Ben Jonson, one of the leading playwrights of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, is renowned for his sharp wit, biting satire, and the rich social commentaries that permeate his works. Among these, Every Man Out of His Humour (1599) stands out as a complex and engaging comedy that delves deep into the foibles of human nature, societal absurdities, and individual eccentricities. A companion piece to Jonson’s earlier Every Man in His Humour, this play critiques Renaissance England’s obsession with fashion, status, and self-perception, weaving together a cast of colorful and often grotesque characters to reflect the absurdities of society.

In this blog article, we will embark on a comprehensive journey through Jonson’s Every Man Out of His Humour, offering a detailed summary and analysis of the plot, an examination of its characters, and an exploration of the central themes that underpin this classic work of comedy and satire.

Summary and Analysis

At its core, Every Man Out of His Humour is a satirical comedy that revolves around a group of characters, each of whom is driven by a distinct ‘humour.’ In Renaissance medicine and psychology, the term ‘humour’ referred to a theory that the balance of four bodily fluids (blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm) determined an individual’s personality and temperament. Jonson employs this concept metaphorically, presenting his characters as embodiments of exaggerated personality traits, each of whom is “out of their humour,” or out of balance. Their excessive behaviors, quirks, and pretensions fuel the comedic action of the play.

The plot of Every Man Out of His Humour is fragmented, with multiple interconnected storylines, each of which showcases the ridiculousness of its characters’ actions and ambitions. However, there is no single unifying protagonist; instead, Jonson presents a collection of distinct personalities, each driven by their own eccentric desires. The play opens with the character Asper, Jonson’s own alter ego, who serves as the chorus and commentator throughout the play. Asper explains his intent to “strip the ragged follies of the time” and expose the absurdities of human behavior.

One of the main characters is Sogliardo, a country gentleman who desperately seeks to become a member of the gentry. He purchases a coat of arms to establish his status but is completely ignorant of the customs and responsibilities that come with nobility. His obsession with external appearances and titles mirrors the social aspirations of many during the Elizabethan period.

Another key figure is Puntarvolo, a vain and eccentric knight obsessed with staging outlandish exploits to boost his reputation. Puntarvolo plans a ridiculous journey abroad with his wife and dog, hoping to win a large wager by completing it. His need for external validation and reputation echoes the vanity and performative nature of much of Renaissance society.

Fungoso, the son of a tailor, represents the social climber who yearns to elevate himself by imitating the fashions of the wealthy. His constant attempts to impress others by adopting the latest styles highlight the superficiality of those who measure worth based on appearance.

Meanwhile, Fastidius Brisk is a self-absorbed courtier who prides himself on his wit, yet is ultimately revealed to be a shallow, pretentious fool. He embodies the type of Elizabethan socialite who values appearance, wit, and flirtation over substance.

Macilente, one of the more cynical characters, serves as a foil to the others. He is perpetually dissatisfied with the world around him, envious of others’ successes, and scornful of society’s pretensions. His bitterness reflects the darker side of human nature and stands in stark contrast to the absurdity of the other characters.

The play’s action culminates in a series of farcical and often chaotic events, including mistaken identities, ill-fated schemes, and failed ambitions. By the end, the various characters are either humiliated or disillusioned, having been exposed as the vain and foolish individuals they truly are. Through this process, Jonson delivers a stinging critique of a society obsessed with appearances, status, and self-image.

Character Analysis

Jonson’s brilliance in Every Man Out of His Humour lies in his masterful creation of exaggerated yet recognizable characters, each of whom serves as a vehicle for his satirical commentary on society.

1. Sogliardo: Sogliardo is a key figure of satire in the play, representing the absurdity of social mobility based solely on wealth and superficial status symbols. He buys his coat of arms without understanding its significance, believing that merely owning one will grant him respect and prestige. Through Sogliardo, Jonson mocks the rising gentry of the Elizabethan era, those who bought their way into nobility without acquiring the virtues or responsibilities traditionally associated with it.
2. Puntarvolo: The character of Puntarvolo epitomizes vanity and self-delusion. His elaborate and absurd journey abroad, undertaken purely for the sake of a wager, reflects the lengths to which people will go to gain recognition and prestige. Jonson uses Puntarvolo to mock those who construct elaborate personas and seek fame through contrived and pointless endeavors. His relationship with his dog, which he treats with more reverence than most people, adds to the absurdity of his character.
3. Fastidius Brisk: Fastidius Brisk is the quintessential courtier, obsessed with maintaining his social standing through wit, charm, and fashion. He epitomizes the shallow and vacuous nature of the courtier class, who are more concerned with appearance than substance. Brisk’s attempts at wit are often nonsensical, and his flirtations are vapid. Jonson uses him to ridicule the type of superficial individual who thrives in a world of courtly intrigue and fashion, yet has little to offer beyond surface charm.
4. Fungoso: As the son of a tailor, Fungoso is an anxious social climber who attempts to imitate the fashions of the upper class to fit in. His desperation to keep up with the latest styles, even though it often bankrupts him, highlights the ridiculousness of basing one’s identity on external appearances. Jonson uses Fungoso to critique the emerging consumer culture of Renaissance England, where individuals began to define themselves by the goods they could acquire.
5. Macilente: Macilente is perhaps the most complex character in the play. Unlike the other characters, who are driven by vanity, ambition, or superficiality, Macilente is defined by his envy and bitterness. He despises the success and happiness of others, finding no joy in life. His character represents the destructive power of envy, which consumes individuals and prevents them from experiencing contentment. Macilente’s role as an outsider and critic of society adds depth to the play, as he serves both as a participant in and a commentator on the absurdity of the world around him.
6. Asper: Serving as Jonson’s mouthpiece, Asper opens and closes the play with commentary on the follies of mankind. He is the voice of reason and satire, offering a critical lens through which the audience is encouraged to view the actions of the other characters. Asper’s presence underscores the play’s self-awareness as a satire, constantly reminding the audience of the artifice at play.

Themes

At the heart of Every Man Out of His Humour are several key themes that provide the foundation for Jonson’s satirical exploration of human nature and society.

1. Vanity and Self-Delusion: One of the central themes of the play is the pervasive nature of vanity and the lengths to which individuals will go to craft a favorable image of themselves. Whether it is Puntarvolo’s absurd quest for fame, Fastidius Brisk’s obsession with fashion and wit, or Sogliardo’s purchase of a coat of arms, the characters are consumed by a desire to project a certain image to the world. Jonson exposes the ridiculousness of these efforts, showing that they are built on superficiality and self-delusion.
2. Social Status and Pretension: The play offers a scathing critique of Renaissance England’s preoccupation with social status. Through characters like Sogliardo, who believes that wealth alone can grant him nobility, Jonson satirizes the emerging class of self-made gentry who attempted to buy their way into the upper echelons of society. This critique is extended to those who imitate the behaviors and fashions of the wealthy, such as Fungoso, highlighting the superficiality of social climbing.
3. The Absurdity of Fashion: Fashion plays a key role in the play, particularly in the character of Fungoso, whose obsession with clothing serves as a metaphor for the wider social concern with appearances. Jonson mocks the idea that clothing and external appearance can somehow confer value or status upon an individual. The constant references to the latest trends and styles serve as a critique of a culture that places undue importance on the material and the ephemeral.
4. The Nature of Satire: Jonson’s play is a meta-theatrical work, constantly reminding the audience of its status as a satire. Asper’s role as the commentator ensures that the play’s satirical intentions are clear, and the exaggerated characters serve as embodiments of particular social vices. The self-awareness of the play reinforces the idea that it is not just a comedy but a moral critique of society, inviting the audience to reflect on their own behaviors and the world around them.
5. Envy and Discontent: Through the character of Macilente, Jonson explores the theme of envy and its corrosive effects on the human soul. Macilente’s inability to find satisfaction in life, coupled with his constant resentment of others’ success, serves as a warning against the dangers of envy. His character offers a darker, more introspective counterpoint to the broader social satire of the play, providing a glimpse into the destructive nature of bitterness and dissatisfaction.
6. Performative Identity: A recurring theme in the play is the idea of performative identity, where individuals construct artificial personas to conform to societal expectations or to gain approval. Whether it is Fastidius Brisk’s performance of courtly wit or Puntarvolo’s elaborate staged journey, the characters are engaged in constant acts of self-presentation. Jonson critiques the inauthenticity of these performances, suggesting that they are ultimately hollow and unsustainable.

Conclusion

Every Man Out of His Humour is a masterful exploration of the absurdities of human behavior, societal pretensions, and the vanity that drives people to construct false identities. Through a cast of exaggerated and grotesque characters, Ben Jonson delivers a scathing critique of Renaissance England, offering timeless insights into the follies of ambition, fashion, and self-delusion. The play’s rich satirical content, combined with its keen observations of human nature, make it a significant work in the canon of English literature, one that continues to resonate with modern audiences.

As we reflect on the play’s characters, themes, and Jonson’s sharp wit, it becomes clear that Every Man Out of His Humour is not just a comedy of its time but a profound commentary on the human condition that remains relevant to this day.