popularity. To attempt to trace in detail the influence of Jonson on humor comedy would require a separate study.1 He never grew weary of the 'humor' idea,2 and those who imitated him seized first upon this feature of his work. The portrayal of 'humors' certainly persisted till the time of Dickens; and to Jonson, more than any one man, must credit be given for the first development of the conception, and the realization of its possibilities. Every Man in His Humor, then, is thoroughly characteristic of Jonson's final body of work. Less excellent in detail than The Alchemist, Epicone, and Volpone, there is a naturalness, spontaneity, and interest in this play which they do not surpass. It alone could have taught all later drama lessons in seriousness of purpose, the possibilities of character-study and the portrayal of || manners, and the variety of results attainable within the limits of a traditional framework. When tested before the higher tribunal which judges on ultimate grounds only, this comedy is in the second rank. In forbidding himself the use of poetry, Jonson diminished, by more than half, the possibilities which were open to him. It is unmistakable, also, that neither this nor any of his plays contains that 'utmost spiritual content' which is demanded of the highest type of literature. 1 See Kerr's Influence of Ben Jonson on English Comedy. 2 Cf. Induc. to Magnetic Lady (Wks. 6. 8—9): 'The author beginning his studies of this kind, with Every Man in His Humour; and after Every Man out of His Humour; and since, continuing in all his plays, especially those of the comic thread, whereof the New Inn was the last, some recent humours still, or manners of men, that went along with the times; finding himself near the close, or shutting up of his circle, hath fancied to himself, in idea, this Magnetic Mistress.... And this he hath called Humours Reconciled. 1 EDITOR'S NOTE The quarto text here printed aims to reproduce as exactly as possible an original copy of the quarto of 1601. In one instance (3. 2. 84), a comma not found here is inserted from the authority of a second original. Its absence was unique here, and the worn condition of the paper made it seem advisable to substitute the other reading from a source which showed a better state of preservation. The folio text is based upon a copy of the 1616 edition. The footnotes to the text include differences of sufficient importance to make it possible to regard them as emendations; the corrections of the most palpable errors; the folio variants; stage-directions from later editions, principally Gifford's. The only variants recorded in footnotes for the quarto are the quarto variants and those from Bang's reprint. A detailed description of the various editions is included in the Introduction; here are placed mistakes of later editions, illustrations of the alterations due to general linguistic change, and of the distinguishing characteristics of the various editions. The principle of discrimination has not been applied with perfect ease to every given instance, but it is hoped that a sufficiently complete textual history can be found from the combined information. The method employed is further discussed in the Introduction, pp. xxx, xxxi. W1 = White's copy of the quarto used as the basis of the present text. W2 White's copy of the quarto used for com = parison. |