood. His dramatis personae are "walking illustrations of a theory, of a moral quality." The characters in his plays are Jealousy, Avarice, Lewdness, Stupidity, Hypocrisy etc., who parade under the names of Kitley, Volpone, Masters Stephen and Matthew, Zeal of the Land and soon. All his characters are static. They grow and change. They never explain themselves as Shakespeare's men and women do. Jonson starts with characters, set formed, fully defined, a master passion in complete empire, the man absorbed in his specific humour. His characters are readymade. Situations may vary but not they. All Jonson's characters have fixed traits. They are his puppets and move according to his directions. They do not explain themselves as Shakespeare's creations do, nor do they act of their own volition. In fact, situations are devised only to accentuate their humour. Lady Politic disappoints us if she does not talk bombast; Corvino is untrue to his character if he does not rave with jealousy; Sir Politic fails to interest us if he does not indulge in praise of his diplomatic achievements and travelling experience. Volpone and Mosca are reasoned rogues from the beginning.
Ben Jonson is content to play on the outer layer of human persona­lity. Like Dickens he was sadly lacking in the intuitive apprehension of human nature. Like Shakespeare he could not prey deep into human mind and heart. The psychological knowledge of human character escaped him altogether. G. Smith writes: "He seeks his effects by working from the outside, by picking out the contours of character in the changing limelight of circumstanc;. He intensifies the image by the contast of other humours, and makes the dialogues of other characters draw attention to points in the delineation that must not be missed." Due to their lack of individuality his characters do not arouse any sentimental interest in the audience.
Jonson's characters represent real life. R. L. J. Kingsford writes: "In drawing the characters of Subtle and Face there can be little doubt that he had in mind three well known names of the period, John Dee and Simon Forman, to both of whom Subtle bears some resemblance, and Edward Kelley, the prototype of Face." Most of his characters belong to low life. "Jonson gives us a full gallery of gamesters, roares, cutpurses, gulls and bawds, all are more convincing portraits than his gentry or the high personages of his tragedies."
Jonson's women characters are unpleasing as they are indifferently drawn. The two Kitleys in Every Man in His Humour are no more than Shadows and are as such negligible. Celia in Volpone, despite the magni­ficent poetry in which she is described, is shadowy and characterless.
(iii) Realism and Satire: Jonson was the first dramatist in England who blended comedy and satire. David Daiches writes: "Comedy becomes satire, character becomes oddity, evil becomes culpable folly." His work is satire as the work of Rabelais or Juvenal is satire. In the words of Nicoll: " Jonson is a magnificent satirist. He has just the power of revealing the salient features and of representing the points not required for his portraits, which characterise the works of the greatest satirists of classical times and later."
Jonson first of all directed his satire against contemporary romantic stage. He recommended the classical standard as a cure for the lawlessness and his objective was to create a realistic and satirical comedy which reflected the changing spirit of the time. We may find his satirical purpose set forth in the following lines:
I will scourge those apes,
And to these courteous eyes oppose a mirror,
As large as is the stage whereon we set;
Where they shall see the times's deformity
Anatomised in every nerve and sinew,
With constant courage, and contempt of fear.
Jonson invented the humour comedy, as we have seen, to correct the deformities and singularities of human character. Hugh Walker rightly remarks: "Clearly the very conception of the humour promises satire. A quality harmless or even laudable in its proper proportion and just relation to other qualities becomes a weakness, or worse, when it dominates the whole man...... His (Jonson's) very names proclaim the difference and suggest the satirical purpose—Sir Epicure Mammon, Subtle, Morose, Fastidious Brisk, Sir Diaphanous Silkworm. In other cases it is still a quality that walks on legs, though the name does not proclaim the fact. Bobadil is the braggart incarnate, who, after the loudest boasts, declines to fight and accepts a beating on the plea that he has had warrant of peace served upon him. We are back again among the abstractions of moralities and the subtler art of more advanced age ensures a satirical treatment rather than more downright moralising."
Ben Jonson's satire is directed against the follies of his age. Satire is more effectively used when it is directed against classes and tendencies of the time, or against foibles, frailties and vices common to all times. And this is the rule in Jonson. He is exceptional in his age inasmuch as the whole conception and framework of his comedy is satirical. He proclaims his purpose in the Prologue to Every Man in His Humour. In the Induction to Every Man Out of His Humour he again expresses his prupose:
With an armed and resolved hand,
I'll strip the ragged follies of the time,
Named as at their birth,……….
…….And with a whip of steel.
Print wounding lashes in their iron ribs.
Ben Jonson is true to his word. Each of his dramatis personae, with the exception of Asper, represents one or other of those "ragged follies", and the play as a whole is the most comprehensive satire of the time that had been yet produced.
All his comedies are satirical. Cynthia's Revels is a satire on contemporary gallantry and the evils of the court. Volpone is a biting satire on the monstruous absurdities of which human nature is capable. Bartholomew Fair is a satire on Puritanism. The Alchemist is a satire on alchemy and Puritanism. In it he remarkably satirises the lust of gold which is a general human weakness. Jonson's satire has an inherent moral purpose, i.e., the correction both of individuals and of contemporary age.
"Ben Jonson remains," writes Hugh Walker, "the great master in English of satirical comedy, and in his works as a whole he has left by far the completest satirical commentary we possess upon the Elizabethan Age."
Ben Jonson's Influence on English Drama
Ben Jonson is the real founder of the Comedy of Manners of the Restoration period. David Daiches writes in this connection: "On Restoration Comedy, Ben Jonson was the strongest influence, and though Jonson's Comedy of Humours was both moral in tone and purpose and more cunningly worked out in patterns of imagery as well as in plot than the Restoration comedy of manners, the Restoration dramatists derived the basis of their comedy from Jonson's tone and manner. They refined, localized, aerated and sometimes dandified his kind of comedy, but what they learned from him remained fundamental."
Jonson's intellectualism, realism and classicism influenced the literary development during the seventeenth century. He is the pioneer of neoclassicism.