THE m m A S OF BULWER-LYTTON

by

Shankar Basu

A thesis presented to the University of London

for the degree of Master of Philosophy

Royal Holloway College University of London

1974 % ProQuest Number: 10097587

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest.

ProQuest 10097587

Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ABSTRACT

This thesis is an evaluation of the plays of Bulwer-Lytton.

The Introduction provides a general background of drama in the early nineteenth century and a brief estimate of Bulwer’s dramatic career. It also attempts to place Bulwer’s plays in the context of his time. Chapter one examines the nature of Bulwer’s first play, The Duchess de la Valliere. Chapter two evaluates the dramatic qualities of his second play, The Lady of Lyons; or, Love and pride. Chapter three assesses the merits of the third play,

Richelieu; or. The Conspiracy, and provides a general discussion of Bulwer’s political ideas. It also establishes the connection between Bulwer’s first three plays depicting three periods in French history, and draws our attention to the author’s approach to history,

Chapter four discusses the fourth play. The Sea-Captain; or. The

Birthright. Chapter five is an analysis of his fifth play. Money.

In this chapter there is also a comparison between Bulwer and

Thomas William Robertson. Chapter six is an assessment of Bulwer’s last successful play. Not So Bad As We Seem; or. Many Sides to a

Character. In general, chapters one to six provide a history of the writing of the plays and their critical reception and also consider Bulwer’s method of plot-construction, characterisation and his important ideas. The Conclusion discusses the later performances of Bulwer’s plays, their interest for the twentieth- century audience, and traces briefly his reception in the twentieth century and provides a summing up of his characteristics as noted in the six plays. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to certain persons and institutions: to Dr. Katharine J. Worth of Royal Holloway College without whose guidance this thesis could not have been written; to Lady Cobbold for permitting me to make use of the Bulwer-Lytton collection of papers at the Hertford County Record Office; to the

Trustees of the British Museum for allowing me to consult books and periodicals, and the John Forster Collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum; to , Royal Holloway College for awarding me a studentship for two years; to the Librarian and staff of the

Senate House of the University of London; to the Librarian and staff of Royal Holloway College; to Dr. Dewey Ganzel and the

University of Chicago Library for permission to consult Dr. Ganzel's thesis on Bulwer's plays; to my wife Jharna, for her unfailing help at various stages of my researches; and finally, to Mrs. B. Nelson-

Smith for typing the thesis with great care. Key to Abbreviations

Authors Abbreviations Full Titles

Bulwer-Lytton La Valliere The Duchess de la Valliere

The Lady The Lady of Lyons; or, Love and Pride

Richelieu Richelieu; or. The Conspiracy

The Sea-Captain The Sea-Captain; or, The Birthright

Not So Bad Not So Bad As We Seem; or, Many Sides to a Character

Walpole Walpole; or. Every Man has his Pride

Junius Brutus Junius Brutus; or. The Household Gods

Other Works

Joanna Baillie Plays Flays on the Passions

J.B. Buckstone Luke the Labourer Luke the Labourer; or, The Lost Son

Lord Byron Marino Faliero Marino Faliero, Doge of Venice

G. Colman, the Younger John Bull John Bull; or. The Englishman's Fireside

J. Sheridan Knowles Virginius Virginius; or. The Liberation of Rome

The Wife The Wife; A Tale of Mantua

The Earl of Lytton The Life of The Life of Edward Bulwer, Edward Bulwer First Lord Lytton

Charles R. Maturin Bertram Bertram; or, The Castle of St. Aldobrand

Thomas N. Talfourd Glencoe Glencoe; or. The Fate of the Macdonalds

Helen M. Williams Perourou The History of Perourou; or. The Bellows Mender Note on the Text

Bulwer*s plays passed through two different stages of composition; firstly, the writing of the manuscripts which was done in collaboration with Macready, and included many suggestions made by him; secondly, after the first performance Bulwer made changes in the form of omissions, sometimes quite extensive, which were maintained in the subsequent editions of the plays. In view of this, I have used the later and final editions of the plays.

The Knebworth Edition of Bulwer's Dramatic Works Vol. I, published in 1876, has been used for The Duchess de la Valliére, The Lady of

Lyons, Richelieu and Not So Bad As We Seem. For The Sea-Captain which was excluded from the Knebworth and also from earlier collections of the plays, I have used the text in the edition of l840 published under the title of the series - Eaudry's European Library. This was the last edition to have appeared in Bulwer*s lifetime. The text of

Money used is edited by George Rowell in his Nineteenth-Century Plays first published by the Oxford University Press in 1953» This text is a "recension of three printed versions and the Lord Chamberlain's 1 manuscript copy in the British Museum". The Bibliography at the end of this thesis, however, includes other editions of Bulwer's plays which I have consulted in the course of my researches. Editions of other works, including nineteenth-century plays, quoted or referred to in this thesis are also mentioned in the Bibliography.

1 Nineteenth-Century Plays, George Rowell (ed.). Introduction, p. xii, c o n t e n t s

Page Introduction...... 7

Chapter I The Duchess de la Valliere...... 22

Chapter II The Lady of Lyons; or, Love and Pride .... ^6

Chapter III Richelieu; orÿ The C o n s p i r a c y ...... 96

Chapter IV The Sea-Captain; or, The Birthright ..... 141

Chapter V M o n e y ...... 164

Chapter VI Not So Bad As We Seem; or. Many Sides to a Character ...... 202

Conclusion...... 231

Appendix - Datés of the First Performances of Bulwer’s Plays ...... 247

Bibliography ...... 233 INTRODUCTION

Until recently it was considered that the nineteenth century did not produce a dramatist of any substantial importance with the exception of Shaw. Another view was that in the barren lands of the English drama of the last century no effective dramatist came forward until the production of Society and Caste of Thomas W.

Robertson in the eighteen-sixties. Yet the histories of nineteenth- century English drama are full of names of the dramatists who produced popular and successful plays for the stage of their time. Critics have generalised their characteristics and attempted to evaluate them in the context of the history of English drama. But most of these histories deal with the dramatists cursorily and give a bare analysis of their plays. There are very few full-length studies of them. The tendency has been to discuss the dramatists who rose to fame after Robertson and neglect those who had appeared in the earlier decades. The dramatists of the period from the beginning of the century to the arrival of Robertson have greatly suffered from this neglect. From time to time in our century there have appeared some studies of these dramatists, as for example M.S. Corhart's Life and

Works of Joanna Baillie (1923)» Townsend Walsh's The Career of Dion

Boucicault (1915)» Leslie H. Meeks's Sheridan Knowles and the Theatre of His Time (1933)» Winton Tolies's Tom Taylor and the Victorian

Drama (1940) and Richard M. Kelly's Douglas Jerrold (1972), but there are still many dramatists who need careful studies of their plays. One of them is Bulwer-Lytton whose dramatic career began in the third decade of the last century and lasted into the sixth. The time has now arrived when an examination of his plays is necessary. Charles

H. Shattuck has called Bulwer "a significant English dramatist".

This significance lies at the root of Bulwer's dramatic output. As an introduction to Bulwer it can be said that he is considered to be one of the few dramatists of his time who, to some extent, tried to combine literay merit and theatrical technique.

The atmosphere in which Bulwer was brought up had a considerable influence on his total make-up. Born in I803 he grew up in the atmosphere of Romanticism. The French Revolution had preceded him by fourteen years and Lyrical Ballads by five. Wordsworth and Coleridge were writing their best poetry and the best of Scott, Byron, Shelley and Keats was yet to come, as were the works of Jane Austen. And

Blake had just begun his Prophetic Books. Behind him was the world of the Gothic whose door was opened by such works as The Castle of

Otranto, The Mysteries of Udolpho, Castle Rackrent and Vathek. The

Industrial Revolution had been on its wheels for some time. As a man, Bulwer became the most controversial figure in the literature of his time. His taste was primarily romantic, preferring the world of imagination and fancy; he had great admiration for Byron and Scott.

He was equally interested in politics and was returned to Parliament in 1831. Besides giving his whole-hearted support to the Reform

Bill in the period between I83I and 1834, Bulwer introduced certain private bills to rectify the evils of the theatre of the time. On

May 31 » 1832 he brought in his motion for setting up a Select Committee to enquire into the state of drama, which was accepted by Parliament.

Bulwer was appointed chairman of the committee and the views he urged

1 Charles H. Shattuck, Bulwer and Macready; A Chronicle of the Early Victorian Theatre (afterwards referred to as opere citato), Introduction, p. 9 . were carried into law in I833. Early in 1833 Bulwer introduced further private bills to cover other aspects of dramatic performances, copyright and disturbances at the theatres. As a novelist and writer of prose Bulwer enjoyed immense popularity, and at least four of his plays were well received by his contemporaries. Yet the unfavourable criticism that had first started in his lifetime grew up with the age, and by the end of the century critics like Edmund Gosse, W.A. Jones and Augustin Filon were pronouncing condemnations against him. Such criticism was typical of some of Bulwer's contemporaries, which we shall see when I give an idea of the critical receptions of his plays.

A certain section of the educated audience reacted unfavourably, but there were others who praised Bulwer. Sometimes this praise went too far, still we cannot overlook the fact that Bulwer was a great favourite with many of his contemporaries. An examination of the plays will show that Bulwer used the conventions of the day and possessed what may be called a touch of literary quality.

The year 1836 marked a turning point in Bulwer's career. This was the year when he made his debut as a dramatic author. It was directly the result of his friendship with William Charles Macready, the eminent tragedian of the early nineteenth century. Bulwer and

Macready first met in Dublin in October 183^ when the novelist was urged by the actor to write a play. As a result, Bulwer completed

Cromwell and submitted it to Macready who did not think it was suitable for the stage. In spite of the fact that Cromwell was privately printed in London towards the end of I836 and William

Johnson Fox reviewed it in the Westminster Review in April 1837,

Bulwer eventually dropped it. Parallel with Cromwell Bulwer had been

1 Edmund Gosse,"Edward Bulwer-Lytton,Fortnightly Review, December 1913, pp. 1033-46 and A Short History of Modern English Literature, p. 329; W.A. Jones, "Introduction" to Augustin Filon's The English Stage; Augustin Filon, The English Stage, An Account of the Victorian Drama, translated by Frederick Whyte, pp. 64-72. 10

working on another play about La Valliere, and when he met Macready on February 23, I8 3 6, he referred to it as The Duchess de la Valliere.

With this play there began a collaboration between Bulwer and Macready and from I836 to l840 Bulwer wrote five plays - The Duchess de la

Valliere, The Lady of Lyons, Richelieu, The Sea-Captain and Money - in the writing of which he received considerable assistance from

Macready who also played the role of the hero in all of them. La

Valliere was not a success on the stage but the other four plays,

including The Sea-Captain which was considered a melodrama and far

beneath the reputation of Bulwer, were great successes although the

critics did not always agree on their merits. With the production

of Money in l840 the collaboration between the two came to an end.

For a little over a decade, however, Bulwer and Macready were discussed many projected plays. There/programmes about a comedy

and a play on Bulwer’s old favourite Cromwell, which were rejected

by Macready. In his letters written at this time to Macready, Bulwer

mentioned Walpole as a possible subject and the idea of a political 2 comedy to be called The public. In another letter written on August 9,

l84l Bulwer suggested that he might write a play which would be like

Menander's Heautontimorumenos as adopted by Terence. On July 13, 1842

he wrote about a "superb subject for a Tragedy"^ to be developed into

Warwick, the King-maker - the Last of the English Barons. This was

later developed into a novel and published in 1843. He also suggested

dramatisation of his own Ill-Omened Marriage which had been published

in 1842. In April 1843, Bulwer sent Macready four acts of a play then

1 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 192. 2 ibid., p. l93* 3 ibid., p. 210. 11

called The Egotists, but Macready again rejected his offer. This

play is the same incomplete Darnley which was posthumously published in the Knebworth edition of Bulwer's works in I882. After C.E.

Coghlan had added a fifth., act to it, the play entitled The House of

Darnley was produced at 'the Court Theatre in l877* It did not have any success. There were also talks àhout a play on Harold, which

Bulwer shaped into a novel published in l848. Inspired by a German version of Sophocles' Antigone, then running at Covent Garden, Bulwer decided to write a play on Oedipus. For a while Oedipus was dropped when Bulwer began to contemplate a tragedy on Junius Brutus. By

January l846 Brutus was abandoned and in February of the same year he finished Oedipus after all. From February l846 to March 1847 he male his best attempts to have it produced. In the end he was so tired of the proceedings that he defided to get out of it. The play was never published and permanently shelved in the Knebworth Archives now stored at the Hertford County Record Office. Bulwer's grandson, however, suggests that its production was dropped because of the hostile criticism raised by his latest novel Lucretia; or The Children of the Night whih was published in l846. The other play on Brutus

fared better when it was produced after Bulwer's death by Wilson

Barrett at the Princess Theatre in 1885 under the title. The Household

Gods. The play was not considered a success. During these years until

1831 Bulwer and Macraady met several times and discussed possible subjects for plays, yet nothing happened. Bulwer could not complete any of thèse projected plays because Macready did not like his ideas.

Though he could do nothing for Macready, Bulwer received his inspiration

from another source. For the Guild of Literature and Art, which Bulwer

1 The Earl of Lytton, The Life of Edward Bulwer, Vol. II, p. 90. 12

and Dickens had recently established for struggling authors and artists, he wrote Not So Bad As We Seem. The play was produced at

Devonshire House in May, 185I by a cast of amateurs which included

Forster, Dickens, Wilkie Collins and Douglas Jerrold. It was an immediate success and, after a few performances at Dickens’s house, the company toured the country with it. Macready retired in February

1851 and thereafter Bulwer had no external stimulus which could ihspire him to write a play for a specific purpose. The hope and desire for dramatic composition was not, however, completely out of his mind as he wrote to his son from Ventour in December I86IF "If out of

Parliament I should try the Drama again." The same year he began his comedy on Walpole in rhyme which was published in December 1869 .

Again in September l86? Bulwer wrote to Forster from Eaux Bonnes about an adaptation from Plautus. The play was completed on his return to England and submitted to Dickens and Fechter whose criticism 2 was not favourable. The play called The Captives was never performed or published. For a long time Bulwer had been engaged in revising

The Sea-Captain which was then published as The Rightful Heir and performed at the Lyceum Theatre in October I868.

In view of Bulwer’s interest in drama I shall now make an attempt to place him in the dramatic context of his time. Although there was a great deal of talk about the decline of drama in the early nineteenth century, there was no dearth of playwrights. The majority of them desired to do something great in the field of drama. They thought, and rightly so, that great drama was produced in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. With the drama of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in mind they thought the verse the most appropriate measure.

1 The Eanl of Lytton, op.cit., p. 332. 2 ibid., p. 442. 13

These "poetic" dramatists could be divided into two groups.

The first group includes authors like Joanna Baillie, Wordsworth and Coleridge who wrote in the same vein. This group attempted to introduce thought, poetry and character into the decadent drama of the age. To the second group belongs the large number of playwrights who were engaged in writing in,what they called, "blank verse". In general, all these authors were romantic. They also had a taste for the strange and the bizarre, and their seriousness of purpose could be seen in their attempts to produce "tragedies" rather than "comedies".

Because they looked back to the past, their works are marked with the influence of the dramatists of the great periods of English drama.

Almost every one of these dramatists set out certain principles.

They emphasised that drama should delineate passions, and possess a psychological portrayal of characters and a verse which must be able to express the height and depth of feelings. Nearly every dramatist, coming afterwards, and until the arrival of Browning on the dramatic scene, shows these tendencies. Bulwer is no exception to this general preoccupation. His first play. The Duchess de la Valliere, pursues them.

We notice in it the presence of the same characteristics which are found in the works of Wordsworth, Coleridge and Joanna Baillie. As a result, both La Valliere and Bragelone in this play demonstrate their "passions", attempt to explain the workings of their minds and speak always in verse.

When Byron entered the dramatic scene in the eighteen-twenties he made a further addition to drama. Byron's thege - the conflict between tyranny and liberalism - left a lasting influence on the succeeding dramatists. In this he was joined by Mary Russell Mitford who too showed liberalism and republican ideas in her plays. Again, Bulwer is connected with this aspect of Romantic drama. In his plays we will 14

find the same tendencies, though in a subdued form, but particularly in

The Lady of Lyons. We will also notice, while discussing his work, his exposition of political ideas in the Introductory Remarks to the first collected edition of his plays published in l84l.

There was another tendency in the drama of the period which has been called the domestic element and which could be seen in the plays of Mary Russell Mitford, Richard Laior Shell, Henry Hart Milman, Barry

Cornwall and James Sheridan Knowles. To a certain extent, this tendency could be found in almost all the important plays written in the first three decades of the century, but by the middle of the third decade it gained a momentum. It passed into the fourth decadd when it became the dominant trait in the dramas of Telfourd, Bulwer and Browning. In

Bulwer*s plays the domestic element appears in the relations between certain characters - between La Valliére, her mother and Bragelone, between Pauline and her parents, and between Richelieu and Julie. In

fact, all the plays of Bulwer from The Duchess de la Valliere to Not

So Bad,As We Seem present a domestic problem. In the presentation

of this domestic element both Bulwer and Macready took great interest, which could be seen from the letters exchanged between them.

The type of play which assimilated the domestic element to its greatest advantage was the popular melodrama. It is relevant to mention here the most important characteristic of this genre, and how they affected

the plays of Bulwer. Though popular, melodrama was considered

"illegitimate" by the critics of the early nineteenth century. Yet, when the majority of traditional dramas failed, melodrama succeeded.

Developing from the love of the Gothic and the exotic East, melodrama bloomed into maturity in the second and third decades of the century.

It also borrowed sentimentalism and farce from the eighteenth-century dramatic tradition. Its method was not one of total realism; and 15

characters and events conformed to wish fulfilment. Here the complexities of life are ironed out which accounts for its stereotyped situations and characters. Virtue and vice are presented as purely black and white, and good always triumphs over evil. The audience admired melodrama because they could enjoy crime, villainy and horror with the understanding that vice would be punished. Because of its great emphasis on action, melodrama completely subordinated character development to the story and rigid moral considerations. As a result of this, as soon as the curtain rose, the audience recognised the type of characters from their first appearance and opening speeches.

Characters in melodrama soon became stock types. The most captivating character in melodrama is the villain. In contrast with the hero, he is capable of showing his thought process, the choice he makes frequently leading to greater action, alterations of plans and making new ones. In fact, the dramatist shows.in his villain every mood, every action and a whole active personality. The interest in the villain becomes so abiding that he very easily occupies the central position in the play, although he remains a character who must, in the end, fall.

In melodrama one often meets a climactic scene "which is a classic moment of interaction between heroine, villain and rescuer, where climactic tension is combined with the sudden reversal of an evil triumphant-goodness defeated situation, an anticipation of the end of the play". Around this pattern of hero-heroine-villain, melodrama weaves the emotion of domestic relationship and family life with the help of certain characters such as old people, children and friends, who create a verisimilitude of the home background. To relieve tension it also employs’, comic relief which is often a part of the

1 M.R. Booth, English Melodrama, p. 28. 16

domestic or social life in the play. As an important requisite melodrama used prose as the medium of expression. Its language was, therefore, immediately followed by its audience. This does not mean that there was no melodrama written in verse, but such examples were not many, although the majority of the so-called "serious" plays made use of melodrama.

Melodrama can be divided into three groups; romantic melodrama which includes Gothic and Eastern melodramas; military and nautical melodrama; and domestic melodrama. Historical melodrama, or plays which used a period of history for their background and melodramatic tactics, belonged to one or the other of these groups. The themes of melodrama could be anything; murder, seduction, tyranny, love, loss of wealth and property. Certain "favourite and ever refurring" devices are common to all melodramas; "prison scenes; shipwreck on of rocky coast; murder during thunder storm; finding/long lost relations frequently supposed to be dead; carefully prepared execution-scene, which is interrupted by the sudden pardon of the victim; or other catastrophes only averted at the last moment ... eavesdropping, disguise ..."

A large number of melodramas had a radical tone; "its heroes were peasants, workmen, and common sailors, its villains landlords, squares, peers, and factory owners. Mwch melodrama., particularly the domestic i? permeated with class hatred and darkened by a grim vision of a wealthy, authoritarian, repressive upper class tyrannizing over a

II poor suffering proletariat". The domestic attitudes of melodrama were derived from Goethe and Schiller and the "political sentiments of the French Revolution"^ as shown in the melodramas of Fixerecourt and his followers. Because of this radical feeling,melodramas such as The Rent Day, The Factory Lad and Maria Marten very often presented

1 J.B. van Amerongen, The Actor in Dickens, p. IO9 . 2 M.R. Booth (ed.), English Plays of the Nineteenth Century, Vol. I, Introduction, p. 27. 3 ibid., p. 2 7. 17

on the stage the social problems of the time. It became a dramatic form which had the closest connection with contemporary life and its more serious issues. This aspect of the popular melodrama was well established by l840 as one can see from R.H. Horne’s appraisal of it;

The most simple / drama__/ is that which reflects the tone and temperament of the age. This kind of ^rama must not now be looked for amongst what is somewhat absurdly called the "legitimate". That phrase is foolishly applied to a form - the five-act form; and to that kind of Drama which includes philosophical exposition of human character, and philosophical and rhetorical dissertation upon it. But the most legitimate, because the genuine offspring of the age, is that Drama which catches the manners as they rise and embodies the characteristics of the time. This, then, has forsaken the five-act form, and taken shelter at what have been named "Minor Theatres" ... Whatever the amount of their ability, the truly dramatic, as far as it exists on the modern stage at all, will be found in^those comparatively neglected writers of the minor drama.

It is needless to say that these "Minor Theatres" provided a home for melodramas which were, again, written by minor dramatists.

Bulwer was aware of the rise of melodrama and appreciated many of its characteristics. When, in England and the English, he suggested that the subject of modern drama should be taken from the life of the common man, which would be of common interest, "intense yet homely, actual - earnest" and should have the "pathos and passion of every-day 2 lifey he was drawing upon his experiences as an admirer of melodrama.

He was equally sure that drama would never be popular as it had been in the past "until it is permitted to embody the most popular emotions".^

When I come to discuss Bulwer’s plays individually, it will be clear that Bulwer owed a great deal to contemporary melodrama. It cannot, however, be denied that he had high ambitions, and when he decided to write for the stage, he thought that he would do something great which

1 R.H. Horne, A New Spirit of the Age, Vol. II, pp. 90-94. 2 England and the English (Knebworth Edition, 1874), p. 273 3 ibid., p. 2 69. 18

would please not only the present but also the future generations. This high ambition could not be fulfilled without genius. Bulwer’s ’’genius’’ was versatile which is seen from the variety of his writings in

different genres, but his chief interest lay in the field of fiction.

He had an interest in drama and was, to some extent, capable of

presenting dramatic scenes in his novels, which even his critics admitted. Bulwer did not have the opportunity at first to write for

the stage partly because he never thought of it seriously and partly

because he found novel-writing more lucrative. In fact, for a long

time after his marriage and until he reached a reconciliation with his mother, Bulwer actually lived on his income from the novels.

Yet, like many contemporary authors, he was interested in writing plays, which is seen from Cromwell and the three acts of Eugene Aram, written even before he met Macready. It was, however, Macready who

inspired him to write plays for the stage and Bulwer became interested

in the idea and decided to make an attempt. He saw that this was an

opportunity to make himself famous also as a dramatist, not to mention

the fact of making a moderate fortune from playwriting. He did not at all realise that the craft of fiction differs greatly from the art of drama. He also did not foresee that he might not have as much

fame as he had acquired by writing novels. As a result, when he wrote his first play he had no practical experience of the theatre and, naturally, he depended greatly upon Macready’s advice. Before I go

on further in assessing Bulwer’s characteristics I would like to say a few words about Macready. Macready not only revived the performance

of old plays but also encouraged contemporary authors to write for the stage. In this he had two interests: firstly, he wanted to lift

the standard of drama from its decline; and secondly, to advance his 19

own career as an actor, he was constantly in search of new plays. With these ideas he turned to Bulwer and Bulwer wrote five of his plays - The Duchess de la Valliere, The Lady of Lyons, Richelieu, The Sea-Captain and Money - under the supervision of Macready. It would not be out of place to assume here that he was guided by Macready's taste, and that the two men shared the same opinion about the themes in Bulwer*s plays. The plays which Macready either produced or in whose writing he collaborated before his friendship with Bulwer, such as Knowles’s Virginius, and

The Bridal, Barry Cornwall’s Mirandola, Mary Russell Mitford’s Julian,

The Foscari and Rienzi, Byron’s Werner, Sardanapalus, The Two Foscari and Marino Faliero, and Talfourd’s Ion, indicate his general taste. These plays suggest that he approved, and sympathised with, their contents.

Their theses - tyranny, liberalism, reform, domesticity and the delineation of passions - were all dear to him. In Bulwer’s plays, particularly in his French trilogy, we shall again find some of these characteristics. It is to be remembered that Macready was striving to create a ’’poetic" drama which would not be an imitation of

Elizabethan or Jacobean drama, but a product of the age. So he wanted verse, but also, as an actor, was concerned to have strong plot development, smooth transitional passages, and more dramatic entrances and exits for the actors - qualities which every actor wou&d want. In examining Bulwer’s plays, we shall see that they show these characteristics.

Macready’s influence also explains why Bulwer decided to use verse in his plays until he wrote Money, in spite of the fact that he wrote best in prose. An interesting expression of his fluctuation between verse and prose is Richelieu which he first wrote in prose and later changed into verse.

It will be apparent from the discussion of the plays that Bulwer borrowed frequently from contemporary dramatic practice, both in the 20

technique he employed and the ideas he conveyed. His plays show the influence of melodrama, sentimentality, domestic element and a love of verse. He had great difficulty in handling his theme, characters and plot in his first play. What he achieved was, however, of some credit to him, considering the difficulty in using verse and acquiring a sense of theatre.

Bulwer was an aristocrat himself and believed in the essential importance of the aristocracy, but at the same time he sometimes spoke for the people. The Lady of Lyons exhibits this concern to a great extent because of which contemporary reviewers accused him of preaching

"republicanism", which was not entirely wrong. Yet, even in this Bulwer remained faithful to his aristocratic ideals by making Claude Melnotte, the hero of the play, acceptable in the end. It is not, however, my intention to suggest that Bulwer is a great dramatist,but he possesses qualities which have some literary merit, and this is exactly the reason why I think that a study of his plays is worthwhile. For, very few of the plays produced at this time could stand critical-literary scrutiny, because of their thinness of structure and content. Bulwer is one of the few dramatists who can profit from such an examination.

Bulwer was a serious and ambitious author who was concerned with social and political ideas in his novels and tried to pursue them in his plays also. He used the conventions of the contemporary theatre to make his ideas more familiar and concrete to the audience. He attempted to create a seemingly familiar world for his characters by setting almost all his plays against a lifelike background and dealing with domestic, social or political problems. It may be argued that the majority of Bulwer's plays have a romantic setting which by its very nature does not make the framework of the plays natural or 21

familiar to us. But we have to bear in mind that a great number of successful and popular plays of the time had romantic settings. These were the settings the audience at that time was most familiar with.

Bulwer’s first attempt at dramatic writing was a play on

Cromwell and the three acts of an unfinished play on Eugene Aram.

After his friendship with Macready, he became closely associated with the theatre and produced many plays for the contemporary stage. He wrote original plays and also translated from the classics. The

Bulwer-Lytton collection at the Hertford County Record Office contains many such manuscripts. From a long list of completed and unfinished dramas I have selected six for my discussion. My selection is based on the fact that Macready took an active interest in the writing and production of five of these plays, viz. The Duchess de la Valliere,

The Lady of Lyons, Richelieu, The Sea-Captain and Money. The sixth play. Not So Bad As We Seem, written for the Guild of Literature and

Art, was considered a success by Bulwer’s contemporaries. Bulwer’s dramatic reputation is founded on the merits and demerits of these six plays. 22

CHAPTER I

The Duchess de la Valliere

The first encounter between Edward Buiv/er-Lytton and William

Charles Macready must have occurred on the day Macready appeared before the Committee on Dramatic Literature for answering questions on the state of drama. But the name Bulwer must have been familiar to him even before this meeting. From his diary we learn that from time to time Macready dipped into the writings of Bulwer and took notice of what was said in the press about him. He was not, however, a great novel reader and it is not surprising that he does not mention any of Bulwer's early popular novels prior to their meeting in October

1834 . As an actor he was not unaware of the dramatic potentiality of a popular novelist. He had certainly been watching the growing fame of Bulwer. He had also seen Bulwer’s interest in the theatre and drama when the latter introduced his first dramatic bills into the House of

Commons. Besides, he had probably heard of or seen Bulwer’s few acts of dramatic composition on Eugene Aram, which were printed both in the

New Monthly Magazine in 1833 and published earlier as an addendum to the novel Eugene Aram in 1832. All this certainly came to Macready’s mind when he was introduced to Bulwer by Colonel D ’Aguilar, the translator of Schiller’s drama, Fiesko, at the gate of the Military

Hospital in Dublin on October 29, l834. Two days later, he again met

Bulwer whom he ’’liked very much’’. The entry in Macready’s diary reads : 23

I passed a very pleasant day, Bulwer was quite what Sheil described him, very good-natured and, of course, intelligent. I was amused by an anecdote he reported of Hume ... I urged Bulwer to write a play; he told me he had written one, great part of which was lost, on the death of Cromwell ... Bulwer offered to set me down, and hoped to meet me in London.^

This meeting brought the two men together and, on thâr return to London,

each thought of the other. Macready read Eugene Aram and Pelham while

Bulwer thought of a play for Macready.

At last, more than a year later, on February 23, I836 Bulwer

announced to Macready that he had written a play and "that the subject

was La Valliere".^ Macready was to play the part of the hero and the

book would be dedicated to him. That night when he returned to his

chambers, Macready found the manuscript of the play waiting for him. it , He read it and observed: "What talent he possessesl I must read/again."

The next day he did not make his promised visit to Bulwer, but excused

himself in order to study the play carefully and make notes for revisions,

On February 23, he visited Bulwer to suggest plans for revisions.

Bulwer returned the manuscript to Macready, requesting him to write out

his objections and suggestions and send them to Bulwer. On February 27,

Macready was busy with this work. Vi/hat perplexed him was the ’ènooth"

reading of the play as opposed to its technical weaknesses for

representation. The comments he subsequently made in his letter of

February 28, suggested a strengthening of his own role which was to be

Bragelone and a general reorganization of the play for better stage

effect. The version of the play we now read is the result of Macready's

criticisms and suggestions which ran on the following pattern.

A. For the first act Macready made three suggestions:

(i) In the first scene of the act Bulwer had shown La Valliere

1 W.C. Macready, The Diaries, (ed.) William Toynbee, Vol. I, p. 197* 2 ibid., p. 2 78. 3 ibid., p. 279. 24

taking leave of her mother and in the next introduced her at the court.

Macready commented: "The abruptness of La Valliere's announcement at

Court immediately after seeing her about to depart from her distant home is, I think, too perceptible." Bulwer acknowledged the fault and replied: "Two scenes only occur to me, one between Bragelone & the mother - or one between Bragelone & the king - if the last, Bragelone must not disclose his love ..."^ Bulwer, however, admitted his difficulty:

"I do not see my way clearly to strong effect - I don’t know, in fact, what to make the talkers say! Any hints would be very acceptable."^

It is not clear whether he received any more "hints" from Macready though

the act shows that certain changes were made to suit Macready's ideas.

The first act of the final version of La Valliere has now five scenes;

the first shows La Valliere and her mother when the daughter is taking

leave on the eve of her departure for the court the next day; the second, which is astually an extension of the first, introduces us to Bragelone and his love for La Valliere; the third takes place in the castle of

Bragelone between Bragelone and his servant Bertram before Bragelone leaves for his military campaign; the fourth presents us with a report,

through Lauzun and Grammont, of La Valliere‘s arrival and success at the

court; and, finally, the fifth brings to us the pomp and glory of the court where the centre of focus is La Valliere, courted by the king amidst courtiers, maids of honour and other ladies.

(ii) Macready's second objection concerned La Valliere. He wanted La Valliere to be contrasted with Madame de Hontespan so that the

"prize drawn by Montespan", after La Valliere's fall, "would be objected

to."^ In the form of a question he advanced his opinion: "Should not

the audience be prepared in some degree for La Valliere's passion by

1 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 20. 2 ibid., p. 2 1. 3 ibid., p. 2 1. 4 ibid., p. 2 0. 25

some previous expression of her sentiments of enthusissbic and devoted

loyalty - a sort of second religion in her heart, of which she readily 1 becomes the victim?" As a result, in the very opening scene hJ. v/-;V

Bulv/er presented this "enthusiastic and devoted loyalty". La Valliere's

"second religion" through the conversation between La Valliere and her

mother. And throughout the rest of the play this second religion stands

out boldly in the character of La Valliere.

(iii) Hacready also thought that a further deepening of the

relation between La Valliere and Bragelone than what Bulwer had done was

necessary. As he wrote: "It appears to me that the future scenes between

La Valliere & Bragelone would receive an accession of interest from

their engagement being more dwelt on in their parting interview: some

token given would add to his motives for seeking her in the fourth act, 2 and heighten the pathos of that scene, where he might return it to her."

Bulwer agreed to this and devoted almost the whole of the second scene

in the first act, excepting the last fourteen lines, to the development

of this relation. Following Macready's hint he not only made La Valliere

place "her scarf round Bragelone's hauberk"^ but also presented Bragelone returning the token in the fourth act.

B. In Act II Kacready preferred stronger expressions of Bragelone's

triumph and affection: "Might not the departure of Bragelone with La

Vallière, rescuing her, as he believes he does, from shame & sorrow, 4 be marked by stronger expression of triumph and.affection?" As its

direct outcome we see Bragelone, after he has persuaded La Valliere to

leave the palace to run away from the king's attempts to make her his

mistress, delivering the last speech in the second scene of this act.

1 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 2 0. 2 ibid., p. 2 0. 3 Bulwer-Lytton. The Duchess de la Valliere, Act I, scene ii. Dramatic Works, Vol. I (Khebworth Edition), p. 18. 4 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 2 0. 26

The emotion which can be seen in this scene is also present in many- other speeches of Bragelone in the play.

C. In the meeting of Bragelone and La Valliere in Act IV

Macready intended to have a striking effect:

Should not the meeting between Bragelone and La Valliere be productive of more striking effect? it ends by their retirement to a chamber, of which the audience knows nothing until the next act. Two characters, in such relation to each other, at such a point of the story, could not meet without raising the expectation of the audience very high, Bragelone's passing over the stage does not appear necessary, and is injurious to the effect of the character. 1

Bulwer therefore presented the two characters in the third scene of this act making it one of the most powerful situations in the play.

D. The whole of Act V, according to Hacready, needed a reorganization, 2 particularly in view of "the too long protraction of the catastrophe."

He therefore suggested that

(i) The first scene of this act should be the one between Madame de Kontespan, Grammont, Lauzun and courtiers; (the scene shows Madame de Kontespan incurring Lauzun’s displeasure with her threats to ruin him);

(ii) the second scene must once more present Bragelone and La

Valliere’together deepening the pathos in their relation;

(iii) the third scene would present the court passing to the ceremony at the convent on the occasion of La Vallière's taking the veil; (the events at this stage of the play introduce us to Grammont and Lauzun who are both sorry for La Valliere, along with Lauzun's determination to have his revenge on Madame de Kontespan and the delivery of the king's message asking for her withdrawal from the court);

(iv) the last scene had to be devised this wayi

1 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 21 2 ibid., p. 2 1, 27

The Church of the Convent- The rites interrupted by the King's sudden entrance - He insists on speaking with her ^La Vallière/ while yet it is possible, and the strength of Scenes 2 & 3 - Is here introduced - he leaves her as in Scene 3*^ - La Vallière's request of forgiveness from the Queen is translated from Scene _ and the conclusion remains.^

V/hat Macready was here asking for was a rearrangement of materials that Bulwer had originally produced in Act V together with an emphasis on the final conversation and separation of the king and La Vallière in the manner Bulwer was to present Bragelone and La Vallière in the revised second scene of the act. Bulwer accepted nearly all of Macready's suggestions for Act V with the difference that he unnecessarily split up the revised third scene into two, the last dealing with the dismissal of

Madame de Kontespan. But about the arrangement of the last scene of Act

V he disagreed with Macready. "After much consideration,", he wrote,

I am not able to persuade myself to the introduction of the PCing in the scene of/^aking the Veil. Not that I care about the Historical truth. But I do not think the more sacred Law of the Probabilities would allow the evident breach of the Probable - in Louis delaying so long his interference - knowing by the presence of the Queen & publicity of the occasion - the very day of the ceremony. Either he would come before, or I must prepare the way for him by painting his struggles in a separate Scene which the limits of the play wd not allow. I fear too that the audience ©ould not get over the Publicity of so great an assemblage & so solemn a scene, to an interview that should be private. Louis would naturally ask (if he did come) to see her in another room.- Moreover, the effect is taken from the dread repose of the Ceremony, & perhaps - if Louis's grief were powerfully painted - the sympathies would be diverted to him from Bragelone & La V.“~

The statement which presents Bulwer's peculiar dramatic concept points out clearly the fact that both Bulwer and Macready had been approaching the play from two different standpoints. If Bulwer did not like the idea of making Louis as important as Bragelone, Macready thought otherwise chiefly for the theatrical success of the last scene. Bulwer, however.

1 Shattuck, op. cit., p. 21 2 ibid., pp. 21-2 2. 28

suggested that if the king must pursue La Valliere for the second time in the play, then he had better do it at the end of the reorganized second scene of the act. Knowing the scrupulous nature of Macready's objections and approvals, he also provided an alternative: "Instead of seeking her at the Chateau there might be a scene before she takes the veil - of a cell in the Convent - and the king coming to her - followed by Scene '\ the last." Macready had already suggested it though obviously he did not approve of Bulwer's idea of having two scenes instead of one.

Consequently, in the final version of the play, the king is presented at the beginning of the last scene of Act V and the conversation that follows, with ensuing actions, between La Valliere and the king holds the stage for the greater part of it, covering nearly three-fifths of its total length. For both Bulwer and Macready the collaboration between the two on the writing and rearrangement of La Valliere came to a successful close. The play was thus printed and ready for production. But after the first night Bulwer went on tampering with it until the play was finally withdrawn after eight performances. The changes he then made were published as an addendum to La Valliere in the first collection of

Bulwer's plays published in l84l. These included the total removal of the Marquis de Montespan who then became a dumb character like the Queen whose little scene with the maids of honour was also struck off. Bulwer also wrote a new scene for Bragelone who then became the central character of the play, and made some changes in the speeches of the characters.

The removal of the scenes with Kontespan and the one between the Queen and her ladies and the changes in speeches, were included in The Poetical and Dramatic Works of Bulwer published in five volumes in 1852-54. The new scene with Bragelone was, however, dropped from this edition. These are the works where Bulwer made his final arrangement of the plays and

1 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 22. 29

poems which were also to continue in all the later editions published during and after his lifetime.

In an essay entitled "E.L. Bulwer and Victorian Censorship" professor Charles H. Shattuck has recorded the type and nature of criticisms which were levelled against Bulwer and La Valliere after the play had been produced at Covent Garden on January 4, 1837. On the night of the performance the house was full, because many of Bulwer’s friends and admirers had corne to see the first performance of the first play of the celebrated novelist. Macready recorded that there were several _nounds of applause throughout the performance. Yet, from the next morning, the press opened its attack on the play. On two points the critics seemed to be unanimous^ they maintained that the play had a doubtful sense of morals and that the acting, with the exception of that of Macready and Helen Faucit, was poor. There were other issues on which critics denounced Bulwer. These were mainly against his language in the play and his conception of dramatic composition. To begin with, I would like to quote some passages from contemporary reviews to represent their indignation. The Atlas reported:

The subject of the drama was ill-chosen. The story of the wretched Louise de la Valliere is unfit for representation; it is revolting to the moral feelings ... it resolves itself, at the best, into a common case of court vice; and there is nothing left for generous pity, nothing for the sympathies of virtue, nothing which can reconcile the mind to the loathly progress of refined levity and degrading guilt.^

The Times expressed the same opinion, but in stronger words:

This appears to us a very dull and a very foolish play. The subject is a revolting one, and it has not been handled with ability. No man, we think, but one whose vanity had been flattered most extravagantly within the circle of his own little coterie - no man who felt a due respect for the rules even of that Bienseance by which society is generally

1 C.H. Shattuck, "E.L. Bulwer and Victorian Censorship", Quarterly Journal of Speech, XX][IV, 1948, pp. 63-71. 2 The Atlas, January 8, I837, p. 23. 30

governed, would have ventured to produce a drama, the subject of which is the heartless debaucheries of a profligate monarch and hi^équally profligate courtiers, bliat useful or just sentiment does the piece convey? It is in the worst taste of the world school - the school of modern French romance. We have all but an enforcement under the crucifix, and in a temple consecrated to religious worship! This may pass in Paris, where jaded roues and faded demi-reps require the stimulus of blasphemy to rouse their exhausted passions; but in England the public mind is, thank God, yet too healthy to demand such abominable incentives. Mr. Bulwer could never, we are sure, have fallen into such an offensive error, had he not too scrupulously adopted a fictitious incident in the trashy novel of one of the most trashy of modern writers - Madame de Genlis.1

Shattuck writes conclusively:

Bulwer was damned not only for staging immoral sexual relations, but also for staging the language and emblems of religion. The cross to which La Valliere clings when the King comes to drag her from the convent raised a storm of displeasure. The denouement, in which Louise takes the veil, was generally censured ... perhaps the most interesting protests of all were those raised against specific items of vocabulary.2

The Monthly Beview gave Some idea of the use of wrong vocabulary when it quoted a passage from the play and commented:

This extract contains not only the expression and application to heaven in this play, which is shockingly irreverent. There occur such words as these, "0 Father, bless her," which, we are happy to learn, were received by the audience _ ... with the most unqualified testimonies of disapprobation.

This kind of disapproval of the press was also shared by Bulwer's friends.

Writing in The Literary Gazette William Jerdan regretted:"it is impossible to place Louis on the stage," because he "can never be other than the 4 selfish voluptuary." William Johnson Fox objected to the moral 5 unsoundness of the subject and its faulty treatment in the play. The

Athenaeum connected the subject of the play with Bulwer*s misconception

1 The Times, January 3, l837, p. 3* 2 Shattuck, "E.L. Bulwer and Victorian Censorship", p. 68. 3 The Monthly Review, February, 1837, P* l8l. 4 The Literary Gazette, January 7, 1837, p* 11. 3 The Westminster Review, April, 1837, p* 236. 31

of the art of drama:

Mr. Bulwer seems not to have an idea that tragedy is aught more sublime than a sentimental love story, or demands a weightier outlay of mind than so many dialogues from a talking novel. Even the subject he has fixed on for his play indicates, we think, a low- thoughted estimation of the drama, 1

Such criticism did not advance the opinion of only a select coterie of critics but that of the theatre public in general. This could be seen from the incidents at the theatre when the public expressed its disapproval over the use of expletives and action in the play. It is therefore difficult to imagine how such a play which received so much adverse comments and was subsequently withdrawnafter eight nights, in spite of Bulwer’s merciless cuts in the play, could have been passed by the official censor without a word of objection. Whatever might have been Kemble's reasons for giving his approval to this play, one thing is certain that the average theatre-goer in 1837 had a severely disciplined sense of sin and morality. This was a time of highly serious religious movements which, as the number of printed tracts shows, must have been in tune with the public sentiment. Dealing with La Valliere critics and reviewers were sure that they were treading on familiar grounds, and the public would recommend their accusations against the play. In this general outcry against the outrage of a false moral concept all other aspects of the play were totally forgotten and even the failures of Farren and Vandenhoff in the roles of L§uzun and Louis XIV were greatly underestimated. The critic of The Athenaeum was one of the few exceptions who referred to other relevant matters in the play.

These references were made to the weak characterization and feeble and strained language in the play. Although Bulwer's method of characterization is typical of the time, which could be seen from many successful plays of the age, I shall, at a later stage, have the occasion to refer, to

1 The Athenaeum, January 7, l837, P* 41. 32

Bulwer's peculiar use of dramatic verse. It could, however, be said that in approaching the problem of appreciating a dramatic work on its own merits the reviewers deviated from the expected standard of dramatic criticism by dwelling too much on the past, especially on the history of the court of Louis XIV, which coloured their total attitude to La Valliere. %s a result. La Valliere missed the critical scrutiny, as far as it was available from the press of the period, which was accorded to many other plays, significant or insignificant.

The Morning post correctly assessed the interesting quality of the historical events concerning La Valliere and Louis XIV. The materials provided by history were strong enough to "prove most appropriate and fruitful materials for the construction of an elaborate 1 dramatic poem ..." Bulwer had been quick to grasp the dramatic value of the historical events as was Macready when he read the first draft of the play. Bulwer’s interest was further aroused by a French romance. La Duchesse de la Vallière suivie de sa Vie Fenitente written by Stephanie Félicite Ducrest de Saint-Aubin, Comtesse de Genlis

(1746 -1830) and published in l8o4. In his Preface to the first edition of La Vallière Bulwer wondered why the memory of Louis XIV "should have furnished so little inspiration to the poet, and escaped altogether 2 the resuscitation of the stage". To Bulwer historical events had always seemed potent L7) immense possibilities and his works preceding

La Valliere were sufficient proofs of them. He had treated history in poetry, in fiction and in his prose writings. ' The spectacular, the sensational and the dramatic in his novels were provided by history and now, when he attempted his first play, once more it was history which furnished him with a subject. Bulwer*s own preface to La Valliere

1 The Morning Post, January 3, l837, p. 3* 2 Preface, The Duchess de la Valliere (I836), p. vii. 33

best explains his intentions. The Preface as a whole is chiefly concerned with the characters of the play and acquaints us with the kind of characteristics Bulwer had been seeking to bestow on them.

How far he has succeeded in delineating these characteristics will be seen in the course of discussion. For the present it will suffice if we remember that Bulwer believed that "great materials of dramatic representation lies not so much in the analysis of one, as in the delineation of adverse and opposing, passions" and "the love and the repentance, the fall and the atonement, of Madame La Valliere" provided this material. The same preoccupation persuaded him to select Bragelone for the chief male role - obviously to be played by Macready - because 2 in him is "embodied whatever in the play pretends to the Heroic".

In approaching La Valliere with the belief that the "philosophy of the drama is the metaphysics of passions",^ Bulwer proved his adherence to a dramatic tradition that had been established since

the first plays of Joanna Baillie, The Borderers of Wordsworth, and

Osorio and Remorse of Coleridge were written. Baillie was interested in the workings of the mind and in a psychological study of human 4 nature which for her was "the centre and strength of the battle".

She wrote: "the characters of the drama must speak directly for

themselves. Under the influence of every passion, humour and impression; in the artificial veilings of hypocrisy and ceremony, in the openness of

freedom and confidence, and in the lonely hour of meditation, they speak

... We expect to find them creatures like ourselves ..." For her tragedy had two purposes: one was to present the heroes in their struggles

1 Preface, La Vallière, p. viii. 2 ibid., p. xiii. 3 ibid., p. viii. 4 Joanna Baillie, Plays on the Passions, Vol. I, p. 23 and quoted by M. Norton in "The Plays of Joanna Baillie", Review of English Studies, April 1947 , pp. 131-143 . 34

against odds, revealing them "to our nearer regard, in all the distinguishing varieties which nearer inspection discovers; with the passions, the humours, the weaknesses, the prejudices of men"; the other was to "unveil to us the human mind under the domination of those strong and fixed passions, which, seemingly unprovoked by outward circumstances, will, from small beginnings, brood within the breast, till all the better dispositions, all the fair gifts of nature, are borne down before them". In the preface to The Borderers Wordsworth repeated the same thing when he said: "My care was almost exclusively given to the passions and the characters, and the position in which the persons in the Drama stood relatively to each other, that the reader might be moved, and to a degree instructed, by lights penetrating somewhat 2 into the depths of our nature". Coleridge too selected a single passion for Osorio and Remorse and showed its workings in various situations in the plays. As a matter of fact, it can be safely said that the plays, acted or unacted, produced during the first four decades of the nineteenth century were primarily concerned, among other things, with the delineation of passions in one character or more. This manner of writing also greatly suited the prevailing acting style of the notable actors of the period. It is not surprising that in the writing and production of La Valliere both Bulwer and

Macready took great interest for identical reasons.

The play opens in the evening before the day fixed for La Valliere's departure for Fontainebleau. La Vallière is taking leave of her mother, and is interrupted by Bragelone,whom she is supposed to marry one day.

She does not, however, encourage Bragelone to continue with his addresses of affection. This does not make him unhappy because he

1 Baillie, Plays, pp. 28-30 and Norton, p. 133« 2 Wordsworth, Poetical Works, ed. E. de Selincourt, Vol. I, p. 342. 35

hopes that one day she will accept him. Confident that La Valliere will not forget him, Bragelone too leaves for his campaign. The arrival of La Vallière at the court is noticed by Lauzun and other courtiers. Chance plays her part, and in the gardens of Fontainebleau

Louis overhears La Vallière’s words of admiration for him, which prompt him to declare his love to her. La Valliere attempts to avoid the king, but the rumour that the king is interested in her has already spread widely and reached Bragelone who hastens to

Fontainebleau for an interview with her. Bragelone persuades La

Vallière to leave the court and flee to a convent. Louis follows her to the convent and succeeds in bringing her back. Once more La Vallière is established at the court. Then begins a reversal of her fortune.

Lauzun and other courtiers find La Valliere non-cooperative in the game of favour-hunting that all courtiers play. Lauzun, therefore, resolves to find another mistress in Madame de Montespan to bring about a separation between La Valliere and the king so that he can marry La Valliere. Chance ©gain plays her part. Louis who has already started to take notice of Madame de Montespan*s charm is surprised to discover, when he announces Bragelone*s death to La

Valliere, that she was once betrothed to him. Offended, he accepts

Madame de Montespan and begins to neglect La Valliere. Lauzun manages to receive the king's permission to marry La Valliere, but she refuses him. As a Franciscan friar Bragelone returns and once more attempts to persuade La Valliere to be a nun. La Vallière decides to join the Carmelite convent. Madame de Montespan', comes to know about

Lauzun's attempt to marry'La Vallière and because of it threatens to ruin him. In return Lauzun manages to secure the king's order to banish

Madame de Montespan from the court. Out of repentance Louis follows 36

La Valliere to the convent and attempts to bring her back, but La

Valliere is determined to take the veil. The play ends with the ceremony of her taking the veil.

Against this background of events La Valliere has two sets of characters. We have, on the one hand. La Valliere and Bragelone, and, on the other, Louis, Madame de Kontespan, the Duke de Lauzun and the Count de Grammont. The central character is, of course,

Louise de la Valliere. We see her in the opening scene where she is taking leave of her mother. She recalls the time she has spent in the romantic surrounding of her father's chateau. It is natural for such a pure heart to love someone and La Vallière's mother draws her attention to the "gallant Bragelone". But La Valliere's mind is too full of other images such as that of the king. She has a rare admiration for the king and the unhesitating devotion to serve him makes La Valliere appear as king-intoxicated. This extraordinary sense of loyalty faces the most severe test when one evening the king accosts her in the gardens of Fontainebleau and expresses his desire to acknowledge her devotion.

When, incited by what he has learned about La Valliere, Bragelone comes to meet her, she is disagreeably surprised. Bragelone's more matter-of-fact accusation that she has become the "king's mistress" brings her back to reality. She, however, does not have the coura^a to make ^er own decisions without support. Bragelone supplies this support, and under its pressure. La Valliere makes up her mind to leave the king.

We next see her at the cloisters of a convent. But the conflict of love and virtue remains. Moments later when the king enters the cloisters, all her determinations disappear with the joy of once more seeing her lover. Once more love wins over conscience and virtue, and 37

it will not be disturbed again until one of them begins to show the weariness of satiated love.

The anti-climax to this love story appears in Act III, scene ii when, hearing from Louis the news of Bragelone*s death, La Valliere feels the pangs of sonsciehce, thinking that it is her guilt which has killed Bragelone. She does not have the art of the court women to hide her emotions and, when she is remonstrated by Louis about it, she foolishly expresses them, which makes Louis even more displeased. Her pride is also injured when she learns that Louis is going to have another mistress who will be none other than Madame de Montespan. To add insult to injury Lauzun, encouraged by the king, proposes marriage to her.

La Valliere is then shocked to realise that she is no longer the king's mistress but a castaway. At this moment of her greatest needs Bragelone arrives and revives once more La Valliere's memory, pushing her one step forward to her goal. The La Valliere who appears in Act V, scene ii has undergone a complete transformation of personality. Once more she is faced with a problem when Louis arrives at the convent and La

Valliere realises that neither his nor her love has completely died out.

But she has learned her lessons from life at the court which now helps her in keeping her determinations firm.

Bragelone is the other character towering with La Valliere above the rest. He has certain characteristics which stand out from the very beginning of the drama. At the old chateau of the de la Vallières, on the eve of La Vallière's departure for court, we see him as a soldier deeply in love with her. Although she does not immediately return his love, Bragelone is satisfied with what he receives in the hope that one day he will be accepted by her. He not only belongs to a tradition which he has shared with La Valliere's father, but is also eligible to be her future husband. His confidence can persuade him to declare 38

that although La Valliere has not been able to love him, "France and

Fame" will induce her to do so. Bragelone is further committed to the cause of France as embodied in her sovereign. Loyalty for him has a twofold meaning: if the subjects owe allegiance to the king, the king in his turn must recognise it by drawing his power from them. His understanding of the relation of the king and his subjects makes him understand their anger when the king spends forty millions on a palace.

Bragelone's life changes its course and his loyalty comes into conflict with the profligacy of the king; his sympathy for the people and his critical view of the king are strengthened when he learns that

La Valliere has become the king's mistress. He is unable to accept the fact that he has lost all hopes of winning La Vallière's love. At the same time, he cannot forgive her for falling in love with a person who cannot make her anything more than his mistress. In the circumstances,

Bragelone thinks that if he can no longer capture La Valliere's heart, he can at least try to turn her once more to a life of virtue. As a result, she leaves the king.

The ordeal of Bragelone does not, however, end here because La

Valliere is brought back to the palace by Louis. When he reappears in Act IV, scene iii, we find him greatly changed. The change is seen not only in his robes of a Franciscan friar but also in the nature of presentation of his thoughts. This Bragelone is stronger and more powerful in admonitions than the Bragelone we have seen before. A prolonged suffering has hardened his exterior, which gives him the courage to fear nothing and know nothing save one problem - that of leading

La Vallière back to the bosom of the convent. His words are now direct, carefully chosen and almost amount to cruelty. He declares that his motive is selfless. Bragelone finally succeeds in sending La Valliere 39

back to the convent.

The first character in the second group is Louis who has a

considerably subdued role to play in this strange triangle of love.

Though he is the person for whom La Valliere sacrifices her virtue,

Louis is nothing more than an instrument in the lives of La Valliere and Bragelone. His very first words spoken to the Duke de Lauzun, show him as an admirer of beautiful women. This admiration grows

into a far deeper interest when he, hiding in one of the bosquets,

listens to a conversation between La Vallière and the maids of honour.

Sure that La Valliere has set her heart upon the king, Louis approaches her with his affectionate addresses. Determined to "conquer" her, Louis

presses his suit, presenting her with a bracelet. His love is aroused

to its maximum limit when La Valliere, induced by Bragelone's moral

exhortation, takes refuge in a convent where Louis follows her and

passionately declares his love. The lack of the depth of emotion,

which is a characteristic of Louis' passion and which makes itself

clear in the presentation of that passion, shows its fickleness when

La Valliere's sorrow over Bragelone's death awakens the king's indignant

jealousy. His jealousy does not come from a sense of loss but from

pride and affectation. The spirit of military conquest, mixed with

a peculiarly royal characteristic to possess singularly everything his eyes fall upon, now appears in his speech: "I'd not her virgin

heart - she loved another!" Vanity and ignorance prevent him from

enquiring deeply into the true nature of La Valliere's grief, and

Louis begins to think of deserting La Valliere.

Louis turns away from La Valliere and begins to pay attention

to Madame de Montespan, becoming an easy prey to his own whims. The

crudity and insensitiveness of his character are discovered when

Louis bluntly rejects La Valliere's colours and, instead, prefers 40

those of Madame de Montespan. Louis does not, however, completely overlook the quality which distinguishes La Valliere from Madame de

Montespan. As a result, although he accedes to Lauzun's request to marry La Vallière, he cannot help feeling jealous. This is not only self-deception but also the indecisiveness of an undeveloped mind.

The same attitude to life persuades him to tell La Valliere that she should refuse Lauzun, although he earlier permitted him to propose marriage to her. The truth is that Louis has been enamoured by Madame de Montespan, but cannot stop thinking of La Valliere as his personal possession. If he is unable to have her as his only mistress, he will be satisfied to have her at least as a friend. The self-deception and duality of his nature finally break down in the last scene of the play when Louis stands face to face with the realisation of what he has always wanted and what he has done. Louis now desperately persuades her to return to him, but all his entreaties fail.

Madame de Montespan to whom Louis turns from his first mistress is a contrast to La Valliere. For she has those characteristics which are most necessary to rise at the court of the Sun King. Lauzun, like

Cassius in Julius Caesar, presents these characteristics when he says that Madame de Montespan possesses "that temper which / Makes courts its element". She herself brings out the contrast between her personality and that of La Valliere, with a comparison:

She loves but Louis - I but love the king: Pomp, riches, state?and power - these, who would love not? (Act III, Sc. I, p. 4 3 )

The distinction that Madame de Montespan is drawing between the two words - "Louis" and "king" - indicates the difference of approach to the idea of love. For La Valliere love exists between two persons and is founded on an emotional relationship, but for Madame de Montespan 4l

love takes its roots from a relation between two necessities. Belonging to a world where human values are more important than forms, La Valliere has learned to love the man behind the form. Her rival, on the other hand, is a product of a world where forms and mannerisms are valued most and she, therefore, misses the man inside the form and puts greater value on pomp, riches, state and power. This aspect of her nature which distinguishes her from La Vallière underlines her determination to succeed at the court at any cost. It is also evident in her rejection of Lauzun for the fulfilment of her own ambition.

Though Madame de Montespan knows that if she has to hold her place at the court, she will have to ask the king's favours for others, she is proud enough to ignore Lauzun. She cannot forget that Lauzun was her first love. When she learns that he is planning to marry La Valliere, her pride is injured. She not only refuses to ask the king's favour for him but dares to laugh at him with a threat that she will ruin him. The banishment she promises the Duke is now, through his machinations, turned upon her and the king demands her absence from the court.

The character who holds all the strings of the court intrigues is the Duke de Lauzun. He is the most perfect example of the second group of characters. If Bragelone belongs to that haughty brood, the remnant of the feudal aristocracy, then, Lauzun, as an architect of court intrigues, is certainly a representative of its debased coterie represented by the courtiers for whom words and intellect are the greatest source of strength. Our first glimpse of Lauzun confirms this observation. In an antechamber at Fontainebleau Lauzun and the

Count de Grammont are seen engaged in conversation. V

manners in his short and pointed questions and comments. The questions he asks are direct, and behind them one can see the quick working of a shrewd mind. In Lauzun’s conversation with Madame de Montespan whose first love he has been, his shrewdness again comes out. It is here that we have another view of his character with his special capacities to attract women and use them for his own advantage. He assures Madame de Montespan that he ^as prepared the way for her, having "duly fed / The king’s ear" with her praise. He is also sufficiently shrewd in dealing with matters that concern human emotions.

Because La Valliere has failed him, Lauzun makes a direct bargain with

Madame de Montespan with definite terms of contract. By presenting a picture of the court with La Valliere's drawbacks, Lauzun gives

Madame de Montespan a fair warning that any deviation from the contract will be injurious to her ambition.

In a soliloquy before his meeting with the king his secrets are made known to us:

So far, so prosperous! From the breast of Louis, The blooming love it Dore so long a summer Falls like a fruit o’er-ripe; and, in the court. And o’er the king, this glittering Montespan Queens it without a rival, - awes all foes. And therefore makes all friends. State, office, honours, Reflect her smile, or fade before her frown. So far, so wellb^^T love this fair La Valliere, As well, at least, as woman’s worth the loving; And if the jewel has one trifling flaw. The gold ’tis set in will redeem the blemish. The king’s no niggard lover; and her wealth Is vast. I have the total in my tablets - (Besides estates in Ficardy and Provence.) I’m very poor - my debtors very pressing. I’ve robbtd the duchess of a faithless lover. To give myself a wife, and her a husband. Wedlock’s a holy thing,- and wealth a good one! (Act IV, Sc. i, p. 59)

Here Lauzun’s motives are very clear. Love in his world has a different meaning. It is superficial and useless unless accompanied by some material advantages in the form of wealth. He realises the fickleness 43

of the king's love, but is unable to raise his own love any higher

than his master's. No doubt Lauzun has some feeling for La Valliere,

but it is nothing if it is not supported by social advancement.

Basically, however, he remains loyal to the king and La Valliere and

expects the same loyalty from Madame de Montespan who, contrary to

Lauzun's expectations, denounces him with threats. But Lauzun is as quick and cunning as a fox, and with a master hand foils her plans

to outwit him by securing from the king an order for her banishment

from the court.

Lauzun is typical of a courtier of Louis XIV. Around such a

courtier move like satellites other courtiers who live on the spoils

of their leader and have no capacity for machinations of their own.

While in La Valliere Lauzun is the central intriguer. Count de Grammont

is a minor character who plays second fiddle to Lauzun, and is nothing more than "one of the courtiers". As an assistant to Lauzun he is well

versed in the manners of the court, and is seldom surprised unless it

is an occasion such as that of the disappearance of La Valliere even

when his comment on the event is extremely simple:

Whoe’er heard of maids of honour Flying from kings? (Act II, Sc. iii, p. 37)

He is the typical courtier interested in court gossips, and supplies

Lauzun with the details of everything that happens there. As such

Grammont can be the true flatterer when he rejects Lauzun's

'Tis now the hour in which our royal master Honours the ground of his rejoicing gardens By his illustrious footsteps!- there, my lords. That is the true style-courtier! (Act III, Sc. iv, p. 5 2)

and substitutes it, with an indignant comment, by a rhetorical outburst

Out upon you! Your phrase would suit some little German prince. Of fifteen hundred quarterings and five acres. 44

And not the world’s great Louisi ’Tis the hour When Phoebus shrinks abash’d, and all the stars Envy the day that it beholds the king! (Act III, Sc. iv, p. 52)

His admiration for the king is genuine and true to his type:

With what a stately and sublime decorum His majesty throws grandeur o'er his foibles! He not disguises vice; but makes vice kingly - Most gorgeous of all sensualists! (Act III, Sc. V. p. 55)

Grammont is the final portrait of the debasement of aristocracy into the flattering courtier for whom the barrier between good and evil has completely disappeared.

The arrangement of the scenes in La Valliere owes much to

Macready: reference has been made to this in the early part of this chapter. Macready’s judgment was based purely on the concept that incidents must be contrasted with one another. He was also interested in making these scenes attractive by highlighting their scenic potentialities. All this was aimed to provide a certain amount of theatrical appeal for the audience. Apart from a couple of scenes where something happens, the story, in most scenes, is carried forward with the help of dialogue. The problem which Bulwer faced was to find a suitable method of presenting the dialogue which would correctly depict his aims. Hcjone would say that Bulwer's verse is remarkable, but in spite of its drawbacks, it conveys, to some extent, what he aimed at.

The Preface to La Valliere maintains that the dialogue in the play has been divided into two groups according to the "manners" they exhibit. The language of the dialogue varies in two ways, depending on the group of characters using it. La Valliere makes use of two different types of language as seen in the dialogue: (i) language 45

used by La Valliere, Bragelone and Madame de la Valliere in their

conversation ; and (ii) the language used by Louis, Lauzun, Madame

de Montespan and Grammont in their conversation. On the one hand,

we have the "poetic" verse spoken by La Valliere, Bragelone and

Madame de la Valliere, and on the other, we have a verse which is very akin to prose and used by other characters. It is, however, correct

to say that all the dialogue-situations in either category are not without blemishes.

The dialogue in the first category has a certain amount of

slowness, a drawling tone which is noticeable in the very first scene

of the play where the flow of the verse does not break off until the

arrival of Bragelone. In fact, it is Bragelone who from the very

beginning infuses some warmth and emotion into his speeches. La

Vallière’s speeches do not acquire any expanse until the second act

when Bragelone’s exhortations kindle her spirit, adding some energy

to her expressions. The scenes between La Valliere and Bragelone abound

in examples of the kind of dialogue and language with which the dramatist has characterised them. This can be best seen in Act V, scene ii where

La Valliere and Bragelone visit the old Chateau and recollect their

past. In the course of their conversation La Valliere learns of the

true identity of the Franciscan friar:

La Vail. Yet, were he living, could I but receive From his own lips my pardon, and his blessin&, My soul would deem one dark memorial rased Cut of the page most blister'd with its tears.' Bragelone. Then have thy wish! and in these wrecks of man Worn to decay, and rent by many a storm. Survey the worm the world call'd Bragelone. La Vail. Avaunt!- avaunt!- I dream!- the dead return'd To earth to mock me!- No! this hand is warm! I have one murther less upon my_soul. I thank thee_j_ Heaven!- /swoons/ Bragelone /supporting her/ The blow strikes home; and yet VJiat is my life to her? Louise!- She moves not; She does not breathe; how still she sleeps! I saw her 46

Sleep in her mother's arms, and then, in sleep She smiled. There's no smile now!- poor child! One kiss! It is a brother's kiss - it has no guilt; Kind Heaven, it has no guilt.- I have survived All earthlier thoughts: her crime, my vows, effaced them. A brother's kiss!- Away! I'm human still; I thought I had been stronger; God forgive me! Awake, Louise!- awake! She breathes once more; The spell is broke; the marble warms to life! La Vail. ^ freeze bacli to atonef ^ ^eard a voice That cried "Louise!"- Speak, speak!- my sense is dim, And struggles darkly with a blessed ray That shot from heaven.- My shame hath not destroy'd thee! Bragelone. No!- Life might yet serve thee!- and I lived on. Dead to all else. I took the vows, and then. Ere yet I laid me down, and bade the Fast Fade like a ghost before the dawn of heaven. One sacred task v/as left.- If love was dust. Love, like ourselves, hath an immortal soul. That doth survive whate'er it takes from clay; And that - the holier part of love - became A thing to watch thy steps - a guardian spirit To hover round, disguised, unknown, undream'd of. To soothe the sorrow, to redeem the sin. And lead thy soul to peace! La Vail. 0 bright revenge! Love strong as death, and nobler far than woman's! (Act V, Sc. ii, pp. 78-79 )

This style of expression conforms to the type of characters both La Valliere

and Bragelone belong to. Because they are characters of "passions", it

suits them. It is also the style of dialogue one can see in many

successful plays of the period.

While the language of La Valliere and Bragelone is typical of much

of the early nineteenth-century dramatic verse that could be seen in

Fazio, The Apostate, Virginius and Ion, that of the other group with

the court characters shows, to a certain extent, Bulwer's originality.

In the Preface Bulwer apologised "for the tone of the lighter portions

of the play ... the use of a diction, in such portions, which will '] probably sound a little prosaic. ..." He justifies this principle by

stating that "to thoughts and to persons that belong to prose, belongs

prosaic expression, n 2 The best example of this type of language comes

1 Preface, La Valliere, p. xvii. 2 ibid. 47

from Act III, scene i where Lauzun assures Madame de Montespan that she has the qualities necessary for success at the court and, therefore, they must work together for the removal of La Valliere from the king's esteem:

Lauzun. Haï my fair friend, well met! - how fares Athene? Mme de Mon. Weary with too much gaiety! Now, tell me, Do you ne'er tire of splendour? Does this round Of gaudy pomps - this glare of glitt'ring nothings - Does it nè'er pall upon you? To my eyes 'Tis as the earth would be if turf'd with scarlet. Without one spot of green. Lauzun. We all feel thus Until we are used to it. Art has grown nature. And if I see green fields, or ill-dressed people, I cry "How artificial!" With me, "Nature" Is "Paris and Versailles." The word, "a man," Means something noble, that one sees at court. Woman's the thing Heaven made for wearing trinkets And talking ssandal. That's my state of nature! You'll like it soon; you have that temper which Makes courts its element. Mme de Mon. And how?- define, sir. Lauzun. First, then - but shall I not offend? Mme de Mon. I'.d know, my faults,, to make them look^filçi^4i#tues. Lauzun. First, then, Atnene', you've an outward frankness. Deceit in you lookshonester than truth. Thoughts, at court, like faces on the stage. Require some rouge. You rouge your thoughts so well. That one would deem their only fault, that nature Gave them too bright a bloom! Mme de Mon. Proceed! Lauzun. Your wit Is of the true court breed - it plays with nothings; Just bright enough to warm, but never burn- Excites the dull, but ne'er offends the vain. You have much energy; it looks like feeling! Your cold ambition seems an easy impulse; Your head most ably counterfeits the heart. But never, like the heart, betrays itself! Oh! you'll succeed at court! - you see I know you! Not so this new-made duchess - young La Vallière. Mme de Mon. The weak, fond fool! Lauzun. Yes, weak - she has a heart; Yet you, too, love the king! Mme de Mon. And she does not! She loves but Louis - I but love the king: Pomp, riches, state, and power - these, v/ho would love not? (Act III, Sc. i, pp. 42-43)

In this illustration it will be noticed that there is a touch of levity in the tone of some of the speeches. But one has to remember 48

that La Valliere is not a comedy and, apart from occasional uses of it, cannot permit a treatment of its characters in the purely comic spirit. Yet it can be definitely stated that in the partially comic treatment of the characters Bulwer has shown a moderate ingenuity.

We know that the serious drama of the early nineteenth century lacked in humour. Apart from infrequent and light touches of humour, the majority of the successful plays of the period seldom presented any comic sense. Bulwer decided to treat some of his characters in La

Valliere in a comic manner and in doing so deviated from the usual practice of the dramatists. On the one hand, we find that these are individuals having certain special characteristics; on the other, the very characteristics are not their own but of the society they live in. The objects of humour are not only the characters themselves but also the manners of the court of Louis XIV. Each of them is marked with a peculiarity of his own; Louis displays "his infirmer and vainer 1 qualities ... selfishness, his morbid cravings for amusements";

Lauzun is "daring, versatile, sarcastic, sceptical" betraying "occasional 2 feelings of generosity and glimpses of an original nobleness"; Madame de Montespan is greedy, selfish, jealous and, to a great extent, unscrupulous; Grammont is the ultimate example of the art of flattery and a messenger who can carry any message, but never feels any pangs about its content. Yet none of these characteristics particularly belong to any one of them but, taken together, they hold up a mirror to the society.

For Bulwer these vignettes from the court of the Sun King fulfilled another purpose. In the study of these thoughts and manners he presented his criticism of his contemporaries. The conversation at the opening of Act I, scene iv has a familiar and contemporary ring:

1 Preface, La Valliere, p. xi. 2 ibid., p. xiii. 49

Lauzun. Ah, Count, good day! were you at court last night? Grammont. Yes; and the court has grown richer by a new young beauty. Lauzun. . So!- her name? Grammont. La Valliere. Lauzun. Ay, I have heard;- a maid of honour? Grammont. Yes. The women say she's plain. Lauzun. The women! oh. The case it is that's plain - she must be lovely. (Act I, Sc. iv, p. 22)

The thought and manner of this conversation, as well as those of the last extract of conversation between Lauzun and Madame de Montespan quoted above, can be compared with those in Bulwer's portraits of more recent characters in Pelham, The Disowned or even Asmodeus. Much of the same tone of society gossip which was for long the concern of fashionable novels is present in these conversations, perhaps the best comparison is offered by a piece of dialogue recorded in Asmodeus at Large (1833)* Asmodeus has been dining with some wits when the 1 following occurs :

1st Diner out... "How is William Brougham?" Greville "Recovering fast, to the despair of six unsuccessful candidates, who, at the report of his death, all started for London, in the hope of Southwark. I am hearb^ glad of it; for he is a capital fellow - very amiable, and very clever." Asmodeus. "You recollect K— ? Well, he sent a courier on to the borough of --- , saying, he understood there were two gentlemen standing for it unwilling to pledge themselves. He begged to announce that a gentleman was coming, in his carriage and four, willing to pledge himself to anything." Greville. "Ha! ha! - that's excellent. Apropos of pledges. Young calls them 'infernal things'."

And so it goes on for nearly another page and a half. The target of this ridicule is contemporary society as represented in the upper classes,

Much of this is based on Bulwer's reasons for his criticisms of the aristocracy one of which was concerned with the aristocratic bias of

1 Asmodeus at Large (Knebworth Edition) (1873)i PP* 402-03* 50

the Constitution, and the same sentiment is present behind all his expressions concerning society. The pages of England and the English are full of criticism of the aristocracy and Paul Clifford points out 'I the evils in the social system. Four years after the Reform Bill had been passed, the theme of the separation of aristocracy from the people once more recurred in La Valliere:

Bragelone. ...Our king - he bears him well? Lauzun. Oh, bravely. Marquis; Engaged with this new palace of Versailles. It costs some forty millionsi Bragelone. Ay, the People Groan at the burthen. Lauzun. People! - what’s the People? I never heard that word at court! The People! Bragelone. I doubt not, duke. The People, like the Air, Is rarely heard, save when it speaks in thunder. I pray you grace for that old-fashioned phrase... (Act II, sc. i, pp. 29-30)

Similarly, the scenes which show Madame de Montespan’s technique of capturing the king’s interest, and which present the ’’cliques" of the

court refer to the comments on the marriage-without-love of the young women of his time in England and the English and could be interpreted as an indirect criticism of the practice.^ When in view of this Bulwer

traced in the Introductory Remarks to the Dramatic Works in l84l the

three periods in French history, he was generalising his already established

theory:

The three plays of ’’Richelieu", "The Duchess de la Vallière", and "The Lgdy of Lyons", which form the greater portion of this volume, are illustrative of three periods, perhaps the most remarkable in the history of France, and may be said to constitute a dramatic series. In the time of Richelieu, the Frencfer monarchy was consolidated on the ruins of a haughty and independent noblesse;- in that of Louis XIV the policy was consummated, and the seigneur was humbled to the courtier;- in the time which Claude Melnotte illustrates, the picture is completed; seigneur and courtier are alike merged in that aboriginal character from which they both proceed - the enthusiastic and successful soldier.

1 See Michael Sadlier, Bulwer: a panorama, pp. 224-241; Keith Hollingsworth, The Newgate Novel 1830-184?, pp. 63-82. 2 England and the English (Knebworth Edition) (l8?4), pp. 8O-8I. 51

In the time of Richelieu the People, in its own person, awed and sullen, recedes from the stage, as the Minister and the Noble play their desperate game for power: in that of Louis XIV, effeminate and corrupted, the People stands, not visible indeed, but in silence and shadow, behind the gorgeous throne which the victorious minister bequeathed to the successor of the monarch he ruled and humbled. In the time of the French Republic, noble and king, coronet and crown, are alike gone; and the people - emerging from the ghastly Medea cauldron, into which its limbs and heart, long feeble and decrepit, had been cast, rent and bleeding - reappears for a brief time in the character of a second youth, impetuous and ardent, capable of daring all things for glory, unwise to accomplish anything for self-government, resisting a world for the defence of freedom, and rendering freedom to the first warrior which dazzled its imagination and flattered its self-love.^

It is needless to remark that La Valliere depicts the second period in

French history which Bulwer speaks of. We have already seen how Bulwer has presented his theory in the treatment of characters and in the implicit discussion of political issues.

It will be helpful to remember here that Bulwer had very clear-cut political ideas. Basically an aristocrat himself and a conservative in spirit, he had supported liberal principles, calling for a wide scale political and social reforms. He believed that the gap between the aristocracy and the people in general should be closed. Yet, instead of advocating socialistic tendencies for establishing a democratic state, Bulwer maintained that both the spirit and structure of the aristocracy needed correction and readjustment which would once more enable the aristocracy to take, along with the people, greater part with greater efficiency in the social and political affairs of the country. In the light of this, a full-length discussion of the passage quoted above, along with the rest of the materials in the Introductory

Remarks, will not only be out of place here but also exceed the limit of this chapter. All that can be said within the scope of the present examination is that La Valliere asserts the same social and political

1 Introductory Remarks, The Dramatic Works, pp. v-vi, 52

attitudes of Bulwer which repeatedly appeared, much to the chagrin of a section of contemporary society, in his writings both before and after the production of this play. I shall discuss Bulwer’s political and social ideas in detail in the chapter on Richelieu.

In a discussion of the qualities of La Valliere the fact cannot be ignored that the play belongs to the mainstream of the drama of this period. The English drama of the first forty years of the nineteenth century exhibited certain tendencies common to a large number of plays written during this period. Among others, the most notable characteristics were the influence of the Gothic, analysis of criminal psychology in connection with the delineation of passions, an overwrought preoccupation with the idea of remorse, and a concern with the personal, the domestic nature of human problems. In an interesting thesis Dr. R.K. Fletcher has pointed out that many of these tendencies formed a consistent part of the Romantic drama from The

Borderers to A Blot in the 'Scutcheon. The following paragraphs discuss some of the characteristics which are common to La Valliere and other plays written in this period.

Dr. Ball has observed that the dramas produced by the Romantic 2 poets are psychological, "involving moral conflicts". "They present an individual in either personal or social relationships, confronted with demands and decisions which involve him always in suffering and often in guilt, and in the deeper recognition of his own nature."^

To this statement Wordsworth's The Borderers, Coleridge's Remorse,

Joanna Baillie's De Montfort and Maturin's Bertram bear testimony in

1 R.M. Fletcher, English Romantic Drama 1795-1843. 2 P.M. Ball, The Central Self, p. 24. 3 ibid. 53

their attempts to analyse the conditions of human mind in turmoil.

An awareness of remorse is associated with it and both The Borderers andRRemorse show it :

... Remorse- It cannot live without thought; think on, think on. And it will die. V/hat! in this universe where the least things control the greatest, where The faintest breath that breathes can move a world; What! feel remorse, where, if a cat had sneezed, A leaf had fallen, the thing had never been Whose very shadow gnaws us to the vitals. (The Borderers, Actlll, 11, I56Ü-6 7) Remorse is at the heart in which it grows; If that be gentle, it drops balmy dews Of true repentance; but if proud and gloomy. It is a poison-tree, that pierced to the inmost Weeps only tears of poison! (Remorse, Act I, i, 20-24)

At the centre of the conflict in La Valliere also lies the idea of remorse,

Madame de la Valliere foreshadows it; My voice thou wilt not hear, But Thought shall whisper where my voice would warn. And Conscience be thy mother and thy guide! (Act I, Sc. i, p. l4)

Bragelone strives h^rd to arouse it in La Valliere;

When he who loved thee died, he bade me wait The season when the sicklied blight of shame Creeps o'er the bloom of Passion, when the way Is half prepared by Sorrow to Repentance, And seek you then ... (Act IV, Sc. iii, p. 67)

And La Valliere herself adds a poignancy to it in her struggle for repentance ;

0 holy father! Brother to him whose grave ray guilt prepared, Witness my firm resolve, support my struggles. And guide me back to Virtue through Repentance! (Act IV, Sc.v, p. 74)

In his introduction to English Plays of the Nineteenth Century,

Dr. M.R. Booth notes; "The replacement of a metaphysical with a domestic ideal and the trend toward domestic themes and domestic realism are features of early Victorian plays that operate strongly in the more 54

popular 'drama' and melodrama." The appeal to the personal nature

of the individual's problem, set in a domestic surrounding such as in

the family, could be found even in The Borderers, Remorse and The Cenci.

In the plays written in the lS20's, this tendency gained a momentum and passed into the drama of the next decade. It coincided with Bulwer's

own dictum on the subjectmatter of tragedy when he said:

Tales of a household nature, that find their echo in the hearts of the people - the materials of the village tragedy, awaking an interest common to us all; intense yet homely, actual - earnest - the pathos and passion of everyday life; such as the stories of Jeannie Deans or of Carwell, in prose fiction;- behold one great source of those emotions to which the dramatic author of this generation ought to apply his genius{2

To this he gave the name "SIMPLE" which, according to him,

is one legitimate (and I hold the principal) source of the modern tragedy - its materials being woven from the woes - the passions - the various and multiform characters - that are to be found in the different grades of an educated and highly civilised people;- materials a thousand times more rich, subtle,and complex, than those sought only in the region of royal existence...^

Here Bulwer was emphasising the fact that the emotions in the plays must draw on the experiences of the audience to demonstrate that, "at

bottom, the genuine impulses of the king and of the gardener are of

the same nature" and "equally human within the men and women in the 4 audience." Evidently, Bulwer had in mind the examples and the qualities he approved of in the plays of his contemporaries. The problem that

confronts husband and wife in Fazio, the love of the father for the

child and of the child for the father in Virginius, the "paternal

watchfulness of Master Walter over Julia"^ in The Hunchback, and the

1 M.R. Booth, (ed.) English Plays of the Nineteenth Century, Vol. I, p. 22 2 England and the English, p. 270. 3 ibid., p. 274. 4 R.F. Sharp (ed.). The Lady of Lyons and other Plays of Lord Lytton, Introduction, p. xxT 5 M.R. Booth, op.cit., p. 7 6. 55

death of Ion for the sake of his father in Ion illustrate the nature of family relationship that abounds in these plays, and was admired by Bulwer. In La Valliere this relationship appears in the sweetly innocent idealism of the love of Bragelone and La Valliere emphasised by the sincerity with which it is maintained throughout the play. Even the very nature of the problem La Valliere faces at the court of Louis

XIV is personal.

The period when La Valliere was written had been one of the most difficult for Bulwer. This was the time when his relationship with his wife was in the process of being permanently breached. This experience no doubt influenced him in his treatment of characters and events in La Valliere and was largely responsible for the extremely subjective nature of the play. Contrary to his earlier efforts in dramatic composition, in Cromwell and the fragmentary Eugene Aram which were imitative of the early drama, Bulwer attempted in his first play for the stage to do something which would be original. The advice he received from Macready partly helped him in his composition, but could not make him a popular dramatist. The lesson he learned from the production of La Valliere would not, however, go unrewarded.

In his subsequent plays Bulwer would show a greater concern for the public taste by providing for the performers powerful acting roles, and subduing greatly his personal beliefs. 36

CHAPTER II

The Lady of Lyons; or, Love and Pride

In spite of its failure, the writing of La Valliere had taught

Bulwer a lesson in dramatic composition. On April 9, l837 Macready recorded that Bulwer had mentioned "his conviction that he could write a play with the experience he had gained." From then until

November we hear nothing about any play fr'om Bulwer. It seems that some time in November Macready told Bulwer about a play, and he readily agreed to write one for him. Bulwer was immediately interested partly because he wanted to clear himself of the blemishes which had been caused by the failure of La Valliere. He wrote to Macready:

I have been considering deeply the elements of Dramatic art, and I think I see the secret ... I will make the experiment.- And submit it to you - Act by Act - as it proceeds ..• Waive all compliment - if you think the chances are that I should not succeed, it is better for you not to try and much better for me. I must suspend undertakings of moment and value - which I would delightedly do to serve you and the Drama - but not, I own, merely from restless curiosity, or the speculations of that tempting adventurer - Vanity ... Were you not Manager, I would not be a secohd time Dramatist ... tell me which you prefer, Comedy or Tragedy. I think the former in itself a safer speculation .•. Whatever subject I select, you may depend on domestic interest and determined concentration up to the close ...^

The last three lines of the extract show that Bulwer’s idea of dramatic writing has undergone some important changes. He now thinks that a comedy would be readily acceptable to the audience and so a "safer speculation". It has also occurred to him that "domestic interest" and

1 Macready, op.cit., p. J>S6, 2 Shattuck, op. cit., pp. 56-57* 57

"determined concentration" are the two important characteristics of a successful drama, Macready was very pleased to have received this letter.

Professor Shattuck refers to a story that after Macready had received Bulwer*s letter, one day he expressed his desire to get a play like The Honey Moon. This gave Bulwer immediate impetus to write a play 'I in the same vein. The type of play Bulwer envisaged was already familiar with the theatrical audience. A woman's pride had been a common theme in the early nineteenth century. Shakespeare also contributed to it with

The Taming of the Shrew. John Fletcher provided another model with his

Rule a Wife and Have a Wife which was included as a popular play in the collections of plays. The interest of the audience gave incentive to other dramatists to try their hands at the writing of such plays. One of the earliest ventures of the century was John Tobin's The Honey Moon

(1805), a play in which Macready had acted several times to his credit.

Both The Honey Moon and The Lady of Lyons "show a vain and ambitious woman 2 being shorn of her pride of place". When on December 20, 1837 and on circa January 2, I838 Bulwer wrote to Macready, he referred to The Honey

Moon and laid out his intentions very clearly:

I have done half the play - & am more and more pleased with it as applied to what you wanted. You will be part comic - part tragic. The Honeymoon hero, with more, I think, of lightness & ease on one hand, & sentiment & passion-on the other ... My heroine ... is charming ... 2 Acts of grave sentiment & passion viz: 3 & 4 ... My plot requires what I hate - viz an interval of 3 or 4 years between the 4th & 5 th act ...... my object in this attempt is to give you a popular and taking play. Now unless you feel thoroughly persuaded I will not say of its certain success, but of the great probability of its attraction ...5

Under the title of The Fraudulent Marriage Macready received four

1 Shattuck, op.cit., note, p. 57- 2 ibid., p. 57* 3 ibid.,pp. 58^53 58

acts of the play on December 28, The same night he read it and wrote to Bulwer the next day: "I devoured your M.S. last night - a$ most anxious to lose no time in proceeding with it, if, as I have every reason to hope the strength & passion - the power, of the fifth act keeps pace with the four preceding ones." At this point he did not make any suggestion for the fifth act. He saw Bulwer on December 31, and discussed the play, but Bulwer had not made up his mind about the termination of the play. On January 2, I838 Macready again wrote to

Bulwer about the fifthzact. In reply Bulwer informed Macready of the plan of the act: "I have thought of the best plan for Act 5 & think

I cankeep up the interest tho' there will be no scene quite so striking as those in the 3rd. and 4th Act. I have set about it in earnest and you shall have the whole play by Sunday night,To this letter Bulwer attached a plan for the fifth act:

Programme of Act 3 Two years after Act 4. The army has returned triumphantly from Italy. A regiment quartered at Lyons. Damas now a general - Melnotte who has changed his name till he has redeemed it, is Col. Morier, the hero of the day. Pauline's father has become a bankrupt. Pauline supports her parents (Morier ought to lose an arm if you don't object to that little operation.) She is persecuted by Beauseant the principal creditor of her father. Ultimately she is delivered from Beauseant by her lover (unknown), persuaded by Damas to go to a ball at the house that once belonged to the Deschappelles, just bought by Col. Morier, then^the discovery is made, & "all goes merry as a marriage bell".

Bulwer then sent Macready Act V and commented: "I have thrown into it more passion & interest than I had dared to hope for & cannot but trust L it will tell & sustain the others." Here it will be helpful to describe the plot of the first draft of the play. Act I opened with Beauseant and Glavis with the story of Pauline's rejection of both for a husband, and the revenge the two were plotting to punish her. In the first scene

1 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 59< 2 ibid., p. 39* 3 ibid., p. 60. 4 ibid., p. 61. 59

of the act they also heard from the landlord of the Golden Lion about

Claude Melnotte. The second scene presented Claude who had just returned with a prize for sharp-shooting. He told his mother about his love for

Pauline, which she decried as impossible. He also mentioned his painting of the portrait of Pauline and the verseshe had been sending her.

Claude's messenger Colin entered and informed him that his verses had been rejected by Pauline. This sent Claude into a temper and he began to think of revenge. Beauseant and Glavis then came to see him and offer their plan for revenge telling him that he had to pass for a prince and marry Pauline. Claude agreed to this. Act II presented Claude in his new role of a prince. It also showed the love of Claude and Pauline.

At the end of the scene both went out to be married. In the same scene

Claude gave expression to his qualms of conscience and a duel between

Claude and Damas took place. Act III was the recognition. Scene one was at the inn where Claude realised for the first time what he had done.

Scene two was at Claude's cottage where he told Pauline the truth.

Act IV opened with Claude writing a letter to Pauline's parents. Vi/hen he had gone to send the letter, Beauseant entered the cottage and attempted to run away with Pauline,which she refused to do and was rescued from the situation by Claude. She fainted and on regaining consciousness expressed her admiration for Claude as her saviour. Monsieur and Madame Deschappelles arrived and Claude declared his intention of leaving Pauline. He said that he would return after he had redeemed himself. Act V presented the reconciliation. As Colonel Morier Claude returned with Damas after two and a half years. Claude went out and Damas met Beauseant who informed him of his forthcoming marriage with Pauline. The Deschappelles were shown in poverty and Pauline was supporting her parents. Beauseant threatened to ruin them if Pauline did not marry him. He left and Claude 60

came in. Monsieur Deschappelles also came in followed by the bailiffs who had come to take him to prison. Claude paid off all his debts.

In the final and last scene, Damas invited the Deschappelles to a ball given by Claude. They were scorned by everybody. Claude arrived as the Prince of Como, and Pauline and her parents realised the true identity of Colonel Morier. Claudé and Pauline were then united.

Macready read the entire play and wrote in his diary: "Read it, and have my apprehensions about it; he writes too hastily, he does not do himself justice." He then wrote to Bulwer, making some suggestions:

I have read the fifth Act, and instantly report to you some objections.- In primis ^sic/ Melnotte should not enter with Damas - they left the stage together just before, and have to explain themselves, that two years have since elapsed. This will not be well. - Cannot some brother officers parting to their places of billet convey the fact of the time to the audience - then Damask scene with Beauseant - Damas having told a friend, that Melnotte, or Morier has rushed to every person likely to give him information of Pauline.- Upon hearing Beauseant*s news, he observes upon poor Melnotte's condition, who enters to him for the scene of despair, which now stands ...^

Bulwer agreed to make the necessary changes in the fifth act of the play.

He sent his plan for alterations, which Macready had earlier suggested to him, to Macready: Macready accepted them and the opening of the fifth act was changed accordingly. He commented that, considering the time in which the play was written, it was "really wonderful".^ He wrote to Bulwer that the final copy of the play would be made without delay. The collaboration between Bulwer and Macready was by no means over by this time. Both went on toaking changes in the play until it was finally produced. Some of these changes concerned a joke given to

Glavis and the words spoken by several characters. One significant change was the addition of a passage at the end of the first scene of

1 Macready, op.cit., p. 437* 2 Shattuck, op.cit.,pp. 6I-6 3. 3 Macready, op.cit., p. 439. 61

the second act. Bulwer had ended this scene with two words spoken by

Claude; "Do you?" Macready drew Bulwer*s attention to its untheatrical characteristic ;

"Do you?" in italics would end the chapter of a novel and make the reader pause long,before he turned the leaf, to consider the state of mind and bring to his imagination the picture of Melnotte - but, I assure you, that on the stage the words would be ineffective to close an act. After they are uttered, a resolution taken, or an impatient desire expressed to escape from his reflections, would perhaps carry it off - but you will no doubt supply the desideratum.1

Following this letter, Bulwer made an addition after the two words "Do you?" in Act II, scene i. In the printed editions of the play he retained the two words, but added in a footnote that a passage was usually spoken after the two words. He also quoted the passage in the same footnote. At the same time, he suggested certain changes; he asked Macready to strike out the line spoken by Damas at the end of Act IV after Claude had gone out, but in the printed version this line was kept; he wanted to drop a speech of Madame Deschappelles, which was done; and he thought it would be better if the scene ended with the following words:

Pauline Starting from her father's arms^. Claude! - Claude! my husband! Mon. Deschappelles. You have a father still!

In the printed versions of the play, this correction was made and all the alterations were inserted into the play. About January 27, Bulwer made further suggestions which were connected with the speeches of

Madame Deschappelles throughout the play. These were not major changes, but mostly meant additional words to be said by her. Some of these changes were retained in the final printed version of the play and others were excluded.

While these alterations were going on, Bulwer and Macready were

1 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 64. 62

also occupied with the selection of a suitable title for the play.

Macready had suggested "Nobility" and Bulwer mentioned three more:

"How will it end", "Lost and Won" and "Love and Pride".^ He also hinted 2 that as a last resort he would accept just "Melnotte". On January 31, he drew Macready’s attention to another title: "Ambition is too grand

for our subject, but anything that uses the adjective such as the

Ambitious Lover or the Ambitious Suitor or Love and Pride would do pretty well."^ On February 2, he said that "The Adventurer" or "Love and Pride" would be sufficient for a title. Macready did not like "The Adventurer"

because he realised that Claude did not hold all the importance in the

play, and that "the female character has the strength of the last two 4 acts." On February 4, Bulwer wrote to Macready that he could take

"Ambition or the Village Prince" and suggested two other titles: "The Lady 5 of Lyons" and "Love and Pride". As this letter shows,it seems that

Bulwer accidentally fell upon the title. For the play was finally called

The Lady of Lyons; or. Love and Pride. Professor Shattuck, however, has f an interesting footnote to this letter. He says,

Helen Faucit credited the naming of the play to George Bartlet, the stage manager and the creator of Colonel Damas. One day at rehearsal, when the title was under discussion, he "turned to me, and taking off his hat, and bowing in the soldier-like manner of the colonel in the play, said, 'I think "ray young cousin" should give the ^ play a name. Shall it not be called The Lady of Lyons?’"

Professor Shattuck has discovered it from Helen Faucit’s book On Some of

Shakespeare’s Female Characters (London, 1904, p. 165). Although we

cannot verify the truth in the story, it can be assumed that Bulwer was

responsible for the title of the play as his letter of February 4, earlier

1 Shattuck, gp.cit., p. 6l. 5 Shattuck, op.cit., pp. 68-69, 2 ibid., p. 65. 6 ibid., p. 68. 3 ibid., p. 67. 4 Macready, op.cit., p. 443. 63

referred to, evidently shows. Professor Shattuck too made a happy conclusion when he said: "It is pleasant to restore the authority for the title to the author himself,"^

If I stop at this point the story of the collaboration between

Bulwer and Macready over The Lady will not be complete, because the final printed version of the play indicates that there were other alterations made by Bulwer. It has been evident from the testimony of the letters, quoted earlier in this chapter, that since the first draft of the play

Bulwer had been making constant changes. I have already outlined the details of these alterations, but there were other changes which seem to be of some significance. The majority of them were made during the period between January 9, when Macready finally accepted the play, and the date when the copying of the manuscript was made which was January l4, as we can gather from Macreqdy's letter of that date, informing us that he was returning the manuscript of the first draft of the play to Bulwer.

The most significant change was the replacement of the opening scene between Beauseant and Glavis in the first draft by another between Pauline and Madame Deschappelles preceding the entrance of Beauseant, which is the opening scene in all the editions of the play. Secondly, Bulwer omitted all references to Napoleon in the last act. Thirdly, he substituted Gaspar for Colin, making a shift in the characterisation.

For, in the earlier version Colin was a buffoon, but Gaspar now became an outraged republican, which can be seen from the printed text of the play. Fourthly, in the first draft both Beauseant and Glavis paid a visit to Claude in the second scene of the first act after they had heard of him from the landlord of the inn, but in the final version their visit was replaced by a letter which Claude received in the third

1 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 68. 64

scene of the act, the second scene being one between Glavis and Beauseant later joined by the landlord who informed them about Claude. This new arrangement stands in all the printed editions of The Lady. And, finally,

Bulwer dropped the ball scene of the first draft as outlined in his memorandum of January 2, and ended the play with Claude paying off the debt of Monsieur Deschappelles and then getting united with Pauline in the same scene, which can be seen from all the editions of the play.

These were the final alterations made by Bulwer, and they now stand in all the editions.

At the beginning of February 1838 the play was ready and the first performance was scheduled for the 15th of the same month. The play had an immediate success and the audience liked it greatly, but the reactions of the press were mixed. Though Bulwer's name was not at first given out, the play was criticised for what the press called democratic and republican ideas. The Morning Post said:

He ^the dramatist7 makes his peasant talk sad stuff such as a manly peasant would never talk, about his natural equality, and so on, with persons of family ... We are vexed to see Macready playing so foolish a character ...^

The Times wrote :

Anything is better than the republican claptraps which were flung in every here and there. We heard it hinted how wrong it was that there should be any aristocracy but that of merit - how contemptible it was to be proud of ancestors, and so on. Surely if hereditary dignity is to be attacked, the stage of Covent Garden theatre need not be the platform whence such sentiments should be uttëred. Yet uttered they wege, and of course many vulgar bravoes followed them.

When Macready came to defend the play with a curtain speech, he too was criticised for republicanism. And whén it was given out that Bulwer was the author of the play, the press opened its attack more vigorously.

1 The Morning Post, February I6 , I858, p. 4. 2 The Times, February I6 , I858, p. 6. 65

The Times commented:

We had no doubt it was an issue from the mint of which that gentleman /Bulwer/ is a deputy master, for the scribblers of the French Boulevard-theatres are its real masters. No other school could or would produce such morbid sentimentality, such turbid sansculottisra. We are not surprised to learn that the audience furnish the next day an harvest to the apothecaries^ the whining and puling of love scenes produce nausea, which is not a little augmented by the bile stirred up by the indignation at the politics of the mess.^

These extracts show the typical attitudé of a section of the press to

Bulwer. The love scenes The Times complained of are, in fact, much better than what most of the plays provided at this time. Bulwer said in his Preface to The Lady of Lyons that he had no intention to use the stage as a platform to express his political and social ideas and argued that whatever political or social ideas the play possessed, they were for the purpose of presenting a correct picture of the period after the

Revolution. But we shall later see that The Lady of Lyons shows Bulwer*s political beliefs in a subtle way.

Bulwer's friends greatly admired the play as did also the audience.

After the first night's performance Macready recorded:

Acted Claude Melnotte in Bulwer's play pretty well; the audience felt it very much, and were carried by it; the play in the acting was completely successful.^

Bulwer's friend Forster wrote in the Examiner :

It was a scene-to raise, to revive, to give a new zest to play-going.

Queen Victoria came to the play and wrote to Bulwer who passed on the information to Macready:

He /Bulwer/ told me of a message he had received from the Queen, full of courteous expressions to him about the play, and wishing him to communicate to me how very much she was delighted with my acting the comedy, the third act, and the fifth.4

1 The Times, February 24, I858, p. 5» 2 Macready, op.cit., p. 444. 3 The Examiner, February I8 , I838, p. 101. 4 Macready, op.cit., p. 446. 66

Lady Blessington sett her words of admiration to Bulwer;

I confess, that I have rarely in my life enjoyed so great a pleasure as on finding that a play, which excited my feeljn^ and delighted my imagination more than any other I had/Deheld, was from your pen. My proudest anticipations are fulfilled, for the success of The Lady of Lyons leaves all competitions behind, and this, too, without the prestige of its authoiy èiing known. IVhen I read the extracts in the Examiner last Sunday, I said that I thought there was only one man in England or in the world, who could have written them.^

In a letter to Bulwer Mary Shelley made a very suggestive and significant

criticism of the play;

Do excuse my writing a few lines to say how very much The Lady of Lyons pleased me. The interest is well-maintained, the dialogue, natural, one person answers the other, not as I found in Werner and Sardanapalus, each person made a little speech apart, or one only speaking that the other might say something; the incidents flow from the dialogue, and that without soliloquies, and the incidents themselves flow naturally one from another. There is the charm of nature and high feeling thrown over all. I think that in this play you have done as Shelley used to exhort Lord Byron to do - left the beaten road of old romance, so worn by modern dramatists, and idealised the present; and my belief is that now that you have found the secret of dramatic interest, and to please the public, you will, while you adhere to the rules that enable you to accomplish this necessary part of a drama, raise the audience to what height you please. I am delighted with ^ the promise you hold out of being a great dramatic writer.

The instant success of The Lady calls for an examination of the characteristics which were largely responsible for its success. These

characteristics are concerned with the presentation of action and idea.

In order to look for these characteristics I would like to refer to

the criticism made by Mary Shelley. Her reason for admiring the play is its application of certain qualities which amount to what in later-day

critical term may be called "naturalism". For, the characteristics which attracted her are (i) continued interest, (ii) natural dialogue,

(iii) absence of soliloquy and (iv) a realistic portrayal of characters.

1 Earl of Lytton, The Life of Edward Bulwer, Vol. I, p. 536. 2 ibid., p. 538. 67

The adoption of these methods, in her opinion, symbolises a deviation from the practice of the romantic drama. Romantic drama of the early nineteenth century was lyrical, subjective and introspective, lacking in powerful action. Mary Shelley is here criticising this form by praising objective drama which mirrors nature instead of the familiar and exclusive preoccupation of the "poetic" drama with passion. In spite of Bulwer*s emphasis that he is depicting in The Lady a particular period of French history, the subject of the play is familiar. The marriage of a daughter, the pride and vanity of women, the social ambition of the hero are characteristics that can be found in every age and every society. Besides, the second and third decades of the nineteenth century saw a certain amount of social mobility among the different classes in England. In the efforts of Claude to rise above his station, one can find the reflection of a tendency of contemporary

British society. In Money Bulwer would return to this problem in creating a character like Evelyn who, like Claude, ascends the social scale when he receives a fortune in the form of a legacy. The contemporaneity of The Lady further appears iiythe speeches of the characters. The modernity of the subject is also noticeable in the social ambition of Claude, the undemocratic and Sho^i^/avL attitude of Madame Deschappelles because she belongs to a pre-Revolution period, the typical aristocratic attitude of family pride in Beauseant.

In fact, the problem which the play discusses is a social one. The situation in the play was so universal and familiar with the audience that the play had an immediate success on the stage.

For The Lady Bulwer drew his inspiration from two sources: one was John Tobin’s play The Honey Moon and the other a story called The

History of Ferourou; or The Bellows Mender written by Helen Maria

Williams and published in I8OI. The Honey Moon supplied Bulwer with 68

the idea of writing such a play and The History of Perourou provided him with the general outline of the plot. This explains Bulwer's unwilling acceptance of an interval of two and a half years between the fourth and fifth acts of The Lady. Like The Honey Moon, Perourou also deals with the pride of a woman. Bulwer used perourou as far as the general treatment of the story was concerned. The difference in between The Honey Moon and Perourou is/the number of women characters.

In Tobin’s play there are three sisters, one of whom is proud. In

Perourou there is one woman for whose pride a punishment is plotted and executed.

As Bulwer wrote to Macready, he was interested in The Lady of

Lyons in creating "determined concentration". In his Preface to the play he again referred to it; "... it was to the development of the plot and the arrangements of incidents that I directed my chief attention ..." To fulfil these conditions Bulwer borrowed from contemporary drama many of its established devices. The result is that the play unfolds a well-told story. The Lady also owes a debt to the well-made play. The well-made play was a creation of Eugene

Scribe, English adaptations of whose plays had been for some time performed in the theatres of London. The aim of Scribe was to disregard romance and ideal characters. He chose his dramatis personae from more natural and realistic surroundings. For elevated motives and passions too he had no sympathy. This particular dramatic form sought to entertain the audience by borrowing something from all kinds of plays without exclusively belonging to any particular type.

Contemporary dramatists were aware of this pattern of Scribe's plays, and thought that a play constructed on this design was sure to succeed.

1 Preface, The Lady of Lyons (l83&), P- xii. 69

Scribe's influence was not direct, but an indirect result of the performance of his plays on the London stage. The successful plays of the period aimed at providing a continuity of interest by constantly changing their scenes. This is true even of a play like Tobin's The

Honey Moon which first inspired Bulwer to venture a play of this type.

The failure of La Valliere must have turned Bulwer's attention to the successful plays of the time and to their familiar pattern of composition.

When he attempted his next play, he followed the same technique which had made the plays of other dramatists successful. Though it was not

Bulwer's intention to write a potboiler, the formula had certainly helped him in providing a continuity of interest in the play.

The remarkable thing about the plot of The Lady is, then, the concentrated continuity of action which links the scenes very effectively. The spirit of the first act is essentially comic and the seriousness of its second and third scenes is greatly restrained.

The first act opens with Pauline, Madame Deschappelles and their maid

Marian. From the conversation we learn that Pauline is known as the beauty of Lyons and that she is continually sought after by men for marriage. Beauseant arrives and proposes to Pauline who immediately refuses him. Damas enters. He provides the common-sense approach to

Pauline's marriage. The dejected Beauseant learns from the landlord of the Golden Lion about Claude Melnotte and his love for Pauline.

Beauseant and Glavis, who is another suitor rejected by Pauline, plan to introduce Claude as a prince to the Deschappelles so that Pauline may marry him, and then realise that she has married the son of the gardener because she refused Beauseant and Glavis and other "respectable" suitors. Claude's messenger, Gaspar, who was sent to the house of the Deschappelles with Claude's verses, returns with them. The treatment 70

given to Gaspar by the servants of the Deschappelles infuriates Claude and thus provides a good reason for his participation in the intrigue.

The tension of the scene is gradually released when Beauseant*s letter arrives which consoles Claude.

The second act follows the light spirit of the first act and mingles with it a touch of romantic atmosphere. The act consists of only one scene. From the conversation between Beauseant and Glavis we learn that Claude has been introduced to Pauline and is engaged to her for marriage. Beauseant finds Claude hesitaint to go through the impersonation any more. Re decides to put an end to the "farce" by having Claude and Pauline married that very day. Damas, who suspects that Claude is not a prince, is impressed by Claude's ability to duel and becomes his friend. The climax comes when Claude sees that there is no way out for him but to go through the marriage.

As a result of the marriage of Claude and Pauline, the third act quickly catches the serious spirit. From now onwards in the remaining two acts the dominant mood of the play will be serious. This act takes us to the Golden Lion. We see a happy Beauseant and a joyous Glavis whose plan for revenge has succeeded now that Claude and Pauline have been married. Beauseant and Glavis take a mocking attitude towards

Claude who flares up and orders them to leave him. As they go out

Pauline enters. Claude suggests that they go to his cottage so that

Pauline will not have to hear insulting words from the people at the inn. The climax of the third act is provided by the second scene which is given to the exposition of the secret. Pauline learns that she has married Claude Melnotte, son of the gardener, and breaks down,

Claude promises to behave well and to free her from the bondage of marriage. The melodramatic tension the scene has built up is gradually 71

released by Claude's explanation for everything that has happened up

to this time. The rest of the scene assumes a quieter tone and ends

with a touch of sentimentalism.

The fourth act maintains the seriousness of the third act. This

act is again only one scene. It opens with Claude's soliloquy after he

has written to Pauline's parents. He goes out to had over the letter

for despatch. In the cottage Claude's mother and Pauline are present.

Beauseant calls in, sends Claude's mother out on a M.se pretext, and

attempts to persuade Pauline to leave Claude and go with him. To

frighten her he takes out a pistol. Meanwhile, Claude has entered

the cottage and now stops Beauseant. Next Pauline's parents and Damas

arrive. Both Monsieur and Madame Deschappelles are deeply upset by

what has happened. They decide that Pauline should leave Claude's

cottage and go with them. Claude hands over a full confession of the

fraud which will secure an annulment of the marriage. He then joins

Damas* regiment and the act ends with Claude's exit. The fourth act has two different climaxes. One comes when Beauseant arrives and

persuades Pauline to leave Claude.

Pauline. Sir! leave this house - it is humble: but a husband's roof, however lowly, is, in the eyes of God and man, the temple of a wife's honour! Know that I would rather starve - yes - with him who has betrayed me, than accept your lawful hand, even were you the prince whose name he bore! - Go. Beau. V/hat is not your pride humbled yet? Pauline. Sir, what was pride in prosperity in affliction becomes virtue. Beau. Look round: these rugged floors - these homely walls - this wretched struggle of poverty for comfort - think of this! and contrast with such a picture the refinement, the luxury, the pomp, that the wealthiest gentleman of Lyons offers to the loveliest lady. Ah, hear me! Pauline. Oh! my father! - why did I leave you? - why am I thus friendless? Sir, you see before you a betrayed, injured, miserable woman! - respect her anguish! __ /MELNOTTE opens the door silently and pauses at the threshold^ Beau. No! let me rather thus console it; let me snatch from those lips one breath of that fragrance which never should be wasted on the low churl thy husband. Pauline. Help! Claude! - Claude! - Have I no protector? 72

Beau. Be silent! /showing a pistoL/ See,I do not come unprepared even for violence. I will brave all things - thy husband and all his race - for thy sake. Thus, then, I clasp thee! Mel. /dashing him to the other end of the stage/ Pauline - look up, Pauline! thou art safe. Beau, /levelling his pistol/ Dare you thus insult a man of my birth, ruffian? Pauline. Oh, spare him - spare my husband! - Beauseant - Claude -no- no /faints/ Mel. Miserable trickster! shame on you! brave devices to terrify a woman! Coward! - you tremble! - you have outraged the laws - you know that your weapon is harmless - you have the courage of the mounlfbank, not the bravo! - Pauline, there is no danger. (Act IV, Sc. i, p. 131)

The pattern of behaviour of the three characters here is the same that one can see in contemporary melodramas. The villain, the virtuous wife who will not sacrifice her virtue even in the face of luxury and temptation, and the poor but honest husband who saves his wife’s virtue, are all too familiar melodramatic devices. This shows that in The Lady

Bulwer has mixed the melodramatic technique with that of the well-made play, which is also seen in the next example.

The other climax in the fourth act is reached when Monsieur and

Madame Deschappelles arrive to take Pauline with them.

Pauline. ... Claude - Claude - all is forgotten - forgiven - I am thine for ever! ^ïme. Deschap. V/hat do I hear? - Come away, or never see my face again. M. Deschap. Pauline, never betrayed you! do you forsake us for him? Pauline. /going back to her father/ Oh no - but you will forgive him too; we will live together - he shall be your son. M. Deschap. Never! Cling to him and forsake your parents! His home shall be yours - his fortune yours - his fate yours; the wealth I have acquired by honest industry shall never enrich the dishonest man. Pauline. And you would have a wife enjoy luxury while a husband toils! Claude, take me; thou canst not give me wealth, titles, station - but thou canst give me a true heart. I will work for thee, tend thee, bear with thee, and never never shall these lips reproach thee for the past. Damas. I'll be hanged if I am not going to blubber! Mel. This is the heaviest blow of all! - V/hat a heart I have wronged! - Do not fear me, sir; I am not all hardened - I will not rob her of a holier love than mine. Pauline! - angel of love and mercy! - your memory shall lead me back to virtue! The husband of a being so beautiful in her noble and sublime tenderness may be poor - may be low-born; (there is no guilt in the decrees of providence!) - but he should be one who can look thee in the face without a blush,- 73

to whom thy love does not bring remorse,- who can fold thee to his heart, and say, - "Here there is no deceit!" - I am not that man!

Mel. There is my hand! - mother, your blessing. I shall see you again,- a better man than a prince, - a man who has bought the right to high thoughts by brave deeds. And thou! - thou! so wildly worshipped, so guiltily betrayed, - all is not yet lost! - for thy memory, at least, must be mine till death! If I live the name of him thou hast once loved shall not rest dishonoured;- if I fall, amidst the carnage and roar of battle, my soul will fly back to thee, and love shall share with death my last sigh! More - more would I speak to thee! - to pray! - to bless! But no; - when I am less unworthy I__will utter it to Heaven! - I cannot trust myself to - /turning to DESCHAPPELLES/ Your pardon, sir; they are my last words - Farewell! /Exit. Damas. I will go after him. - France will thank me for this. Pauline . /starting from her father's arms/ Claude! - Claude! - my husband! (Act IV, Sc. i, pp. 134- 135)

The behaviour of the characters in these extracts is again within the

framework of contemporary melodrama. The parents who exercise a firm

control over their daughter even after marriage, Claude’s acceptance

of their authority and Pauline's adherence to it in spite of her feeble

attempts to make a compromise between her parents and her husband are,

along with the sentimental note of the dialogue, unmistakably characteristic

of melodrama.

The fifth act maintains the mood of the fourth act by retaining

its general atmosphere, including the melodramatic touch. The act opens

two and a half years after the incidents in the fourth act. From three

officers and Damas, who has been promoted to the rank of a colonel, we

learn that a certain Morier has come to Lyons to see if he can find

the girl he left two and a half years ago. Beauseant appears and Damas

gathers from him that he is going to marry Pauline. Monsieur Deschappelles

confirms this information about the marriage. We then see Claude alias

Colonel Morier. He too has heard of the marriage. Encouraged by Damas,

Claude decides to see Pauline and find out if she still loves him. 74

Claude talks to her and gathers that Pauline has not stopped loving

him. He pays double the amount due to Beauseant. Pauline and Claude

are finally united and Beauseant goes out in anger and unhappiness,

followed by Glavis. Thus we are given another last-minute rescue of

the heroine by the hero.

Apart from the concentration of incidents, Bulwer has made use

of another familiar technique in preparing his audience. This appears

mostly in hints and suggestions that he offers in the early scenes of

the play for events that will occur later. In order to show Claude's

love for Pauline, he draws our attention to a bunch of flowers in the

opening scene and in the course of the scene Pauline refers to them

three times. (1) "I wish I knew who sent me those flowers"-; (2) "Who

can it be that sends me every day these beautiful flowers? - how sweet 1 they are!"; (3) "Who could have sent me these flowers?" Hearing these

statements, coming at different stages of the scene, the audience is

likely to grow curious and almost echo the same thoughts in its own

mind. The answer comes in the third scene of the first act when we

learn that Claude Melnotte has been sending those flowers. Claude

speaks to his mother: "Thou knowest that for the last six weeks I 2 have sent everyday the rarest flowers to Pauline? - she wears them."

The immediate result of this sentence is the establishment of a relation

between Claude and Pauline to justify Claude's future and subsequent

actions. Pauline's refusal of Beauseant leads us to his aside: "Refused!

and by a merchant’s daughter!— Refused!" This points to Beauseant's

future action as shown in the following: "We'll think of some plan

to humble her. Mille diables! I should like to see her married to 4 a strolling player!" When Damas says, "Even M. Glavis sighed most

piteously when you departed"f it connects Glavis's later speech that

1 Drqmatic Works (Knebworth Edition), Vol. I, p. 97*

2 Ibid., p. 105. 4 Ibid., p. 101. 3 j.h±d,, p. 99 . 5 ibid, p. 99. 75

he too has been refused by Pauline; and provides a reason for his becoming Beauseant's accomplice. At the inn the landlord's sentence about Claude that "His mother says that Mademoiselle does not know 1 him by sight", creates an opportunity for impersonation and later brings in a joke about Claude's appearance in the second actp

Mme. Deschap. I never notice such canaille - an ugly, mean-looking clown, if I remember right. Damas. Yet I heard your porter say he was wonderfully like his highness. (Act II, Sc. i, p. 110) 2 When Claude exclaims, "I would turn soldier - France needs soldiers!", it points to his future connection with the army towards the end of the fourth act. At the beginning o^Act II, Beauseant and Glavis have a short exchange of dialogue which prepares us for what is to come:

Beau. ... though it is not many days since he arrived, they have already promised him the hand of Pauline. Glav. Claude_/ scatters our gold about with as m\ich coolness as if he were watering his own flower-pots. Beau. ^Claude_y makes a very pretty figure in his fine clothes, with my diamond snuff-box. Glav, And my diamond ring! ... I fancy I see symptoms of relenting: he will never keep up his rank, if he once let out his conscience. (Act II, Sc. i, p. 109)

The contents of this dialogue foreshadow much that will happen soon,

Claude will present the diamond snuff-box and the diamond ring to Madame

Deschappelles and Pauline. The same evening Claude and Pauline are married, and before that Claude shows signs of his "conscience". The clash with Damas prepares the way to a duel between Claude and Damas and their eventual friendship which later helps Claude in joining the regiment under Damas in Act IV. Pauline's words about Damas that "He rose from the ranks to his present grade, and in two years", draw an echo from Claude, "In two years!— two years, did you say?" and leads to

Claude's own military career and success in two and a half years. When

Beauseant says to Claude that if their secret is let out before his

1 Dramatic Works, Vol. I, p. IO3. 2 ibid., p. 105. 3 ibid., p. 113. 76

marriage with Pauline she "will be induced to marry the first that offers 1 - even perhaps your humble servant", it foreshadows Beauseant's future attempt to take Pauline from Claude in Act IV and Act V. This is

further strengthened by another speech of Beauseant towards the end

of Act II; "Now will I follow them to the village, enjoy my triumph,

and tomorrow, in the hour of thy shame and grief, I think, proud girl, 2 thou wilt prefer even these arms to those of the gardener's son." In

Act V Beauseant, on seeing Damas, speaks in aside; "Damas! that is unfortunate;- if the Italian campaign should have filled his pockets, he may seek to baffle me in the moment of my uiotory."^ His apprehension

prepares us for what is going to happen in the second scene of the act when Colonel Morier alias Claude enters, and foils once mgre Beauseant's

scheme to marry Pauline. In dropping these hints throughout the play,

Bulwer once again followed an established practice of the well-made

play as shaped by Scribe.

In The Lady Bulwer is preoccupied with two sets of characters,

presenting a picture in black and white. On the one hand, we have the

Deschappelles, Damas and Claude's mother; on the other, there are

Beauseant and Glavis. Claude, though he belongs to the first group,

stands in between the two because of his acceptance of Beauseant's

plan to have revenge on Pauline. It is Claude and Pauline who provide

the link between the worlds of good and bad. Moreover, as we are to

see, each of these characters represents certain ideas and has a

definite function to fulfil in the play.

The central character is Claude Melnotte who stands for ambition, adventure and social mobility just as Evelyn in Money will do in future.

Bulwer wrote to Macready that in The Lady he wanted to create a character

like the hero of The Honey Moon. But, though Bulwer was somewhat

inspired by this play, his Claude Melnotte is very different from the

1 Dramatic Works, Vol. I, p. 116. 2 ibid., p. 118. 3 ibid., p. 137< 77

Duke of Aranza, the "Honeymoon" hero, as Bulwer once referred to him.

The essential difference between the two is that the Duke is totally free from blemishes whereas Claude is notl The Duke of Aranza is a character who sets bad works right. In doing so, he acquires an ideal position with his concept of the ideal good, and the task of. changing a proud woman's personality ideally suits him. Claude, however, is no such character. He is the average human being who is full of good and bad qualities. The task of changing Pauline does not lie with him, but with chance and circumstance. Even Beauseant cannot have the position of the Duke, although it is through him that Pauline's sufferings come. This suggests that Bulwer is not dealing with ideal, faultless persons but with average human beings who share virtue and vice equally. As Mary Shelley said, the characters are drawn from

"nature" and not from imagination and fantasy. In Tobin's play, however, the characters are not taken from life. His play is marred by an atmosphere of unreality which is hardly capable of convincing an intelligent audience. In creating not only Claude but also other characters in this vein of reality, Bulwer has taken his play far ahead of what many other plays of the period were able to achieve.

The centre of focus is always on Claude and partly on Pauline beeause of her relationship with Claude. Our first glimpse of Claude comes through the landlord of the inn. He provides all the background information necessary for an immediate understanding of Claude. His qualities have been fascinating to the local young men and girls, and he is reckoned their leader. He is ambitious and eager to acquire glory.

This love of glory has made him undertake many feats of skill and is also responsible for his love of Pauline. Claude's romantic love does not take too long to change when his messenger, Caspar, returns with his poems, having been served with blows by Pauline's servants. 78

In minutes love turns into hate and a desire for revenge. The

opportunity comes with the letter of Beauseant and Claude reads the assurance that he will be able to marry Pauline.

Time passes and we find Claude playing the rich prince in the household of the Deschappelles. It is a different Claude who is now

impersonating. He can express his love to Pauline in romantic words and make witty remarks. But his conscience reminds him that what he

is doing is not right. The more he thinks of the seriousness of the

situation, the more he suffers from remorse and repentance. This heralds the transformation that occurs after his marriage.

At the cottage Claude opens his heart to Pauline and bravely

tells her the whole truth. The change that has come over him is due

to his feelings of guilt. Claude has now realised its enormity and is

trying to free himself from this guilt by giving Pauline back to her

parents. Henceforth, until we see Claude again in the fifth act,

this will be his dominant mood. The heroes of the majorilyof romantic dramas are full of guilt and continually live in the past. In The Lady

Bulwer has deviated from this practice and created a character who does not look back morosely on his past, but wants to forget his guilt and start a new life. Though like the other heroes, Claude is not without guilt, yet unlike them, he can stop looking back and brooding over it;

What is past is past. There is a future left to all men, who have the virtue to repent, and the energy to atone. (Act IV,Sc. i, p. 128)

The exit he makes at the end of Act IV keeps him away from Lyons for a period of two and a half years. His return is welcome for two reasons; one, he is yet to prove his real worth to Pauline; and two, it will completely free him from the guilt he has been suffering from 79

since his marriage with Pauline. The genuineness of his love for

Pauline can be seen in the fact that he has been able to keep her

memory alive in her absence. When he returns to Lyons, he finds that

Beauseant is going to marry Pauline. He decides to test Pauline and

wants to find out if she wishes him to return to her. When he finds

that Pauline has no intention of betraying him, he pays the amount

owed by her father, and thereby spoils once more Beauseant's schemes.

He realises that he has successfully come out through the test, and

it fills him with the expected happiness.

The person who is the direct victim of Beauseant's schemes is

Pauline Deschappelles. Our first impression of Pauline is marked by

her simplicity. We realise that a charming girl has been encouraged

to hope for a princely suitor. Both Pauline and her mother ruminate

too much on the past and live in an imaginary world of their own,

always dreaming of aristocratic titles and wealth. In developing

such an attitude, Pauline and her mother provide a viewpoint which is

exactly the opposite of what Claude Melnotte stands for. The past for

the two women is a real thing and an asset to the concept of an aristocratic and undemocratic lineage. For them social progress is restricted to people with a rich heritage, people who can trace their ancestry far back into the past. Because of this they fail to understand

the common people and their progress. They also ignore the total impact

of the Revolution which has acted as a leveller of ranks. Theirs is a fairytale world where one day a prince will come to marry Pauline.

In this world common things and persons have no existence. The^mother and the daughter are bold enough to insult everybody from other stations

of life. This behaviour is certainly unnatural and for the sake of

justice a reversal of fortune is necessary. It comes through Beauseant 8o

when he introduces Claude as a prince, and lauline is immediately attracted by him. The hypocrisy of her character comes out when she says that compared with the "prince's" verses, those written by Claude are nothing. She does not know that she is now praising the same verses which she rejected a few days ago. And when Damas points out that the porter thinks that the "prince" resembles the gardener's son,

Pauline thinks it is highly improbable. The "prince's" words and presence bring out everything that is good and charming in Pauline which is missing in her meeting with Beauseant in the first act. One notices that Pauline has become a charming maiden with sweet manners and loving thoughts.

She has been brought up in an atmosphere untouched by the Revolution,

Consequently, when Claude appears as a "prince", she thinks that her dreams have come true. She loves this "prince" sincerely and her marriage with him completes her total identification with a false prince and his false heritage. As a result of this, when she learns that Claude is no prince, and that she has been married to him because of Beauseant's practical joke, the effect of it is devastating on her.

The conflict that this revelation creates in her is very painful. To resolve her conflict, she begins to look for a saving grace whichwill lessen the burden of hegùnhappiness. This she finds in her attempt to console herself with the thought that for once she has indeed loved a man who also has returned it honestly. It also brings her final acceptance of Claude before her parents:

Claude, take me; thou canst not give me wealth, titles, station - but thou canst give me a true heart. I will work for thee, tend thee, bear with thee, and never, never shall these lips reproach thee for the past. (Act IV, Sc. i, p. 134)

With this speech of Pauline the story of The Lady could have been over. 81

That it is not signifies that the tests for Pauline and her parents are not yet over. Pauline is to suffer more in Claude's absence for two and a half years. Though the relationship between Claude and

Pauline is established with the last speech quoted above, both have to wait until Claude returns.

The character who is largely responsible for the vanity and ambition of Pauline is her mother Madame Deschappelles. What she is, she attempts to put into Pauline. The very first words she speaks, express her affectation: "Marian, put that rose a little more to the ièftv" As she goes on speaking throughout the opening scene her character comes out clearly. The pride she has built in herself is passed on to her daughter:

You are certainly very handsome, child!- quite my style;- I don't wonder that you make such a sensation! Old, young, rich, and poor, do homage to the Beauty of Lyons! - Ah, we live again in our children, - especially when they have our eyes and complexion! (Act I, Sc. i, p. 97)

In reply to Pauline's feeble complaint about "spoiling" her she says:

If I praise you it is only to inspire you with a proper ambition.- You are born to make a great marriage.- Beauty is valuable or worthless according as you invest the property to the best advantage.- (Act I, Sc. i, p. 97)

When Beauseant arrives, her immediate reaction to his visit is a sense of triumph for her daughter:

Pauline, this is another offer! - I know it is!- Your father should engage an additional clerk to keep the account-book of your conquests. (Act I, Sc. i, pp. 97-98)

Such use of trade imagery indicates that beauty for her is a thing to be bargained with when the question of Pauline's marriage arises.

Her love of titles and nobility is enormous. She could say on Beauseant's face: "If you were still a marquis, or if my daughter were intended to 82

1 marry a commoner,- why, perhaps, we might give you the preference."

In all this one will notice her vanity which makes her think that her daughter is an image of herself:

Ah, you little coquette! when a young lady is always making mischief, it is a sure sign that she takes after her mother! (Act I, Sc. i, p. 100)

In her attempt to satisfy her vanity, she even fails to give proper importance to human beings. This is nowhere better seen than in the following sentence about Claude:

I never notice such canaille - an ugly, mean-looking clown, if I remember right. (Act II, Sc. i, p. 110)

In uttering such a statement, Madame Deschappelles commits a double folly. First, it shows her ignorance of the social changes that the

Revolution has brought. Secondly, it points out her basic disrespect for everything that does not have a proud heritage. For her Claude is nothing more than a symbol of ugliness because of the fact that he is the son of a gardener.

Madame Deschappelles is not, however, without common sense as we discover in the following lines:

A young lady decorously brought up should only have two considerations in her choice of a husband: first, is his birth honourable? secondly, will his death be advantageous? All other trifling details should be left to parental anxiety. (Act V, Sc. ii, pp. 143-144)

Bulwer here has given Madame Deschappelles an attitude which was typical of the parents of his own time. That this was a settled attitude of the Victorians, is proved by Robertson's Society, which was produced more than twenty years later in 1863, when two characters in the play,

Sidney Daryl and Lady Ptarraigant, echo similar thoughts encouraged by the parents and guardians of young girls:

1 Dramatic Works, Vol. I, p. 98. 83

Daryl, Feeling! Why man, this is a flesh market where the matchmaking mammas and chattering old chaperons have no more sense of feeling than drovers - the girls no more sentiment than sheep, and the best man is the highest bidder; that is, the biggest fool with the longest purse. ^ (Society, Act II, sc.2, p.36)

Lady Ptarmigant ... Cheer up, my darling! love, sentiment, and romance are humbug! - but wealth, position, jewels, balls, presentations, a country-house, town mansion, society, power - that's true solid happiness ... 2 (Society, Act III, sc.2, p.49)

But the common-sense of Madame Deschappelles is overshadowed by her inherent snobbishness. When she accepts Claude's "improved" personality, she shows that she has not lost her snobbishness, but is trying to make the best of it;

A colonel and a hero! Well, that's something! He's wondrously improved! I wish you joy, sir! ' (Act V, Sc. ii, p. 148)

It is not difficult to imagine what she would have said if Claude had not changed, but remained only the son of the gardener even in the fifth act. ,

In The Lady Beauseant supplies villainy. The idea of presenting him as a villain is to provide an example of the decadent aristocracy.

The subtle comment of the dramatist is to underline the notion that an aristocrat like Beauseant is no better than a man in the street, and will resort unscrupulously to any means to fulfil his ambitions. Our

first encounter with him is in the opening scene of the play where he appears as a suitor for Pauline who rejects hiip immediately. We next

see him in conversation with Glavis who has also been rejected by Pauline.

At the inn where Beauseant and Glavis meet, the former sketches out a

plan of revenge. Beauseant, however, does not have an easy time with

Claude who is the instrument of his revenge. Claude's high-handedness

irritates him, particularly when Claude presents Beauseant's snuff-box

to Madame Deschappelles and Glavis' ring to Pauline on the ground that

1 Lacy's Acting Edition, IO6O (n.d.) 2 ibid. 84

the two women have praised the two articles. His advice that Claude and Pauline should be married immediately is accepted, and the triumph he has been hoping for is now at hand.

The moment, when Beauseant can claim Pauline, comes when he visits Claude's cottage and seeks a tête-à-téte with Pauline. In his behaviour at this stage of the play, Beauseant strongly resembles the aristocratic villain of contemporary melodrama. It then becomes clear what motives Beauseant had in getting Claude and Pauline married. He even wields a pistol in his hand to frighten Pauline into accepting his proposal, and Pauline is saved only by the chance arrival of Claude.

We do not see Beauseant for two and a half years. During this time he has managed to get the Deschappelles into trouble and under his control. Like Shylock, he has bargained for Pauline; either he will marry Pauline or her father will become a bankrupt. Yet, at the eleventh hour, all his hopes again fail when Claude appears and pays off twice the sum owed by Pauline's father. For Beauseant nothing is left. He can only make his exit with a forced laughter.

In creating the character of Beauseant and linking him closely with the incidents in the play, Bulwer has served two different purposes.

First, through the portraiture of Beauseant he points out that aristocracy is no longer an important factor in life unless it is based on individual merit. Secondly, an aristocratic villain was the stock-in-trade of many melodramas of the period. In introducing such a character in The Lady, Bulwer was sure that he would be easily understood by the audience and, at the same time, serve as a link for the further development of the plot. For, without Beauseant's reappearance in the fifth act the play would not have succeeded as it did.

Besides these. The Lady has other characters - Monsieur

Deschappelles, Damas, Claude's mother, Glavis, the landlord and Caspar. 85

Most of these are minor characters and have significantly limited roles to play. In the Deschappelles household it is the Madame who is important. Monsieur Deschappelles appears only in four scenes of the play and speaks correspondingly few lines. On a superficial understanding it appears that the dramatist has neglected two characters - Glavis, and Claude's mother simply referred to as Widow. Glavis, who has been a constant companion of Beauseant, takes his leave in the middle of

Act III, scene i. When he appears again in the fifth act, he has only five words to speak, and that at the vefy end of the play. The main interest of Glavis has been restricted within the first three acts of the play. As a friend and companion of Beauseant, he performs an important function. By presenting their conversation, Bulwer is able to tell his audience what Beauseant has planned and what he will do in future. It has helped the dramatist in avoiding soliloquies and asides, which would otherwise have been necessary for the exposition of Beauseant's thoughts, and the absence of which in the play has called forth the admiration of Mary Shelley. Similarly, Claude's mother has an important function to fulfil. Through her Bulwer has provided information on Claude's social background and the simple honesty of peasants, which people like Madame Deschappelles will always fail to understand. The absence of Claude's mother in the fifth act has been dictated by the necessity of dramatic condensation, because her presence would have unnecessarily lengthened the act. Besides, it would not have glorified Claude as much as it does without her.

The landlord, too, has a definite role to play. He supplies much of the third-party information about Claude. Like him. Gaspar fulfils another demand of the plày - that of providing the unsophisticated ideas of a man living at the bottom of the social scale even after 86

the Revolution. Much of what Gaspar says has a thematic value.

This leaves only one character, viz. Damas, who has a consistently straightforward role to play, Damas first appears in the opening scene. The overall impression of his personality is that he is a light-hearted, honest, sincere, helpful and friendly person. In comparison with the three characters in the Deschappelles household, he seems to be more intelligent and possesses a greater practical sense.

He knows what is wrong with his cousin and Pauline. He is also the first to suspect that Claude is not a prince. If anyone fights with him, he develops a kind of friendly feeling towards him. Again, it is because of him that Claude has a chance to get into the army and become famous. And it is with Damas that Claude makes his return to Lyons.

Fundamentally, The Lady is a domestic drama and belongs to the common tradition of the early nineteenth-century theqtre. Though it will be difficult to find the kind of realism Robertson attempted in the l860’s, a vein of naturalism runs through the domestic element in the plays of the first half of the century. It is also impossible to say that the dramatists who aimed at domestic interest were consciously moving towards naturalism. The reason for the introduction of domestic element in their plays is the interest the nineteenth-century audience took in scenes of familiar relations between characters. In them the audience saw the representation of a slice of reality with which they were acquainted in life. In following this kind of naturalism which expressed itself through the domestic element, the dramatists invariably pointed towards the social comedies of Robertson. The domestic element could be found in any genre of the drama - tragedy, comedy, historical play, and melodrama. To a certain extent, it is also present in the more mixed forms of contemporary drama such as burlesque, farce, 87

extravaganza and comic opera, Sheil's The Apostate (1817), tells the story of a daughter-father-son-in-law relation. Knowles's Virginius

(1820) has a simple, helpless heroine who innocently mentions her love for Icilius to her father, and because of her innocent faith in her father, she becomes a model daughter. As a product of eighteenth- century sentimentalism and the growing patriarchal tendency of the early nineteenth century family, the domestic drama set up an ideal of morality. This morality was "prescribed by convention, sentiment and

contemporary manners". The majority of the plays created "idealised patterns of feminine marital behaviour, Victorian Christian gentlemanly sentiments, and family virtues". The relationship between the wise

father and the dutiful offspring was an established truth. M.W. Disher

quotes from Prince Hoare's Indiscretion (18OO): "To quit the roof of a parent is the most alarming indiscretion of which a female can be

guilty; she forfeits the regard of the author of her being; and is thus

too apt to supply the loss, by accepting a protection which brings with 2 it dishonour and ruin." One of the reasons for the unpopularity of La

Valliére could be explained by this quotation. La Valliere presented

the problem of a woman who did not listen to her mother's advice about

defending herself against the temptations at the court of Louis XIV.

To a large number of people, who had definite ideas of virtue and vice,

her behaviour certainly flouted the moral convention. It could be

said that it was not only the diffused structure of La Valliere but

also the nature of the play's theme which had been responsible for

its failure. The Lady did not suffer the same fate because it adhered

to the contemporary code of conduct! That is why Pauline, when she has

1 J.O. Bailey (ed.) British Plays of the Nineteenth Century, Introduction, p« 25. 2 Quoted by J.O. Bailey, ibid., p. 25. 88

practically accepted Claude as her husband in the fourth act, does not insist upon living with him, but agrees to return to her parents.

For the same reason Claude does not like to increase the wrath of

Monsieur and Madame Deschagelles by insisting on his rights as a husband. The Lady fulfils another aim of domestic drama by suggesting that "inherent worth is not dependent on birth and rank, and that

the low-born may rise." Along with The Lady, to this genre belong

Knowles's The Hunchback (1832) and The Wife (1833)» Talfourd's Ion

(1836), Marston's The Patrician's Daughter (1842) and Browning's

A Blot in the 'Scutcheon (l843).

For Bulwer the domestic element in The Lady came from his idea

of the materials of a play as explained in England and the English.

There Bulwer laid down certain well-defined principles for the subject

of "modern" drama which I have already referred to in the chapter on

La Valliere. Though Bulwer spoke on the subject of tragedy, it could be

taken as his pronouncement on general dramatic principles. He suggested

that the theme of "modern" drama must be taken from the everyday life of

the people. In La Valliere he attempted it by presenting a quite

common tale of a woman's unhappiness. But the characters and background

of the play were still removed from the everyday life of the common

people. In The Lady he solved this problem by taking his characters

from the less exalted positions of life, and presented them within

the limits of domestic experiences as represented by an ordinary family.

As a family, the Deschappelles ledd a compact life. The relationship

between father, mother and daughter is extremely harmonised. Though

proud, Pauline is obedient to her parents, as her decision to return

1 J.O. Bailey, op.cit., p. 25. 89

to them after her marriage with Claude, and her acceptance of a probable marriage with Beauseant show. Besides, the scenes present them in the intimacy of the domestic details. Characters like

Beauseant and Glavis, who do not belong to this family, are closely linked with them. Apart from the Deschappelles, there is another side of the play. The relationship between Claude and his mother has also been presented in two scenes of the play. The landlord of the inn also presents a slice of domestic life when he makes a brief appearance with his daughter Janet.

Within this domestic situation Bulwer has interwoven humour.

A section of the first scene of the second act will show how Bulwer has treated it in this scene;

Enter from the house, MELNOTTE, as the Prince of Como, leading in PAULINE; MADAMS DESCHAPPELLES, fanning herself; and COLONEL DAMAS. /BEAUSEANT and GLAVIS bow respectfully. PAULINE and MELNOTTE walk apart. Mme. Des. Good morning, gentlemen; really I ara so fatigued with laughter; the desir Prince is so entertaining. What wit he has! Any one may see that he has spent his whole life in courts. Damas. And what the deuce do you know about courts, cousin Deschappelles? You women regard men just as you buy books - you never care about what is in them, but how they are bound and lettered. 'Sdeath, I don't think you would even look at your Bible if it had not a title to it. Mme. Des. How coarse you are, cousin Damas!- quite the manners of a barrack - you don't deserve to be one of our familyp really we must drop your acquaintance when Pauline marries. I cannot patronise any relations that would discredit my future son-in-law, the Prince of Como. __ Mel. /advancing/ These are beautiful gardens, madame, /Beausant and Glavis retire/ - who planned them? Mme. Des. A gardener named Melnotte, your highness - an honest man who knew his station. I can't say as much for his son - a presuming fellow, who,- ha! ha! actually wrote verses - such doggerel! - to my daughter. Pauline. Yes, how you would have laughed at them. Prince! - you, who write such beautiful verses! Mel. This Melnotte must be a monstrous impudent person! Damas. Is he good-looking? 90

Mme. Des. I never notice such canaille - an ugly, mean-looking clown, if I remember right. Damas. Yet I heard your porter say he was wonderfully like his highness. Mel. /taking snuf£7 You sure complimentary. Mme. Des. For shame, cousin DamasÎ - like the Prince, indeed! Pauline. Like you! Ah, mother, like our beautiful prince! I’ll never speak to you again, cousin Damas. Mel. /aside/ Humph! - rank is a great beautifier! I never passed for an Apollo while I was a peasant; if I am so handsome as a prince, what Sk)uld I be as an emperor! /aloud/ Monsieur Beauseant, will you honour me? /Offers snuff Beau. No, your•highness; I have no small vices. Mel. Nay, if it were a vice, you’d be sure to have it. Monsieur Beauseant. Mme. Des. Ha!ha! - how very severe! - what wit. Beau, /in a rage and aside/ Curse his impertinence! Mge. Des. What a superb snuff-box! Pauline. And'what a beautiful ring! Mel. You like the box - a trifle - interesting perhaps from associations - a present from Louis XIV to my great-great- grandraother. Honour me by accepting it. Beau, /plucking him by the sleeve/ How! - what the devil! My box - are you mad? It is worth five hundred louis. Mel. /unheeding him,and turning to Pauline/ And you like this ring? Ah, it has, indeed a lustre since your eyes have shown on it /placing it on her finger/ Henceforth hold me, sweet enchantress, the Slave of the Ring. Glavis. /pulling him/ Stay, stay - what are you about? My maiden aunt's legacy - a diamond of the first water. You shall be hanged for swindling, sir. Mel. /pretending not to hear/ It is curious, this ring; it is the one with which my grandfather, the Doge of Venice, married the Adriatic ! _ _ /Madame and Pauline examine the ring Mel. /to Beauseant_and Glavis/. Fie, gentlemen! princes must be generous? - /Turns to Damas, who watches them closely/ These kind friends have my interest so much at heart, that they are as careful of my property as if it were their own! Beau. and_Glavis. /confusedly/ Ha! ha! - very good joke that! /Appear to remonstrate with Melnotte in dumb show. (Act II, Sc. i, pp. 110-111)

The first reaction to this scene is laughter which comes naturally to us as it did to the audience in 1838. We, the spectator and the reader, have seen what has gone before and know that Claude Melnotte is no prince. But Madame Deschappelles, Pauline and Damas do not realise this and so they treat him as a prince. Though Damas is a little suspicious of the "Prince", he too makes a fool of himself as does

Pauline. It is, however, the Madame who provides the greatest amount 91

of fun which is noticeable from the very beginning of the dialogue.

In fact, she is a greater fool than Pauline and Damas. Madame

Deschappelles makes mistakes and when she is corrected by Damas, she completely ignores him providing more humour. She complains that she is fatigued because the "wit" of Claude has made her laugh a good deal and convinces herself that Claude has spent his whole life at court, a thing she knows nothing about, as Damas points out.

But Madame is too proud to admit it and her next sentence underlines this ignorance, bringing out the fact that she has now become a laughing-stock in the hands of Claude. The humour is brought to a climax when she describes Claude as a "canaille" and "an ugly, mean-looking clown"; and in this way she continues to be laughed at for the rest of the passage.

As a matter of fact, her behaviour is retained throughout the rest of the scene although the edge of humour gets a little dulled. Pauline too is laughed at when she mentions that the verses of Claude, the prince are better than those sent by Claude, the son of the gardener. In spite of the fact that she is another laughing-stock like her mother, it is the latter who is the real object of fun. An important characteristic of this scene is that here Claude is playing tricks at the cost of everybody. It is these tricks which really cause the laughter. On the one hand,he is fooling the Deschappelles and, on the other, he is also teasing Beauseant and Glavis when he gives the former's snuff-box and the letter's ring to Madame Deschappelles and Pauline. As a result, both Beauseant and Glavis are made to look like fools, which increases the humour because we enjoy their "punishment" as they are the schemers of Claude's impersonation, although we do not realise, at this stage, that they deserve it. If we compare this passage with other similar passages in the comedies of this time^ we shall find that although Bulwer conforms to the practice of his contemporary playwrights?he writes better 92

than many of them. It cannot, however, be denied that the humour of this scene lies on the borderline between comedy and farce, which is another characteristic of many early nineteenth-century comedies.

Bulwer will again return to this kind of humour in Money and Not So Bad

As We Seem.

These objects of humour are typical of the class they belong to.

The Deschappelles are certainly upper-middle-class people, but less wealthy perhaps than Beauseant who is the son of a marquis and very prosperous. Damas is the new class created by the Revolution because he has risen from the ranks. Claude follows the same path when he

joins the army and in two and a half years is raised to the rank of a colonel. By providing in Beauseant a villain, Bulwer has followed an established custom of melodrama. There have been a large number of plays which exhibited a cruel, unsyiHpathetic and villainous aristocrat

too eager to ruin the heroine and the hero. The degradation of aristocracy goes back to George Colman’s Heir at Law (1797) snd John

Bull (1803), and thereafter it became a favourite with the melodramatists.

It has not been, however, Bulwer's aim to draw parallel examples from

contemporary theatrical practices. In creating these types and attacking some of them, he has pointed out the difference in people's attitude

to life in the two periods, both before and after the French Revolution.

In his Preface to The Lady he has made his intentions very clear:

In the selection of the time ii^hich the Play has been laid, I was guided, naturally and solely, by the wish to take that period in which the incidents might be rendered most probable, and in which the probationary career of the hero, in the Fifth Act ... might be sufficiently rapid for dramatic effect, and (on account of that very rapidity) in accordance with the ordinary character and events of the age. The early years of the first and most brilliant successes of the French Republic appeared to constitute the only epoch in which these objects could be attained. It was a period when. 93

in the general ferment of society, and the brief equalisation of ranks, Claude's high-placed love, his ardent feelings, his unsettled principles,- the struggle between which makes the passion of this drama,- his ambition, and his career, were phenomena that characterised the time itself, and in which the spirit of the nation went along with the extravagance of the individual. In some respects, Claude Melnotte is a type of that restless, brilliant, and evanescent generation that sprung up from the ashes of the terrible Revolution,- men born to be agents of the genius of Napoleon, to accomplish the most marvellous exploits, and to leave but little of permanent triumph and solid advantage to the succeeding race.1

Yet, in spite of the fact that he "endeavoured" to "avoid every political allusion applicable to our own time and land", and acknowledged that the "principal fault of this Play, as characteristic of the time, is, perhaps, indeed, the too cautious avoidance of all those references to

Libedy and Equality in which, no doubt, every man living at that day 2 would have hourly indulged". The Lady does contain references to them.

To justify this comment one has only to look at a handful of illustrations from the play. We have, on the one hand, the typical aristocratic attitude of Beauseant and, on the other, the democratic feelings of

Claude, Damas and Gaspar. Between the two extremes hover the Deschappelles who had, in the past, grown as parasites of the titled aristocracy. The

following are some of the illustrative speeches of the characters

concerned:

Beausant:- "You know that my fortune is not exceeded by any estate in the province,- you know that, but for the Revolution, which has defrauded me of my titles, I should be noble. May I, then, trust that you will not reject my alliance? I offer you my hand and heart." (Acÿï, Sc.i, p. 98 ) "Refused! and by a merchant's daughter! - refused! It will be all over Lyons before sunset!" (Act I, Sc. i, p. 99)

1 Preface, The Lady of Lyons, p. vii-viii. 2 ibid., p. ix. 94

Claude Melnotte:- "What am I then - worse than all these? Why, I am a peasant! what has a peasant to do with love? Vain revolutions, why lavish your cruelty on the great? Oh that we - we, the hewers of wood and drawers of water - had been swept away, so that the proud might learn what the world would be without us!" (Act I, Sc. iii, p. 107) "Ah, Pauline! not to the past, but to the future, looks true nobility, and finds its blazon in posterity." (Act II, Sc. i, p. 113) Caspar:- "Death! are we slaves still that we are to be thus dealt with, we peasants?" (Act I, Sc. iii, p. 106) Damas:- "Foreign prince - foreign fiddlestick! You ought to be ashamed of such nonsense at your time of life." (Act I, Sc. i, p. 99)

Each of these speeches provides information about what these persons represent and what they, as individuals, think. Reading through them one gathers, within the limit of the play, a complete picture of the times. Thus, the conflict in the play is between the titled aristocracy

(Beauseant and Glavis) and the ordinary man (Claude and Damas). Because the Deschappelles are not the real members of the aristocracy, they are faced with Claude’s impersonation as a prince. It is through a fraud that the Deschappelles learn the uselessness of titles, and the value of man as an individual.

This structure of the play conforms to what Bulwer wrote in his

"Introductory Remarks" to the collected edition of his plays in l84l:

In time of the French Republic, noble and king, coronet and crown, are alike gone; and the people emerging from the ghastly and Medea caldron, into which its limb and heart, long feeble and decrepit, had been cast, rent and bleeding - reappears for a brief time in the character of a second youth, impetuous and ardent, capable of daring all things for glory, unwise to accomplish anything for self-government, resisting a world for the defence of freedom, and rendering freedom to the first warrior who dazzled its imagination and flattered its self-love. 1

1 Introductory Remarks, The Dramatic Works, pp. v-vi 95

The Lady attempts to portray such a time. Moreover, the play is associated with the other two plays on French history - La Valliere and Richelieu - about which Bulwer spoke in the same "Remarks". His division of French history into three^eir^tci^^s has also a relevance to The Lady, because the play attempts to show the third and final stage of that history. The

"Remarks" indicates Bulwer's overwhelming preoccupation with the very concept of aristocracy. This is seen when he discussed how the aristocracy had passed through three different stages. At first it was a feudal force almost always in conflict with the king. In Richelieu's time it was tamed and subjugated for the benefit of the country. The legacy, which this subjugation had left, created the flattering courtiers in the time of Louis XIV, which is depicted in La Valliére. In its third stage the aristocracy was finally abolished after the Revolution which

The Lady pOBtrays. Bulwer seems to imply that the aristocracy lost the control of the government of the country by separating itself from the cause of the people. In the post-Revolution period it degenerated into further decadence. Thus, in The Lady we find Bauseant who has debased himself to such an extent that he is nothing more than a scheming social villain. The Revolution has levelled all ranks, and a people with a new spirit has come into being. Claude is the representative of this new people and an opponent of Beauseant. His republican ideology is opposed to the aristocracy. Bulwer's thesis is quite clear: when the aristocracy moves away fr^m its aim to serve the country with the people, it degenerates and loses its right to be at the head of that people.

In spite of Bulwer's vigorous denial that he has preached "republican" ideals in The Lady, it is true that the play leaves this impression upon us, which the press of his time correctly understood. A full-length

discussion on Bulwer's political principles, and how they are reflected

in his three plays on French history, will be made in the chapter on

Richelieu. 96

CHAPTER III

Richelieu; or, The Conspiracy

The story of the writing of Richelieu began with the success of The Lady which had stimulated Bulwer’s dramatic ambition. Three weeks after the opening of The Lady, Bulwer informed Macready that he would help him with another play if Macready needed one. From the middle of July I838 until the beginning of September 1838 Bulwer and Macready exchanged their views, but nothing definite took place.

Meanwhile, Bulwer had read a novel Une Maîtresse de Louis XIII, by Joseph Xavier Boniface Saintine (1798-I865). Out of the material in the novel Bulwer made up a tentative plot. On September 9» he wrote to Macready, outlining his ideas. He conceived the plot around a character called the Chevalier de Marillac, who was later to be

Richelieu. Marillac confides to Cinq Mars, who was later to be

Baradas of the play, that once he entered into a conspiracy against

Richelieu.. When his part in it was discovered, Richelieu told him that he should be punished but he would not sentence him to death.

Instead, Richelieu told him to "fall in battle". Marillac fought in many battles, but always came out victorious. When Richelieu and

Marillac met again, Richelieu reminded him of the sword hanging over his head. While he is confiding in Cinq Mars, Marillac is summoned tç) Richelieu. Richelieu tells him that he is impressed by Marillac's 97

qualities and wants to keep him near him and get him married to a suitable girl. This makes Marillac happy. In the final version of Richelieu these details appear. The girl mentioned here as

Louise will be Julie de Moirtemar and Marillac or Mauprat will be in love with her. Bulwer continues with his narration of the plot.

The king is in love with this girl, which Richelieu wants to prevent and, therefore, wants Marillac to marry her. Bulwer then intends to present Marillac on his wedding day when he is happy and when

Cinq Mars informs him of the king's love for his wife. At this moment Marillac is asked to see the king and sent away to a distance.

His wife is summoned to court by the king. Up to this point the play maintains the story. Where the play differs from this plot is in the following details. Marillac is angry with Richelieu because, persuaded by Cinq Mars, he believes that Richelieu is a party to the king's design. He agrees to conspire against the Cardinal, wife He then receives an anonymous letter telling him where his/will sleep at Chantilly that night, and how the king will visit her. The letter also informs him of a secret passage which opens under a portrait of

Hugo de Montmorency who was Marillac's friend and who was beheaded by the king. The next scene should introduce us to the chamber where

Marillac's wife is sleeping. The king enters the chamber and attempts to seize her. The figure in the portrait of Montmorency cries "HoldU and the form comes down. The horror-stricken king flees and Marillac's wife faints. It then appears that the form is Marillac. Except the fact that Marillac turns against Richelieu when Cinq Mars tells him that Richelieu approves the king's passion for his wife, all other details just quoted are left out of the play. Bulwer takes up the story again with a meeting between Richelieu and Marillac who, after 98

leaving his wife at the end of the previous scene at Chantilly, has now come to see the Cardinal in order to kill him, which has already been arranged between him and Cinq Mars. Richelieu tells him that he has got him married to Louise because he wants to save her from the king. He also accepts the responsibility of sending the anonymous letter to Marillac. Marillac realises his mistake, and the fact that the whole fortress is now surrounded by the conspirators.

Richelieu and Marillac retire to another room and, immediately after, the conspirators enter. Marillac informs them that Richelieu is dead. It is to be noted here that except the fact that Marillac receives no anonymous letter all other details are maintained in the final version of the play. Bulwer’s account of the next stage of the plot begins with the scenes of the king's happiness and the jubilation of the people at the death of Richelieu. Suddenly there comes the news of riot, and messengers announce the defeat of the armies by the Spaniards v/ho have crossed the frontier. The mob shouts "Hurrah - the old Cardinal is dead" and immediately following this Richelieu appears and the crowds shout "Long live the great

Cardinal". In the final version again these events are left out.

The scene of Richelieu's reappearance is followed by the last scene in the play which takes place in the king's chamber. The king is angry at the false report of Marillac that Richelieu is dead and sends him to the Bastille. He forbids Richelieu the Louvre and declares that henceforth he will reign alone. A sick Richelieu enters and tenders his resignation which the king accepts. Six secretaries are summoned with sacks of public papers. The king attends to them and is bewildered. He asks Richelieu to resume office which the Cardinal accepts on condition that he is given absolute power to which the 99

king agrees. Richelieu then throws off his dying posture and rises with an exclamation "France is again France - to the frontiers - I lead the armies". Up to this point, the particulars of the plot are kept in the play, but those which follow and are recounted here are not to be found in the final version. The king retires and

Richelieu is left alone with Marillac and Louise. He asks them if theylove each other which both deny. They agree to be divorced.

Marillac is then told that, according to the king's order, he must go to the Bastille. He can be saved if he agrees to go into exile.

Hearing this Louise wants to follow him and the reconciliation between the two is completed. Richelieu then tells Marillac that he will banish him to Austria as an ambassador. Thus the play ends.

From this sketch of the plot, it will be seen that Bulwer had developed a tangible plot with the help of the story he outlined to

Macready. When Macready came to know about the plot, he "rejected the idea at once as too confusing".

On October 23» I838 Bulwer wrote to Macready that he had started and completed the rough sketch of a play in five acts. The subject was Richelieu and Macready was to play him. He had taken part of the story as narrated to Macready when Bulwer first spoke about a play on

Richelieu. As Bulwer said Richelieu was then the central character 2 in the play and all other characters moved around him. The play was written in prose but in the course of the following three weeks Bulwer turned it into a blank verse drama. On November 12, he sent the manuscript to Macready. Macready replied that the interest of Mauprat and Julie, i.e. Marillac and Louise of the first sketch, wanted

1 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 88. 2 ibid., p. 9 0 * 100

1 more greater prominence. On November 16, he again wrote: feel/strongly the urgent necessity for hanging the domestic interest upon Richelieu's 2 fortune". The observation is significant because it points to the character of Richelieu, which Bulwer later developed. Richelieu then became the central character and all other interests were subsidiary to him, including the domestic interest which concerned Mauprat and

Julie, and which then became integrated with the fate of Richelieu.

Macready also made out a plan of alterations for the play which both he and Bulwer discussed on November 17, at Bulwer's chambers. Next day Bulwer wrote two scenes, and Macready and Bulwer settled the plot of the rest of the play.^ By November 21, Bulwer re-wrote the whole play and gave it to Macready. It is not, however, possible to know what Macready's plan amounted to, but what Shattuck has to say about this is very relevant:

I conclude that it ^ h e plan of the revision/^ had to do with strengthening the story of the conspiracy against Richelieu and the King. Bulwer had originally set this going only in the second act, and dropped it in the middle of the fourth, thus being "deficient in the important point of continuity of interest". It would like Macready to think of starting the conspiracy in the/first scene, and sustaining its suspense to the denouement - just as in the last act of La Valliere he had insisted on the King's second pursuit of Louise to the nunnery. If this be so, we must probably credit (or blame) Macready too for hatching the "packet" sequence by„which the rise and fall of the conspiracy is charted.

It was then decided that Bulwer, Macready and Forster should meet on

November 25, read the play together and discuss it.

On November 25 the play was read by Macready to Bulwer, Forster,

Catherine and Letitia. Later, the three discussed the play and

1 Shattuck,op.cit., p. 92. 2 ibid., p. 94. 5 Macready, op.cit., p. 477» 4 ibid., p. 4 76 . 5 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 95- 101

when Bulwer had left, Forster commented that the play did not have sufficient interest. On November 26, Bulwer wrote to Macready that in order to improve the dialogue a part of it should be re-written.

He also commented that the play should be dropped. Macready immediately replied to say that his primary concern would be to preserve Bulwer's fame, and he would not stage a play which, according to him, might discredit Bulwer.

According to Macready*s letter of November 27, I838 Bulwer had 2 made two mistakes: one, he had not shown Mauprat and Julie dependent upon Richelieu; two, he had presented a rising of the populace without giving any prior clue to the cause of their action. It is important to note that even at this stage Bulwer had not dropped the mob! He, however, answered that he would work on Richelieu, and asked Macready to send him his suggestions. In the postscript to the letter he added that he would make the necessary alterations suggested by Macready, but was afraid that that might not be enough. He had, however, been continually thinking about Richelieu and made several suggestions to Macready in his letter of November 3 0» and December 1. These included the following points:^

(i) François should come out of the house of Marion with the packet; (accepted by Macready) (ii) Act IV should end with Baradas "at close" and a "stormy struggle" vih . Richelieu which will prepare the audience for his illness in Act V; (accepted by Macready) (iii) The interest in the play should be heightened by delaying the receipt of the packet until Act V; Mauprat was to wrench the packet from Francois outside the house of Marion and remember it after his arrest in Act V when he would hand it over to Joseph who would bring it to Richelieu; Bulwer commented that the delaying of the delivery of the packet might seem too long; as an alternative the scene before the house of Marion might be omitted and Francois would simply return to Richelieu telling him that the packet had been taken away from him by a stranger; (as a matter of fact the last suggestion was accepted by Macready and the scene

1 Shattuck, op.cit., pp. 96-97» 2 ibid., pp. 97 -9 8 . 3 ibid., pp. IOO-IO3 . 102

before the house of Marion omitted; Mauprat's having the packet was also modified and in the final version of the play he handed it over to Huguet who was sent to the Bastille after he had given Baradas the information of Richelieu's death) (iv) Julie should be present on the stage throughout the last scene; (accepted by Macready) (v) In Act II Julie should be brought in with a courtier; (accepted by Macready) (vi) In Act III there should be a scene at Richelieu's castle followed by a scene with the king and Baradas showing the king's anger at Richelieu, his writ to send Mauprat to the Bastille which would keep the audience in expectation; (accepted by Macready) (vii) The mob was to be omitted; instead there would be a scene in the gardens of the Louvre showing the reaction at the supposed death of Richelieu, the skirmish between Mauprat and Baradas at the end of which Mauprat was to be seized and hurried off the stage when Richelieu would enter with more exchanges between Baradas and Richelieu; (accepted by Macready) (viii) Act V would show several things: Mauprat in dungeon, his refusal to give up Julie to Baradas, Baradas's word to the headsman to behead Mauprat in forty minutes; scene ii with the king, Julie and Baradas, the bell tolling at intervals, Richelieu entering with four secretaries the last of whom would hand over the despatch addressed to Bouillon to the king who in despair would turn to Richelieu who in turn would agree to control the state after the king had given him absolute power, Julie and Mauprat were to be brought back followed by the hooded figure of the headsman to whom Richelieu would send Baradas; (the points made here were reshaped which could be seen from the final version of the play; the scene with Mauprat in dungeon and his meeting with Baradas and Baradas's order to behead him in forty minutes were dropped; instead in the first scene of this act the play discloses a part of the Bastille where Joseph comes to retrieve the packet from Huguet and fails; he is followed by De Beringhen and Francois; De Beringhen recovers the packet from Huguet and Francois wrenches it from him; the second scene presents the king, Baradas, Orleans, Julie and Richelieu as they are outlined in Bulwer's programme; Mauprat is also brought in this scene; the bell however is left out; the third scene retains in principle what Bulwer had suggested; but the events are treated with great care and are accelerated by Francois's arrival with the packet which Richelieu's secretary'hands over to the king; the rest of the scene is maintained as it had been described by Bulwer with the exception that Baradas is not handed over to the headsman but attempts to run away and is prevented by the guards whomRichelieu directs to take him) 103

(ix) the whole play was to be "more spirited, close and poetical"; (this can neither be proved nor disproved by the nature of the finished play) (x) a fool of Richelieu was to be introduced; (this was not accepted by Macready).

Bulwerand Macready discussed these points on December 2, and it could be assumed that they agreed on the final version of the play.

After a week, Bulwer delivered Richelieu to Macready who thought that it was "greatly improved, but still not quite to the point of success." Bulwer persuaded him to read it to a selected audience.

On the 13th Macready mentioned a few points for Bulwer's attention.

He suggested that Joseph should not tell Richelieu to resign, and asked Bulwer if Francois should not be introduced in his own person and not in the disguise of a monk in which Bulwer had earlier made him appear. He also said that Francois should wrench the packet during the conversation between Huguet and De Beringhen, keeping the audience uncertain of the issue. He added that the beginning of

Act V was doubtful and hinted that Bulwer should think about it. He admitted that the "interest is greatly increased, and the movement 2 accelerated, whilst a direct continuity is maintained throughout."

Next day Bulwer replied that he had made the changes advanced by

Macready for Joseph, Francois and the beginning of Act V. There is no evidence that Bulwer accepted Macready*s suggestion that

Francois should secure the packet when De Beringhen and Huguet were conversing, because the final version of the play presents a short struggle between De Beringhen and François over the packet after the former has come out of Huguet's cell and the result of the struggle is left to the imagination of the audience as the, two go

1 Macready, op.cit., p. 4SI, 2 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 105* 104

out struggling.

On December 16, Macready read the play to a group which consisted of Robert Browning, T.J. Serle (an attor-dramatist), Henry Smith (an old friend of Macready), John Bryant Lane (a portrait painter), two journalists - W.J. Eox and Samuel Blanchard - and Macready’s wife and sister. The play was unanimously accepted as suitable for performance.

Macready informed Bulwer of the experiment, enclosing the exact opinion of his audience. Bulwer's apprehensions were by no means over. Macready attempted to remove Bulwer’s fears. He brushed aside all Bulwer*s objections. On December 24, Bulwer wrote that the play should be tried upon actors. Macready readily agreed. Bulwer returned the manuscript to Macready with corrections suggested by him in his letter of December 21. Macready*s suggestions ran on the following line:

(i) Richelieu's allusion to his own poetry in Act I, scene ii should be made once and not repeated; (ii) De Beringehen's second reference to "pate" should be removed after Act II; (iii) the latter part of the last scene of Act III should be continued as the first scene in Act IV; (iv) Richelieu's apostrophe to France in Act IV should not be repeated too often; (v) the audience must know when Joseph visits Huguet at the Bastille that he has come to collect the packet.

As a matter of fat, Bulwer accepted all of these. On January 5» l839

Macready read the play to his company which also included persons who were not actors. The play was an immediate success with them, and unanimously acknowledged to be so. This event prattically closed the

discussion between Bulwer and Macready on Richelieu. From then,

until the play was finally produced on March 7» 1839 Bulwer and

1 Shattuck, op.cit., pp. 110-112, 105

Macready exchanged their views about minor improvements they could make in the play. Bulwer also took a great interest in the production and, to Macready’s utter derision, made various suggestions about it.

Bulwer, however, did not refrain from commenting on the performance

on several nights, as the letters published by Shattuck in his chapter on Richelieu show. But it was definite that the collaboration between the actor and the author over Richelieu had come to an end.

The play which was then printed had all the changes made by Bulwer, and beeame the final version of Richelieu. Bulwer did not make any

further changes in the subsequent printings of the play.

The first night of the play was attended by Queen Victoria and a large audience. During the performance Macready was repeatedly

called for and the cheers of the audience continued for a long time.

Even Bulwer realised the enthusiasm of the public. In his box he

stood up and received their ovation. Macready later wrote in his

diary; "The success of the play seemed to be equivocal," He posed 2 a question; "What will the papers say?" The papers were equally

enthusiastic about the play. Bell's New Weekly Messehgr said:

Richelieu is a perfect picture; it is one of the finest and most finished things^whichhave ever been given to the modern stage.

The Morning Advertiser praised Bulwer:

This play is unquestionably the best of all the author's dramatic works, whether we regard its structure, incidents, or subject; in the lighter graces of diction, too, it is refined, and purged from all expletives of an offensive character; ^ impurities which were rife in his earlier dramas.

The Morning Advertiser was obviously referring to Bulwer's violation

of the moral code in La Valli&re and his portraiture of Claude Melnotte

1 Macready, op.cit., p. 500* 2 ibid. 3 Bell's New Weekly Messenger, March 10, I8 39 , p. 6. 4 The Morning Advertiser, March 8, 1839» P» 3» 106

in The Lady. As Richelieu was, to a great extent, a conventional play because it did not oppose established views too critically, such critiques were favourable. The Morning Post recognised the superiority of Richelieu over many plays whdn it said:

In a few words, the work is a work of fine talent and a better acting-drama as far as regards plot, scene,^and incident, has been seldom put upon the stage.

The Observer recorded the reaction of the public with sympathy when it felt that Richelieu "vindicated the dramatic audience":

The interest which every scene in the delightfully written play excited was universal; and in proof that a dramatic work of true merit is duly appreciated by the much-maligned public, we have simply to mention that we never observed silence more breathless during the proper season, nor applause more judiciously ^ expressed when it was deserved, than we did last night.

The Age summed up briefly:

In fine for dialogue of high poetical beauty - situations introduced with great dramatic tact - exquisite scenery - theatrical groupings - admirable acting and general effect, we never witnessed a piece so deservedly successful as Richelieu.^

Thus the.majority of the reviews praised Richelieu highly, but there were a few which were extremely denunciatory. One such review was published in The Argus:

The credit that Macready deservedly acquired by the production of Shakespeare's "Lear" and "Tempest" and Sheridan Knowles's genuine comedy of "Woman's Wit", has been irretrievably damaged by his excessive good nature or his egregious want of judgment in gratifying the contemptible vanity of that shallow-pated pedantic puppy. Sir Liston Wigget Whackwife whose pseudo play of Richelieu is a barefaced piracy from a stupid French novel, entitled, "Une Maîtresse de Louis XIII", the stuff which, incident for incident, word for word, he has adapted after the true paste-and-scissors style of the worst of the minors. Though we delight not in

1 The Morning Post, March 8 , 1839» P* 4. 2 The Observer, March 10, 1839» P* 2. 3 The Age, March 10, 1839» P* 78. 107

breaking cockchafers upon a wheel, yet as vigilant protectors of the interests of the drama, we are bound to keep the British stage free from such disgusting mountbank trash as that which this brainless ass would foist upon it, to the exclusion of works of genius and sterling merit ... We shall strip the borrowed tawdry plumage from the strutting daw, and exhibit him, under the knout, in all the abhorrent nakedness of his shame.^

However poorly a critic may think of Richelieu, the play does not merit such hysterical outburst. When a critic speaks in this way he deviates

from the normal standards of dramatic criticism.

Between the two extremes of unqualified praise and hysterical abuse there were reviews which admitted the value of the play as an acting piece, but would not accept it as a literary triumph. The review in The Times was typical of this group:

The fact is, that the play is clever - nothing more nor less; "clever" is the exact predicate. It unveils no great secrets of human nature ; the general embellishments of the language were such that we had rather seen them omitted than retained; but, as exhibiting a knowledge of stage effect, the art of keeping alive the interest of an audience, the knack of bringing in startling situation in the proper place, just where it was wanted; of dropping in the act curtain at the proper time - as exhibiting all this, the play has certainly the merit of a stirring bustling effective drama, with very strong degree of affinity to the melodramatic.

This tempered criticism of Richelieu which The Times published was far more complimentary than what the same paper had earlier said about

La Valliere. Of this review of Richelieu Macready wrote in his diary:

"The Times although trying to damn with faint praise ^ adraits_7 much more than I expected, and enough to give to its readers, who know its

baseness, the assurance of success."^ Although Macready would not

agree with The Times, the paper really put its finger in the right

place as far as the evaluation of the play was concerned. Its opinion

1 The Argus, March 10, 1839» PF» 89-90* 2 The Times, March 8 , 1839» p* 7* 3 Macready, op.cit., p. 501. 108

on Bulwer*s dramatic qualities was) not wholly unjustified, because

Richelieu is a very clever piece showing a great deal of stage-effect which Bulwer had learned from contemporary stage practices. The weakness of his dramatic verse and his adherence to melodrama could be seen from an examination of the play. The criticism of The Times, however, shows a neglect of the nature of popular drama in the early nineteenth century and, like many other contemporary critiques on drama, demonstrates its aversion to the popular dramatic form. That melodrama was an important vogue which included a great deal of truth about contemporary life was ignored by the majority of critics. It is true that Richelieu is not a social melodrama like Maria Marten or Luke the Labourer or Black-Eyed Susan, yet the play possesses certain ideas common to the dramatists of the period, which we shall see from an examination of the play.

A careful and lengthy criticism of Richelieu was offered by

John Bull. After connecting Richelieu to the historical plays of

VictorHugo, the reviewer continued as follows:

Their most notable plan is for the dramatist to turn altogether historian, and, by introducing real persons into a fictitious story, thus evolve their cast of thought and show the very form and presence of the times, in accordance with some general view and comprehensive hypothesis of the writer. To stick to history would be to walk in the fetters of dry facts, and to reveal no more than is already known; but by bringing historical characters into new scenes they gain the superior advantage of drawing largely on their own imaginations. It is to this infusion of a new spirit into dramatic literature that we owe the production of Richelieu; or^ the Conspiracy ... The radical defect of the author's design is that throughout he has been thinking of what the audience would think and feel instead of what his personages ought to think and feel. He has been studying the business of the stage as it is termed, its technicalities and points, instead of living with the past until he has become "the perfect spy o' the time," and identified himself with its breathing realities.^

1 John Bull, March 10, 1839» P» 117* 109

The first part of this passage provides a good understanding of the historical drama of the time, and admits their peculiar use of imagination in portraying characters. As a corollary to this the review also accepts Bulwer as an author of historical plays.

Where it disagrees with Bulwer’s method is in his representation of the historical characters. By doing so the review draws our attention to the fundamental drawback in the play, which amounts to a disregard for characterisation and a complete reliance on stage-effedt, Bulwer was not the only dramatist to suffer from this shortcoming because the majority of the playwrights in the early nineteenth century showed it in their plays. As a matter of fact, there were two categories of dramas: one which elaborated the psychological make-up of the characters; and the other which neglected it, producing a drama coïncidents.

In La Valliere Bulwer had put his emphasis on the passions and humours of the characters. In The Lady the emphasis shifted to the development of a continued interest in action. In Richelieu he has juxtaposed character and action with greater emphasis on the development of action. An analysis of the play will show how the characterisation has been subordinated to an efficient development of action, how domestic and political interests have been served in the play, and how the two interests alternate in many scenes of the play. It will also be apparent from this analysis that the dialogue is realistic and fulfils an important theatrical function in being informative, and taking the action of the play forward.

In the first act Bulwer has given an excellent and brief exposition to the problem of the play. The action of the play opens in a room in the house of Marion de Lorme where the Duke of Orleans, 110

Baradas, the Sieur de Beringhen, De Mauprat and other courtiers have assembled. From the conversation between the Duke and Baradas we learn of the conspiracy the two have been plotting. They have decided

to dethrone the king, kill Richelieu, make the Duke of Orleans the

Regent, and form a new council with Baradas and other courtiers.

With the departure of the Duke and the lords our attention shifts,

and another aspect of the play is brought to light. Through the

conversation between De Beringhen, Baradas and De Mauprat, the

dramatist informs us about De Mauprat. As a result, we learn of

his valour, his peculiar relationship with Richelieu and his own

resignation to fate. As soon as De Beringhen and other courtiers

go out, Baradas seizes the opportunity to find out from De Mauprat

the cause of his vexations. When Baradas learns De Mauprat's secret,

he persuades him to join the conspirators. De Mauprat, however,

has not told everything about himself. Slowly it comes out that De

Mauprat loves Juljewhora, unknown to De Mauprat, Baradas also loves.

Baradas is jealous of De Mauprat and would not hesitate to remove

him from Julie’s life. Thus, the opening scene has provided us

with all the necessary information about what in future is going

to happen to one group of characters.

After we have been introduced to the background, the second

scene takes us to the palace of the Cardinal where we find Richelieu

and Joseph in conversation. Their conversation is interrupted by

the arrival of Julie, and we see one of the most excellent domestic

situations of the play.

Rich. That’s my sweet Julie.'- why, upon this face Blushes such daybreak, one might swear the morning Were come to visit Tithon. _ Julie. 7 placing herself at his feet_/ Are you gracious?- May I say "Father"? Rich. Now and ever! Julie. Father! A sweet word to an orphan. 111

Rich. No; not orphan While Richelieu lives; thy father loved me well; My friend, ere I had flatterers ... he died young In years, not service, and beque^h'd thee to me; And thou shalt have a dowry, girl, to buy Thy mate amidst the mightiest ... (Act I, sc.ii, p.166)

It is interesting to note the presence of sympathy and affection in this piece of dialogue between Richelieu and Julie. It undoubtedly brings to mind similar scenes of paternal and filial affection from

Knowles's Virginias. It is certain that the audience greatly appreciated such scenes.

Act II provides a contrast to Act I in bringing certain issues which are against the best interests of Julie, De Mauprat and Richelieu.

The first scene of the second act pushes the events further. Baradas has secured a document signed by the king for the punishment of De

Mauprat because of his part in the rebellion of which Richelieu has absolved him, Baradas as well as De Beringhen inform De Mauprat that the king wants Julie to be his mistress. This changes the relationship between Julie and De Mauprat. It also sets De Mauprat against Richelieu.

The similarity between certain parts of this scene and the temptation scene of Othello, where lago poisons Othello's mind by carefully suggesting the existence of an unwelcome relationship between Cassio and Desdemona, is striking. In the following extract De Mauprat acts like Othello and Julie echoes the reactions of Desdemona.

Bar. /"returning the letter_/ Amazement! - Did not Richelieu say, the king Knew not your crime? De Mau. He said so. Bar. Poor De Mauprat!- See you the snare, the vengeance worse than death, - Of which you are the victim? De Mau. __ _ Ha! Bar. / aside_/ It works! /"JHLIE and DE BERINGHEN in the GardensJ7 You have not sought the Cardinal yet to -- 112

De Mau. Nol- Scarce yet my sense awaken'd from the shock. Now I: will seek him. Bar. Hold, beware!- Stir not Till we confer again. De Mau. Speak - out, man! Bar. Bush! Your wife!- De Beringhen!- Be on your guard - Obey the royal orders to the letter. I'll look around your palace. By my troth A princely mansion! De May. Stay - Bar. So new a bridegroom Can want no visitors;- Your servant, madam! Oh! happy pair - Oh, charming picture! _ / Exit through a side door__/ Julie. Adrien, You left us suddenly - Are you not well? De Mau. Oh, very well - that is_- extremely ill! Julie. Ill, Adrien? / taking his hand. De Mau. Not when I see thee. /"He is about to lift her hand to his lips when DE BERINGHEN coughs and pulls his mantle. MAUPRAT drops the hand and walks away. Julie. Alas! Should he not love me? Julie. Adrien, what have I done? Say, am I changed Since yesterday? - or was it but for wealth. Ambition, life - that - that - you swore you loved me? De Mau. I_shall go mad! - I do, indeed I do- De Ber. / aside_/ Not love her! that were highly disrespectful. Julie. You do - what, Adrien? De Mau. Oh! I do, indeed-- I do think, that this weather is delightful! A charming day! the sky is so serene! And what a prospect!- /"to DE BERINGHEN_7 Oh! you popinjay! Julie. He jests at me!-he mocks me! - yet I love him. And every look becomes the lips we love! (Act II, sc.i, pp.178-180)

Like his contemporary dramatists once again Bulwer shows his debt to

Elizabethan drama. Such practice demonstrates the high regard in which they held the old dramatists, and the influence to which they always eagerly submitted themselves.

Dramatic interest in the first scene of the third act be&ins with the arrival of Francois. From him Richelieu learns how Francois received and then lost the. document which he was asked to bring to

Richelieu. The revelation of actual facts in this part of the scene is simply and admirably done. Francois's failure, and his subsequent 113

promise to retrieve it, take the action forward to Act IV and to the events of the last act. Immediately after the exit of Francois, Julie enters and for the rest of the scene the dramatist produces a touching domestic scene between a wronged and aggrieved "daughter" and an unhappy "father". The situation is interesting because it must have appealed to the early nineteenth-century audience particularly for the virtuous courage which Julie has shown in halting the king's amorous advances. It also provides a contrast to La Valliere where the heroine accepted to be the king's mistress.

The second scene of the third act presents the attempt on

Richelieu's life. At the beginning of the scene we see Huguet and

De Mauprat who have come to murder Richelieu. Huguet goes out, leaving

De Mauprat to achieve the aim of the conspirators. De Mauprat meets

Richelieu and accuses him of supporting the king against De Mauprat.

He then learns that Richelieu has no such intention. He realises his mistake and the safety of Richelieu's life becomes his special concern.

To outwit Huguet and his followers, Richelieu retires to his bedroom and feigns death. When Huguet and others re-enter. De Mauprat gives out that he has killed Richelieu.

Act IV has two scenes. The first scene informs us of four things: the reaction of the king to Richelieu's death, the meeting of De Mauprat and Francois, the skirmish between De Mauprat and

Baradas followed by De Mauprat's arrest, and the verbal combat between the king and Richelieu. (This is also the scene where we meet the king for the first time in the play.) The action is melo continually accelerating and the situation is highly/dramatic. The second scene of Act IV produces two very dramatic moments. One comes with the arrival of Julie with her queries about De Mauprat. 1l4

The scene is remarkable for the sincedty of feelings which Julie displays before Richelieu for whom the intimate appeal of her argument proves unavoidable. Bulwer was sure that the effect of the scene would appeal to his audience. The other dramatic moment can be seen when Baradas and De Beringhen appear with the king's summons for Julie. The power which Richelieu then displays in defying the king's orders acquires a supernatural grandeur, and the scene becomes captivating.

Bar. My Lord, the King cannot believe your Eminence So far forgets your duty, and his greatness, As to resist his mandate.' Pray you. Madam, Obey the King - no cause for fear! Julie. My father! Rich. She shall not stir! Bar. You are not of her kindred- An orphan-- Rich. And her country is her mother! Bar. The country is the King! Rich. Ay, is it so?- Then wakes the power which in the age of iron Burst forth to curb the great, and raise the low. Mark, where she stands! around her form I draw The awful circle of our solemn church! Set but a foot within that holy ground. And on thy head - yea, though it wore a crown— I launch the curse of Rome! (Act IV, sc.ii, p.227)

Richelieu's above speech has given great pleasure to many a theatregoer.

William Archer recalls Edwin Booth's rendering of this passage in the following words: "It was thrilling, startling, electrifying, beyond anything dreamt of on our humdrum realistic stage. It was not 1 imitation - it was passion incarnate."

As the play advances Bulwer relies more and more on melodramatic techniques. After a quiet first scene, the fifth act, which is as varied as the first act, shows this tendency in the second scene.

It leads us to a closet at the Louvre. Julie arrives and pleads for

De Mauprat. The/king is unwilling to speak to her because he is

1 William Archer, The Old Drama and the New, p. 250. 115

afraid that her pleadings will move him. He asks Baradas to pacify her. Baradas seizes the opportunity of making a bargain with Julie.

He suggests that if Julie accepts Baradas, he will spare De Mauprat's life. De Mauprat is brought in and the whole situation becomes melodramatic. It produces a typical scene from melodrama where the wife pleads for the life of the husband without agreeing to sacrifice her virtue. And when Julie fails, both she and De Mauprat decide to die.

Melodrama, too, is the basis of the last scene of the play.

It is noticeable in the manner in which the conspiracy is exposed in the presence of the king. The last-minute revelation, with mounting suspense leading to a denouement, is a characteristic of nineteenth-century melodrama. When Bulwer wrote the last scene, he must have thought of the way the melodraraatists were apt to bring their plot to a close. The bloodstained pourpoint of Francois further heightens this appeal for the audience. Towards the end of the scene Louis is persuaded to forget Julie and bless her union with De Mauprat. The domestic appeal and melodramatic sentiment of the situation are again unmistakeable.

This analysis will give some idea of Bulwer's method of plot- construction. In Richelieu he has followed the same idea of dramatic writing which we have noticed in The Lady. Of course there are

passages in the play which were not represented in performance. If we overlook them, we will find that there is hardly a line which

does not contribute something to the development of plot and character,

In the play the chief interest is in Richelieu who is the

central character. Our first impression of Richelieu is of an old

man - jovial, humorous and witty - one who can laugh at himself. 116

His confident boasting about shaking the lizard - meaning Baradas - off the ladder is matched with his calm acceptance of Julie's weakness. Richelieu is full of resources. He sends Joseph to atone for his sin because he has omitted an "Ave" in his "matins", which is one way of keeping Joseph engaged while he talks to Julie.

From her Richelieu finds out that she loves De Mauprat, and when

De Mauprat arrives, he sends her away to play a child's game.. He takes De Mauprat to task and asks him to go to his "executioner", meaning Julie. Sureness and self-confidence lie at the root of his vision of his own character and deeds. His respect for the

truth of life and human sentiment is great as his treatment of

Julie and her lover shows. His grand maxim is first, "employ / All methods to conciliate" and, if it fails "All means to crush". All

this is summed up in the picture that he creates for himself and

for France in the following passage:

Oh godlike Power! Woe, Rapture, penury. Wealth,- Marriage and Death, for one infirm old man Through a great empire to dispense - withhold - As the will whispers! And shall things - like motes T^at live in my daylight - lackeys of court wages, Dwarf'd starvelings - manikins, upon whose shoulders The burthen of a province were a load More heavy than the globe on Atlas, - cast. Lots for my robes and sceptre? France! I love thee! All Earth shall never pluck thee from my heart! My mistress France - my wedded wife, - sweet France, Viho shall proclaim divorce for thee and me! (Act I, sc.ii, pp.175-176)

The opinion that we form of Richelieu in the first act is

again and again corroborated throughout the play. The way he receives

news of the conspirators, the way he makes his own defence arrangements,

the method of "buying" people's service, indicate the kind of tools he

uses for the efficient working of his state machinery. But through

all run his deeper sentiments which have bound him and the fate of

France together. 117

Richelieu epitomises a tremendous urge for life that makes him tower above the rest of his kind. It is because of his almost unearthly quality of mind and character that he is able to say to

François, when he has failed in his first mission, that "There is no such word as 'fail'!*’ and forgive De Mauprat when his guilt is deeper. The same urge shows him as an actor when he quite easily escapes death by feigning to be dead at a time when a score of

"bloodhounds" are ready to tear him to pieces. This very acting is one of his instruments in his fight against the king, and the chief element in his defence. With all these characteristics

Richelieu is a godlike figure deciding the fortunes of the high and the low emphasising his own statement :

In my vast sum of life Millions of such units merge. (Act IV, sc.ii, p.225)

Though Richelieu's opponents should be the Duke of Orleans, it is Baradas who stands vis-à-vis Richelieu because of his expert machinations. It seems as if Baradas has stepped straight out of the pages of the Elizabethan and Jacobean drama of intrigue. He is a villain in the tradition of lago and Bosola. Richelieu opens with the conversation between Orleans and Baradas about the conspiracy.

As we have seen, it is immediately established that the brain behind the conspiracy is not Orleans, but Baradas who briefly but cleverly explains their plans. Baradas is a shrewd observer. Vihen De Beringhen draws his attention to De Mauprat's reaction to the name of Richelieu, he says that he too has noticed it. With apparent friendliness he asks De Mauprat to confide in him because of their "friendship". When he learns De Mauprat's secret, he persuades him to join the conspirators.

He has two reasons for this: one, he needs a man like De Mauprat for

the success of his schemes; two, he is jealous of De Mauprat because 118

he loves Julie. In due course Baradas passes on De Mauprat*s secret to the king and sets up a plan to destroy De Mauprat. We have already seen how Baradas set De Mauprat against Richelieu after his marriage with Julie by poisoning De Mauprat's mind. His partial success makes him more confident. Chance helps Baradas. Julie runs away from the palace which makes the king angry with Julie, De Mauprat and Richelieu.

The king endorses whatever Baradas suggests, including the order for

De Mauprat*s arrest, because Baradas thinks that Richelieu is dead.

When Richelieu returns to court his surprise is immense. He realises that part of his plan has failed, and he has been befooled. In the scene where Richelieu meets the king and Baradas, it seems that everything is pointing to the success of Baradas. But in a direct confrontation with Richelieu over Julie in Act IV scene ii Baradas withdraws, finding Richelieu too stubborn to be guided by the king's orders. Baradas, however, does not completely give up his hope, which is seen when he courts Julie, and is immediately rejected by her. He is surprised when Richelieu hands over the document to the king, putting an end to his schemes.

In Baradas Bulwer has created a degenerate courtier like the

Duke de Laueun of La Valliere. The essential difference between

Lauzun and Baradas is in their nature. Lauzun is capable of retaining some goodness, but Baradas is completely devoid of it. He is a character who stands, in Bulwer's thesis, in between Bragelone, the feudal lord, and Lauzun, the debased courtier. Baradas can fight like Bragelone, and behave like a debased courtier while receiving some favour from the king.

The conspirators in the play are well drawn. The Duke of

Orleans, though in Richelieu's words a "wooden head", knows his 119

business and, with the help of his followers, has made out an almost perfect plot to murder Richelieu and later depose the king. Compared with him, Baradas is the greater criminal. He is a double-visaged villain like Beauseant in The Lady, but not a relenting one like the

Duke de Lauzun. Thus he is a fallen aristocrat standing between old

feudalism and the intrigue-making diplomat-courtier. He is on his way to the next stage of the medieval aristocracy represented by the

courtiers of La Valliere. The Sieur de Beringhen is the true representative of this class. He is neither essentially evil, nor

essentially holy. He is the mushroom that sprouts under the benevolence

of somebody. In connection with the conspirators, Huguet is the

common spy who can be easily bought for a few pieces of gold, and who

is the representative of ordinary devilry. Not far from the conspirators

is the king who is in league with the conspirators as far as Richelieu

is concerned. Bulwer has presented him as a feeble character in whose

hands hang the fates of many. Louis is a static character like others,

and apart from certain prearranged reactions, he is unable to show

any strength of will. Perhaps, to justify Richelieu's importance,

the king is given less importance in the play. For this reason he

does not make his appearance until the fourth act.

De Mauprat is a soldier like Bragelone, but not gs greatly

imaginative. Though he is not totally unimaginative, he leans more

on that side of his character which may be called cynical. The

constant threat of the headsman's axe on his head has made him

cynical though it has not hardened him into a ruthless soldier. His

cynicism is based on the fact that he fights in battles so that he

may die. The search for death has added a new quality to his character

- fearlessness. It is this quality which recommends him to the

conspirators and is valued most. De Mauprat is, however, a patient 120

man and a simple man too and, therefore, easily duped by people like his Baradas and Orleans. It is/unlimited honesty which makes him rejoin

Richelieu when he comes to murder him, and which leads him to the

Louvre to avenge himself on Baradas. His integrity is so great that he can smile when he is searched for the lost document an hour before his expected death. His love for Julie is tested critically when he accepts her after she has escaped from the palace. Julie is again a virtuous woman who would not "yield" to the king nor to Baradas even if it costs the life of her husband, because she believes that they will be united after death, meaning, thereby, her own death which will follow De Mauprat's. In her we find an ideal creature because of her essential simplicity and honesty, her virtue and her affection for her foster-father.

Richelieu was a great success in performance. The reason for this lies in the strength of the story and the plot which holds everything tightly within a single whole. It advances the dramatic action to such an extent that the almost unconscious impression which we form of the play is that of a well-made play. For, the plot of

Richelieu hangs delicately on an incriminating document which changes hands several times in the play, reminding us that this is one of the methods with which the well-made play of Scribe controls action.

Besides, Richelieu is a play where the action has been organised in a very successful manner. Right from the beginning where the conspirators first meet, to the end where the last word comes from the king, we pass through a continuous interplay of character and events, and are never bored with it. It is, however, Richelieu himself who holds the stage while other characters, created subordinate to Richelieu, have been given a fair display of their own skill. Thus these "minor" characters have as much come to life as the central personality around whom they 121

move. The relation between one event and another and, generally speaking, between characters and events has added a vitality which

La Valliere missed and The Lady first displayed.

For The Lady Bulwer chose his material from everyday life and gave it the shape of a domestic drama. In Richelieu Bulwer has not abandoned this theory of the SIMPLE. It appears in the relationship between Julie and De Mauprat and between Julie and Richelieu, emphasising the everyday domestic quality of their relationship. The domestic relationship of Richelieu has a close parallel in Knowles’s Virginius.

Virginius presents a father-daughter-fiance relationship, and in the context of the play the three are closely linked with one another.

Virginia is obedient to Virginius and declares to him her love for

Icilius. Appius wants to possess her with the help of Claudius who claims that Virginia is a slave. Virginia is defended by both her father and her fiance against the machinations of Appius and Claudius.

In Richelieu we have a similar situation. Julie is an orphan and the ward of Richelieu whom she calls "father". She loves Adrien de Mauprat and discloses it to her foster-father. The king loves her, and with the help of Baradas wants to make her his mistress. Richelieu comes to her help by guarding her against the king. As Richelieu is not a tragedy, the problem is solved in a different way when evil is punished and virtue rewarded. The audience, which once admired

Virginius, must have found enough reasons to admire Richelieu.

In Richelieu Bulwer is not concerned with individual idiosyncrasy, but with social and political situations. As a matter of Fact, Richelieu completes Bulwer's thesis with which the three plays - La Valliere,

The Lady and Richelieu - are concerned. In Bulwer's theory, however, the plays are in reverse order beginning with Richelieu. As Richelieu complétés Bulwer's trilogy, it would be advantageous if the three plays are taken up together in considering his theory. Historically, the 122

three plays represent the three different periods in French history.

Thus The Lady is preceded by La Valliere and La Valliere by Richelieu.

It would, therefore, be necessary to remember here Bulwer’s ideas in

Richelieu. In his "Introductory Remarks" to the collected edition of his plays (l84l) Bulwer writes that in the "time of Richelieu the French monarchy was consolidated on the ruins of a haughty and independent noblesse." As a result of this

the People, in its own person, awed and sullen, recedes from the stage, as the Minister and the Noble play their desperate game of power,^ which Richelieu demonstrates. Thus we find that in Richelieu the struggle is between Richelieu and the nobles who want to capture power by dethroning the king who is nothing more than a puppet in Richelieu's hands. But this will not very much alter the fate of the country or that of its people. If the nobles succeed in overthrowing Richelieu, they will set up, in the absence of a powerful king, another puppet on the throne, and the strongest and most cunning of the nobles will control him. There are enough hints of this probability in the play.

It is quite clear that Baradas is the most intelligent noble who will set up the Duke of Orleans as the new king, but the power will not be in the hands of Orleans. In the play Baradas makes it clear that he will be controlling Orleans when he puts him up as Regent. The rest of the nobles will move like satellites around Baradas and Orleans.

If Richelieu is evil, so is Baradas and his collaborators. One has to choose between two necessary evils, and of the two it is certainly

Richelieu who is more welcome than Baradas. For Richelieu could be impartial and unselfish and take true interest in the country, whereas

Baradas is a selfish noble who does not love the country, and will use

1 Introductory Remarks, The Dramatic Works, p.v. 123

it for his own personal benefit. In this struggle between the Minister ^ and the nobles the people are continually ignored, and their fate lies in the hands of the power behind the throne. If this power is

Richelieu, the people will be benefited; if this power is vested in someone like

Baradas, the plight of the people will be unfortunate. As a matter of fact, they have not matured into forming a third force which will one day have a voice of its own. Their time will come with the Revolution, not earlier. Naturally, when Richelieu tells the king to love him, what he means is that the king should love the State and the people instead of indulging in personal whims over a mistress. In Richelieu's opinion ' the mistress is the State or the country or both. The policy of Richelieu I was consummated in the time of Louis XIV when the king acquired supreme power,/the "seigneur was humbled to the courtier".

La Valliere exhibits this characteristic of the French monarchy in the time of Louis XIV. The Lady offers to present the third period in

French history when

the picture is completed; seigneur and courtier are alike merged in that aboriginal character from which they both proceed - the enthusiastic and successful soldier. 1

Bulwer then distinguishes the power of "the one Man" /"Richelieu_/' from the power of the People:

Compare the One Man with the multiform people, compare Richelieu with the Republic. How much wiser in his generation is the One Man! Richelieu, with his errors, his crimes, his foibles, and his cruelties, marches invariably to one result and obtains it;- he overthrows but to construct - he destroys but to establish;- he^ desired to create a great monarchy, and he succeeded.

Bulwer seems to suggest that Richelieu is a historical necessity for

France in a particular period of history.

1 Introductory Remarks, The Dramatic Works (l84l), p. v.

2 ibid., p, vi. 124

To illustrate this theory, Bulwer makes the characters in the

three plays belong to the three different phases and types of society.

As Richelieu demonstrates, in the time of Richelieu the nobles are powerful and indulge in conspiracies and plots to capture absolute

power. The Duke of Orleans, Baradas and Bouillon are the products

of this society. To maintain peace and order for the benefit of the

State and the People, a strong man is necessary. Richeliei is this

strong man who is entrusted with the task of managing the affairs of

the State for the advantage of all. The strength Richelieu puts

into the monarchy has its effects in the time of Louis XIV when we

see in La Valliere different social types - the Duke de Lauzun, Count

de Grammont, Marquis de Montespan and Madame de Montespan who are

nothing more than the impotent satellites of the king. The only

person who does not belong to this debased aristocracy is Bragelone,

the last representative of a dying class. In The Lady society undergoes

further changes. The aristocracy and the People have been blended

together. Beauseant has lost his family title. Claude is able to rise from the lower strata of society and, to serve the moral of

the change that has taken place, the Deschappelles are punished for holding anti-democratic ideals.

In Richelieu Bulwer once more returns to the tradition of romantic drama. This is noticeable in the character of Richelieu who is overwhelmed with his passion for France. The play is partially

concerned with the delineation of this passion. For its efficient representation Bulwer has borrowed the traditional hero-villain of

the Gothic drama. As a hero Richelieu is in the right, but as a villain he is obviously and morally in the wrong. He fuses the

qualities of the lion with those of the fox. At the same time,

Richelieu is a historical drama. It could be said that historical 125

drama flourished in the nineteenth century with Knowles's Virginius produced in 1820, It was followed by other historical dramas. A successful historical play had three qualities; "elaborate spectacle, romantic intrigue, and flamboyant histrionics."^ James Robinson planche was a leading figure in creating spectacles for historical drama. In this he had certain collaborators such as Kemble, Macready and Kean. The aim of these actor-managers was to juxtapose pictorial splendour and historical correctness. Planché himself wrote a historical play -

Charles XII, an historical drama in' Two Acts (I828), which was "an attempt to apply directly the technique used in the 'historical illustration' of the histories and tragedies of Shakespeare and the 2 legitimate drama." V/hen Bulwer chose French history for his first three plays he was treading on familiar grounds.

The historical plays produced in the early nineteenth century, including those of Bulwer, had certain common characteristics. These are noticeable in the approach of the dramatists to history. The approach was not very different from that of the historian. R.G.

Collingwood has very effectively described the role of the historian in evaluating the events of the past:

The historian, investigating any event in the past, makes a distinction between what may be called the outside and the inside of an event. By the outside of an event I mean everything belonging to it which can be described in terms of bodies and their movements: the passage of Caesar, accompanied by certain men, across a river called the Rubicon at one date, or the spilling of his blood on the floor of the senate-house at another. By the inside of the event I mean that in it which can only be described in terms of thought: Caesar's defiance of Republican law, or the clash of constitutional policy between himself and his assassins. The historian is never concerned with either of these to the exclusion of the other. He is investigating not mere events (where by a mere event I mean one which has only an outside and no inside) but actions, and

1 Martin Meisel, Shaw and the Nineteenth Century Theater, p. 3^9.

2 ibid., p. 3^1 126

action is the uni^ of the outside and inside of an event. He is interested in the crossing of the Rubicon only in its relatioryto Republican law, and in the spilling of Caesar's blood only in its relation to a constitutional conflict. His work may begin by discovering the outside of an event, but it can never end there; he must always remember that the event was an action, and that his main task is to think himself into this action, to discern the thought of its agent.^

In their historical plays the dramatists of the early nineteenth century were concerned with such an approach to events. They too provided some

examples of the duality of an event, its "outside" and "inside". To do

so they placed themselves in the position of the historical character

they were portraying, and reviewed the significance of the events which

concerned him. They followed what Collingwood called the "re-enactment 2 of the past thought in the historian's own mind." The dramtists re-entered the situation in which the historical agent was compelled

to act, and evaluated the pros and cons of an event. This points out a close parallel between the dramatists and the historian. Like the historian, they attempted to re-create the feelings, desires and

judgements of the persons who once lived in history. In order to

present them correctly, they chose particular events which appeared

to them significant. For it was impossible that they could include

everything that happened to a character. Because drama attempts to give a compact impression, they selected and organised their materials so

that they could be successfully presented on the stage.

When Bulwer wrote his three plays, he followed the same principle

which had been used by his predecessors such as Knowles, Byron and Mary

Russell Mitford. His chief concern was to present the three periods

in French history. In Richelieu Bulwer attempted to show three things:

the absence of a political consciousness among the people and hence

1 R.G. Collingwood, Idea of History, p. 213.

2 ibid., p. 215. 127

their non-existence in the play; the intrigues of the aristocracy for power; and the rule of one strong man who could hold the machinery of the state in his hand for the safe running of the government and the country. He selected Richelieu as the central figure of the drama.

Richelieu is the strong man who is connected with everything that happens in the country. Bulwer presents him in the midst of a conspiracy and shows the other side of the picture by introducing the conspirators and their views. But neither Richelieu nor the conspirators refer to the people. Richelieu talks about France as a whole and includes everything which the country possesses. The conspirators too talk of France and capturing the power which controls the country. The question of the people does not arise. In choosing a conspiracy against Richelieu as the focal point of the play, Bulwer emphasises what Collingwood called the "outside of the event". In suggesting the causes which led to it and its eventual destruction by

Richelieu, he draws our attention to the "inside of the event". The two sides of the historical event could be seen from the political interpretation which Bulwer had suggested, and which I have already discussed above. A similar procedure is followed in The Duchess de la

Valliere. The play's main business is to show three things: the destruction of the freedom of aristocracy; the subordination of aristocracy and the consolidation of monarchy; and the absence of the people. The central character is the Duchess de la Valliere.

Through her we are connected with the king, his court and the courtiers and also with Bragelone who is the last representative of the dying aristocracy. Again Bulwer has selected his material with prudence.

We are presented with the "outside of the event" in La Valliere's relations with the king and his courtiers, not to mention her relationship 128

with Bragelone. On the other hand, the "inside of the event" appears in the latent causes which have created the courtiers and which are attempting to destroy Bragelone. The majority of the characters in the play are historical personages. Their manners have been highlighted to stress the point which the author is trying to make. Unlike the other two plays, The Lady of Lyons does not have historical characters.

For The Lady, the analogy between drama and history, which has been valid in the case of the other two plays, cannot apparently be advanced too far. Yet one can suggest that there exists a duality of event in

The Lady as noticed in Richelieu and La Valliere. It could be said that in this case the "outside of the event" is to be noticed in the character of Pauline, whose mother is waiting for a prince to come to marry her daughter. The "inside of the event" is the fact that the attitude of both Pauline and Madame Deschappelles creates a conflict between the old order and the new republican ideas. The play points out three things: the presence of am emancipated people; the destruction of the old order; and the death of the aristocracy. Thus the three plays present a composite picture of the three phases of French history.

An important aspect of the dramatists of the early nineteenth century was their concern with the creation of the right historical atmosphere in their plays. Speaking about the atmosphere in a historical novel, Arthur Melville Clark says: "It is not enough to introduce historical events and persons to date the story, and to describe historical accessories and manners." The dramatists were aware of this problem, and tried to solve it in their own way. We notice that in such plays as Marino Faliero, The Two Foscari, The Foscari and Rienzi, characters, action, dialogue and sentiments are closely related to

1 A.M. Clark, Studies in Literary Modes, "The Historical Novel", p. 5- 129

the particular time depicted in the plays. This was the result of the attempts of the dramatists to create an accurate picture of the age. But to create a convincing picture of the past, only the use of real persons and events was not sufficient. The dramatists realised this and attempted to create a historically plausible environment with the help of details of setting, accessories, and proper sentiments. To effect a correct impression, characters were represented on the stage with a setting which was historically true about the period they lived in. For the sake of the right historical atmosphere, the actor-managers spent a great deal of money On the mounting of the plays.

Bulwer's first three historical plays were no exception to this practice.

Thus La Valliere portrays the birth of an age of elegance and reason;

The Lady envisages a picture of romanticism and daredevil actions; and Richelieu impresses us with the chivalry, daring and romance of a period after the Renaissance, and verging on the borderline of the age of elegance. Besides, the three plays were lavishly staged with period settings and costumes.

The historical dramatists tried to be psychologically more sensitive than the authors of the plays with a contemporary background.

Their all out effort was to admit us into a bygone age through the internal lives of some historical characters. It was in the psychology

of the characters that the dramatists took great interest. This is noticeable in the way Marino Faliero, Francis Foscari, Rienzi and

Strafford think, and their creators were most interested in representing

their thoughts. As a result, the historical plays are full of lengthy

soliloquies and pieces of dialogues which introduce us to the workings

of the minds of the characters. The concern with the workings of the mind is also present in Bulwer. In the creation of such characters as La Valliere, Lauzun, Richelieu and Baradas, Bulwer has paid a great 130

deal of attention to their thoughts and feelings. The following passages from Richelieu are sufficient to illustrate this point.

Richelieu. Oh godlike Power! Woe, Rapture, Penury, Wealth,- Marriage and Death, for one infirm old man Through a great empire to dispense - withhold- As the will whispers! And shall things - like motes That live in my daylight - lackeys of court wages, Dwarf'd starvelings - manikins, upon whose shoulders The burthen of a province were a load More heavy than the globe on Atlas, - cast, Lots for my robe and sceptre? France! I love thee! All Earth shall never pluck thee from my heart! My mistress France - my wedded wife - sweet France, Who shall proclaim divorce for thee and me! (Act I, sc.ii, pp. 175-176)

Baradas. Farewell! - I trust for ever! I design'd thee For Richelieu's murderer - but, as well his martyr! In childhood you the stronger - and I cursed you; In youth the fairer - and I cursed you still; And now my rival!- While the name of Julie Hung on thy lips - I smiled - for then I saw. In my mind's eye, the cold and grinning Death Hang o'er thy head the pall! - Ambition, Love, Ye twin-born stars of daring destinies. Sit in my house of Life! - By the king's aid I will be Julie's husband - in despite Of my Lord Cardinal! - by the king's aid I will be minister of France - in spite Of my Lord Cardinal! - And then - what then? The king loves Julie - feeble prince.- false master - Then, by the aid of Bouillon^'^^a^ I will dethrone the king; and all - ha! - ha! - All in despite of my Lord Cardinal! (Act I, sc.i, p. 163)

In their treatment of historical plays the dramatists usually followed the method of portraying the past as different from the present

In one sense these dramatists were romantics who wanted to escape from the monotony of the present into a past which provided a more "plausible climate for marvels, thrills, and surprises, physical, psychological, and metaphysical." The majority of the historical plays of the early nineteenth century are full of romanticism, melodrama, sensationalism, and sentimentalism. The audience shared the taste with the dramatists.

1 A.M. Clark, op.cit., p. 22. 131

Like the readers of the historical novel, the theatrical audience was easily satisfied with "sensations rather than thoughts, a tale with simpler and keener passions, brighter colours and costumes, intenser characters, more exciting actions, and loftier dialogue than the drab routine of every day." Because they catered for this taste,

Virginius, Rienzi or Richelieu enjoyed immense success.

The historical plays of the early nineteenth century provided an outlet for the independent thinking of the dramatists. The plays of Byron, Mary Russell Mitford and Knowles are something more than historical plays. Through them the dramatists attempted to present their views on politics and government which included questions on liberty and tyranny. In this way the plays served a dual purpose.

On the one hand, they gave delight to the audience and, on the other, they expressed the favourite ideas of the dramatists about the contemporary political situation in England. Eow political issues were discussed, could be seen from the examination of one play, and for this purpose I have selected Byron's Marino Faliero.

It is interesting to note that Byron's political views in the play are comparable with those of Bulwer. Marino Faliero brings out certain ideas which are akin to Bulwer's own attitude to the political questions of his time. Byron was essentially a Whig, and sympathised with what the Whigs of his time thought. He had no sympathy for the common radicals who were clamouring for political reform. He believed that if the reform was to come it should not be in the way of the

French Revolution, but by constitutional means. Like Bulwer he thought that the people must have an able leader who would come from the aristocracy. His creation of the Doge, Marino Faliero, confirms this.

1 A.M. Clark, op.cit., p. 23< 132

Faliero's own words to the conspirators justify such a criticism.

Edward Dudley Hume Johnson says that Marino Faliero is intended to emerge as a tragic hero who "ultimately loses all sense of personal grievance in the higher purpose of freeing the Venetian populace from the tyranny of an unscrupulous aristocracy." Ehis is supported by

Byron's own comment appended to the play: "Had the man /Marino Faliero/ succeeded, he would have changed the face of Venice, and perhaps of

Italy." Faliero is Byron's "prophet of the new spirit which was to 2 emancipate suffering Italy from the bondage of centuries." What was most disapproved of by Byron was the absence of an efficient leadership. This can be eplained as Byron's distrust of the democratic government. In his attitude to the problems of Italy he was willing to accept violence as a means, but when he found that the affairs were going the same way in England, all his aristocratic prejudices rose in opposition. This is best understood from Byron's relations with his friend Hobhouse during this time. When in 1818 Hobhouse stood for election as a member of the Whig party and lost+ Byron was sympathetic. When in 1819 he found that Hobhouse had joined the reformers, he was full of indignation. Byron's suspicions about the means of the Reformers came true with the Cato Street conspiracy.

Johnson comments:

Under pressure of such apprehensions the poet fell back on his Whig training. Reform was admissible only when brought about by constitutional means. He was all for reform on these terms, but not for the Reformers, always excepting Burdett and Kinnaird who were gentlemen and could be expected to behave as such in an emergency. If there were no solution except through a general uprising, let the affair in any event be supervised by aristocrats. Then if blood was shed, it would at least not be clotted; if heads

1 Edward Dudley Hume Johnson, "A Political Interpretation of Byron's Marino Faliero", Modern Language Quarterly, III, 1 9 ^2 , p. 4 2 0 .

2 ibid., p. 4 2 1 . 133

fell, they would fall by the axe under well-bred direction and not by the butcher's cleaver. 1

Marino Faliero expresses this sentiment. Faliero's "distaste for

plebeian associates" is similar to Byron's "bitterness towards the

English radical reform movement." In no other work did Byron express

so haughty a contempt for the political capacities of the mob. The

following statement of Marino Faliero justifies this contempt:

Deem'st thou the souls of such a race as mine Can rest, when he, their last descendant chief. Stands plotting on the brink of their pure graves With stung plebeians? (Marino Faliero, Act III, sc.i, 99-102)

Like Byron, Bulwer was a IfJhig at the time when he wrote his

first three plays, and his natural tendencies were conservative. He

agreed that the aristocracy needed reformation, but believed that it

was ultimately the aristocracy which should lead the people. For a

proper understanding of the plays we have to take into consideration

his political views. An examination of his comments in England and

the English will explain his position clearly. Addressing the fifth

book of England and the English to the English people, Bulwer asks a

question and supplies the answer:

V/hat is the influence which, throughout the previous sections of this work, I have traced and proved to be the dominating influence of England; colouring the national character, pervading every grade of our social system, ruling our education, governing our religion, operating on our literature, our philosophy, our sciences, our arts? You.answer at once, that is the ARISTOCRATIC. It is so.

Bulwerthen defines that the evils of society and the country are not

created by the monarchy, but by the aristocracy: "It is for the

aristocracy, not the king, that corruption is a lucrative system."^

It has crippled the monarchy and encroached on the rights of the

1 Johnson, op.cit., p. 423. 2 England and the English (Knebworth Edition, l8?4), p. 321 3 ibid., p. 323" 134

people. It is hostile to the king's power and popularity and also to the welfare of the people. It is wrong to believe that the aristocracy preserves the throne and a weak aristocracy means a weak monarchy.

Bulwer observes that in other countries where the aristocracy is the least strong and is only an ornament of the fabric and not the foundations, the monarchy is strong and powerful. A corrupt aristocracy destroys a kingdom:

I say that an aristocracy, when corrupted, destroys, and does not preserve a monarchy, and I point to France for an example : had the French aristocracy been less strong and less odious, Louis XVI would not have fallen a victim to that fearful glamoury which conjured a scaffold from throne.

The arguments that a strong aristocracy doiri "check the king on/^one side 2 and the commons on the other" are not plausible. This attitude to the people was justified in the past, but now when the people are educated it is no longer acceptable. Bulwer then sums up:

The era in which it is wise to promote a dominant aristocracy ceases when monarchs are not military chiefs, and the people of themselves can check whatever excess of power in the sovereign they may deem dangerous; it ceases when nobles become weak, but the spirit of aristocracy becomes strong ...it ceases when an aristocracy is no longer in advance of the people, and a king and his subjects _ require no obstacle to their confidence in each other.

Where then is invested the power of the monarchy? Bulwer answers, in the people:

its power, ray friends, is in yourselves; its power is in the aristocratic spirit and sympathy which pervade you all. In your own hearts while you shout for popular measures, you have a reverential notion of the excellence of the aristocratic agents; you think rich people alone 'respectable'; you have a great idea of station; you consider a man is/better for being above his fellows, not in virtue and intellect, but in the good things of life.^

1 England and the English, p..325., 2 ibid., p. 326. 3 ibid., p. 327. 4 ibid., p. 328. 135

As is clear in the later part of the quotation, Bulwer holds the public

opinion responsible for the importance of the aristocracy. He points own out that a man "owes his station to his own talents, to his/eloquence, to his own perseverance" and not to his property. But in any republic

these men will occupy the highest position as long ad the people will 2 think that "property is the legal heir to respect." Bulwer then

takes up the problem of diminishing the importance of the aristocracy.

First he discusses that there should be an increase in the number of

VAiig peers in the House of Lords. Bulwer thinks that, as a result,

there will be no opposition in the House of Lords. It will be a complete Whig majority without any opposition spokesman. They will control both Houses and the king will be reduced to a cipher. As long as property is the basis of an election, it is the aristocracy which will be returned to Parliament. Bulwer then considers the second suggestion that the House of Lords should be totally abolished.

The danger, he says, is that all the members of the aristocracy will

take their seats in the Commons on the basis of an election which is based on property. "Their immense property would easily secure their return, to the exclusion of poorer but more popular men...andall you would effect by destroying the existence of one chamber, would be cu creation of a Tory majority in the other.Bulwer himself suggests a third possibility but, as he says, the time has not yet arrived for this;

a third mode might be devised - but I think we are not yet prepared for it, viz. - the creation of an elective, not an hereditary senate, which might be an aristocracy in the true sense of the word - that is, an assembly of the best men - the selected of the country - , selected from the honest as the

1 England and the English, p. 329* 2 ibid., p. 329. 3 ibid., p. 335. 136

rich, the intelligent as the ignorant - in which property would cease to be the necessary title, and virtue and knowledge might advance claims equally allowed.^

It is true that Bulwer does not speak for the aristocracy in the same way as would Byron. His main objection to the aristocracy is its separation from the people. In his ideal state Bulwer would have an aristocracy which will share the people's thoughts, as it did in the feudal times, and eventually become their true representative.

Until then the present nature of the aristocracy will make it unpopular.

What has been said in the earlier paragraph has much to do with

Bulwer's treatment of French history in the three plays. He admires people from high stations such as Richelieu or Bragelone who were close to the people of the country and knew their welfare very well. On the other hand, he hates decadent aristocrats like the Duke de Lauzun, the Count de Grammont and Beauseant, son of a marquis. As a result, they have been ridiculed in the plays. He has no sympathy for characters like Lauzun, Grammont and Beauseant, and would always ridicule them whenever their prototypes appear in the plays, whether it is a play based on French history, or one dealing with contemporary life such as Money. Bulwer's dislike is based on the unsuitable nature of these aristocrats who have no concern for the people and who live on the labours of the people and never replenish them with anything. Thus it could be said that the three plays Bulwer produced between I837 and 1839 represent his current views on which his politics were based. Through these plays he ventilated his political opinion just as Knowles, Byron or Mary Russell Mitford had done in their plays. This fact brings Bulwer in line with the dramatic tradition of the early nineteenth century.

1 England and the English, p. 335- 137

It has already been said that Bulwer had a great interest in history. This is proved by the number of historical dramas and novels he wrote during his literary career. There is nothing very special about this preoccupation. But what is important is the attitude which

Bulwer had towards history and its treatment in his dramas and novels.

In the preface which he added to the third edition of his Harold, the

Last of the Saxon Kings Bulwer wrote ;

There are two ways of employing the materials of History in the service of Romance: the one consists in .lending to ideal personages, and to an imaginary fable, the additional interest to be derived from historical groupings: the other, in extracting the main interest of romantic narrative from History itself. Those who adopt the former mode are at liberty to exclude all that does not contribute to theatrical effect or picturesque composition; their fidelity to the period they select is towards the manners and costume, not towards the precise order of events, the moral causes from which the events proceeded, and the physical ^ agencies by which they were influenced and controlled.

Bulwer adopted the seoond mode and said that Scott had "employed History to aid Romance", but his own aim was different. Later in the same

Preface he explained his aims more clearly!

I contented myself with the humbler task to employ Romance in the aid of History,- to extract from authentic but neglected chronicles, and the unfrequented storehouse of Archaéology, the incidents and details that enliven the dry narrative of facts to which the general historian is confined,- construct my plot from the actual events themselves, and place the staple of such interest as I could create in reciting the struggles and delineating the characters, of those who had been the living actors in the real drama...I adhered faithfully to what, as an Historian, I should have held to be the true course and true causes of the great political events, and the essential attributes of the principal agents... I have to do more than present an amusing picture of national manners - detail the dress, and describe the banquet...In a word, I must place fully before the reader, if I would be faithful to the plan of my work, the political and moral features of the age, as well as its lighter and livelier attributes...^

In the Preface to Rienzi, the Last of the Roman Tribunes in the edition

1 Harold (Knebworth Edition, 1874), p. xi. 2 ibid.,pp.xii-xiii. 138

of l848, Bulwer reiterated what he had said earlier in the Preface to Harold :

the true mode of employing history in the service of romance, is to study diligently the materials as history; conform to such views of the facts as the Author would adopt, if he related them in the dry character of historian; and obtain that warmer interest which fiction bestows, by tracing the causes of the facts in the characters and emotions of the personages of the time. The events of his work are thus already shaped to his hand - the characters already created - what remains for him, is the inner, not outer, history of man - the chronicle of the human heart; and it is by this that he introduces a new harmony between character and event, and adds the completer solution of what is actual and true, by those speculations of what is natural and probable, which are out of the province of historylf^but belong especially to the philosophy of romance.

What has been quoted above is not only true of his attitude to the treatment of history in novels but also of the treatment of history in the three French plays. It is clear that both in his historical novels and dramas Bulwer sought to create a form of art which would 2 be "historically informative and morally enlightening." His aim

Has "to produce the greatest dramatic effect at the least expense of historical truth.Thus he constructed his plots "from the actual events themselves", consulted "authentic but neglected 4 chronicles" and attempted to interpret history originally. Again, what he did in his novels is true of his dramas. The same practice is seen in both forms of literature that he tried his hand at.

Consequently, in the three French plays we see what Curtis Dahl called his efforts to delineate "the past as a thinly disguised but specific political and social criticism of the present."^

1 Rienzi (Knebworth Edition, H'.cO, p. xi. 2 Curtis Dahl, "History on the Hustings: Bulwer-Lytton’s Historical Novels of Politics", From Jane Austen to Joseph Conrad, edited by Robert C. Rathburn and Martin Steinmann, Jr., p. éo. 3 ibid., p. 6 0. 4 ibid., p. 6 0. 3 ibid., p. 6l 139

He "comments on the political and social problems of his own day through his analysis of history." We have already seen how his political views are reflected in the three plays. Thus we cannot help agreeing to what Curtis Dahl has to say about Bulwer's approach to history:

Two aspects of Bulwer's thought on art and history led him to the creation of this type of historical fiction. In the first place, he held that all art should be moral. It should strive to clothe and express those ideal truths which are the basis of men’s lives. Historical writing, whether in fictional or ordinary form, should teach. It should have ethical content or "moral utility" applicable to the present. Historical writing, he thought, was of particular moral importance because history itself is a moral teacher. If correctly analysed (hence the urgency of accurate history), it can provide lessons for the present. Secondly, Bulwer believed that though the costumes, characters, scenery and background of various ages differ, the basic political situations, social groupings, and causative forces remain constant. He who knows modern psychology and modern politics can explain the past by comparison. In his histories and historical novels, then, Bulwer uses an analogical method: he explains history by comparing it with contemporary life. Or that is what he thinks he is doing. Actually, it is truer to say that he explains contemporary life by reading the political and social conditions of his own time into past eras and there commenting on them. In this way he weakens his historicity but provides his readers with an excellent presentation of his views on Victorian England. His historical novels are really better criticism than history. Thus they establish not only the fashion of introducing historical scholarship into fiction but also the technique of using historical fiction as a means of commenting on^current social, political, or personal problems ...

What Curtis Dahl says about Bulwer's historical novels is also true of his historical dramas. He have already seen that Bulwer was occupied with such an approach in his three plays on French history, where he discussed the political problems of his own time as he had earlier done in England and the English. There is a difference between

Curtis Dahl, op.cit., p. 61. Ibid., pp. 61-6 2. For further discussions of Bulwer’s historical novels please see Avrom Fleishman's The English Historical Novel; Walter Scott to Virginia Woolf, pp. 33-35; James C. Simmons's "The Novelist as Historian: An Unexplored Tract of Victorian Historiography", Victorian Studies, March, 1971, pp. 293-305; and Alfred T. Sheppard's The Art and Practice of Historical Fiction, pp. 102-4, 207-8. 140

the statements in England and the English and those in the three plays. His treatment of these problems in the prose work is precise and direct, but in the plays it is indirect and subtle. Yet it can be said that the plays merely echo what Bulwer earlier said in his prose work and later in his historical novels. 141

CHAPTER IV

The Sea-Captain; or, The Birthright

Three weeks after the opening of Richelieu Forster informed

Macready that Bulwer had nearly finished a play which was then called Norman and was eventually to become The Sea-Captain. Early in April I839 Macready signed a contract with Benjamin Webster, the manager of the theatre at the Haymarket, to play for the next season.

This induced Bulwer to get in touch with Webster for a new play for which Macready could play the role of the hero. On May 28, he wrote to Webster that he had written a play suitable for the Haymarket:

"It is an English subject - cast about the time of Elizabeth & would not require much cost in getting up -." Webster replied that he was delighted. Meanwhile Bulwer had given the play to Forster and asked his opinion on it, but there is no record of what passed between him and Forster. By June 11, Bulwer wrote to Macready about the play. He asked Macready's opinion and assured him that there was "a great deal of dramatic pathos & passion in the part designed for you, & a very good low Comedy, old gentleman part, for Farren."^

On June I6 Macready read the play for the first time and did not like it. On June 20, he read it again and recorded: "Was much struck with the effect of the last two acts, though I do not altogether like the play, it is far too melodramatic."^ He wrote to Bulwer to

1 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 133* 2 ibid., p. 134 . 3 Macready, The Diaries, Vol. II, p. 9* 142

this end, but what he said in the letter is not knoWialthough Shattuck 1 supposes that it amounted to the rejection of the play. He also suggests that Bulwer was not dissuaded and both he and Forster laboured over the play to improve it. Around July 24, Bulwer sent the play again to Macready for a second reading. In the accompanying letter he commented that the end of the play had not been finally decided. He wished that Norman should surrender his birthright for the second time which the plot, as it then stood, did not permit.

He also said that he had provided Macready with powerful effects in the first four acts, and was looking for a suitable fifth act. As Bulwer asked -, usual,/Macready for suggestions. There is no record of what Macready said in reply to Bulwer's letter. Towards the end of August, Macready's need for a new play was pressing. Meanwhile, Forster was acting as

Bulwer's agent and informed Bulwer that Webster would pay £000 for a new play by Bulwer. On September 1, Bulwer wrote to Forster complaining that comedy in Norman's role would "mar his character completely" and suggested that "the best plan wd be to increase the tragic instead of relieve the comic part - to also alter the agency now trusted to

Gaussen - & to paint the suspense of terror in the darkest colour 4 possible -." On September 6 Bulwer met Macready and talked a great deal about the play. As a result of the discussion, he rewrote the play which then became "a play about the Spanish Inquisition".^

This is clear from his letter of September 25: "You will find your part greatly strengthened - & also the comic relief you wanted - Elvira (that Woman), tho' still strong, is toned down. But there are two other characters,

Gaspar & the Inquisitor - whom I fear we shall be put to for suitable actors."^ Macready did not like it as he did the first version. He, |

1 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 154. 2 ibid., p. 154 5 ibid., p. 135. 4 ibid., p. I3 6. 5 ibid., p. 137. 6 ibid., p. 137. 143

however, suggested a compromise. He said that the plot of Norman and

The Inquisition, as the latter was then called, should be blended together. Bulwer asked Macready to read The Inquisition to a select group, which Macready did on October 1. He read parts of The Inquisition and Norman which appealed to his auditors greatly. Macready made special notes for the blending of the two plays and sent them to

Bulwer. Unfortunately, these notes are no longer existent. But presumably on Macready’s advice Bulwer wrote three acts of the next version and delivered them to Macready about October 7. The play was then called The Birthright. Two days later, Macready read the three acts to Webster and his ‘assistant Wilmott. They were very pleased with them. During this reading Bulwer came in and gave Macready the other two acts. Macready read them to his auditors who liked them. Webster accepted the play by paying £600 in full for his rights to stage it for three years in London. In his diary, on October 15,

Bacready referred to the play as The Sea-Captain which indicates that the title was by this time finally settled. Between October 9 and 23

Macready, Bulwer and Forster were engaged in making alterations to the play. Although Bulwer at first objected to them, he finally accepted them and changed parts of the play. These were done on the following lines: in the original play Bulwer had presented Sir

Maurice Beevor dying at the hand of his own agent, but presumably at

Macready*s and Forster’s advice he removed it showing Maurice leaving the stage at thè end of the fifth act after he had been chided by

Norman; another suggestion was to introduce Lady Arundel in the last scene when Norman and Ashdale were engaged with Gaussen and his assistants, and to remove Gaussen’s plan to kill both brothers; but

Bulwer did not accept'this alteration. He also made changes in the 144

speeches by adding some lines here and putting a new speech there.

After the 23rd, there was no more scope for changes as the play was handed over to the printers. After many misgivings on Macready's part the play was produced on Thursday, October 31, I839 . Bulwer then realised the poor quality of his play and consulted Macready for making alterations, but nothing was really done about them and the play ran through forty performances to the end of the season.

Bulwer suppressed the play after several printings in 1839, and never permitted it to be included in the collections of his plays which appeared after l840.

The majority of the reviews were adversely critical although most of them admitted the success of The Sea-Captain on the opening night. There were also extravagant praise for the actors and the actresses, and disdain for the playwright and the enthusiasm of the aucience. The unnaturalness of Lady Arundel in disowning her first son was a common criticism. "The play is repulsive, if not unnatural, in its object, and the conduct of the story singularly artificial."

As a result, many critics praised Mrs. Warner's acting in the role of Lady Arundel who was supposed to be an unbelievable and monstrous character. The Standard wrote:

Great praise is due to Mrs. Warner who in this very difficult situation, with the natural feelings of cause against the character, completely carried the audience with her ... The author may not be aware how much he is indebted to her.^

It was also argued that Bulwer had written this play for one actor

only who was Macready:

Like other dramas from the same hand, it is a play of one part. Every other charagter is stunted, dwarfed, that the hero may be a giant. This defect - in our opinion an egregious one - is the vice of the present

1 The Constitutionalist, November 10, l839, p* 5* 2 The Standard, November 1, 1839, P« 3* 145

system. Actors are measured for passion as they are measured for coats; the whole purpose of manager^heing, apparently, to sacrifice companies to the importance of two or three individuals.^

This is a piece of legitimate criticism which could be applied to a great number of successful plays in the early nineteenth century.

Many of the critics damned him with faint pr&ise:

Sir Edward Bulwer is occasionally successful in declaration. He is sometimes eloquent, at interval energetic, is not devoid of pathos, and has smartness and merit in various ways. But he has little or no imagination. His mind is cultivated, and possesses a considerable range; but it seems, at the same time, to be egotistical, trivial, self-sufficient, and wanting in simplicity and sincerity of purpose. His genius is not robust, but inflated; and he is less an artist than an artisan.^

John Bull attacked Bulwer's industry:

Sir Edward bids fair to be as prolific of dramatic, as of other productions, and we may now look forward to their appearance, as surely as to the return of the season, theatrical or natural.^

The attacks were admittedly ineffectual. The first-night audience was genuinely pleasëd with the play. One critic wrote: "It was quite successful - indeed the audience seemed determined it should be so, 4 before it commenced!" The play was published a week before the first night and obviously theatre-goers had read it before coming to the performance. They thought that The Sea-Captain was a great literary effort, and as such should be applauded. Even the friendly critics noted that the audience was unprepared to find fault; with the play.

They remembered that Bulwer was a successful dramatist, and beyond all question a man of genius; and they saw before them on the stage a constellation of talent, such as could be produced at no other theatre in London.

1 The Morning Herald, November 1, l859, P* 5» 2 The European, November 2, 1839, p- 11• 3 John Bull, November 3, 1839, p* 525* 4 The Inventors' Advocate, and patentees* Recorded, November 2, 1839, p.l89«

^ The Era, November 3, 1859, P» 6 3. 146

This mounting disapproval of The Sea-Captain reached its climax in Thackeray's criticism of the play. He wrote a special Yellowplush

Pa per on it. His main point of criticism was against the plot, the comic humour and certain passages in the play. Quoting a number of passages, he indicated their lack of meaning. He criticised the use of poetic effusion in the speeches of Norman which, in Thackeray's opinion, Bulwer intended to pass on as poetry. Thackeray commented:

His /~Bulwer's_7 language is absurdly stilted, frequently careless; the reader or spectator hears a number of loud speeches, but scarce a dozen lines that seem to belong of nature to the speakers.^

According to him, the plot also suffered from too many incidents.

Thackeray believed that Bulwer had thought that he "must have a new incident in every act" and "keep tickling the spectator perpetually, and never let him off until the fall of the curtain."^ This is not a singular characteristic of The Sea-Captain, but one which the majority of early nineteenth-century plays show, and which is also present in Bulwer's other plays. Bulwer's use of comedy too was censured by Thackeray. Comedy in The Sea-Captain is mainly supplied by Sir Maurice Beevor. Thackeray thought that the kind of comedy

Bulwer had introduced in the play was not good enough for a play which aimed at being exemplary. In all this Thackeray's target was actually the contemporary melodramas which prescribed such usages. Bulwer simply provided an opportunity for him by suggesting

that he was concerned with the uplift of the poor state of the

drama of his time. Other melodramatists did not make any such claim and escaped Thackeray's direct criticism. Bulwer, however, was too

serious an author to accept that he was writing a melodrama. But

1 W.M. Thackeray, The YellowpludiPapers Etc. (ed.Walter Jerrold), p. l82, 2 ibid., p. l8l. 147

The Sea-Captain is a melodrama, and not very different from many

other melodramas which were written at this time. Incidentally,

the play was considered by Bulwer's friends as something "quite

beneath" him because it was a melodrama.

Such an objection surprises us today because the most successful

plays of the early nineteenth century were melodramatic. One cannot

help wondering why it was considered bad by Bulwer's friends when

he wrote a melodrama. There is only one reason for their disapproval.

They took him to be a great writer with a gift of high intellectuality

and expected that Bulwer could write a great drama, and thought that

his first three plays were superior to the dramas which the period

produced. Bulwer also contributed to the furtherance of this

impression, because he believed that he was striving to raise the

standard of drama by writing for the stage. Eis friends did not

like the idea that he should write melodramas like many of his

contemporary playwrights who were, in their opinion, nothing but

stage hacks. His critics like Thackeray knew Bulwer's high ideals

in his plays, and took the opportunity of criticising him when he

attempted to follow the practice of his successful contemporaries,

whom he considered second-grade authors. In the course of my

examination of Bulwer's plays I have often indicated his adherence

to melodrama. In can be said that Bulwer had been following the

melodramatic tradition for some time, and that he had a certain

interest in this genre. The majority of the critics of Bulwer's

time overlooked this aspect of his other plays, and recognised it

only in the case of The Sea-Captain. Keeping in mind that the play

possesses many of Bulwer's typical ideas, I now intend to discuss

the characteristics of The Sea-Captain.

1 Shattuck, op.cit., p. l44. 148

Norman, the captain of a warship, returns to England to claim his birthright and the hand of the lady whom he once rescued from pirates and whom he loves. There is a secrecy around his birth which he also wants to unravel. The person who is most concerned with the secret is Lady Arundel. She had been once secretly married to Arthur Le Mesnil who was later killed by a hired pirate in the chapel near the Castle of Arundel. After his death she had given the birth to a child who was left in/charge of Onslow, a priest, who, when the child grew into a boy of fourteen, was advised to hand him over to a pirate named Gaussen. The pirate was bribed by Sir

Maurice Beevor to throw Norman into the high seas, and Lady Arundel knew nothing about this, lhat she had wanted v/as to have Norman reared in a remote part of the country so that Norman would not affect her second marriage and the fate of her second son Lord

Ashdale. Naturally, Norman's arrival frightens both Lady Arundel and Sir Maurice, who want to dispose of him. They look for Onslow who possesses the papers which contain the secret of Norman's birth. Onslow has already been contacted by one of Norman's followers,

Before his death he is able to pass on the documents in question to

Norman, and identify the person who killed Norman's father and has now struck Onslow. Armed with the documents, Norman sees Lady

Arundel who has been hoping for a quiet exit of Norman with his beloved Violet so that she is left alone with Ashdale. Lady Arundel, however, cannot help confessing that she is the mother of Norman, but her hesitations make him leave her and free her from any commitment. Meanwhile, Maurice has been making his own schemes.

He wants both Norman and Ashdale killed so that he may be the next heir to the wealth of Arundel. He bribes Gaussen and his followers 149

to have the deed performed at the chapel where all the characters meet. Gaussen mistakes Ashdale for Norman and strikes him, but

Ashdale is saved by Norman who kills Gaussen and avenges his father’s death. Lady Arundel discloses the secret to Ashdale and, after some hesitation, the brothers are reconciled. Norman burns the documents that gave him back his birthright and is united with Violet.

There is nothing very significant in the plot of The Sea-Captain.

The play is a typical melodrama and conforms to the practice of melodramatic plot-construction. I shall quote a few passages of dialogue to show Bulwer's method in the use of language.

The first act opens with the arrival of Giles Gaussen, Luke,

Falkner and Norman, each having a different purpose of his own. While

Gaussen and Luke are paying a visit to Sir Maurice Beevor, their old employer, Norman and Falkner have come to discover the secrets of

Norman’s birth and childhood. The alternate introduction of the two groups of characters immediately establishes the point of the story.

Bulwer’s method of exposition is brief and to the point.

Mau. khat, Giles Gaussen - bully Gaussen, my heart of oak, how fares it? Why, it is ten years since we met. I thought thou wert in another land - / aside_/ I wish thou wert in another world. You are a little altered - warlike wounds, eh? All for the better - more grim, terrible, manly, and seamanlike. Gau. I must thank the boy whom I took out to please thee for this gash across the brow. Mau. Ugh! it is by no means a handsome keepsake, bully Gaussen. V/hat, then? you are quits with him. You gave him a very large winding-sheet,- one that will not wear out this many a day, eh? Gau. No; he has escaped - he lives! I saw him yesterday - a day's journey hence. It is this which brings me hither. I have tracked news of him. He bears another name - Norman! He has a goodly ship of his own. Look yonder /"pointing to the ship_7. Does this news open your purse-strings. Sir Maurice? (Act I, sc.i, pp. 2-3)

The use of prose here calls for a comment. Bulwer made use of prose 150

for the first time in The Lady, but could not employ it for the whole of the play. Like his contemporaries he thought that great drama, and ideal drama, must be written in verse. Such an attitude had its origin in the works of the Elizabethan and seventeenth- century dramatists who were models for dramatists like Bulwer and a host of other playwrights who preceded him. They believed that if prose was to be used at all it should be employed to present the ordinary and everyday business of our life. To some extent

Bulwer deviated from this rule by writing nearly the whole of The

Lady in prose. He used verse only when he thought that there was an opportunity to express "finer" sentiments such as the conversation between Claude and Pauline attempted to do at certain stages in The Lady. In The Sea-Captain Bulwer used the same principle in writing certain parts of the play in prose, though the use is minimal in the play and less extensive than its use in The Lady.

Immediately after this conversation between Maurice and Gaussen, we are shown the other side of the picture. Through the conversation

of Norman and Falkner, Bulwer introduces us to the purpose of Norman's visit.

Falk. Eno' of me - nov/ for thyself, what news? Thy Floweret of the West - thy fair betroth'd- The maid we rescued from the Afric corsair With her brave father - in the Indian seas- Thou'st seen her?- Nor. No!- I had more wisely saved My time and speed. Her sire is dead - the stranger Sits at his hearth; and with her next of kin Hard by this spot - this very spot, dear Falkner, My Violet dwells: look where the sunlight gilds The time-worn towers of stately Arundel - Thither my steps are bound; - a happy chance Our trysting place should have been chosen here!- ... Falk. Hold - but the priest, thy foster-father, Onslow - Hast thou sought him? 151

Nor. Thou dear old man, forgive me! I do believe as whirlpools to the sea Love is to life! - Since first I leapt on land I have had no thought - no dream - no fear - no hope Which the absorbing waves of one strong passion Have not engulphed! - Wilt serve me Falkner?- Bear This letter to the priest - the place inscribed Scarce two hours’ journey hence;- say I will seek him Perchance this night - if not, the morrow's dawn. ... (Act I, sc.i, pp. 5-6)

The nature of the content of this passage is not very different from the passage of dialogue between Maurice and Gaussen quoted earlier, the In view of this/sudden change from prose into verse is apparently without any reason. Bulwer believed that verse should be used in speeches conveying thought and emotion. The passage above does not show any sign of high thought or deep emotion. We are tempted to ask: why did then Bulwer suddenly use verse in this passage? The answer is not far to be looked for. Bulwer believed that serious drama must have verse and not prose which was more suitable for melodrama. Thus, by introducing verse for the speeches of Norman, he attempted to give the impression that the play was a serious drama and not a melodrama. This is a trait which can also be seen in many other plays of the period.

The second scene introduces Maurice and Lady Arundel in conversation.

Mau. ^aside to Lady Arundel/ Hark! he lives! Aru. He! who? Mau. The young gentleman who stands between your Percy and his inheritance! ... Mau. ... I tell thee, - he lives; he is at hand; no longer a babe, a child, a helpless boy; but a stout man, with a ship, and a name, and a crew,- and money, for what I know. Your son Percy is a fine youth. It is a pity his father married before, and had other sons. But for your lordships of Ashdale and Arundel, your Percy would be as poor - as poor as old Maurice Beevor... Aru. My son, my Percy! but the priest is faithful. He has sworn - Mau. To keep thy secret only while thy father and thy spouse lived; they are dead. But the priest has no proofs to back his tale? 152

Aru. Alas! he has... Aru. My own thoughts confuse me. What should be done? Mau. I know a nice little firm to be sold on the other side of the river Ex; but I am very poor - a very poor old knight. Aru. Do you trifle with me? V/hat is your counsel? Mau. There is a great deal of game on it; partridges, hares, wild geese, snipes, and plovers /smacking his lips/; besides a magnificent preserve of sparrows, which I can always sell to the little blackguards in the streets for a penny a hundred. But I am very poor - a very poor old knight. Aru. Within, within! You shall have gold - what you will; we must meet this danger! Mau. If she had said "gold" at first, I should have saved exactly one minute and three quarters! Madam, I follow you. Never fear, I will secure the proofs. (Act I, sc.ii, pp. 9-11)

The passage is remarkable because it employs a new vein of colloquialism not yet used by Bulwer in any of the plays which preceded The Sea-Captain.

The phrases used by Maurice in particular indicate this new practice.

The language of this dialogue is very close to contemporary speech and can be found in many plays, especially melodramas, of the period. It suggests that Bulwer i$6oming closer to the speech of his own time.

Besides, it also indicates his future use of colloquialism in Money which is entirely written in prose.

The central character in The Sea-Captain is not Norman but Lady

Arundel. Her very first words establish her as a remorseful character suffering under the pressure of guilt. She belongs to the tradition of remorseful characters of Gothic drama coming down from De Montfort and Bertram. The only escape from this burden of guilt is in her doting love for Ashdale, her second son. This love for her son has brought about her relationship with Sir Maurice Beevor. To keep

Norman away from herself and truth, she relies heavily on Maurice, and is willing to please him at almost any cost, vihen she comes to face Norman, she attempts to master her maternal feelings. But she welcomes him into the castle. The appearance of Norman makes a great impact on her. She, however, goes on attempting to stifle her feelings. 153

Lady Arundel comes closer to him when she hears the tale of his misfortune which deeply moves her. She realises that Norman has not been treated well in the past, because Maurice has gone too

far in his plans. She proposes to get out of it by appealing to

Norman to go away quietly with Violet, which will put an end to

the conflict between Norman and Ashdale.

The crucial test for Lady Arundel comes in Act IV when Norman, armed with the proofs supplied by Onslow, comes to see her. Her

first reaction is to deny everything Norman says and avoid him altogether. In the name of Ashdale she summons all her courage to

defend herself. But before Norman's arguments and stance all her

defences break down, and she begins to think of accepting him.

Following it, a torrent of words comes out of her as she envisages

the picture of her dishonour, and her father's, if she accepts Norman.

At the end of this she resigns herself to Norman's argument and does

not plead for his mercy. All her affection for the first-born returns and: she feels a tremendous urge to accept him.

At the beginning of the fifth act we see her still thinking of

Norman. This acceptance of Norman has given her courage to get rid

of Maurice. Towards the end of the first scene of the fifth act

Lady Arundel realises what Maurice has planned for Norman and Ashdale.

She decides to visit the chapel to save both the brothers from danger.

And it is here that she submits to the dictates of her heart. She

is now able to disclose the truth to her other son. She hands over

the proofs to Norman and asks him to accept his position as her elder

son. Suffering and remorse have resolved her conflict. She accepts

the truth she has been avoiding for twenty-five years.

Norman is supposed to be the hero of the play. He is a faithful 154

replica of the traditional English sailor Jack Tar who was the rage of the day in the first few decades of the nineteenth century.

This is the impression he leaves on us on his very first appearance.

His words and manners emphasise it throughout the play. We see a jolly, high-spirited sailor who is only too eager to part with his gold and very willing to share it with his followers. The impression that Norman creates in the first act is one of great hopefulness.

His praise of the sea, his words to Violet and Lady Arundel give a concrete shape to his hopefulness. In the second scene of the second act the relationship between Norman and Lady Arundel deepens.

Norman’s feeling towards Lady Arundel, whom he does not yet know to be his mother, induces him to narrate his life story.

The second scene of the third act, however, brings in a change which will arouse a conflict in Norman. The scene takes place at the Gothic chapel where Norman meets the dying old man Onslow and learns the truth about his parentage and his birthright. The first effect that Onslow's words have on him fills him with hopeful expectations and forecasts the change that is likely to come over him. VJhen he learns from the papers Onslow has given him that Lady

Arundel is his mother, his hope and enthusiasm rise even higher.

In this mood Norman returns to the castle and seeks an interview with Lady Arundel. The first words of Lady Arundel baffle him, when she denies that she has a son other than Ashdale. The denial deeply moves him and he prepares to give up all his claims as the first son of Lady Arundel. This spirit of sacrifice continues in the second scene of the fifth act when Norman saves the life of

Ashdale. Again, for the sake of Ashdale he allows Violet to make a selection between him and Ashdale. The same spirit rules his 155

judgment when Ashdale, on seeing that Violet prefers .Norman, invites

Norman to a duel and Norman refuses to take up his sword against him.

It appears that Norman too has undergone a transformation. He came

as a conqueror to claim his birthright and his sweetheart, but the

Norman we see in the fifth act is not a conqueror but a modest person

who will not hurt his mother, his half-brother or his beloved. It

is because of this he puts the proofs into fire so that there will

be no quarrel between him and Ashdale, or between Lady Arundel and

Ashdale. The victory that he wins at the end of the play is not

only his own but is shared with Violet, Ashdale and Lady Arundel.

Sir Maurice Beevor is the villain in The Sea-Captain. He is

the arch-intriguer who has risen to a great height and acquired enormous

power and advantage over Lady Arundel. He is a successor to Beauseant

and belongs, again like Beauseant, to the aristocracy. His conversation

with Luke and Gaussen shows the method he employs in achieving his

plans. He is a fiend in the disguise of a friend and takes full

advantage of his position. He is double-faced because he has two motives. He serves Lady Arundel by keeping Norman away from her and

from England. At the same time, he serves his own purpose by attempting

to have Norman altogether destroyed, which will bring him one step

nearer to the Arundel fortune, the same devilishness that in the

past prompted him to give Norman to Gaussen, this time prepares him

to remove both Norman and Ashdale so that it will leave him as the

sole heir to the Arundel wealth. His villainy, however, has a touch

of humour which now and then comes out in his speeches as when he

speaks about poverty and women's prayer and such other things.

(i) But for your Lordships of Ashdale and Arundel, your Percy would be as poor - as poor as old Maurice Beevor. The air is very keen. Poverty is subject to ague /shivers/, and to asthma /wheezes/, and to 156

cold rheums and catarrhs /sneezes/, and to pains in the loins, lumbago, and sciatica /rubs himself/; and when Poverty begs, the dogs bark at it; and when Poverty is ill, the doctors mangle it; and when Poverty is dying, the priests scold at it; and when poverty is dead, nobody weeps for it. If this young man prove his case, your son, Percy Ashdale, will be very poor: (Act I, sc.ii, p. 10)

(ii) Ah, pray! when weak bad women Gorge some huge crime, they always after it Nibble a bit of prayer, just to digest it! So gluttons cram a hecatomb of meat, And then correct it with a crumb of cheese. (Act III, sc.i, p.42)

From the beginning when we see him in league with Gaussen, a pirate, to the end when Norman warns him to keep off, Maurice remains an out and out villain. Besides, he is a miser and has an unlimited greed for money and property. Though The Sea-Captain does not represent the world of Bulwer's French plays, his typical concept of aristocracy prevails in the play. It is not peculiar or strange that he has again found a villain in a member of the aristocracy.

Perhaps Bulwer had been thinking of the traditional villain of

Elizabethan and Jacobean drama which coloured his conception of

Maurice. Moreover, in introducing such a villain, Bulwer has again conformed to an established tradition.

Ashdale is something like a spoilt child whose every whim has been met and satisfied by an indulgent mother. Lady Arundel's affection for Ashdale has made him a monarch of everything his eyes fall upon. Ashdale is not capable of any deep feelings. His feeling for Violet, like his feeling for other things, is nothing more than a simple liking. Yet, much of the action of the play wherever Ashdale is concerned stems from his admiration for Violet. Before the arrival of Norman, Ashdale was sure that he had no rival. VAien Norman arrives he sparks off Ashdale's jealousy on which a large part of the 157

action depends. Maurice is able to play upon Ashdale’s jealousy and succeeds in whetting him against Norman. Being somewhat of a simpleton,

Ashdale fails to see Maurice’s motive behind his actions and falls an easy prey to his schemes. Even after Norman has saved his life in the

last act, he fails to come to terms with Norman over Violet, and invites him to draw his sword, v/hen Lady Arundel discloses the truth about the rightful heir of Arundel, Ashdale realises why Norman has been treated by Lady Arundel in a favourable way, and why Maurice has made him challenge Norman. It is then that his brotherly instinct arises and he accepts Norman as his elder brother, Norman’s capacity

for sacrifice, when he destroys the proofs of his right, touches

Ashdale deeply, and he finds that his own attitude has been one of greed and irrational claims. This realisation changes his earlier

thoughtless nature and turns him into a pacifist.

Ever since the writing of La Valliere Bulwer’s young women had undergone some changes. After the characterisation of Louise

de la Valliere, Bulwer had been moving towards women of more subdued and acceptable nature. In The Lady he achieved this aim to a certain

extent. In Richelieu he made further advancement in his creation of

Julie. In The Sea-Captain we see in Violet a completely subdued, virtuous and universally acceptable woman. Consequently, there is hardly enough scope for characterisation. Violet is a charming, simple girl deeply in love with Norman. She is so simple that she cannot reject Ashdale with the vehemence with which Julie in Richelieu rejects the king as well as Baradas. From the beginning to the end of the play she remains one single character and does not undergo any change at all, Vrhat makes Violet steadfast in her attitude to much

of what happens in the play is her sincere love for Norman with which 158

Bulwer first introduces her to us. Incidentally, Violet's constant companion. Mistress Prudence, has very little function in the play except to act as a chaperon to Violet wherever she goes, although her absence in the last scene is not properly accounted for.

The Sea-Captain is Bulwer's attempt at melodrama. It adheres to the popular melodramatic traditionly borrowing many of its characteristics. A large number of melodramas had orphans as their characters and lost identity as their theme. The Sea-Captain in a way has two orphans - Norman and Violet. Besides, for Norman it is also a case of lost identity and birthright. Certain descriptive passages and stage directions are borrowed from melodrama. These are scattered throughout the play, and the more important ones are cited below. The description of Lady Arundel is reminiscent of the guilt-ridden character of the Gothic drama:

Lady Arundel. It is the day - now five-and-twenty years Elapsed - the universal day of w o e ! 0 Sun, thou art the all-piercing eye of Heaven, And to thy gaze my heart's dark caves lie bare With their unnatural secret.- Silence, Conscience I Have I not rank - power - wealth - unstain'd repute? So will I wrap my ermine round the past, .... (Act I, sc.ii, p. 7)

Some of the stage directions are taken from the Gothic drama:

A Gothic hall.- On one side a huge hearth, over which a scutcheon and old banners; the walls hung with armour and ancient portraits.- In the front of the stage a table spread with fruits and wine. (Act II, sc.ii, p.23) In the background a Gothic chapel partially in ruins;- through a broken arch the sea seen at a little distance. In front, broken forest-ground, a small brook running to the sea. At the side, a small tower that admits to the demesnes of the Castle. Sunset. (Act III, sc.ii, p.44)

■ The hall in the Castle of Arundel.- Night - lights. (Act IV, sc.i, p.49) The exterior of a ruined chapel - The tower of the chapel, with large Gothic doors, for the background. Night - the stage darkened. (Act V, sc.ii, p.64) 159

The chapel doors are thrown open - the torch-bearers enter - Norman discovered near an old Gothic tomb, his sword drawn, standing before the body of Gaussen. (Act V, sc.ii, p.71)

Some passages show that Bulwer also borrowed from nautical melodrama:

Falkner. Good day to you both - and an ill wind go with youl By the Lord, messmates, a man who refuses to drink, without a satisfactory explanation, is to my mind a very suspicious character. Sailor. Hurrah for the Captain! hurrah! Enter N0EÎ-1AN Norman. Nell met, lads! beshrew me but the sound of your jolly welcome is the merriest music I've heard since we parted. Have ye spent all your doubloons? 1st.Sailor. Pretty nearly. Captain. Norman. That's right - we shall be all the lighter in sailing! Away to the town - and get rid of these pieces for me. Off; but be back an hour before sunset. /Exeunt Sailors. What should I do with all this prize-money If it were not for those brave fellows?- faith. They take a world of trouble off one's hands.' (Act I, sc.i, p. 4)

Similarly,there are passages glorifying sailors and their life at sea such as the following one:

The sea! No - not for Beauty's self! The glorious sea - Where England grasps the trident of a god. And every breeze pays homage to her flag, And every wave hears Neptune's choral nymphs Hymn, with immortal music England's name! - Forswear the sea! My bark shall be our home; The gale shall chaunt our bridal melodies; - The stars that light the angel palaces of/oùr Imps;- our floors the crystal deep Studded with sapphires sparkling as we pass; - Our roof - all Heaven! - ray Beautiful, my own! Never did sail more gladly glide to port Than I to thee! my anchor in thy faith. And in thine eyes my ^aven, (Act I, sc.i, pp. 6-7)

This nostalgic and typically sailor-like outburst of Norman owes its origin to the popularity of sailors and their life since the days of

Nelson. Bulwer knew that such passages would immediately appeal to his audience. Besides these examples, the general atmosphere of the last scene is purely melodramatic. In his earlier plays Bulwer made use of melodrama, but in The Sea-Captain his reliance on the technique 160

of this genre becomes complete.

The Sea-Captain also contributes to the general themes of

Bulwer's plays. The theme of social optimism and progress earlier noticed in The Lady is once again present in The Sea-Captain.

This comes out mainly in the character of Norman. He was born as the heir to the Arundel wealth, but chance debarred him from it and envisaged for him the life of an ordinary sailor, or death. He was saved from death, though his position as the heir was not. Consequently, he was destined to lead a common life or assert to rise above it on his own merit. Norman seems to have followed the second course. As a result of this, he gained his fame as a sailor before he attempted to claim his birthright. Thus Norman shows the same optimism and progress which we have noticed in the case of Claude Melnotte. The other social comment that Bulwer intends to make is noticed in the personality of Sir Maurice Beevor. Maurice justifies once more Bulwer's theory of the corruption of aristocracy. Together with it runs his idea of marriage. The marriage of Norman and Violet follows their mutual understanding and love much in the manner Bulwer treated love in Richelieu. The only comment on it is Lady Arundel’s decision to present Violet with a dowry though both Norman and Violet do not show any care for it. It, however, justifies one of the characteristics of marriage in Bulwer*s own time.

In The Sea-Captain Bulwer has heavily relied on the Elizabethan and Jacobean playwrights. The way this influence has crept into the play is noticeable in the portrait of Sir Maurice Beevor, which he heightens with a mixture of villainy and foolery aimed at his own self. In a way he also provides a comic touch which the other plays of Bulwer sometimes missed. The imitation of the past authors is 161

again apparent in the speeches of Violet and Mrs. Frudence, which

conjure up before us the unnatural image of a woman - Lady Arundel

- stern and ruthless, who arouses terror in the hearts of those

she happens to meet, and the whole picture is reminiscent of the

Elizabethan Clytemnestras, Lady Macbeths or the White Devils. This

impression is further enhanced by the conscious use of the words

"nature" and "unnatural" by Lady Arundel in her speeches, reminding

us of the favourite notion cf the Elizabethans and their immediate

successors about Nature. With this also go the element of chance,

the foolishness of Ashdale and Norman’s Othello-like recounting

of the past before Lady Arundel.

The imitation has given another effect to the play which is

that of melodrama, justifying the observations of Bulwer’s friends

and critics on The Sea-Captain. The atmosphere of revenge and

gloom, along with bloodshed, which marks most of the Jacobean

tragedies, hangs over this play. The type of scenic design which

had become the stock-in-trade of nineteenth-century melodrama is

seen in the coastal background, the Castle of Arundel, the chapel

with its dark shadow, the brook and the sacrifices. The similarity

between this and the background provided by one of Bulwer’s

contemporaries, for example, in Boucicault's The Shaughraun, is

overwhelming. Bulwer’s independence of melodrama in The Sea-Captain

is, however, noticeable in the relations between character and events.

Generally in melodrama events dominate characters, but in The Sea-

Captain they proceed from the motivation of the characters. Nicoll

once remarked that when nineteenth-century melodramatists found nothing

to say, they switched off the dialogue and substituted stage directions.

1 Allardyce Nicoll, Early Nineteenth Century Drama, I8OO-I85O , p. 102. 162

The Sea-Captain ignores this practice because the greater part of the business of the play is carried out in dialogues and conversations.

On the other hand, we cannot agree with Bulwer if he wants us to believe that instead of writing a melodrama, he has attempted to write a good drama. Though he has rejected many characteristics of conventional melodrama, he has borrowed many others which stamp it as a melodrama.

The adverse critical reception awarded to The Sea-Captain almost shattered Bulwer's dramatic reputation and, as a result, he thought

of revising the play. The revision was not completed until 1868 when the play in its new title. The Rightful Heir, was produced at

the Lyceum by Hermann Vezin on October 3 of the same year. Immediately after this performance Bulwer published the play. The response to this play was more favourable than v/hat had been given to Bulwer’s

other plays. On October 19, I868 Bulwer wrote to his son: "The press has been very civil about my play, more so than about any work I

ever wrote.

The Rightful Heir is certainly an improvement upon The Sea-Captain.

The play tells the same story although the names of the characters have

been changed. The characters have undergone some transformation.

Unlike Lady Arundel, Lady Montreville is kinder to Eveline, who was

earlier called Violet. Lady Montreville's feelings towards Beaufort,

previously called Ashdale, are marked with stronger bonds of maternal affection. Vyvyan has retained most of the qualities of Norman and, at the same time, acquired greater importance emphasised by his concern

for Lady Montreville and Beaufort, and by his valour and sense of

honour. The villainous Sir Maurice Beevor has changed into the

diplomatic intriguer. Sir Grey de Malpas, missing Maurice’s levity

1 Lytton, op.cit., Vol. II, p. 430. 163

and frivolousness. He is less hostile to Lady Montreville, and she is less dependent on him. Beaufort is an improvement upon Ashdale. has _ Bulwer/given him an importance equal to that enjoyed by Vyvyan, which makes the contrast between the two all the more effective. Unlike

Violet, Eveline has acquired enough importance so as to leave a definite impression on the mind of the audience.

Among other things, the construction of the scenes is greatly improved by eliminating the unnecessary and concentrating on the indispensable. The interplay of characters and action has been more easily and naturally done. A touch of realism is introduced by connecting the events with the Armada and referring to various contemporary personages such as Queen Elizabeth, Sir Francis Drake and the Earl of Essex, particularly when the Queen's speech and

Drake's letter are quoted. The mêbdrama which formed an integral part of The Sea-Captain has not been wholly discarded in The Rightful

Heir, which is apparent in the way Vyvyan disappears and in some scenic descriptions. But the real improvement on the melodrama can be seen in the meeting of Alton and Vyvyan in the first scene of the third act which replaces the melodramatic murder of Onslow in The

Sea-Captain. The scene with Alton and Vyvyan is quieter and also informs us of Lady Montreville's youthful love affair in a far better way than the other play has done about Lady Arundel.

With The Sea-Captain we come to the end of one phase of Bulwer's dramatic art. His next play. Money, will be very different from what he has done up to this time. Instead of living in a world of romance, as he has done in his first four plays, he will now turn to the contemporary world for his theme, which is the subject of my next chapter. 164

CHAPTER V

Money

The story of the writing of Money is comparatively shorter because, by the time Bulwer wrote this play, he had developed a sense of drama. It is true that The Sea-Captain is not so good as The Lady of Lyons and Richelieu, but it does present a dramatic story, perhaps too melodramatically. Part of the weakness of the play could be attributed to Macready who, though admitting that it was not a very successful, drama from the viewpoint of dramatic criticism, advised

Bulwer in its writing. The critical reception of The Sea-Captain, however, had such a devastating effect on Bulwer that he forgot all about playwriting for a while. Macready too was not in immediate need

of a new play. After his season at the Haymarket Macready went to

Drury Lane for some time. He returned to the Haymarket in the middle of March l840. For several weeks he attempted to draw audience with something new. Talfourd's G&encoe was selected, but it failed to help the theatre with high returns. Macready then turned to Bulwer for assistance. On June 2?, l840 Bulwer wrote to Macready that he had thought of a comedy, and would show him the first two acts when they were ready. He explained: "My proposed title is 'Appearances', the idea a genteel Comedy of the present day - tje Moral, a satire on the way appearances of all kinds impose on the public, you a rogue playing the respectable man - & the Intellect of the play." At last Bulwer

1 Shattuck, op.ci^., p. 152, 165

haû turned to contemporary life for a subject. Macready also liked the title and expressed his eagerness to see it. In his diary he recorded 'I on July 15» that the plot had pleased him. At this time Webster also expressed his desire to have another play from Bulwer, and it was thought that Bulwer's new play would be staged at the Haymarket. Macready and

Forster called on Bulwer on August 2, and Bulwer read some scenes from his play. Macready said that he would think over the play. On

August 7» Macready entertained Bulwer and Forster. After dinner they discussed the subject Macready had thought upon for Bulwer. It is not known what Maceeady said, but certainly he gave Bulwer the idea for a play out of which Honey eventually grew.

So Appearances was dropped and Bulwer immediately started his work on the new play. About August 11, he wrote from Margate that he had written Act I and part of Act V. He gave some idea of the

characters. For Mr. Doleful read Henry Graves.

A Mr Doleful, who at present is really good & individualized - ... tho’ belonging rather to the broad Comic -. He is a man always complaining of his luck - a widower - lamenting his sainted Maria - who was the plague of his lifel-every piece of good fortune he thinks is unlucky - Sees everything en noir - but withal is Kind-feeling - & says very sensible wholesome truths.- He is the man who is to sing and dance How would Macready like that I - Stout the Political Economist comes out well - also a humbug worldly Sir John ■ "The Girl's Father"- I have a good idea for a Modern Dandy - a man who never thinks of anyone but himself ...

On August 26, Bulwer wrote to Forster from Aix-la-Chapelle that he had

been able to create a character for Macready who was to play the young man i.e. Alfred Evelyn: "The character is that of a misanthrope, soured

by past poverty & despising the world that rallies round his new fortune

The surface irony & a half careless wit: beneath a strong & passionate

1 Macready, The Diaries, Vol. II, p. 70. 2 Shattuck, op.cit., pp. 154-55* 166

temperament." On August 29, he wrote:

I fancy it is comedy & so far in a new genre that certainly admits stronger & more real grave passions than the comedy of the last century ... I have a Widow - always gay & goodhumoured - in love with Mr Doleful always cynical & wretched ... I am now in Act 3* - which I intend to end with Crockfords or some Cluh - I must have an exact picture of a real Club ... I have admitted many allusions to present manners &c throughout ... But whether the whole will do, I can’t say till I come to Act 5» Where I see great difficulty is the want of a . sudden catastrophe ...^

The "want of a sudden catastrophe" is a phrase which Bulwer had learned after the failure of La ValliAre. All his subsequent plays, including

Money, present strong catastrophes. About September 1 or 2 he wrote to Forster:

... I am in Act 5 of the Comedy ... It is, I hope, quite comic eno - rather too much so - Acts 3 & 4 must I should fancy produce great laughter - During this time Macready or Evelyn is playing off the apparently ruined man.- There are unfortunately a great many characters & all PARTS.- But what I most fear is not having an Actress for a gay, laughing, witty, warmhearted Widow of about 28 who ought to be pretty in love with Doleful the melancholy man-& comic from the contrast ...^

He then gave an outline of the characters. For Lady Beevor read Lady

Franklin.

Lord John Vesey - a cunning - worldly - old Humbug LordGlossmore - a Tory - ci devant jeune homme Sir Fred. Blount - Dandy & Egotist Mr. Stout. Political Economist & Philosopher Captain Sgooth a character requiring great finesse capital part - finest Card player $n Europe - particularly ruinous, deadly bland, caressing & well bred! - He is accomplice with Evelyn in his trick - appears to have ruined him Macfinch - A scotch silversmith - Broad Comedy & Broad Scotch other tradesmen Toke. Butler to Evelyn. Broad High Life below Stairs Comedy Evelyn. Has been a sizar & scholar - elevated__to sudden & enormous wealth - He equaly /”sic_/ despises Mankind in both. Generous in act - misanthropical in word - But not so much the dry cold comedy - as the comedy of a man of wit - still young & enjoying

1 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 155* 2 ibid., p. 155. 3 ibid., p. 156. 167

the effect of what he does - a mixture of Pride Passion & VJhim - in love with Clara - having been refused by her when Poor - proposes to Georgina from pique - Doleful - a capital part - friend to Evelyn - always gloomy - a widower mourning for a Wife who had plagued him to death - goodhearted - witty - in love with Lady Beevor - the Widow - Women. Clara - a poor dependant in love with Evelyn Georgina - Daughter to Sir John Vesey has entangled Evelyn.- a part that may be/agreeable if the actress is not fashionable young light in heart & pretty.*— But she is very essential to the dignity of Evelyn's part. ^ Lady Beevor - the Widow in question •..

Forster, who had been working as Bulwer's agent, replied to him on

September 10: "I am greatly taken with the programme of the characters, and incidents, too, as far as you have hinted them to me. The Crockford 2 will be capital, and so Macready thought."

On September l4, Bulwer sent Macready the final two act». In the letter he added some comments. He asked Macready to check his reproduction of the Scottish accent of Macfinch and the dramatic vraisemblance of the reading of the will and the execution and arrest of Evelyn. If Macready did not like the name Doleful it should be changed. Bulwer thought that there was little to alter in the first three acts, but with regard to Act IV he expressed his uncertainty.

The two scenes with Lady Beevor and Clara and with Toke and the tradesmen were put "to give time for change of dress & smooth the lapse of the theme from money to dinner."^ Bulwer wanted to know if there would be any amendment to what he had done for these scenes. He then went on to discuss Act V. According to Macready's suggestion Bulwer had continued with Evelyn's trick to the last by bringing in the creditors "when it is discovered/he is as rich as ever".^ He now had certain objections

1 Shattuck, op.cit., pp. 156-157. 2 ibid., p. 157. 3 ibid., p. 158. 4 ibid., p. 158. l68

to this structure of the plot; firstly, the "trick was so palpable to the audience that having been carried thro' Acts 3 & 4, it became stale in Act 3 - & the final discovery was much less comic than you wd suppose"; secondly, Bulwer thought that if Georgina gave the impression that she would decline Evelyn because he had lost his wealth, the scene between Evelyn and Clara would be weakened but, if on the other hand, Vesey discovered the trick and found a letter of

Georgina to that effect "the audience might think him again deceived

& entangled & therefore take a deeper interest in the position with

Clara"; thirdly, after

Georgina ... declined him for Frederic, he of course rushes to Clara. But his burst is spoilt by the presence of/^rowd of vulgar creditors, Glossmore, Kite, &c. waiting for their money - & somehow or other in short I found that in this conception the grave & the gay spoilt each other. My present idea of Sir John discovering the trick has given much more interest to the act.1

Having written these objections, Bulwer asked Macready his opinion.

He wrote to Macready again on September 13, and repeated his suggestions;

I take it for granted that two objects are necessary - 1st, to keep the audience in some suspense; 2ndly, to give as much interest as possible to the scene between Evelyn and Clara. Hence I imagine that Sir John ought to discover the trick (that discovery effecting these objects). But on the other hand, this a little lowers . the intellectual dignity of Evelyn, whose excuse for this trick ought to be its success, & makes the catastrophe turn not on his successful skill in outhumbugging Sir John, but on the accident of Sir John's punishment in the deceit of the dower. What think you of that objection? - I think also that the Audience will want to see reintroduced & shamed that Chorus of Worldly Characters who have moved round the principals - thro the Play.^

Bulwer then proposed that he could do the last with increased comedy.

His idea was to show that Vesey did not think Evelyn ruined but others did. Among these others he wanted to include the members of the club

1 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 158. 2 ibid., pp. 159 -6 0. 169

and present a scene where they would press Evelyn for their money when

Sir John/offer , to stand by him. But, as Bulwer said, "in this comedy

Evelyn can have no share". Alternatively, there could be a scene where HCi.Ltct all the creditors/come in and Evelyn would ask Sharp to pay them which

was to be followed by Vesey’s outburst of happiness and the arrival

of the news that Georgina had left. But even in this, as Bulwer said,

Evelyn had little to do. He, therefore, left the final decision to

Macready.

It seems from the final version of the play that Macready accepted

a good many of Bulwer's ideas. This is noticeable in the way Evelyn’s

trick has been carried out. That Bulwer declined Macready's suggestion

that the trick should be continued up to the end of the play is evident

from the fact that the discovery is made actually by Stout in the first

scene of the fifth act, and it quickly dawns upon Glossmore, Vesey and

Blount that they have been fooled by Evelyn. Evelyn himself acknowledges

the end of the game in the second scene of the act. It is definite

that this arrangement was agreed upon by Bulwer and Macready. Secondly,

Bulwer's intention of showing Georgina refusing Evelyn because he has

lost his wealth has also been carried out. This is first hinted at

in the last scene of Act IV where Evelyn requests Georgina to lend him

her £10,000, and she somehow avoids him and declines to give a definite

answer. Contrary to Bulwer's idea that it would weaken the scene

between Evelyn and Clara after Georgina's refusal, Macready suggested

something else. This can be seen from the development of action in

Act V. The second scene of this act presents Clara and Lady Franklin

when it is established that Clara still loves Evelyn. This is followed

by a part of the last scene where the news of Georgina's intended

elopement with Blount arrives. Evelyn and Clara are shown in a scene

1 Shattuck, op.cit., p. l60. 170

of reconciliation. This is another arrangement agreed upon by Bulwer and Macready. A significant change that Bulwer mentioned in his letter of September 15, was the insertion of the epigrammatic statements by all the characters after Evelyn's speech at the end of the play.

Macready received the manuscript on September l8 , and read it with

Forster on the 19th and both were very pleased with what Bulwer had done. Unfortunately, Macready's comments on the play are lost, but it could be assumed that he accepted the play. Bulwer, however, continued to think of the play, suggesting many ideas. He wanted to make Georgina and Blount more interesting by putting "more of the gay "1 blood of the old Comedy" into them. He also thought of bringing in Blount and Georgina in the fifth act with Lady Franklin "Georgina having declined to run off but refusing Evelyn before Sir John can 2 interfere & generally expressing her regret at her deception". This

Macready obviously accepted as the final version shows.

Bulwer had also begun to think seriously of the actors and actresses for the production, and expressed his opinion in this regard.

How he was concerned with little details in the play can be seen from his comment on the old member at the scene at the club; "The old Member with the snuff-box pray don't oipit - even to his last word. He is the

Philosophy of the whole scene. The perfect indifference of the ordinary world to the emotions of its principal actors. No matter who is ruined, % all he cares about is his snuff-box." And we must admit that the old member has added a great deal of interest to this scene in Money.

About this time, it was settled that the play would be produced soon.

From then until December 8 , l840, when Money was staged, Bulwer, Macready,

1 Shattuck, op.cit., p. l6l. 2 ibid., p. l6l. 3 ibid., p. 162. 171

Forster and Webster were very busy with reading, cuts, alterations, rehearsals and costume. Some of the suggestions came from Macready and others from Bulwer himself. These made minor changes in the play in the form of omitting a line here and substituting another there.

Macready suggested that Bulwer should write a prologue and an epilogue for Money, which Bulwer rejected. A great deal of discussion was on the presentation of the club scene. Bulwer emphasised that its representation on the stage must be faithful to the details of

Crockford*s Club, although in the play he avoided all particular references to this club, and left its name to the imagination of the reader and the audience. Finally, Money was produced on December 8 , l840 and was a great success.

It may sound strange but after the performance of Money the press was opposed to it although the public was overwhelmingly for it.

Only two daily papers, The Morning Advertiser and The Morning/Evening

Chronicle, wrote favourably of the play. The Globe and Traveller and

The Morning Post were too critical of Bulwer. The latter commented:

"Sir Edward Bulwer is totally incapable of writing a comedy." The two papers, however, admitted that the production was excellent. The

Courier, The Morning Herald, The Standard, The Sun and The Times violently criticised the play and its author. The weekly and semi-weekly papers took their cue from the daily papers. The majority of them opposed the play in the strongest terms. Only a few wrote favourably of Money and some were non-committal. Yet, even the most adversely critical reviews could not help admitting the fact that the play was an outstanding success with the audience. The unfavourable criticisms of the papers could not hold back the public rushing to the Haymarket

1 The Morning Post, December 9, l840, p. 5< 172

to see the play. The disagreement between the newspaper reviews and the public taste was never so pointed. Macready wrote in his diary:

"... the chief among the many causes of the dramas decline is the 1 dramatic criticism of England." Bulwer was deeply wounded by the adverse criticism and vowed to Macready that he would never write 2 another play.

The contents of Money created bitter enmity between Bulwer and his critics. The Observer wrote :

The dialogue of the play_/ is most pointed and epigrammatic and many of the smart sayings "at men and things" in the present day, cannot fail to tell with bitter effect.^

A section of the press was angry with Bulwer for caricaturing Lord

Glossmore with his clap-trap exhortations on the Constitution, and

specially with the presentation of Crockford's Club. The Statesman

commented:

Gentlemen do not crowd around picquet-tables in the drawing-room of a club ... Money is not a representation of the manners, tone or thought, customs or habits of 1840.4

The whigs were offended by the portrait of Sir John Vesey, Baronet

and ex-M.P., and the Radicals did not like the characterisation of

Benjamin Stout, There was a feeling of class pride among some

periodicals. The Argus criticised Evelyn for not being one of their

own kind and said: "the hero of the comedy is not a man of honour - 5 he is not a gentleman." The Odd Fellow, which was a penny paper for

the working class, admonished Bulwer for being wealthy and belonging

to the upper class: "... one cannot help recognising in the writing

1 Macready, op.cit.,pJ25* 2 ibid., p. 111. 3 The Observer, December 13, l840, p. 2. 4 The Statesman, December 13, l840, p. 10. 5 The Argus, December 13, l840, p. 731* 173

4 the work of a hand trammelled by a white kid glove." Bulwer’s representation of the tradesmen in Money was also attacked. The

Weekly Dispatch wrote: "Against this act /Act IV/ we must enter a strong protest for it represents all tradesmen as a set of downright 2 scoundrels ... An unfavourable view is taken of life."

Bulwer’s criticism of the wealthy was also unfavourably taken.

The Britannia said:

The claptraps (we are sorry we can find no more elegant term so appropriate) with which the play was studded deserve a severer condemnation, as they generally tended to encourage most unhealthy and pernicious sentiments. Let us be just and say, that, if money be the source of much evil it is also the source of much good. It draws forth virtue as well as vice, the noblest talents as well as the foulest passions. Gold, like iron which wq4ould equally into swords and ploughshares, is more frequently employed to minister to the happiness than to the woes of mankind.3

The Atlas wrote: "We could desire that the ladies were lèss mixed up 4 with pecuniary considerations." The Courier drew the readers' attention to the "vein of cynic feeling pervading the piece, which, without 5 adding to its effect, is, to say the least, dangerous." Undoubtedly the majority of the critics missed Bulwer's thesis that all society was corrupted by money. The Morning Herald provided an illustration of this attitude:

What is preached in this /play/ but the omnipotence of wealth? what does the dramatist preach, if not the worshipping of gold, telling his hearers to uncover and bow down to it? The triumph of the moral man over the debasing influence of wealth would have been a fine theme for the true dramatist, but then such a one is not "Sir Edward Lytton Bulwer, B a r t . "6

The Morning Chronicle came nearet the truth in recognising Bulwer's comment on affectation and vanity:

1 The Odd Fellow, December 12, l840, p. 2. 6 The Morning Herald, ------~ ^ cor December 9, 1840, p.3. 2 The Weekly Dispatch, December 13, lo^O, p. 59o. 3 The Britannia, December 12, l84o, pp. 794-795. 4 The Atlas, December 12, l840, p. 807. 5 The Courier, December 9, l840, p. 3« 174

The audience themselves show this whimsical force by the very laughter with which they greeted the new comedy of last night. Each man seemed looking round him with the self-satisfied expression of "that's levelled at you". The man of Crockford's laughed at the Marylebone vestryman, and the Marylebone vestryman, with better reasons, laughed at the man of Crockford's. A loud and irritable "No, no!" attempted to contradict the bitter truth of the description of a college sizar, but the dissent was at once drowned in showers of applause, and the discomfitted bigwig (for such he must surely have been), was left to console himself with the next exposure of some worse weakness in his unlearned neighbour ..• Sir Edward Bulwer has shown how rich are still the comic materials of the time, to a shrewd and exact observer; how idle it is to imagine that men are not as ridiculous now as they were a hundred years ago, to such as can see beneath the surfade.

This is a very brief comment on Money, but it shows that at least one reviewer thought the play was good and original enough to be sympathetically appreciated. One cannot help wondering how a play which ran through eighty performances in one season could have been so bitterly criticised.

There was some justification in the criticism offered by the reviewers of La Valliere and The Sea-Captain, but certainly Money did not merit a similar treatment. It will not be irrelevant to assume that much of the adverse criticism of Money was motivated by personal and political animosity towards Bulwer.

The chief character in the play is Alfred Evelyn. He is a young man who has spent a long time in poverty. Sir John Vesey, who is a relation of Evelyn, has employed him as his secretary. The living, which Vesey allows him, is not expensive but cheap and solves

Evelyn's day-to-day problem of living. Besides pointing out Evelyn's economic position, the dramatist has also established him as an idealist.

His conversation with Clara in the first act emphasises this aspect of him. In presenting Evelyn in this way, the dramatist aims to prepare

1 The Morning Chronicle, December 9, l840, p. 3« 175

us for his future role of a reformer. Evelyn share^his views with

Claude Melnotte of The Lady. Bulwer has given both characters similar traits of feeling and idealism. Evelyn’s speech on virtue and beauty could have been very easily spoken by Claude. For Claude’s life is an illustration of this view. Besides, Claude bears a strong resemblance to Evelyn in his intentions. His chief aim in impersonating a prince and marrying Pauline, following his insults by the Deschappelles, is to lash the society which harbours such snobs as the Deschappelles.

He does it by posing as a prince and, at the same time, proving that the inner quality of an individual is greater and more valuable than his economic prosperity. In doing so, Claude shows himself to be a product of

Romanticism. Evelyn is not a romantic hero like Claude, yet his behaviour is comparabld to that of Claude. In emphasising the individuality of a man as greater than all other things, the dramatist has once again conformed to the Romantic belief in the greatness of the individual.

Claude belongs to this tradition and Evelyn is a superior example of the same spirit.

From the second act, Evelyn begins his role of a reformer. At the very opening of this act the dramatist establishes his point.

Evelyn learns that he is the ’’finest judge of paintings”, because he has fought a Coneggio for four thousand pounds. His poem, which was once rejected by a publisher, will be published by the same publisher and he will receive five hundred pounds for it. He is also requested to support a candidate for Parliament, because he happens to own the Groginhole property. Property has made him a patron of politicians, and both Stout and Glossmore canvas for their candidates.

Evelyn’s affairs get further complicated when he finds that, according to Mordaunt's suggestion, he will have to choose between 176

Clara and Georgina for his wife. Evelyn makes up his mind about testing his friends and selecting a wife. With this intention he takes Dudley

Smooth, the celebrated card player, into confidence. With Smooth’s help he gives out the impression that he has lost almost all his fortune to Smooth. This changes the situation radically. His friends begin to take less interest in him and Vesey advises his daughter Georgina to take Blount, instead of Evelyh, as her husband. At the same time,

Evelyn learns of Clara’s true love for him when she sends him ten thousand pounds out of the twenty thousand Evelyn has given her as a supposed legacy from Mordaunt. The truth is told and Evelyn’s friends realise the real motive behind his supposed misfortune and all ends happily when Evelyn and Clara are reunited.

Apart from Evelyn, the other character who holds our interest is Sir John Vesey. Vesey is a man of the world. He has great experience and understands society very well. In this respect he is a foil to

Evelyn. For both Evelyn andVesey know the society they live in. Their reaction, however, to the nature of this society is different. Whereas

Evelyn endeavours to correct the society, Vesey follows its way and endorses everything it stands for. Through Vesey the dramatist has presented the society he is going to criticise. Vesey becomes the mouthpiece of this society. Its hypocrisy becomes the hypocrisy of

Vesey. For Vesey is an out and out hypocrite. His first change comes when he laarns that Evelyn, and not Georgina, is the heirto Mordaunt’s fortune. The Evelyn whom he patronised in the past now acquires a different significance for him. He thinks that Evelyn will be a highly covetable husband for Georgina. Vesey is not a villain in the Bulwerian tradition in which villainy is represented by Baradas, Lauzun, Beauseant and Maurice of his early plays. Vesey is not a great villain but a 177

minor one. The inclusion of a character like Vesey in the play emphasises the fact that Bulwer is still influenced by contemporary melodramas. Vesey’s villainy appears in the form of a lie. And this lie holds much of the structure of the plot in the play. On the day Evelyn receives his fortune he gives the address of his old nurse to Georgina. Georgina does not send the money, but Clara does with the help of her benefactress Lady Franklin. Vesey tells Evelyn that it is Georgina who has sent the money to his old nurse, and wins

Evelyn’s sympathy for Georgina. The lie is so convincing that

Evelyn does not doubt the authenticity of Vesey’s information. This even leads him into believing that the tent thousand pounds Clara has given him comes from Georgina. Evelyn is, however, disillusioned when he learns the truth. This does not undermine the position of

Vesey at all. For he has one important quality, and that is his adaptability to the changes in the situation, which is a feature of his cleverness. He attempts to save the situation when Georgina is discovered on the verge of her elopement with Blount, by his efforts to persuade her to accept Evelyn instead of Blount. That is why he also accepts Evelyn’s offer of ten thousand pounds to Georgina. This points out the keynote of his character, which is avarice.

Graves is introduced to us in the opening scene of the play as the executor of Mordaunt’s will. He always poses gravity and talks about his dead wife. He has certain important characteristics. Besides

Evelyn, he is the only character who is honest, helpful and sympathetic.

With a few strokes the dramatist has sketched Graves in the opening scene. His very first words express the prime concern of his life, which is to talk about his wife in a pseudo-melancholy tone. We then notice the duality of his character. In spite of his melancholy, he 178

does not fail to observe that Lady Franklin is a "fine woman”. Thus, we have the complete picture of Graves. His life is dominated by two passions; one is to talk about his dead wife, his "sainted Maria”, and the other to admire Lady Franklin.

Both Evelyn and Graves are made of the same stuff. Evelyn narrates his problem of choosing a wife and Graves advises him with the utmost simplicity that Clara would accept him now that Evelyn is no longer poor. His efforts to be just are parallel to Evelyn's goodness: both are idealists. Graves does not attempt to dissuade

Evelyn from his efforts to understand the motives of Clara. On the contrary, he encourages him in thinking that Clara is the right girl for him. In all this Graves shows sincerity and honesty in his friendship with Evelyn. On another occasion too Graves proves his sincerity. When Frantz, the tailor, brings an officer of law for his claim on Evelyn for one hundred and fifty pounds. Graves is the only person who offers to pay it on behalf of Evelyn. In the same spirit he informs Clara of the source of her twenty thousand pounds. Again, when he learns that Evelyn is broke, he offers to come to his assistance,

Basically, Graves remains a good character.

GlOssmore appears in the play as a relation of Mordaunt and later becomes a friend of Evelyn. In him the dramatist has attempted to show a typical aristocrat of his time. His basic characteristic is pride in his position as a member of the peerage. This ©plains his calling Stout, the political economist, a "parvenue” when the latter addresses him merely as’Glossmore” and drops the "Lord” before his name. His pride is mixed with his high principles, and the result of this mixture is hypocrisy. He will talk big, show an enormous amount of sympathy, but when the time comes for a practical demonstration of that sympathy, he will withdraw his hand. And this stamps him as a typical, hypocritical aristocrat for whom the dramatist has no 179

sympathy. As a typical peer Glossmore idolises the Constitution. He is one of those aristocrats who hate change. Thus we find him canvassing for a Lord Cipher, whose characteristic is well expressed in his peculiar name, and insisting that he should be returned instead of Popkins who is a brewer and, Glossmore thinks, will not defend the

Constitution. His hypocrisy is, however, typical of this society and Glossmore is no more a criminal than Sir John Vesey or Sir Frederick

Blount.

Glossmore has two counterparts: one is Sir Frederick Blount, the other is Benjamin Stout, the political economist. Blount is a fool full of mannerism. He appears in the opening scene as the cousin of Mordaunt. At once we notice that he is a coxcomb. His foolishness i§immediately confirmed when Blount unfeelingly takes Clara's chair, forgets to offer her another and seats himself comfortably without a word of apology. His total behaviour at this point is foolish. That

Blount possesses a touch of hypocrisy, which seems to be the characteristic of nearly everyone in the play, is proved when he feels fascinated by

Clara. He loves Georgina and this interest in Clara is faithlessness for him. Throughout the play Blount moves to and fro between Georgina and Clara until Georgina decides to elope with him. In portraying

Blount, Bulwer has satirised a typical character who moves as a satellite of a superior person. For Blount this superior person is Lord

Glossmore. Bulwer has, however, given him a saving grace - a touch of sincerity because of which he is brave enough to elope with Georgina.

His satire is very mild for Blount who, ironically, stands for a

Ppwoper degree of pwudence”.

Bulwer's sketch of Benjamin Stout is a caricature of the theorists of political economy. His very first words bring out his typical quality. i8o

Afraid I might be late - been detained at the Vestry - astonishing how ignorant the English poor are I - took me an hour and a half to beat it into the head of a stupid old widow, with nine children, that to allow her three shillings a week was against all the rules of public morality! (Act I, sc.i, p.5 8)

The speech shows his pedantry. When Glossmore suggests that Evelyn's old nurse ought to be helped by the parish. Stout vehemently opposes the idea. He is a second cousin of Mordaunt, and because he sent him the Parliamentary Debates, Stout now thinks that he has pleased

Mordaunt who in return will leave him a part of his fortune. Bulwer intends to imply that it is such men who are now the advocates of democratic ideals. When such a person is humiliated, we naturally laugh. Mordaunt himself inserted this laughter in his will when he bequeathed to him €l4.2s.4d.

Stout then appears as a typical, political canvasser. The candidate he is supporting is Popkins who heralh the ''march of enlightenment". We have a glimpse of the kind of enlightenment Stout and his party will bring:

Popkins is all for economy; there's a sad waste of the public money; they give the Speaker £5,000 a year when I've a brother-in-law who takes the chair at the vestry, and who assures me confidentially he'd consent to be Speaker for half the money! (Act II, sc.i, p.65)

Stout values everything in terms of money:

... time is money. An hour spent at a club is unproductive capital. (Act III, sc.iii, p.8 9 )

With such statements it is difficult to understand what Stout really wants, which is exactly the impression the dramatist wants us to have.

Stout is a caricature of a self-indulgent political economist who+ to quote Oscar Wilde, "knows the price of everything but the value of nothings" 181

This society finds a villain in Dudley Smooth, nicknamed Deadly

Smooth. Smooth has earned his nickname because, as the finest card player, he has ruined so many people. Whenever he appears in the play, an atmosphere of gloom hangs over everything. Smooth helps to maintain this impression by posing a detachment in his behaviour. We continue to live in a world of suspense about what is going to happen in the future. But it is not until Stout's assurances that it has been a pre-arranged thing do we realise what has actually happened. This realisation reaches a climax when Evelyn, at the end of the play, speaks to Smooth about settling their game. We then understand that

Smooth is not a villain, and much of the rumour of his being "Deadly" is based upon nonsense. By a subtle transformation the dramatist has changed the character of Smooth, the so-called society villain. In comparison with other characters Smooth fares better. Bulwer seems to suggest that the person, whom this society considers to be a villain, is no worse than its other members. Such an attitude is not new to

Bulwer. His novels, Paul Clifford and Eugene Aram, dealt with it.

Bulwer seems to have sympathy for those whom society disapproves of or rejects as low human specimens. Hence, at least three of his plays.

The Lady of Lyons, The Sea-Captain and Money present the social progress of the hero. Dudley Smooth essentially fits into this scheme as does Evelyn on a different plane.

Money has tiiree women characters - Clara, Georgina and Lady

Franklin. Clara, the heroine, is greatly idealised like all the other heroines of Bulwer's plays. Clara's great quality is her honesty and sincerity. In the general atmosphere of deception hers is a true character. After Evelyn has narrated the plight of hi§6ld nurse,

Bulwer provides another opportunity for Clara to show her character. 182

Clara is touched by the story of Evelyn. The dramatist does not tell us at this point whether Clara would send the money or not, but we hope that she would, which is actually the case as the play later informs us. For Evelyn Clara is willing to sacrifice everything - a quality which all the good women of nineteenth-century literature are blessed with. This spirit of sacrifice is further encouraged when Clara learns from Vesey that her relationship with Evelyn is a hindrance to the relationship between Georgina and Evelyn, and decides

to leave England. Clara and Evelyn would have parted company if nothing else had happened. But two people then come to play their roles in their lives. Clara learns from Graves that Evelyn gave her twenty

thousand pounds to make her independent; and Evelyn is told by Lady

Franklin that the money sent to his old nurse and the ten thousand

pounds received recently did not come from Georgina, as Evelyn thought,

but from Clara. As a result of this both Clara and Evelyn are united

and their mutual misunderstanding comes to an end.

Georgina is exactly the opposite of Clara. Money opens with

a dialogue between Georgina and her father, Vesey has given her the

impression that Mordaunt has left his wealth to her. In this Georgina

plays a docile part. She listens to whatever her father has to say

and accepts it. She is a dutiful child which is one of the characteristics

of the offspring who have been brought up "properly" in the great

nineteenth-century tradition. Georgina is thus completely dependent

upon her father and relies greatly on his judgement. Besides, there

is a subtle understanding between the father and the daughter. Because

of this understanding Georgina knows her father very well. Their

conversation also informs us of Georgina’s present feelings towards

Evelyn. To her Evelyn is nothing more than an errand boy. Aa Evelyn 183

1 at this point says, she "has a good heart with all her foibles!" But

this goodness has not been fostered enough to grow into large-heartedness.

There are, however, moments when her honesty and a certain amount of

artlessness come out such as when Vesey wants Evelyn to look at her

paintings and Georgina is truly reluctant to show them to him.

Georgina and Vesey are alike in their approach to Evelyn. Her real

sentiment is clear; she will have Evelyn if he has wealth; if he has

not got it she will look elsewhere. For, Frederick Blount is the

person she is really interested in, not so much for pioney as for the

man himself. This explains why in the fifth act we learn that she

is nearly ready to elope with Blount. She already loves Blount and,

when Vesey tells her that they have been unfair to him, she realises

that the idea of a possible marriage with Evelyn is banished from her

father's mind, and that she could go back to Blount. In all this

Georgina proves herself to be a dutiful daughter acceptable to any

parent.

Lady Franklin provides a different type of interest in the play.

Though she is a woman who represents the l840's, she has qualities

which are not to be easily found in the society of her own day. To

look for these qualities we have to turn to the first act where she

first makes her appearance. She is a half-sister of Vesey, but very

different from him. This comes out in her manners, dress and speech.

Like others she has not dressed herself in black, because she has

never met Mordaunt. This points to the very keynote of her character.

It explains that she is straightforward and lacks hypocrisy whic^ls the

stock-in-trade of Vesey and many others in the play. There are two

persons in whom Lady Franklin is interested. One is her protégée

Clara and the other is Henry Graves. In a single sentence she sums

1 Nineteenth-Century Plays, ed. G. Rowell, pp. 55-54. 184

up the character of Graves:

Poor Graves, I always liked him; he made an excellent husband. (Act I, sc.i, p.52)

This suggests that she is observant and a reader of characters. She has a high degree of intelligence which goes with her power of observation. She can also assess the character of Glossmore and

Blount, She criticises Blount because, as a man of mode, he does not have the "spirits and constitution for the hearty excesses" of his predecessors, but prefers the "dignity of a lady-iike langour".

Here Lady Franklin is admiring the very qualities which are absent fn the men of fashion of her own time. Her preference is for the

"man of fashion"of"the last century" who was "riotous and thoughtless".

She understands very well these characteristics of men, and fails to admire the typical sloth of the men of her own time. Lady Franklin and Graves form a fine pair in the play. For it is through them that Evelyn and Clara are reunited and Vesey accepts Georgina’s choise for Blount as her husband. But the most interesting thing about Lady

Franklin and Graves is that they provide, to a certain extent, the gay atmosphere and the duel of the sexes which are characteristic of the Restoration comedy of manners.

The last statement on Lady Franklin and Graves brings us to an examination of Money as a comedy of manners, for that is the type of comedy Bulwer had ip mind when he wrote the play. Money in general conforms to the characteristics of the comedy of manners, but we must not forget the taste of the people at l840 when it was difficult to write a play like She would if she could or The Country Wife for fear of offending the conservative sentiments of a certain section of the theatrical audience. It is not unexpected that the play could not

1 Nineteenth-Century Plays, , p. 52. 185

catch the true spirit of Restoration comedy. Certain subjects were not considered suitable by the public for dramatic representation.

Adultery and extra-marital sexual relation, which gave much force to

Restoration comedies, were strictly ruled out by the early nineteenth- century audience. They were treated solely in "tragedies" and melodramas and not with a happy result. No one knew this aspect of the public morality better than Bulwer whose first play. La Valliere, dealt with adultery and was conaequently condemned by critics and audience. In the writing of Money Bulwer was careful hot to offend the public morality any more. This aspect alone emphasises the fact that the play misses much of the spirit of the comedy of manners.

As a comedy of manners Money can be examined in respect of four things - the reality of the framework, the behaviour of the characters, the dialogue which includes occasional humour, and the intrigue which amounts to deception. In the treatment of these four aspects of the play we can see the working of the comedy of manners.

The reality of the framework appears in the setting of the play. It represents contemporary life and society in typical surroundings which would be immediately recognised as familiar by the audience. The scenes move between drawing rooms, parlours, and clubrooms, giving an air of of concrete reality. Secondly, the behaviour of the characters goes with this setting and further helps in establishing the reality. The significant thing about the characters is their affectation from which several characters - with the exception of Evelyn, Graves, Smooth, Lady

Franklin and Clara - suffer. Their affectation is contrasted with the generally realistic atmosphere of the play. I propose to illustrate this affectation by quoting certain passages which demonstrate this quality very well. First we have Vesey whose main concern in the 186

world is to succeed at any cost. The following is a typical passage which presents this aspect of Vesey:

Vesey. James, if Mr Serious, the clergyman, calls, say I am gone to the great meeting at Exeter Hall; if Lord Spruce calls, say you believe I’m gone to the rehearsal of Cinderella. Oh! and if MacFinch should come - MacFinch, who duns me three times a week - say I ’ve hurried off to Garraway’s to bid for the great Bulstrode estate. Just put the Duke of Lofty’s card carelessly on the hall table. And I say, James, I expect two gentlemen a little before dinner - Mr Squab, the Radical, and Mr Qualm of the greet Marylebone Conservative Association. Show Squab into the study, and be sure to give him the Weekly True Sun, - Qualm into the back parlour with The Times, and the Morning Post. (Act III, sc.i, p.81)

It shows exactly how a man like Vesey can have success in the world.

Lord Glossmore also shows this affectation in his manners. Notice the following dialogue which exhibits his affectation in a nutshell:

Evelyn. Excellent! - admirable! - Your hand, sir! Glossmore. What! You approve such doctrines, Mr. Evelyn! Are old women only fit to be starved? Evelyn. Starved! popular delusion! Observe, ray lord - to squander money upon those who starve is only to afford encouragement to starvation! Stout. A very superior person that! Glossmore. Atrocious principles! Give me the good old times, when it was the duty of the rich to succour the distressed. Evelyn. On second thoughts you are right, my lord. I, too, know a poor woman - ill - dying - in want. Shall she, too, perish? Glossmore. Perish! horrible! - in a Christian country. Perish! Heaven forbid! Evelyn. /"holding out his hand_7 What, then, will you give her? Glossmore. Ehem! Sir - the parish ought to give. Stout. No - No - No! Certainly not! /"with vehemence Glossmore. No! no! But I say yes! yes! And if the parish refuse to maintain the poor, the only way left to a man of firmness and resolution, holding the principles that I do, and adhering to the constitution of our fathers, is to force the poor on the parish by never giving them a farthing oneself. (Act I, sc.i, pp.58-59 )

Similarly Blount, who is a fool and a coxcomb, is also seen in his affectations:

I wish you would take my opewa box next Saturday - ’tis the best in the house. I'm not wich, but I spend i8?

what I have on myself! I make a point to have evewything the best in a quiet way. Best opewa box - best dogs - best horses - best house of its kind. I want nothing to complete my establishment but the best wife! (Act II, sc.ii, p.76)

Blount's affected speech is typical of his character. Vesey's daughter is not unaccustomed to this affectation. Her words to Evelyn confirm this impression:

And have you brought me the black floss silk?- have you been to Storr's for my ring? - and, as we cannot go out on this melancholy occasion, did you call at Hookham's for the last H.B. and the Comic Annual? (Act I, sc.i, p.53)

In all the passages quoted above we can detect falsity and self- deception which rule the lives of these characters.

The dialogue in a comedy of manners must be in prose. Money it is Bulwer's first play which is entirely written in prose and^helps in presenting the fictionally "real" world of the play. The use of prose brings in a harmony between the characters and the setting.

Besides, it also provides opportunities for the expression of wit which is one of the characteristic features of the comedy of manners. This comedy demands that men and women should act according to a set of unwritten laws provided by the society represented on the stage. Men and women are supposed to have equal freedom, and the game of sex is to be conducted with precision, decorum and order. Thus, a polished and refined dialogue with wit always assists in the development of this kind of comedy. Money may not appear to be a typical comedy of manners, because the quality of freedom for men and women and the game of sex are rather subdued. Yet there are occasional passages where the dialogue shines with verbal smartness. The following is such a passage.

Lady Franklin. Ha! ha! your usual vein! always so amusing and good humoured! _ Graves. / frowning and very angry_J Ma'am - good humoured! 188

Lady Franklin, Ah! you should always wear that agreeable smile; you look so much younger - so much handsomer, when you smile! _ Graves. / softened_/ Ma’am - a charming creature, upon my word! Lady Franklin. You have not seen the last of H j-B.? It is excellent, I think it kight make you laugh. But, by the by, I don't think you can laugh. Graves. Ma'am - I have not laughed since the death of my sainted Ma———— Lady Franklin. Ah! and that spiteful Sir Frederick says you never laugh, because - but you' 11 be angry? Graves. Angry! pooh! I despise Sir Frederick too much to let anything he says have the smallest influence over me! He says I don't laugh, because - Lady Franklin. You have lost your front teeth! Graves. Lost my front teeth! Upon my word! ha! ha! ha! That's too good - capital! Ha! ha!ha! _ / Laughing from ear to ear. Lady Franklin. Ha! ha! ha! (Act II, sc.ii, p.73)

The comedy of manners deals with intrigue, and Money is not an exception to this rule. Intrigue and deception appear in the plot which Evelyn devises for testing his friends. After he has acquired his fortune, Evelyn is faced with two problems. The first is the problem of marriage which means that Evelyn has to select either Clara or Georgina for his wife. The second is the problem of sincerity. Before he received the legacy, Evelyn was neglected and patronised by his relations and friends. After he acquires it, he finds them too friendly to him. So Evelyn intends to kill two birds with one stone. He poses that he has lost all his fortune to Dudley

Smooth. This brings in a set of reactions from his friends and Clara and Georgina. His friends reluctantly lend him money and wish to get it back as soon as possible. Georgina decides her fate by choosing

Blount as her husband. Clara sends ten thousand pounds to Evelyn for help. The deception ends with the following words spoken by

Evelyn; Smooth, we have yet to settle our first piquet account and our last! And I sincerely thank you for the servicé you have rendered to me, and the lesson you have given 189

these gentlemen. / Turning to Clara_/ Ah, Clara, you - you have succeeded where wealth had failed! You have reconciled me to the world and to mankind. My friends - we must confess it - amidst the humours and the follies, the vanities, deceits, and vices that play their part in the Great Comedy of life - it is our own fault if we do not find such natures, though rare and few, as redeem the rest, brightening the shadows that are flung from the form and body of the TIME with glimpses of the everlasting holiness of truth and love. (Act V, sc.iii, p.120)

In spite of the fact that Bulwer used in Money the technique of the comedy of manners, the play shows other characteristics taken from the contemporary dramatic practice. One such characteristic is the borrowing from contemporary farce. Farce was a regular form of entertainment in the theatre of the last century. And, in fact, the majority of the so-called "comedies" that were written at this time were nothing more than farces. Audiences liked farce because it was brief and theatrically simple, and formed an expected part of every evening's performance. The popularity of farce coincided with the popularity of many comedians who specialised in various physical movements. The aim of these comedians was to appeal to the audience with their stock types and their specialised presentation of them.

Farces were written for the display of acting alone. Acting in its 1 turn tended to be "broadly ludicrous" and "boisterously active".

The total effect of popular farce was to be "exaggoated and made more 2 ridiculous" which evidently caused constant merriment. In Money farce can be seen in the scenes where different tradesmen gather round Evelyn for his patronage. A typically farcical episode is the following extract which clearly shows the intention of the playwright to present "low" comedy.

1 A. Nicoll, op.cit., p. 129. 2 ibid., p. 131. 190

patent. / to Frantz, showing a drawing__7* Yes, sir, this the Evelyn vis-a-vis! No one more the fashion than Mr, Evelyn. Money makes the man, sir. Frantz. But de tailor, de schneider, make de gentleman! It is Mr Frantz, of St James's, who take his measure and his cloth and who make de fine handsome noblemen ^^a^d gentry, where de faders and de mutters make only de ugly/naked boys! MacStucco. He's a mon o' teeste, Mr Evelyn. He taulks o' boying a veela (villa), just to pool dune and build oop again. Ah, Mr MacFinch, a design for a piece of pleete, eh! MacFinch. /"showing the drawing^/. Yees, sir, the shield o' Alexander the Great, to hold ices and lemonade! It will cost two thousand pocxnd! MacStucco. And it's dirt cheap - ye're Scotch, aren't ye? MacFinch. Aberdounshire! - scraitch me, and I'll seraitch you! Doors at the back thrown open. Enter Evelyn. Evelyn. A levee, as usual. Good day. Ah, Tabouret, your designs for the draperies; very well. And what do you want, Mr. Crimson? Crimson. Sir, if you'd let me take your portrait, it would make my fortune. Every one mays you're the finest judge of paintings. Evelyn. Of paintings! paintings! Are you sure I'm a judge of paintings? Crimson. Oh, sir, didn't you buy the great Correggio for £4,000? Evelyn. True - I see. So £4,000 tihfes me an excellent judge of paintings. I'll call on you, Mr. Crimson. Good day, Mr. Grab - oh, you're the publisher who once refused me £5 for my poem? you are right; it was sad doggerel. Grab. Doggerel! Mr. Evelyn, it was sublime! But times were bad then. Evelyn. Very bad times with me. Grab. But,now, sir, if you give me the preference I'll push it, sir - I'll push it. I only publish for poets in high life, sir; and a gentleman of your station ought to be pushed! - £500 for the poem, sir! Evelyn. £500 when I don't want it, where £5 once would have seemed a fortune. 'Now I am rich, what value in the lines! How the wit brightens - how the sense refines!' / Turns to the rest who surround him. Kite. Thirty young horses from Yorkshire, sir! Patent. / showing drawing / The Evelyn vis-à-vis! MacFinch / showing drawing_/ The Evelyn salver! Frantz. / opening his bundle and with dignity_7« Sare, I have brought de coat - de great Evelyn coat. Evelyn, Oh, go to - that is, go home! Make me as celebrated for a vis-à-vis, salvers, furniture, and coats, as I already am for painting, and shortly shall be for po(jn^. I resign myself to you - go! (Act II, sc.i, pp. 62-64)

In presenting such an episode Bulwer is aiming at two different things.

One is his attempt to provoke fun at the cost of these tradesmen whose

peculiarities, including their peculiarity of speech, are certain to be appreciated by the audience. T%e other is Bulwer's real purpose in 191

presenting the episode, which is to comment on prevalent customs. The comment he intends to make is that money buys popularity in everything and tradesmen are no exception to this rule. As one of them actually says, these tradesmen gather around a man of fortune like mushrooms, and never send a bill to him for their services as long as he has plenty of money and can pay off their bills at any time. This attitude is proved by another episode later in the play when the tailor brings in an officer of law to "arrest" Evelyn for the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds. In presenting these scenes with tradesmen, the playwright is commenting on a social custom. In the hands of efficient nineteenth-century comedians these caricatures were more than lively and gave immense pleasure to the audience.

Another attitude that Bulwer borrowed from the contemporary stage is sentimentalism. As a matter of fact, sentimentalism is a recurring theme in Bulwer's plays, and we have noticed it in all his early works for the stage. Its presence in Money is not a new thing, but an adherence to the old tradition. Sentimentalism appears in

Money in the relationship between Eeelyn and Clara, which is contrasted with that existing between Graves and Lady Franklin. The duel of the sexes with a victorious seduction at the end, which was a characteristic of the Restoration comedy of manners, is reflected in the relationship of Graves and Lady Franklin. The relationship between

Evelyn and Clara should have been based on a duel of the sexes according to the grammar of the comedy of manners. That it is not is ample proof that the morality of the nineteenth-century stage was deeply concerned with the rejection of a frivolous treatment of the 'Besides^ relationship between the two sexes. Bulwer had already experienced

. moral censure with the failure of La Valliere. Ever since he 192

had been cautious in the treatment of the relationship of man and woman. That he could provide a different note is proved by the

presence of such a pair of characters as Graves and Lady Franklin.

On the other hand, we find in the relationship between Evelyn and

Clara a moral restraint as a result of which the total impression

of their relationship smacks of sentimentalism. This is not an

unusual thing for the early nineteenth century stage. The treatment

of "virtuous" women in all the different dramatic forms of the early

nineteenth century can be said to be sentimental. V/hen Bulwer

created Evelyn and Clara, he was sure that he was treading on familiar

grounds, and that the relationship he was going to present would meet

with the approbation of the audience.

Such is the nature of Money that Bulwer invariably faces a

comparison with Robertson. In a comparison like this there are two

points which are to )3e noted; one is the technique of presentation

and approach to the subject; the other is the reaction of the two

dramatists to certain conditions of the society they attempted to

portray. Like Bulwer, Robertson inherited a dramatic tradition which had been established in the early decades of the last century. His

early works thus present him as an ordinary playwright, doing nothing

more than what the average dramatic author was doing at the time.

Even in his later plays such as Society and Caste, where his great

originality lies, one can discover instances which bind him to the

age-old customs of the nineteenth-century stage. Here I am not

concerned with a discussion of the customs which are present in

Robertson's plays. What I am concerned with is his real contribution

to the English drama for which the later dramatists are indebted to

him. This contribution is naturalism which can be seen in the technique 193

followed by Robertson. This was achieved chiefly with the help of naturalness in dialogue which introduced an original pace to his scenes. Local colour also played its part in providing further interest to the plays

Let us now see how Bulwer fares in this respect. As a play representing contemporary life, Money too shows a naturalistic tendency in its dialogue and the behaviour of the characters. It could be seen in several scenes where the characters acquire a brisk manner of speaking. Consider the following dialogue which flows as easily as naturalness will permit:

First Member /"with back to the audience_/. I never before saw Evelyn out of temper. He must be losing immensely: Second Member. Yes, this is interesting: Vesey. Interesting: there's a wretch: First Member. Poor fellow, he'll be ruined in a monthI Vesey. I'm in a cold sweat. Second Member. Smooth is the very devil. Vesey. _ The devil's a joke to him: Glossmore / slapping Sir John on the back_7* A clever fellow, that Smooth, Sir John, eh? / Takes up the snuff-box; Old _ Member as beforej_7 £100 on this game, Evelyn? Evelyn. / half turning round_/. You! well done the Constitution: yes, £100. Old Member. Waiter: - the snuff-box. Stout. I think I'll venture.' £200 on this game, Evelyn? Evelyn /"quite turning round_/. Ha! ha! ha! Enlightenment and the Constitution on the same side of the question at last! 0, Stout, Stout! - greatest happiness of the greatest numbe^-ynuSSer^one:^o n e , Stout!- £200!- ha! ha! ha! - I deal. Stout. Well done. Political Economy - ha! ha! ha! Vesey. Quite hysterical! - drivelling! Aren't you ashamed of yourselves? His own cousins! - all in aconspiracy - a perfect gang of them. _ / Members indignant Stout. /"to members_7' Hush! he's to marry Sir John's daughter. First Member. VJiat, Stingy Jack's? Oh! Chorus of Members.. Oh! oh! Old Member. _ Waiter! - the snuff-box^ Evelyn. / rising in great agitation_/. No more, no more - I've done!- ^uite enough. Glossmore, Stout, Blount - I'll pay you tomorrow. I - I -. Death! this is ruinous! /"Seizes the snuff-box; Old Member gs before. (Act III, sc.iii, pp.92-93) 194

The greater part of Money is written in this kind of easy, natural

dialogue other examples of which have been quoted earlier in this

chapter. In spite of his overwhelming interest to write "verse"

plays, Bulwer first began this type of natural dialogue in The Lady

which was followed by some rare colloquialisms in The Sea-Captain.

In Money Bulwer has not abandoned his naturalness which one rarely

saw in his eqrlier plays, and which drew forth the admiration of

Mary Shelley on the success of The Lady. Bulwer will again return

to this type of dialogue in his Not So Bad As We Seem.

Bulwer's use of a contrapuntal dialogue is similar to that of

Robertson. In Act II scene ii of Money there is an occasion when

one can see this type of dialogue:

l_ Evelyn and Georgina seat themselves and look over the drawings; Sir John leans over them; Sir Frederick converses with Clara; Evelyn watches them, Evelyn. Beautiful! a view from Tivoli. (Death! she looks down while he speaks to her!) Is there not a little fault in that colouring? (She positively blushes!) This Jupiter is superb, (■/i/hat a d d coxcomb it is!) / Rising_y Oh, she certainly loves him - I too can be loved elsewhere - I too can see smiles and blushes on the face of another! Georgina. Are you not well? Evelyn. I beg pardon. Yes, you are indeed improved. Ah! who so accomplished as Miss Vesey? /"Takes up drawings; pays her marked attention in dumb show. Clara. Yes, Sir Frederick, the concert was very crowded! (Ah, I see that Georgina consoles him for the past! He has only praises for her, nothing but taunts for me!) Blount. I wish you would take my opewa box next Saturday - 'tis the best in the house. I'm not wich, but I spend what I have on myself! I make a point to have evewything the best in a quiet way. Best opewa box - best dogs - best horses - best house of its kind. I want nothing to complete my establishment but the best wife! Clara. / abstractedly_7. That will come in good time. Sir Frederick. Evelyn. Oh, it will come - will it? Georgina refused the trifler - she courts him. / Taking up a portrait_/ Why, what is this? - my own - Georgina. You toust not look at that - you must not, indeed, I did not know it was there! Vesey. Your own portrait. Evelyn! V/hy, child! I was not aware you took likenesses? That's something new! Upon my word, it's a strong resemblance. 195

Georgina, Oh,no - it_does not do him justice. Give it to me. I will tear it. / Aside_7 That odious Sir Frederick! Evelyn. Nay, you shall not. Clara. (So - so - he loves her then! Misery - misery! But he shall not perceive it! No - no - I can be proud too.) Ha! ha! - Sir Frederick - excellent - excellent! You are so entertaining - ha! ha! (Act II, sc.ii, p.76)

If we compare this dialogue with the following one from Robertson's Ours,

Bulwer's will not seem less rich in characteristics;

Angus, (conscious that Lady Shandryn's eyes are upon him. To Blanche.) I hope I have the pleasure of seeing you quite well! Blanche. Quite well; and you? Angus. Quite well. Mary. I want a spoon. (Chalcot gives her the wooden one.) Chalcot. Our family plate. (a pause. They sigh.) Angus. Any news in London, when you left it? Blanche. No; none (pauses) Angus. No news? Blanche. None; none whatever. Mary. It's so hot. Chalcot. Have some ice in? Blanche, (pauses) You remember Miss Featherstonhaugh? Angus. No - yes. Oh - yes. Blanche. The Admiral's second daughter, the one with the nice eyes; used to wear her hair in bands. Her favourite colour was pink? (Angus puts cup to his lips, but does not drink.) Angus. Yes. Blanche. She always wears green now. Angus. Good gracious! Chalcot. Can I offer your ladyship the spoon? Angus, (not knowing what to say) I heard that London has been very dull. Blanche. Oh! very dull. Angus. Seen anything of our friends, the Fanshawes? Blanche. No. Angus. Not of Fanshawe? Blanche. Oh - Dick! He's married! Angus. Married? Blanche. Yes; one of Sir George Trawley's girls. ^ (Act III, pp. 475 -474 )

An important point of comparison between the two dramatists is

$n their presentation of the club scene in Money and the pub scene in Society. To compare their respective merits I shall confine myself to a general examination of the two scenes. First is the similarity in the opening of the two scenes. Bulwer opens his scene with the following words;

1 Lacy's (French's) Acting Edition, I968 (n.d.). 196

The interior of Club; night; lights, &c. Small sofa- tables with books, papers, tea, coffee, &c. Several members grouped by the fire-place; one member with his legs over the back of his chair; another with his legs over the table; a third with his legs on the chimney-piece. To the left, and in front of the stage, an old member reading the newspaper, seated by a small round table; to the right a card table, before which Captain Dudley Smooth is seated and sipping lemonade; at the bottom of the stage another card table. (Act III, sc. iii, p. 89 )

Like Bulwer, Robertson opens his scene at the parlour of the "Owl's

Roost" with a description of the setting:

Parlour at the "Owl's Roost" Public House. Cushioned seats all round the apartment; gas lighted R. and L., over tables; splint boxes, pipes, newspapers, &c., on table; writing materials on R. table (near door); gong bell nn L. table; door of entrance, C.; clock over door (hands set to half­ past nine); hat pegs and hats on walls. ^ (Act II, sc.i, p. 19 )

One notices that Both Bulwer and Robertson have followed the practice

of presenting a tableau in their scenes. It indicates their indebtedness

to the contemporary dramatic custom according to which characters were

very often arranged on the stage in a tableau.

The second point of similarity between Bulwer and Robertson is

in their presentation of the people in the two scenes. Bulwer has

presented the members of the club in a quiet tableau, and, excepting

an old member, they speak very little. Bulwer has focussed his attention

on Glossmore, Stout, Blount, Vesey, Evelyn and Smooth who are the main

characters in the play. Through their conversation he attempts to

keep our attention on the central issue of the scene, which is Evelyn’s

loss to Smooth. This suggests the development of the plot from the

earlier scenes of the play. Consequently, the audience is not permitted

to overlook the main issues which concerns Evelyn and his friends. In

this scene in Money something is continually happening. When Evelyn and Smooth are busy playing, Evelyn's friends' comments keep the attention of the audience alive. Like Bulwer's members, the characters

1 Lacy's Acting Edition, IO6O (n.d.) 197

of Robertson are busy with their own activities. O'Sullivan is delivering a speech about Mac Usquebaugh, a former M.P.. Into this scene enter Chodd Junior and Tom Stylus, and later Sidney Daryl.

Robertson's chief intention is to carry on the development of the action from the earlier scenes. In this scene he is serving two purposes: one, he is introducing Chodd Junior to the intellectuals of the town; two, he is informing us of the engagement of Chodd Junior and Maud Hetherington, whom Sidney loves,and, subsequently, Sidney's reaction to their engagement.

The second factor in the comparison between Bulwer and Robertson is their attitude to the social structure of their time. Robertson is not a social critic in the sense Dickens or Shaw is. He gives the impression that he has put contemporary life on the stage. Actually, he subscribed to the myths and wishful thinking of his age, and the smug, complacent attitude of the Victorians. One of the things that he accepted was the frailty of women, which led to their idealisation.

This was a heritage from the Romantic movement. The original idea of

Romanticism was mixed up with Platonism and humanitarianism, developing the concept of woman into a helpless creature. This decadence of a

Romantic ideal was nourished by the existing values as a result of which a woman was considered a purely marriageable commodity. Hence the creation of the sentimental heroine.

Secondly, Robertson accepted the existing division of society into social classes. The fear of a revolution patterned on the French had not died out even in the l860s. Social thinkers held the view that the aristocracy was still a wholesome check on the excessive advancement of the lower classes. The middle classes did not question the established erder of society. With romantic nostalgia Robertson 198

upholds the beliefs of the noblesse oblige, and admires its decaying

qualities. He is touched by the currents of democratic feeling, but

does not fight for the cause of the proletariat. Savin thinks that militant Robertson’s representative of the/proletariat, Eccles in Caste, is a "distasteful caricature" because he makes Eccles "detestable",

'I but does not explain the causes which have produced his deficiencies.

One aspect of Robertson's belief in the class system is expressed

through a speech of Sam Gerridge in Caste :

People should stick to their own class. Life's a railway journey, and Mankind's a passenger - first class, second class, third class. Any person found riding in a superior class to that for which he has taken his ticket will be removed at the first station stopped at, according to the bye-laws of the company.

Lacy (French), I96 O (l893)* The other aspect, the compromise Robertson intends to make with the

system, comes through George D'Alroy at the end of the play;

Oh, Caste's all right. Caste is a good thing if it's not carried too far. It shuts the door on the pretentious and the vulgar; but it should open the door very wide for exceptional merit.

Lacy(French), I96 O (l893). With a few exceptions such as the villain Browne in play, Robertson

treats the aristocracy with reverence. Those who are ridiculed in the

plays belong to the upstart bourgeois "who have made their money in 2 trade and manufacturing, and now expect to buy their way into society*!

An example of this class may be found in the Chodds in Society.

Robertson has sentimentalised conservatism and criticised the social-

climbing "parvenu".

The factors discussed above in the creation of Robertson's

heroines are also responsible for the majority of women in Bulwer's

1 Maynard Savin, Thomas William Robertson; His Plays and Stagecraft, p. 10?. 2 ibid., p. 112. 199

plays. In Bulwer's world a woman is a marriageable commodity, which

is extremely valuable. In La Valliere this commodity is Louise who

independently chooses a king for her man and therefore shuns marriage.

The result is the tragedy which leads her to a convent. Yet,

fundamentally, Lôuise is a lyrical character and a typical product of

Romanticism. Bulwer's play shows what happens when such a character misses the difference between the aim it ought to achieve and the aim

it ought to shun. This incapacity to judge is latent in the personality

of Louise, which makes La Valliere what may be called a tragedy of

character. In The Lady Pauline is an equally simple girl looking for

a husband. The atmosphere here is not that of La Valliere, but that

of the nineteenth-century upper middle class. Pauline is restricted

by the code of conduct set by this class and its society. Her whole

personality is subdued and her action is determined by the dictation

of her mother. Julie in Richelieu is the product of the same respect

for the class values of Bulwer's time. As a result of this strict

adherence to the judgement of society, these heroines lack vitality

and action which would otherwise enhance their charm. In Money we have three women representing three different ways of winning a husband.

First we have the typical Bulwerian heroine in Clara and her counterpart

Georgina. Although there is a fundamental difference between the two

characters, both are restricted by the same rules of society. Their marriageableness is to be bargained by their parents or guardians.

For Georgina her father Vesey sets the rules of the game which she

obeys. For Clara there is no one to guide and control her. So she

has to wait in her little shell until circumstances and chance bring

a husband to her. The third method of securing a husband is that shown

by Lady Franklin. And it is here in the creation of Lady Franklin 200

that Bulwer has gone far ahead of his time. For Lady Franklin is a mature widow who has no one to guide and control her. She has to find her own husband. The rules of this game are set by nature, chance and circumstance. She has to exert her natural charm and characteristics which will attract a man like Graves, a widower.

In their relationship we have a minor Shavian drama of the duel

of the sexes. In her creation Bulwer is looking forward to a character like Mrs. Erlynne of Oscar Wilde's Lady Windermere's Fan. In the

three women of Money, their marriageable quality is emphasised.

Thus, Bulwer also conforms to the standard of contemporary society.

The next aspect we come to examine is the class system.

Generally speaking, here too Bulwer shares his views with Robertson.

He does not preach in Money or in his other plays that the class system should be abolished. Wh.at he suggests is a modification of the system.

Hence we have in Money a villain in Vesey, a foolish lord in Glossraore and a foppish baronet in Blount. The villains in his earlier plays

too come from the aristocracy. As I have said earlier, in creating these characters Bulwer serves two purposes: one is to present a character who will be immediately understood by the audience; the

other is to suggest the discrepancies of a class which,in Bulwer's

opinion, needs a reorganisation. So in Money we see three caricatures

of the upper classes. In Vesey the aristocratic villain has become, in Reynold^s words, a "social schemer" which is a politer name for a social villain. Lord Glossmore is foolish and calls everybody a

"parvenu" to hide his own shortcomings. Blount is a fool with a glittering front which parades his tactlessness and the absence of any intelligence. Bulwer pays his homage to the upper middle class

1 Ernest Reynolds, Early Victorian Drama 183O-I87O, p. 65- 201

with his creation of Graves as the only "perfect" man after Evelyn.

Evelyn represents once more social progress and optimism of an individual though in a much more tamed way than what Bulwer had done in the case of Claude Melnotte. Unlike Claude, Evelyn will be immediately acceptable to the public of Bulwer's time on the strength of three things, namely, his birth, social connections and individual merit. In this respect, and for the critics, Evelyn is a better and far more suitable illustration than Claude. Bulwer is sure that no question will be raised about him. In Stout we have the middle class intelligentsia, the "owls" of Robertson but, again, more readily acceptable to the people especially to the newly rich. Finally we have the tradesmen, the lower classes. Bulwer has no sympathy for them. He has shown them as sycophants of the rich and slaves of the man with money. They are devoid of scruples too. Perhaps, Bulwer intends to imply that the upper classes are responsible for their corruption.

With Money Bulwer entered a new phase in his domestic career which had been partially foreshadowed in The Lady. His almost lifelong was ambition/to write a social play with a contemporary setting. Money fulfilled this ambition. The play is significant for another reason, for here Bulwer shows his talent in presenting a comedy of social life which is best exhibited in the will-reading and the club scenes of the play. Judged against the contemporary background of the so-called social comedies, Money seems much better. In his next play.

Not So Bad As We Seem, Bulwer will adhere to this new trend in his dramatic writing. 202

CHAPTER VI

Not So Bad As We Seem; or, Many Sides to a Character

The dramatic collaboration between Bulwer and Macready came to an end with the production of Money in l840. The absence of a play from Bulwer for Macready’s immediate purpose does not mean that the two men gave up their playwriting connection. In fact, the decade following Money saw the continuance of the correspondence between Bulwer and Macready, These letters contain the various exchanges about the possibility of a play from Bulwer, The decade came to an end and brought in Macready’s retirement from the stage in February, 185I. Immediately before his retirement, Bulwer was involved in the writing of a play, later called Not So Bad As We

Seem; or. Many Sides to a Character, for which he had received much encouragement from Charles Dickens. Bulwer and Dickens knew each other quite well and before I go into the details of the writing of the play, it will be helpful to give some idea about the relationship between the two. Dickens had great admiration for Bulwer, which can be seen from his speech at the farewell dinner given in honour of

Macready on March 1, l8^1. Dickens began with an appreciation of

Bulwer, who had occupied the chair:

There is a popular prejudice, a kind of superstition, to the effect that authors are not a particularly united body, that they are not invariably and inseparably attached to each other. I am afraid I must concede half 203

a grain or so of truth to that superstition; but this I know, that there can hardly be, that there hardly can have been, aipong the followers of literature, a man of more high standing further above these little grudging jealousies, which do sometimes disparage its brightness, than Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton. And I have the strongest reason just at present to bear my testimony to his great consideration for those evils which are sometimes unfortunately attendant upon it, though not on him. For, in conjunction with some other gentlemen now present, I have just embarked in a design with Sir Bulwer Lytton, to smooth the rugged way of young labourers, both in literature and the fine • arts, and to soften, but by no eleemosynary means, the declining years of meritorious age. And if that project prosper, as I hope it will, and as I know it ought, it will one day be an honour in England where it is now a reproach; originating in his sympathies, being brought into operation by his activity, and endowed from the very cradle by his generosity. There are many among you who will have each his own favourite reason for drinking our chairman's health, resting his claim probably upon some of his diversified successes. According to the nature of your reading, some of you will connect him with prose, others will connect him with poetry. One will connect him with comedy, and another with the romantic passions of the stage, and his assertion of worthy ambition and earnest struggles against 'those twin gaolers of the human heart /_ sic 7 Low birth and iron fortune. Again, another's taste will lead him to the contemplation of Rienzi, and the streets of Rome; another's to the rebuilt and repeopled streets of Pompeii; another's to the touching history of the fireside where the Caxton family learned how to discipline their natures and tame their wild hopes down.

The content of the speech shows in what esteem Dickens held Bulwer. It also refers to what Dickens called a "design" which now brings us up to the reason which motivated Bulwer to write Not So Bad.

Towards the end of I85O, when Dickens had established his Household

Words, there were three private performances of Ben Jonson's Every Man in His Humour at Bulwer's Knebworth House. We have a reference to this performance in Dickens's letter to Bulwer on September 3, I83O, in

1 The Lady, Act III, sc.ii. Dramatic Works, Vol. I, p. 126: "those twin gaolers of the daring heart - Low birth and iron fortune." 2 The Speeches of Charles Dickens (ed.) K.J. Fielding, pp. 116-1.17* 204

which he said that he would be delighted to play Captain Bobadil, a character in Jonson's play. The success of this performance encouraged the men and women, who had played various parts in the play, into thinking that the money raised from it could be used for a better purpose. It might create "an endowment that should not be mere charity, but should combine something of both pension-list and 2 college-lectureship, without the drawbacks of either." Following

this the Guild of Literature and Art was set up to help authors and artists struggling to continue their career. And this was the "design"

Dickens referred to in his speech quoted above. It was decided that

Bulwer would write a play to inaugurate the Guild and it would be staged by a group of amateurs led by Dickens. Thus Bulwer wrote

Not So Bad. There is no record of any collaboration between Bulwer and Dickens over the writing of the play, as there is between Bulwer and Macready regarding Bulwer's first five plays. But it would have been interesting to read the letters exchanged between Bulwer and

Dickens on the play. That there were such exchanges is indicated by other letters written by Dickens to Bulwer during this time.

Dickens's letters indicate the views expressed by Bulwer in his own letters. Unfortunately, Bulwer's letters to Dickens no longer exist: it is reported that Dickens destroyed all the letters which he received

from his friends,including those of Bulwer. Dickens's own letters are, however, available and they merely hint at the suggestions Bulwer made to Dickens over Not So Bad. It is, therefore, impossible to say

for certain that there was a definite collaboration between the two authors. On the other hand, if we examine the play in the light of

Dickens's comments made in his own letters, we may be able to discover whether Bulwer was indebted to Dickens for any idea or suggestion.

1 The Letters of Charles Dickens (ed.) Walter Dexter, Vol.II, p. 230. 2 J. Forster, The Life of Charles Dickens (ed.) A.J. Hoppe, Vol. II, p.6 8. 205

After Bulwer had begun the comedy, Dickens wrote to him several

times about it. From Dickens's letters we can get some idea about

what Bulwer and Dickens thought. It will be helpful if I refer only

to those comments made by Dickens which had a bearing on the writing

of the play, and take them one by one and say whether Bulwer really

accepted them. On January 7, I85I Dickens wrote to Bulwer;

... I scratch this note before flying to the railroad, to beg and entreat that you will not give yourself the least uneasiness about bringing out Wilmot in the last act. Let him do exactly what the story requires, and no more, I assure you I have not the least desire to be strong in that act. It would be quite enough to give him the ta^ to speak. I am extremely anxious that you should be perfectly free from any sordid stage dônsideration in the matter.^

The quotation suggests two things; firstly, it indicates what Bulwer

had been thinking of doing, an^éecondly, it presents Dickens's attitude

to the play. Working with Macready over the writing of his five plays,

Bulwer had learned to depend on the advice of the actor and, it could

be assumed from the passage, wanted Dickens's opinion on the presentation

of Wilmot. Besides, Bulwer had been in the habit of putting great

emphasis on the central character in his plays because he wanted to

strengthen Macready's position. This had been the practice between

Bulwer and Macready whenever Bulwer wrote a play for him. Secondly,

Dickens disagreed with Bulwer on this and allowed the author a free hand in the composition. The examination of the last act of the play reveals that the most important character in this act is not Wilmot

but Hardman. Both Wilmot and Hardman have been working separately

on the same problem which is to bring about a reconciliation between

Sir Geoffrey Thornside and his wife and their daughter Lucy. Both

Wilmot and Hardman love Lucy and, therefore, have the same interest

in the reconciliation. Hardman and Wilmot differ from each other in

1 The Letters of Charles Dickens, Vol. II, p. 264. 206

their way. Wilmot agrees to save his father and leave Lucy to Hardman.

So the natural development of the story has been pushing to the end when Hardman will be the victor. But there is a flaw in this plan.

It shows Hardman to be a minor villain, which is the impression Bulwer has been creating throughout the earlier acts. Bulwer, however, had decided to show two sides of all the characters, and Hardman was no exception to this practice. It was because of this that Bulwer was persuaded to give Hardman the first place by letting him change his decision, which he does at the end of the play by joining the hands of Lucy and Wilmot and making a grand sacrifice. This plan fits admirably, Although it puts Wilmot in the shade as far as his importance in this act goes. Also, the last sentence of the play which is spoken by Wilmot is what Dickens referred to as a "tag". It could,therefore, be said that Bulwer accepted Dickens's suggestion.

On March 25, Dickens again wrote to Bulwer. He requested Bulwer to refrain from making even the slightest possible change in the play.

He also referred to some changes proposed by Bulwer for Softhead,

Colonel Flint and others, and said that these might not be made possible,

He suggested that the minor characters should not have too much to

speak. We have no idea what Bulwer's suggestions were because there is no record available to clarify this point. As regards the last

suggestion made by Dickens, one gets the impression from the play that

indeed the minor characters have little to say. Perhaps Bulwer accepted Dickens's idea.

There are two letters written by Dickens to Bulwer and the Duke

of Devonshire on March 28 and 30* The first says:

I think the enclosed a very great and a most decided improvement ... The alteration you contemplate in the fifth act is also most important. And if you will keep them short and close, they^will be immensely aided by this new trouble of yours.

1 The Letters of Charles Dickens, Vol. II, pp. 28?-288.

2 ibid., p. 290. 207

In the second letter, addressed to the Duke, Dickens said that he had been to Knebworth "to settle some alterations in the comedy suddenly suggested by Mr. Macready and communicated to me by Bulwer (in agonies) by this morning's post." We have, however, no means of assessing what these alterations amounted to because Bulwer's letters to Dickens are lost for ever.

On April 28, Dickens wrote a long letter to Bulwer after he had heard what the Duke of Devonshire thought about the play:

The Duke ^ the Duke of Devonshire_7 had read the play ... He almost knows the play by heart. He is supremely delighted with it, and critically understands it. In proof of the latter part of this sentence I may mention that he had made two or three memoranda of trivial doubtful points, every one of which had attracted our attention in rehearsal, as I found when he showed them to me. He thoroughly_understands and appreciates the _ comedy of the Duke ^ the Duke of Middlesex in Not So Bad / ... He suggested that hea ^ t h e Duke of Middlesex_/ shouldn't say: "You know how to speak to the heart of a Noble", because it was not likely that he /~the Duke of Middlesex_7 would call himself a Noble. He ^ t h e Duke of Devonshire_/ thought we might close up the.Porter and Softhead a little more (already done) ....

Dickens is here referring to quite a few alterations for the play. It is clear from the letter that there were at least two suggestions which most certainly came from the Duke of Devonshire himself, and which

Dickens also accepted as important. These are (i) the change of the word "Noble" and (ii) a concentration of the scene between the porter and Softhead. In the version printed for the performance at Devonshire

House on May 16, I85I Bulwer had shown Hardman speaking to the Duke of Middlesex about the memoirs of the Duke's brother concerning Lady

Morland, the banished wife of Sir Geoffrey Thornside who had changed his name from "Morland" to "Thornside" after the separation between

Vol. II, 1 The Letters of Charles Dickens, • ; /p. 293. 2 ibid., p. 302. 208

him and his wife. At one stage during this scene the Duke says: 1 "You know how to speak to the heart of a gentleman." It could be safely assumed that Bulwer substituted "gentleman" for "Noble" on

Dickens's advice. Dickens's second suggestion referred to a scene between the porter, who is in fact the landlord of David Fallen, and Softhead. The scene is comic enough, but how far Bulwer accepted

Dickens's suggestion is difficult to guess. The scene is certainly bery concentrated as cam be seen from the edition of the play published in 1851.

The history of the writing of Not So Bad will not be complete

if we leave out an important person. The person is no other than

Macready who had played a very significant role in the writing of

Bulwer's plays from La Valliere to Money. In January I85I, Bulwer

showed the manuscript of the play to Macready who immediately made

out a memorandum for him. To give a coherent account of what Macready

suggested and what Bulwer followed, I will take up only those of

Macready's ideas which persuaded Bulwer to make alterations in the

play. (i) The better written by Lady Morland, Lucy's Mother, "should

be KEPT IN SIGHT".^ Wilmot should not be motivated by charity to help Lady Morland, but should be given a stronger reason. Bulwer accepted both suggestions. The letter written by Lady Morland to

Wilmot comes into the dialogue although Bulwer could have made it more prominent. He also gave Wilmot a more tangible interest in

the affairs of the Lady by showing Wilmot in love with Lucy.

(ii) Macready commented that the flowers thrown at the window of

the library in Thornside's house would not be understood. In accordance with this, Bulwer gave some lines to Thornside to indicate

that Thornside knew from the nature of the bunches that the flowers

1 Dhariiàtib, Woirke .1 ’-Volpl. • 2 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 243. 209

came from a certain person whom he was afraid to identify, (iii) The figure referred to by Thornside should be shown in the scene. As a result; Bulwer presented the masked figure of Lady Morland at the window of Thornside's house, (iv) The denouement where everybody meets everybody in the last scene should have some connection with

Thornside. Bulwer agreed to this suggestion and presented Thornside always brooding over the house in Deadman's Lane, which was one way of keeping him in touch with the place where Bulwer had decided to have his last scene, (v) About the drunken scene (Act III, scene i),

Madready had this to say;

The idea of the drunken scene is VERY GOOD, but I fear the excess of Easy is a little too venturesome - if Softhead were quite maudlin & crying drunk & Easy rollicking as he is, insisting on his having his daughter - as a jolly old cock - the other self-accusing, and blubbering that he is not a jolly old cock, exceedingly remorseful & penitent AND Easy's consent to give Barbara might be brought up against her not ineffe±ively in last scene.

cio >1 e The play shows that it is/exactly in the way Macready had suggested.

(vi) Macready agreed that the "chairing" of Easy in the third scene of the third act was "capital" and suggested that Softhead should be

"left crying behind" which Bulwer followed in toto. (vii) About the first scene of the fourth act Macready said:

I do not see the objection to Hardman's disclosure of himself to Sir Geoffrey - but I think, it ought to have been understood before, that Sir G. is acquainted with the mystery of Hardman's fate.- The two stories in one sceneÎ - one shd be shortened and BROKEN UP into dialogue.^

In accordance with this comment Bulwer retained Hardman's disclosure.

But he did not agree to Macready's idea of presenting Thornside as having given some hints earlier in the play about his hand in the

1 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 244. 2 ibid., p. 244. 210

development of Hardman. As a result, what Bulwer originally wrote stood in the play. As regards the "two stories" in this scene,

Macready was referring to the two different purposes of Hardman.

In this scene Hardman wants to gain Thornside's confidence by narrating his successes in order to marry Lucy, Thornside's daughter. At the same time, he wants to help Thornside in clearing the charges levelled against his banished wife by the brother of the Duke of Middlesex. It is not possible to guess what Bulwer had originally done in this scene.

The scene, however, reveals what Macready suggested, which is the presentation of Hardman's ideas through a continuous dialogue between him and Thornside. As a result, Hardman’s speeches do not seem too long as, for instance, Norman's do in The Sea-Captain; he indulges in the luxury of a very long-winded narration motivated by the instinct for self-revelation. One cam assume that here Bulwer followed Macready's idea. (viii) Macready remarked that in the last scene of the play

Lady Morland - the wife of Thornside - should not rush out to meet her husband but, on the contrary, Thornside should rush in to meet her. Again Bulwer accepted this suggestion.

This is how the play stood in the edition published in I85I.

The final version, as we have it today, appeared two years later.

The changes that took place in the meantime were motivated by another performance, this time by Buckstone at the Haymarket theatre on

February 12, 1853* The Lord Chamberlain's copy of the play for this performance would have confirmed that Bulwer made his final changes in the play for the Haymarket. Unfortunately, the British Museum does not possess this copy which may be assumed to have been lost.

It is, however, a safe assumption that Bulwer made changes for this performance, as he included the cast for this performance in the 211

edition of the play published in 1853* It cannot, however, be ascertained whether Bulwer made these changes of his own free will or whether he received suggestion from anybody.

The most important change that Bulwer made for the edition of

1853 was the condensation of the whole story. In order to do this he cut out speeches, re-arranged the scenes - sometimes with a completely different venue - and removed certain characters, such as Lord Le Trimmer and Sir Thomas Timid who had minor roles to play in the original Coffee-

House scene in the play. He also re-arranged the opening act, which is one scene in both editions, by removing the letter of Lady Morland to Wilmot and the long conversation between Wilmot and Smart, his servant, in the earlier comedy. In fact, the play now opened with the entrance of Lady Morland into Wilmot*s drawing-room followed by the conversation between them. The rest of the scene remained as it was in the version of I83I. The first scene of the fourth act originally presented a long conversation between Hardman and Sir

Geoffrey Thornside about the successful career of Hardman and his interest igéolving the problem of Thornside and his banished wife.

Bulwer retained the nature of this conversation in the later version, but condensed it to a great extent and reduced the length of the dialogue. He also dropped several hints, made mostly by Thornside, which indicated that he had a hand in the successful career of Hardman

- a fact which was originally suggested by Macready in I85I and which

Bulwer did not then accept. Similar reorganisation of the old materials can also be seen in the fourth scene of the same act as a result of which the original buffoonery of Paddy and Softhead was removed. In the first version of the play the conversation between Wilmot and

Hardman in the second scene of the fifth act, where both argue, was 212

interrupted by Lucy, but in the version of l853 this interruption was removed. The rest of the scene remained as it was before.

Bulwer also made changes in certain speeches of the characters as

one can see from the words spoken by Lucy towards the end of the second scene in the fourth act. Besides these, there was also a

change in the venue of the fourth scene of the fourth act. In the

first version of the play this scene was described as the "Space at the back of Bond Street, now Berkeley Square". This now became

"Old Mill near the Thames". But the most significant change was made in condensing the speeches of the characters which can be seen from

every scene in the play. After this edition was published in 1853

Bulwer did not make any further changes, and the play as republished

in the subsequent editions of Bulwer's dramatic works was the reprint

of the version made for the edition of 1853»

Not So Bad was first produced at Devonshire House on May l6 ,

1851 by Dickens and other authors and artists. The occasion was

graced by the presence of the Queen. The play had a favourable review-i and the majority of the reviewers praised the performance and overlooked its shortcomings. On certain points the reviewers

agreed with one another. Almost unanimously they said that the plot was too complicated and difficult to follow, that the play was not

a comedy of plot but of characters, and that the interests in the play had not been concentrated enough. The Times said;

We would briefly observe that it is a piece more of character than of plot, and that though there are several strong situations, they^are not closely connected by a continuous interest.

This can be taken as a fairly representative criticism of the play.

About the lack of concentration The Times passed a favourable comment

1 The Times, May 17, 1051, P* 5- 213

on the play by saying that the circumstances of the production should

be considered and, because the play was written for amateurs, this

fault should be overlooked, as the author aimed at the distribution

'I of interest rather then than its concentration.

The moral of the play was not missed by the critics. The Morning

Post wrote;

Its ^ the play's_y scope and object are, as the title imparts, to show that poor humanity often wears its worst side outward, and it must be owned that, if the world, in the days of George the First, had but one-half the nobility of thought and deed that is evolved from the worst seeming in the five acts of Sir Bulwer Lytton's comedy, it would be well for us if such hypocrites as his had reached our days in greater numbers than we fear will easily be found.

This is remarkable for its eulogising tone and its total acceptance of

the moral of the play. John Bull explained further the significance

of the social importance of Not So Bad in suggesting that it was a

"genuine English comedy, containing pictures, equally truthful and

vivid, of social life ad manners at a very remarkable period." It

added:

Sir Edward Bulwer lays bare the real condition of the man of letters in those vaunted days - the mean dependent on some haughty patron, and the bond-slave of some avaricious bookseller.

Such an observation produces a different and more sympathetic note in

the history of the criticism of Bulwer's plays.

The reviewers also made observations on Bulwer's use of dialogue

in the play. The Morning Chronicle said that he was not afraid

to break the datum level of the dialogue with a mosaic work of quaint drollery and dry l^uraour, which gives the drama some of its very best, most ^ agreeable, and most individualising characteristics.

1 The Times, May 17, I85I, P» 2 The Morning Post, May 17, I83I, p* 5* 3 John Bull, May 24, I83I, 335» 4 ibid. 3 The Morning Chronicle, May 17, I83I, p. 3« 214

Bell's Weekly Messenger wrote :

The language is often brilliant, and if in the serious characters of Hardman and Dâvid Fallen it now and then becomes inflated, we should bear in mind that the speeches may be looked upon as orations in behalf of the class the performance is intended to benefit.^

The Spectator also noted the oratorical tone of some of the speeches and commented;

We think we should also object to the very oratorial tone assumed by the principal serious characters. But on the present occasion, we bear in mind that the play is written to serve the intérêts of literary men.

The reviewer of The Examiner wrote, on the whole, a very favourable critique on the play;

... wit is not absent from the dialogue of the comedy itself where the occasion appears to call for it ... but we think it still higher praise to say, keeping the construction and aim of the work in view, that while the characters are solid and sustained, the incidents close animated, and the interest progressive, the dialogue reflects with easy truth every varied shade of humour and earnestness in language as^vigorous as it is various and richly shaded.

The Morning Post lightly touched on the faults of the play; it said that the central idea was too closely followed and pursued in minute details. The constant transformation of bad into good was carried out to the point of impossibility. Hardman's villainy was taken to be too great to let him show a capacity for beautiful feelings. Yet, in spite of the faults in construction, the reviewer wrote, the play 4 was carried on by its many brilliant passages. The Observer also pointed out the deficiency of the play in the creation of characters.

1 Bell's Weekly Messenger, May 17, 1#51, p. 1. 2 The Spectator, May 17, I85I, p. 465. 5 The Examiner, May 24, I85I, p. 324. 4 The Morning Post, May 17, I85I, p. 215

It said that Not So Bad was written for amateur actors, but it was difficult to find suitable amateur actresses and the author had to limit his presentation of female characters. So, The Observer argued,

Bulwer had given all the power to the men in the play. What motivated such sympathetic treatment of the play could be seen from the comments made by the critic of The Globe;

As the comedy was written for an essentially special purpose, it should not be tested by those laws of criticism which apply to plays composed for a more general object. The dramatist’s aim appears to have been to suit the peculiar talents of the amateur corps with appropriate characters, and this he most triumphantly achieved. It abounds more in point than in wit and has less even of epigram than moral and political acumen.^

The opportunity to judge the play on the general stage came with the production of Not So Bad at the Haymarket on February 12, l855«

In general, the reviewers referred to their earlier opinions on the play and refrained from saying anything further about it, although there were several comments made about this performance, particularly because Bulwer had made some considerable alterations in the play.

I have already referred to the nature of alterations for this performance. What remains to be seen is whether the reviewers had anything new to add to their earlier comments. I shall quote from one review which actually produced judicious criticism. The Morning

Chronicle drew the attention of its readers to the typical characteristics of the play;

... we express our conviction that the comedy was open to grave criticism - that it wanted continuous onward movement, with clearness and coherence of construction - that it likewise lacked the power of arousing in the minds of the audience anything like real or hearty interest in the fortunes of the plot -

1 The Observer, May l8, 185I, p. ?• 2 The Globe, May 28, I85I, p. 3» 216

that the action was frittered into too many channels and overlaid with too much talk. These were the main shortcomings of the work. On the other hand, it abounded with elegant and pleasant, not bitter sarcastic writing - with character - bits of mellow and genial humour, and it called up pleasant literary and social reminiscences from David Fallen in whom we liked to recognise Daniel De Foe, down to the Duke of Middlesex, who appeared to shadow forth again the "proud Duke of Somerset". Thus in a literary point of view "Not So Bad As We Seem" was agreeable to listen to, and there was also a satisfaction in perceiving the ingenious perseverance with which the author appeared ever to stick to the elimination of the name which was also the motto and moral of the comedy ... And yet again the exception occurs. Is not this process somewhat artificial - is it not writing comedy rather too much by mechanical rule - is it not the true cause of certain obscurities which we have indicated? ... But the alterations - we speak from memory - were of less importance than we had imagined. The general run of the play and the points and succession of the several scenes did not appear to have been interfered with; but long conversation had undergone very necessary and judicious pruning - scenes had been here and there more neatly arranged - several very small characters have been omitted, and the play, on the whole, compacted and strengthened up by the changes. Still, however, the great fault of the want of easily intelligible and interesting story was as manifest as ever ...... In this respect "Not So Bad As We Seem" stands out in striking conjbr#st^ with _S_i_r. _Edv^aii4 Bulwer Lyt^ton ' previous ynovels, construction superior to any of our present fiction writers,^who, to tell the truth, make sad work of their stories.

This review can be taken as the final comment of the press on the

second production of Not So Bad. It is one of the few just observations which were accorded to Bulwer's plays beginning with La Valliere and

ending with Not So Bad.

There was a marked difference of attitude between the reviews which appeared after the first performance of Not So Bad in 185I and

those after the second performance in 1853» This difference can be

explained by the fact that the critics took a sympathetic and favourablé view of the play in 185I because they recognised that the performance

1 The Morning Chronicle, February 14, 1853, p. 5< 217

was for a charitable purpose, and refrained from analysing the play from a purely literary and theatrical point of view. Some of the reviewers stated this point categorically. But the performance in 1853 was on the professional stage by professional actors and actresses and, as such, received a more critical scrutiny than the previous one.

Besides, the second performance, unlike the first, was not by amateurs who deserved sympathetic treatment for the cause they attempted to

serve.

The play has a complicated plot which is exactly the reason why nearly all the critics called it hazy. There are three different stories running through it. The first concerns a Jacobite conspiracy

to depose King George and place the son of James III on the throne of

England. The conspiracy is organised by the Duke of Middlesex and the

Earl of Loftus. The second story is concerned with Wilmot, the son of

the Earl of Loftus, and Lucy, the daughter of Sir Geoffrey Thornside.

As a rival to Wilmot Hardman is associated with this story. Wilmot

WOOS Lucy, is checked by Hardman, but wins her in the end. The third story is concerned with Sir Geoffrey Thornside and his supposedly

dead wife, Lucy's mother.

The three stories involve several characters. In presenting them the dramatist has attempted to show more than one side of their personality which justifies the title of the play. A major exception to this rule is the women who have only one side to their characters.

As a matter of fact, the male characters are more important than the female ones. This is because Bulwer wrote the play for the amateurs among whom, as pointed out by the reviewer of The Observer, it was difficult to find efficient women to play complicated roles. As a result, he put all his power into the creation of men and not women 218

in the play. Our attention falls chiefly on two characters; Wilmot and Hardman. This impression is based on the final version of the play which first appeared in 1853» Wilmot is an idealised conception. He does not have the fopperies of the time, although apparently he is supposed to present a false exterior which he describes as that of a monster because of the rakish life and the superficial absence of morals which he boasts to possess. But inside he is a different man - graceful, honourable, witty and sincere. His determination to help

Lucy and the "Lady" in question is sufficient proof of this. His concern for his father makes it clear that he is a dutiful son, in spite of the fact that the father he cares for does not hold him in good opinion. These characteristics very much lessen the effects of the impression he always intends to give out - that of a monster. But

Wilmot is not completely devoid of this characteristic. His intention to get Easy drunk is the best proof of it. The scene in the coffee house simply exhibits this side of Wilmot. He then appears as a man of mode, a gay young man who wants to have "an orgy to-night, worthy the days Of King Charles the Second". Wilmot believes in sincerity in friendship. Because Hardman is his friend, Wilmot will help him in every possible way - this seems to be his motto. It is also noticeable in his bequeathing an annuity to David Fallen whose books had once influenced him. But on the whole, Wilmot is a character similar to Alfred Evelyn who is also an idealist. In creating Wilmot,

Bulwer has not broken any new grounds in his dramatic career.

Compared with Wilmot, Hardman is no less or more interesting.

In his first appearance Hardman seems to be amiable, goodnatured and a sincere friend. His good nature persuades him to help Wilmot by finding

1 Dramatic Works, Vol. I, p. 272. 219

out the position of Wilmot's father in the Jacobite plot. But Hardman is ruled by ambition and, although he is capable of loving a woman, a his love is/part of this ambition. In the second act of the play we come across another characteristic of Hardman. At the house of Sir

Geoffrey he meets Wilmot and apprehends a growing intimacy between

Wilmot and Lucy. Hardman loves her and fears that he will have to face a rival in Wilmot. Immediately he begins to think of a plan to fulfil his ambition in love. His plan is to defeat Wilmot by blackmailing him about his father's part in the Jacobite plot. Henceforth, his action is guided by this thought alone. Yet he is not a confirmed villain, as is proved by several of his actions. The first is his attempt to clear the name of Lady Morland, alias Lady Thornside, the wife of Sir Geoffrey. It appears that he has changed in the course of the play. We find him, at first, a cruelly ambitious man but, as he learns that his success in the world would not have been possible without the assistance of others including Wilmot, Hardman realises that sacrifice is greater than blind ruthless ambition. Thus Hardman also becomes an idealist like Wilmot. In his portraiture Bulwer has moved away from his previous attitude to villainy. None of the villains in his earlier plays showed any change of heart. In the creation of

Hardman Bulwer has abandoned this idea and, to justify his thesis which is apparent from the title of the play, presented Hardman as a character who too will win the sympathy of the agdience for the better side of his personality.

Sir Geoffrey Thornside, who has changed his surname fromMMorland to Thornside after the supposed misdemeanour of his wife, is a character created out of a mixture of comic humour and seriousness. Macready did not like the idea of this mixture, but Bulwer obviously did not 220

agree with him and retained his own concept of Thornside's character.

Consequently, even when Thornside speaks about his misfortune, which

is the slur attached to his wife's name by the false boasting of the brother of the Duke of Middlesex resulting in the separation of Thornside and his wife, one cannot help noticing a bathetic tone in his speeches,

His^ortune is not, however, one but two. Firstly, the boast of a

profligate nobleman, now dead, brought about his separation from his wife. The incident contributed towards his hatred of the titled nobility,

which explains why he does not encourage Wilmot's approaches to his

daughter, but prefers to have Hardman as his son-in-law. Secondly, he had a foster-brpther who conspired with his cousin to set Thornside's

father against his own son. But, although his first experience had

hardened him against a certain section of society, his second

unhappiness did not touch him at all. In fact, he has always helped

Hardman, the son of hif foster-brother - a fact which Hardman does not

learn until the last scene of the play - to make his way in the world.

Yet, in him we find a character from whose life much of the mirth has

disappeared. He, too, passes through a radical transformation of

feelings and attitudes when he learns that his wife is innocent and

still alive. Through the reconciliation with his wife returns his

happiness which makes way for a family reunion and an acceptance of

Wilmot.

There are other characters in the play - Goodenough Easy, Softhead,

David Fallen, the Duke of Middlesex and the Earl of Loftus, besides

three women - Lucy Thornside, Barbara Easy and Lady Thornside.

Goodenough Easy is an easy-going person whose only ambition is to be

a Member of Parliament. He provides some fun in the play particularly

in the third scene of the third act and helps in the reunion in the

last scene. Softhead is shown as a satellite of Wilmot and tries to

imitate him as a man of mode. He is also presented as a foolish but 221

honest character, David Fallen presents the case of the honourable and moral profession of letters. It comes out in his constant refusal

to sell a scandalous memoir for his living. The Duke of Middlesex

stands for honour and respect for which people look up to a nobleman.

The Earl of Loftus, as a companion to the Duke, confirms the same

attitude, although he speaks very little in the play and has hardly

any relationship with Wilmot his son. As regards the women in the

play, both Lucy and Barbara have very minor roles. Lady Thornside

has some importance and her influence is felt even in her absence.

But on the whole, women are subordinated to men.

An important feature of Not So Bad is Bulwer's realisation that

he is no longer writing for professional actors and actresses like

Macready and Helen Faucit, but for amateur performers. As several of

the contemporary reviews of the play suggested, Bulwer's main concern

was tq^rovide suitable roles for the amateurs who would not have the

necessary histrionic talent, even though among the group selected to

perform the play there were good actors such as Dickens. Here in the play

each amateur has a definite portrait to materialise according to his

individual capacity. The moral, which the play sets out to declare,

is suitable to the purpose for which the play was originally written.

It appears in the case of David Fallen who is poor but nevertheless

refuses to sell a scandalous memoir for a living. This underlines the

moral strength which, Bulwer suggests, should not go unrewarded. For

this purpose he has shown Wilmot offering an annuity to David Fallen

so that he may maintain his moral independence and continue to write

with a free mind. For a play which was written to raise funds for a

literary guild to help distressed authors and artists such a moral

is certainly justified. 222

Despite the special nature of Not So Bad it still belongs to the main line of Bulwer's development as a dramatic author.

Characteristics found in his other plays are also present in this play. Thus, once again, we have the problem of marriage of young men and women. In dealing with it, Bulwer has followed a lighter vein. Wilmot's marriage to Lucy and Softhead’s to Barbara present the greatest amount of happiness for both couples. Bulwer, again, seems to comment that partners in marriage must be chosen through love and not for the sake of convenience. Hence he has made Hardman withdraw his claim for the hand of Lucy in favour of Wilmot, when he learns that he is the son of Thornside's foster-brother, and that all his achievements in life have been aided by others, including

Wilmot and Thornside.

Melodrama has been an important feature in Bulwer's-iplays and it appears in Not So Bad in the presentation of the characters, who are basically types of good and bad things. It is the good in them which has been emphasised and which can be seen right from the beginning of the play. Whatever shortcomings the characters have are carefully eliminated; it is noticeable in the way the drawbacks are handled, that is, lightly and without any seriousness; this lessens the weight. This is the general pattern of the men in the play with the exception of Hardman who first appears to be honest, then becomes a villain and finally regains his honesty and goodness.

But even in his change of heart he resembles many villains of early nineteenth-century melodramas. Another reminder of melodramatic practice is the treatment of the house in Dead Man's Lane. Wilmot's description of it to Softhead and Thornside's reference to it build up a melodramatic sense of mystery and make a sinister impression. 223

Throughout the play until the last scene this impression continues.

Another characteristic of melodrama also appears in Not So Bad.

This is sentimentalism which could also be found in almost every play

that the early nineteenth century produced. What makes it a particular

quality of melodrama is the fact that all melodramas carried sentimentalism

to excess. This sentimentalism is again apparent in the characters of

the play, both male and female. Wilmot’s attempt to save his father,

Hardman’s over-conscious goodness and Barbara’s care for Softhead are

some examples of this characteristic. There are also situations which

are sentimental. One could cite the meeting of the Duke of Middlesex the and Hardman in the first scene of the fifth act, and/meeting of Lucy

and Thornside in the second scene of the third act and the last scene

of the play in general as suitable illustrations.

Though no contemporary reviewer pointed it out, it is certain that

when Bulwer attempted to write a comedy, his examples were the comedies

produced after the Restoration. We have already seen how Bulwer used

some of the charadteristics of Restoration comedy in Money. Not So Bad,

written ten years after the production of Money, shares this tendency

with the earlier play. It was not, however, possible to write a comedy

of manners in the spirit of Wycherley, Congreve or Vanbrugh, because

neither the eighteen-forty - when Money was produced - nor the

eighteen-fifty-one - when Not So Bad was written - was the right time

for such a play. The critical-moral sense of the public was too

strong to admit the treatment of the relationship of the sexes in a

truly Restoration manner. Wbat the age, therefore, produced was

imitations of the earlier drama but not the spirit of it. It is not

my intention to suggest that Bulwer had the requisite qualities for

writing a progressive comedy of manners, because he too shared the same 224

moral feeling, in spite of the fact that he wrote a play like La

Valliere, which was condemned by the contemporary critics as immoral, and that he introduced the gay and carefree atmosphere of Restoration comedy in the relationship of Lady Franklin and Graves in Money, which has already been referred to in the chapter on that play.

In Not So Bad this atmosphere is absent. Bulwer has not added anything to what he earlier did in Money. The scenes where the lovers meet are restrained and decorous without the witty fervour of such relationship which creates the comedy of manners. The intrigue, which played a very significant role in this form of comedy, also will not be found in Not So Bad. Instead, there is a kind of mystery in the play which surrounds Thornside, his wife, Hardman and the house in Dead Man's Lane, and which belongs properly to the domain of melodrama. Like the Restoration dramatists, Bulwer has introduced Wilmot's servant, Smart, in thqdpening scene of the play.

There is a long dialogue between Wilmot and Smart in the first version of the play which was later removed. But even the nature of this conversation was not properly developed in the rest of the play, and

Smart completely disappeared from it. In the final version Smart is no character at all as he speaks very little, and that also only in the first act. Like the sexual game of the comedy of manners, the master- servant relationship has also been excluded from the play. Perhaps the strong moral concern of the dramatist with his theme was dominant i and, as a result, the Wilmot-Lucy-Hardraan triangle, which could have been more truly dramatic in a Restoration comedy, is nothing more than a hazy contrivance. Another characteristic - the satirical portraiture of society usually found in Restoration comedy - is also absent from Not So Bad. In Money Bulwer, to some extent, comments 225

on the prevailing social set-up, but in Not So Bad he is too preoccupied with his moral to do more than justice to this attitude.

To set against these comments there is one development of interest in Bulwer's use of language. On the whole, the language of the play is natural and expressive if we judge it against the background

of the majority of early nineteenth-century comedies written in prose,

Admittedly, the language in the first version of the play was very

literary, a fact commented upon by the contemporary reviewers. In

the final version of Not So Bad such speeches have been improved.

There are passages of dialogue where one can see a touch of wit or humour. What is significant for Bulwer the dramatist is the fact

that he now presents conversation in a very natural manner. As an

example of the easy flow of dialogue one can take the following;

Hardman: A new picture, my lord? I’m no very great judge - but it seems to me quite a master-piece. Wilmot: I’ve a passion for art. Sold off my stud to buy that picture...’Tis a Murillo. Hardman: A MurilloI You know that Walpole, too, has a passion for pictures. - In despair at this moment that he can’t find a Murillo to hang up in his gallery. If ever you want to corrupt the Prime Minister's virtue, you have only to say, "I have got a Murillo.” Wilmot: Well, if, instead of the pictures, he’ll just hang up the men he has bought, you may tell him he shall have my Murillo for nothing! Hardman : Bought! now really, my Lord, this is so vulgar a scandal against Sir Robert. Let me assure your Lordship - Wilmot: Lordship! Plague on these titles among friends. Why, if the Duke of Middlesex himself - commonly styled ’’the Proud Duke” - who said to his Duchess, when she astonished his dignity one day with a kiss, ’’Madam, my first wife was a Percy, and she never took such a liberty;” - Hardman: Ha! ha! well, ”if the Proud Duke” - Wilmot: Could deign to come here, we would say, ’’How d ’ye do, my dear Middlesex!” Sotflh&.ad: So we would, Fred, Middlesex. - Shouldn’t you like to know a Duke, Mr. Hardman? Hardman: I have known one or two - in opposition: and had rather too much of 'em. Softhead: Too much of a Duke! La! I could never have eno’ of a Duke Hardman; You may live to think otherwise. (Act I, sc.i, pp. 251-252) 226

Judging by today's standard, the dialogue may not sound very natural, but its merits can be seen when the passage is compared with the dialogue in most dramas written by eminent men of letters in the first half of the nineteenth century. We all know that there was a serious rift between literature and the theatre when Bulwer wrote his plays. The majority of the authors who claimed the admiration of the public for their serious concern for literature thought that ideal drama should be literary. But the popular and minor dramatists considered that such an approach to drama was unpractical. As a result, in popular plays - melodramas, comedies and farces - there was often an easy flow of language, but it tended to be crude.

Bulwer was one of the few authors who attempted to make a compromise between literature and the demands of the popular stage. La VaHiere was too literary, but The Lady and Richelieu attempted to avoid this tendency and were partially successful. In Money the same concern is discernible, though the play is not without its literariness.

But throughout Not So Bad one is struck by the improvement. A comparison of the use of language in Bulwer's six plays suggests that in Not So Bad he ÿas beginning to open up a new vein.

The passage quoted above has several points in its naturalness.

Firstly, it presents the characters in their typical behaviour.

Although there is a touch of levity and frivolousness in the speeches of all the three persons, it is Wilmot who displays it to its ultimate extent, which exhibits him as possessing that quality of the comedy of manners which is associated with rakish personalities. Softhead is contrasted with Wilmot and presented as a fool who imitates Wilmot.

Hardman has neither the frivolity of Wilmot nor the imitativeness of

Softhead, in spite of the fact that he shows enough response to 227

Wilmot*s rakishness. Throughout the play Wilmot remains faithful to this trait of his character, although at certain stages he becomes serious which brings out the other side of his character. Softhead's foolishness will be later contrasted with his simplicity, bringing out his goodness. It is Hardman, however, who will remain a serious character throughout the play and present his minor "villainy'' at a later stage. Secondly, the dialogue shows a touch of very mild satire, particularly when Wilmot says that the words "my lord" should be dropped and the Duke of Middlesex should be addressed simply as "Middlesex".

It may be taken as a comment on the prevailing practice of addressing the nobility. Thirdly, the dialogue is realistic because it employs ordinary words to express ordinary feelings. This points out what may be called the "speakability" of the speech, which is necessary for any natural and realistic dialogue. It also underlines the intonation of the speeches which will sound very natural to the audience. Not So Bad is not wholly a comedy of manners in the great

Restoration tradition because it has sentimentality *hich is a characteristic of eighteenth-century drama. It does not shock the audience with the scenes and the statements of characters which one sees in Etherege, Wycherley or Congreve. Bulwer was conforming to the later phases of the comedy of manners, mixing wit and sentimentalism together. In fact, this was the tone of the comedies of his time and upon he simply improved/it by presenting the dialogue with tte touch of a literary quality.

A significant change noticeable in Not So Bad is the manner in which Bulwer has presented his aristocratic characters. In the earlier plays the degenerate aristocracy was the target of criticism. The reason for this critical attitude to aristocracy has also been pointed out. It is, therefore, interesting to note a change in this attitude. 228

One cannot fail to notice the absence of a villain in Not So Bad.

The character who might have played the role has been shown as capable of a change of heart. But even if we think of Hardman as a villain, there is still a change because he does not belong to the aristocracy. Of course,the change of attitude is not really an aberration. We cannot claim that Bulwer is a realist like

Dickens or Robertson, but we have to admit that there is a certain amount of realism in the presentation of aristocracy in all his plays. Judged from the viewpoint of realism, Money comes nearest to this feature of nineteenth-century drama, because the ^lay deals with contemporary society and the characters belong to it. The

fundamental difference between the treatment of aristocracy in the plays up to Money and that in Not So Bad lies in the fact that Not

So Bad is a play with a definite moral to preach. It has already been said that the characters in this play are idealistic. To this

I would now like to add that they are not real - in spite of the

"realism" of language - but ideal. As a result of this idealism

the aristocracy has been presented in Not So Bad as it should be according to Bulwer's concept of the true role of this class in

society which has been elaborately discussed in the chapter on

Richelieu. Even the profligate brother of the Duke of Middlesex

is said to have undergone a change of heart before his death. So,

in fact, Bulwer has not changed his attitude to aristocracy, but

presented it in its ideal form as exemplified by the Duke of Middlesex,

the Earl of Loftus and Wilmot.

There remains one question to be answered; what made Dickens

and Macready think so well of the play? The first half of the

nineteenth century was not remarkable for its dramatic output. The 229

most important concern of the great dramatists and authors was to raise the standard of drama and revive its old glory. They always looked back to the past for examples. Old tragedies and comedies were repeatedly performed throughout the period and there were great actors to present the remarkable characters of these plays.

Macready was one such actor and his main concern was fo find a dramatist who could revive a serious drama. The author with whom he shared this characteristic most intimately was Bulwer. Both

Bulwer and Macready admired the old drama and thought that between

them they could create something which might turn out to be a good

play, even if it did not qualify to be as great as its predecessors.

Because of this approach to drama, Bulwer took his dramatic writing

seriously and attempted to write so as to lead to a revival of drama.

Today we may think that Bulwer did not herald any such happening, but, at the same time, we must admit that he was considered a good

dramatist by his friends and admirers among whom one can name Dickens and Macready, and that he had considerable influence in his day.

Macready found in his plays certain qualities which were absent in

the popular melodramas of the period. And this quality was the

literary value combined with stage technique. This exactly is the reason why Macready found Not So Bad so interesting. Its language, moral, wit and humour seemed to him much to be preferred to the low

comedy and fafcical characteristics of the majority of the comedies

of the time. The admiration of Dickens for this play was not very

dissimilar to that of Macready. Dickens too was an actor and loved

drama and theatre. He saw the condition of contemporary drama and

thought, like Macready, that something could be done. But Dickens

was also a major author with a great deal of dramatic talent although 250

he did not write a great drama. He recognised that Bulwer had dramatic talent and literary merit. I have already referred to his advice to Bulwer, when the latter was writing Not So Bad, that he should put aside all considerations of stage popularity.

Hence it is clear that Dickens thought the literary quality of a play as most important. This would explain the strong literariness of the first version. But Dickens also admired comedy, wit and humour which abound in his novels. In this respect, too. Not So Bad

fares better than the popular plays of the time. Undoubtedly, he spotted these qualities in the play. On January 5» I85I Dickens wrote to Bulwer; "I think it ^ the play_^ most admirable. Full of character, strong in interest, rich in capital situations, and certain to go nobly." In another letter written to Bulwer on

April 2 8, 1851 he said about the Duke of Middlesex;

... the Duke comes out the best man in the play... The scene where he makes that reparation to the slandered woman is certain to be an effect. He is not a jest upon the order of Dukes, but a great ctribute to them. I have sat looking at the play (as you may suppose) pretty often, and carefully weighing every syllable of it. I see, in the Duke, the most estimable character in the piece. I am sure that I represent the audience in this as I am that I hear the words when they are spoken before me. The first time that scene with Hardman was seriously done, it made an effect on the company that quite surprised and delighted me; and whenever and wherever it is done (but most of all at ^ Devonshire House) the result will be the same.

These comments indicate what Dickens admired in the play and how he

thought of them.

1 The Letters of Charles Dickens, y Vol. II, p. 261.

2 ibid., p. 303* 231

CONCLUSION

Not So Bad was the last successful play of Bulwer although he wrote four other plays. These are The Rightful Heir, Walpole,

Junius Brutus and the incomplete Darnley besides his translations of Sophocles' Oedipus and Plautus' The Captives. Of these the first two were published in the eighteen-sixties. Junius Brutus,

Oedipus and The Captives were never published and Darnley was included in the posthumous collectioi>6f Bulwer's plays which appeared in 1882. The Rightful Heir and Junius Brutus were performed on the stage: in the Introduction I have already referred to the kind of reception they had. Darnley was also performed with a fifth act written by C.F. Coghlan. Oedipus, The Captives and Walpole were never staged. None of these plays added any fame to Bulwer's dramatic career.

As I have said in the Introduction, Bulwer's reputation rests on the first six plays performed in his lifetime. Not all the plays, however, carry equal importance. This can be seen from their stage history. La Valliere and The Sea-Captain were never staged after their first performance. Not So Bad had one amateur production followed by a professional one two years after its first performance. I have explained the nature of the two performances while discussing the history of the writing of Not So Bad and its performances. Only three plays of Bulwer had a lasting success on the nineteenth-century stage.

These are The Lady, Richelieu and Money. Of the three The Lady was revived most frequently until I898 , Richelieu had a comparable number 232

of productions until 1892 and Money fared well with its frequent performances until I896 , The three plays belonged to the repertory of several great actors of the last century and were also played by less eminent actors on the stages of minor houses. Stage history shows that sometimes these plays were staged several times in the same year at various places, which included the most important theatres in London and its environs. The list of actors playing in the three plays is impressive: Macready and Helen Faucit, G.V. Brooke,

James Anderson, Barry Sullivan, George Vandenhoff, Charles Dillon,

Edmund Phelps, J.B. Buckstone, Charles Kean and his wife, the Bancrofts, the Kendalls, John Hare» Forbes-Robertson, Edwin Booth, Henry Irving and Ellen Terry played in all three plays. In the twentieth century

The Lady was revived twice - in 1917 and 1919; Richelieu was performed in 1910 and Money in I9 OI and 191 I. The last time Money was staged was at the Malvern Festival in 1931» Theatre critics were not very

enthusiastic about the three plays. Admitting that the role of Claude

Melnotte in The Lady was taken up by the greatest actors of the last

century,The Times commented on the performance of The Lady at the

Scala Theatre in 1919:

The difficulty is that the whole thing - the construction of the plot, the ponderous eloquence, and the constant asides - is now so old fashioned that it would need a ^ player of the very front rank to vitalize the production.

The reviewer, however, pointed out that the "reception of the play was 2 wholly enthusiastic". Speaking about the performance of Richelieu

at the Strand Theatre in I9 IO the reviewer in The Daily Telegraph drew our

attention to the fact that in spite of the play being "artificial and

and tawdry", in spite of its "inflated rhetoric" and "sheer theatricality"

the role of Richelieu was attempted by the great actors of the last

1 The Times, August 4, 1919, p. 6 . 2 ibid., p. 6 . 233

century. He also commented that Richelieu was "an amazingly fascinating and interesting study" requiring an able actor to bring out his

"multiform aspects" of nature. To him it seemed that Bulwer had "aimed at producing a brilliantly effective stage figure". The review in

The Times of a royal command performance of Money at Drury Lane in

1911 devoted more space to the illustrious audience, describing its clothes and manners than to the performance and the play itself.

According to the reviewer, this was the "most famous revival of Money" which appeared "admirably eighteen fortyish". Evelyn's speeches were

"inflated, "sentimental", "sententious", "lengthy" and "stilted'which reduced his character into the ridiculous.in I9 &I. Likewise, Graves

was "a drolly dolorous thing". Lady Franklin was "roguey-poguey" and

Blount simply presented some "antics". The critic finally commented;

Money has no importance as a work of art and it easily lends itself to^the peculiar exigencies of an occasion like this.

He, however, admitted that the play was brilliantly staged and played.^

Although there is some truth in what these reviewers said, it has to be said that at least three plays - The Lady, Money and Not

So Brid - might be thought likely to have better success on the modern

stage, even though the verse sequences in The Lady would probably be

an obstacle to the appreciation of today's audience. Money could

more easily be staged today; perhaps it might even receive the same

appreciation accorded to the production Pf. Boucicault's London Assurance

by the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1971* Not So Bad could not be

expected to do so well, but could make perhaps a moderate appeal to

today's audience. The three plays have a certain amount of universality

1 The Daily Telegraph, February 11, I9 IO, p. 12. 2 The Times, May I8 , 1911, P« 8 . 3 ibid., p. 8 . 234

in their themes: The Lady and Money, and also Not So Bad which was written with a different purpose, present the social progress of the hero. Here is a tendency which can be seen in the twentieth century and may be called "universal" as well. Of course, the three plays bear the stamp of the age in which they were written and cannot escape its influence in the matter of style and characterisation. Yet, their lively action and interest in social advancement will be sufficiently strong to capture the imagination of the modern audience. Besides, the three plays have amusing scenes which will have an appeal even today. Sibylla Jane Flower observes; "revivals in this century have proved that its Money's_y satire has stood the test of time."

In the same way, The Lady and Not So Bad may be appreciated by our contemporaries.

An obstacle to the appreciation of Bulwer’s plays is his verse.

It has to be admitted that, on the whole, Bulwer could not write dramatic verse because he had no poetic talent. There are three main reasons why he attempted to write in verse. Firstly, he thought, like many of his contemporaries, that the "ideal" drama should be written in verse; secondly, he was supported in his thinking by historical precedents such as Shakespeare and other Elizabethan and Jacobean

dramatists whose plays were very popular in the early nineteenth century; thirdly, he was guided by Macready who also thought that drama should be written in verse. Macready's preference for verse in the theatre was to do with the opportunities it gave the actor

for declaiming, possibly for ranting. None of the popular dramatists, whose plays were successful on the contemporary stage, could write good and effective dramatic verse. When Bulwer attempted to write

1 S.J. Flower, Bulwer-Lytton; An illustrated life of the first Baron Lytton 1803-1873, p» 281 233

plays in verse, he faced great difficulty and thfe task became too heavy for him. It can be said that he was ill-advised to attempt it. After La Valliere which was written entirely in verse,

Bulwer wrote The Lady mixing prose and verse. In this he followed a definite pattern. According to his intention, he wrote those speeches in verse which gave expression to deeper thoughts and feelings. Richelieu has a more interesting history from this viewpoint,

It is significant that Richelieu was first written in prose and then rewritten in verse because Bulwer believed, as he said in his letter to Macready written on October 23, l838,that "blank verse will be more likely to ensure solid & permanent success". Bulwer asked for Macready's advice on this and, as Shattuck writes, "Macready 2 with an eye on 'literature' must have insisted on its being poetized".

Opinion on Bulwer in his own time was divided. Although there were critics who criticised his literary works adversely, many of his well-known contemporaries had a very high opinion of him. I have already referred to the sympathetic comments made by Mary Shelley and Lady Blessington on The Lady in the chapter on that play. I have also quoted what Dickens and Macready said about Not So Bad. I would now like to refer to two further comments made by two of Bulwer's most eminent contemporaries. About La Valliere, Disraeli wrote to

Lady Blessington:

... from the extracts which have met my eye (in the Examiner) the play f La Valliere 7 seems excellent, and far the best poeshie that he has yet relieved himself of ...^

In a letter written to Bulwer on December 12, l840 Dickens said:

Let me thank you for the copy of your comedy /"Money_/ received this gorning. I told Macready when he read it to me a few weeks since.

1 Shattuck, op.cit., p. 90* 2 ibid., p. 9 1 » 3 Lytton, op.cit., Vol. I, p. 531* 236

that I could not call to mind any play since the Good Matured Man o f Goldsmith_% so full of real, distinct, genuine character; and now that I am better acquainted with it, I am only the more strongly confirmed in this honest opinion. You may suppose that "I was there to see", last Tuesday;- I most heartily and cordially congratulate you on its brilliant reception and success, which I hope will encourage you to other efforts in the same Path. I feel assured that you will tread it alone.^

Earlier, on November 17, l840 the Dickens family was invited to dinner by Macready. After dinner Macready read Money to them and later 2 recorded that with it "they all expressed themselves greatly pleased."

He added: "Dickens said he had not supposed that Bulwer could do anything so good".^ Dickens also liked The Lady which can be seen 4 from his frequent references to it. It is clear from these comments of Disraeli and Dickens, not to mention those of Mary Shelley and

Lady Blessington, that Bulwer's plays were appreciated by some of the eminent contemporaries best qualified to judge dramatic merit.

Twentieth-century appreciation of Bulwer's plays began with the publication of a slim volume containing three of the plays - La Valliere,

The Lady and Richelieu - which was introduced and edited by R. Earquharson

Sharp in 189 O. In his Introduction Sharp brought out Bulwer's qualities and observed that Bulwer's work still held the stage even after fifty years. This fact was significant because many other successful plays such as Knowles's Virginius and The Hunchback or

Talfourd's Ion had completely disappeared from the stage in the eighteen- nineties. The century had seen various attempts at writing drama which was either theatrical, lacking in literary qualities or poetic wanting theatrical technique. Sharp commented:

1 The Letters of Charles Dickens (ed.) M. House and G. Storey, Vol.II, p.163. 2 Macready, op.cit., Vol. II, p. 93* 3 ibid., p. 9 3 - 4 The Speeches of Charles Dickens (ed.) K.J. Fielding, pp. 117, 28l, 400. 237

That Lytton's work, with all its faults, combines the two essentials in an effective manner, has been proved by its lasting quality; and, at the least, we may say that, if he failed, his failure was of that nature which ’o'erleaps the bounds of low success'.^

Speaking of The Lady he remarked that the play had been given "an approval which has been confirmed by the extraordinary popularity of the play, which after half a century still holds the stage".^ To Sharp it seemed that the character of Pauline Deschappelles was "dearly beloved of debutantes". Sharp also drew our attention to the fact that Richelieu was also successfully played by Irving and Edwin Booth, who left memorable impression of their performance. According to Sharp, the plays had enduring qualities which the contemporary critics did not praise. He continued:

With all their faults, they have two good qualities. They do not, to take them at their lowest estimate, offend our literary susceptibilities; and they often affect us sympathetically by their fidelity to human nature. It is this that lies at the root of the vitality of Thg Lady of Lyons and Richelieu,- especially of the former.

Sharp's final comment on Bulwer is interesting:

Lytton was not by any means a great poet, but he at any rate succeeded in writing good acting dramas in verse which can be read with pleasure; and in an age when the success çf forty-nine out of every fifty plays depends upon anything rather than their literary quality, we should not refuse appreciative recognition to an attempt which, despite its defects of execution, was praiseworthy.

Today it may seem to us that ^much of what Sharp said above was

shallow criticism, but his observations indicate that the public

appreciated Bulwer's plays. It may be recalled here that throughout

the nineteenth century The Lady, Richelieu and Money were stock plays

in the repertoire of prominent actorshand actresses and names like

Irving and Ellen Terry were connected with their revivals. In the

1 R.F. Sharp (ed.) The Lady of Lyons and other plays. Introduction, p.ix.

2 ibid., p. x. 3 ibid., pp. xix-xx. k ibid., p. xxii. 238

twentieth century critics have attempted to place Bulwer in the context of his time. Referring to The Lady, Thomas H. Dickinson said that it was "the most popular romantic play of the century". To him the play had one "indispensable merit of the romantic play" which he called "the free plunge of life".^ He thought that Richelieu was a better play than The Lady because "its motives were moJrC honest and its action more solid".^ Camillo Fellizzi spotted the true characteristic of The Lady when he said that the play presented "a quaâ-satirical if portrayal of the middle-class snobbery". He added that in the play

"the situation presented, that of a rich middle-class family who want to marry their only daughter to a nobleman, obviously applied to 5 certain categories of the new rich in England". He summed up Bulwer’s dramatic ability by saying; "he has the merit of having used with more taste, imagination and intelligence the common theatrical stock-in-trade of his tirae".^ To Ernest Reynolds Money was "a bitter satire on 7 Victorian commercialism". Maynard Savin thought:

Lytton worked within the flamboyant, recklessly theatrical heroics of the tradition, succeeding in winning favor by his richer psychology and his surer instinct for what communicates rapidly over the footlights.”

Thus he placed Bulwer right in the middle of the mainstream of early nineteenth-century drama. Savin’s comment on The Lady correctly assessed Bulwer's intentions in this play:

His Lady of Lyons illustrates strikingly the way in which the Victorians handled the theme of love and the class struggle. Lytton reflects Victorian paternalism with regard to the working class. He allows the Republican and sentimental values inherent

1 T.H. Dickinson, The Contemporary Drama of England, p. 17* 2 ibid., p. l8. 3 ibid., p. l8. 4 C. Fellizzi, English Drama: the Last Great phase, p. 37* 5 ibid., p. 37. 6 ibid., p. 37 7 Ernest Reynolds, Early Victorian Drama, 183O-I87O , p* 6 3. 8 M. Savin, Thomas William Robertson: His Flays and Stagecraft, p. I6 . 239

in a love between members of two classes to receive its full dramatic exploitation; then, Lytton smothers the democratic implications of the play by awarding the badge of class to his low-born hero.^

Shattuck too pointed out the significance of The Lady in its own time:

Even so seemingly innocuous a romance as The Lady of Lyons, ... carried in its time a burden of social significance, cheered by the liberals and damned by the reactionaries, however wrongly, for political reasons.^

About the subject of this play, Shattuck commented:

Cleverly, Bulwer elected the subject and tone of romantic comedy, and between luck and cunning he hit upon exactly the right fable - that of the noble commoner winning out against the entrenched iocial prejudices of decadent aristocracy. The Lady of Lyons was exactly consonant with the rising spirit of Liberalism in the decade. It was bound to succeed.3

About Money, J.O. Bailey observed that its "dialogue and stagecraft are unusually natural for the l840's".^ He also assessed Bulwer's place in nineteenth-century drama: "The most important dramatist writing for the legitimate stage in the first half of the nineteenth century was Edward Bulwer-Lytton ..."^ Bailey made a correct judgement on Bulwer's technique:

Bulwer wrote (among other pieces) three plays that were great successes and that were performed regularly, as part of the standard repertory, for forty years. These plays represent his contribution to romantic verse drama and traditional comedy. Since Bulwer also wished his plays to be popular, they exhibit an interesting compromise, for he sought to give life to his legitimate plays by including material from the melodrama.

R.M. Fletcher pointed out Bulwer's real quality: "It is in social

1 Savin, op.cit., pp. l6-l?. 2 Shattuck, op.cit., Introduction, p. 5* 3 ibid., p. 11. 4 J.O. Bailey, British Plays of the Nineteenth Century: An Anthology to Illustrate"the Evolution of the Drama, p. 28. 5 ibid., p. 7 0. 6 ibid., pp. 70-71. 240

criticism that his talents lay, in an ability to perceive the incongruous in individual idiosyncrasy and individual variation from '] the social norm". Leonard R.N. Ashley understood Bulwer’s importance when he said: "Such plays as Bulwer-Lytton’s comedy Money (1839) /sic/

proved that literary merit and theatrical success were not entirely incompatible in Victorian England".^ Ashley also quoted Justin McCarthy having said that The Lady was "probably the most successful acting drama produced in England since the days of "Shakespeare"^ which may sound exaggerated but we have to remember that this play was undoubtedly one of the most successful plays throughout the whole length of the nineteenth century. George Rowell praised Money in the

following words:

Original, contemporary, and in prose, it attempted to find some elements of comic style in the deserts of Victorian farce. That its immediate and sustained success was due to its novelty rather than to its achievement is clear enough. The misunderstandings of Alfred Evelyn and his true love, Clara Douglas, are tiresome even by the standards of stupidity established by long theatrical useage. The fun poked at the parasites who cling to Evelyn when he unexpectedly inherits a vast fortune, though crudely done, provides an interesting commentary on a materialistic age. But the Club scene, in which Evelyn tests his friends, resL and feigned, by pretending to lose his fortune at cards, supplies stagecraft and atmosphere of a high order.

Terry Otten pointed out Bulwer's position in the dramatic tradition of his time: "Bulwer-Lytton was a very great succes^àt the box office and had a sizable influence on the drama".^

In his British Drama (Fourth edition, 194?) A. Kicoll tried to place Bulwer in the proper context of early nineteenth-century drama.

1 R.M. Fletcher, English Romantic Drama 1793-1843, p. 190. 2 L.R.N. Ashley (ed.) Nineteenth Century British Drama; An Anthology of Representative Flays, p. 7. 3 ibid., p. 141. 4 George Rowell, The Victorian Theatre: A Survey, p. 32. 3 Terry Otten, The Deserted Stage: The Search for Dramatic Form in Nineteenth-century England, p. 113* 241

He suggested that popular melodrama acquired a literary quality

in the eighteen-forties. The tendency was foreshadowed in Bulwer’s

The L&dy, performed for the first time in I8 3 8, which taught ambitious 1 authors "how to make their works more suited for ordinary consumption."

In Nicoll's opinion The Lady "is a 'literary' play in one sense of

the phrase, but its story has the true melodramatic tinge, and most 2 traces of stylistic affectation have vanished." Nicoll continued:

Lytton's later comedy of Money (l840) is even more positive in its significance. Here a theme of genuine immediate interest has been chosen. The audience in the mid-nineteenth-century theatre was largely middle-class, and this story of 'money' proved that Lytton, unlike the other literary dramatists, was aware of the fact that these spectators were clamouring for a comedy and tragedy expressive of their own conditions.

Bulwer provided what the age wanted and succeeded greatly in

his efforts particularly in The Lady and Money. Here M.R. Booth's

comments are also relevant. Referring to Bulwer's idea of writing 4 Money in a "new genre", he says that Bulwer was actually working

within the tradition of early nineteenth-century comedy by mixing

strong and grave passions with comic touches. Booth thinks that in

Money Bulwer "carried into comedy the themes of class bitterness and

the conflict between love and pride that proved so popular when

dramatized in The Lady of Lyons.According to Booth, Money is a

"transitional" play because it forms a link between the past and the

future of nineteenth century comedy. It belongs to the comedy of

the earlier decades in the mixture of the comic and the pathetic, in

the "framework of rhetorical prose", eccentric and "humorous characters",

1 A. Nicoll, British Drama: An Historical Survey from the Beginnings to the Present Time, p. 331. 2 ibid., p. 331. 3 ibid., p. 331. 4 Shattuck, op.cit.', (Bulwer's letter to Forster of August 29, l840), p.135« 5 M.R. Booth (ed.), English Plays of the Nineteenth Century, Vol. Ill: Comedies, p. 137. 242

the "idealized heroine" and the "firm basis of moral platitude and 1 sentimental indulgence". On the other hand, it looks forward to later comedies such as Boucicault's London Assurance (l84l), and

The School for Scheming (184?) - the former imitating "Money's social gentility and controlled extravagance of characterization" and the latter "appropriating" its "themes of money and class.

Later playwrights like Tom Taylor and Robertson "further developed

Money's concerns with class antagonisms and adjustments to class differences that sometimes had to be made in the interests of love and social harmony".^ Booth sums up briefly the importance of Money :

Indeed, the main themes of Money - wealth, class, social ambition, and social pride - became the general subject-matter of so much Victorian comedy that the tracing of influences upon individual plays would be repetitious and pointless... it is probably the most important comedy of the nineteenth century. Although the scenes between Evelyn and Clara, essential to Bulwer-Lytton and at the emotional centre of the play, may weigh heavily upon modern sensibilities. Money's combination of genuine humour, satirical characterization, cutting if unsubtle irony, and comic set-pieces - the reading of the will and the scene in Crockford's club - also makes it one of the best.

From the excerpts quoted above it will be seen that twentieth-century

criticism has mainly been concerned with Bulwer's Money and, although

The Lady ha6 not been forgotten completely, it has occupied a lesser

place in this criticism. It will not be out of place to assume here

that Bulwer's real merit is in Money which alone gives him an important

position in the main currents of nineteenth-century drama.

There is enough evidence in the plays that Bulwer's talent lay

in the field of comedy, but like many contemporary dramatists he

thought that he must write great tragedies; this was what he aimed

1 Booth, op.cit., Vol. Ill, p. 158. 2 ibid., p. 138. 3 ibid.,pp. 138-159 . 4 ibid., p. 139 . 243

at in La Valliere. He also thought, again like his fellow playwrights, that he should write historical plays, such as Richelieu. In this he was encouraged by Macready who had similar ideas of the subject of drama, but in neither of the two plays did Bulwer show any great originality of style. What he did in the two plays was a repetition of what had already been done byéorae of his contemporaries, as for example, Shell, Knowles, Mary Russell Mitford and Talfourd. This acceptance of current ideas and adherence to an established dramatic tradition are also seen in The Lady whose story has a familiar pattern as seen in earlier plays such as Tobin’s The Honey Moon and George

Croly's pride shall have a Fall (1824). But the real reason for the success of Richelieu was that here he could present action in an interesting way, a fact acknowledged by contemporary reviewers. The success of The Lady, Money and Not So Bad was also due to his presentation of lively action supported by his ability to write tolerably good comedy. Even The Sea-Captain has a great deal of action which kept it running for forty nights, although the play was denounced by nearly all, his critics and friends. His prose in The Lady, The Sea-

Captain, Money and Not So Bad (despite the occasional overtones of literariness in Money and Not So Bad) indicates that Bulwer could have produced a very good play if he had attempted to develop his natural tendencies. The prose in these plays is generally natural which cannot be said about his dramatic verse. Compared with the language of the majority of the "comedies" of his time - with the exception of Boucicault’s London Assurance and The School for Scheming - Bulwer's dramatic prose sounds and reads more vividly. The four acts of the incomplete Darnley also bear testimony to his ability to handle dramatic prose, but the play, written possibly iiythe early part of 1843, was 244

unfortunately abandoned because Macready did not like it. The failure of this play, after a fifth act had been added by C.F. Coghlan, on

ÜE stage in l877 was not due to its language, but to its undeveloped gap in action after the fourth act which Coghlan's fifth act could not fill. It is singularly unfortunate that Bulwer could not develop this trait further. Macready was partly to blame because Bulwer looked to him for advice, as he depended on him to star in his plays. •

But Macready too suffered from the limitations of his age.

The study of Bulwer's plays has shown that they have a certain

variety of interests. Firstly, we notice that Bulwer owes a great

deal to contemporary melodrama and almost all his plays bear a touch

of melodrama. Melodrama can be seen in its workings in several ways

in these plays. Action in all the plays discussed here conforms to

the nature of melodrama. The two plays which show a lesser adherence

to melodrama are La Valliere and Money. Secondly, all the plays are marked with sentimentality which had originally been a part of the

eighteenth-century dramatic tradition and which later passed into the

world of nineteenth-century melodrama. Thirdly, three of Bulwer's

plays - The Lady, The Sea-Captain and Money - present the social

progress of the hero. This aspect is also present in Not So Bad

particularly in the character of Hardman, although he is not the hero of the play. The social criticism of melodrama is noi? wholly

absent from Bulwer's plays, even though the author has greatly toned

down his ideas because he was basically an aristocrat and could not

be expected to show as muc% boldness and criticism as shown by the

authors of The Rent Day, The Factory Lad and Maria Marten. In fact,

Bulwer's social criticism is quite mild and his apparently "rebellious"

heroes are accepted by society in the end. 243

In regard to Bulwer's French trilogy it may be argued that these plays are "costume pieces", because they have the trappings of history without its authenticity. This criticism is perhaps based on the fact that in the writing of La Valliere and Richelieu Bulwer also made from use of romances. This is a deviation Bulwer's practice because he said on several occasions that he valued the accuracy of facts in historical fiction. Bulwer himself contributed to the impression that his plays were not historically accurate when he said in the preface to Richelieu;

The historical drama is the concentration of historical events. In the attempt to place upon the stage the picture of an era, that licence with dates and details which poetry permits, and which the highest authorities in the Drama of France herself?have sanctioned, has been, though not unsparingly, indulged.^

He also referred to the fact that he had borrowed from two romances certain events and arranged them in his own way. Vjbat Bulwer was emphasising here was that the author could take some liberty with facts while writing a historical drama. It was because of this that throughout the period he spent on the writing of Richelieu, Bulwer was constantly reminding Macready that he was trying to present Richelieu according to the legend which surrounded the Cardinal in France even t up to Bulwer's time. Bulwer believed that certain historical charadters and epochs live in the memory of the people of the country concerned and that this popular notion must be brought out in the play. Consequently, he arranged the incidents in the lives of La Valliere, Louis XIV,

Bragelone and Richelieu in his own peculiar way so that the plays could convey his idea to the audience and the reader. Similarly, the events in The Lady are, according to Bulwer's thesis, likely to have happened

1 Preface to Richelieu (1839), P* )*X 246

during the Napoleonic era in France. This approach, which may be called fictional, did not interfere with Bulwer’s representation of his ideas of history,, politics and people which have been discussed in the chapter on Richelieu.

Finally, an important aspect of the plays is the treatment of characters. The nineteenth-century was concerned with the presentation of character both in fiction and drama. One must admit that even the dramatists were concerned with the presentation of "characters", and turned their plays into dramas of characters. This indicates a complete reliance on the "humour" and "passion" of the character. This type of writing also coincided with the nature of acting of the eminent actors the majority of whom played character roles. Bulwer's plays are no exception to this rule. His Bragelone, Evelyn, and Wilmot and Hardman belong to this type. This is one of the reasons why his three plays -

The Lady, Richelieu and Money - were so successful and popular throughout the nineteenth century. 24?

APPENDIX

Dates of the first performances

of Bulwer’s plays 248

The Duchess de la Valliere

Theatre Royal, Covent Garden, January 4 I837

Cast

Louis the Fourteenth Mr Vandenhoff The Duke de Lauzun Mr W. Farren Count de Grammont Mr Pritchard The Marquis de Bragelone Mr Macready Marquis de Montespan Mr Webster Bertrand, the Armourer Mr Tilbury First Courtier Mr Webster Second Courtier Mr Bender _ Third Courtier Mr Colleit /sic/ Madame de Montespan Miss Pelham Madame de la Valliere Mrs W. West Mademoiselle de la Valliere Miss Helen Faucit The Queen of L^uis the Fourteenth Miss Partridge Abbess Mrs Garrick First Lady Miss Lee Second Lady Miss Brookes Third Lady Miss Land The Vocal Parts by Miss Turpin, Miss Vincent, Miss Land, Mr Collins, Mr Ransford, &c. Courtiers, Gentlemen of the Chamber, Nuns, Ladies, Maids of Honour, &c. 249

The Lady of Lyons; or, Love and Pride

Theatre Royal, Covent Garden, February 13 I838

Cast

Beauseant Mr Elton Glavis Mr Meadows Colonel Damas Mr Bartley Mons. Deschappelles Mr Strickland Captain Gervais Mr Howe Captain Dupont Mr Pritchard Major Desmoulins Mr Roberts Landlord of the Golden Lion Mr Yarnold Gaspar ^4r Diddear Claude Melnotte Mr Macready Servants Mr Collet, Mr Bender Notary Mr Holmes Madame Deschappelles Mrs W. Clifford Pauline Deschappelles Miss Helen Faucit The Widow Melnotte Mrs Griffith Janet Mrs East Marian Miss Garrick 250

Richelieu; or. The Conspiracy

Theatre Royal, Covent Garden, March 7 lS59

Cast

Louis XIII, King of France Mr Elton Gaston, Duke of Orleans Mr Diddear Cardinal Richelieu Mr Macready Count de Baradas Mr 'warde The Chevalier de Mauprat Mr Anderson Count de Clermont Mr Roberts The Sieur de Beringhen Mr Vining Father Joseph Mr Phelps Huguet Mr G. Bennet Francois Mr Howe Page to Baradas Miss E. Phillips Secretaries of State Mr Tilbury, Mr Yarnold, Mr W.H. Payne Courtiers Messrs. C.J. Smith, Bender, Paulo, Gough, Thorne, Brady, Burdet, Smith, Kirke, and Hollingsworth Govefnor of the Bastille Mr Waldron Gaoler Mr Ayliffe Turnkey Mr Andrews Captain of the King's Archer Guard Mr T. Mathews Pages to the King Mesdames Reed, Corder, Lee, and Valanduke Pages to the Cardinal Mesdames Mathews, New, and Morgan Gentlemen, Priests, Sub-Secretaries, Arquebussiers, Halberdiers Julie to Mortemar Miss Helen Faucit Marion de Lorme Miss Charles 251

The Sea-Captain; or, The Birthright

Theatre Royal, Haymarket, October 31 1839

Cast

Percy, Lord Ashdale Mr J. Webster Sir Maurice Beevor Mr Strickland Norman, Captain of a ship of war Mr Macready Falkner, his Lieutenant Mr Howe Giles Gaussen ) Mr 0.Smith Luke 0 Pirates Mr Gallot Michael j Mr Green Onslow, a Priest Mr Phelps Landlord Mr T.F. Mathews Walters Mr Worrall Sailors, Servants, &c. Lady Arundel Mrs Warner Violet Miss Helen Faucit Mistress Prudence Mrs W. Clifford 252

Money

Theatre Royal, Haymarket, December 8 l840

Cast

Lord Glossmore Mr F. Vining Sir John Vesey, Bart. Mr Strickland Sir Frederick Blount Mr W. Lacy Mr. Benjamin Stout, M.F. Mr David Rees Evelyn Mr Macready Graves Mr Webster Captain Dudley Smooth Mr Wrench Sharpe, the Lawyer Mr Waldron Toke, the Butler • Mr Oxberry Flat Mr Worrell Green Mr T.F. Mathews Tabouret, Upholsterer Mr Howe Frantz, Tailor Mr 0. Smith Me•Finch, Silversmith Mr Gough Grub, Publisher Mr Caulfield Patent, Coachmaker Mr Clark Crimson, Portrait Painter Mr Gallot Me'Stucco, Architect Mr Morgue Kite, Horse dealer Mr Santer Page to Sir John Miss Grove Footmen Messrs. Bishop, Green, Ennis, &c. Members of the Club, Waiters, Servants, &c Lady Franklin Mrs Glover Georgina Vesey Miss P. Horton Clara Douglas Miss Helen Faucit 25)

Not So Bad As We Seem; or. Many Sides to a Character

Devonshire House, May 16, 185I

Cast

The Duke of Middlesex Mr Frank Stone The Earl of Loftus Mr Dudley Costello Lord Wilmot Mr Charles Dickens Mr. Shadowly Softhead Mr Douglas Jerrold Hardman Mr John Forster Sir Geoffrey Thornside Mr Mark Lemon Mr. Goodenough Easy Mr E.W. Topham Lord Le Trimmer Mr Peter Cunningham Sir Thomas Timid Mr Westland Marston Colonel Flint Mr R.H. Horne Mr Jacob Tonson Mr Charles Knight Smart Mr Wilkie Collins Hodge Mr John Tenniel paddy O'Sullivan Mr Robert Bell Mr. David Fallen Mr Augustus Egg, A.R.A. Coffee-House Loungers, Drawers, Newsmen, Watchmen, &c. &c. Lucy Mrs Compton Barbara Miss Ellen Chaplin The Silent Lady of Deadraan's Lane (Lady Thornside) Mrs Coe 254

Not So Bad As We Seem; or, Many Sides to a Character

Theatre Royal, Haymarket, February 12, 1853

Cast

The Duke of Middlesex Mr Stuart The Earl of Loftus Mr Braid Lord Wilmot Mr Leigh Murray Mr Shadowly Softhead Mr Keeley Hardman Mr Barry Sullivan Sir Geoffrey Thornside Mr Benjamin Webster Mr. Goodenough Easy Mr. Buckstone Colonel Flint Mr. Hastings Mr. Jacob Tonson Mr Rogers Smart Mr Clark Hodge Mr Coe Faddy O ’Sullivan Mr H. Bedford Mr. David Fallen Mr Howe Coffee-House Loungers, Drawers, Newsmen, Watchmen, &c. &c. Lucy Miss Rosa Bennett Barbara Miss Amelia Vining The Silent Lady of Deadraan’s Lane (Lady Thornside) Mrs Leigh Murray 255

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books and Articles

Amerongen, J.B. van The Actor in Dickens. London, 1926

Anonymous "Bulwer’s Dramatic poetry", Dublin University Magazine, March-April l840, pp. 267-284,412-425

Archer, William The Old Drama and the New. London, 1925

M M William Charles Macready. London, 189 O

Ashley, Leonard R.N. Nineteenth-Century British Drama; An Anthology of Representative Plays. New York, 1967

Baillie, Joanna De Montfort. London, I8OO

ti n Plays on the passions, 5 volumes. New Edition. London, 1821

Bailey, J.O. (ed.) BritishlPlays of the Nineteenth Century: An Anthology to Illustrate the Evolution of the Drama. New York, I966

Ball, Patricia M. The Central Self ; A Study in Romantic and Victorian Imagination. London, I968

Bell, E.G. An Introduction to the Prose Romances, Flays and Comedies of E. Bulwer. Chicago, 1914

Booth, M.R. English Melodrama. London, I965

" " (ed.) English Plays of the Nineteenth Century, Vol. I, 1800-5 0. Oxford, 1969

" " (ed.) English Plays of the Nineteenth Century, Vol. Ill, Comedies. Oxford, 1975

»' " (ed.) Hiss the Villain: Six English and American Melodramas. London, 19^4

Boucicault, Dion London Assurance. London, l84l

The Dolmen Boucicault. Edited by David Krause. Dublin, 1964

The School for Scheming (Dick’s Standard Play No. j.046) ^ 1899 (?)__7 256

Bowen, E.W. "Bulwer-Lytton Forty Years After". The Sewanee Review, XXVI, 1918, pp. 92-111

Browning, Robert Dramas of Robert Browning. Edited by Oscar Browning. London, I898

Buckstone, J.B. Luke the Labourer; or, The Lost Son. (Dick's Standard Play)

Bulwer-Lytton, E.G.E.L. ^he Duchess de la Valliere.. V London, 1856

The Lady of Lyons; or, Love and Pride. London, I838 Second £JttcO')i Richelieu; or, The Conspiracy./ London, I859

The Sea-Captain; or, The Birthright. London, 1859

The Sea-Captain; or. The Birthright. (Baudry's European Library). Paris, 1840

Money. London, l840

Not So Bad As We Seem; or, Many Sides to a Character. London, I85I

Not So Bad As We Seem; or, Many Sides to a Character. London, 1855

The Rightful Heir. London, I868

The Dramatic Works of Bulwer-Lytton. London, l84l

The Dramatic Works of Bulwer-Lytton. London, I865 •

Dramatic Works (The Knebworth Edition), vol. I, London, l8?6

"The State of the Drama". New Monthly Magazine, February, I852, pp. 151-155

"Romance and Reality". New Monthly Magazine, December, I85I, PP« )45-551*

"Recent Dramas". New Monthly Magazine, June, 1852, pp. 513-520

"Fiesco". New Monthly Magazine, June, I8 5 2, pp. 521-52B

flémodeus at Large (The Knebworth Edition). London, 1875 257

Bulwer-Lytton, E.G.E.L. England and the English (The Knebworth Edition). London, 1674.

Eugene Aram (The Knebworth Edition). London, n.d.

Paul Clifford (The Knebworth Edition). London, 1874

Harold, The Last of the Saxon Kings (The Knebworth Edition). London, 1874

Eienzi, The Last of the Roman Tribunes (The Knebworth Edition). London, n.d.

Bunn, Alfred The Stage; Both Before and Behind the Curtain. 5 vols. London, l84o

Byron, George Gordon, Lord Poetical Works. (eds.) F. Page and J. Jump. London, 1970

Clark, Arthur M. Studies in Literary Modes. Edinburgh and London, 1946

Cole, J.W. The Life and Theatrical Times of Charles Kean. London, I869

Coleridge, S.T. The Complete Poetical Works. (ed.) E.H. Coleridge, Vol. II. London, 1912.

Collingwood, E.G. The Idea of History. Oxford, 1946

Colman, G. (the Younger) The Dramatic Works with the Life by J.W. Lake. 4 vols. Paris, 1827

Croly, G. Pride shall have a Fall. London, 1824

Dahl, Curtis "Bulwer-Lytton and the School of Catastrophe", Philological Quarterly, XXXII, 1955, pp.428-442.

"History on the Hustings: Bulwer-Lytton*s Historical Novels of Politics", From Jane Austen to Joseph Conrad (eds.) Robert C. Rathburn and Martin Steinmann, Jr. Minneapolis, 1958

Dickens, Charles J.H. The Letters (ed.) Walter Dexter (The Nonesuch Dickens), 5 vols. London, 1938

The Letters (eds.) M. House and G. Storey. Oxford. Vol. I (1965 ), Vol. II (I969 )

The Speeches (ed.) K.J. Fielding. Oxford, I96 O

Dickinson, T.H. The Contemporary Drama of England. London, 1925

Disher, M.VJ. Blood and Thunder; Mid-Victorian Melodrama and its Origins. London, 1949 258

Downer, Alan B. The Eminent Tragedian. Cambridge, Mass. and London, I966

"Players and Painted Stage: Nineteenth-Century Acting", Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, LXI, 1946, pp.522-576

Ervine, St.J. "Victorian Theatre", The Fortnightly Review, CLX, November, 1946, pp. 353-359

Escott, T.H.S. Edward Bulwer, First Baron Lytton of Knebworth. London, I9 IO

Evans, Bertrand Gothic Drama from Walpole to Shelley. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 19^7

"Manfred’s Remorse and Dramatic Tradition", Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, LXII, 1947, pp. 752-773

Filon, A. The English Stage, An Account of the Victorian Drama, translated by Frederick Whyte. London, l897

Fleishman, Avrora The English Historical Novel; Walter Scott to Virginia Woolf. Baltimore and London, 1971

Fletcher, R.M. English Romantic Drama 1795-1843. New York, 1966

Flower, Sibylla J. Bulwer-Lytton: An illustrated life of the First Baron Lytton 1803-1873» Aylesbury, 1973

Forster, J. The Life of Charles Dickens. 2 Vols. New Edition by A.J. Hoppe. London, I966

Fox, William J. "Bulwer’s Tragedies", The Westminster Review, April, 1837, pp. 247-270

Ganzel, Dewey "Patent Wrongs and patent Theatre: Drama and the Law in the Early Nineteenth Century", Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, LXXVI, I961 , pp. 384-396.

"Bulwer and his Lady", Modern Philology, LVIII, August, i9 6 0 , pp. 4l-5 2

Bulwer as Dramatist (Unpublished dissertation in the University of Chicago), 1958.

Gosse, Edmund "Life of Edward Bulwer", The Fortnightly Review (New Series) December 1913, pp.1033-1046

A Short History of Modern English Literature. London, 1917 259

Hanratty, Jerome "Melodrama - Then and Now", A Review of English Literature, IV, ii, April, I9 6 3 , pp. 10Ü-114

Hazlitt, William A View of the English Stage. London, I818

Dramatic Essays (eds.) W. Archer and R.W. Lowe. London, 1893

Hollingsworth, Keith The Newgate Novel 1830-184?. Detroit, 1963

Horne, R.H. A New Spirit of the Age. 2 Vols. London, l844

Hunt, Leigh Critical Essays on the Performers of the London Theatre^ London, Ï807

1» n Dramatic Criticism^ 1808-I83I . (eds.) L.H. and C.W. Houtchens. London, 1930

Jerrold, Douglas W. Black-Ey'd Susan. London, I829

tt It The Rent Day (second edition). London, 1832

Johns on, Edward "A Political Interpretation of Byron's Marino Faliero", Modern Language Quarterly, III, 1942, pp. 417-425

Jowett, B. Lord Lytton, the Man and the Author; to which is attached a Biography by M. Marsden. London, 1873

Knowles, J.S. The Dramatic Works. 2 Vols. London, I883

Lamb, Charles Dramatic Essays. (ed.) Brander Matthews. London, I89 I

Lewes, George H. and Dramatic Essays. (eds.) V/. Archer and R.W. J. Forster Lowe. London, I896

Lloyd, Michael "Bulwer Lytton and the Idealising principle", English Miscellany, VII, 1936, pp. 23-39

Lord, Walter F. "Lord Lytton's Novels", The Nineteenth Century and After, September, I9 OI, pp. 449-458

,"The Wand of Prospers", The Nineteenth Century and After, January, 1924, pp. 59-68

Lowe, R.W. A Bibliographical Account of English Theatrical Literature. London / I888 / 1970

Lytton, The Earl of The Life, Letters and Literary Remains. (ed.) his son. 2 Vols. London, 1883

The Life of Edward Bulwer, First Lord Lytton by his Grandson. 2 Vols. London, 1913 260

Macready, W.C. The Diaries. (ed.) William Toynbee, 2 Vols. London, 1912

Reminiscences. (ed.) Sir Frederick Pollock. London, 1875

Marston, J.W. The Dramatic and Poetical Works, 2 Vols. London, iBvè

Maturin, C.B. Bettram; or. The Castle of/Aldobrand. (Dick's Standard play No. 6l) London ^ 1877 ?_7

Meisel, Martin Shaw and the Nineteenth Century Theatre. Princeton, I965

Melville, Lewis "The Centenary of Bulwer Lytton", The Bookman, XXIV, April-September, I9 0 5 , pp. 49-52

Milman, H.H. Fazio. Oxford, I815

Mitford. Mary R. The Dramatic Works, 2 Vols. London, l854

Nagchaudhuri, U.C. "The English Theatre of the Romantic ; Revival", The Nineteenth Century and After, CIV, 1928, pp."584-398

Nieoil, Allardyce A History of English Drama, Vol. IV. Early Nineteenth Century Drama 18OO-I85O. Cambridge, 1955

British Drama: An Historical Survey from the Beginnings to the Present Time. London, 19^7

Norton, M. "The Plays of Joanna Baillie", Review of English Studies, XXIII, 1947, pp. 131-l43

Otten, Terry The Deserted Stage: The Search for Dramatic Form in Nineteenth-Century England. Athens,1972

Fellizzi, C. English Drama; The Last Great phase, tra.r)sio,tcd- L.oy\cJiùyi f

Qualia, C.B. "French Dramatic Sources of Bulwer Lytton's Richelieu", Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, XLII, 1927, pp. 177-184

Report of the Select Committee on Dramatic Literature. London, I8 3 2.

Reynolds, Ernest Early Victorian Drama 183O-I87O. Cambridge,1936

Richards, K. and Nineteenth Century British Theatre. P. Thomson (eds.) London, 1971

Robertson, T.W. The Principal Dramatic Works with a Memoir by his Son, 2 Vols. London, 1889

Society. (Lacy's Acting Edition No. IO6O) London, n.d. 261

Robertson, T.VL Ours. (Lacy's (French's) Acting Edition No. 1968 ). London, n.d.

Caste. (Lacy's (French's) Acting Edition No. i9 60 ). London, I893

Roscoe, W.C. "Sir E.B. Lytton, Novelist, Philosopher and Poet", The National Review, April 1859, pp. Z75-3I3

Rowell, George The Victorian Theatre; A Survey. Oxford, 1956

" " (ed.) Nineteenth-Century Plays. London, 1955

" " (ed.) Victorian Dramatic Criticism. London, 1971

Sadleir, Michael Bulwer; A Panorama. I. Edward and Rosina, 1805-1855. London, 1931.

Savin, Maynard Thomas William Robertson: His Plays and Stagecraft, providence, Rhode Island, 1950

Scrimgeour, Gary J. "Nineteenth-Century Drama", Victorian Studies, 12, September, I9 6 8 , pp. 9 I-IOO

Sharp, R.F. (ed.) The Lady of Lyons and other plays of Lord Lytton. London, n.d.

Shattuck, Charles H. (ed.) Bulwer and Macready: A Chronicle of the Early Victorian Theatre. Urbana, 1958

"E.L. Bulwer and Victorian Censorship", Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXCIV, 1948, pp. 65-71

Shell, R.L. The Apostate. (Fifth Edition). London, I818

Sheppard, A.T. The Art and Practice of Historical Fiction. London, 1930

Simmons, J.C. "The Novelist as Historian: an Unexplored Tract of Victorian Historiography", Victorian Studies, March, 1971, pp. 293-305

Slater, Montagu (ed.) Maria Marten. London, 1946.

Stevenson, Lionel "Stepfathers of Victorianism", The Virginia Quarterly Review, VI, January-October, 1930, pp. 251-267

Talfourd, Sir T.N. The Dramatic Works. (Eleventh Edition) London, 1852

Taylor, J.R. The Rise and Fall of the Well-made Play. London, 1967 262

Thackeray, V/.M. The Yellowplush Papers, etc. (ed.) Walter Jerrold. London, 1903

Tobin, John The Honey Moon (Lacy’s Acting Edition No. 240). London ^ c. Id60_/

Walker, John The Factory Lad. London, I832

Watson, Ernest B. Sheridan to Robertson: A Study of the Nineteenth-Century London Stage. Harvard, 1926

Williams, Helen M. The History of Perourou; or, The Bellows Mender ^ or rather translated by her from the French_/ Dublin, 1801

Wordsworth, William Poetical Works, (ed.) E. de Selincourt, Vol. I. Oxford, 1940 .

Newspapers and periodicals with reviews of Bulwer*s plays Note: D - The Duchess de la Valliere; L - The Lady of Lyons; R - Richelieu; S - The Sea-Captain; M - Money; NSB - Not So Bad As We Seem

The Age D - January l837 L - February 1 8, 1838 R - March 10, 1839 S - November 3, l839 M - December I3 , l840

The Argus R - March 10, l839 S - November 5, 1839 M - December I3 , l840

The Athenaeum D - January 7, I837 L - March 17, I838 R - March I6 , 1839 S - November 2, l839 M - December 12, l840

The Atlas D - January 7, l837 L - February 2, I838 R - March 9, 1Ô39 M - December 12, l840

Bell’s New Weekly Messenger L - February 1 8, 1838 R - March 10, 1839 S - November 3, 1&39 M - December I3 , l84o 263

Bell's Weekly Messenger D - January 8, l837 L - February 18, 1838 R - March 9, 1839 S - November 2, l839 M - December 12, l840 NSB - May I7 , I85I

Britannia S - November 2, 1839 M - December 12, l840 NSB - February 26, I833

The Constitutionalist S - November 10, l839

The Courier L - February I6 , I838 R - March 8 , 1839 S - November 1, 1839 M - December 9, l84o

The Court Journal D - January 7, I837 L - February 17, I838 R - March 9, 1839 S - November 2, I839 M - December 12, l840 NSB - February I9 , 1833

The Daily Telegraph R - February 11, I9 IO

The Era R - March 10, I839 S - November 3, l839 M - December I3 , l840

The European S - November 2, l839

The Evening Chronicle D - January 6 , I837 L - February I6 , 1838 R - March 8 , l839 S - November 1, 1839 M - December 9, l840

The Examiner D - January 8 , 1837 L - February I8 , l838 R - March 10, I839 S - November 3, l839 M - December I3 , l840 NSB - May 24, I83I 264

The Globe D - January 3, l837 L - February 16, 1838 H - March 8, 1839 S - November 1, I839 M - December 9, l840 NSB - May 28, 183I

The Inventors' Advocate and patentees’ Recorder S - November 2, 1839

John Bull D - January 8, l837 L - February 19, I838 B - March 10, 1839 S - November 3, 1Ô39 M - December 12, l840 NSB - May 24, 183I

The Literary Gazette and Journal of the Belles Lettres D - January 7, 1^37 L - February 17, I838 R - Inarch 9, I839 S - November 2, l839*

The Monthly Review D - February, 1837

The Morning Advertiser D - January 3, l837 L - February 17, I838 R - March 8 , l839 S - November 4, 1839 M - December 9, l840

The Morning Chronicle D - January 4, l837 L - February I6 , 1838 M - December 9, l840 NSB - May 17, I83I NSB - February 24, I833

The Morning Herald D - January 3, l837 L - February I6 , 1838 8 - November 1, I839 M - December 9, l840

The Morning Post D - January 3, l837 L - February 16, I838 R - March 8 , 1039 S - November 1, I839 M - December 9, l840 NSB - May 17, I83I 263

The Observer D - January 8 , 1837 . L - February 1 8, 1838 R - March 10, I839 S - November 3, 1839 M - December I3 , l840 NSB - May 1 8, I83I

The Odd Fellow R - March 1 6, 1839 L - September 14, 1839 S - November 9, 1839 M - December 12, l840

The Spectator D - January 21, I837 L - February 17, I838 R - March 9, 1839 S - November 2, 1839 M - December 12, l840 NSB - May 17, l8)l

The Standard (Evening) L - February 22, 1838 S - November 1, 1839 M - December 9, l840 NSB - May 17, 183I

The Statesman M - December 13, l840

The Sun D - January 3, l837 L - February 17, I838 R - March 8 , 1839 S - November 1, I839 M - December 9, l840

The Times D - January 3, I837 L - February 1 6, 1838; Aug. 4, 1919 R - March 8, I839 S - November 1, 1839 M - December 9, l840; May 13, 1911 NSB - May 17, I83I

The Weekly Despatch L - February I8 , I838 R - March 10, l839 S - November 3, 1839 M - December 13, l840