What do you think?
Rate this book
Every Man in His Humour
The Project Gutenberg EBook of Every Man In His Humor, by Ben Jonson
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org.
Title: Every Man In His Humor
(The Anglicized Edition)
Author: Ben Jonson
Release Date: March 28, 2009 [EBook #5333]
Last Updated: January 9, 2013
Language: English
Character set encoding: ASCII
Produced by Amy E Zelmer, Sue Asscher, Robert Prince, and David Widger
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org.
Title: Every Man In His Humor
(The Anglicized Edition)
Author: Ben Jonson
Release Date: March 28, 2009 [EBook #5333]
Last Updated: January 9, 2013
Language: English
Character set encoding: ASCII
Produced by Amy E Zelmer, Sue Asscher, Robert Prince, and David Widger
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1598
45 people are currently reading
409 people want to read
About the author
Ben Jonson
1,386 books186 followersBenjamin Jonson was an English Renaissance dramatist, poet and actor. A contemporary of William Shakespeare, he is best known for his satirical plays, particularly Volpone, The Alchemist, and Bartholomew Fair, which are considered his best, and his lyric poems. A man of vast reading and a seemingly insatiable appetite for controversy, Jonson had an unparalleled breadth of influence on Jacobean and Caroline playwrights and poets. A house in Dulwich College is named after him.
See more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Jonson
See more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Jonson
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
January 19, 2025
Every Man in His Humour -by Ben Jonson
Every Man in His Humour is a is a satirical comedy play by Ben Jonson that explores the concept of "humours"—dominant personality traits that shape the behavior of characters. The play is a satirical commentary on human nature, focusing on exaggerated traits such as vanity, foolishness, and self-delusion. The plot revolves around misunderstandings, love interests, and clashes between characters with contrasting personalities, all set in a world that mocks societal norms and pretensions.
~Key Points:
*Witty and Sharp Dialogue:
The play's humor is grounded in sharp dialogue and clever wordplay, filled with satire that pokes fun at human flaws.
Jonson’s language is both intelligent and playful, showcasing his talent for comedic writing.
*Character-Driven Comedy:
Each character is defined by a dominant "humour" (a personality trait), and their interactions create humorous, sometimes absurd situations.
The characters are exaggerated versions of real-life types, ranging from pompous individuals to foolish ones.
*Social Commentary:
The play critiques social pretension, vanity, and self-delusion, making fun of people who take themselves too seriously or act based on superficial traits.
Themes like mistaken identities and romantic misunderstandings add depth to the comedy.
*Predictable Plot:
While the plot involves twists like mistaken identities and love stories, it can feel predictable and simple by modern standards.
The focus is more on character interactions than plot complexity.
*A Satirical Look at Human Nature:
The play’s central satire is timeless, reflecting on the human tendency to exaggerate certain traits or act out of foolishness.
Despite some dated elements, the themes remain relatable, especially when addressing vanity and the clash of egos.
~Final Thoughts:
Every Man in His Humour is a delightful classic for those who enjoy character-driven, satirical comedy.
While the humor is timeless, some elements might feel too rooted in its Elizabethan context.
It's an enjoyable, witty read, though it may not be as groundbreaking for contemporary audiences.
~Rating: 3/5 stars
A fun and entertaining comedy with moments that are still relevant today, but also reflective of its era.
Every Man in His Humour is a is a satirical comedy play by Ben Jonson that explores the concept of "humours"—dominant personality traits that shape the behavior of characters. The play is a satirical commentary on human nature, focusing on exaggerated traits such as vanity, foolishness, and self-delusion. The plot revolves around misunderstandings, love interests, and clashes between characters with contrasting personalities, all set in a world that mocks societal norms and pretensions.
~Key Points:
*Witty and Sharp Dialogue:
The play's humor is grounded in sharp dialogue and clever wordplay, filled with satire that pokes fun at human flaws.
Jonson’s language is both intelligent and playful, showcasing his talent for comedic writing.
*Character-Driven Comedy:
Each character is defined by a dominant "humour" (a personality trait), and their interactions create humorous, sometimes absurd situations.
The characters are exaggerated versions of real-life types, ranging from pompous individuals to foolish ones.
*Social Commentary:
The play critiques social pretension, vanity, and self-delusion, making fun of people who take themselves too seriously or act based on superficial traits.
Themes like mistaken identities and romantic misunderstandings add depth to the comedy.
*Predictable Plot:
While the plot involves twists like mistaken identities and love stories, it can feel predictable and simple by modern standards.
The focus is more on character interactions than plot complexity.
*A Satirical Look at Human Nature:
The play’s central satire is timeless, reflecting on the human tendency to exaggerate certain traits or act out of foolishness.
Despite some dated elements, the themes remain relatable, especially when addressing vanity and the clash of egos.
~Final Thoughts:
Every Man in His Humour is a delightful classic for those who enjoy character-driven, satirical comedy.
While the humor is timeless, some elements might feel too rooted in its Elizabethan context.
It's an enjoyable, witty read, though it may not be as groundbreaking for contemporary audiences.
~Rating: 3/5 stars
A fun and entertaining comedy with moments that are still relevant today, but also reflective of its era.
February 7, 2018
I really enjoyed this comedy by Jonson. Admittedly, it had some slightly slow parts but in general it was funny and made me laugh various times. The language was alright, though a little demanding.
This should, however, not be a reason to pass on this play. I would definitely give it a try.
This should, however, not be a reason to pass on this play. I would definitely give it a try.
September 24, 2023
To the mass of reviewers who gave this three stars: come on guys be so for real right now.
The language is delightful and LOTS of the jokes are very funny. Elizabethan comedies sometimes have a bit too much of that mean schoolboy humour (e.g. locking someone in a room and pretending they're insane in Taming of the Shrew), but I think this is very well managed: we're laughing at people but (a) its good spirited on the paer of the people doing the laughing (Steven is Ned's cousin for goodness sake) (b) they're rediculous and they deserve to be laughed at (c) they're they're not exactly deep psychological portraits. The plot is threadbear but this is a humours comedy, so it's a bit of an "our military has fewer horses and bayonets" situation. And the characters are great! Even in my shitty unexpended speech prefixes edition I had no trouble keeping them distinct and, again, they're very funny and their language is interesting and distinctive. It's good stuff!
Adheres to the classical unities and Johnson is Very Proud of the Good Job he did with them. He also shades Shakespeare (who acted in this play; he played the foolish old man who complains about the kids these days) pretty good in the preface, and sucks off his former schoolteacher in the dedication which is so Latinizing it's almost unreadable.
I've read at least four modern scholars dick-riding Ben to the moon and back for how good his revision from Quarto to Folio was. FIRST of all, the AMOUNT of praise this revision gets is rediculous. Just because it's a clear improvement doesn't mean it's a miracle. Second, while yes I think Johnson definitely improves the text as a play, he does cut some good verse: if you haven't, you should read Ned's defence of poetry in the last scene of Q. Third, yes, Ben's punctuation is very progressive and influential, and yes, it's a very good guide to how the lines should be pronounced, BUT, Johnson's syntax isnt just hard for us it's hard FOR THE PERIOD, and progressive 400 years ago is not the same thing as current. Johnson already has final boss stature among Elizabethan (loose sense) playwrights, and reprinting his obsolete ungramatical-ass punctuation is just ANOTHER challenge for the casual reader. See more below on editions.
Poor Johnson has has gotten such unappetizing adjectives as "classical scholar" and "moralizing" and "balanced" attached to him, alongide a reputation so spotless he seems uninteresting. Let me be the person to tell you that he is interestong!! At the VERY LEAST his language is interesting and distinct in an interesting way from his contemporaries. He was a snob and it shows but he also took risks sometimes and killed two men in single combat.
I read most of this in the sloppy, lazy Oxford World Classics collection "Five Plays,' which reprints the text from the standard collected works essentially completely uncritically. The five plays get a 6 page introduction. The notes are SCANT. The most scant I've ever seen. I consider myself someone who knows most of the common Elizabethanism and obsolete senses, but this play is HARD to read, and the amount of unglossed obsolete OED frequency 2 words here is embarrassing for the editor. Topical allusions unexplained, I mean it was rough. So conservative in it's editing that it neglects even to do away with the obsolete use of the question mark for a full stop. At this point might as well read the dang folio text directly. Credit where it's due, the into is straight to the point, and says a few interesting things, in particular wrt Ben's reception.
The New Mermaids edition, which due to the shittyness of the Oxford edition I basically read in parallel, is still pretty conservative text- and note- wise, (e g not glossing common Elizabethan-only senses) but MAN, the critical apparatus is a HUGE step up. The notes are a strict superset of the Oxford edition, and clarified almost all the obscure passages I couldn't work out myself. The introduction is not only good criticism, but is written with a lovely lively style. E.g.: it makes a pretty good Freudian reading of Kittley, as someone whose fear of cuckoldry is a result of his repressed voyeuristic desires. This reading is connected to the play as a whole effectively and imo definitely has textual support. Then there are some very funny and quotable sentences: I wrote this one down I liked it so much: "[T.S.] Eliot was good at turning faintly ambiguous generalizations into particularizations that sound like critical master-strokes." Ha!
Four stars fun and good words.
The language is delightful and LOTS of the jokes are very funny. Elizabethan comedies sometimes have a bit too much of that mean schoolboy humour (e.g. locking someone in a room and pretending they're insane in Taming of the Shrew), but I think this is very well managed: we're laughing at people but (a) its good spirited on the paer of the people doing the laughing (Steven is Ned's cousin for goodness sake) (b) they're rediculous and they deserve to be laughed at (c) they're they're not exactly deep psychological portraits. The plot is threadbear but this is a humours comedy, so it's a bit of an "our military has fewer horses and bayonets" situation. And the characters are great! Even in my shitty unexpended speech prefixes edition I had no trouble keeping them distinct and, again, they're very funny and their language is interesting and distinctive. It's good stuff!
Adheres to the classical unities and Johnson is Very Proud of the Good Job he did with them. He also shades Shakespeare (who acted in this play; he played the foolish old man who complains about the kids these days) pretty good in the preface, and sucks off his former schoolteacher in the dedication which is so Latinizing it's almost unreadable.
I've read at least four modern scholars dick-riding Ben to the moon and back for how good his revision from Quarto to Folio was. FIRST of all, the AMOUNT of praise this revision gets is rediculous. Just because it's a clear improvement doesn't mean it's a miracle. Second, while yes I think Johnson definitely improves the text as a play, he does cut some good verse: if you haven't, you should read Ned's defence of poetry in the last scene of Q. Third, yes, Ben's punctuation is very progressive and influential, and yes, it's a very good guide to how the lines should be pronounced, BUT, Johnson's syntax isnt just hard for us it's hard FOR THE PERIOD, and progressive 400 years ago is not the same thing as current. Johnson already has final boss stature among Elizabethan (loose sense) playwrights, and reprinting his obsolete ungramatical-ass punctuation is just ANOTHER challenge for the casual reader. See more below on editions.
Poor Johnson has has gotten such unappetizing adjectives as "classical scholar" and "moralizing" and "balanced" attached to him, alongide a reputation so spotless he seems uninteresting. Let me be the person to tell you that he is interestong!! At the VERY LEAST his language is interesting and distinct in an interesting way from his contemporaries. He was a snob and it shows but he also took risks sometimes and killed two men in single combat.
I read most of this in the sloppy, lazy Oxford World Classics collection "Five Plays,' which reprints the text from the standard collected works essentially completely uncritically. The five plays get a 6 page introduction. The notes are SCANT. The most scant I've ever seen. I consider myself someone who knows most of the common Elizabethanism and obsolete senses, but this play is HARD to read, and the amount of unglossed obsolete OED frequency 2 words here is embarrassing for the editor. Topical allusions unexplained, I mean it was rough. So conservative in it's editing that it neglects even to do away with the obsolete use of the question mark for a full stop. At this point might as well read the dang folio text directly. Credit where it's due, the into is straight to the point, and says a few interesting things, in particular wrt Ben's reception.
The New Mermaids edition, which due to the shittyness of the Oxford edition I basically read in parallel, is still pretty conservative text- and note- wise, (e g not glossing common Elizabethan-only senses) but MAN, the critical apparatus is a HUGE step up. The notes are a strict superset of the Oxford edition, and clarified almost all the obscure passages I couldn't work out myself. The introduction is not only good criticism, but is written with a lovely lively style. E.g.: it makes a pretty good Freudian reading of Kittley, as someone whose fear of cuckoldry is a result of his repressed voyeuristic desires. This reading is connected to the play as a whole effectively and imo definitely has textual support. Then there are some very funny and quotable sentences: I wrote this one down I liked it so much: "[T.S.] Eliot was good at turning faintly ambiguous generalizations into particularizations that sound like critical master-strokes." Ha!
Four stars fun and good words.
December 9, 2017
Actual rating: 3.5 stars
This play was the one which made me realize Ben Jonson's work wasn't actually all that bad... well, to be fair, the only reason I disliked his plays to begin with was that I had to study them.
Man, I wish I could get my hands on a really good, well-written biography of Jonson and Shakespeare. This may be a weird desire, but I wish I could know what their lives were like, both separately and their relation together (and whether they viewed each other as rivals or friends or didn't even know the other existed - though that last one is highly doubtful - and so on and so forth).
This play was the one which made me realize Ben Jonson's work wasn't actually all that bad... well, to be fair, the only reason I disliked his plays to begin with was that I had to study them.
Man, I wish I could get my hands on a really good, well-written biography of Jonson and Shakespeare. This may be a weird desire, but I wish I could know what their lives were like, both separately and their relation together (and whether they viewed each other as rivals or friends or didn't even know the other existed - though that last one is highly doubtful - and so on and so forth).
October 6, 2023
This was the hardest slog I've ever had reading old plays. Wow.
I'll admit, I just didn't get it. Broadly, sure--different people represent different "humours," or personality types, like those prone to anger or jealousy, and we see how that works out for them. But scene by scene? I didn't know what anybody was on about. I googled it and could hardly believe everything that had gone whoosh past me... So much cultural subtext that I thought reading Shakespeare had prepared me for. It didn't.
It was like I was watching a Monty Python sketch where everybody is talking gibberish but then start fighting. With swords. Or sticks. What is happening? Is this Punch and Judy? What are they even talking about?
The very last scene with the justice sorting out what was going on with everybody, especially what Brainworm had been up to with a whole bunch of disguises, was sort of okay. A tiny little payoff for a deep slog of a play.
I would have said much worse about the play, a full-on rant, except I looked to find a version of the play on youtube and found a couple very nice old gentlemen discussing the play with such deep interest and pleasure--for like 90 minutes--that I couldn't bring myself to hate it as much as I had to that point. I guess it makes sense to some folks. Bless 'em.
Anyway, unless I find some highly annotated version of this play, I'm never gonna give it another look. I wish there was a "No Fear Ben Jonson" series like there is one for Shakespeare...
I'll admit, I just didn't get it. Broadly, sure--different people represent different "humours," or personality types, like those prone to anger or jealousy, and we see how that works out for them. But scene by scene? I didn't know what anybody was on about. I googled it and could hardly believe everything that had gone whoosh past me... So much cultural subtext that I thought reading Shakespeare had prepared me for. It didn't.
It was like I was watching a Monty Python sketch where everybody is talking gibberish but then start fighting. With swords. Or sticks. What is happening? Is this Punch and Judy? What are they even talking about?
The very last scene with the justice sorting out what was going on with everybody, especially what Brainworm had been up to with a whole bunch of disguises, was sort of okay. A tiny little payoff for a deep slog of a play.
I would have said much worse about the play, a full-on rant, except I looked to find a version of the play on youtube and found a couple very nice old gentlemen discussing the play with such deep interest and pleasure--for like 90 minutes--that I couldn't bring myself to hate it as much as I had to that point. I guess it makes sense to some folks. Bless 'em.
Anyway, unless I find some highly annotated version of this play, I'm never gonna give it another look. I wish there was a "No Fear Ben Jonson" series like there is one for Shakespeare...
January 14, 2023
This is an endlessly delightful play. I can't say anything, really, about editor Miola's decision to work with the Quarto text rather than the much later Folio text, but as he notes, all of the editions are worth editing (including Garrick's 18th century cut). In any case, as an edition of the 1598 version of Jonson's script this is wonderful. In this version it's very easy to see how the play has been influenced by the Italian commedia erudita and indeed how it adopts the values of a play like Machiavelli's La Mandragola much more than those of, say, a contemporary English play like Taming of the Shrew (though that play also adopts the Italian comedic structure). What is even clearer in this is the way the idea of "humour" or "comedy of humor" connects with the old structure of classical New Comedy by way of the erudita. For this reason alone EMI would be worth reading, thankfully the play is also very funny; its broad and hilarious farce can be enjoyed by all without a theatre historian's recommendation.
February 26, 2024
Three distinct sub-plots are woven into the framework of this play:
1) A father-son relationship, where old Knowell is an over-jealous father who entertains suspicions of his son Edward Knowell's conduct. His suspicions are instituted on a letter misdelivered to him. The deceitful servant Brainworm so manipulates things that the company that young Knowell keeps is tricked into a compromising situation.
2) We have the unreasonable suspicions of a husband regarding his wife's faithfulness. Kitely, a merchant, has married a young and beautiful woman. His humour is jealousy. His suspicions are aroused by his brother, who has turned his house into a resort for a crowd of riotous though inoffensive gallants including Edward Knowell. Ultimately Kitely realizes the craziness of his groundless jealousy.
3) There’s the love intrigue between Edward Knowell and Bridget, Kitely's sister, which provides the third thread.
The creation of Bobadil in this comedy is one of Jonson's happiest. He is a type of the swaggering spineless soldier.
Moderately entertaining.
1) A father-son relationship, where old Knowell is an over-jealous father who entertains suspicions of his son Edward Knowell's conduct. His suspicions are instituted on a letter misdelivered to him. The deceitful servant Brainworm so manipulates things that the company that young Knowell keeps is tricked into a compromising situation.
2) We have the unreasonable suspicions of a husband regarding his wife's faithfulness. Kitely, a merchant, has married a young and beautiful woman. His humour is jealousy. His suspicions are aroused by his brother, who has turned his house into a resort for a crowd of riotous though inoffensive gallants including Edward Knowell. Ultimately Kitely realizes the craziness of his groundless jealousy.
3) There’s the love intrigue between Edward Knowell and Bridget, Kitely's sister, which provides the third thread.
The creation of Bobadil in this comedy is one of Jonson's happiest. He is a type of the swaggering spineless soldier.
Moderately entertaining.
August 25, 2023
If this play has any purpose, beyond being utterly silly, it totally escaped me. But, because it is so silly, it avoided most of the worrying renaissance tropes of misogyny, racism, and classism that pervade so many like plays. Ben Jonson is just having a laugh, and the silly misunderstandings turn this into an excellent farce.
There is a crafty servant, a jealous husband, two trickster lovers, a servant in love with his master, and a drunk judge. What more could you want?
Trigger warning: in the edition I have there is one incident of "comedy" domestic violence, but the responses from all those involved, including Tib the wife, suggest this is panto slapstick, rather than anything approaching real violence. I do hope that's not just me excusing an otherwise really funny play.
There is a crafty servant, a jealous husband, two trickster lovers, a servant in love with his master, and a drunk judge. What more could you want?
Trigger warning: in the edition I have there is one incident of "comedy" domestic violence, but the responses from all those involved, including Tib the wife, suggest this is panto slapstick, rather than anything approaching real violence. I do hope that's not just me excusing an otherwise really funny play.
July 3, 2020
Read as part of the 2020 Extra Mile readathon of the Shakespeare Institute in the lockdown summer of 2020.
We read the 1601 Quarto version, set in Florence, as that is what was performed by the Lord Chamberlain's Men at the Theatre. A group reading usually brings out the strengths and weaknesses of a play - here was recognised some powerful speeches for a character possibly played by Burbage, and some comic knockabout that isn't always easy to spot in solo reading. This was Jonson's first big hit, as an aspiring playwright, and it's clear he had a very good idea of the company's resources, with disguises and costume changes, and a long sword. Fun to read in this way.
We read the 1601 Quarto version, set in Florence, as that is what was performed by the Lord Chamberlain's Men at the Theatre. A group reading usually brings out the strengths and weaknesses of a play - here was recognised some powerful speeches for a character possibly played by Burbage, and some comic knockabout that isn't always easy to spot in solo reading. This was Jonson's first big hit, as an aspiring playwright, and it's clear he had a very good idea of the company's resources, with disguises and costume changes, and a long sword. Fun to read in this way.
May 13, 2019
I'd give this somewhere between two and three stars, closer to three. I read it just a few months back and remember surprisingly little...which perhaps testifies to my memory of being unimpressed. Dickens loved this play enough to have staged it famously (and every so often?), but then Bobadil is expressive enough a character to have captivated the inimitable Boz. What disappointed me most was the cruelty of the humour here - which reminds me of the saying from Aristotle that humour at the expense of another is less gentlemanly than that occasioned on one's own account.
November 6, 2022
This was a difficult play to read. Made me hate the author somehow. However, it’s very rewarding after you figure out characters/every lewd jokes. I ended up loving this play myself.
—————-
Why do everyone say “Shakes wrote best Woman characters”? This is better.
If only we knew to apply a satirical tone for female characters in the revivals of Every Man In…After all, male characters in this play usually say things in a quite satirical way. Why do most critics take women’ declarations in this play at a face value?
—————-
Why do everyone say “Shakes wrote best Woman characters”? This is better.
If only we knew to apply a satirical tone for female characters in the revivals of Every Man In…After all, male characters in this play usually say things in a quite satirical way. Why do most critics take women’ declarations in this play at a face value?
March 24, 2018
This isn't my favorite Jonson play (or second favorite...or third...), but it was a fun read. I only wish we got a little more of Edward Knowell and Wellbred, since I find their characters the most compelling.
February 4, 2018
For my Honors 17th Century Play class...
You could say I'm struggling with all this.
You could say I'm struggling with all this.
February 28, 2019
No. Just no.
February 7, 2021
Absolute carnage, loved it (pretty cringe in the prologue when he's tryna dunk on Shakeypoo tho)
November 18, 2021
An interesting insight into 16th century London.
Read
May 30, 2023bölümü bırakacağım.
March 15, 2024
emo kids owe everything to jonson's depiction of poets at the end of the 16th century in england.
April 2, 2024
The humor is pretty good but the rest of the story was a complete drag. Probably bc there wasn't an plot or smth idk
Common Ben Johnson L
Common Ben Johnson L
April 11, 2024
Ben Jonson talked mad smack about Shakespeare, meanwhile he wrote this garbage.
August 24, 2019
Free Audio Book, to download or to listen to online:
https://librivox.org/every-man-in-his...
Cast list:
KNOWELL, an old Gentleman: ToddHW
EDWARD KNOWELL, his Son: Rob Marland
BRAINWORM, the Father's Man: Zames Curran
GEORGE DOWNRIGHT, a plain Squire: Algy Pug
WELLBRED, his Half-Brother: Jim Gallagher
KITELY, a merchant: Joseph Tabler
CAPTAIN BOBADILL, a Paul's Man: Hamlet
MASTER STEPHEN, a Country Gull: alanmapstone
MASTER MATHEW, the Town Gull: TJ Burns
THOMAS CASH, KITELY'S Cashier: bdanzige
OLIVER COB, a Water-bearer: Tomas Peter
JUSTICE CLEMENT, an old merry Magistrate: Nemo
ROGER FORMAL, his Clerk: Eva Davis
DAME KITELY, KITELY'S Wife: Beth Thomas
MRS. BRIDGET, his Sister: Leanne Yau
TIB, Cob's Wife: Sonia
Servant: Foon
Stage Directions: Bhavya
Edited by: ToddHW
https://librivox.org/every-man-in-his...
Cast list:
KNOWELL, an old Gentleman: ToddHW
EDWARD KNOWELL, his Son: Rob Marland
BRAINWORM, the Father's Man: Zames Curran
GEORGE DOWNRIGHT, a plain Squire: Algy Pug
WELLBRED, his Half-Brother: Jim Gallagher
KITELY, a merchant: Joseph Tabler
CAPTAIN BOBADILL, a Paul's Man: Hamlet
MASTER STEPHEN, a Country Gull: alanmapstone
MASTER MATHEW, the Town Gull: TJ Burns
THOMAS CASH, KITELY'S Cashier: bdanzige
OLIVER COB, a Water-bearer: Tomas Peter
JUSTICE CLEMENT, an old merry Magistrate: Nemo
ROGER FORMAL, his Clerk: Eva Davis
DAME KITELY, KITELY'S Wife: Beth Thomas
MRS. BRIDGET, his Sister: Leanne Yau
TIB, Cob's Wife: Sonia
Servant: Foon
Stage Directions: Bhavya
Edited by: ToddHW
May 1, 2009
I'd heard that Jonson was supposed to be a better poet than dramatist, but I'm not seeing much of either in this play. Jonson has some good lines, but nothing really sustained. I found this play to be tedious. Perhaps it is better on stage, but I really don't see much "charm" in this comedy of manners. It took me several attempts to get through this play. I'm not all that impressed with Jonson as a playwright.
June 2, 2012
I'd heard that Ben Jonson was supposed to be a better poet than dramatist, but I'm not seeing much of either in Every Man in His Humour. Jonson has some good lines, but nothing really sustained. I found this play to be tedious. Perhaps it is better on stage, but I really don't see much "charm" in this comedy of manners. It took me several attempts to get through this play. I'm not all that impressed with Jonson as a playwright.
May 17, 2015
I liked this play, but didn't love it. There were sections that I really enjoyed and others that didn't draw me in. I realize it's not a play about plot, but sometimes I wished there was more story to go with the wit. I'm sure it would have been much more engaging on the stage than the page.
August 26, 2017
You should read this. Why?
"Helterskelter, hang sorrow, care'll kill the cat,
Up-tails all, and a louse for the hangman."
Q.E.D.
See also: "say I am the rankest cow that ever pist" and "what would you do you peremptory gull?"
"Helterskelter, hang sorrow, care'll kill the cat,
Up-tails all, and a louse for the hangman."
Q.E.D.
See also: "say I am the rankest cow that ever pist" and "what would you do you peremptory gull?"
April 4, 2016
A comical look at obsession.
Read
May 3, 2010This was funny, but kind of manipulatively so. It was like he knew all the right ways to tickle you and went after them terribly methodically. But still, it's very funny.
May 23, 2015
Bobadil is hysterical. Other than that, the play is a little bland and there isn't a huge narrative arch; everything seemingly happens within a day.
June 23, 2023
Hmm. Still not warming to it. BenJo went on from this to fight and win a duel. Which was not as lucky for him as he probably thought it would be.
August 27, 2016
At least one original character.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews