Presented to the Graduate Council of the North Texas State University In

Home , Royall Tyler, Royall Tyler (historian), The Rivals, The School for Scandal

THE CONTRAST AND THE SCHOOL FOR SCANDAL: A COMPARISON

OF TWO EIGHTEENTH CENTURY PLAYS

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Terry D. Eyman, B. A.

Denton, Texas

December, 1974 Eyman, Terry D., The Contrast and the School for Scandal:

A Comparison of Two Eighteenth Century Plays. Master of

Science, December, 1974, 83 pp., bibliography, 72 titles.

This study explores the relationship of Royall Tyler's

The Contrast with Richard Brinsley Sheridan's The School for

Scandal, to determine whether Tyler used The School for Scandal as a model for The Contrast. Chapter I contains a statement of the problem and an introduction to the historical importance of Tyler and The Contrast. Chapter II discusses the theatrical background of Tyler and the city of Boston. Chapter III

includes a brief history of Sheridan and an examination of

The School for Scandal. Chapter IV compares The Contrast with

The School for Scandal. Chapter V presents conclusions drawn

from the evidence examined in Chapters III and IV. The

Contrast is not an imitation of The School for Scandal, though both contain elements of similarity. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

II. THEATRICAL HISTORY OF BOSTON AND ROYALL TYLER ...... * . . 11

III. SHERIDAN AND THE SCHOOL FOR SCANDAL ...... 28

IV. THE CONTRAST AND THE SCHOOL FOR SCANDAL: A COMPARISON ...... 57

V. CONCLUSIONS ...... 73

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 79

iii CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

On April 16, 1787, the American Company, performing in the John Street Theatre in New York, presented a play called

The Contrast, written by "a Citizen of the United States."

It was a momentous occasion, but circumstances combined to obscure the importance of the play and its author Royall

Tyler from later theatre historians. For example, Glenn

Hughes devotes eighty-nine pages to American theatre history from 1700 to 1800 and only one short paragraph to Tyler.3

Howard Taubman includes five pages on Royall Tyler and a review of The Contrast, but fails to indicate the historical importance of the early American playwright and his work.4

In fact, much of the discussion of The Contrast by theatre

William Dunlap, A History of the American Theatre (New York, 1934), p. 135. Dunlap wrongly placed the date of performance as April 16, 1786. Other authorities have verified the actual date as being April 16, 1787. See also George 0. Seilhammer, History of the American Theatre (Philadelphia, 1889), p. 215; Montrose J. Moses, The American Dramatist (New York, 1925), p. 72; G. Thomas Tanselle, Royall Tyler (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1967), p. 51.

2Chapter II will further discuss the reasons for a lack of primary source material-on Royall Tyler.

3 Glenn Hughes, The American Theatre (New York, 1951, pp. 1-89.

4Howard Taubman, The Making of the American Theatre (New York, 1965), pp. 46-50.

1 2 historians has been limited to a statement that the play was based on Sheridan's The School for Scandal, with no reasons presented as the basis for comparing the two plays except that Tyler saw The School for Scandal. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis will be to explore the similarities and differences of Richard Brinsley Sheridan's The School for Scandal and Royall Tyler's The Contrast to discover if internal evidence in the two plays either supports or refutes the theory that Tyler had as his primary model The School for

Scandal. Since Tyler's life and his influence on subsequent playwrights are not well known by American theatre scholars,

some of the material in this thesis must be introductory.

Chapter One will discuss the influence of The Contrast and

Tyler on later works and playwrights; Chapter Two will

describe Tyler's life in a volatile and Puritan New England;

Chapter Three will explore definitions of The School for

Scandal; Chapter Four will compare The Contrast with The

School for Scandal; and Chapter Five will present conclusions

about the relationship of the two plays.

The Contrast was not the first play by an American

author. The Prince of Parthia had been written and produced

in 1767,5 and in 1714, Robert Hunter, governor of New York,

had written Androboros.6 Colonial playwrighting was evident

even during the American Revolution, especially in the plays

5Hughes, p. 38.

6 George Freedly and John A. Reeves, A History of the Theatre (New York, 1968), p. 297. 3 of Mercy Otis' Warren. The plays were a part of the literary political repartee between the British loyalists and the

American patriots, and they were read more often than acted.

What was important, however, was that Royall Tyler had written the first American comedy produced by a professional company and that The Contrast enjoyed some popularity. Seil- hamer explored the 1787 season of the American Company and discovered that the play was acted on April 16 and 18, and on May 2, 5, and 12, all performed in New York.8 Tanselle listed a later production on August 12, 1787, in Baltimore; a reading by Thomas Wignell on December 10, 1787, in Phila- delphia; and productions on August 19, 1788, in Baltimore;

June 10, 1789, in New York; and July 7, 1790, in Phila- delphia.9 This was also the year in which The Contrast was published by Wignell, the actor to whom Tyler had given all performance and publication rights. Part of the early popularity of Tyler's play may have been due to the extreme patriotism of American audiences and to the corresponding

American theme of the comedy, but the record of performances listed is outstanding in a country just developing a theatrical identity.

The Contrast may have influenced other American playwrights to produce a professional native art and wrest the

7 Constance Rourke, The Roots of American Culture (New York, 1942), pp. 111-112.

8 Seilhamer, pp. 212-239.

9 Tanselle, pp. 51-53. 4 dramatic laurels from British writers. One writer who was directly affected by Tyler was William Dunlap, who saw a performance of The Contrast and " . . . with a sharp eye toward what would go on the stage, Dunlap . . . The next year 1788

S. . .penned a comedy of his own with a Yankee--The Modest

Servant, or Love in New York--which closely resembled The

Contrast."10 Another specific instance of the influence of

The Contrast occurred in 0. E. Durivage's The Stage Struck

Yankee (1845). In this play Durivage had Curtis enter a theatre and describe a production of Richard III, much as

Jonathan of The Contrast describes his mistaken visit to performances of The School for Scandal and The Poor Soldier."1

Tyler's primary effect on later playwrights was probably more indirect than direct; other writers saw or heard of the success of a Yankee character and emulated the model.

Certainly the series of Yankee plays began almost -immediately, with William Dunlap's Father of an Only Child (1788); Samuel

Low's The Politician Outwitted (1789); an anonymous The Bet- ter Sort; or, The Girl of Spirit (1789); J. Robinson's The

Yorkers Strategum; or, Bananas Wedding (1792); two anonymous plays The Little Yankee Sailor (1795) and The Travelor

Returned (1796); John Minshull's Rural Felicity (1801);

William Dunlap's The Glory of Columbia (1803); L. Beach's

Jonathan Postfree; or, The Honest Yankee (1807); J. N.

10Hodge, p. 47. See also Moses, p. 56.

lMoody, pp. 124-125. 5

Barker's Tears and Smiles (1808); A. B. Lindsley's Love and

Friendship; or, Yankee Notions (1809); David Humphreys' The

Yankee in England (1815); Joseph Hutton's Fashionable Follies

(1815); and Samuel Woodsworth's Deed of Gift (1822) and The

Forest Rose; or, American Farmers (1825).12

The use of Yankee plays peaked during the 1830's and

40's but continued through the 1850's.13 Anna Cora Mowatt, a playwright of the peak years, penned Fashion in 1845. Her play followed the comedy of manners construction of The Con- trast, and contained the Yankee character Adam Trueman, who was much like the characters Jonathan and Colonel Manly in

The Contrast. 14 Dunlap himself states that with "The Con- trast, written by Royall Tyler . . . we thus arrive at the commencement of the American drama as united with the

American theatre."15 Though little acted or even studied today, Tyler and The Contrast were very important to their contemporaries as a rallying point for professional drama of American ideals and themes.

Any discussion of Tyler's early influence must also include material on Jonathan, because the Yankee character is the principal contribution of The Contrast. There had been previous attempts to establish an American character,

12Ibid., pp. 114-122. 13Ibid., pp. 122-130. 1 4 Robert Spiller and others, Literary History of the United States, 3rd ed. (New York, 1966), p. 281.

isDunlap, pp. 135-136. 6

but none had assumed the proportions of a major role in either

tragedy or comedy. Jonathan, or Brother Jonathan as he was

sometimes variously called, was treated by the British thea-

tricians in the United States and, on at least one occasion,

in Dublin, Ireland.6 However, Tyler's Jonathan is generally

recognized as the progenitor of the American Stage Yankee.1 7

Richard Moody follows the tradition of the Stage Yankee through

such characters and plays as Humphrey Cubb in The Politician

Outwitted, Susannah in Father of an Only Child, Obadiah in

The Travelor Returned, William in The Glory of Columbia, Jona-

than in Jonathan Postfree, Nathan Yank in Tears and Smiles,

Jonathan in Love and Friendship, and Doolittle in The Yankee

in England. I Francis Hodge, in his work Yankee Theatre,

concentrates on the Yankee character from 1825-1850 and deals

primarily with James H. Hackett, George H. Hill, Dan Marble,

and Joshua Silsbee, all actors who were known for their

16 Marston Balch, "Jonathan the First," Modern Language Notes, XLIV (May, 1931), 281-288. The entire Balch article is devoted to a discussion of the similarities of the character Jonathan in A Match for a Widow by Captain Joseph Atkinson, with Jonathan in The Contrast. Atkinson's play was performed at the Smock Alley Theatre in Dublin, Ireland, on April 17, 1786, almost one year to the day before Tyler's play. A Match for a Widow was copied from Joseph Patrat's L'Heureuse Erreur, as was Mrs. Inchbald's The Widow's Vow. Since the Widow's Vow was published, produced, and accepted in London, Atkinson's play did not attain wide popularity. No scholar to date has been able to find any connection between Tyler and Atkinson. 1 7 William Peterfield Trent and others, The Cambridge His- tory of American Literature, Vol. I (New York, 1917),, pp. 218- 219. 1 8 Richard Moody, America Takes the Stage (Bloomington, Indiana, 1955), pp. 114-118. The list of Yankee plays con- tinues on through p. 130. 7

Yankee characters.19 Even though early Yankee characters were attempted, Tyler, with his Jonathan, certainly provided

a pattern, if not an impetus, to what has become a tradition.

The origins of the play, the strands of thought and in-

fluence that evolved into the final form of The Contrast, are

more elusive than its later influence. Tyler left no clue

as to when or even why he began his work. However, he did

exhibit an early interest in the theatre, 20 and he felt that

America must attempt to establish a native art, rather than

look to England and emulate the subject matter of English

writers.2 1

If Tyler is vague, his critics and biographers are not.

Spiller believes The Contrast has much in common with The

School for Scandal and that one scene is "worthy of Field-

ing. "22 Nethercot feels that Tyler based his play on The

School for Scandal, The Conscious Lovers, Tie Rivals, The

Beggar's Opera, Polly Honeycombe, The Poor Soldier, The Maid

19 Hodge, p. 3.

20Royall Tyler later wrote May Day in Town, The Origin of the Feast of Purim, The Farmhouse, A Good Spec: "Land in the Moon, The Doctor in Spite of Himself, The Judgment of Solomon, Joseph and His Brethren, and The Island of Barra- taria. Of all the plays by Tyler, only the last three listed and The Contrast are extant. A further dramatic piece was written as a prologue for She Stoops to Conquer and was performed July 14, 1794.

21 Royall Tyler, "Occasional Prologue," The Verse of Royall Tyler, Marius B. Peladeau (Charlottesville, 1968), pp. 36, 37.

22 Spiller, pp. 186-187.

lomwplWlw 8 of the Mill, The Provoked Husband, and False Delicacy. The

source most consistently mentioned by critics and biographers is Richard Brinsley Sheridan's The School for Scandal.

Tyler did see the American Company's production of The

School for Scandal performed at the John Street Theatre, New

York, on March 21, 1787, along with the popular afterpiece,

The Poor Soldier. He had arrived in New York on March 12,

1787, as an envoy for General Lincoln during Shays' Rebellion.

The principal proof of Tyler's visit to the John Street Theatre

is found in two passages in The Contrast. The first passage is the famous scene in which Jonathan, thinking he has entered a house of magic shows, actually describes his mistaken visit to a playhouse. In the description he names one character,

Joseph, from Sheridan's play and calls the play "The School for Scandalization."24 He also names one character from The

Poor Soldier, "Darby Wag-all."2 5 Tyler simply had Jonathan make a play on words when referring to the character of Darby in The Poor Soldier, as portrayed by Thomas Wignell. The

Poor Soldier had been produced on March 16, 1787, as an

H. A. Nethercot, "The Dramatic Background of Royall Tyler' s The Contrast," American Literature, XII (January, 1941), pp. 435-446.

2 4 Royall Tyler, The Contrast, III, 1, in Literature of the Early Republic, edited by Edwin Cady (New York, 1961), pp. 392-451.

25 Tyler, The Contrast, III, 1. See also Nethercot, p. 439.

-.--.-- - - pawrAw p I . 9

afterpiece with Richard III, but The School for Scandal was performed only on March 21, 1787. Thus Tyler, although he may have previously read The School for Scandal, 26 could only have seen the play on March 21, with The Poor Soldier.27 he second passage is a description of the New York audience, given by the character Dimple, who states that American audiences are more interesting than American plays.28 Tyler had never seen an audience at a professional show before coming to New York, 29 and this fact, coupled with Jonathan's recounting of The School for Scandal and The Poor Soldier, lends support to the idea that Sheridan's play may have been a primary model for The Contrast.

Since Tyler did see Sheridan's School for Scandal, since he did mention the play in The Contrast, and since several authorities have strongly linked the two plays, it seems odd that no scholar has closely compared the two plays. Nethercot has written the most complete analysis, but he is primarily

2 6 Clifford K. Shipton and James E. Mooney, National Index of American Imprints Through 1800, II (Barre, Mass., 1969), 497. The School for Scandal was printed in Philadelphia as The Real and Genuine School for Scandal (1782) and in New York as The School for Scandal (1786).

2 7Seilhamer, p. 214. See also Nethercot, p. 439. 28 Tyler, The Contrast, III, I.

2 9 Tyler's lack of opportunity to visit a professional show will be more fully discussed in Chapter II.

Aa 10 concerned with proving that Tyler wrote from a wide knowledge of several plays and gives only cursory attention to The School for Scandal.

Therefore, as previously mentioned, the purpose of this thesis will be to explore the similarities and differences of

Richard Brinsley Sheridan's The School for Scandal and Royall

Tyler's The Contrast in order to determine the credence for the observation by authorities that The School for Scandal was the model for The Contrast. CHAPTER II

THEATRICAL HISTORY OF BOSTON AND ROYALL TYLER

When I have persued the scanty details of the cus- toms of former days, I have been almost ready to charge the past generation with inexcusable neglect in omitting to tell us more of what is so delightful to know; but it is difficult to imagine that what is familiar and consequently of little interest to us can ever become interesting to others, and every generation, while accusing their predecessors with neglect, are guilty of the same omissions.1

It is surprising and not a little ironic that the works and biography of Royall Tyler, a man deeply aware of the con- tinuity of past, present, and future, should have been so long surfacing. Due, however, to the ephemeral character of early

American publications and the well-meaning efforts of Tyler's ancestors to publish a biography which bore the family blessings,

Tyler's papers were withheld from scholars, and much of the in- formation about Royall Tyler has been based on secondary materials. In 1964 the Vermont Historical Society was, for the first time, allowed to open the Tyler papers to "qualified scholars."2 Whatever the reasons for obscurity, Tyler avoided

1Royall Tyler, "Preface to the Third Edition," The Bay Boy, Marius B. Peladeau, editor, The Prose of Royall Tyler (Rutland, Vermont, 1972), p. 48.

2Tanselle, Royall Tyler, pp. xi-xii. Since 1964 the two principal biographers of Tyler have been Tanselle and Marius B. Peladeau. Peladeau has researched Tyler's works and printed two books: The Prose of Royall Tyler (Rutland, Vermont, 1972) and The Verse of Royall Tyler (Charlottsville, 1968). 11 12 anonymity through his use of native American materials, his

contributions to American literature, and his desire to ele- vate and maintain a native American literature.3

Where our America's green mountains tower with verdant pride, Some future avon shall meandering glide-- Some future Shakespeare paint the poets dreams, Some future Garrick act the glowing scenes; Till humbled Britain, aw'd by our success, In arts and arms, our triumph shall confess.

Colonial Boston, in which Tyler was born and raised, was never considered a center of theatrical activity. Most of the successful professional theatres were concentrated in New

York and south into the more Cavalier colonies, where bans

against plays and players existed but were not so rigidly en-

forced as in New England. In fact, a ban on the Southern

seaboard seemed almost to have been a challenge to the in-

genuity of the theatre manager and to his ability to disguise performances as "moral lectures."

The same practice was not followed in Boston and sur- rounding New England. As early as 1686 Increase Mather de- nounced stage plays for their immoral influence.5 There were only two successful invasions of New England by theatrical

3 Tanselle, "Some Uncollected Authors XLII: Royall Tyler 1757-1862," Book Collector, XV (1966), 303-320.

4 Tyler, "Occasional Prologue," Peladeau, The Verse of Royall Tyler, pp. 35-37.

5 William W. Clapp, A Record of the Boston Stage (Boston and Cambridge, 1853), pp. 1-2. Moses, p. 24, indicates that Cotton Mather and not Increase Mather made the injunction against theatre. 13 troupes, both by David Douglass and his company. In approxi- mately 1758 Douglass joined his cast with that of Henry Hallam to create the American Company.6 Douglass took the company to Newport, Rhode Island, in the summer of 1761 to present a series of five "moral dialogues" about a Moor named Othello.

On September 7, 1761, he presented The Provoked Husband and, in October, returned to New York. The following summer

Douglass went to Providence, Rhode Island, and built a playhouse, which he called a "school house." This time, however, he was not so fortunate in challenging the Puritan ethic and

" . . . the Rhode Island Assembly in August . . . passed an act forbidding the further building of theatres or any more acting."

Tyler's birthplace was no less difficult for players than was the rest of New England. Both had been primarily settled by Puritans, who felt that theatre and players were immoral and thus anathema to the Christian way of life. It is no surprise that professional theatrics were resisted until near the end of the war with England.8 In 1714 "Chief Justice

6 Glenn Hughes, A History of the American Theatre (New York, 1951), p. 27.

7 Ibid., p. 34. Hughes gives an extensive account of Douglass and other managers and troupers in the American colonies in his chapter "The Professional Appears: 1750- 1775," pp. 14-45. The preceding discussion of Douglass was taken from this chapter.

8 Moses, p. 25. 14

Samuel Sewall of Massachusetts protested against acting in 9r Boston." The earliest known play in Boston was supposed to have been Otway' s Orphan; or, Unhappy Marriage.10 Two young

English gentlemen and some local volunteers mounted the production, probably in early 1750. The result was that in

March, 1750, the General Court of Massachusetts passed an order to protect the citizens from the theatre. Any person profitting or gaining materially from the rental of any room or building for a stage-play, interlude, or theatrical enter- tainment must pay a fine of twenty pounds per day. Also, any person or persons gathered at such an event in a group of twenty or more must pay a fine of five pounds for each event attended. One-half of the fine was kept by the government, the other one-half went to the informer. In addition to civil laws Harvard, in 1767, forbade students from partici- pating as a spectator, actor, or promoter of theatricals.1 2

The Continental Congress, on October 20, 1774, banned all plays and public entertainments and thus effectively halted all professional theatre in the United States until after the 13 war with England. In July, 1782, the American Company returned to Philadelphia from Jamaica.14 Later there was an

9 Ibid., pp. 24-25. 10 Clapp, pp. 2-3.

11Ibid. See also Hughes, p. 64.

12 Tanselle, Royall Tyler, pp. 4-5.

13Ibid., p. 50. Hughes, p. 52. 15 abortive attempt by Hallam and Henry, through petition to the

Massachusetts State Legislature in 1790, to open a theatre in

Boston.15 Though the movement had some popular support, it was strongly opposed and defeated by Samuel Adams.16 Success finally came in 1792. A company of actors, led by Charles

Stuart Powell, Mr. Wools, and Mr. Watts, with the support of

some Boston citizens, erected a temporary theatre. They gave performances until the theatre was closed down by the local 17 law officers on December 5, 1792. In 1793 the Boston law was repealed, and the Federal Street Theatre was built.' 8

If professional productions were strongly opposed, amateur theatricals were sometimes merely frowned on. Tyler, in

Chapter Twelve of The Bay Boy, recounts a clandestine perform-

ance of Cato, with all its secrecy of entry by prearranged knock upon the doors of an old warehouse. The play began at midnight and, even though it lacked the scenery, costumes,

finery, and acting ability of a professional company, the very

atmosphere of sampling forbidden fruit charged the air with

excitement. In the midst of one of the speeches, the audience

spellbound, the constables pounded on the doors.

15Moses, p. 28. 16Ibid. See also Clapp, p. 4.

1 7 Hughes, pp. 64-65. Mr. Wools and Mr. Watts were not given first names by Hughes.

18 Ibid., p. 65. 16

I luckily made my escape thro' a back window: as did some others who occupied the stage box with me. But several of the actors and spectators were apprehended and carried to the house of a Justice of the Peace with whom were several other magistrates. But upon viewing the party and especially noting the Scotch Juba one of the actors of Scottish ancestry , and finding some children of zealous Whigs engaged, the magistrates deemed it most prudent to accomodate the affair privately lest, as they afterwards ob- served the prosecution might be misconstrued as if leveled against the sentiments of the popular play than against the actors engaged in it. 9

Cato was an exception and was widely read. It was also performed by Washington's soldiers at Valley Forge, in spite of the 1774 ban by the Continental Congress.2 0

Obviously amateur theatricals enjoyed an immunity that professional productions did not. In 1758, for example, Har- vard students produced Cato and Roman Father: A Play.2 In

1759 they produced The Recruiting Officer by George Farquhar

and then took the play to Boston proper. The most widely

spread amateur performances were by the British. In January,

1776, during a performance of General Burgoyne's The Blockade

in Boston's Fanueil Hall, the Massachusetts militia attacked,

routed the British, and ended the occupation of Boston and the

performance. 23

19 Tyler, The Bay Boy, pp. 141-149. Tyler calls The Bay Boy autobiographical, and though the central figure is called Dr. Updike Underhill, both Tanselle and Peladeau believe it is an account of Tyler's own life.

20Hughes, pp. 48-49. 21Moses, p. 30. 22Ibid. 23 Ibid., p. 48. See also Clapp, pp. 3-4. 17

The political turbulence of the American Revolution in

New England created unusual circumstances favorable to the evolution of amateur political drama. General Burgoyne and others of the British army, as well as their civilian sympathizers, engaged in the presentation of plays containing political satire. Quite naturally the Americans also wrote and presented plays which hotly defended patriotism to America and condemned loyalty to Britain. Mercy Otis Warren was well qualified to express the point of view of the Colonial partisans. Her brother, James Otis, was a very active Ameri- can statesman and writer; her husband, James Warren, succeeded

Joseph Warren as President of the Provincial Congress and was later Paymaster General for the American army. She also ex- changed letters with such notables as Samuel Adams, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, and maintained a very close relationship with Mrs. John Adams.25 Thus, Mercy Warren tapped a wealth of personal knowledge when she wrote The Adulateur (1773) and

The Group (1775).26 The Adulateur was based on fact "for the events are those which had been filling the hearts of the people of Massachusetts with indignation." -27 Both plays

24 Arthur Hobson Quinn, A History of the American Drama (New York, 1943), p. 33.

25 Ibid., pp. 33-34.

26 Ibid., pp. 34-46. Constance Rourke also credits Mercy Warren with the authoring of A Cure for the Spleen, p. 111.

27 Quinn, pp. 34-46. 18 contained thinly disguised caricatures of current political figures, designed to favor the American patriots and fault the

British sympathizers. Mercy Otis Warren was typical of such patriot writers as Joseph Leacock, Hugh Henry Brackenridge, and Colonel Robert Munford, whose dramas survived the Puritan ethic by embracing the Colonial cause.

It was in this atmosphere of Puritan mistrust of things theatrical, unrest in things political, and distaste for things

British, that Tyler was born William Clark Tyler on July 18,

1757, to Royall and Mary Steele Tyler of Boston. The elder

Royall was a merchant and an active politician, who took part

in demanding that British ships leave Boston Harbor and that

British troops leave Boston. In spite of his opposition to the British show of military force, he occupied a position on the King's Council until his death in 1771. 29 The family must have been relatively substantial for, in spite of his

father's early death, there is no record of Royall having to work for a living or having any difficulty entering Harvard.

Shortly after her husband's death Mary Steele Tyler had the

name of the youngest of the Tylers, William Clark, changed

to Royall. At the age of eight (in 1772) Royall was sent

to South Latin School in Boston and seven years later, at age

15, he entered Harvard. 31

28Tanselle, p. 3. 29Ibid., p. 2. 30Ibid., p. 3. 31 Ibid., p. 4.

I 19

The years of his Harvard education were years of excitement, challenge, and loss. The same year his father died

(1771) Royall's sister also died. One year later, in 1772, his mother remarried, again to a merchant, and moved to Ja- maica Plain, a distance of four miles from Boston. Events portending the Revolution also intensified. Boston leaders, including the fiery Sam Adams, allowed a despised shipment of tea to enter Boston Harbor in 1773 and then, knowing that their demands could not lawfully be met by the port authority, asked that the tea be returned to England. Faced with an ir- reconcilable situation, some of the colonists dressed themselves as Indians and threw the tea into the Harbor. The Boston Tea

Party accelerated the British Parliament into passing the

Boston Port Act and the Quartering Act. The Boston Port Act required the city to pay for.the dumped tea; the Quartering

Act stated that any colonial governor had the right to quarter

soldiers in private homes without the consent of the house- hold.3 3 In 1774 General Burgoyne moved into Boston. Armed patriots began to gather in Cambridge. Harvard and its stu-

dents could not help but be affected, and in 1773 the last

graduation exercise was held until 1781.34 In May of 1775

3 2 Peladeau, The Verse of Royall Tyler, p. XV. 3 3 Samuel Eliot Morison, The Oxford History of the Ameri- can People (New York, 1965), pp. 200-205.

34 Tanselle, p. 4. 20 the students were sent home early. Classes were resumed late on October 4, 1775, in Concord, a safer sixteen miles west of

Cambridge. Not only was Concord safer but patriot troops were, of necessity, housed in the Harvard building while laying

seige to the British troops in Boston.35 Feelings were taut until January, 1776, when the British were routed by the colonists.36 On June 21, Harvard moved back to Cambridge, and

Royall Tyler graduated in July. Yale awarded him a Bachelor

of Arts ad eundem.3 7

After graduation Tyler moved to Cambridge to work in the

law offices of Francis Dana. Dana, however, was involved in

politics and had just returned from England, where he had

been negotiating for a peaceful settlement to hostilities.

He was in Cambridge not quite one year when he left again, 38 this time to attend the Continental Congress. So in 1777

Tyler moved back to Boston and to the firm of Benjamin Hich-

born.39 While in Boston Tyler associated with John Trumbull,

William Eustis, Aaron Dexter, Rufus King, Thomas Dawes, and

Christopher Gore. The group seemed to center around John

Trumbull, later known for his portrait of Washington, and be-

came known as a group of wits who gathered primarily for dis-

cussion and company. Not all their meetings were tame, and

35Ibid. 36Moses, p. 48. 37Tanselle, p. 6.

3 8 Ibid., p. 7.

3 9 Ibid. See also Peladeau, The Verse of Royall Tyler, p. XV. 21 on "20 October 1777, for example, Tyler, Sewall, and King created a drunken disturbance in Cambridge . . . and were sum- moned before a faculty meeting."40 Tyler was rather brusque and impolite and was later required to apologize before entering

Harvard for his master's degree.41 All the activities of the group halted in the fall of 1777, for they talked themselves into joining the militia. Tyler may have felt that he could fight more easily than practice law, since his second employer,

Hichborn, had also enlisted.42 General Sullivan was in command;

Tyler was an aide with the rank of major.43 In August, with

10,000 men, Sullivan started from Providence to engage the

British at Newport. Rules of enlistment and departure from the militia were rather informal, and after a brief skirmish with the British, Tyler returned to Harvard and earned a Mas- 44 ter of Arts degree in 1779. In 1780 he was admitted to the bar of the Inferior Court of Massachusetts and moved to Fal- mouth, Maine, to set up a practice.45 This excursion was short-lived and, in 1782, he returned to Boston to room in the house of Richard Cranch and begin a law practice.46 Tyler was very active. He courted the daughter of Samuel Adams,

40Ibid., pp. 7-8. 41Ibid., p. 9. 42Ibid., p. 8. 4 3 Ibid. See also Peladeau, The Verse of Royall Tyler, p. XVI.

4 4 Peladeau, The Verse of Royall Tyler, p. XVI.

45Ibid. 46Tanselle, p. 10. 22 expanded his law practice, hired a school teacher as a helper, and in December, 1783, purchased a 108 acre farm.4 7 Samuel

Adams did not favor Royall Tyler as a prospective son-in-law and felt his family should leave Boston. So, on June 20,

1784, Nabby Adams and her mother, Abigail, sailed to England.

This forced separation from Nabby dissolved the relationship.4 9

Tyler did seem to have been deeply affected, and it was several years before he regained the drive and initiative he had shown in Boston. Through July, 1786, he worked his farm and then moved to Jamaica Plain with his mother. 5 0

Outside forces abruptly changed Tyler's life. In January,

1787, the Massachusetts court convened in Sprinfgield to settle property and debt disputes. Many of the farmers felt their interests could be better presented to a new legislature and wanted all legal action held until after elections. When their request was denied, they gathered arms and marched to the courthouse, where they were met and defeated by the militia.51 General Benjamin Lincoln arrived to pursue the rebels.

Some were captured, but Daniel Shays, who had led the farmers, and some key followers fled into Vermont.52 Royall Tyler had

Ibid., pp. 10-14.

4 8 Peladeau, The Verse of Royall Tyler, p. XVI.

49 Ibid.,pp. XVI-XVII. 5 0Tanselle, pp. 18-19.

51Ibid., p. 20. 52Ibid. 23 returned to Boston in the fall,.of 1786 but soon joined Gen- eral Lincoln as an aide, again with the rank of major.53 his military action seemed more suitable to Tyler than had his previous experience. Perhaps it was because he desired to leave Boston, but probably the duty was more challenging.

Tyler was a recognized speaker and wit, and on February 14,

1787, Lincoln asked him to pursue the Shays group into Vermont and act as emissary for the sovereign state of Massachusetts, in the hope that the sovereign state of Vermont would allow the return of Shays.54 Tyler arrived in Bennington, Vermont, on February 17, but was only partially successful. On Febru- ary 27 he left Bennington and on March 6 reported to the

Massachusetts legislature that he had achieved the favor and

interest of the Vermont people, if not their active support.5 5

The legislature, impressed, asked Tyler to pursue others of

Shays' men to New York, again as emissary of the state of

Massachusetts.56 It is important to realize that Tyler had

spent all his life in Boston, with the exception of brief visits to Concord, Massachusetts; Falmouth, Maine; and Ben- nington, Vermont. None of these cities was further from Bos- ton than 110 miles, and none contained a professional theatrical group. Until his trip to New York City Royall Tyler had never

53Ibid. 54Ibid., pp. 20-21. 55Ibid., p. 22. 5 6 Ibid. 24 seen a professional production, even though he had read plays and had seen at least one amateur production of Cato.5 7

On March 8, 1787, Tyler left Boston and arrived in New

York on March 12. He was more successful in New York than in

Vermont, and most of the rebels requested and were granted pardon.58 On March 21, 1787, The American Company performed

The School for Scandal and The Poor Soldier and on April 16,

1787, only twenty-six days later, they introduced The Contrast by Royall Tyler.

Tyler had made an accidental visit to New York City, where he had formed the acquaintance of Thomas Wig- nell, a leading comedian, who wished to introduce to the stage the character of Brother Jonathan. Judge Tyler had accordingly written the comedy of 'The Contrast,' in which Brother Jonathan was a principal character.59

The report by Chittenden is basically the same report of the

writing of The Contrast given by most historians. Even though

Tyler could have seen Cato on March 11, She Stoops to Conquer

and Padlock on March 14, Richard III and The Poor Soldier on

March 16, and other plays after the March 21 date of Sheri-

dan's play, most authorities have been prejudiced toward

March 21 and The School for Scandal.60 Tyler does not comment.

57 Tyler, The Bay Boy, pp. 141-149.

58 Tanselle, p. 23.

59 L. E. Chittenden, Personal Reminiscences (New York, 1893), p. 288. 60 Seilhamer, p. 214.

a 25

Nor does Tyler comment on the length of time required to write and produce his play. Three weeks from the conception of the idea to the culmination of a production seems incredibly brief, even making allowances for the simpler rehearsal techniques of the period. Hodge states that Tyler was strongly influenced by his city--country experience and the general atmosphere of post-revolutionary feelings,61 which could account for his rapdity in writing the play. Tyler was an active writer, however, for on May 19, just thirty-three days following the success of The Contrast, Tyler wrote another play, May Day in

Town. 62 May Day did not achieve the success of The Contrast.663

Tyler returned to his mother in Jamaica Plain and then to his practice in Boston and a room with Joseph Palmer on Beacon 64r Street. The actor Wignell had been given all rights to The

Contrast and he finally published the play in 1790.65

For a time Tyler's career progressed slowly. He maintained his life in Boston and began a relationship with Mary

Hunt Palmer, eighteen years younger than he.66 In 1790 Tyler whose rapport with his mother was disintegrating, announced he was going to Vermont.67 Events then moved more swiftly. He turned his property in Boston over to his mother and began a

61Hodge, p. 46. 62Seilhamer, p. 215.

63 Dunlap, p. 135-136. See also Tanselle, p. 23.

6 4 Tanselle, pp. 23-24.

65 Moses, p. 73. See also Balch, p. 280. 6 6 Tanselle, p. 24. 6 7 Ibid., p. 26. 26

68 1794 he ob- successful practice in Guilford, Vermont. In Cranch tained a position for his future father-in-law, Joseph Tyler had Palmer, in Windsor, Vermont, as a school teacher.69 been appointed States Attorney in Windham County, and in May, was not until 1794, he and Mary were secretly married.7 It

February, 1796, that Mary and fourteen-month-old Royall, jr., lit- moved to Vermont. Tyler's later activities included a and Spondee," erary partnership with Joseph Dennie called "Colon writing plays for various purposes, performing speaking en- sermons on gagements over the state of Vermont, delivering

several occasions, writing an early American novel The Algerine and election Captive and an autobiographical novel, The Bay Boy,

to the Vermont Supreme Court.7 In addition to establishing himself as wit, writer, orator, lawyer, politician, and judge, 7 2 he somehow managed to father eleven children.

In 1813 Royall Tyler's life dramatically reversed its

course. He was removed as justice of the Vermont Supreme

Court, his oldest son died, and creditors hounded him for

settlement. 73A growing facial cancer prohibited his working

as judge, but he survived by selling his farm, accepting a

0 68Ibid., p. 27. 69Ibid., p. 28. 7 Ibid. 71 Ibid., p. 29. 7 2 Tanselle discusses Tyler's activities in the biography, Royall Tyler, pp. 1-272.

73 Ibid., p. 47. 27 position as probate for Windham County, and re-establishing his private practice.74 Friends and relatives contributed what they could in money and food. As Tyler's cancer spread,

Royall and Mary came increasingly to depend on friendship for

survival.75 During these painful and austere times Tyler be-

gan rewriting The Algerine Captive and discovered that he was

7 6 instead creating the autobiographical book, The Bay Boy.

Much of this final book was written during intense pain and 77 failing eyesight. Tyler wrote the text in large characters

on a blackboard, and Mary rewrote them on paper.78 The period

from 1821 until Tyler's death on August 26, 1826, was a period

of deepening poverty and increasing pain, relieved only by

7 9 opium and laudanum and the drive to finish his writings.

7 4 Ibid. 7 5Ibid., pp. 47-48.

7 6 The writing of The Bay Boy is discussed by Peladeau, The Prose of Royall Tyler, in his introduction to Tyler's novel, pp. 21-37.

77 Ibid., pp. 26-27. 78Ibid., pp. 27-28.

7 9Ibid., pp. 28-30. See also Tanselle, p. 48. CHAPTER III

SHERIDAN AND THE SCHOOL FOR SCANDAL

Richard Brinsley Butler Sheridan was born in Dublin,

Ireland, on October 12, 1751, and was to become a playwright of some of England's best eighteenth-century comedy, the owner-manager of the Drury Lane Theatre, and a prestigious member of Parliament. Sheridan walked in the limelight of popularity all his life, only to die alone, ill, and in poverty on July 7, 1816. Though no one was with him when he died, his funeral was attended by the Lord Mayor, noblemen and lesser noblemen, important persons, and the performers of Drury Lane

and Covent Garden. Richard Brinsley Sheridan was buried with

ceremony and honor in Poets' Corner in Westminister Abbey, on

July 13, 1816.1

Sheridan's various talents in writing and speaking and

his taste for adventure can be directly traced to his father,

Thomas Sheridan, and to his mother, Frances Anne Sheridan.

Thomas was an Irishman, poor but educated, first at Westminister

and finally at Trinity College in Dublin.2 Money, the bane of

'Joseph Walter Cove writing as Lewis Gibbs, Sheridan (London, 1947), pp. 1-3. 2 Ibid., p. 19.

28 29 all working classes, seems to have been central in Thomas' life and later in Richard Brinsley's life. Thus, Thomas turned from teaching to acting and in 1743 played Richard III at the Theatre Royall in Smock Alley. In 1754, he became manager of the same theatre.3 True success somehow always eluded the Sheridan family through their penchant for espousing inopportune causes. The senior Thomas, a clergyman, delivered a sermon based on a politically improper text and lost his position.4 His Royal Highness, the Prince Regent, said of

Richard Sheridan, "He was a proud man, Sir, a proud man with certain conscientious convictions always operating against his own interests."5 Like his father before and his son to follow,

Thomas never quite captured success. After eight years as manager of the Theatre Royall, he tried to appease the political tastes of the Irish public and the British government and pru- dently left the theatre for two years. Upon his return to

Smock Alley he was forced to apologize to the audience before assuming the managership. The theatre, however, was uanble to turn a profit and, two years later, Thomas left for good.6

It was during the early years of his management that Thomas met and married Francis Chamberlaine.7 From then until their

3 Ibid. 4 Ibid., p. 18. 5 Alice Glasgow, Sheridan of Drury Lane (New York, 1940), p. 294.

6 Cove, pp. 20-22. 7 Ibid., p. 20. 30

first departure from Smock Alley, they had six children, but

only four survived; two boys and two girls. After their final

departure from Dublin, the family traveled and Thomas

. . . lectured on elocution at the Pewterer's Hall in London, at Bristol, at Bath, at Edinburgh, at Oxford, at Cambridge; he took pupils; he produced a number of books, including a General Dictionary of the English Language published 1780 , and an edition of Jonathan Swift's works, with a life, in eighteen volumes; he acted; he gave 'Attic En- tertainments; he projected an academy for the purpose of instructing young gentlemen in the art of reading and reciting.8

For all his efforts and enterprises, though given a Master of

Arts by both Oxford and Cambridge, Thomas never achieved the position and the monetary success he sought. The Sheridans eventually settled in the resort community of Bath, and Thomas established a school of education.

Bath was an exciting town with more than its share of the

leisurely rich having nothing to do but spread gossip and

scandal and engage in games of sex and flirtation. The town existed on sentimental morals openly cavorted with corruption, and provided the opportunity for a man to discuss one life style and live another.9 This was the town and the time in which Richard Sheridan came of age. His was a frustrating existence, for the only item ostracizing him from the society he desired to emulate was money. He turned to the gentlemanly art of letters in an attempt to earn the desired funds, and

8Ibid. 9Glasgow, pp. 48-54. 31 co-authored his first text, a translation of works by a minor

Greek poet. It was also in Bath that he had the first of two duels over the beautiful singer, Elizabeth Linley, with whom he fled to France and was secretly married. More importantly, 11 Bath provided the material for The School for Scandal.

Richard and Elizabeth were briefly separated but finally settled in London, furnished a house, and hired servants.

Though Richard had no income, he refused to allow Elizabeth to sing for money, and they rapidly spent the 1,050 pounds of

Elizabeth's dowry and were deeply in debt.12 The only gentile way of earning a living was as an author. In January, 1775,

Covent Garden presented The Rivals. It was a disaster and was immediately withdrawn. Sheridan refused to surrender, however, and reworked the play, and it was recast and successfully presented on January 28, 1775.13 On November 21, 1775, Sheridan's

The Duenna, a musical, was presented and ran for seventy-five performances. A third work, St. Patrick's Day; or, The Scheming

Lieutenant, had been presented on May 2, 1775. Richard Brins-

ley's fame was now assured, and his fortune, for a time, healthy.

10 Glasgow, pp. 55-99. Also Cove, pp. 27-42.

1 Cecil Price, editor, The Letters of Richard Brinsley Sheridan (London, 1966), p. 69. See also John Gassner, editor, A Treasury of the Theatre, Vol. I (New York, 1967), p. 463. 12 13 I Cove, pp. 43-44. Ibid., p. 47.

14 Ibid., pp. 49-50. See also Glasgow, pp. 113-119. 32

Samuel Johnson sponsored his entrance into the Literary Club and completed Sheridan's triumphal London social debut.1 5

Having conquered London, Sheridan was now ready to accomplish a second- coup. David Garrick was an old man ready to retire from the Drury Lane Theatre. The Drury Lane was valued at 70,000 pounds; Garrick owned half. Sheridan had only 1300 pounds, but with the aid of Thomas Linley and the

Court physician, James Ford, he managed to buy Garrick's portion for 45,000 pounds. By 1780, using only his powers of persuasion and financial juggling, Richard owned the remaining half of Drury Lane. His total cash investment was 1300 pounds, but he was again in debt and the Drury Lane Theatre was heavily mortgaged.16 During his first year of ownership Sheridan attempted to satiate the public demand for a new play by reworking The Relapse by Vanbrugh. Consequently, A Trip to

Scarborough, edited of all of Vanbrugh's bawdiness, was presented on February 24, 1777, and ran ninety-nine performances.1 7

The Drury Lane audience was not satisfied with a quasi-Sheridan play, and so on May 8, 1777, his best comedy, The School for

Scandal, opened to tumultous laughter and applause and a thoroughly delighted assembly.1 8 Sheridan's last play of

15 Glasgow, p. 120.

1 6Ibid., pp. 125-126. See also Cove, pp. 51-54.

1 7 Glasgow, pp. 127-128. 1 8 Ibid., p. 47. 33 note, The Critic, or, A Tragedy Rehearsed, was presented on

October 10, 1779.19

The remainder of Sheridan's career and life has been thoroughly researched and documented, but it has such striking contrasts and similarities to the life and career of Royall

Tyler that a brief summary must be included in this study. By

1780 Richard Brinsley Sheridan, at age 29, was married to a beautiful wife, was a celebrated playwright, was owner and manager of one of the two patented theatres in London, and though financially depleted, was in control of all the elements needed to achieve fame and great fortune. Yet he desired a greater fame and a more generous fortune. A political career seemed to be Sheridan's personal panacea for his financial problems, since it carried the added blessing that no member of Parliament could be jailed for debts so long as he remained in office.20 Through public service his fame did increase, but the vicious cycle of debts incurred with the pur- chase of Drury Lane also increased. Winning a seat in Parliament cost money, as did the recurring elections.21 Sheridan's increased social position also quite naturally required a more expansive and costly life style.

1 9 Allardyce Nicoll, A History of English Drama 1660-1900, Vol. III (Cambridge, 1966), p. 306.

20 Cove, p. 164. See also Glasgow, p. 156.

2 1 Cove, pp. 83-85. 34

The Drury Lane, heavily mortgaged, was expected to support the entire financial structure. Properly managed, the

Theatre Royal at Drury Lane could have provided the needed income, but Sheridan was too busy establishing a career in politics to protect his career in theatre.22 An additional expense was incurred when the old building was condemned as unsafe. A newer, larger house had to be built at a cost of 130,000 pounds.2 3

The new theatre, which opened on March 12, 1794, rekindled

Sheridan's hopes of financial security, but faltered with the weight of the mortgage and Sheridan's mismanagement.2 4

In spite of his wit, grace, and talent, Sheridan seemed ironically to have been living the very life of the parvenu he and other playwrights satirized. He was born to a mean or low station but aspired to and lived in a high station. As with the parvenus of stage, Sheridan also appeared to have been giddily affected by his run for the sun. After his introduction to Parliament, his expenses increased, and he began to drink wine excessively.25 Sheridan, though he was married to the beautiful Elizabeth Linley, was involved with other women.26 The major stabilizing force in Richard's life was removed when Elizabeth died of consumption on June 29, 1792.27

22Ibid., pp. 122-127. 23Glasgow, p. 126.

24Cove, pp. 157-159. 25Ibid., p. 71.

26 Ibid., pp. 117-118.

27 Ibid., pp. 119-120. See also Glasgow, pp. 197-199. 35

In 1795 the forty-three-year-old Sheridan married the twenty- year-old Esther Jane Ogle. Hecca, as he called her, was of higher station than Elizabeth had been, and in order to con- vince her father of his worth, Sheridan sold some Drury Lane 2 8 stock in order to establish a 12,000-pound trust fund.

Richard Brinsley Sheridan was hopelessly entangled in debts and grew more so. By 1808 the financial reputation of his only salvation, the Drury Lane, was so poor that he could 29 no longer raise money by selling shares. The climax sig- nalling the beginning of Sheridan's denouement was the tragic burning of the Drury Lane on February 24, 1809. The insurance paid only a few of the bills. By himself Richard could not rebuild the theatre, even though his share of the patent was valued at 28,000 pounds. Samuel Whitbread, a noted London

Whig and brewer, formed a committee to refinance and rebuild the Drury Lane. Sheridan was to have nothing to do with the management, and even worse, his share of 28,000 pounds was to be held for payment of old debts.30 The new Drury Lane opened

on October, 1812.

At the same time he lost the Drury Lane, Sheridan also

lost his seat in Parliament. Power struggles and shifts of

loyalty caused him to lose support and, with the money from the 28 29 Cove, pp. 168-170. Ibid., p. 232.

30 Ibid., pp. 249-251. See also Glasgow, pp. 245-247. 36 theatre patent held for old debts, he could not pay the 2,000 pound expense of re-election.31 The creditors moved quickly, and Sheridan, no longer protected by Parliament, was jailed in

August, 1813. Sheridan always blamed Whitbread for both the loss of his Parliamentary seat and his imprisonment. Surpris-

ingly it was Whitbread who paid 600 pounds to release Sheri- dan.32 Plagued by debts, sick, living in poverty and the

constant fear of debtors prison, Richard Brinsley Sheridan died on July 7, 1816. The only people in the house with

Sheridan were his wife upstairs and the Sheriff downstairs.33

There are some interesting comparisons and contrasts be-

tween Sheridan and Royall Tyler. Both playwrights maintained

careers of public service in which they were known as wits and

orators; both were highly successful in their public careers;

both lost one parent early; both were only briefly playwrights;

and both died in ill health and poverty. There were also some

differences. The Contrast was written when Tyler was thirty;

Sheridan had married, written five plays, and purchased the

Drury Lane by the time he was thirty. Tyler was born reasonably

well-to-do; Sheridan was born in debt. Tyler wrote plays for

pleasure; Sheridan wrote plays for money. Tyler had no scandal

in his public service; Sheridan was continually involved in

scandal. Tyler died among friends; Sheridan died alone. Tyler

31Cove, p. 248. 32Ibid., p. 257.

3Ibid.,pp. 270-272. 37 was buried quietly; Sheridan was buried with pomp and ceremony. The similarities and differences of the two men have no importance in the works or influence of either man; they are merely interesting.

Unfortunately, the 1777 London debut of The School for

Scandal could not be repeated in the American colonies. They were at war with Britain, and all professional theatre activity was halted until 1784. Sheridan provided a further obstacle by not allowing an approved text to be published until after his death.3 4 Piracy was not uncommon and a false text was printed in Dublin in 1780, and again in 1781. 35

Robert Bell, a patriot, printed The Real and Genuine School for Scandal in Philadelphia in 1782. The name obviously was meant to lend credence to the American reprint of the Dublin text.36 The Military Thespians, managed by Sir Henry Clinton,

a group of British amateurs, produced The School for Scandal

in New York on April 15 and 22, 1782. 37 Clinton's group probably used the Dublin text, as no other was in print.

The School for Scandal could have been widely read in the

United States during the latter part of the war, but it is

34 George H. Nettleton, Arthur E. Case, and George Win- chester Stone, Jr., editors, British Dramatists from Dryden to Sheridan (Boston, 1969), p. 831.

35Ibid., p. 941. 36Ibid.

3 7 George H. Nettleton, "Sheridan's Introduction to the American Stage," Publications of the Modern Language Associ- ation, LXV (March, 1950), pp. 171-172. 38

doubtful that very many patriots viewed the two British productions. On February 3, 1784, Dennis Ryan produced the first professional production of The School for Scandal in the United

States.38 True American success of Sheridan's comedy, however, was accomplished by the American Company managed by Henry and

Hallam. John Henry had been given the text of The School for

Scandal by Richard Sheridan.39 At the beginning of the war

the American Company, which was the only professional company

of any stature in the Americas, withdrew to Jamaica.40 Hallam

and Henry did not withdraw to idleness but maintained active

seasons and polished their repertoire. The School for Scandal

was first presented in the Kingston Theatre on May 26, 1781,

and later in Montego Bay on March 20, 1784, and April 5, 1785.41

They returned to New York and the John Street Theatre and pre-

sented the play on December 12, 1785.42 The School for Scandal

was presented seven times during the 1785-1786 season and

shared the honor of being the first British play to achieve a

38 Ibid., pp. 176-177. The location of the performance is given as Baltimore by Glenn Hughes, The American Theatre (New York, 1951), p. 51.

39 Nettleton, "Sheridan's Introduction," p. 176. Nettleton has compared this text (called the Gaines text) with the official Crewe manuscript and has found the Gaines text to be official.

40 Seilhamer, Vol. II, p. 137. 4 1 Ibid. See also Nettleton, "Sheridan's Introduction," pp. 165-166.

4 2 Nettleton, "Sheridan's Introduction," p. 176.

------39

successful run on the American stage. The Poor Soldier also earned the distinction of a run in the same season, and was performed eighteen times.43 In 1786, Hugh Gaines of New York printed The School for Scandal from a copy in the possession

of John Henry and repudiated the Bell edition of 1782.44

Credit for the success of The School for Scandal in the United

States belongs to the American Company and to Hallam and

Henry.4 5

In any one period of time, enough material can be gathered

to reveal a myriad of influences acting upon the dominant genre.

During Sheridan's active career there were many plays illus-

trating the forces of Shakespeare, the comedy of humours of

Ben Jonson, the comedy of character of Moliere, the comedy of

manners of English Restoration writers, and the sentimental

comedy of eighteenth century playwrights.46 Another fact of

research is that in any period of theatrical activity, a genre

considered inactive may, under closer examination, be found to

be active but historically ignored in favor of a more active

43 Seilhamer, pp. 178-182. Actual dates are given.

44 Nettleton, British Dramatists, p. 941, and "Sheridan's Introduction," p. 176. Since the Gaines edition is authentic and is the one seen and perhaps read by Tyler, and since it does compare with the Crewe manuscript, the following study will use the edition of Crewe found in Nettleton's, British Dramatists, pp. 831-876. A review of The Real and Genuine School for Scandal (Bell, 1782), printed in Philadelphia and based on the Dublin edition, revealed no basis for comparison with The Contrast.

4 5 Nettleton, "Sheridan's Introduction," p. 182. 4 6 Henry Ten Eyck Perry, The Comic Spirit in Restoration Drama (New York, 1962), pp. 129-142.

------40 and popular style. For example, the years 1660 through 1780 have generally been divided into the period of the Restoration comedy of manners within the years 1660 to 1710, followed by eighteenth century sentimental comedy within the years 1710 to

1780. There is ample evidence, however, to consider that the comedy of manners never was discarded but was continued, without a break, through the period of the sentimental comedy.4 7

Therefore, sentimental comedy is not a substitute for the comedy of manners but is a broadening of theatrical tastes and a force which effected some change upon the Restoration theatrical vogue of manners. The School for Scandal exists at the junc- ture of the two variant schools of dramatic literature and reveals elements of both.4 8

The term comedy of manners is defined by Nicoll as being a comedy of habits as opposed to the Jonsonian comedy of humours or personality. In other words the playwright makes an attempt to satirize the pecularities or foibles of his sub- jects. The comedy of manners playwright usually included several specific characteristics in his plays.

In the main, we may say, the invariable elements of the comedy of manners are the presence of at least one pair of witty lovers, the woman as emancipated

4 7 Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 162-171.

48 Andrew Schiller, "The School for Scandal: The Restora- tion Unrestored," Publications of the Modern Language Associ- ation, LXXI (September, 1956), 704.

49 Nicoll, Vol. I, p. 196ff. 41

as the man, their dialogue free and graceful, an air of refined cycicism over the whole production, the plot of less consequence than the wit, an ab- sence of crude realism, a total lack of any emotion whatsoever. 5 0

The definition given in Nettleton, Case, and Stone agrees basically with Nicoll but adds the elements of "actions which violate the standard moral code, intellectualized licentious-

ness . . . and the constant predatory pursuit of male and

female by one another. . .. ."51 Schiller believes that the

young pair of lovers is usually balanced by an older, bawdy

pair of lovers and that the primary factor in the comedy of

manners is the struggle between the socially elite and the

parvenu.52 The socially elite is ridiculous in his efforts

to maintain his position, and the parvenu is ridiculous in his

efforts to enter and emulate society. This does not, however,

limit the comic potential to these types, for no character is

free to escape humiliation.53 The moral code mentioned by

Nettleton was " . . . an ideal code of behavior that placed

value on such qualities as sincerity, honesty, humility,

self-knowledge; sympathy, kindliness, and charity displayed

toward one's fellow man; a sense of fairness and loyalty; and,

perhaps most of all, good sense. . . ."54 The humor occurred

50Ibid., p. 197. 51Nettleton, British Dramatists, p. 149.

52 Schiller, pp. 696-697.

5 3 Nettleton, British Dramatists, p. 150.

54 Ibid. 42 in watching the characters, each believing he was following the code, fail to achieve perfection.5 5

About the turn of the century, attacks on the licentious quality of Restoration comedy and changes in the attitudes of the audiences initiated sentimental comedy. Public desires turned toward more obvious moralizing, more emotional release, and more exemplary characters on stage.56 Thus sentimental comedy recognized the basic goodness of man, emphasized his virtues, forgave his transgressions, and appealed to the less jocular emotions of the audience.57 Sentimentalists recognized that though man was imperfect, he was also perfectable, and they became involved in the social, moral, and intellectual issues of the day for the purpose of changing man and society.5 8

Since the genre did present the goodness of man, it avoided ribaldry and licentiousness in favor of moralizing and sentimental bromides. Virtue had its own reward, which was often quite handsome. Many of the plays also reveal more attention being paid to the lower merchant- classes and a turn from city life to country life.5 9

55 Ibid.

56 Ibid., p. 395. Nicoll, Vol. II, p. 180 overlaps the two periods and places the beginning of sentimentalism as c. 1680.

57 Nicoll, Vol. II, pp. 180ff.

5 8 Nettleton, British Dramatists, p. 396.

59 Ibid. See also Nicoll, Vol. II, pp. 179-180. 43

Schiller has stated that any concise definition will have its exceptions in plays which do not quite fit the mode,60 and

Nicoll has further mentioned that both the comedy of manners and the sentimental comedy at times are "intangible" and difficult to define.61 Nettleton, Case, and Stone have concluded that not only does The School for Scandal contain elements of manners and sentimentalism, but also contains elements of Jon- sonian humours.62 In any definition there must be a point of consensus in which departures are recognized but not utilized.

Since the preponderance of authority omits the Jonsonian influence, The School for Scandal will be discussed in this study in terms of the comedy of manners and s ntimental comedy as previously defined.

The School for Scandal has been variously called a comedy of manners play, 63 the greatest comedy of manners written in 6 5 the English language, 64 the masterpiece of artificial comedy,

60 Schiller, pp. 694-697.

61 Nicoll, Vol. II, p. 179, and Vol. I, p. 196.

6 2Nettleton, British Dramatists, p. 710.

63Frank M. Whiting, An Introduction to the Theatre (New York and Evanston, 1961), p. 54.

6 4 Oscar Brockett and Lenyth Brockett, Plays for the Theatre (New York, 1974), p. xiv.

6 5 Henry Frowde, The Dramatic Works of Richard Brinsley Sheridan (London, 1966), p. xiii. 44

66 and laughing comedy. Schiller calls The School for Scandal a "neo-Restoration, high comedy of manners."67 In this definition he espouses the idea that Sheridan tried to restore some of the brilliance of the dialogue and wit of the Res- toration manners plays and yet restrain their excesses to suit the tastes of the eighteenth century audiences. Also implicit in the definition is the theory that the play is "high" comedy, which it is. Sheridan's theatrical world is the world of the haute monde, in which every character, with the exceptions of servants and persons who perform various services such as

Rowley and Moses, is a person who exists within the society of high fashion. Sheridan was not trying to reincarnate the spirit of the Restoration masters. As manager of the Drury

Lane his plays and the plays staged by his company had to make money, had to be box office successes. He was aware of the moods, desires, and tastes of his audiences, who were in turn, attuned to the fashion of sentimentality.

The elements of sentimental comedy in The School for

Scandal are integral to the plot and are used as the foils of satire. Joseph Surface is the primary vehicle through which

Sheridan lampoons sentimentalism. Lady Sneerwell is a cohort

6 6 Nettleton, British Dramatists, p. ix. Nettleton, Case, and Stone use the term "laughing comedy" to distinguish the works of Goldsmith and Sheridan, who produced comedy of laughter, from the works of the sentimentalists, who produced comedy of tears.

67 Schiller, p. 694. 45 of Joseph Surface, and yet she gives him a scathing denunci- ation. "I have found him Joseph out a long time since---I know him to be artful, selfish, and malicious---in short, a

sentimental knave. "68 Sir Peter Teazle is deluded by the morality exhibited by Joseph, but Sir Oliver Surface is aware that sentiments are merely a facade.

Sir Pet. . . . Joseph is, indeed, what a youth should be---everybody in the world speaks well of him. Sir Oliv. I am sorry to hear it---he has too good a character to be an honest fellow.---Everybody speaks well of him! Pshal then he has bowed as low to knaves and fools as to the honest dignity of genious or virtue. Sir Pet. What, Sir Oliver! do you blame him for not making enemies? Sir Oliv. Yes, if he has merit enough to deserve them. Sir Pet. Well, well---you'll be convinced when you know him. 'Tis edification to hear him converse--- he professes the noblest sentiments. Sir Oliv. Ah, plague of his sentiments! If he salutes me with a scrap of morality in his mouth, I shall be sick directly.6 9

After Charles Surface and Sir Peter Teazle have discovered

Joseph's indiscretions toward Lady Teazle, Charles says,

"Brother Joseph , I'm sorry to find you have given that

worthy man Sir Peter Teazle so much uneasiness.---Sir Peter!

there's nothing in the world so noble as a man of sentiment." 70

Indeed, Joseph's actions have caused even his former mentor

6 8 Richard Brinsley Sheridan, The School for Scandal, I, i, as printed in Nettleton, British Dramatists, pp. 833-876.

6 9Ibid., II, iii.

70 Ibid., IV, iii. 46 to turn against sentiment; "Hold, my dear Rowleyl if you have any regard for me, never let me hear you utter anything like a sentiment---I have had enough of them to serve me the rest of my life."71 The character of Joseph Surface is an extended parody of the excesses of sentimentalism.

The sentimental ideals of basic goodness and the rewards of virtue are illustrated in six characters: Sir Peter Teazle,

Lady Teazle, Rowley, Charles Surface, Sir Oliver Surface, and

Maria. Sir Peter, Sir Oliver, Rowley, and Maria exhibit their basic goodness early and never waver. In fact the greatest desire Sir Peter has is to live life in his own way and to have Lady Teazle become again the unaffected girl he first married. "Yet I chose with caution----a girl bred wholly in

the country, who never knew luxury beyond one silk gown, nor

dissipation above the annual gala of a race ball. Yet now

she plays her part in all the extravagant of the fashion and

the town, with as ready grace as if she had never seen a bush

nor a grass plat out of Grosvenor Squarel" For his con-

stancy he is regarded with Lady Teazle's penitence and re-

jection of the world of fashion.7 3

The ward of Sir Peter Teazle, Maria, is a person of sen-

timent and yet a direct contradiction to Joseph. Her feelings

71 Ibid., V, ii.

72 Ibid., I, ii. See also III, i, and V, ii.

73 Ibid., IV, iii. 47 and morals are a reflection of innate goodness, and she is not

lampooned, but is rewarded. In her role of the exemplar of

goodness, Maria expresses several noble ideas. " . . . wit

loses its respect with me, when I see it in company with malice." 7 "We have pride, envy, rivalship, and a thousand motives to depreciate each other; but the male slanderer must have the cowardice of a woman before he can traduce one." 7 5

"If to raise malicious smiles at the infirmities and misfor- tunes of those who have never injured us be the province of wit or humor, heaven grant me a double portion of dulness."7 6

Maria's fondest wish is to be married to Charles Surface, yet he is considered a profligate and bounder by all. In accord with the request of Sir Peter and the opinions of society,

Maria abstains from seeing Charles and is rewarded when Charles

is vindicated and thus free to marry her.

Sir Oliver Surface and Rowley parallel each other's de-

sires. Sir Oliver wishes only to discover that one of the two nephews, Charles or Joseph, is a true man and, therefore, worthy of the Surface name and Sir Oliver's fortune. Rowley, once the servant of Charles' and Joseph's deceased father, wants only to disprove the libel heaped upon Charles and to prove that Charles is basically good and, according to one of

74Ibid., I, i. 75Ibid. 76Ibid., II, ii. 48 the tenets of sentimentalism, perfectible. 7 Charles proves himself honest, loyal, and compassionate, and justifies the

faith of his uncle, Sir Oliver, and his old friend, Rowley.

Lady Teazle and Charles Surface illustrate the sentimental belief that though people may err, they are perfectible, and their transgressions may be forgiven. The excitement and color of the haute monde existence lured the "country bred" Lady

Teazle into the easy ways of scandal-mongering and rumor

spreading. However, her primally virtous rural training would never allow full commitment to the scandalous social circle,

and she eventually realized true worth, repented, and received the full welcome and wealth of Sir Peter Teazle.78 Charles

Surface was extravagant, bankrupt, and in constant debt to

local usurers. Naturally he is found to be generous with his

less fortunate fellows in spite of his own troubles and he exhibits loyalty to the uncle, Sir Oliver, whom he has never met. His two graces greatly overcome his forgivable faults; he is penitent and wins the love and hand of Maria, and the promise of Sir Oliver's fortune.7 9

Sheridan also uses, as integral to the plot, other identi-

fiable characteristics of the sentimental comedy, such as the

7 7 Ibid., I, ii. See also II, iii and III, i.

78 Ibid., II, i. See also IV, iii and V, ii.

7 9 Ibid., I, ii. See also II, iii; III, i; IV, i and ii; and iii. 49 basic goodness of man, the perfectibility of errant man, the rewarding of virtue, the emphasizing of virtue, and he focuses a modicum of attention on the desirability of country life.

Not all his characters are basically good. Joseph Surface and

Lady Sneerwell never admit they are wrong. Crabtree and Sir

Benjamin Backbite reveal no worthy qualities. Mrs. Candour, though expressing the noblist of sentiment and goodness, manages to do as much damage and evil as any of the other

characters. The School for Scandal is openly involved in ridiculing the evils of high society, as well as the evils of

sentimental excesses.

One other concession to the mores of eighteenth century

audiences is made by Sheridan; he never allows the dialogue to become as bawdy as the dialoge of his Restoration predecessors.8 0

The lusty scenes between Young Fashion and Coupler, between

Berinthia and Lovelace, and between Amanda and Worthy in The

Relapse8 1 make Sheridan's scene between Joseph Surface and

Lady Teazle seem quite tame.

Jos. Surf. Now, my dear Lady Teazle, if you, would but once make a trifling faux pas, you can't conceive how cautious you would grow---and how

80 J. R. Dej. Jackson, "The Importance of Witty Dialogue in The School for Scandal," Modern Language Notes, LXXVI (Novem- ber, 1961), 603. See also Schiller, p. 704; Nicoll, Vol. III, p. 161; and Price, p. 133.

81 John Vanbrugh, The Relapse, I, iii; IV, iii; and V, iv, respectively, as printed in Nethercot, British Dramatists, pp. 257-305. 50

ready to humor and agree with your husband. Lad. Teaz. Do you think so? Jos. Surf. Oh, I'm sure on't; and then you would find all scandal would cease at once, for--- in short, your character at present is like a person in a plethora, absolutely dying of too much health.8 2

Unlike some of the Restoration playwrights, this scene by

Sheridan contains no elements of open physical or verbal licentiousness.

There are, however, other elements of the comedy of manners in The School for Scandal. Lady Teazle, Lady Sneerwell, and Maria are emancipated. Lady Teazle is the most liberalized of the three and, in keeping with the ideals of her new circle of city friends, can say to Sir Peter, "What! though I was edu-

cated in the country, I know very well that women of fashion

in London are accountable to nobody after they are married. . .

Authority! No to be sure---if you wanted authority over me, you should have adopted me, and not married me. . . .1"83 Lady

Sneerwell uses her freedom to pursue men as actively as men pursue women. "Must I confess that Charles . . . that he it

is for whom I am most anxious and malicious, and to gain whom

I would sacrifice everything?"84 Maria, though obedient to her guardian, Sir Peter, when he asks that she refuse to see

Charles, exerts her liberty and refuses to honor his request that she marry Joseph. "'Tis true, by my father's will, I am

82Sheridan, IV, iii. 83Ibid., II, i.

84 Ibid., I, i. 51

for a short period bound to regard you as his substitute, but

must cease to think you so, when you would compel me to be

miserable.,,85

The pair of witty lovers is not as strongly developed in

The School for Scandal as perhaps it might have been. Joseph 86 Surface plays two scenes with Lady Teazle and one scene with

Maria. The scene with Maria is relatively short and resolves

nothing. The two dialogues with Lady Teazle are also short

and, though they contain more wit, are latent in their de-

velopment. The most striking male--female confrontations are

between Sir Peter and Lady Teazle. She is yound and he is

old, so they cannot be classified as either the young, witty

lovers or the older, bawdy pair. Instead they are an example

of the older man who marries a young wife. The comic potential

is great, for as Sir Peter ruefully states, "AhL Master Rowley, when an old bachelor married a young wife, he deserves---no---

the crime carries the punishment along with it."88 Sheridan

must have recognized the value of the relationship, for the

Teazle scenes have more variety of emotion and more wit than

do the other scenes.

The struggle between parvenu and socially elite is also

visible in the plot of The School for Scandal. Sir Peter Teazle would very happily exist with no contact with the stilted

85I86

8Ibid.,Ibid., II, ii. 88II, Ibid., II,ii.I, ii. 52

society of the Sneerwell group. He has, regretfully, married a young girl who cannot live without her city friends. Conse- quently, she is ridiculous in her attempts to enter the life of the elite, and Sir Peter is laughable since he is dragged

along in spite of his lack of desire.

Sir Pet. Aye---there's another precious cir- cumstancel---a charming set of acquaintance you have made there. Lady Teaz. Nay, Sir Peter, they are people of rank and fortune, and remarkably tenacious of reputation. Sir Pet. Yes, egad, they are tenacious of reputation with a vengeance; for they don't choose anybody should have a character but themselves! . . . Well, well, I'll call in just to look after my own character.8 9

Joseph is another parvenu who believes he is really a part of haute monde. The audience can clearly see that he is accepted only because his uncle, Sir Oliver, has money, and Joseph is, thus, an object of amusement.

Not all the characters who are eligible desire to be a part of the leisurely rich, nor are they all objects of ridicule. Sir Oliver is a very serious, wholesome person who

could have been laughable if Charles Surface had sold the portrait of Sir Oliver.9 0 Maria also exists on the fringes of the Sneerwell set and has no desire to engage in any of the activities of gossiping and scandaling. She is not a comic figure, because she is true to herself and her position.9

89Ibid., I, ii. 90Ibid., IV i. 9 Ibid., I, i. 53

The contrast between the genuine world of these genuine people and the stilted, superficial environment of Crabtree,

Sneerwell, Candour, Backbite, and Snake, is greater than if

The School for Scandal were completely void of realism. The scandal group is also funnier because of the heightened contrast achieved by Sheridan. There are examples, however, in both groups of those who violate the standard moral codes each has established. Joseph Surface tries to exist in the sentimental world of Maria, as well as the social circle of Lady

Sneerwell, and falls far short of both.92 Charles, on the other hand, has real emotions, avoids the haute monde and, though he does have some vices, falls just a little short of 93 the established code of the Sir Oliver, Sir Peter group. Lady Sneerwell commits the unforgivable violation of the code of fashion by falling in love with Charles Surface and, like

Joseph, fails.94

Some of Sheridan's dialogue is reminiscent of the earlier

Restoration playwrights, especially during the scenes at Lady

Sneerwell's house. The conversation exhibits clever turns and plays on words, and sprightly repartee.

Lady Sneer. 0, surely, she's a pretty woman. Crab. I am very glad you think so, ma'am. Mrs. Can. She has a charming fresh color. Lady Teaz. Yes, when it is fresh put on. Mrs. Can. Oh field I'll swear her color is natural---I have seen it come and go.

92Ibid. 93Ibid., V, iii. 94 Ibid.,I, i.

m, , , q . --, im 11, t, -1 , ,, , Iz " -, , - , - -, ",:. , , , - , , . - , "., k, -- , , . -- , ;,.- - , -- I " '.. "-" -,,, ---- I I 54

Lady Teaz. I dare swear you have, ma'am--- 95 it goes of a night, and comes again in the morning.

Crabtree and Sir Benjamin Backbite, in the same scene, engage in a lively extended metaphor.

Crab. Oh, to be sure She has the oddest coun- tenance that was ever seen; 'tis a collection of features from all the different countries of the globe. Sir Ben. So she has, indeed---an Irish front. Crab. Caledonian locks! Sir Ben. Dutch nose Crab. Austrian lip! Sir Ben. Complexion of a Spaniard! Crab. And teeth a la Chinoisel Sir Ben. In short, her face resembles a table d'hote at Spa---where no two guests are of a nation--- Crab. Or a congress at the close of a general war---wherein all the members, even to her eyes, appear to have a different interest, and her nose and 6 chin are the only parties likely to join issue.9

The famous "screen scene" in The School for Scandal, though not original with Sheridan, is the device through which the parallel subplots are resolved. Joseph Surface has been ardently pursuing both Maria and Lady Teazle, while courting the favor of Sir Peter. neither of the ladies is aware of

Joseph's attention to the other, and in this scene Lady Teazle has just arrived at Joseph's apartment. Joseph, at last, can

visualize success with at least one of his amours. The servant

announces the unexpected arrival of Sir Peter, followed by

Charles Surface; Joseph watches, aghast, as all his plans

evaporate. In this one hilarious scene, Sheridan proves him-

self the master of comic irony and double meaning. Lady Teazle hides behind a large screen.

9 6 95 Ibid., II, ii. Ibid.

mamma 55

Sir Pet. 'Tis very neat indeed. Well, well, that's proper; and you even make your screen a source of knowledge---hung, I perceive, with maps. Jos. Surf. Oh, yes, I find great use in that screen. Sir Pet. I dare say you must---certainly----when you want to find anything in a hurry. Jos. Surf. aside Aye, or to hide anything in a hurry either

Sir Pet. Yes, 'tis but too plain she Lady Teazle has not the least regard for me; but, what's worse, I have pretty good authority to suspect she must have formed an attachment to another. Jos. Surf. You astonish me. Sir Pet. Yesi and, between ourselves, I think I have discovered the person. Jos. Surf. Howl you alarm me exceedingly. Sir Pet. Aye, my dear friend, I knew you would sympathize with me! Jos. Surf. Yes, believe me, Sir Peter, such a discovery would hurt me just as much as it would you.

Sir Pet. And now, my dear friend, if you please, we will talk over the situation of your hopes with Maria. Jos. Surf. I beg you will not mention it. What are my disappointments when your happiness is in de- bateL (softly)--'Sdeath, I shall be ruined every way. Sir Pet. And though you are so averse to my ac- quainting Lady Teazle with your passion, I am sure she's not your enemy in the affair.

The servant announces Charles, and Sir Peter hides in the closet, thinking that perhaps Charles may deny any affiliation with Lady Teazle.

Chas. Surf. .--- But, brother do you know now that you surprise me exceedingly, by naming me, with Lady Teazle; for, by faith, I alway sic under- stood you were her favorite. Jos. Surf. Oh, for shame, Charlesl This re- tort is foolish. Chas. Surf. Nay, I swear I have seen you ex- change such significant glances--- Jos. Surf. Nay, nay, sir, this is no jest--- 56

Chas. Surf. Egad, I'm serious'. Don't you remember---one day when I called here--- Jos. Surf. Nay, prithee, Charles--- Chas. Surf . And found you together--- Jos. Surf. Zounds, sir, I insist--- Chas. Surf. And another time, when your servant---9 7

The School for Scandal exhibits all the wit, bustle, and brilliance of the comedy of manners, yet manages to observe 98 the mores and esthetics of the sentimental comedy. The elements of both styles are so mixed in the play that it can be

termed neither one nor the other, but rather a "neo-Restoration high comedy of manners.''9 9

97Ibid., IV, iii. 98Schiller, p. 704. 99Ibid., p. 94. CHAPTER IV

THE CONTRAST AND THE SCHOOL FOR SCANDAL:

A COMPARISON

The elements of comedy of manners and sentimental comedy are as mixed in The Contrast as they are in The School for

Scandal. The definition given by Schiller of Sheridan's play does not accurately describe Tyler's comedy; The Contrast is not a "high comedy." Colonel Manly and his aide, Jonathan, are not products of the haute monde, nor do they wish to be. 2 Manly states that his personal fortune is not great and Jona- than boasts that " . . . my father has as good a farm as the 3 colonel Manly ." In the newly formed United States all men were created equal; the society of classes was a European concept and, especially in The Contrast, a British practice. As

Jonathan says, "Why, I swear we don't make any great matter of distinction in our state, between quality and other folks." 4

The haute monde is represented in The Contrast as an affectation of a British manner and is presented as a decided an- tithesis to the American ideal of the classless society.

Schiller, p. 694. 2Tyler, The Contrast, V, ii.

3 Ibid., II, ii. 4 Ibid.

57 58

Therefore, some elements of comedy of manners found in The

School for Scandal appear differently when viewed in The

Contrast.

The struggle between the socially elite and the parvenu does exist in Tyler's comedy. Dimple was merely a young

American man-about-town with a rather substantial inheritance until, after a brief sojourn in England, he returned a man of fashion, a man of the beau monde.

* . . he Dimple had by traveling acquired the wickedness of Lovelace without his wit, and the politeness of Sir Charles Grandison without his generosity.---The rude youth' . . . was now metamorphosed into a flippant, pallid, polite beau, who devotes the morning to his toilet, reads a few of Chesterfield's letters, and then minces out, to put the infamous principles in practice upon every woman he meets.6

Dimple also follows the precept that love has nothing to do with either love affairs or marriage and is actively trying to rid himself of the somber Maria, marry the wealthy Letitia,

7 and gain the affections of the lovely Charlotte. As a gentleman it is his duty to obey Lord Chesterfield and avoid anything mean or mundane. Therefore, he adheres to all things

British and avoids all things American and haughtily states,

" . . .For my part, I must confess, that to a man who has traveled, there is nothing that is worthy the name of amusement to be found in this city." 8

6 Ibid., III, i. 7 Ibid. 8Ibid., IV, i. 59

Charlotte, Manly's sister, also follows the ideals of the glittering, superficial elite. Like Lady Teazle, she cannot avoid being swept up in a world so unlike her own that she

is unable to cope with reality. All the mannerisms must be

followed, even to faking a slight trip so the assembled beaux

can see her ankle, and so she can hear them all exclaim, "'Demme,

Jack, what a delicate footP' 'Hal General, what a well- 9 1 turn'd---.'" Nor does she believe in love. " . . . Just as

if a lady could not be privileged to spend a man's fortune,

ride in his carriage, be called after his name, and call him

her own dear lovee sic when she wants money, without loving

and respecting the creature."l1 Charlotte is engaged in a

school of scandal dedicated to the pleasant destruction of

reputations.

OhL how delicious to go and condole with the friends of some back-sliding sister, or to retire with some old dowager or maiden aunt of the family, who love scandal so well, that they cannot forbear gratifying their appetite at the expense of the reputation of their nearest relations! And then to return full fraught with a rich collection of circumstances, to to retail to the next circle of our acquaintance under the strongest injunctions of secrecy,---ha, ha, hal"ll

Within this struggle between the parvenu and the socially

elite, both Dimple and Charlotte are engaged in-,the predatory

pursuit of male by female and female by male. Each feels that

his or her sole duty is to entrap a member of the opposite sex.12

9Ibid., I, i. 10Ibid. 11Ibid. 1 2 Ibid. See also III, i and V, ii. 60

Charlotte is as emancipated in her pursuit of men as Dimple is in his pursuit of women. Nor is Charlotte bound to other rules. Maria feels bound to her father's wishes, 13 but Char- lotte feels no compulsion. " . . . No parent in the world

4 should oblige me to marry the man I did not like."'1

The Contrast also exhibits the comedy of manners' charac- teristic of at least one pair of lovers, even though it does not contain an older, bawdy pair. Dimple is paired with both

Charlotte and Letitia and has dialogue with both in two different scenes.15 The scenes are short, and the dialogue dis- appointingly lacking in the turning of words, playing on words, and use of hidden meaning so delightfully evident in The School for Scandal. The Contrast does contain a surprise pair of witty lovers in the servants Jonathan and Jenny. This use of low characters is one of the comedy of manners elements provided an unusual twist by the theme of the American Ideal in opposition to affectation of the British Manner. Not only is the scene between Jonathan and Jenny longer than the combined

scenes with Dimple and Charlotte and Letitia, it is also better written.

Jonathan Ma' am!--- Jenny Sir!--- Jonathan Ma'am!--- Jenny Pray, how do you like the city, Sir? Jonathan Ma 'am!--- Jenny I say, Sir, how do you like New York?

13Ibid., IV, i. 14~Ibid. 15Ibid., IV, i and V, ii. 61

JonathanMa 'am!--- Jenny The stupid creature I . . . As you don't seem to like to talk, Mr. Jonathan---do you sing? Jonathan . . . Yes, Ma'am, I can sing---I can sing Mear, Old Hundred, and Bangor. Jenny Oh, I don't mean psalm tunes. Have you no little song to please the ladies; such as Roslin Castle, or the Maid of the Mill?

Jonathan I am sure you have heard folks talk about it, it is called Yankee Doodle.

Jonathan I vow, my own town song as put me in such topping spirits, that I believe I'll begin to do a little, as Jessamy says we must when we go a'courting-- (Runs and kisses her) Burning rivers! cooling flames red-hot roses pig-nuts! hasty pudding and ambrosia! Jenny What means this freedom! you in- sulting wretch. (Strikes him) Jonathan Are you affronted? Jenny AffrontedI with what looks shall I express my anger? Jonathan Looks I why, as to the matter of looks, you look as cross as a witch. Jenny Have you no feeling for the delicacy of my sex? Jonathan Feeling! Gor,. I--I feel the delicacy of your sex pretty smartly (rubbing his cheek). . 16

However mean their station, Jenny and Jonathan are examples of a pair of witty lovers.

The Contrast is not as bawdy as some of the Restoration comedies of manners, yet it contains more of the ribald than does The School for Scandal. Actual physical contact occurs between Jenny and Jonathan; Jeramy openly discusses his 18, master's previous "cherubim consequence s" ; and Dimple attempts

17 18 . 16 Ibid., III, i. Ibid. Ibid. 62

to fondle and kiss Charlotte.19 Either Tyler was not so

sensitive to his audience, or the American audience was more

lusty than Sheridan's English audience.

Royall Tyler, again like Sheridan, made some concessions

to the sentimental muse. Dimple is funny because, unlike the

true man of fashion who instinctively does the proper thing, 2 0 he has to read Lord Chesterfield to know what is correct.

Charlotte is also funny, because she submits to the dictates

of a shopkeeper who tells her what is in fashion.21 Neither

of the two knows enough to be fashionably self-sufficient.

However, not all the characters are ridiculed. Maria and

Manly are both exemplary creatures of the noblest sentiment.

They are not laughable, for Tyler does not ridicule sentimental

excesses. It is true that Charlotte makes fun of Manly by

saying, "My brother has a heart replete with the noblest senti-

ments, but then, it is like . . . an old maiden lady's band

box. . . . "22 But Manly is humorous only to the haute monde,

not to the audience. Nor do Manly and Maria violate the moral

code as do Charlotte, Letitia, and Dimple, all of whom fall

far short of the code of the socially elite. Jonathan fails

his code by not honoring his trust with Tabitha and by trying

to woo Jenny.23 The Contrast follows many of the comedy of

manners practices and concedes to sentimental attitudes.

19. 20 21 Ibid., IIII, i. Ibid., V, ii. I

22 Ibid. 23 Ibid., II, ii.

r 63

Dimple, like Joseph Surface, is not aware of his short- comings and is never penitent.24 Charlotte and Letitia illustrate the sentimental basic goodness of man and the forgiving of transgressions by being penitent and asking for pardon.

Jonathan also recognizes that city life and ways are not for him. "If this is the way with your city ladies, give me the twenty acres of rock, the bible, the cow, and Tabitha, and a little peaceable bundling."25 Manly and Maria serve as examples of the true basic goodness of man and emphasize the value of virtue. And true value it is, for Vanrough declares,

"And so, as you love Mary, and Mary loves you, you shall have my consent immediately to get married. I'll settle my fortune on you, and go live with you the remainder of my life."26 Man

is perfectable, his errors should be forgiven, and certainly his virtue must be rewarded.

Royall Tyler capitalizes on two areas of sentimental

drama that Richard Sheridan either ignores or merely touches

upon. Lady Teazle, in The School for Scandal, eventually 7-

proves the value of her country background. However, Sheridan

does not give the virtues of country life a great deal of at-

tention. In The Contrast the rural environment of Colonel

Manly is continually compared with the city experience of

Dimple. The premise of a hard working, honest man of action

being part of the frontier and, consequently, part to the very

24 Ibid., V, ii., 25 Ibid., III, i. 26 Ibid., V, ii. 64 fibre of the United States, is implicit in Tyler's vindication of the American ideal.27 In his ideal Tyler also must place 28 an emphasis on a lack of class structure. Sheridan built

The School for Scandal upon a structured society and made no reference to classmates.

Manly and Charlotte reveal an excess of moralizing common

to sentimental plays.

Manly: . . . it is as justifiable to laugh at folly, as it 2 is reprehensible to ridicult misfortune. 9 . . . the only excuse a young lady can have for going extravagantly into a fashion, issobecause it makes her look extravagantly handsome. In my opinion, the man, who, under pretensions of marriage, _can plant thorns in the bosom of an innocent, unsus- pecting girl,. is more detestable than a common robber, in the same proportion, as private violance is more despicable than open force, and money of less value than happiness.3 1

Maria: .0 . One hundredth part of the land, and a lease for life of the heart of a man I could love, would satisfy me. Ohl how sweet it is, when the heart is borne down with misfortune, to recline and repose on the bosom of a friendship.3 3

Manly can hardly open his mouth but some sentiment is spoken.

Tyler does not allow excesses of sentimentalism to be rid-i-

culed, but instead extols them as virtues of Americanism.

Manly is American, Manly is sentimental, Manly is not funny.

2 7 Ibid., II, i; II, ii; III, iii; IV, i; and V, ii.

28Ibid., II, ii. 29Ibid., II, i. 30Ibid.

31Ibid., III, ii. 32Ibid., I, ii. 3 3Ibid., IV, i. 65

Sheridan lampooned the overabundance of morality, and if his

Sir Oliver Surface were to meet Manly, then Sir Oliver would surely "be sick directly "34

The School for Scandal was defined by Schiller as a neo-Restoration high comedy of manners.35 Even though Royall

Tyler's The Contrast followed elements of both the comedy of manners and of sentimental comedy like The School for Scandal,

The Contrast cannot be given the same definition. Sheridan emphasized satire of manners, Tyler emphasized sentimental

Americanism; Sheridan did not espouse classlessness, Tyler presented classlessness as a precondition of the democratic

American ideal; but both used as a basic vehicle the genre of the comedy of manners. The Contrast can best be defined as a sentimental American comedy of manners.

Just as there are similarities of genre in The Contrast and The School for Scandal, there are also similarities in character. Joseph Surface and Dimple are much alike in their origins, philosophies, and actions. Neither were originally members of the haute monde but have been left money, which enables them to become a part of the idle rich. Joseph receives his money from a rich uncle, Oliver Surface;36 Dimple

3 7 receives his money from the inheritance left by his father.

Both of the young fops desire more money and attempt to obtain

34Sheridan, II, iii. 35Schiller, p. 694. 36 Sheridan, I, ii. 37 Tyler, The Contrast, I, i.

. ---I--- M m M, IAPO"- k - Ilialmloolowlaw" k , .940ppmompom 66 a fortune by marrying into wealth. Joseph wants to wed

Maria;38 Dimple would like to marry Letitia.39 Love, of

course, has nothing to do with marriage, especially where a

fortune is to be earned, and each is actively pursuing another

lady. Dimple is avidly interested in Charlotte,40 and Joseph

would like to acquire Lady Teazle as a lover.41 An inter-

esting facet of their characters is their ability to adapt to

any person's point of view. Joseph Surface professes to all

the beliefs and practices of the haute monde but quickly be-

gins mouthing sentiment when talking to either Maria or Sir

Peter Teazle. Dimple also adheres to the beau monde idea

and begins mouthing sentiment when in the company of a person

like Manly.43 Joseph Surface and Dimple are so alike as to

have been cast from the same mold. Even when all has been

found out, both believe they have done no wrong and have lived

up to the code of the haute monde.4 4

Lady Teazle of The School for Scandal and Charlotte of The

Contrast are as highly similar as are Joseph and Dimple. Both

have come from an agrarian community into the excitement of

city life, with all its accompanying social events, and are im-

mediately enamored of the activities. Each has become involved

38 39 Sheridan, I, i. Tyler, The Contrast, I, i. 40Ibid. 1 Sheridan, IV, iii. 4 2 Ibid., I, i, and IV, iii.

4 3 Tyler, The Contrast, III, i and ii.

44 Ibid., V, ii and Sheridan V, iii. 67 with a group of scandal mongers and feel great delight in the initiating and pruveying of gossip.4 5 Lady Teazle bears an additional burden; she is married to Sir Peter Teazle. Though

she feels free to have a romantic tete-a-tete with Joseph

Surface, she cannot lightly forget her husband, who holds the purse strings.46 Charlotte is unencumbered and completely

free to form a liaison with Dimple.47 Both girls eventually

are aware of the shallow extravagance of the society they

cherish, and each begs forgiveness.4 8

Sir Peter Teazle and Vanrough differ but are also alike

in some ways. They are both older men, rather gruff and de-

manding, self-made, financially independent, and responsible

for the well-being and eventual marriage of a young girl who

will someday inherit a fortune. Sir Peter is in charge of

his deceased friend's daughter, Maria.50 Vanrough has care of

his own daughter, Maria.51 Vanrough evidently married early,

for his wife is dead and Maria is old enough to marry.52 Sir

Peter Teazle waited until he was fifty to marry a young girl,

4 5 Tyler, The Contrast, I, i, and Sheridan, II, i.

46Sheridan, IV, iii. 4 Tyler, The Contrast, I, i.

4 8 Ibid., v, ii and Sheridan, IV, iii. 49 Sheridan, I, ii; III, i and Tyler, The Contrast, I, ii; V, ii.

50Sheridan, I, ii. 51Tyler, The Contrast, I, ii. 52 Ibid.

I POISON 68 who now makes him feel cuckolded. He has the added responsi- bility of Maria and a strong interest in Joseph and Charles 5 3 Surface, whose deceased father was a close friend to Sir Peter.

The two Marias are almost sentimental reflections of one

another. Each is young and wants to marry but each finds her-

self thwarted in obtaining true love. Sheridan's Maria loves

the dissolute Charles Surface and allows public opinion and

Sir Peter's dictates to ostracize Charles. She is strong

enough, however, to refuse Sir Peter's request that she be-

throth herself to Joseph Surface.54 Tyler's Maria is unhappily

engaged to Dimple, a man she cannot love because of his false

and extravagant ways. She is determined to marry him and honor

her father's wishes.55 Both girls get the man of their choice

and marry for love.

The only similarities of character are those of minor

characters. Snake in The School for Scandal and Jessamy,

Dimple's servant in The Contrast, serve as messengers. Snake

is a talented individual who knows all the best gossips and

the right persons to see if Lady Sneerwell wants to spread

the most confidential of rumors. Of course, his services are

for sale to the highest bidder, and he eventually betrays

Sneerwell to Rowley and Sir Oliver.56 Jessamy is used princi-

pally as a letter carrier to further Dimple's social affairs

5 3 Sheridan, I, ii; II, i; and III, i. 54Ibid., III, i.

55Tyler, The Contrast, I, ii. 56Sheridan, I, i and V, iii. 69 and amours.57 He does have his own love, Jenny, whom he tries to win by telling Jonathan to court her, hoping the contrast between the elegant Jessamy and the bumbling Jonathan will en- sure his success with Jenny.5 8

Two other minor characters assume the form of usurers.

Moses, the Jew in The School for Scandal, aids Rowley and

Sir Oliver in their attempt to discover whether or not Charles is worthy of Sir Oliver's love and fortune. Naturally if

Charles is worthy and again becomes affluent, Moses will then have a much better opportunity to receive payment on the loans 59 he made Charles. Mr. Transfer, the broker in The Contrast, never appears onstage and is merely an off stage presence who brings the news of Dimple's debts to Vanrough.6 0

The Contrast contains only nine characters, with walk-ons as servants, compared to the fifteen characters and walk-ons in The School for Scandal. Five of the nine parts written by

Royall Tyler are direct counterparts of five parts written by

Sheridan. One other role, Letitia in The Contrast, can be considered a reflection of one of Sheridan's characters. Tyler presents her as the alter ego of Charlotte. Both girls share the same views, desire marriage to Dimple, and repent in the denouement.61 Since Charlotte is a replica of Lady Teazle,

57Tyler, The Contrast, II, ii and III, i. 58Ibid.

5 9 Sheridan, III, i; III, ii; III, iii; IV, i; and IV, ii.

6 0 Tyler, The Contrast, I, ii and V, ii. 6 1 Ibid.,, I, i; II, i; IV, i; and V,i. 70 then Letitia must also be a replica of Lady Teazle. The three remaining characters have no counterpart in Sheridan's

The School for Scandal and must be considered separately.

Jenny is the least important and can be explained simply as the tool used to create comic variety in the Jonathan-Jessamy

scenes. She appears in no other scenes and has no other action than that with the two male servants.

Colonel Manly is a leader, a soldier who fought in the

Revolution and has come to New York on a mission not revealed by Tyler. Tyler's portrait of Manly is not very flattering, for Manly is unbending in his beliefs, unendingly given to moralistic platitudes, and void of warmth. His only enthusiasm

is his record of service in the military as a true American patriot.62 Charles Surface in The School for Scandal is the one character who might parallel Manly, but they are completely opposite. Charles has several faults as well as several weak- nesses.3 Manly appears to have neither fault nor weakness.6 4

Charles repents his wrongs and promises, with the good Maria's help, to try to become a better person. Of course, he is to 65 be rewarded for his latent virtues. Manly has nothing to

improve himself. He has, however, " . . . learned that probity,

6263 Ibid., II, i and III, ii. Sheridan, I. ii and II, iii.

6 4 Tyler, The Contrast, II, i and IV, i.

65 Sheridan, V, iii. 71 virtue, honour, though they should not have received the polish of Europe, will secure to an honest American the good graces of his fair country, woman, and, I hope, the applause of THE PUBLIC."66 The one common denominator to Manly and

Joseph is that both are rewarded for their relative virtues.6 7

Tyler's purpose in creating Manly was to invent a solid Ameri- can hero who would contrast in every way with the young men who felt that nothing in the United States was worthwhile and that a man of fashion should emulate the British. In fact

Tyler blatantly admits that his theme is that of American ideals versus British manners:

But modern youths, with imitative sense, Deem taste in dress the proof of excellence; And spurn the meanness of your homespun arts, Since homespun habits would obscure their pasts; Whilst all, which aims at splendor and parade, Must come from Europe, and be ready made. Strangely we should thus our native worth disclaim, And check the progress of our rising fame.68

The last character who has no counterpart in The School for Scandal is Jonathan. Tyler has, very generously, given

Jonathan three full scenes and some lines at the end of the play.69 The part is as large and as important as the role of

Manly. Jonathan is warm, funny, bumbling, shrewd, and innocent.

His role is cast as the opposite of the smooth, self-assured,

66 Tyler, The Contrast, V, ii.

67Tyler, The Contrast, V, ii. 68Ibid., prologue.

6 9 Tyler, The Contrast, II, ii; III, i; V, i; and V, ii. 72

British styled, affected Jessamy, servant to Dimple. Even their roles are different. Jessamy is proud of being a servant, but Jonathan is proud of being free, the equal of any man, and waiter, not servant, to Colonel Manly. Another interesting fact is that Jonathan seems to possess all the warmth and frailty of humanity, which is lacking in Manly. Manly appears to have a morality and upright strength of character not completely shared by Jonathan. Each also represents variant types of citizen. Manly is the leader, thinker, doer; and

Jonathan is the follower, worker, the one who takes time to enjoy life. By himself Manly would appeal to no one, for he is too stiff, too formal. But combined with Jonathan, Manly can represent the American Ideal and appeal to a wide range of audiences. Combined, they also are more nearly the counterpart of Charles Surface, with his failings and his strengths.

The Contrast has many common elements of genre and character with The School for Scandal, as well as uncommon elements.

When ,both similarities and differences are examined, it is then possible to explore the validity of the statement that

The School for Scandal was the model for The Contrast.

70 Ibid., II, ii. CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

During the presentation of the conclusion, it is well to remember that The School for Scandal was the fifth play written by Richard Brinsley Sheridan, and that Sheridan was a member of a society long accustomed to viewing plays. He was a member of a family who had been associated with the theatre for thirty-four years before The School for Scandal was produced.

Sheridan had been writing plays for two years previously and was the owner-manager of the Theatre Royal at Drury Lane. His major contributions to the theatre were accomplished by the time he was twenty-six years old. It is also well to remember that The Contrast was the first play written by Royall Tyler, and that Tyler was a member of a society with a long history of antipathy toward professional theatre. His family was primarily occupied with politics and business. Tyler studied law and received a B.A. and an M.A. from Harvard, an honorary B.A. from Yale, and established a thriving law practice and a growing reputation as a wit and orator. His participation in quelling

Shays' Rebellion led Tyler to New York where he wrote The

Contrast, Tyler's only major contribution to the theatre was not accomplished until he was thirty years old. Tyler was a

73 74 man of law and letters; Sheridan a man of poetry and the theatre. Tyler would have been a remarkable genius if The

Contrast were as brillian a comedy as was The School for

Scandal.

Since Tyler did not admit or even imply that he used The

School for Scandal as a model for The Contrast, then the problem of determining a possible relationship between the two plays becomes one of examining existing internal evidence.

Sheridan was a much more skilled artisan than was Tyler. This fact alone makes comparison of language, complexity of plot, depth of character, and development of dialogue difficult to accomplish. Dunlap feels The Contrast " . . . is extremely deficient in plot, dialogue, or incident. . . ." Tansell indicates that Tyler is not known for his skill but " . . . it is through his literary productions and his use of native

American materials in literature that has earned him a place in the history of the young republic."2 Frederick Tupper feels that The School for Scandal was much better written than

The Contrast.3 Even an analysis of construction is futile, since neither play contains a striking deviation from the existing conventions. Tyler knew the requirements of the basic

1Dunlap, p. 137.

2 Tanselle, "Some Uncollected Authors," pp. 307-308.

3 Frederick Tupper, "Royall Tyler, Man of Law and Man of Letters," Procedures of the Vermont Historical Society, IV (1928), p. 73. 75 format, such as a prologue, five acts, loose adherence to the unities, as did Sheridan.4 The Contrast contains no scenes or even passages of dialogue which can be directly traced to

The School for Scandal. Thus, the evidence of language, complexity of plot, depth of character, and development of dialogue supports only the conclusion that Tyler was not as skilled a playwright as was Sheridan.

The additional evidence of genre, character, and plot, however, provides more substantial bases for comparison.

Enough elements of the comedy of manners and of the sentimental comedy exist in each of the plays to conclude that they are fundamentally the same dramatic type. Tyler does deviate from Sheridan by presenting sentimental excesses as normal and healthy in his definition of the true American spirit. He also uses the haute monde as a backdrop for his action rather than an environment, and, consequently, establishes the precept that classes should be avoided. Sheridan does not want to avoid class structure but wants to lampoon their inherent excesses. Therefore, genre alone is not enough evidence to support the claim that Tyler imitated Sheridan.

More definite support exists in the casts of characters, because six of Tyler's nine characters are exact or almost exact duplicates of five of the characters in The School for

Scandal. If the theory that Jonathan and Manly are but two

4 Nethercot, p. 437. 76 facets of Charles Surface is accepted, then the comparison becomes even more striking. The postulate is, however, merely conjecture unsupported by any other experts and, though enter- taining, is moot. Another more reasonable view is that Jona- than and Manly were necessary additions, so that Tyler could project his desire for a worthy American image and way of life.

No character in The School for Scandal could have possibly satisfied that particular need. There was, in Tyler's past and experience and in the political satire before, during, and after the Revolution in the United States, the figure of Yankee

Doodle. This verbal, political caricature was used by the

British as a weapon of ridicule and by the patriots as a sym- bol of defiance. The natural potential of Yankee Doodle may have been the source of Tyler's Manly and Jonathan.5Jenny also has no counterpart but, as has been discussed, she was probably created to add depth to the Jonathan-Jessamy scenes.

Certainly there is no model for her in The School for Scandal.

There is one other piece of internal evidence which might lend clarity to the discussion. The greatest moment, the most hilarious scene in The School for Scandal is the "screen" scene.6 Sheridan uses this incident almost as a deus ex machina to resolve and clarify the parallel plots he has woven.

This is the climax of the comedy, and the sheer horror of

Hodge, pp. 46-47. 6 Sheridan, IV, iii. 77 discovery confronting Joseph Surface is written with skill.

The audience must surely vacillate between gasps of delight and breathless laughter. Tyler, too, has a type of screen scene, which acts as a deus ex machina. If the scene does not have the cleverness, surprise, and delight of Sheridan's scene, it is because Tyler is not as qualified a playwright, for his scene attempts to accomplish the same things as Sheri- dan's. The mechanical differences are that Tyler uses fewer characters and uses a door rather than a screen.

If examined alone, the screen scene would be no better evidence than the other comparisons that have been made. If given the added weight of Tyler's relatively austere theatrical experience and his fortunate viewing of The School for Scandal on March 21, 1787, and subsequently rapid writing of The Con- trast, then it holds more credence. In fact all the positive evidence, when objectively examined, appears to indicate that

The School for Scandal may have been a primary model for The

Contrast.

The negative evidence, however, just as strongly indicates that Tyler may have been writing from more than a mere desire to mimic Sheridan. Certainly such an act would contra- dict Tyler's thesis that Americans should not look to the

British for a model to emulate. Thus Royall Tyler's use of a

"low" person as a major character, his pervasive theme of

7 Tyler, The Contrast, V, i. 78

American versus British manners, and his original creation of

Jonathan indicate that Royall Tyler was more deeply concerned with the evolution of an American image than with the writings of Richard Sheridan. The logical conclusion is that Tyler recognized The School for Scandal as a potential backdrop for his own ideas and, like many playwrights of the day, absorbed the elements and characters he needed to expand his own theme.

It can be said that The School for Scandal was a major source of ready material for The Contrast, but the primary model for

The Contrast, Tyler's own life and times, emerged from the kaleidoscope of a nation and a people being born to a new identity. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Barnes, Clive, The New York Times Directory of the Theatre, New York, Arno Press, Inc., 1973.

Barnes, Clive and John Gassner, editors, 50 Best Plays of the American Theatre, New York, Crown Publishers, Inc., 1969.

Berquist, G. William, Three Centuries of English and American Plays: A Checklist, New York, Readex Micropoint Cor- poration, 1963.

Billias, George Athan, George Washington's Generals, New York, William Morrow and Company, 1964.

Brockett, Oscar, The Theatre, New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1974.

Brockett, Oscar and Lenyth Brockett, Plays for the Theatre, New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1974.

Cady, Edwin H., Literature of the Early Republic, New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1961.

Cameron, Kenneth M. and Theodore J. C. Hoffman, The Theatrical Response, London, The Macmillan Company, 1970.

Chittendon, L. E., Personal Reminisences, 1840-1890, New York, Richmond, Croscup and Co., 1893.

Clapp, William W., A Record of the Boston Stage, Boston, James Munroe and Company, 1853.

Cove, Joseph Walter, Sheridan, London, J. M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1947.

Dunlap, William, History of the American Theatre, 2nd ed., New Burt Franklin, 1963.

Eldredge, H., "The Stage" Cyclopedia, London, Covent Garden, 1909.

79 80

Freedley, George and John A. Reeves, A History of the Theatre, New York, Crown Publishers, Inc., 1968.

Frowde, Henry, The Dramatic Works of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, London, Oxford University Press, 1966.

Gassner, John, A Treasury of the Theatre (3 volumes), New York, Simon and Schuster, 1967.

Glasgow, Alice, Sheridan of Drury Lane, New York, Frederick A. Stokes Co., 1940.

Halline, Allan Gates, American Plays, New York, American Book Co., 1935.

Hill, Frank Pierce, American Plays Printed 1714-1830, Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 1934.

Hodge, Francis, Yankee Theatre, Austin, University of Texas Press, 1964.

Hughes, Glenn, A History of the American Theatre 1700-1950, New York, Samuel French, 1951.

Hurst, T., The Thespian Dictionary, London, J. Cundee, 1802.

KernQdle, .George R., Invitation to the Theatre, New York, Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1967.

Lennep, William Van, et. al., editors, The London Stage 1600- 1800 (11 volumes), Carbondale, Southern Illinois Uni- versity Press, 1965.

Macgowan, Kenneth and William Melnitz, The Living Stage, Engle- wood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955.

Mayorga, Margaret G., A Short History of the American Drama, New York, Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1932.

Moody, Richard, America Takes the Stage, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1955.

Morrison, Samuel Elliot, The Oxford History of the American People, New York, Oxford University Press, 1965.

Moses, Montrose J., The American Dramatist, New York, Benjamin Blom, 1964.

Nettleton, George H., Arthur E. Case and George Winchester Stone, Jr., editors, British Dramatists from Dryden to Sheridan, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969. 81

Nicoll, Allardyce, A History of English Drama 1660-1900 (3 volumes), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1965, 1966, 1955.

Palmer, John, The Comedy of Manners, New York, Russell and Russell, Inc., 1962.

Pearce, Roy Harvey, editor, Colonial American Writing, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

Peladeau, Marius B., editor, The Prose of Royall Tyler, Rut- land, Vermont, The Vermont Historical Society and the Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1972.

,. editor, The Verse of Royall Tyler, Char- lottsville, The University Press of Virginia, 1968.

Perleins, Dexter and Glyndon G. Van Deusen, The United States of America: A History, 2nd ed. (2 volumes), New York, The Macmillan Company, 1968.

Perry, Henry Ten Eyck, The Comic Spirit in Restoration Drama, New York, Russell and Russell, Inc., 1962.

Price, Cecil, editor, The Letters of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, London, Oxford University Press, 1966.

Quinn, Arthur Hobson, A History of the American Drama, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1943.

Rhodes, R., Crompton, editor, The Plays and Poems of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, New York, The Macmillan Company, 1929.

Rourke, Constance, The Roots of American Culture, New York, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1942.

Seilhamer, George 0., History of the American Theatre, Phila- delphia, Globe Printing House, 1889.

Sheridan, Richard Brinsley Butler, The School for Scandal, edited by C. J. L. Price, London, Oxford University Press, 1971.

Sherwin, Oscar, Uncorking Old Sherry: The Life and Times of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, New York, Twayne Publishers, Inc., 1960.

Shipton, Clifford K. and James E. Mooney, National Index of American Imprints Through 1800 (2 volumes), Barre, Mass., Barre Publishers, 1969.

WKA" 82

Smith, Robert Metcalf, editor, Types of Social Comedy, New York, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1931.

Spiller, Robert, et. al., editors, Literary History of the United States, 3rd ed., New York, The Macmillan Company, 1966.

Tanselle, G. Thomas, editor, Guide to the Study of United States Imprints (2 volumes), Cambridge, Massachusetts, The Balknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.

,. Royall Tyler, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1967.

Taubman, Howard, The Making of the American Theatre, New York, Coward McCann, Inc., 1965.

Trent, William Peterfield, et. al., editors, The Cambridge History of American Literature (4 volumes), New York, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1917.

Tyler, Royall, The Algerine Captive, edited by Jack B. Moore, Scholars' Facsimiles and Reprints, Gainesville, Fla., 1967.

Wegelin, Oscar, Early American Plays, 1714-1830, New York, Haskell House Publishers, Ltd., 1968.

Wells, Henry Willis, editor, Three Centuries of Drama: 1500- 1800, New York, Readex Microprint, 1953.

Whiting, Frank M., An Introduction to the Theatre, New York, Harper and Row, 1961.

Articles

Balch, Marston, "Jonathan the First," Modern Languaqe Notes, XLVI (May, 1931), 281-288.

Brown, Herbert R., "Sensibility in Eighteenth-Century American Drama," American Literature, IV (March, 1932), 47-60.

Dell, Robert M. and Charles A. Huguenin, "Vermont's Royall Tyler in New York's John Street: A Theatrical Hoax Ex- ploded," Vermont History, XXXVIII (Spring, 1970), 103- 112.

Forsythe, R. S., "'The Algerine Captive,' 1802," New England Quarterly, CLXXII (May, 1937), 389-390. 83

Jackson, J. R. Dej., "The Importance of Witty Dialogue in The School for Scandal," Modern Language Notes, LXXVI (Novem- ber, 1961), 601-607.

Kilheffer, Marie, "A Comparison of the Bigelow Papers with the Dialect of Four Yankee Plays," American Speech, III (Feb- ruary, 1928), 222-236.

Lauber, John, "The Contrast: A Study in the Concept of Inno- cence," English Language Notes, I (September, 1963), 33- 37._

Nethercot, A. H., "The Dramatic Background of Royall Tyler's The Contrast," American Literature, XII (January, 1941)., 435-446.

Nettleton, George H., "Sheridan's Introduction to the American Stage," Publications of the Modern Language Association, LXV (March, 1960), 163:-82.

Newbrough, G. F., "Mary Tyler' s Journal," Vermont Quarterly, XX (January, 1952), 19-31.

Peladeau, M. B., "Royall Tyler's Other Plays," New England Quarterly, XL (March, 1967), 48-60.

Schiller, Andrew, "The School for Scandal: The Restoration Unrestored," Publication of the Modern Language Associ- ation, LXXXI (September, 1956), 694-704.

Stein, R. B., "Royall Tyler and the Question of Our Speech," New England Quarterly, XXXVIII (December, 1965), 474-489.

Stoddard, Roger E., "Some Corrigenda and Addenda to Hill's American Plays Printed 1714-1830,1" Publications of the Bibliographical Society of America, LXV (1971)., 278-295.

Tanselle, G. T., "Author and Publisher in 1800: Letters of Royall Tyler and Joseph Nancrede, " Harvard Library Bulle- tin, XV (April, 1967), 129-139.

, "Some Uncollected Authors XLII: Royal Tyler 1757-1826," Book Collector, XV (Autumn, 1966), 303-320.

Tupper, Frederick, "Royall Tyler, Man of Law and Man of Letters," Proceedings of the Vermont Historical Society, IV (1926, 1927, 1928), 63-101.