The theatrical landscape of [English drama](/posts/how-has-english-drama-e v olved-from-its/), particularly during the Early Modern and Restoration periods, saw the emergence of distinct comedic forms that held up a mirror to contemporary society. Among the most prominent of these were the Comedy of Humours and the Comedy of Manners, two genres that, despite their shared aim of evoking laughter through social commentary, diverged significantly in their origins, thematic concerns, character portrayals, and stylistic approaches. Understanding these differences provides profound insight into the social, intellectual, and moral climate of their respective eras, revealing how comedy served not only as entertainment but also as a potent tool for critique and reflection.
While both comedic traditions engaged with human folly and societal quirks, the Comedy of Humours, largely associated with the late Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, derived its comedic force from the exaggerated exhibition of a character’s dominant, often obsessive, personality trait. This trait, or “humour,” was rooted in ancient physiological theories and dictated every aspect of the character’s behaviour, leading to predictable yet comical outcomes. In stark contrast, the Comedy of Manners, flourishing during the Restoration period, focused its satirical gaze on the sophisticated, often cynical, and highly artificial conventions of aristocratic society, celebrating wit, fashion, and social manoeuvring above all else. These fundamental distinctions in their sources of humour, their targets of satire, and their historical contexts underscore their unique contributions to the development of English drama.
Comedy of Humours: Exaggeration of Fixed Traits
The Comedy of Humours, a theatrical genre predominantly popularized by Ben Jonson in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, is deeply rooted in the ancient physiological theory of the four bodily fluids, or “humours”: blood, phlegm, yellow bile (choler), and black bile (melancholy). According to this theory, prevalent in classical and medieval medicine, an imbalance or a predominant presence of one of these humours in an individual’s constitution would determine their temperament and, consequently, their entire personality. Sanguine individuals were cheerful and optimistic (excess blood); phlegmatic individuals were calm and sluggish (excess phlegm); choleric individuals were irritable and fiery (excess yellow bile); and melancholic individuals were pensive and gloomy (excess black bile). Jonson masterfully translated this medical theory into a dramatic principle, creating characters who were not merely complex individuals but personifications of a single, overriding “humour” or fixed obsession.
The defining characteristic of the Comedy of Humours is its singular focus on characters who are entirely dominated by one specific trait, vice, or eccentricity, often to the exclusion of all other rational thought or action. These “humours” are not subtle nuances of personality but rather exaggerated, fixed dispositions that dictate every aspect of the character’s behaviour, speech, and even appearance. For instance, a character might be consumed by avarice, as in the case of Volpone in Jonson’s Volpone, whose entire being is dedicated to accumulating wealth through deception. Another might be a braggadocio soldier, like Captain Bobadil in Jonson’s Every Man in His Humour, whose constant boasts and feigned bravery are his defining humour. The humour becomes a kind of monomania, rendering the character a caricature rather than a psychologically complex individual.
The primary aim of the Comedy of Humours was didactic and satiric. Jonson and his contemporaries used this form to expose folly, vice, and absurdity in society. By presenting characters whose irrational obsessions led them into ridiculous or self-defeating situations, the playwright sought to provide a moral lesson, encouraging the audience to recognize and avoid similar excesses in themselves. The humour, once exposed, often leads to the character’s downfall or public humiliation, serving as a cautionary tale. The plots in these comedies tend to be intricate, often revolving around schemes, trickery, and the clash of various “humours” as characters interact, revealing their fixed traits through their reactions and dialogue.
Dialogue in the Comedy of Humours is functional, serving primarily to reveal the character’s dominant humour. While it can be witty, its main purpose is to underscore the character’s fixed disposition, often through repetitive phrases, distinctive mannerisms, or specific vocabulary that highlights their obsession. The language might be direct, sometimes blunt, reflecting the internal compulsion of the character rather than the sophisticated repartee of later comedic forms. Settings are often urban, reflecting the diverse populace and potential for social misbehaviour. The audience, while educated, was broader than the aristocratic elite of the Restoration, and the moral tone was generally more pronounced and unambiguous, aiming for societal correction. Jonson’s Every Man in His Humour (1598) and Every Man Out of His Humour (1599) are seminal examples, explicitly defining and exemplifying the genre’s principles. Other notable works include Volpone (1606) and The Alchemist (1610), all of which exhibit characters driven by overwhelming, singular passions like greed, lust, or ambition.
Comedy of Manners: Satire of Social Artifice
The Comedy of Manners emerged in England during the Restoration period (1660-1688), following the reopening of the theatres after the Puritan interregnum. This era was marked by a sharp reaction against the strict morality of the preceding decades, leading to a flourishing of wit, cynicism, and an overt indulgence in sophisticated social conventions. This genre is intrinsically linked to the upper echelons of London society – the aristocratic elite, the courtiers, and the fashionable set. Its comedic power derives from the elaborate social rituals, intricate codes of conduct, and often hypocritical moral standards that characterized this refined yet morally ambiguous world.
Unlike the fixed, internal eccentricities of the Comedy of Humours, the Comedy of Manners satirizes external behaviours, social affectations, and the artificiality of societal interaction. Its characters are not driven by a singular, overwhelming internal humour but rather by their pursuit of social status, reputation, wealth, and advantageous marriages. They are often stock types – the witty rake, the fashionable coquette, the jealous husband, the foolish fop, the designing widow – but within these types, there is room for nuanced portrayals of their social roles and their skill (or lack thereof) in navigating the complex social landscape. The humour arises from misunderstandings, mistaken identities, elaborate intrigues, and the clash between genuine emotion and superficial social decorum.
A central feature of the Comedy of Manners is its brilliant, sparkling dialogue, often characterized by rapid-fire wit, clever repartee, epigrams, and cynical observations. Characters engage in “wit combats,” where verbal dexterity and intellectual agility are highly valued and serve as a measure of a character’s social standing and attractiveness. The language is sophisticated, often artificial, reflecting the polished surface of the society it depicts. Plots typically revolve around love affairs, advantageous marriages, sexual intrigues, and the protection or destruction of one’s reputation. Marriage, in particular, is often treated less as a union of hearts and more as a social and economic transaction, frequently revealing the cynical underbelly of the period’s social arrangements.
The moral stance of the Comedy of Manners is often ambiguous, even amoral. While it exposes hypocrisy and folly, it rarely preaches or offers clear moral solutions. Instead, it observes with detached amusement, often seeming to celebrate the very vices it depicts, particularly wit and cunning, which are admired even when employed for morally questionable ends. The “wits” – characters like Mirabell and Millamant in Congreve’s The Way of the World or Dorimant in Etherege’s The Man of Mode – are often presented as protagonists, even if their actions are morally dubious, because they possess the coveted qualities of intelligence, charm, and social adroitness. The setting is almost exclusively urban, specifically the drawing-rooms, theatres, parks, and taverns of London, which served as the backdrop for the social machinations and public displays of wit and fashion. This genre was primarily for and about the aristocratic and upper-middle-class audience who could understand and appreciate its subtle social critiques and linguistic sophistication. Key playwrights include William Wycherley (The Country Wife, 1675), George Etherege (The Man of Mode, 1676), and William Congreve (Love for Love, 1695; The Way of the World, 1700), whose works exemplify the genre’s characteristics.
Distinguishing Characteristics: A Comprehensive Comparison
The fundamental differences between the Comedy of Humours and the Comedy of Manners lie in their core philosophical underpinnings, their historical contexts, their approach to characterization, their use of language, and their ultimate aims.
Historical Context and Social Reflection
The Comedy of Humours belongs to the late Elizabethan and Jacobean eras (roughly 1590s-1620s), a period of relative social stability yet increasing urban complexity. It emerged from a society still grappling with moral codes and the implications of individual behaviour, reflecting a more didactic and moralistic outlook inherited from earlier morality plays. Its focus on fixed personality types can be seen as an attempt to categorize and understand human behaviour in a systematic, albeit pseudo-scientific, way.
The Comedy of Manners is a product of the Restoration period (1660s-1700), a distinct era marked by radical social, political, and moral shifts. After the austere Puritan Commonwealth, the return of Charles II ushered in an age of hedonism, cynicism, and a fascination with French culture. This genre directly reflects the values and anxieties of the newly liberated, yet highly stratified, aristocratic society. Its focus on social artifice, reputation, and cynical wit mirrors the post-Puritan desire to shed moral constraints and engage in sophisticated, often amoral, social games.
Target of Satire and Source of Laughter
In the Comedy of Humours, the laughter is derived from the exposure of a character’s inherent, unchanging, and often absurdly exaggerated single trait or obsession. The satire targets internal flaws, individual eccentricities, and psychological imbalances. The audience laughs at the character’s inability to deviate from their fixed disposition, often leading to predictable yet comical situations. The humour is rooted in a fundamental understanding of human nature as being prone to specific, dominant passions.
Conversely, the Comedy of Manners derives its humour from the sharp wit, clever dialogue, and the often hypocritical and artificial social conventions of the upper class. The satire targets external behaviours, social pretenses, fashion, and the intricate, often absurd, rules of courtship and marriage within a specific social milieu. Laughter often arises from the intellectual pleasure of watching characters navigate these social complexities with wit and cunning, or from their failures to do so.
Characterization and Moral Stance
Characters in the Comedy of Humours are often flat, two-dimensional caricatures, designed to embody a single, dominant “humour.” They are rarely complex or capable of significant moral growth. Their actions are predetermined by their fixed disposition, making them predictable in their folly. The moral stance is typically clear: the “humour” is a flaw to be exposed and, implicitly, corrected. The plays often have a didactic purpose, aiming to teach a moral lesson through the consequences of unchecked obsession.
Characters in the Comedy of Manners, while often stock types (fops, wits, coquettes), possess a greater degree of complexity within their social roles. They are defined by their intellect, their mastery of social games, and their ability to manipulate appearances. Moral ambiguity is a hallmark; wit and charm are often valued above conventional morality. Protagonists, particularly the “wits,” are often morally grey, but their intelligence and social dexterity make them admirable. The plays are more observational than overtly didactic, presenting society as it is, rather than explicitly prescribing how it should be.
Dialogue and Language
The language in the Comedy of Humours is primarily functional, serving to reveal the character’s dominant humour. While it can be eloquent or forceful, it is often repetitive in its emphasis on the character’s obsession. The wit, when present, is usually direct and often aimed at highlighting the character’s folly.
The Comedy of Manners places paramount importance on dialogue. It is characterized by sparkling wit, elegant repartee, clever puns, and sophisticated wordplay. The language is highly artificial, polished, and serves as a vehicle for demonstrating social status, intellectual superiority, and the intricate dance of courtship and social maneuvering. Wit itself becomes a form of power and a source of aesthetic pleasure.
Plot and Themes
Plots in the Comedy of Humours often involve complex schemes and deceptions, but these are primarily designed to reveal and test the characters’ fixed humours. Themes revolve around the manifestation of specific vices (avarice, envy, vanity) and their societal consequences.
Plots in the Comedy of Manners are typically intricate, involving love intrigues, mistaken identities, secret alliances, and the pursuit of advantageous marriages. Themes include the institution of marriage (often as a financial transaction), social reputation, sexual politics, hypocrisy, and the conflict between genuine emotion and social artifice. The pursuit of pleasure and social standing often trumps moral considerations.
Audience and Setting
The Comedy of Humours, while appealing to the educated elite, arguably had a broader appeal and a more universal moral message. Settings could vary, though urban environments were common.
The Comedy of Manners was specifically tailored for the aristocratic and fashionable elite of London. Its nuanced social satire and sophisticated wit required an audience intimately familiar with the social codes and personalities it depicted. Settings are almost exclusively urban, focusing on the drawing-rooms, parks, theatres, and coffee houses that were the social hubs of the fashionable set.
In their essence, the Comedy of Humours and the Comedy of Manners represent two distinct philosophical and artistic responses to the human condition and social interaction. The former, rooted in an older understanding of personality and morality, critiques internal flaws through exaggerated, fixed characters, aiming for a didactic exposure of folly. It operates on the premise that individuals are largely governed by their innate constitution, leading to predictable and often absurd behaviours. The laughter it provokes is often a recognition of universal human folly, albeit magnified.
The latter, the Comedy of Manners, reflects a more modern, cynical, and socially conscious perspective. It critiques the external superficiality and intricate social games of a specific, elite society, valuing wit and sophistication over moral rectitude. Its characters, though types, are defined by their social roles and their ability to navigate a world of artifice and reputation. The laughter it elicits stems from intellectual amusement at clever dialogue and the ironic observation of human vanity and social posturing. While both forms utilized comedy to illuminate human nature and societal norms, their divergent approaches underscore the evolving intellectual and social landscapes of their respective eras, leaving a rich legacy of dramatic styles and satirical insights.