Page 238 - DENG403_BRITISH_DRAMA

British Drama

Notes However, as we look at the Restoration comedies that range from William Wycherley’s play, “The
Country Wife” (1675) to William Congreve’s play, “The Way of the World” (1700), and further than
that if we look at Aphra Behn’s comedy of intrigue, “The Rover” (1702) and Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s
sentimental comedy, “The School for Scandal” (1777), which fall near the same period, we see how
dramatically society has progressed. A dramatic change, in moral attitudes about marriage and
love, has taken place.

As we look at Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s play “The School for Scandal” (1777),
we see a decided swing away from most of the other plays discussed here. Much of
this change is due to a falling away of the Restoration values. We have moved outside
of the Restoration Period and into a very different kind of restoration, where a different
morality comes into play.
Though, the School for Scandal witness a restoration of order, but here, the bad are punished and the
good are rewarded, a trend which we saw just a hint of in a couple of the play, but not to this extent.
Here, appearance doesn’t fool anyone for long, especially when the long lost guardian, Sir Oliver,
comes home to discover all. In the Cain and Abel scenario, Cain, a part played by Joseph Surface, is
exposed as being an ungrateful hypocrite and Abel, a part played by Charles Surface, is really not
that bad after all (all blame seems to be laid on his brother). Also, the virtuous young maiden—
Maria—was right in her love at the end, though she obeyed her father’s orders to refuse any further
contact with Charles until he was vindicated.
Another interesting switch, here, is that Sheridan does not create affairs between the characters of
his play. Lady Teazle was willing to cuckold Sir Peter with Joseph, until she hears the truth of his
love and, as in every melodramatic drama, she realizes the error of her ways, repents and, when she
is discovered, tells all and is forgiven. Of course, in a comedy, all must be restored to a happy
ending, so, in the end Charles says, “Why as to reforming, Sir Peter, I’ll make no promises, and that
I take to be a proof that I intend to set about it. But here shall be my moniter—my gentle guide.—
Ah! can I leave the virtuous path those eyes illuminate?” At the end, though, we are left with a all-
too-perfect feeling. There is nothing really realistic about the play, but his intent seems to have been
much more moral than any of the earlier comedies.
Though these Restoration plays broach similar themes, the methods and the outcomes are completely
different, which graphically shows how much more conservative England had become by the late
eighteenth century. Also as time moved forward, the emphasis changed from one on cuckoldry and
the aristocracy to one on marriage as a contractual agreement and eventually progressed to the
sentimental comedy, which seemed more interested in uplifting morals than anything else. As we
look at the change, we see that, in many ways, the first plays were the most fun, even though they
were the most obscene (according to a more traditional view). All along, though, we see a restoration
of social order, in various forms. By looking at the changes, we can gain an insight into historical
events.

18.2.2 Problem of Anti-semitism

One significant problem is the anti-semitism that runs throughout the play. Post-World War II
audiences are understandably sensitive to the disparaging remarks made about moneylenders, who
were often Jewish. That the character of Moses is portrayed as honest and concerned is depicted in
the play as an aberration. When Sir Oliver is learning how to disguise himself as a moneylender, he
is told that he must ask 100% interest because it is expected that he must behave as an “unconscionable
dog.”

232 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY