The School of Scandal 245 Trip returns and says Charles has asked them to wait. Sir Oliver, pretending to be “Mr. Premium,” asks Trip whether he likes working for Charles. Trip says he does: although he often gets paid late, he also takes his master’s cast-off clothing. Trip consults with Moses about getting a loan from him, offering to use clothing he expects to get from Charles in the future as collateral. Sir Oliver is shocked that a servant would presume to ask for a loan in the same way a member of the upper class does. The School for Scandal Act 3, Scene 3 Summary In another room of Charles Surface’s house, a group of young men are laughing and drinking. Charles drinks and urges others to do so, saying he never loses at cards when he drinks, or, rather, never cares that he is losing. He says drinking is how one knows if one loves a woman: a man can drink twelve glasses of wine, each one to toast a different woman, and whomever he thinks of once he is drunk is the woman he loves. Charles’s friend Careless asks him who he really loves, and Charles answers “Maria,” but refuses to give her surname. The group of men sings a song celebrating women in all their diversity. Trip enters and Charles says he must excuse himself to talk to a Jew and a broker who have come to see him. The others urge him to have the visitors come in. Careless says that perhaps if the moneylenders drink wine they will become more moral, but Charles warns that wine will only bring out their natural bad qualities. Trip escorts Moses and Sir Oliver (who is pretending to be Mr. Premium) in. Careless and the other men in the party try to force the moneylenders to drink large quantities of wine, but Charles tells his friends that they should not mistreat these strangers. The gentlemen leave Charles with the moneylenders to play dice in the next room. Moses begins to make an elaborate introduction between “Mr. Premium” and Charles, but Charles cuts him off. He quickly summarizes the situation: he is an extravagant young man who is willing to pay fifty percent interest if he can borrow money, and Mr. Premium is a man with money to lend, who will try to get double his money interest. Mr. Premium says that he can see Charles is “not a man of many compliments” and Charles agrees. Mr. Premium says he likes him the better for it.
246 British Drama - I “Mr. Premium” asks Charles what possessions he has that he can offer as collateral. He learns that Charles has already sold all his land and livestock. Charles asks Mr. Premium if knows of his wealthy uncle, explaining that he expects to inherit everything from Sir Oliver. Charles says if Mr. Premium gives him a loan, he can collect his money when Sir Oliver dies and leaves Charles his fortune. Charles adds that he would, however, be sad to hear that anything had happened to his generous uncle. Mr. Premium says that these are not good terms. Charles asks Mr. Premium if he worries that Sir Oliver will live too long, and assures him his uncle is a sick man. Mr. Premium breaks into nervous laughter at this. He asks about other heirlooms Charles might be able to sell—silver plates, a valuable library. Charles says all of this is long gone, and then offers to sell his family portraits. Horrified by this proposition, Sir Oliver almost forgets to pretend to be Mr. Premium. Charles summons Careless to help auction off the many portraits of his ancestors. Charles notices that Mr. Premium seems upset, and asks affectionately if he is all right. Sir Oliver regains his composure and laughs, assuring Charles that he thinks it is hilarious “to sell one’s family by auction.” The School for Scandal Act 4, Scene 1 Summary The auction of the family portraits is conducted in the picture room in Charles’s house. Charles asks Careless to serve as the auctioneer and, laughing, gives him a rolled-up parchment of the family tree to use as a hammer. Charles first displays a portrait of his great-uncle and gives him a detailed description of the man’s prominence. Mr. Premium asks what he wants for it, and Charles says ten pounds. To himself, Sir Oliver marvels angrily that Charles wants to sell “his famous uncle Richard for ten pounds.” Charles then sells six other portraits of illustrious relatives Charles proposes that the remaining family portraits be sold wholesale for three hundred pounds. “Mr. Premium” agrees, but points out one portrait that Charles has always passed over. Charles explains that that is the portrait of his uncle, Sir Oliver, and says he is too grateful to his uncle to sell his portrait. Sir Oliver offers Charles large sums for the portrait, but Charles refuses every offer. Sir Oliver says to himself that he forgives Charles everything. Deeply touched, Sir CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
The School of Scandal 247 Oliver writes Charles a check for even more than they agreed on and leaves with Moses. Charles asks that Mr. Premium make sure the paintings are handled carefully when they are picked up. Rowley approaches and Careless leaves the room, first telling Charles not to let his father’s old steward persuade him to pay his debts with the money received from Mr. Premium. Rowley enters and Charles instructs him to bring a hundred pounds immediately to old Stanley. Rowley tries to dissuade him, saying he is in too much debt himself to be generous, but Charles refuses to listen, saying Rowley must hurry before a debt-collector comes and takes the money he wants to send his impoverished relative, then goes to join his friends in the other room to play cards. The School for Scandal Act 4, Scene 2 Summary In the parlor in Charles’s home, Moses says to Sir Oliver that it is a shame Charles is so extravagant, but all Sir Oliver cares about is that Charles refused to sell his portrait. Rowley enters and says that he has brought money that Charles wanted to send to old Stanley, but which should really go to pay off his creditors. Sir Oliver says to use the money to pay off Charles’s debt. Trip enters and apologizes for not showing them out, then pulls Moses aside to consult on getting a loan from him. Sir Oliver and Rowley marvel at how times have changed: in the old days a servant certainly never tried to raise money in this way. The School for Scandal Act 4, Scene 3 Summary In the library at Joseph Surface’s house, Joseph is waiting for Lady Teazle, who is late. Joseph reflects to himself that Sir Peter does not suspect him of having an affair with his wife, but he hopes he will not lose Maria as a result of this affair with Lady Teazle. The servant tells him that Lady Teazle has arrived and then goes to let her in. Joseph reflects that he cannot let Lady Teazle know that he hopes to marry Maria until he feels like she is more in love with him and under his control. Lady Teazle enters and sees Joseph looking serious. She complains that Sir Peter is ill natured and jealous of Charles. She says she wishes that Sir Peter would allow Maria and Charles to marry, because he would stop suspecting Lady Teazle and Charles of having an affair then. To
248 British Drama - I himself, Joseph says he hopes this doesn’t happen, but agrees with Lady Teazle aloud, adding that Lady Teazle would stop suspecting Joseph of having any interest in Maria if Maria and Charles were married. Lady Teazle says she believes him. Lady Teazle begins to complain that her friend Lady Sneerwell spreads rumors about her, which makes Sir Peter even more suspicious. The worst part, she says, is that she is perfectly innocent and deserves none of it. Joseph says that the only solution to the problem—that is, of Sir Peter suspecting Lady Teazle of betraying him for no reason—is for her to betray him in reality. He goes on to say that it is because she knows herself to be innocent that she is careless about making sure nothing she does could cause suspicion — she is “dying from too much health.” Lady Teazle says that this is a very odd doctrine, but Joseph counters that she only finds his logic questionable because she is still not used to London high-society. She says she would be more likely to be convinced to start an affair by Sir Peter’s ill-natured treatment of her than by Joseph’s logic. Just as Joseph reaches to take Lady Teazle’s hand, the servant walks in to tell him that Sir Peter has arrived. Both Joseph and Lady Teazle panic: they can hear Sir Peter climbing the stairs to the room. Lady Teazle hides behind a screen. Joseph pretends to be dozing over a book as Sir Peter enters. Sir Peter approves of Joseph always trying to educate and improve himself. Sir Peter says he wants to talk to Joseph about a sensitive subject: he is very unhappy with Lady Teazle, who does not love him, and whom he suspects is having an affair. Joseph pretends to be shocked. Sir Peter tells Joseph he believes that Charles and Lady Teazle are lovers. Joseph expresses disbelief, and Sir Peter replies that Joseph’s morality may make it hard for him imagine other people’s bad behavior. Joseph agrees, but says he thinks Lady Teazle would be unlikely to be unfaithful. Sir Peter says she could have been attracted to the handsome, lively Charles and that the difference in their ages may make it impossible for Lady Teazle to love him. He says that everyone will laugh at him for marrying a much younger woman, if it comes out that Lady Teazle is having an affair. Joseph says he disown his brother if he sees proof of an affair with Lady Teazle. Sir Peter praises Joseph’s sentiments. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
The School of Scandal 249 Sir Peter says to Joseph that he wishes to make sure that he gives Lady Teazle no cause to be upset with him. He shows Joseph two drafts of the financial arrangements he is making for Lady Teazle. He has determined to give her eight hundred pounds a year and most of his money upon his death. Joseph tells Sir Peter that this is very generous, but says to himself that he hopes this will not decrease his own influence over Lady Teazle. Sir Peter begins to talk about Joseph’s hope to marry Maria. Joseph tries to stop Sir Peter, saying that he does not want to selfishly talk about himself when Sir Peter’s happiness in his marriage is at stake. Sir Peter continues, though, saying that he wishes Joseph would allow him to tell Lady Teazle about Joseph’s hope to marry Maria, because he thinks she would help them to arrange it. A servant enters and announces that Charles has come to see Joseph. Joseph orders the servant to tell Charles he is out, but Sir Peter says he wants Charles to come up. He says he will hide in the room and listen to the brothers’ conversation while Joseph asks Charles about Lady Teazle. Reluctantly, Joseph agrees. Sir Peter is about to step behind the screen when he spots the bottom of a woman’s dress. Joseph explains that a young French hat-maker was in his room on a romantic tryst, and that she hid behind the screen when Sir Peter arrived unexpectedly. Sir Peter teases Joseph for secretly being a ladies’ man, and then hides in a closet. Lady Teazle peeks her head out and asks if there is any way she can escape, but Joseph urges her back. Then Sir Peter peeks his head out, telling Joseph to be sure to get an answer from Charles. Lady Teazle pokes her head out again, and then Sir Peter again. Charles enters. He says he had heard Sir Peter was with Joseph, and asks where he has gone. Joseph says Sir Peter avoided him because he believes that Lady Teazle and Charles are having an affair. Charles laughs at this idea, saying it sounds like Sir Peter has discovered what it is like to have a young wife. Joseph tells Charles to be serious, and Charles says that he never considered pursuing Lady Teazle. At one time, he says, it seemed to him that she might be interested in him, but he is attached to Maria. Charles says that he would never deliberately do something dishonorable, but if a pretty woman with a husband old enough to be her father were to throw herself at him, he would need “to borrow a little of your morality.”
250 British Drama - I Charles says he is surprised that Joseph would think that he and Lady Teazle are having an affair, because Charles believed that Lady Teazle prefers Joseph. Joseph tries to hush Charles, but Charles mentions that he has seen Joseph and Lady Teazle exchange significant glances and even found them alone together. In a panic, Joseph whispers to Charles that Sir Peter has overheard everything they have been saying. Over Joseph’s objections, Charles then pulls Sir Peter from the closet. Sir Peter shakes Charles’s hand, saying he no longer suspects him, and tells Charles not to be mad at Joseph for participating in Sir Peter’s scheme to spy on him. Sir Peter believes that Charles’s suggestions that Joseph and Lady Teazle have feelings for one another were just a joke. The servant enters and tells Joseph that someone has come to see him. Joseph tries to persuade Charles and Sir Peter to come downstairs with him, but Charles says he wants to spend some time alone with Sir Peter. Joseph says he will go send this visitor away, and whispers to Sir Peter not to mention the hidden French girl to Charles. Sir Peter promises. Left alone, Sir Peter tells Charles that he should emulate his brother. Charles says that Joseph is too prudish to be emulated. Sir Peter cannot resist the prank, and, greatly amused, tells Charles that Joseph has a lover hidden in the room behind the screen. Just as Joseph reenters the room, Charles pulls down the screen, revealing Lady Teazle. Charles and Sir Peter exclaim in surprise. Charles asks Joseph, Sir Peter, and Lady Teazle what is going on, but no one answers him. Charles then leaves, first chiding Joseph for giving Sir Peter cause for worry, and repeating Sir Peter’s words that “there’s nothing in the world so noble as a man of sentiment!” back to him. After an awkward silence, Joseph stammers that he can explain everything. Sir Peter tells him to do so. Joseph gives a convoluted explanation, suggesting that Lady Teazle came to his house so that he could explain to her that he wanted to marry Maria without making Sir Peter jealous. Sir Peter sarcastically calls this a clear explanation, and then asks Lady Teazle if she will vouch for it. Lady Teazle denounces Joseph as a hypocrite, saying there is not a word of truth in what he said. She tells Sir Peter that she came to listen to Joseph try to seduce her, although she had not yet decided whether or not to be seduced. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
The School of Scandal 251 Joseph objects, but Lady Teazle goes on. She says that, although she cannot expect Sir Peter to trust her now, she was very touched by the tender way he talked about her to Joseph, and, even if she had not been discovered, she would have treated him differently from now on. She concludes by saying that Joseph is despicable for having tried to seduce his too-trusting friend’s wife while also trying to marry his ward (Maria), and then leaves the room. Joseph tries to object again by giving a speech about morality, but Sir Peter ignores him. The School for Scandal Act 5, Scene 1 Summary In Joseph’s library, “Mr. Stanley” has arrived to visit Joseph, and Joseph complains to himself that he is in no mood to listen to other people’s problems after being caught with Lady Teazle by Sir Peter. He feels sure that he now has no chance of marrying Maria. As Sir Oliver and Rowley enter, Joseph leaves the room. Sir Oliver is offended that it seems as if Joseph is avoiding them. Rowley says that he knows Joseph talks about being charitable, but he has never seen him act charitably. Rowley leaves so that Sir Oliver can pretend to be Mr. Stanley uninterrupted, but says that after he sees “Mr. Stanley” leave, he will return immediately to announce to Joseph that Sir Oliver has come back from the Indies, and then will meet Sir Oliver at Sir Peter’s after that. Joseph enters and makes exaggeratedly polite excuses for keeping Mr. Stanley waiting. Mr. Stanley says he has decided to come to ask Joseph and Charles for money because he fears that his poverty may discredit the family’s reputation for wealth. Joseph denies that he is wealthy. Mr. Stanley says that he is sure that if Sir Oliver were here, he would help him. Joseph tells Mr. Stanley that contrary to public opinion, his uncle has given him almost nothing, so he cannot help him. Under his breath, Sir Oliver angrily remarks at this ingratitude. Joseph goes on to say how much money he has given to help his brother with his debts. Sir Oliver does not believe this. “Mr. Stanley” says that he sees that Joseph cannot help him, and they say goodbye to one another with elaborate shows of politeness. Sir Oliver whispers to himself that Charles will be his heir, and leaves. Joseph says to himself that a reputation for charity has the unfortunate effect of drawing those who need charity, but he uses sentimental speeches instead of real money in these situations.
252 British Drama - I Rowley then enters and gives Joseph a note saying that Sir Oliver has arrived in London. Joseph asks his servant to stop Mr. Stanley if he has not yet gone, but Rowley says that Mr. Stanley is out of reach. Rowley tells Joseph that he will bring Sir Oliver and Charles to his house in fifteen minutes, and then departs. Joseph curses his bad luck that Sir Oliver should arrive at this moment. The School for Scandal Act 5, Scene 2 Summary Mrs. Candour is at Sir Peter’s door, attempting to convince the maid to let her in to visit Lady Teazle, whom she says must be very upset and need moral support. The maid leaves and Mrs. Candour complains to herself that she does not know exactly what happened, but wants to get it printed in the gossip pages. Sir Benjamin arrives and they begin to talk over the scandal. Sir Benjamin believes that Sir Peter discovered Lady Teazle with Joseph Surface, but Mrs. Candour insists that the affair was with Charles. Lady Sneerwell arrives and expresses pity for Lady Teazle, then immediately launches into a discussion of her shortcomings. Lady Sneerwell, like Sir Benjamin, believes that Lady Teazle was caught with Joseph, but is alarmed to hear from Mrs. Candour that she was caught with Charles. Sir Benjamin says he is not sure which brother was involved, but he does hope that Sir Peter’s wound will heal. The two ladies had not heard that a duel took place. Sir Benjamin tells them that Sir Peter and one of the Surface brothers fought a duel with swords. Crabtree enters and immediately contradicts his nephew, saying that the duel was fought with pistols. Crabtree and Sir Benjamin argue over how Sir Peter was wounded. It emerges that Crabtree, like Mrs. Candour, believes that Lady Teazle was found with Charles, not Joseph. They all argue, and Crabtree gives an extremely detailed account of what happened and how Sir Peter was wounded. Lady Sneerwell realizes that they do not really know what happened and leaves, hoping to find out the truth. Mrs. Candour, Sir Benjamin, and Mr. Crabtree see Sir Oliver approach. They conclude that he is Sir Peter’s doctor and ask him how the patient is recovering from his wounds. Sir Oliver expresses shock at their preposterous questions as the gossips jockey to give their account of what happened. Sir Peter enters then and Sir Oliver jokes that he is just in time to stop a rumor about CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
The School of Scandal 253 his death from being spread. The gossipmongers tell Sir Peter that they are relieved to see that he was not injured in a duel, and that they pity him for his misfortune. Sir Peter yells at the three gossips and kicks them out of his house. Rowley arrives at Sir Peter’s. He and Sir Oliver tell Sir Peter that they have seen both Charles and Joseph, and Sir Oliver agrees with Sir Peter’s assessment: Joseph is “a man of sentiment” and practices what he preaches. Sir Peter sees that they have heard what happened to him and are laughing at him. Rowley says that he ran into Lady Teazle and she asked him to plead her case to Sir Peter. Sir Peter asks if they really know everything that happened. They say they do, and all three laugh, but Sir Peter gets upset and says he never wants to see anyone he knows again. Rowley coaxes Sir Peter not to pay attention to what people he does not respect say about him. Sir Oliver says that he must now go to Joseph’s, where he will tell the Surface brothers his true identity. Rowley and Sir Peter promise to meet him there. Sir Peter looks into the other room, where he sees Lady Teazle crying. Rowley urges him to go to her. Sir Peter says that people will laugh at him even more when they find out that he has forgiven her. Rowley encourages him to have revenge against gossipmongers by being happy, and Sir Peter agrees. The School for Scandal Act 5, Scene 3 Summary In Joseph’s library, Lady Sneerwell is criticizing Joseph for spoiling their plot. She believes that Sir Peter will now support Charles and Maria’s marriage. Joseph is less upset, but Lady Sneerwell says that this is because he does not really love Maria, whereas she truly loves Charles. Lady Sneerwell says that Joseph ruined everything by going too far: he should have stuck to tricking Sir Peter into thinking he was a man of sentiment and stealing his brother’s beloved, but he crossed the line by trying to seduce Lady Teazle as well. Joseph says he is sorry, but he thinks there is still hope. He says that, if Snake can still be trusted, he will help them. Snake has been asked to swear that Charles is engaged to Lady Sneerwell and to produce forged letters as proof. There is a knock at the door. Joseph says it must be his uncle, Sir Oliver, and tells Lady Sneerwell to wait in the next room. Lady Sneerwell tells him to make sure that his uncle doesn’t
254 British Drama - I discover his true character, and Joseph replies that he is sure Sir Peter will be too embarrassed to tell Sir Oliver what happened and that he will soon discover the best way to manipulate his uncle. Sir Oliver enters and, recognizing him as “Mr. Stanley,” Joseph tells him he must leave immediately. “Mr. Stanley” says that he has heard that Sir Oliver will soon arrive, and although Sir Oliver has not been generous with his nephew, Stanley wants to ask for his charity. Mr. Stanley refuses to leave, and Joseph is calling for the servant to drag him from the house when Charles arrives. Charles asks why Joseph is treating his broker “Mr. Premium” so roughly. The two brothers argue over the identity of the man, while trying to forcibly remove him from the house before Sir Oliver arrives. Sir Peter, Lady Teazle, Maria, and Rowley arrive. Sir Peter says he is glad that he arrived in time to save Sir Oliver from being knocked down. Joseph and Charles realize Sir Oliver’s identity and are stunned. Sir Oliver says that he has discovered Joseph’s true character and finds him an ungrateful, ungenerous liar. Sir Peter and Lady Teazle agree. Charles says to himself that he is sure to be judged harshly for selling the family portraits, especially if his brother gets such treatment. Sir Oliver then begins to give his impression of Charles, but Joseph interrupts him, saying he wishes to explain himself. Sir Oliver will not listen to Joseph’s attempted explanation, but asks Charles if he too believes he can justify his behavior. Charles tells his uncle that he cannot. Sir Oliver says he cannot be angry at Charles, and laughs at how cheaply Charles sold the heirlooms. Charles says how happy he is to see his uncle, and Sir Oliver says he forgives him his bad behavior. Lady Teazle says that she believes Charles is even more anxious to make up with Maria than with his uncle. Maria does not speak at first, but then says that she is glad to hear Charles is happy—though she knows that he loves someone else. Sir Peter and Charles exclaim in confusion, but Maria says that Charles and Lady Sneerwell know the truth. Joseph then opens the door to allow Lady Sneerwell to enter. She says that Charles has put her in an indelicate situation, and Joseph says that he can produce proof to support what Maria believes: that Charles and Lady CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
The School of Scandal 255 Sneerwell are engaged. Sir Peter says he can guess that Joseph hopes to call on Snake, and asks Mr. Rowley to bring in Snake. Snake enters and apologizes to Lady Sneerwell: he says that although she paid him well to lie and forge letters, Rowley offered him double her price to tell the truth. As Lady Sneerwell storms from the room, Lady Teazle confronts her, saying she knows that Lady Sneerwell started the false rumor about her affair with Charles, and that she wants nothing more to do with the group of gossipmongers. Joseph says he is shocked and appalled to hear that Lady Sneerwell paid Snake to trick them, but he must follow her and make sure she does not try to take revenge on Charles. Sir Oliver yells after Joseph that he should marry Lady Sneerwell if he can. Snake leaves, asking that they promise not to tell anyone that he told the truth because lying and cheating is how he earns a living. Everyone congratulates Maria and Charles on being able to marry now. Sir Peter says he hopes that Maria and Charles will live as happily as he and Lady Teazle intend to. Charles thanks Rowley for supporting him, and Rowley says that he will feel he has been repaid if Charles mends his ways. Charles says that he will not promise anything, but that this is also proof that he will sincerely try to be a better man. The play ends with a verse recited by Charles. He says that he will be inspired to better himself by marrying Maria. The School for Scandal Epilogue Summary Lady Teazle returns to the stage to recite the epilogue. It is written in rhyming couplets, and each line has ten syllables (iambic pentameter). In the verse, Lady Teazle complains about the way the play ends for her character. She says that she is too young, pretty, and full of life to have to go and be quiet and moral in the countryside with her boring, older husband. She wants to be beautifully dressed and to socialize, play cards, and enjoy London. She says that she told this to the play’s author, and he joked that she ought to act in a tragedy about this fate. Lady Teazle says that the playwright told her that she was lucky to have had her storyline end so well, and to have the curtain go down at a moment when she seemed virtuous and could not mess things up again, as real people can.
256 British Drama - I 7.3 The School for Scandal Themes Concealment and Exposure The School for Scandal explores how people hide and are exposed, both literally and figuratively. As characters’ true natures are unmasked, hypocrites are seen for who they really are, while mistaken impressions and unearned reputations are corrected. Some characters, like Maria, behave morally and have a reputation for goodness, while others, like Lady Sneerwell, behave immorally and have a reputation for wickedness. But most of the other characters conceal who they really are from themselves or from others. The play’s central characters, the Surface brothers, each have an undeserved reputation: their true nature is concealed from the world. Joseph Surface is a hypocritical moralist: he is wicked but cultivates a reputation for goodness. His brother Charles is a sincere sinner: badly behaved and reputed to be a good-for-nothing, but honest, honorable, and kind at his core. Over the course of the play, these two brothers have their true characters exposed and earn the reputations they deserve. It is no accident that the two brothers’ last name is Surface, which hints at the difference between their reputations and characters. While Joseph is good on the surface and bad deep down, Charles does not disguise his flaws, and may seem wicked, but is actually loyal, loving, and charitable. Many of the characters in the play are similarly given names that expose their main character traits. The play exposes the concealed elements of the characters’ natures, fittingly, through literal acts of concealment and exposure. The Surface brothers’ rich old Uncle, Sir Oliver Surface, has lived in colonial India since the two boys were too young to remember him, but has sent his orphaned nephews enormous allowances. When Sir Oliver returns to England from India, he wants to test his nephews and bring their true natures to the surface. To do this, he uses the fact that neither brother will recognize him and presents a different false persona to each nephew. In each case, the way the young man responds to his disguised uncle exposes his own true nature. In The School for Scandal’s most famous scene, the screen scene, several characters’ true natures are unmasked after their physical presence hiding in a room is literally exposed. Lady Teazle visits Joseph’s house because she is considering becoming his lover. When her husband CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
The School of Scandal 257 arrives to talk to Joseph about his suspicion that Lady Teazle is having an affair with Charles, Lady Teazle hides behind a screen. Next, Charles arrives at Joseph’s house, and Sir Peter hides in a closet to eavesdrop on Joseph and Charles’s conversation and to discover whether Charles is Lady Teazle’s lover. In the end, when everyone is forced from their hiding place, the scene serves not only to expose Joseph’s true character — as someone trying to steal his friend’s wife — and Charles’s true character — as someone who is true to his love for Maria and not interested in Lady Teazle — but also to expose the husband and wife to each other. To the Teazles’ surprise, they trust and love each other much more than they had realized before. The School for Scandal is not a very serious play, however, and it does not drive its moral home by severely punishing its wicked hypocrites once it has exposed them. Instead, it is sufficient for the play’s purposes to bring the true nature of the Surface brothers to the surface and for Lady Teazle and her husband to realize their true feelings about one another. 7.4 Rumors, Wit, and Cruelty The School for Scandal focuses on a group of wealthy Londoners who entertain themselves and torment one another by spreading rumors. The play hints at how serious a ruined reputation can be, both for men and for women, and therefore how unkind it is to spread rumors, yet it also does not seek to teach a serious lesson against spreading rumors. In the 1770s, when pre-marital sex was considered an unforgiveable offense for women, and husbands whose wives had affairs were mocked and looked down on as “cuckolds,” gossip often concerned female sexuality. For men, the most disastrous rumors for their reputations (apart from their wives’ fidelity) concerned their finances: noblemen could borrow huge sums of money, but only for as long as their reputations lasted. Ruined reputations could change the course of a life. Lady Sneerwell, the most malicious of the rumormongers, says that she became a cruel gossip after a scandal ruined her reputation when she was young. And, Mrs. Clackitt, a rumormonger who never physically appears in the play, is said to be responsible for engagements broken off, marriages ended or begun unwillingly, and
258 British Drama - I men being disinherited. Yet these instances of lives ruined by the rumor mill do not occur within the action of the play to characters that would inspire the audience’s sympathy. Instead of portraying the circle of gossips as truly destructive, the play pokes fun at the behavior of the gossips themselves. The gossips can be divided into two categories: those who gossip for fun and those who gossip to ruin other people’s fortunes for their own gain. The recreational gossips are Mrs. Candour, Sir Benjamin Backbite, and his uncle Mr. Crabtree. These characters believe that gossiping is a way of showing off wit and sophistication. They are more interested in their own ability to come up with clever jokes about the latest scandals, and seem almost unaware of the life-wrecking potential of rumors. Yet as they vie with one another to show that they know the most specific details about the latest scandal, they also become the butt of the joke themselves. The ridiculousness of these recreational gossips is displayed in the scene when they stand around Sir Peter Teazle’s house speculating about whether he fought a duel with Charles or Joseph Surface, and whether he was wounded with a sword or shot with a gun. When Sir Peter Teazle walks up to them, entirely unharmed, it becomes clear how preposterous they are for arguing about the details of something that never happened. Early in the play, Lady Teazle also joins in this group. She has married Sir Teazle and moved to London from the countryside, and she believes that to become a truly fashionable lady, she should gossip. This comes easily to her, because she is witty and intelligent and, despite having a good heart, has yet to realize how hurtful gossip can be. By the end of the play, however, she has seen firsthand how gossip can hurt her own relationship, and she foreswears scandal altogether. Her wit may be a sign of intelligence, but she is also too intelligent to continue to gossip once she has seen the destructive power of scandal. The self-interested gossips, on the other hand, attempt to use rumors more strategically to hurt others and benefit themselves. They do not gossip despite the cruel effects this activity can have on others, but because of them — they hope to ruin other people’s hopes and realize their own. Joseph and Lady Sneerwell plot to break up the relationship between Charles Surface and Maria so that Joseph can marry Maria for her fortune and Lady Sneerwell can marry Charles, whom she loves. To this end, they plot to make Sir Teazle suspect that Charles is pursuing his CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
The School of Scandal 259 wife Lady Teazle, so that he will not let his ward Maria marry Charles, while at the same time leading Maria to believe that Charles is in love with Lady Sneerwell. The plots of Lady Sneerwell and Joseph are ultimately exposed, and each is left looking ridiculous, Lady Sneerwell for trying to entrap a man who did not love her, and Joseph because his hypocrisy has cost him two sources of fortune, from Maria and from his uncle. Yet the play does not suggest that there will be a true comeuppance, even for these most malicious of gossips. Instead, Joseph and Lady Sneerwell seem likely to cut their losses and marry one another. In the end, those who spread rumors out of cruelty also become the butt of jokes when their plots fail, but they are certainly more condemned by the play than the merely witty gossips, who are ridiculed and nothing more. 7.5 The Man of Sentiment The School for Scandal is part of the eighteenth-century tradition of sentimentalism, but also a satire of sentimentalism’s drawbacks. In the 1770s, when the play was written, society approved of the idea of the “Man of Sentiment,” whose conduct guided by moral sentiments and emotions, instead of cool, calm reasoning. To be charitable, loyal, and loving to a fault were admirable qualities, and the eloquent recitation of sentiments was admired as morally edifying. In this context, to be motivated by sentiment meant to choose one’s actions based on an emotional reaction caused by a strongly held moral principle. The School for Scandal presents true sentiment as admirable, but much less poetic than it would seem. Although Joseph Surface acts like a “Man of Sentiment,” he never does anything without a cold calculation of his own self-interest. His brother Charles, however, who never professes any lofty sentiments at all, is the true Man of Sentiment, who lets himself be guided by his feelings alone. When Charles hears of Mr. Stanley’s plight, he is so moved by a feeling of generosity that he completely forgets his own interests. Joseph, on the other hand, only speaks about how important charity is to him, even saying it is painful to him to be unable to give “Mr. Stanley” any help, when in fact he feels no pity for the poor at all. Sir Peter is a great admirer of those who speak sentimentally, but in his own life he does not allow himself to be guided by sentiment. Sir Peter admires Joseph Surface’s sentimental talk, not realizing that it is all hypocrisy, and so lauds Joseph and denigrates and suspects Charles. Yet
260 British Drama - I although Sir Peter adores his wife, he refuses to let this love inspire him to generosity or sweetness towards her, instead focusing on how much money she spends and whether she is the cause of their arguments. By the end of the play, Sir Peter has learned to live by the sentiments he had earlier professed to admire. Although he is being laughed at around town by those who believe his wife has had an affair, he decides to be guided by his own heart and to trust and forgive Lady Teazle — sincerely following his sentiments rather than simply admiring them in others. The play suggests that sentiment (when it springs from moral principles) is a good guide in life, especially in romantic and family relationships. To allow oneself to be carried away by emotions prompted by innate principles of generosity and love is not always practical, but it is better than selfishly guarding one’s own interests. At the same time, the play also suggests that the glorification of sentiment has led to confusion over what is really important. Many have mastered the art of speaking sentimentally, but talk is cheap, and sentiments acted on are more valuable than sentiments professed in poetic and lofty speeches. 7.6 Family Honor and Money The School for Scandal explores the role money played in a family’s reputation for the wealthy members of late eighteenth-century British high society. Flashy displays of wealth boosted the stature of a family, and huge sums of money could be procured on loan with reference to a family name. The play examines the way this free-spending lifestyle impacts relationships between the older and younger generation and between men and women. The ability to borrow seemingly endless amounts of money was a result of the economics of the time. Britain was leading the world into the Industrial Revolution and also expanding its colonial empire overseas. Investments in factories and railroads being built in England or in the African slave trade could make a family’s fortune grow exponentially over a single generation. In the case of the Surface family, Sir Oliver Surface has been abroad in the East Indies for the last sixteen years and has become fabulously wealthy. He has, in all likelihood, participated in business exporting goods like teas, coffee, spices, and silks from British colonies to England and the rest of the world. This colonial trade occurred on extremely unequal terms: British colonialists CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
The School of Scandal 261 took goods from their colonies and payed little in return, pocketing enormous profits and oppressing locals in in the process. The play is not focused on this global economic picture, though. Instead it takes the view of society at the time — associating great wealth with reputation and “honor” (however dishonorable the means of acquiring that wealth might have been) — and examines the way this fabulous wealth impacted relationships at home in England. It particularly focuses on the importance the wealthy placed on handing down their money to a young man who would respect and perpetuate the family legacy. Because of this, the Surface brothers are tested by Sir Oliver to see who has the good character he wishes to see in an heir. In this context, it may seem strange that Sir Oliver chooses the wasteful Charles as his heir, instead of the penny-pinching Joseph, even after Charles sells the family portraits on the cheap to raise money. But Sir Oliver sees that Charles actually has a deeper respect for the family’s honor than Joseph, who is self-interested to the core. Charles has racked up huge debts, promising lenders that he will be able to pay them back by making reference to his family’s good name and known wealth and even saying that they can collect their loans when his uncle dies. While this might seem like bad behavior, it also has the effect of increasing the Surface family’s reputation for possessing great wealth. In fact, it was probably expressly to create this reputation that Sir Oliver sent his young nephews huge sums of money in the first place. A truly aristocratic gentleman of the time was not expected to concern himself with trifles like bills, but rather to host lavish parties, support poor relatives, and remain true to his family’s heritage and “honor.” When Charles sells the family portraits at auction, his saving grace with Sir Oliver is that he refuses to sell his uncle’s portrait to the broker “Premium” (Sir Oliver in disguise) out of a sentiment of loyalty to his benefactor. Later, when Charles is contrite and offers no excuses for having sold the rest of the family portraits, he shows that he knew all along that selling the rest of the family portraits was not in keeping with the family honor. His brother Joseph, on the other hand, shows no honorable family sentiment. He sells his father’s house, which ought to have sentimental value to him, and might have sold it to a stranger had Charles not stepped in to buy it.
262 British Drama - I In the two brothers’ dealings with “Premium” and “poor Stanley” (both of whom are actually Sir Oliver in disguise) they reveal their real family feeling or lack thereof. Poor Stanley appeals to Joseph for money and suggests that having a poor relative may reflect poorly on the family name, but Joseph gives him nothing and even goes so far as to says that he has not received the fortune from Sir Oliver that he is reputed to have. To have poor relatives in need was a kind of demerit for a family’s reputation, and to deny Sir Oliver’s generosity was to destroy the reputation for wealth that Sir Oliver had hoped to create by sending that money to his nephews in the first place. Charles, on the other hand, is moved by family feeling to immediately send money to Stanley once he gets some from the broker Premium, despite having many pressing debts of his own to pay. This not only shows that Charles is generous, but also that he has a grasp of the reputational importance of money: if Stanley can pay his debts because of the generosity of his relative Charles Surface, that will be a boon to the family’s reputation. This, in turn, will allow Charles to continue to receive loans from moneylenders. In the end, Charles will be able to pay off his debts, because he will both be Sir Oliver’s heir and receive the dowry from the heiress Maria when he marries her. If he continues to live the extravagant life he has led as a young bachelor, he may quickly run through all of the family’s money — but Sir Oliver believes that Charles’s dedication to his family honor will cause him to reform his behavior. The play suggests that this is traditional and proper: Sir Oliver and his brother followed this same path from bad behavior to respectability in their youths. The play also looks at a related dynamic between the husband and wife: Sir Peter Teazle and Lady Teazle. Having spent most of his life as a conservative bachelor, Sir Peter objects to his wife’s demands for great sums of money. But, unlike the relationship between the Surface brothers and Sir Oliver, Lady Teazle is already Sir Teazle’s choice to represent his family name. She is his wife and heir. When she tells him that she should have a great deal of money to spend lavishly, she is not necessarily being greedy, but is also looking after their family’s name and reputation by acting the part of a lady of fashion. When Sir Teazle demands greater authority over his wife’s spending habits, then, she says that instead of marrying her he “should have adopted her” if he wanted authority. Unlike a young ward, a wife in their society was supposed to spend exorbitantly to display the family’s wealth CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
The School of Scandal 263 and bring credit to its name. Midway through the play, Sir Peter changes his mind and makes arrangements for his wife to have the money she wants. This generosity convinces her of his real love and respect for her. For both the Teazles and the Surface brothers, spending great quantities of money is a way to assert the family’s stature and “honor.” Since money was controlled at this time exclusively by men, allowing women and young people large allowances was also a way to show both the wealth of a family and the generosity of its patriarch. 7.7 The School for Scandal Characters Minor Characters Mrs. Candour A high-society lady who spends her time spreading rumors, Mrs. Candour pretends to be good-natured and honest, but is actually just as malicious as the other gossips. Her name ironically references the word “candor,” another word for honesty. Sir Benjamin Backbite A young gentleman who hopes to marry Maria, Sir Benjamin spends his time spreading gossip about members of society. He is also an amateur poet and writes rhymes mocking people he knows. The word “backbite” means to say unkind things about someone who is not present. Mr. Crabtree A gossip who invents extremely specific details when spreading false stories, Mr. Crabtree is hoping to help his nephew Sir Benjamin woo Maria. A “crabtree” is a tree that produces only sour apples (crabapples), and so his name is a comment on this character’s own sourness. Snake An amoral opportunist, Snake is paid by Lady Sneerwell to place false stories in the gossip columns and to forge incriminating letters.
264 British Drama - I Careless One of Charles Surface’s drinking buddies, Careless (true to his name) is even less responsible than Charles. Mrs. Clackitt An infamous gossipmonger who never appears in the play in person. A “clacket” is a loud noise made by striking two objects together. Miss Nicely An acquaintance with a good reputation who the gossipmongers say is pregnant out of wedlock and must marry her footman. Miss Letitia Piper A woman Crabtree says was falsely accused of giving birth to twins out of wedlock. Miss Vermillion An acquaintance mocked by the group of gossipmongers for the way she wears makeup. “Vermillion” is a shade of red that could be used as blush. Mrs. Prim An acquaintance mocked by the group of gossipmongers. To be “prim” means to be stiff and overly proper. Mrs. Evergreen An acquaintance mocked by the group of gossipmongers for trying to look young forever— that is, to stay “evergreen.” Miss Simper An acquaintance mocked by the group of gossipmongers. To “simper” is to smile in a silly or overly self-deprecating way. Trip Charles Surface’s servant. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
The School of Scandal 265 Lady Teazle Young, pretty, headstrong and intelligent, Lady Teazle is the young wife of Sir Peter Teazle. Although she was raised in the countryside, she has quickly adopted city manners, learning how the gossip mill operates from a group of high-society gossips led by Lady Sneerwell. She and Sir Peter argue all the time, often over how much money he allows her, as Lady Teazle wishes to spend huge sums on flowers, carriages, and other luxuries. Lady Teazle is considering taking Joseph Surface on as a “lover” (primarily for fashion’s sake), but has not yet decided whether she wants to keep their relationship platonic. Sir Peter Teazle An older man with fixed habits, Sir Peter married the much younger Lady Teazle seven months before the play begins and is having trouble adapting to married life. Sir Peter believes that he is always right and is inflexible in arguments with his wife, but he admires her skill at arguing her point and finds her even more attractive for the way she stands up to him. Sir Peter is also serving as a guardian to Maria, who is in love with Charles Surface. Sir Peter opposes their match. He is an old friend of Sir Oliver Surface’s and served as a guardian for Charles and Joseph Surface. Sir Peter admires Joseph and strongly disapproves of Charles. Lady Sneerwell A sharp-tongued, hypocritical schemer and gossipmonger, Lady Sneerwell is the center of a group of high-society men and women who spend their time gossiping and creating scandals. Lady Sneerwell ruins reputations by submitting stories to the gossip columns and by paying others to forge incriminating letters. In love with Charles Surface, Lady Sneerwell conspires with Joseph Surface to prevent an engagement between Charles Surface and Maria, who Joseph hopes to marry for her money. Joseph Surface/Mr. Surface A selfish, greedy hypocrite and liar, the older Surface brother pretends to be a “man of sentiment,” but is actually a “sentimental knave.” This means that he speaks eloquently about the proper, moral way to live, but does not practice what he preaches. Instead, Joseph is conspiring with Lady Sneerwell to prevent an engagement between his brother Charles and Maria, whom he wants to marry for her money. At the same time, he is trying to seduce Lady Teazle, even though
266 British Drama - I Sir Peter Teazle is one of his greatest admirers. When tested, Joseph’s true character shows through, as he fails to show generosity to the poor or proper respect for family traditions. Charles Surface A warmhearted but hard-partying man, the younger Surface brother is known around town for his extravagance. Charles has spent all of the massive fortune he was given by his uncle Sir Oliver and is in huge quantities of debt, but he is presented as essentially moral and good at heart. Because of his qualities of loyalty, kindness, and unpretentiousness, it’s suggested that he will eventually mend his ways and grow into a respectable representative of the Surface family. Charles is in love with Maria, and ultimately becomes her fiancé and the heir to Sir Oliver Surface. Sir Oliver Surface/Mr. Premium/Mr. Stanley The wealthy uncle of Joseph and Charles Surface. After sixteen years doing business in the East Indies (colonial India), Sir Oliver returns to London to pick one of his nephews as an heir to his enormous fortune. Seeking to learn the two young men’s true characters, Sir Oliver, who is very concerned with ideas of the family honor and reputation, assumes two false identities: that of a poor relative seeking charity — “Mr. Stanley” — and of a moneylender — “Mr. Premium.” Sir Oliver has never married, and teases his good friend Sir Teazle for marrying a young wife. Mr. Rowley The former steward to the Surface brothers’ deceased father, Mr. Rowley is a trusted confidante, advisor, and go-between for the Surface and Teazle families. He is an eminently reasonable man, and generally serves to clarify confusion and further the action of the play. Unlike Sir Peter, Mr. Rowley sees through Joseph’s hypocrisy and recognizes Charles’s essential goodness. Maria A recently orphaned young woman, Maria is the ward of Sir Peter and thus heiress to his fortune. She is in love with Charles Surface, but is also being courted by Joseph Surface and Sir Benjamin Backbite. Maria is portrayed as being very moral and sensitive. She hates gossip in CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
The School of Scandal 267 particular, and therefore finds the conversation of the gossips who congregate at Lady Sneerwell’s house appalling. Moses An “honest Hebrew,” Moses is a Jewish moneylender. It is suggested that he is more scrupulous than other Jews, but his character nevertheless embodies several stereotypes about Jews prevalent in British society in the late eighteenth century. He is greedy for money, but also seeks to shift blame for the hardship caused by his enormous rates of interest onto others. Jews and Anti-Semitism This symbol as portrayed in the play is obviously racist and morally reprehensible. Nonetheless, it exists in the play and should be analyzed. In The School for Scandal “Jewishness” generally represents the foreign and the morally unacceptable. Although the play’s Jewish character is described as an “honest Hebrew” and is not caricatured and made to look ugly, ill- mannered, or evil, he is seen as the exception, not the rule, for the Jewish people. Generally, the play suggests, Jews are selfish and ungenerous, willing to take advantage of those in need of money by asking for huge amounts of interest. The generous behavior of the “Man of Sentiment” is contrasted to the behavior of the calculating moneylender, who only gives when he can expect to receive more in return. Mentions or portrayals of Jewishness, then, are symbolic of lifestyles and attitudes that Sheridan condemns. Heirlooms Family heirlooms in the play signify the importance of preserving the past, especially the family’s past. For those in the older generation, the preservation of the objects they have been able to add to the trove of family possessions is an important way to make sure that they leave a trace after their death. The sale of heirlooms to strangers suggests a lack of respect for one’s ancestors, and thus a general lack of honor or morality.
268 British Drama - I 7.8 Unit End Questions (MCQ and Descriptive) A. Descriptive Types Questions 1. Why is School for Scandal a comedy? 2. Describe the theme of gossiping in School for Scandal. 3. How do women characters contribute to the social problems in the play School for Scandal? 4. In the play School for Scandal, which character lacks honesty? 5. Examine the plot constuction in Sheridon's The School For Scandal. 6. What is the play School for Scandal about? 7. Write a note on the screen scene in act 4 of School for Scandal. 8. Focus on gossip and slander as a social disease in the play School for Scandal. 9. School For Scandal Themes 10. What is the significance of the names Richard Brinsley Sheridan uses in his play School for Scandal? 11. How does Richard Brinsley Sheridan's play School for Scandal reflect culture in society? 12. Explain the Comedy of Manners style used in Sheridan's School for Scandal. 13. Discuss the values presented in Sheridan's \"School for Scandal.\" 14. Discuss how Sir Oliver discovers the moral quality of his two nephews in School for Scandal. 15. Who are the characters of Richard Sheridan's comedy of manners, School for Scandal? 16. Can you explain the difference between the comedy of manners from the Restoration period represented by The Country Wife and the 'new comedy of manners' from the eighteenth century represented by School... 17. What are the main areas of conflict in the first three acts of the play School for Scandal by Richard Brinsley Sheridan? CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
The School of Scandal 269 18. What is the significance of the auction scene in Sheridan's play School for Scandal, Act IV, Scene V? 19. What is the summary of Act II, scene ii, of School for Scandal by Richard Brinsley Sheridan? 20. Account for the popularity of Sheriden's play School for Scandal. 21. Discuss the themes in the play School for Scandal. 22. When was The School for Scandal first performed? B. Multiple Choice/Objective Type Questions 1. Why does Lady Sneerwell spread rumours about others? (a) She was raised without a mother (b) Her reputation was ruined when she was younger (c) She thinks it’s the right thing to do (d) She wants snake to fall in love with her. 2. Who does Maria love? (a) Charles (b) Joseph (c) Sir Peter (d) Snake 3. With whom does Lady Sneerwell plot to make Maria not love Charles (a) Lady Candour (b) Benjamin Backbite (c) Sir Peter (d) Joseph 4. What does Sir Peter admit in a soliloquy after his wife leaves the stage? (a) He actually has more money than he thinks (b) He is actually in love with someone else (c) She is beautiful when she is angry (d) He wants her to impress Sir Oliver
270 British Drama - I 5. Where does Lady Teazle go when she leaves Sir Peter? (a) Joseph’s House (b) Lady Sneerwell’s House (c) Sir Oliver’s House (d) Her home in the country. Answers: 1. (), 2. (), 3. (), 4. (), 5. (). 7.9 Reference 1. Levine, Yael. \"The School for Scandal Plot Summary.\" LitCharts. LitCharts LLC, 19 Jun 2017. Web. 12 Jan 2020. 2. https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/topic/school-scandal 3. Oliphant, Mrs. (Margaret) (1906). Sheridan. London: MacMillan and Co. pp. 99–100. 4. S[igmond], G[eorge] G[abriel] (1876). The Dramatic Works of Richard Brinsley Sheridan with Some Account of His Life. London: George Bell and Sons. p. 61. 5. Cordner, Michael, ed. (1998). Sheridan: The School for Scandal and Other Plays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. xlvi. ISBN 0-19-282567-4. 6. Rump, Eric S., ed. (1988). Sheridan: The School for Scandal and Other Plays. London: Penguin Books. pp. 281–4. ISBN 0-14-043240-X. 7. Richard Brinsley Sheridan. The School for Scandal at Project Gutenberg 8. Rae, W. Fraser, ed. (1902). Sheridan's Plays Now Printed As He Wrote Them...London: David Nutt. p. XXXVII. 9. Rae, W. Fraser, ed. (1902). Sheridan's Plays Now Printed As He Wrote Them... London: David Nutt. p. 147. (Italics as in Rae; bracketed insertion is Project Gutenberg's, not in Rae.) 10. Moore, Thomas, ed. (1821). The Works of the Late Right Honourable Richard Brinsley Sheridan. 2. London: J. Murray, etc. p. 13. 11. \"OUDS Online: The School for Scandal (Cast list for May 2003 performances by Oxford University Dramatic Society)\". Retrieved 2 November 2007. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
The School of Scandal 271 12. Sheridan, Richard Brinsley (1909–14). \"Dramatis Personæ As Originally Acted at Drury- Lane Theatre in 1777\" (from \"The School for Scandal\", Harvard Classics edition). New York: P.F. Collier & Son (Bartleby.com). 13. Moore, Thomas, ed. (1821). The Works of the Late Right Honourable Richard Brinsley Sheridan, vol. 2. London: J. Murray, etc. p. 40. 14. Rae, W. Fraser, ed. (1902). Sheridan's Plays Now Printed As He Wrote Them... London: David Nutt. p. 209. 15. Moore, Thomas, ed. (1821). The Works of the Late Right Honourable Richard Brinsley Sheridan, vol. 2. London: J. Murray, etc. p. 135. 16. Jump up to:a b Hazlitt, William (1876). Lectures on the English
272 British Drama - I UNIT 8 EIGHTEENTH CENTURY THEATRE Structure: 8.0 Learning Objective 8.1 An introduction to 18th century British Theatre 8.2 The Eighteenth Century Drama 8.3 Unit End Questions (MCQ and Descriptive) 8.4 References 8.0 Learning Objective In this unit the students will study about the eighteenth century theatre, the leading playwrights of the time, the new theatres, the role of audiences, the birth of stars, and the stage technology. 8.1 An introduction to 18th Century British Theatre The story of British drama in the 18th century is one of dizzying growth: in kinds of entertainment, audience figures, the numbers of theatres and not least in the size of the theatres themselves. When the century began, theatre was largely a metropolitan and aristocratic pastime; by the time it ended, theatre had become a genuinely popular form of entertainment, and barely a British town worthy of the name didn’t boast a playhouse of some kind. But 18th century theatres offered much more than what audiences saw on stage: sites for socialising and catching up with the latest news and gossip, they were places to see and be seen, no matter your social class. And although Georgian playwrights are comparatively neglected these days – with a small handful of CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Eighteenth Century Theatre 273 exceptions – the great actors of the age, among them David Garrick, ‘Peg’ Woffington and Sarah Siddons, have gone down in history. New Theatres In 1700, London had a population of around 675,000; a century later, nearly a million people lived in the metropolis, making it the largest city in Europe and one of the largest in the world. The city’s young and restless inhabitants were hungry for entertainment, which theatre producers – along with everyone else – were only too eager to supply. Just two venues in the city were allowed to perform spoken drama when the century began. They were known as ‘patent’ theatres – so called because they were sanctioned by royal patents dating from the Restoration of 40 years earlier. One was the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, in the heart of the rapidly developing West End; the other was located at Lincoln’s Inn Fields a little further to the east. Drury Lane Theatre was built by the theatre manager Thomas Killigrew in 1663, whereupon it promptly burned down and had to be rebuilt. This second building, opened in 1674 and possibly designed by the great architect Christopher Wren, remained in use all the way through the 18th century, first under Killigrew and then under his successor Colley Cibber.[1] Over at Lincoln’s Inn Fields, Cibber’s great rival John Rich had long wanted to find a theatre that would compete with Drury Lane, and after scoring an immense hit with John Gay’s The Beggar’s Opera in 1728 – it became one of the greatest theatrical successes of the age – Rich finally had the money. In 1732, he transplanted his company to Covent Garden, erecting a new theatre on the site of what is now the Royal Opera House, and opened it in grand style with a production of William Congreve’s much-loved Restoration comedy The Way of the World. Sumptuously decorated, featuring the latest stage and scenic technology and boasting pitch-perfect acoustics, Covent Garden Theatre accommodated over 1,000 spectators, ranged between boxes (the most expensive seats), gallery (middle-range) and the pit (cheapest). It was the largest theatre London had yet seen; according to one witness, the place was ‘calculated for splendour and admiration’.[2] By the CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
274 British Drama - I end of the eighteenth century, following several rebuilds, it could accommodate 3,000 audience members. Other producers were impatient to get in on the action, and from the 1720s onward more and more theatres were built in London, not only in the West End but far beyond: the Little Theatre in the Haymarket (1720), two new theatres in Goodman’s Fields in east London (1729 and 1732), Sadler’s Wells in Islington (1733), several in Richmond towards the west of London, plus performances at fairs and newly created ‘pleasure gardens’ such as those at Vauxhall and Chelsea. ‘Theatres Royal’ sprang up in many other English towns, too, among them Bath, Truro, Bristol, Bury St Edmunds, Richmond in Yorkshire and Stockton-on-Tees. According to one estimate, by 1805 there were over 280 places of regular theatrical entertainment in England – massively more than the handful that had existed a century earlier. This new appetite for theatre in the provinces was fed by a network of travelling companies, who brought the latest plays to audiences living far away from the capital, as well as enabling actors to develop experience and hone their skills on the touring circuit.[3] In 1737, Robert Walpole’s government attempted to put a halt to this expansion by passing the Licensing Act, which renewed the monopoly of the patent theatres when it came to spoken drama and also insisted that every script had to be approved before performance by the Lord Chamberlain, who was also given the powers to close down shows entirely (Walpole had been particularly offended by a satirical farce of that year called The Golden Rump, which mocked both him and the royal family). Pointedly referring to actors as ‘rogues and vagabonds’ – legal language that dated from the Elizabethan period – the Act sought to clamp down on the activities of theatremakers and effectively made theatre censorship a reality.[4] When it came to avoiding spoken drama as the law dictated, managers were able to find legal loopholes, keeping their theatres open by offering melodrama, pantomime, ballet, opera and music instead of ‘serious’ drama. But censorship was inescapable. One effect was that rather than taking the risk of staging new plays that might fall foul of the censor, many producers brought classics back into the repertoire – chiefly works from the Restoration era and earlier in the 17th century, most of all Shakespeare. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Eighteenth Century Theatre 275 Stage Technology Alongside the growth in new playhouses, stage technology changed rapidly during this period. Whereas 17th century indoor theatres were intimate spaces, their Georgian successors were much larger, especially in London, and the scale of staging increased accordingly, with greater emphasis on impressive visual effects. One innovation was the use of ‘flats’ – hard surfaces painted to give the illusion of three-dimensional settings, which could be easily slid in and out to enable changes of scene. Having first been used in Italy in the early 1600s, flats came into common use in British theatres in the 18th century. Another innovation followed: the use of a stage curtain, to hide scene changes (in 1794, Drury Lane became the first British theatre to turn the curtain into a safety feature, using an fireproof ‘iron’ barrier to prevent fires onstage from destroying the rest of the building – an ever-present risk in the era of candlelight). The artist John DeVoto’s luxurious designs for a pantomime at Goodman’s Fields called King Arthur in 1719 became the talk of the town (they featured accurate views of the Royal Garden at Richmond, as well as other splendid settings), while later in the century the German- born Philip de Loutherbourg produced magnificent designs for Drury Lane, which were even more spectacular. At Rich’s new Covent Garden Theatre, things were also highly impressive, as this 1736 report of the staging for a new opera called Atlanta suggests: The Fore-part of the Scene represented an Avenue to the Temple of Hymen, adorn’d with Figures of several Heathen Deities. Next was a Triumphal Arch on the Top of which were the arms of their Royal Highnesses, over which was placed a Princely Coronet … At the further End was a View of Hymen’s Temple, and the Wings were adorn’d with the Loves and Graces bearing Hymeneal Torches, and putting Fire to Incense in Urns, to be offered up upon this joyful Union. The Opera concluded with a Grade Chorus, during which several beautiful Illuminations were display’d.[5] Though candlelight was still the only available lighting technology, producers attempted to flood their stages with as much light as possible via the introduction of footlights and extra sidelights to show off sets and costumes to best advantage. Even more importantly, candles were taken out of auditoriums, leaving the audience area much darker and increasing the contrast with what was visible on stage. And whereas audiences in the Restoration era had been able to sit on CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
276 British Drama - I the stage, making them as much a part of the show as the actors, the practice began to be frowned upon, and it was banned altogether at Drury Lane when the theatre came under new management in 1747. The Role of the Audience That isn’t to say that spectators sat timidly by. Audiences in Georgian England were fully and noisily engaged in the show, creating a carnivalesque atmosphere that must have resembled a 21st century football or boxing match. Favourite performers or roles were wildly cheered, villains and bad performances were noisily heckled (sometimes by claques paid to do so), alcohol and snacks were consumed in prodigious quantities, and playgoers chatted among themselves, read scripts during the performance, or simply got up and walked out, meaning that actors had to fight for their attention. Sometimes there were even riots, as occurred at Covent Garden in 1763 when the management ended a deal whereby audiences could pay half price to sneak in for the second half of the show (ticket prices were also the cause of the most infamous theatre riots in English history, which happened in 1809, again at Covent Garden).[6] Above all, British theatre in the 18th century was socially inclusive: although they sat in different parts of the auditorium, according to wealth and social status, people from all walks of life attended, from workers and servants to merchants and society ladies, right up to grand aristocratic families. Theatres were places where you could hob-nob, gossip and catch the latest news as well as see a show. To get into the auditorium, you would have had to squeeze past prostitutes touting for business; once inside, you might get a glimpse of a famous lord or even royalty. All this added to what one critic called the ‘drama of the audience’s self-presentation’.[7] The Birth of Stars Above all, the 18th century was the age of the actor, as performers vied with each other – and, of course, the audience. The first great star (indeed, the very first person of whom the word ‘star’ was used in a theatrical context) was David Garrick, who emerged from provincial obscurity to become the brightest talent on the London stage. Brought up in Lichfield, Garrick had come to London desperate to make his name in the theatre; he was struggling to break through when, one night in 1741, he came on stage at Goodman’s Fields as Shakespeare’s Richard III. The CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Eighteenth Century Theatre 277 performance rocketed him to overnight success, and by the following year he was a regular at Drury Lane. By 1747, he was running the building. For the next three decades, Garrick remained the most important figure in London theatre, not only as an actor but one of the first ‘actor managers’ – producer, playwright/adapter and remarkably energetic impresario. As well as becoming enormously wealthy, Garrick did much to make the theatrical profession socially respectable.[8] Around Garrick – and often in competition with him – moved a constellation of other luminaries, among them the superlative comedienne Margaret ‘Peg’ Woffington, Garrick’s Shakespearian rival Charles Macklin, the charismatic leading man Spranger Barry, the versatile Colley Cibber (like Garrick, an actor/adapter/manager), and the satirist playwright-actor Samuel Foote. Later in the century, the brother-sister duo of John Philip Kemble and Sarah Siddons came to dominate the London scene. Kemble was acclaimed for his statuesque performances, especially in Shakespearian tragedies such as Coriolanus and Julius Caesar, and separately managed both Drury Lane and Covent Garden, introducing to the London stage for the first time live animals and aquatic effects. Siddons’s reputation as an actor was even higher: both glamorous and imperious, she was regarded as the greatest tragedienne of the age, excelling at roles such as Lady Macbeth and Belvidera in Thomas Otway’s Venice Preserv’d, and was applauded for the intense seriousness of her approach. In the words of one eyewitness, ‘when Mrs Siddons quitted the dressing-room, I believe she left there the last thought about herself’.[9] Performers such as Garrick, Siddons and John Kemble were the first actors to become genuine celebrities, not only in Britain but far beyond. Their private lives and loves were the focus of obsessive public interest and they were the subjects of paintings and broadsides – even novelty merchandise. Mixed Bills To get a sense of what it would have been like to attend the theatre in the 18th century, you only have to glance at a playbill of the time. Playbills were cheaply printed adverts-cum- descriptions that were circulated widely to drum up business. As well as proclaiming the star CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
278 British Drama - I wattage of the cast, they would list which plays were on offer, highlighting any eye-catching ‘alterations’ or ‘additions’ (it was common practice to alter scripts to suit contemporary taste; Garrick famously tweaked the ending of Romeo and Juliet to give the lovers one final embrace, and condensed The Taming of the Shrew into a three-act version called Catharine and Petruchio).[10] Playbills also reveal that many performances were so-called ‘mixed bills’, with a serious, full-length main play followed by lighter fare such as farces, pantomimes, ‘burlettas’ (burlesque operettas) and the like. So it was that a classic such as Shakespeare’s The Tempest (featuring a ‘Grand Dance of Fantastic Spirits’ and ‘a Pastoral Dance proper to the Masque’) would be followed by Edward Rooker’s pantomime The Harlequin Ranger; or Beaumont and Fletcher’s Jacobean comedy Rule a Wife and Have a Wife would include a ‘New Sailor’s Dance’ and be followed by a two-act farce called The Apprentice (to choose just two Drury Lane playbills from the 1750s).[11] At other theatres, entertainment could be even more varied. The German writer Sophie von la Roche, who visited London in 1790, describes seeing a ballet, a rope-walker, a strong man and an operetta on offer at Saddler’s Wells.[12] The slapstick genre of pantomime – a homegrown English version of the Italian commedia dell’arte – was pioneered by John Rich at Lincoln’s Inn Fields, where it quickly became an annual tradition after 1716. Another pantomime, Lewis Theobald’s Harlequin Sorcerer, was performed no fewer than 337 times at Covent Garden between 1747 and 1776, making it one of the greatest commercial hits of the era. Leading Playwrights While no one could claim that the 18th century was a golden age for playwrights in Britain, certainly in comparison with the Continent, it wasn’t devoid of talent. Though written at the beginning of the century, George Farquhar’s lively, warm-hearted comedies – notably The Recruiting Officer (1706) and The Beaux’ Stratagem (1707) – stayed in the repertoire, as did William Congreve’s The Way of the World (1700). So-called ‘sentimental dramas’ also gained in popularity, partly in reaction to criticism from commentators that theatre was inherently immoral. Generally set in a middle-class environment, they showed characters undergoing a series of moral CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Eighteenth Century Theatre 279 trials on the path to virtue; perhaps the most famous example is Richard Steele’s The Conscious Lovers (1722), which portrays a penniless heroine triumphing against the odds. Later in the century two stellar talents did emerge, both Irish-born, both writers of comedy: Oliver Goldsmith (1722–1774) and Richard Brinsley Sheridan (1751–1816). Goldsmith’s most famous play, She Stoops to Conquer (1773), takes aim at the pieties of sentimental comedy; a tale of mistaken identity set partly in a pub, it features a vivacious heroine who poses as a maid to win her bashful lover’s heart. Sheridan, who took over from Garrick at Drury Lane from 1776, helped revive the comedy of manners, producing a string of hits that satirised the morals and mores of polite society, notably The Rivals (1775) and his masterpiece, The School for Scandal (1777), whose ferocious wit and whip-smart repartee made it one of the most popular plays of the 18th century. Female playwrights emerged in greater numbers than ever before, too – yet another way in which British theatre expanded during the 18th century. Having run away from home, Susanna Centlivre (1669–1723) made a name for herself as an actor-writer in Bath and then in London, excelling in comedies, including The Busy Body (1709), A Bold Stroke for a Wife (1718) and The Wonder! A Woman Keeps a Secret (1714); the latter gave Garrick one of his best roles, as a jealous husband. The Irish-born Elizabeth Griffith (1727–1793) made her name in London with The Double Mistake (1766), the success of which encouraged her to approach Garrick, who produced her most successful comedy, The School for Rakes (1796). Yet another Garrick protégée was Hannah Cowley (1743–1809), who authored the much-loved hit The Runaway (1776) and the riotous The Belle’s Stratagem (1780) – the latter a fittingly witty response to Goldsmith that suggested women, not men, were really in charge of their romantic destinies. 8.2 The Eighteenth Century Drama The dramatic literature of the eighteenth century was not of a high order. In fact there was a gradual deterioration and during the last quarter of the century drama was moving towards its lowest ebb. One of the reasons of the decline of drama during the eighteenth century was the CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
280 British Drama - I Licensing Act of 1737 which curtailed the freedom of expression of dramatists. The result was that a number of writers like Fielding, who could make their marks as dramatists, left the theatre and turned towards the novel. Moreover, the new commercial middle classes which were coming into prominence imposed their own dull and stupid views on the themes that would be acceptable to the theatre. Naturally this was not liked by first-rate writers who wanted to write independently. In the field of tragedy two opposing traditions — Romantic and Classical — exercised their influence on the dramatists. The Romantic tradition was the Elizabethan way of writing tragedy. Those who followed this tradition made use of intricate plots and admitted horror and violence on the open stage. The Classical tradition which was mainly the French tradition of writing tragedy was characterised by the unfolding of a single action without any sub-plot, and long declamatory speeches delivered by the actors. The traditional English pattern of drama was exemplified by Otway’s Venice Preserved, while the Classical tradition was strictly upheld in Addison’s Cato (1713), which is written in an unemotional but correct style, and has a pronounced moralising tone. Other tragedies which were written according to the Classical pattern were James Thomson’s Sophonisba (1729) and Dr. Johnson’s Irene (1749). But none of these tragedies, whether following the Romantic or the Classical tradition came up to a respectable dramatic standard, because the creative impulse seems to have spent itself. Though a very large number of tragedies were written during the eighteenth century, they had literary, but no dramatic value. Mostly there were revivals of old plays, which were adapted by writers who were not dramatists in the real sense of the term. In the field of comedy, the same process of disintegration was noticeable. Comedy was deteriorating into farce. Moreover, sentimentality which was opposed to the authority of reason, came to occupy an important place in comedy. This ‘sentimental’ comedy which gained in popularity was criticised by Goldsmith thus: “A new species of dramatic composition has been introduced under the name of sentimental comedy, in which the virtues of private life are exhibited, rather than the vices exposed; and the distresses rather than the faults of mankind make our interest in the pieces. These comedies have had of late great success, perhaps from their novelty, and also from their flattering every man in his favourite foible. In these plays almost all the characters are good and exceedingly generous; CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Eighteenth Century Theatre 281 they are lavish enough of their tin money on the stage; and though they want humour, have abundance of sentiment and feeling. If they happen to have faults or foibles, the spectator is taught, not only to pardon, but to applaud them, in consideration of the goodness of their hearts; so that folly, instead of being ridiculed, is commended, and the comedy aims at touching our passions without the power of being truly pathetic. Steele was the first exponent of the sentimental comedy in the eighteenth century. In his plays, such as The Funeral, The Lying Lover, The Tender Husband, The Conscious Lovers, Steele extolled the domestic virtues. His object was didactic, and he tried to prove that morality and sharpness of intelligence can go together. In his plays in which tears of pity and emotion flowed profusely, Steele held that Simplicity of mind, Good nature, Friendship and Honour were the guiding principles of conduct. Other dramatists who wrote sentimental comedies were Colley Cibber, Hugh Kelley and Richard Cumberland. In their hands comedy was so much drenched in emotions and sentiments that the genuine human issues were completely submerged in them. Thus there was a need to rescue the drama from such depths to which it had fallen. The two great dramatists of the eighteenth century, who led the revolt against sentimental comedy were Oliver Goldsmith (1730-74) and Richard Sheridan (1751-1861). Though in his novel, The Vicar of Wakefield, and in his poem, The Deserted Village, Goldsmith showed clear marks of a sentimental attitude to life, in his Good-Natured Man he covers it with ridicule by portraying the character of Honeywood as unadulterated ‘good-nature’. Though the play is a feeble one, his intentions of mocking the excess of false charity are obvious. His next play, She Stoops to Conquer (1773), which is his masterpiece, was an immediate success. It has always remained one of the half-dozen most popular comedies in the English language. In spite of the obvious improbabilities of the plot, the play moves naturally in a homely atmosphere, full of genuine humour which provokes unrestrained laughter. Here there is no artificiality of sentimental comedy. The main characters — Hardcastle and Tony Lumpkin are very clearly delineated. They are at once types and individuals. They are the images of their age, and yet recognizable as human figures. She Stoops to Conquer went a long way in restoring comedy to its own province of mirth and laughter and rescuing it from too much sentimentality. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
282 British Drama - I Richard Brinsely Sheridan is best known for his two comedies — The Rivals (1775) and The School for Scandal (1777). Sheridan brought back the brilliance of the witty and elegant Restoration comedy, purged of its impurities and narrowness. He created, instead, a more genial and romantic atmosphere associated with the comedies of Shakespeare. His characters are as clearly drawn as those of Ben Jonson, but they move in a gayer atmosphere. The only defect that we find in these comedies of Sheridan is that there is all gaiety, but no depth, no new interpretation of human nature. The intrigue in The Rivals, though not original, is skilfully conducted. The audience heartily laugh at humours of Mrs. Malaprop, Sir Anthony, and Bab Acres. In The School for Scandal Sheridan showed himself as a mature dramatist. Here the dialogue has the exquisite Congreve- like precision, and wit reigns supreme. Even the stupid characters, the servants, are witty. Though the main characters, the quarrelsome couple and the plotting brothers; the ‘scandal-club’ of Lady Sneerwell; and the intrigue leading inevitably to the thrilling resolution in the famous screen scene, are all familiar, and can be found in many other plays, yet they are invested with novelty. In both these plays Sheridan reversed the trend of sentimentalism by introducing realism tinged with the geniality of romance. He had no message to convey, except that the most admirable way of living is to be generous and open-hearted. 8.3 Unit End Questions (MCQ and Descriptive) A. Descriptive Types Questions 1. Write in detail about the eighteenth Century drama. 2. Describe the new theatres of that time. 3. How was the stage technology? 4. Explain the role of the audience 5. Why is said that the 18 th Century was an age of stars? 6. Who were the leading playwrights of the 18th Century? 7. Write a note on the eighteenth Century literature? 8. What do you understand by Sentimental Comedy? CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Eighteenth Century Theatre 283 B. Multiple Choice/Objective Type Questions 1. The largest theatre that London had in the 18 Century was____________ (a) Chelsea (b) Vauxhall (c) Covent Garden (d) Little Theatre 2. The first great star (indeed, the very first person of whom the word ‘star’ was used in a theatrical context) was__________, who emerged from provincial obscurity to become the brightest talent on the London stage. (a) David Garrick (b) Margaret ‘Peg’ Woffington (c) Charles Macklin (d) Colley Cibber 3. ___________ the first exponent of the sentimental comedy in the eighteenth century (a) Colley Cibber (b) Hugh Kelley (c) Richard Steele (d) Richard Cumberland 4. She stoops to Conquer was written by____________ (a) Richard Sheridian (b) Oliver Goldsmith (c) Wiliam Congreve (d) George Farquhar 5. ’The Rivals’ was written by ___________ (a) Richard Sheridian (b) Oliver Goldsmith (c) Wiliam Congreve (d) George Farquhar Answers 1. (c), 2. (a), 3. (c), 4. (b), 5. (a) 8.4 References 1. https://www.bl.uk/restoration-18th century-literature/articles/18th-century-british-theatre 2. A thumbnail history of the multiple theatres to have existed on the site of the current Theatre Royal – along with descriptive details of their design – is available at the Theatre.eu website. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
284 British Drama - I 3. Cited in Arthur H Scouten, The London Stage 1729–1747 (Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1968), p. xxxi. 4. Iain Mackintosh, Introduction, The Georgian Playhouse: actors, artists, audiences and architecture 1730–1830 (Arts Council of Great Britain, 1975). 5. The full wording of the statute is available online at: [http:// umich.edu/ ~ece/student_ projects/early_theater/license.html ]. 6. Scouten, The London Stage, p. cxxiii. 7. On the so-called ‘O.P.’ (old price riots) 0f 1809, see Jacqueline Mulhallen, ‘The Old Price Riots of 1809: Theatre, Class and Popular Protest’, Counterfire, 12 November 2012 [http://www.counterfire.org/history/16136-the-old-price-riots-of-1809-theatre-class-and- popular-protest]. 8. Gillian Russell, ‘Theatrical culture’, in Thomas Keymer and John Mee, The Cambridge Companion to English Literature, 1740–1830 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 100–19, 100. 9. The best short account of Garrick’s life is Peter Thomson’s 2004 article for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Available online (with subscription) at: [oxforddnb.com]. 10. Cited in A M Nagler, A Source Book in Theatrical History (New York, NY: Dover Publications, 1959), p. 415. 11. See Peter Holland, ‘The Age of Garrick’, The Oxford Illustrated History of Shakespeare on Stage, ed. by Jonathan Bate and Russell Jackson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 69–91. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Ben Jonson: The Writer 285 UNIT 9 BEN JONSON: THE WRITER Structure: 9.0 Learning Objective 9.1 Career 9.2 Royal Patronage 9.3 Religion 9.4 Decline and Death 9.5 Drama 9.6 Poetry 9.7 Relationship with Shakespeare 9.8 Reception and Influence 9.9 Questions 9.10 References Benjamin Jonson (c. 11 June 1572 – c. 16 August 1637) was an English playwright and poet, whose artistry exerted a lasting impact upon English poetry and stage comedy. He popularised the comedy of humours. He is best known for the satirical plays Every Man in His Humour (1598), Volpone, or The Fox (c. 1606), The Alchemist (1610) and Bartholomew Fair (1614) and for his lyric and epigrammatic poetry. \"He is generally regarded as the second most important English dramatist, after William Shakespeare, during the reign of James I.\" Jonson was a classically educated, well-read and cultured man of the English Renaissance with an appetite for controversy (personal and political, artistic and intellectual) whose cultural CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
286 British Drama - I influence was of unparalleled breadth upon the playwrights and the poets of the Jacobean era (1603–1625) and of the Caroline era (1625–1642). In midlife, Jonson claimed that his paternal grandfather, who 'served King Henry 8 and was a gentleman', was a member of the extended Johnston family of Annandale in the Dumfries and Galloway, a genealogy that is attested by the three spindles (rhombi) in the Jonson family coat of arms: one spindle is a diamond-shaped heraldic device used by the Johnston family. Jonson's father lost his property, was imprisoned, and suffered forfeiture under Queen Mary; having become a clergyman upon his release, he died a month before his son's birth. Jonson's mother married a master bricklayer two years later. Jonson attended school in St Martin's Lane. Later, a family friend paid for his studies at Westminster School, where the antiquarian, historian, topographer and officer of arms, William Camden (1551–1623) was one of his masters. In the event, the pupil and the master became friends, and the intellectual influence of Camden's broad- ranging scholarship upon Jonson's art and literary style remained notable, until Camden's death in 1623. On leaving Westminster School, Jonson was to have attended the University of Cambridge, to continue his book learning but did not, because of his unwilled apprenticeship to his bricklayer stepfather. According to the churchman and historian Thomas Fuller (1608–61), Jonson at this time built a garden wall in Lincoln's Inn. After having been an apprentice bricklayer, Ben Jonson went to the Netherlands and volunteered to soldier with the English regiments of Francis Vere (1560–1609) in Flanders. The Hawthornden Manuscripts (1619), of the conversations between Ben Jonson and the poet William Drummond of Hawthornden (1585–1649), report that, when in Flanders, Jonson engaged, fought and killed an enemy soldier in single combat, and took for trophies the weapons of the vanquished soldier. After his military activity on the Continent, Jonson returned to England and worked as an actor and as a playwright. As an actor, Jonson was the protagonist “Hieronimo” (Geronimo) in the play The Spanish Tragedy (ca. 1586), by Thomas Kyd (1558–94), the first revenge tragedy in English literature. Moreover, by 1597, he was a working playwright employed CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Ben Jonson: The Writer 287 by Philip Henslowe, the leading producer for the English public theatre; by the next year, the production of Every Man in His Humour (1598) had established Jonson's reputation as a dramatist. Regarding his marriage Jonson described his wife to William Drummond as \"a shrew, yet honest\". The identity of Jonson's wife has always been obscure, yet she sometimes is identified as \"Ann Lewis\", the woman who married a Benjamin Jonson in 1594, at the church of St Magnus- the-Martyr, near London Bridge. Concerning the family of Anne Lewis and Ben Jonson, the St. Martin's Church registers indicate that Mary Jonson, their eldest daughter, died in November 1593, at six months of age. Then a decade later, in 1603, Benjamin Jonson, their eldest son, died of Bubonic plague when he was seven years old; to lament and honour the dead boy, Benjamin Jonson père wrote the elegiac On My First Sonne (1603). Moreover, 32 years later, a second son, also named Benjamin Jonson, died in 1635. In that period, Ann Lewis and Ben Jonson lived separate lives for five years; their matrimonial arrangement cast Ann Lewis as the housewife Jonson, and Ben Jonson as the artist who enjoyed the residential hospitality of his patrons, Sir Robert Townshend and Lord Aubigny, Esme Stuart, 3rd Duke of Lennox. 9.0 Learning Objective In this unit the students will study about Ben Jonson the English playwright and poet. They will study the comedy of humours he popularized. They will study his style of writing poems especially the Epigrams. 9.1 Career By summer 1597, Jonson had a fixed engagement in the Admiral's Men, then performing under Philip Henslowe's management at The Rose. John Aubrey reports, on uncertain authority, that Jonson was not successful as an actor; whatever his skills as an actor, he was evidently more valuable to the company as a writer. By this time Jonson had begun to write original plays for the Admiral's Men; in 1598 he was mentioned by Francis Meres in his Palladis Tamia as one of \"the best for tragedy.\"[3] None of his CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
288 British Drama - I early tragedies survive, however. An undated comedy, The Case is Altered, may be his earliest surviving play. In 1597 a play which he co-wrote with Thomas Nashe, The Isle of Dogs, was suppressed after causing great offence. Arrest warrants for Jonson and Nashe were issued by Queen Elizabeth I's so-called interrogator, Richard Topcliffe. Jonson was jailed in Marshalsea Prison and charged with \"Leude and mutynous behaviour\", while Nashe managed to escape to Great Yarmouth. Two of the actors, Gabriel Spenser and Robert Shaw, were also imprisoned. A year later, Jonson was again briefly imprisoned, this time in Newgate Prison, for killing Gabriel Spenser in a duel on 22 September 1598 in Hogsden Fields (today part of Hoxton). Tried on a charge of manslaughter, Jonson pleaded guilty but was released by benefit of clergy, a legal ploy through which he gained leniency by reciting a brief bible verse (the neck-verse), forfeiting his 'goods and chattels' and being branded on his left thumb. While in jail Jonson converted to Catholicism, possibly through the influence of fellow-prisoner Father Thomas Wright, a Jesuit priest. In 1598 Jonson produced his first great success, Every Man in His Humour, capitalising on the vogue for humorous plays which George Chapman had begun with An Humorous Day's Mirth. William Shakespeare was among the first actors to be cast. Jonson followed this in 1599 with Every Man out of His Humour, a pedantic attempt to imitate Aristophanes. It is not known whether this was a success on stage, but when published it proved popular and went through several editions. Jonson's other work for the theatre in the last years of Elizabeth I's reign was marked by fighting and controversy. Cynthia's Revels was produced by the Children of the Chapel Royal at Blackfriars Theatre in 1600. It satirised both John Marston, who Jonson believed had accused him of lustfulness in Histriomastix, and Thomas Dekker. Jonson attacked the two poets again in Poetaster (1601). Dekker responded with Satiromastix, subtitled \"the untrussing of the humorous poet\". The final scene of this play, whilst certainly not to be taken at face value as a portrait of Jonson, offers a caricature that is recognisable from Drummond's report – boasting about himself and condemning other poets, criticising performances of his plays and calling attention to himself in any available way. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Ben Jonson: The Writer 289 This \"War of the Theatres\" appears to have ended with reconciliation on all sides. Jonson collaborated with Dekker on a pageant welcoming James I to England in 1603 although Drummond reports that Jonson called Dekker a rogue. Marston dedicated The Malcontent to Jonson and the two collaborated with Chapman on Eastward Ho, a 1605 play whose anti-Scottish sentiment briefly landed both Jonson and Chapman in jail. 9.2 Royal Patronage At the beginning of the English reign of James VI and I in 1603 Jonson joined other poets and playwrights in welcoming the new king. Jonson quickly adapted himself to the additional demand for masques and entertainments introduced with the new reign and fostered by both the king and his consort Anne of Denmark. In addition to his popularity on the public stage and in the royal hall, he enjoyed the patronage of aristocrats such as Elizabeth Sidney (daughter of Sir Philip Sidney) and Lady Mary Wroth. This connection with the Sidney family provided the impetus for one of Jonson's most famous lyrics, the country house poem To Penshurst. In February 1603 John Manningham reported that Jonson was living on Robert Townsend, son of Sir Roger Townshend, and \"scorns the world.\" Perhaps this explains why his trouble with English authorities continued. That same year he was questioned by the Privy Council about Sejanus, a politically themed play about corruption in the Roman Empire. He was again in trouble for topical allusions in a play, now lost, in which he took part. Shortly after his release from a brief spell of imprisonment imposed to mark the authorities' displeasure at the work, in the second week of October 1605, he was present at a supper party attended by most of the Gunpowder Plot conspirators. After the plot's discovery he appears to have avoided further imprisonment; he volunteered what he knew of the affair to the investigator Robert Cecil and the Privy Council. Father Thomas Wright, who heard Fawkes's confession, was known to Jonson from prison in 1598 and Cecil may have directed him to bring the priest before the council, as a witness. (Teague, 249). At the same time, Jonson pursued a more prestigious career, writing masques for James's court. The Satyr (1603) and The Masque of Blackness (1605) are two of about two dozen masques which Jonson wrote for James or for Queen Anne, some of them performed at Apethorpe Palace CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
290 British Drama - I when the King was in residence. The Masque of Blackness was praised by Algernon Charles Swinburne as the consummate example of this now-extinct genre, which mingled speech, dancing and spectacle. On many of these projects he collaborated, not always peacefully, with designer Inigo Jones. For example, Jones designed the scenery for Jonson's masque Oberon, the Faery Prince performed at Whitehall on 1 January 1611 in which Prince Henry, eldest son of James I, appeared in the title role. Perhaps partly as a result of this new career, Jonson gave up writing plays for the public theatres for a decade. He later told Drummond that he had made less than two hundred pounds on all his plays together. In 1616 Jonson received a yearly pension of 100 marks (about £60), leading some to identify him as England's first Poet Laureate. This sign of royal favour may have encouraged him to publish the first volume of the folio collected edition of his works that year. Other volumes followed in 1640–41 and 1692. (See: Ben Jonson folios). On 8 July 1618 Jonson set out from Bishopsgate in London to walk to Edinburgh, arriving in Scotland's capital on 17 September. For the most part he followed the great north road, and was treated to lavish and enthusiastic welcomes in both towns and country houses. On his arrival he lodged initially with John Stuart, a cousin of King James, in Leith, and was made an honorary burgess of Edinburgh at a dinner laid on by the city on 26 September. He stayed in Scotland until late January 1619, and the best-remembered hospitality he enjoyed was that of the Scottish poet, William Drummond of Hawthornden, sited on the River Esk. Drummond undertook to record as much of Jonson's conversation as he could in his diary, and thus recorded aspects of Jonson's personality that would otherwise have been less clearly seen. Jonson delivers his opinions, in Drummond's terse reporting, in an expansive and even magisterial mood. Drummond noted he was \"a great lover and praiser of himself, a contemner and scorner of others\". On returning to England, he was awarded an honorary Master of Arts degree from Oxford University. The period between 1605 and 1620 may be viewed as Jonson's heyday. By 1616 he had produced all the plays on which his present reputation as a dramatist is based, including the CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Ben Jonson: The Writer 291 tragedy Catiline (acted and printed 1611), which achieved limited success[3] and the comedies Volpone (acted 1605 and printed in 1607), Epicoene, or the Silent Woman (1609), The Alchemist (1610), Bartholomew Fair (1614) and The Devil Is an Ass (1616). The Alchemist and Volpone were immediately successful. Of Epicoene, Jonson told Drummond of a satirical verse which reported that the play's subtitle was appropriate, since its audience had refused to applaud the play (i.e., remained silent). Yet Epicoene, along with Bartholomew Fair and (to a lesser extent) The Devil is an Ass have in modern times achieved a certain degree of recognition. While his life during this period was apparently more settled than it had been in the 1590s, his financial security was still not assured. 9.3 Religion Jonson recounted that his father had been a prosperous Protestant landowner until the reign of \"Bloody Mary\" and had suffered imprisonment and the forfeiture of his wealth during that monarch's attempt to restore England to Catholicism. On Elizabeth's accession he was freed and was able to travel to London to become a clergyman. (All that is known of Jonson's father, who died a month before his son was born, comes from the poet's own narrative.) Jonson's elementary education was in a small church school attached to St Martin-in-the-Fields parish, and at the age of about seven he secured a place at Westminster School, then part of Westminster Abbey. Notwithstanding this emphatically Protestant grounding, Jonson maintained an interest in Catholic doctrine throughout his adult life and, at a particularly perilous time while a religious war with Spain was widely expected and persecution of Catholics was intensifying, he converted to the faith. This took place in October 1598, while Jonson was on remand in Newgate Gaol charged with manslaughter. Jonson's biographer Ian Donaldson is among those who suggest that the conversion was instigated by Father Thomas Wright, a Jesuit priest who had resigned from the order over his acceptance of Queen Elizabeth's right to rule in England. Wright, although placed under house arrest on the orders of Lord Burghley, was permitted to minister to the inmates of London prisons. It may have been that Jonson, fearing that his trial would go against him, was seeking the unequivocal absolution that Catholicism could offer if he were sentenced to death. Alternatively, he could have been looking to personal advantage from accepting conversion since CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
292 British Drama - I Father Wright's protector, the Earl of Essex, was among those who might hope to rise to influence after the succession of a new monarch. Jonson's conversion came at a weighty time in affairs of state; the royal succession, from the childless Elizabeth, had not been settled and Essex's Catholic allies were hopeful that a sympathetic ruler might attain the throne. Conviction, and certainly not expedience alone, sustained Jonson's faith during the troublesome twelve years he remained a Catholic. His stance received attention beyond the low- level intolerance to which most followers of that faith were exposed. The first draft of his play Sejanus was banned for \"popery\", and did not re-appear until some offending passages were cut. In January 1606 he (with Anne, his wife) appeared before the Consistory Court in London to answer a charge of recusancy, with Jonson alone additionally accused of allowing his fame as a Catholic to \"seduce\" citizens to the cause. This was a serious matter (the Gunpowder Plot was still fresh in mind) but he explained that his failure to take communion was only because he had not found sound theological endorsement for the practice, and by paying a fine of thirteen shillings (65 pence) he escaped the more serious penalties at the authorities' disposal. His habit was to slip outside during the sacrament, a common routine at the time — indeed it was one followed by the royal consort, Queen Anne, herself — to show political loyalty while not offending the conscience. Leading church figures, including John Overall, Dean of St Paul's, were tasked with winning Jonson back to Protestantism, but these overtures were resisted. In May 1610 Henry IV of France was assassinated, purportedly in the name of the Pope; he had been a Catholic monarch respected in England for tolerance towards Protestants, and his murder seems to have been the immediate cause of Jonson's decision to rejoin the Church of England. He did this in flamboyant style, pointedly drinking a full chalice of communion wine at the eucharist to demonstrate his renunciation of the Catholic rite, in which the priest alone drinks the wine. The exact date of the ceremony is unknown. However, his interest in Catholic belief and practice remained with him until his death. 9.4 Decline and Death Jonson's productivity began to decline in the 1620s, but he remained well known. In that time, rose to the prominence the Sons of Ben or the \"Tribe of Ben\" - those younger poets such as CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Ben Jonson: The Writer 293 Robert Herrick, Richard Lovelace, and Sir John Suckling who took their bearing in verse from Jonson. However, a series of setbacks drained his strength and damaged his reputation. He resumed writing regular plays in the 1620s, but these are not considered among his best. They are of significant interest, however, for their portrayal of Charles I's England. The Staple of News, for example, offers a remarkable look at the earliest stage of English journalism. The lukewarm reception given that play was, however, nothing compared to the dismal failure of The New Inn; the cold reception given this play prompted Jonson to write a poem condemning his audience (An Ode to Himself), which in turn prompted Thomas Carew, one of the \"Tribe of Ben,\" to respond in a poem that asks Jonson to recognise his own decline. The principal factor in Jonson's partial eclipse was, however, the death of James and the accession of King Charles I in 1625. Jonson felt neglected by the new court. A decisive quarrel with Jones harmed his career as a writer of court masques, although he continued to entertain the court on an irregular basis. For his part, Charles displayed a certain degree of care for the great poet of his father's day: he increased Jonson's annual pension to £100 and included a tierce of wine and beer. Despite the strokes that he suffered in the 1620s, Jonson continued to write. At his death in 1637 he seems to have been working on another play, The Sad Shepherd. Though only two acts are extant, this represents a remarkable new direction for Jonson: a move into pastoral drama. During the early 1630s he also conducted a correspondence with James Howell, who warned him about disfavour at court in the wake of his dispute with Jones. Jonson died on or around 16 August 1637, and his funeral was held the next day. It was attended by 'all or the greatest part of the nobility then in town'. He is buried in the north aisle of the nave in Westminster Abbey, with the inscription \"O Rare Ben Johnson [sic]\" set in the slab over his grave. John Aubrey, in a more meticulous record than usual, notes that a passer-by, John Young of Great Milton, Oxfordshire, saw the bare grave marker and on impulse paid a workman eighteen pence to make the inscription. Another theory suggests that the tribute came from William Davenant, Jonson's successor as Poet Laureate (and card-playing companion of Young), as the same phrase appears on Davenant's nearby gravestone, but essayist Leigh Hunt contends that Davenant's wording represented no more than Young's coinage, cheaply re-used. The fact CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
294 British Drama - I that Jonson was buried in an upright position was an indication of his reduced circumstances at the time of his death, although it has also been written that he asked for a grave exactly 18 inches square from the monarch and received an upright grave to fit in the requested space. It has been claimed that the inscription could be read \"Orare Ben Jonson\" (pray for Ben Jonson), possibly in an allusion to Jonson's acceptance of Catholic doctrine during his lifetime (although he had returned to the Church of England) but the carving shows a distinct space between \"O\" and \"rare\". A monument to Jonson was erected in about 1723 by the Earl of Oxford and is in the eastern aisle of Westminster Abbey's Poets' Corner. It includes a portrait medallion and the same inscription as on the gravestone. It seems Jonson was to have had a monument erected by subscription soon after his death but the English Civil War intervened. 9.5 Drama Apart from two tragedies, Sejanus and Catiline, that largely failed to impress Renaissance audiences, Jonson's work for the public theatres was in comedy. These plays vary in some respects. The minor early plays, particularly those written for boy players, present somewhat looser plots and less-developed characters than those written later, for adult companies. Already in the plays which were his salvos in the Poet's War, he displays the keen eye for absurdity and hypocrisy that marks his best-known plays; in these early efforts, however, plot mostly takes second place to variety of incident and comic set-pieces. They are, also, notably ill-tempered. Thomas Davies called Poetaster \"a contemptible mixture of the serio-comic, where the names of Augustus Caesar, Maecenas, Virgil, Horace, Ovid and Tibullus, are all sacrificed upon the altar of private resentment\". Another early comedy in a different vein, The Case is Altered, is markedly similar to Shakespeare's romantic comedies in its foreign setting, emphasis on genial wit and love-plot. Henslowe's diary indicates that Jonson had a hand in numerous other plays, including many in genres such as English history with which he is not otherwise associated. The comedies of his middle career, from Eastward Hoe to The Devil Is an Ass are for the most part city comedy, with a London setting, themes of trickery and money, and a distinct moral CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Search
Read the Text Version
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- 165
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 169
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- 175
- 176
- 177
- 178
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- 183
- 184
- 185
- 186
- 187
- 188
- 189
- 190
- 191
- 192
- 193
- 194
- 195
- 196
- 197
- 198
- 199
- 200
- 201
- 202
- 203
- 204
- 205
- 206
- 207
- 208
- 209
- 210
- 211
- 212
- 213
- 214
- 215
- 216
- 217
- 218
- 219
- 220
- 221
- 222
- 223
- 224
- 225
- 226
- 227
- 228
- 229
- 230
- 231
- 232
- 233
- 234
- 235
- 236
- 237
- 238
- 239
- 240
- 241
- 242
- 243
- 244
- 245
- 246
- 247
- 248
- 249
- 250
- 251
- 252
- 253
- 254
- 255
- 256
- 257
- 258
- 259
- 260
- 261
- 262
- 263
- 264
- 265
- 266
- 267
- 268
- 269
- 270
- 271
- 272
- 273
- 274
- 275
- 276
- 277
- 278
- 279
- 280
- 281
- 282
- 283
- 284
- 285
- 286
- 287
- 288
- 289
- 290
- 291
- 292
- 293
- 294
- 295
- 296
- 297
- 298
- 299
- 300
- 301
- 302
- 303
- 304
- 305
- 306
- 307
- 308
- 309
- 310
- 311
- 312
- 313
- 314
- 315
- 316
- 317
- 318
- 319
- 320
- 321
- 322
- 323
- 324
- 325
- 326
- 327
- 328
- 329
- 330
- 331
- 332
- 333
- 334
- 335
- 336
- 337
- 338
- 339
- 340
- 341
- 342
- 343
- 344
- 345
- 346
- 347
- 348
- 349
- 350
- 351
- 352
- 353
- 354
- 355
- 356
