THE YANKEE FIGURE IN EARLY AMERICAN.
THEATRE PRIOR TO 1820
Charles â\ Schultzs
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate School of Bowling Green State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
August, 1970
BOWMGGREENSTAft I
© 1971
CHARLES ALBERT SCHULTZ
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to trace the development of the Yankee figure In American drama prior to 1820 to determine if his character served as a prototype for the pop ular stage Yankee specialists of the l820’s-40's. Six early American plays, the only one's extant, containing the Yankee figure were analyzed: The Contrast. The Politician Out-Wltted. Tears and Smiles. Fashionable Follies. Love and Friendship, and The Yankey in England. Early non-dramatic forms, both European and American were examined, as well as the acting of the Yankee character before 1820.
The Yankees in the six early scripts demonstrated general characteristics which were definitely similar to those developed by the later Yankee specialists. Apparently, the early stage Yankee figure was influenced in its develop ment by similar comic types created by American as well as European authors.
Although the early Yankee actors followed to a degree the elevated acting style of foreign predecessors, they employed a somewhat more natural acting style. Without doubt, the early Yankee actors were inspirational instigators of a development in American comedy identified with a strong native realistic style, and they provided a variety of models on which the Yankee specialists of the l820's-40's could draw. TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...... 1
The problem...... 3
Method of treatment...... 13
STAGE YANKEE IN AMERICAN DRAMAB EFORE 1820 ...... 16
The Contrast (1797) by Royall Tyler...... 17
The Politician Out-Witted (1788) by Samuel Low . ... 34
Fashionable Follies (1809) by Joseph Hutton...... 51
Tears and Smiles (1807) by James N. Barker...... 66
Love and Friendship (1809) by A. B. Llndsley...... 76
The Yankey In England (1815) by Col. David Humphreys . 89
Summary...... 102
EMERGENCE OF THE YANKEE CHARACTER OUTSIDE THE THEATRE. . .106
European influences...... 108
British travelers’ accounts...... 108
British drama and theatre...... 111
German-Prussian Influence; Baron Munchausen. . • .116
American influences...... 119
Indian folklore...... 119
Literary humor of the times...... 123
Influential type characters...... 134
Economics and polities...... 138
True Yankee symbol: Samuel Sewell...... 153 vZ
ACTING THE YANKEE CHARACTER BEFORE 1820...... 156
British performer: Charles Mathews ...... 160
American styles of acting...... 170
Costume and make-up...... 174
Dialeetal concepts...... 177
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...... 185
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 193
APPENDIX...... 198 I
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Ye fair, who seek a splendid lot Behold content, a richer prize Within the humblest ploughman’s cot, That rank and pride despise. - The palace or cot, whatever your lot, The farmer your table supplies, my dear, The farmer your table supplies.
CHORUS:
For Lords of the soil, and fed by our toil American farmers are blest, my boys American farmers are blest.
This pastoral song, from Woodworth’s The Forest
Rose, attempts to exalt country over city life and to suggest the superiority of the American Yankee over the Englishman.
The Yankee’s identity, however, began developing long before
Woodworth’s repudiation of city and English-bred customs.
During the American Revolution, the Yankee character emerged as a symbol of the predominant economic, political, and social views in the United States. The development of the
Yankee character as a political and social critic reflected the growing spirit of early America; thus, the Yankee re ceived the attention of the press and the arts. Before the
1820's, the Yankee character appeared in numerous essays,
Samuel Woodworth, The Forest Rose. Dramas from the American Theatre 1762-1909. ed. Richard Moody (Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1966), p. 173. 2
poems, satires, and folk tales, but in only a few pieces of
dramatic literature. By 1835, however, his theatrical ap
pearance as a specialty act signified him as a fascinating
development in early American theatre.
By mid-nineteenth century, the Yankee character
reached literary prominence in the serious novels of Mel
ville, Hawthorne, and Cooper, and eventually the Yankee
actors revealed a new realistic image on stage which remained
until the 1900’s. The widespread popularity of the Yankee
character reflected the desire of many Americans to see what
they had become or could be. There appeared a need to for
mulate laws, doctrines, and customs independent of the mother
country; the Yankee figure functioned as an embodiment of
this independent attitude.
Following the Revolution, America expressed these
independent attitudes through the press, non-dramatlc liter
ature, oral humor, and the theatre. The Yankee figure
emerged as a symbol reflecting an important part of the
American culture. His crude witticisms, virile individual
ism, and humorous tricks were novel, but unpolished prior
to 1820. However, with the help of skillful actors, James
H. Hackett, George Hill, Dan Marble, and Joshua Silsbee,
the Yankee character developed into a theatrically polished
specialty act during the l82O*s-3O's. Yet, these stage
Yankee specialists probably depended upon material provided 3 before 1820 for a prototype.
THE PROBLEM
Statement of the problem. This study will trace the historical development of the Yankee character in American drama prior to 1820. In the early nineteenth century, the
Yankee was a small character in several American dramas.
There are eleven accountable titles for Yankee scripts before 1820, six of which are discussed in detail in this work. The other five have unfortunately been either lost, hidden, destroyed, or perhaps secretly guarded in a private collection. Thus, all that remains are the five titles, with possible dates and authors: Jonathan Postree (1807) by
L. Beach, The Reign of Reform or Yankee Doodle Court (1815) by Mrs. Margaret Botsford, Yankee Chronology (1812) by Wil liam Dunlap, The Travellers Returned (1796) by John'Minshull, and The Yorker* s Strategem or Banana* s Wedding (1792) by
J. Robinson. However, the Yankee characters in the six available scripts seem to reflect America’s rusticity and crudity in cultural endeavors, and appear to be representa tive of a special American low comedy type prior to 1820.
In essence, these early Yankee scripts help exemplify why the theatre became the most influential and consecutive forum for establishing the Yankee character. Eventually, with Samuel Woodworth’s 1825 play, The Forest Rose, and with 4
the Yankee monologues of James H. Hackett, G. H. Hill, and
scores of early Yankee stage specialists during the 1820’s
and 30*s, the stage Yankee character’s popularity was such
that he became a star figure and remained, for some time as
the leading comic figure of American drama.
The development of the Yankee character in oral humor
and in the American and European non-dramatic literature
prior to 1820 provides an additional influence. Since the
American stage Yankee was not fully developed until 1825,
research of other forms of Yankee material providing reasons
for the rapid spread of the comic figure is necessary. Thus,
the need for discussing the Yankee’s emergence in the culture
outside the American theatre prior to the specialty period
is obvious. The stage appearance of the Yankee character
prior to 1820 was fragmentary rather than conspicuous, and
although the early American theatre presented a low, comic,
Yankee type, the non-dramatic literature of both Americas and Europe provided a wealth of material for establishing
Yankee characteristics. The Yankee monologues of the 1820‘s and 30’s appear to have drawn heavily on the folk material presented in dialect poems published in the newspapers in the early nineteenth century, on the short Yankee biographi
cal sketches in the Almanacs, and on the humor of the Yankee tricks and stories circulated by word of mouth during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. 5
The problem also concerns the probable acting style of the stage Yankee. Since several historians of acting conclude that the stage Yankee roles from the 1820’s to the i860* s received much of their originality and attractiveness in the playing, rather than in the writing, the implication is conceivably valid that the actors who played the early
Yankee roles prior to 1820 were influential in molding this comic type’s character. Thus, a description of the acting of the Yankee character before 1820 is included for the pur pose of discovering how the acting style of the early Yankee actors could have contributed to the humor and character development of the nineteenth-century American Yankee theatre. Obviously, the source material on the ephemeral art of acting is incomplete, causing the conclusions to be partially conjectural.
In essence then, this study will trace the historical development of the Yankee character prior to 1820 in the
American dramatic and non-dramatic literature, in oral humor, and in early European dramatic and non-dramatic liter ature; it will identify as nearly as possible the acting style of the early stage Yankees and the Yankee character’s contributions to the American theatre prior to 1820.
Importance of the study. The strength and power of any nation is directly dependent upon its inhabitants. An 6 historical study of any country and its culture results in a consideration of the character of its people. Often, such an analysis reveals a unique stereotype who becomes the embodiment of a national attitude; in America, the Yankee character developed into just such a stereotype during the
1820’s and 1850’s. As previously mentioned, the most signi ficant forum for the Yankee during this period was the theatre; much of the nation’s spirit and attitudes was reflected through the low, comic, humor of the stage Yankee.
This study, however, is concerned with tracing the pre-1820 Yankee character’s emergence in order to discover whether or not he served as a prototype for the major Amer ican stage comic of the mid-nineteenth century. By the time the Yankee character reached the maturity of the I83O spe cialists, he most certainly underwent structural changes; therefore, another reason for this study’s examination of the earliest stages of the Yankee character’s development is to determine what kind of changes occurred as the concepts of the character matured.
A significant portion of this work concerns the early
Yankee actors and their style. In attempting to discover if the early stage Yankees provided a prototype for the more polished Yankee specialists of the 1820’s, a discussion of the acting styles of the individuals portraying the raw
Yankee characters prior to 1820 may designate a possible 7 stereotyped molding of character.
This study also may aid in establishing if the early
Yankee character could be designated as a possible American
folk figure, a stimulus to political, economic, and social
behavior, and as a mythological symbol reflecting the culture
of early America.
Finally, in connection with the importance of this
study is the time period covered. Most of the material
already written about the American stage Yankee concerns the
character’s development after 1820. Although the Yankee
character’s impact on American theatre and culture was not
complete until he was manipulated by the Yankee specialists
from 1820 to 1860, the need to discover whether or not the
early form of his character contributed to his advancement
as the popular stage comic of the nineteenth century is
vital.
Definition of the topic and limitations of the pro
blem. Since the problem rests with tracing the development
of the less refined Yankee character both in and out of the
American drama prior to 1820, a brief description of the
fully developed Yankee characteristics is necessary. The
following is a list of the elements which the Yankee charac
ters of the 1820’s, 30’s, and 4©'s had in common: all were
country bumpkins living in a state of perpetual astonishment 8 and confusion at the ways of city life; their manner of
speaking was dialectally patterned after the "down east" speech of New England; they revealed a provincial conserva tism in their attitudes toward manners and politics; most possessed an underlying shrewdness beneath a cupidity that made them the butt of a good deal of fun; all demonstrated an unflagging self-respect and Individuality in regard to country, home, and personal philosophies; they were gener ally uncouth, unlettered, displaying an exuberant ignorance in social and mundane affairs; most attempted to satirize or repudiate the English-bred manners and customs that were practiced by many Americans of the period; all appeared as rustic, independent, native-born sons of American soil; and all emerged in sharp contrast to a more cultivated and pol ished society. All these traits appeared in the fully developed stage Yankee characters such as Hiram Dodge in
The Yankee Pedlar. Solon Shingle in The People's Lawyer, and Jonathan in Jonathan in England after the 1820’s.
The Yankee characters prior to 1820 were possible prototypes for the later Yankee stage specialists; this should be evident in the plays of that earlier period.
Therefore, the analysis of the six plays in this study will be related to the Yankee characteristics mentioned above. Although the early Yankee plays were researched for this study before examining later Yankee scripts, a 9
brief review of the latter revealed that those characteris
tics which the early Yankee characters had in common were
also common among the more mature Yankee figures: rank and
position, attitudes, political spirit and preferences,
schooling, and manner of speaking.
The list of scripts which have been examined is repre
sentative of the first important plays containing character
istic elements of the stage Yankee:
Royall Tyler’s The Contrast. 1787 Samuel Low's.The Politician Out-Wltted. 1788 James N. Barker* s Tears and Smiles. l807 Joseph Hutton* s-Fashionable Follies. 1809 A. B. Llndsley1s Love and Friendship. 1809 Col. David Humphreys’ The Yankey in England. 1815
These plays were selected for four reasons. First,
they represent the types of scripts that early American
playwrights were producing. They are plays concerned with
American subjects, written by Americans, and containing the usual repudiation of English-bred manners and customs. They
exhibit the crude but vigorous and youthful attempts of
early American authors to parallel and, at times, to satir ize their more polished British counterparts.
Secondly, these early comedies feature the Yankee character and attempt to present him as a “rustic, independ ent, native-born son of American soils" These plays may have played a significant role in revealing the early Yankee image to other Americans, even though they were primitive 10
developments of this stage type.
The third reason for the use of these scripts results
from a suggestion by Francis Hodge in his important book,
Yankee Theatre, which concerns itself primarily with the
Yankee specialty acts between 1825 and 1835; Hodge states
that he does not give full treatment to the early literature with Yankee characters, a major study in itself, he contends.
The fourth and final reason is a practical one; manu
scripts and original prompt scripts of such early plays are difficult to find. However, either through incredible fore
sight or blind ignorance on the part of some devoted collec tors of theatrical materials, these six plays have survived and remain as examples of early attempts to establish this character as a symbol of American life. It is unfortunate that at least five other scripts of this type, perhaps more revealing and more significant in their development of the
Yankee figure, have been either lost, hidden, or destroyed.
This study confines itself to the period prior to
1820 because there already have been significant works dis cussing and contributing to the Yankee figure's emergence during and after the 1820’s. The Yankee specialty acts of James Hackett, G. H. Hill, Dan Marble, and Joshua Sils bee from 1825 to 1840 and the Yankee figure’s promotion as a theatrical commercial enterprise during the 1830’s are expertly presented in Francis Hodge’s book, Yankee Theatre. 11
According to Hodge, the mannerisms of this American comic
type were fully developed by the acting efforts of these
Yankee specialists. Other American theatre historians such
as Arthur Quinn, Walter Blair, and Jennette Tandy have con
centrated on the Yankee characters appearing from 1826 to
i860, with special attention to the humor of this comic
figure which was flourishing both in and out of the theatre
during that period. Consequently, a wealth of material
depicting the Yankee humorist has been interpreted by skill
ful playwrights, satirists, essayists, and poets.
With the advancement of Jacksonian democracy in the
late 1820’s, the Yankee type mushroomed into prominence as
a political figure. A significant contribution to the poli
tical Yankee character during the 1830’s was the satire of
Seba Smith. Smith’s Yankee character, Major Jack Downing,
as presented in The Life and Writings of Major Jack Downing, was not reduced to quaintness or burlesque, but attained
the tangy flavor of an original Maine countryman. The use
of Jack Downing as the confidential advisor to President
Jackson displayed a capability to invoke laughter and
thought. Smith became an effective political interpreter,
and the Yankee mannerisms of Major Jack Downing became vital
in the construction of this nation’s spirit. Smith’s satires
also influenced later Yankee humorists such as Thomas Hall- burton and James Russell Lowell; and by the 1850’s, the 12 Yankee's shrewd, sly, and cunning wit was "coining on full
chisel." In 1846, James R. Lowell’s Yankee character,
Hosea Biglow, first appeared in the Boston Courier in sev eral satirical letters entitled "The Biglow Papers." These letters revealed strong political sentiments regarding ele ments of patriotism and slavery. The ideals expressed may have been Lowell's, but the manner of presentation was a derivative of the Yankee characteristics appearing prior to The Biglow Papers’ first printing.
Sources of information. In addition to the six scripts and the writings mentioned above, there are other significant American works concerned with the development of the Yankee character. Of major interest are John Ber nard's Retrospections of America. 1797-1811. Thomas C. Hali- burton's Traits of American Humor. Washington Irving’s The
Spectator Papers. and Hugh Henry Brackenridge's Modern
Chivalry.
Secondary sources of data are Walter Blair's Native
American Humor. Richard Dorsen's American Folklore. V. L.
Parrington's The Colonial Mind. Jennette Tandy's Crackerbox
Philosophies in American Humor and Satire. Arthur Quinn's
A History of American Drama. R. E. Raspe’s Baron Munchausen, and Francis Hodge’s Yankee Theatre. Anthologies which proved extremely helpful were The Comic Tradition in America. 13 edited by Kenneth S. Lynn, American Satire in Prose and Verse.
Henry C. Carlisle, Jr., editor, and Three Centuries of Ameri can Poetry and Prose selected and edited by Newcomer,
Andrews, and Hall.
METHOD OF TREATMENT
Organization of study. The study is organized into five chapters. The first chapter states the problem, goals and research procedures of the dissertation. Included is a brief list of important works related to the emergence of the Yankee character as a comic type.
The next chapter is entitled ”The Stage Yankee in
American Drama before 1820.” This section analyzes the aforementioned plays and is concerned with character traits of the Yankee type; thus it establishes early Yankee charac teristics through internal evidence. The characteristics discussed are in accordance with the fully developed traits of the later Yankee specialists. Each play Is considered separately.
The third chapter considers the development of the
Yankee figure in early American and European literature and concerns the Yankee character’s emergence outside the Amer ican theatre. This section also identifies possible Euro pean influences on the early Yankee character as expressed through British travelers’ accounts, the influence of the 14
British drama on the American theatre, and the contribution
of German-Prussian literature such as the Tales of Baron
Munchausen. In addition, this chapter studies the emergence
of the American Yankee in all forms of American non-dramatic literature as well as influential Indian folklore, influen
tial Puritan philosophies, early American economic and poli
tical attitudes, and typical Yankee symbols outside of liter ature. The research also suggests that a score of "Yankee” tricks, puns, tall tales, and anecdotes were circulated by word of mouth as well as being more permanently preserved
through short satirical essays in newspapers, magazine week lies, and other periodicals of the time. The importance of this section rests with the possibility of establishing that the early stage Yankees appearing in the six analyzed scripts were connected and coincided with the Yankee characteristics being expressed in all other literary genres of the period, thus solidifying the Yankee’s role as reflecting a part of early American culture.
The fourth chapter, "Acting the Yankee Character
Before 1820,” describes the basic acting styles of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and indicates the characteristics of the Yankee-type. Included is a brief history of the early predecessor to the Yankee specialty acts, Charles Mathews, and an analysis of the dialectal con cepts of the stage Yankee, combined with a reprinting of 15 Col. David Humphreys’ Yankee dictionary. The dialect of
the ’’Jonathans” presented problems for the actor but made
a definite contribution toward character. This chapter also
contains a brief analysis of the costumes and make-up re quired by early Yankee performers. Conceivably, the acting style of the individuals portraying the Yankee character prior to 1820 helped in molding the fully developed charac teristics of the later Yankee specialists. However, as material for this section is fragmentary, definite conclu sions are difficult to ascertain; yet an examination of the early acting style may shed some light on the possibility that the early Yankee characters served as prototypes for the stage Yankees in the American theatre from 1820 to i860.
The final chapter draws conclusions from those preced ing and supports the theory that the pre-1820 Yankee served as an early prototype and is Important as a mythological symbol which reflected the culture of the times. ¡L
CHAPTER II
THE STAGE YANKEE IN AMERICAN
DRAMA BEFORE 1820
The Yankee specialty acts of 1825-35 established the
Yankee as a major theatrical figure. By 1840, his ’’carica ture" was more polished. His crude mannerisms, localized dialect, mundane ignorance, bold assertions, and native patriotism were subjected to the individualistic portrayals of numerous stage Yankee actors. However, the polished
Yankee’s dramatic prototype may have appeared some thirty years before the 1820 specialty acts. This chapter concerns an analysis of these early Yankee characters as they«appeared in American plays prior to 1820 in an effort to determine whether or not the early Yankee figure provided significant characteristics toward developing the Yankee figure appear ing from 1820-1840. The plays considered are not exhaustive of the early Yankee repertoire for reasons previously stated; rather, they are representative of early works dealing with the Yankee’s character.1 Each play will be considered sep arately, analyzing the Yankee’s character with regard to his rank and position, attitudes, political spirit and prefer ences, schooling, and other significant characteristics.
1See Chapter I, p. 3» 17 The analysis is confined to the elements listed above for
several reasons. First, they are similar to the fully
developed traits of the 1820-40 Yankee specialists as des
cribed in Chapter I, page eight of this work and are charac
teristics that most of the Yankee characters in these early
Yankee plays had in common. Secondly, all of the elements
represent characteristics which the early actors could have
employed in overtly establishing a native brand of humor.
Finally, several of the elements appear to reflect the basic
social, political, and economic attitudes that were being
expressed in early America.
A short critical analysis of each play is also in
cluded for purpose of familiarity and to weigh some judg
ment as to the play’s importance, stageworthlness, and
literary quality.
THE CONTRAST (1787), BY ROYALL TYLER
Critical analysis of the play. When Royall Tyler wrote The Contrast in 1787, Richard B. Sheridan’s A School
for Scandal was very popular in America. Tyler had oppor
tunity to witness this English comedy as evidenced in both his script and in historian Montrose J. Moses' comment:
In 1787, Shay’s Rebellion brought Tyler once more under the command of Major General Benjamin Lincoln ... As an aide, he [Tyler3 was required to go. into the State of New York, and arrange for the pursuit and capture of Shay. It was, as I have said, while on this mission 18
in New York City that he went to the theatre for the first time. He witnessed Sheridan’s "The School for Scandal," . . .2 -
The similarity between The School for Scandal and The Con trast is evident; the subject of the latter appears to be suggested by Sheridan’s treatment of dandyism. The philo sophies spoken by Maria in The School for Scandal are similar to Charlotte’s lines regarding scandal in Tyler’s offering:
Scandal, you know, is but amusing ourselves with the faults, foibles, follies and reputations of our friends; —indeed, I don’t know why we should have friends, if we are not at liberty to make use of them. But no person is so ignorant of the world as to suppose, because I amuse myself with a lady's faults, that I am obliged to quarrel with her person, every time we meet; believe me, my dear, we should have very few acquaintances at that rate.3
As evidence that the content of Charlotte’s remarks compare with Sherlcan’s sentiments, the latter's character of Maria is quoted: Oh, he had done nothing (j5ir Benjamin Backbite] —but 'tis for what he has said; his conversation is a per petual libel on all his acquaintance. . . . For my part, I own, madam, wit loses its respect with me, when I see it in company with malice. . . . Well, I'll not debate how far scandal may be allowable; but in a man, I am sure, it is always contemptible. We have pride,
^Representative Plays by American Dramatists 1765- 1819. ed. Montrose J. Moses (New York: E.„P. Dutton and Company, 1918), I, 435...... -
^Royall Tyler. The Contrast (Philadelphia: Prichard and Hall Press,.1790),.reprinted in,Representative American Plays, ed. Arthur Hobson Quinn (New York: Century Co., 19177, P. 56. 19
envy, rivalship, and a thousand motives to depreciate each other . . .4
Further evidence of Tyler’s indebtedness to Sheridan is
Jonathan’s account of his shocking visit to the theatre:
. . . There was one youngster, they called him Mr. Joseph fSurface^; he talked as sober and as pious as a minister; but like some ministers that I know, he was a fly tike in his heart for all that.. He was going to ask a young woman to spark it with him, and—the Lord have mercy on my soul!—she was another man’s wife. . . . When I came away, I sent to the man for my-money again ... I paid my money to see sights, and the dogs a bit of a sight have I seen, unless you call listening to people’s private business a sight. Why, says he, it is the-School for Scandallzatlon.—The School for Scandalizatlonl—Oh, hoi no wonder you,New York folks are so cute at.it, when.you go to school to learn it; and so I jogged off.5
The plot of the play, which contrasts the standard of the fashionable world with the simple ideals of the straightforward American, is relatively simple. Consequently, theatre critics regard deficiency in plot as the play’s chief weakness: "The piece was almost without plot and entirely lacking in incident.”6 Montrose J. Moses, in cri tiquing the play, finds the script lacking in action as well as situation:
The play in reading is scarcely exciting. It Is
^Richard B. Sheridan, The School for Scandal, in Louis Kronenberger, Cavalcade.of Comedy (New York: Simon and Shuster, Inc., 1953), p. 287.
^Tyler, in Quinn, p. 65.
^George 0. Scilhamer, History of the American Theatre (Philadelphia: Globe Printing House, 1^88 ), P« 225. 20
surprisingly devoid of situation. Its chief charac teristic is “talk," but that talk, reflective in its spirit of "The School for Scandal," is interesting to the social student.7
Other criticisms denote the play’s lack of action and stilted
characterization. However, the role of Jonathan emulates
the Yankee character which was slowly emerging in the non- dramatic forms of literature.6 In effect, Jonathan has
been labeled as the first Americanized effort of dramatizing
the Yankee character, since Tyler’s script is recorded as
being the first play containing this comic type to be per
formed by a professional troupe.
Rank and position. Tyler’s concept of the Yankee
is influenced by the chief New England trades, farming and
shipping; and Jonathan is defined as a New England rustic:
"Jessamy: I thought, Mr. Jonathan, you Massachusetts men
always argued with a gun in your»hand."9 There is ample
evidence relating Jonathan with the farming trade:
... my father has as good a farm as the colonel, (page 60) ... If this is the way with your city ladies, give me the twenty acres of rock, the bible, the cow, and Tabitha, and a little peaceable bundling, (page 67)
VMoses, pp. 436-437.
®For a detailed discussion of the non-dramatic forms revealing the Yankee character, see Chapter III of this work. ^Tyler, in Quinn, p. 60. Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent references are to this source. 21
Jonathan’s attitude toward his social status is
revealed in his initial confrontation with Jessamy, Dimple’s
servant. The Yankee refuses to he called a common servant;
yet, he quickly adds that social distinctions should seldom
be made. Thus, the Yankee’s concept of social status is
related with man’s conduct rather than with rank, profession,
or wealth:
Jessamy: I understand that Colonel Manly, the Yankee officer, has the honour of your services.
Jonathan: Sir!—
Jessamy: I say, Sir, I understand that Colonel Manly has the honour of having you for a servant.
Jonathan: Servant! Sir, do you take me for a neger, —I am Colonel Manly’s waiter.
Jessamy: A true Yankee distinction, egad, without a difference. Why, Sir, do you not perform all the offices of a servant? Do you not ever blacken his boots?
Jonathan: Yes; I do grease them a bit sometimes; but I am a true blue son of liberty, for all that. Father said I should come as Colonel Manly's waiter to see the world, and all that; but no man-shall master me: my father has as good a farm as the colonel. . . . Why, I swear we don’t make any great distinction in our state, between quality and other folks, (page 60)
Although Jonathan has a low social rank and lacks
the wealth of a high position, he manages to upgrade his
status with a crude dignity. He proudly boasts of his
“flghtin” prowess and his being ”a true blue son of liberty.’’
His high opinion of himself in virile matters is profusely 22
acclaimed:
Well, if it is not the young woman’s bashfulness, I vow I can’t conceive why she shouldn’t like me. . . . At last I.spied a young gentlewoman standing by one of the seats, which they have here at the doors—I took her to be the deacon’s daughter, and she looked so kind, and so obliging, that I thought I would go and ask her the way to lecture, and would.you think it—she called me dear, and sweeting, and honey, just as if we were married; by the living jingo, I had a month's mind to buss her. (pages 60-61, 73)
Jonathan’s place in society is hardly one of eminence, for he is a naive country bumpkin confused at the ways of city life. His being Colonel Manly's "waiter" implies a low ranking position, and his miserly pride of "twenty acres of rocky land, a bible, and a cow," indicates his monetary status.
Attitudes. Jonathan, as well as Colonel Manly, serves as a foil for the niceties of social behavior. How ever, where Colonel Manly does aecept elements of proper etiquette, Jonathan disregards it altogether:
At last the people that sat near me set up such a hissing—hiss—like so many mad cats; and then they went thump, thump, thump, just like our Peleg thresh ing wheat, and stampt away . . . Gor, I—I liked the fun, and so I thumpt away, and hiss’d as lustily as the best of ’em. One sailor-looking man that sat by me, seeing me stamp, and knowing I was a cute fellow, because I could make a roaring noise, clapt me on the shoulder and said, you are a d__ d hearty cock, smite my timbers1 I told him so I was but I thought he need not swear so, and make use of such.naughty words, (pages 64-65)
Jonathan's raucous behavior at social gatherings is coupled with his ignorance in accepted vocabulary and in 23 the art of wooing. After falling to win the kitchen maid’s
affection, the Yankee is confronted critically by the "dandy"
Jessamy:
Jessamy: No, no, Mr. Jonathan; there must be some other cause: I never yet knew a lady angry at being kissed.
Jonathan: Well, if it is not the young woman’s bash fulness, X vow I can’t conceive why she shouldn’t like me. .
Jessamy: May be it is because you have not the Graces, Mr. Jonathan.
Jonathan: GraceI Why, does the young woman expect I must be converted before I court her?
Jessamy: I mean graces of person; for instance, my lord tells us that we must cut off our nails even at top, in small segments of circles;—though you won’t understand that—In the next place, you must regulate your laugh.
Jonathan: Maple log seize it! don't I laugh natural? (page 73)
Jessamy eventually Instructs Jonathan on the proper way to
laugh and court.
The Yankee’s Ineptness in love-making is explicitly revealed in his farcical romp with Jenny. His rustic and
coarse nature makes him an easy mark for Jessamy’s raillery.
Also, Jonathan’s Yankee style of pleasurable swearing en hances his crude mannerisms:
Jonathan: I vow, my own town song has put me into such topping spirits, that I believe i’ll begin to do a little, as Jessamy says we must'when we go a courting—(Runs and kisses her.) Burning rivers I Cooling flames! red hot roses! pig-nuts! hasty- puddlng and ambrosia! 24
Jenny: What means this freedomI You insulting wretch, (strikes him)
Jonathan: Are you affronted?
Jenny: Affronted! with what looks shall I express my anger? . . ..Have you no feeling for.the delicacy of my sex?
Jonathan: Feeling! Gor, I—I feel the delicacy of your sex pretty smartly (rubbing his cheek), though, I vow, I thought when you city ladies.courted and married, and all that, you put feeling out of the question, (page 66)
Jonathan’s social habits are indeed limited and un
cultured. The Yankee’s naivete upon meeting a woman of the
streets and his faithfulness to "Tabitha at home" make him a perfect contrast to the pseudo-sophisticated whims of
Jessamy and Dimple. His gullible reactions to Jessamy’s
courting lesson exemplify his social unawareness:
Jonathan: Well, but what must I say to her?
Jessamy: Say to her! Why, my dear friend, though I admire your profound knowledge on every other sub ject, yet, you will pardon my saying, that your want of opportunity has made the female heart escape the poignancy of your penetration. Say to her!—Why, when a man goes a courting, and hopes for success, he must begin with doing, and not saying.
Jonathan: Well, what must I do?
Jessamy: Why, when you are introduced you must make five or six elegant bows.
Jonathan: Six elegant bows! I understand that; six you say? Well—
Jessamy: Then you must press and kiss her hand; then press and kiss, and so on to her lips and cheeks; then talk as much as you can about hearts, darts, 25
flames, nectar, and ambrosia—the more incoherent the better. . . . (alone) Now will this blunder ing dog sicken Jenny with his nauseous pawings, until she flies,ln my arms for very ease. How sweet will the contrast be, between the blundering Jonathan, and the courtly and accomplished Jessamyl (pages 61-62)
In a conversation with Dimple, Jessamy states his disapproval of Jonathan* s crude social mannerisms and
"indelicate diction." Jonathan’s social behavior is a mix ture of naivete, crudity, and cultural deprivation. Many of his views and opinions of social customs and accepted behavior stem from a Puritanical philosophy. The Puritans encompassed strange and unexplainable occurrences into a sturdy superstition.1® A discussion appearing later in this work reveals that many events were reasoned to be either
"an act of Providence" or "the work of the devil." The early settlers’ sober views toward reality and their rigid, moral istic ideas against acts of pleasure influenced their cul tural activities. Their frugality shunned acts of gaming with cards and dice; and their naivete depicted the playhouse as a den of sensual pleasure. The Puritans’ gullible super stitions resulted in ultra-conservative attitudes toward pleasure. The liberty gained through the revolution, how ever, tempered this conservatism, and resulted in a bolder and more favorable reaction toward cultural activities.
10See Chapter III, p. 118. 26
However, Puritanical conservatism did not fade rapidly, and ?' superstitious beliefs were preserved by many liberated
Americans. Jonathan’s conversation with Jenny about a theatrical event contains both conservative and superstitious beliefs:
Jenny: So, Mr. Jonathan,,I hear you were at the play last night..
Jonathan: At the play! Why, did you think I went to the devil’s drawing room!
Jenny: The devil’s drawing roomF
Jonathan: Yes; why an’t cards and dice the devil’s device; and the playhouse the shop where the.devil hangs out the vanities of the world, upon the tenderhooks of temptation. I believe you have not heard how they were acting the old boy one night, and the wicked one came among them sure enough; and went right off in a storm, and carried one quarter of the playhouse with him. Oh! no, no, no! You won’t catch me at a playhouse, I warrant you. (page 64)
Jonathan’s classic description of the playhouse establishes his naivete, as he entered and left it without ever realizing this was the place he wanted to avoid:
So I went right in, and they shewed me away clean up to the garret, Just like a meeting-house gallery. And so I saw a power of topping folks, all sitting round in little cabblns, ’’just like father's corn-cribs;" —and then there was such a squeaking with the fiddles, and sueh a tarnal blaze with the lights, my head was near turned. . . . they lifted up a great green cloth, and let us look right into the next neighbour’s house. Have you a good many houses in New York made so in that ‘ere way? (pages 64-65)
Jonathan’s social milieu is a composite of Puritani cal conservatism and new world liberalism. The latter 2? appears in Jonathan’s willingness to try new techniques for
socially acceptable laughter:
Jonathan: Gor! I—what does one go to see fun for if they can’t laugh?
Jessamy: You may laugh;—but you must laugh by rule.
Jonathan: Swamp it—laugh by rule! Well, I should like that tarnally. (page 73)
Crude, clumsy, and awkward though Jonathan appears to Jes samy or Dimple’s society, his simple philosophies and habits carry him through most ordeals.
Political spirit and preferences. Jonathan’s ignor ant and naive attitudes toward manners is transferred to his political views. Although Tyler gives his character little discourse in political matters, Jonathan’s hearty attitude toward the new governmental freedom is unending:
Now I’m a true born Yankee American son of liberty, and I never was afraid of a gun yet in all my life. . . . but I am a true blue son of liberty, for all that. ... no man shall master me. (pages 65,60)
However, Jonathan sketchily reveals his ideas and concepts of the government when he infers that Jessamy’s dandy gar ments ’’look so topping, I took you for one of the agents to Congress.’’ Also, his hesitant, yet sympathetic endorse ment of the insurgents connected with Shay’s Rebellion adds insight into his political philosophy:
Jessamy: ... I hope, Mr. Jonathan, you have not taken part with the Insurgents. 28
Jonathan: Why, since General Shays has sneaked off, and given us the bag to hold, I don’t care to give my opinion; but you'll promise.not to tell —put your ear this way—you won’t tell?—X vow I did think the sturgeons were right, (page 60)
However, Jonathan’s slightly rebellious opinions are tem pered by a sound love for his country and by his refusal to oppose State’s authority:
Jessamy: Why didn’t you join them [the insurgent! debtors??
Jonathan: . . . Colonel {(Manly! said that it was a burning shame for the true blue Bunker-hill sons of liberty, who had fought Governor Hutchinson, Lord North, and the Devil, to have any hand in kicking up a cursed dust against a government, which we had everv mother’s son of us a hand in making, (page 60)
Thus, Jonathan's ignorance in politics is modified by a shrewd conception of moral and legal rights and a guiding conscience.
Schooling. References to Jonathan's ignorance appear often in the script, ranging from social unawareness to misuse of words. Although Jonathan is tricked several times by Jessamy, the Yankee reveals a presence of mind that frustrates and confuses his satirical English cousin. The
Yankee's unsophisticated mind matches the sharp wit of Jes samy and conveys a simple shrewdness:
Jessamy: I told you, you must kiss her.
Jonathan: Well, but must I buss her?
Jessamy: Why, kiss and buss, and buss and kiss, is 29
all one.
Jonathan: Oh! my dear friend, though you have a pro found knowledge, a pugnancy of tribulation, you don’t know everything, (page 62)
The above passage illustrates Jonathan’s malapropisms with ’’pugnancy of tribulation. ” Jonathan also misconstrues
Jessamy’s reference to a ’’blooming cherub of a consequence”
£an illegitimate babyj, for the Yankee wishes to have a
"little cherubim consequence" with Jenny. Further evidence of Jonathan’s lack of education is his referral to sturgeons rather than insurgents for Shay’s rebellious debtors. In effect, Jonathan’s misuse of words enables him to become the butt of Jessamy’s jokes.
Jonathan’s mentality is also depicted through other characters’ lines:
Jenny: Why, Jonathan, the New England colonel’s ser vant. Do you know he was at the play last night, and the.stupid creature don't know where he has been. He would not go to a-play for the world; he thinks It was a show, as he calls it.
Jessamy: As ignorant and unpolished as he is, do you know, Miss Jenny, that I propose to introduce him to the honour of your acquaintance, (page 64)
That Jessamy considers Jonathan as a country simple ton is obviously stated in his lines:
Jessamy: (alone) . . . Now will this blundering dog Jonathan sicken Jenny with his nauseous pawings, until she flies into my arms for very ease. How sweet will the contrast be, between the blundering Jonathan, and the courtly and accomplished Jessamy! (page 62) 30
Jessamy also discusses his opinion of Jonathan with other
individuals:
Dimple: Jessamy, who are these strange lodgers that came .to the house last night?
Jessamy: Why, the master is a Yankee colonel; I have not seen much of him; but the man is the most unpolished animal your honour ever disgraced your eyes by looking upon. I have had one of the most outre conversations with him!'—He really has a prodigious effect upon my risibility, (page 63)
Several incidents explicitly reveal Jonathan’s lack
of learning. Tyler includes passages that depict Jonathan’s
confusion in his attempt to reason mathematically, for the
Yankee is unable to count:
Jonathan: . . . Now the colonel told father and brother, —you must know there are, let me see—there is Elnathan, Silas, and Barnabas, Tabitha—no, no, she’s a she—tarnation, now I have It—there’s Elnathan, Silas, Barnabas, Jonathan, that’s I— seven of us, six went into the wars, and I staid at home to take care of mother, (page 60)
Jonathan’s incompetence as a mathematician is further evi denced by the following:
Jonathan: Why, as to fortune, I must needs say her father [his betrothed Tabitha] is pretty dumb rich; he went representative for our town last year. He will give her—let me see—four times seven is seven times four—nought and carry one; he will give her twenty acres of land—somewhat rocky though—a bible, and a cow. (page 61)
Although Jenny and Jessamy often refer to Jonathan as "that stupid creature," Jessamy does recognize the Yan kee' s overwhelming curiosity, perhaps revealing a key to the Yankee’s eventual shrewdness: 31
Jessamy: The consequence!—Ah! forgive me, my dear friend, but you New England gentlemen have such a laudable curiosity of seeing the bottom of everything. . . . (page 62)
Jonathan’s curiosity is revealed by his many inquiries about
Jessamy’s social teachings:
But are you sure she £Jenny! would be courted by me? (page 61)
Well, but what must I say to her? (page 61)
Well, what must I do? (page 61)
Well, but suppose she should be angry with I? (page 62)
Well, if I follow all your plans,, make them six bows, and all that; shall I have such little cherubim conse quences? (page 62) .
Though Jonathan’s mental capacities lack an educated finesse, his driving curiosity and perseverance establish a type of wit capable of outlasting the supposedly sharper ones.
Other character1sties. Jonathan exhibits the trait of stubbornness. His insistance upon claiming that he did not attend a play reveals somewhat of an iron will. How ever, he eventually accepts his misconception:
Jenny: Well, Mr. Jonathan, you were certainly at the play-house.
Jonathan: I at the play-house!—Why didn’t I see the play then? . - .
Jenny: Why, the people you saw were players.
Jonathan: Mercy on my soul! did I see the wicked players? ... 32
Jessamy: Well, Mr. Jonathan, from your account, which I confess it very accurate, you must have been at the playhouse.
Jonathan: Why, I vow I began to smell a rat. (page 65)
Jonathan also exhibits the trait of rapacity. Al
though he doesn’t possess the cupidity of the Yankees to
follow, his attitudes toward frugality and wealth are expli
citly revealed in his courting and social habits. His love for Tabitha’s dowry Is as zealous as his love for her. He hardly mentions Tabitha without adding ’’twenty acres, a bible, and a cow." Also, Jonathan’s habit of using a broken piece of ifioney as a love token is partial evidence of the value he places on coinage. Moreover, the Yankee becomes
Indignant at the thought of being cheated or relieved of his purse:
Jonathan: Why, I vow, I began to smell a rat. When I came away, I went to the man for my money again: you want your money, says he; yes, says I; for what, says he; why, says I, no man shall jocky me out of my money to see sights, and the dogs a bit of a sight have I seen, unless you call listening to people’s private business a sight, (page 65)
In appearance, Jonathan is awkward and clumsy.
Several references are made to his lack of grace. Jessamy calls him uncouth and blundering and has. no trouble identi fying the Yankee upon their first confrontation; "this, by his awkwardness, must be the Yankee colonel’s servant."
(page 60) Jonathan’s unawareness of his clumsy air is evi denced by his confusion with the term grace: 33 Jessamy: May be it is because you have not the Graces, Mr. Jonathan.
Jonathan: Grace! Why does the young woman expect I must be converted before I court her? (page 73)
Although Jonathan is clumsy in appearance, he is audibly graceful in boasts. He brags of his liberty, his love, his singing, and his ability to fight. His awkward manners and graceful boasting are Juxtaposed in the last scene of the play when he awkwardly misinterprets the ac tions of Manly, Van Rough, and Dimple:
Jonathan: What the rattle ails you? Is the old one in you? Let the colonel alone, can’t you? I feel chock full of fight,—do you want to kill the colonel?—
Manly: Be still, Jonathan: the gentleman does not want to hurt me.
Jonathan: Gor! I—I wish he did; I'd shew him Yankee boys play pretty quick—Don’t you see you have frightened the young woman into the hystrikes? (pages 75-76)
A final individual characteristic is Jonathan's dia lect. His vocabulary is laced with exclamatory expressions such as "maple log seize it," "swamp it," "the dogs," "tar nation," "gor," and "dang’d." Thus Jonathan is clumsy and awkward in appearance, is frugal In finances, is stubbornly determined in his convictions, and is uniquely dialectal in his boasts. 34 THE POLITICIAN OUT-WITTED (1788). BY SAMUEL LOW
Critical analysis of the play. The Federal Consti tution was a controversial issue during Low's early career.
The Politician Out-Witted contains a plot of conflicting views which date the play, hut serves as an historical re cord. In the opening scene, old Loveyet (anti-Constitution) requests his servant, Thomas, to read a section from the New
York Journal, a paper representing the "good old cause."
Instead, Thomas frustrates the old man hy quoting from an opposing paper, The Dally Advertiser:
Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Boston, dated February the third, 1788.—Our convention will pass the federal government by a considerable majority: The more it is examined, the more converts are made for its adoption. This you may rely on.11
Eventually, Old Loveyet refuses his son’s request to marry
Harriet Trueman, for the girl’s father disagrees with the old man’s views on the constitution. Charles, the son, further lessens his chances since he, too, opposes his father’s constitutional opinions. However, Old Loveyet suffers a moment of weakness when he naively believes the young Maria’s (friend of Harriet) attentions are for him, rather than for his son. As Loveyet consents to his son’s
11Samuel Low, The Politician Out-Witted. in Repre sentative Plays by American Dramatists 1765-1&19. ed. Moses, p. 360. Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent refer ences are to this source. 35
marriage to Harriet, Maria unsympathetically denies the old
man’s attentions:
Maria: I beg to be excused from telling that, sir; but.I will tell you who it is I would not have.
Loveyet: Aye, that’s him.—(Aside, looking at Frank ton.)—Well, who is it you won’t have, Maria, who is it?
Maria: You, sir,
Loveyet: Me, eigh?—me—me, Maria?
Charles: Preposterous infatuation!
Loveyet: D__ ’D, wanton, treacherous jilt!
Marla: You have jilted yourself, sir;—nothing but excess of dotage and self-conceit fold Loveyet fancies himself a younger man] could have let you Impose on yourself in such a manner, (page 428)
Low satirizes the anti-Federalists' beliefs and
behavior, but is influenced by the sentimentalists' school.
Loveyet’s last speech and his son's reply follow the charac
teristics of a sentimental comedy of manners; thus, the
satire is softened:
Loveyet: Perdition! Is this what I have come to at last?—Despis'd,--betray'd,—laugh'd at,—supplanted by a puppy,—trick’d out,of my money by a graceless, aristocratic son,—I—I'll—i’ll go hang myself.
Charles: His agitation of mind distresses me: my happiness is not complete, while it is enjoyed at the expense of a father's:—painful reflection! —We will go, Harriet, and,endeavor to pacify him. . . . (page 429)
Low’s comedy has a complicated plot and lacks physi
cal action; The style is mechanical, and the wit, although 36 only occasionally sharp, is definitely patterned after
Sheridan’s more polished form:
Frankton: How do you know that?
Charles: I only conjecture so—Did you ever feel the same transports I do?
Frankton: How, in the name of sense, should I know how you feel?
Charles: Febl!—I feel that kind heaven, my friend, my father, and my dearest girl, all conspire to bless me!
Frankton: There he rides his hobby-horse again.
Charles: Aye, and a generous horse he is—he carries me very pleasantly, I assure you.
Frankton: Yes, and I dare say, could convey you more agreeably and speedily to Paradise than the ass did Mahomet.
Charles: Ha, ha. I think you have improved my idea.
Frankton: To improve your reason, and check your strange delirium, I have, (page 373?
The play’s excessive dialogue and lack of cumulative action mark it worthy of closet drama, but not the stage.
However, the script equals Tyler’s The Contrast In skill of style. The play is also important for being another early attempt at the Yankee character by an American playwright.
Low’s Humphry contains mannerisms similar to Tyler’s Jona than as evidenced in the following discussion.
Ranke and position. Low’s comical character, Humphry
Cubb, originates in the country. Numerous references are 37 made to his being a farmer and miller’s son. As evidence, the Yankee states to young Charles Loveyet the effect of the weather on his work back home:
Humphry: Yes, I warrant you it will be worser and worser before long; so I must e’en go home soon, and look after the corn.and the-wheat, or else old father will bring his pigs to a fine market, as the old proverb goes, (page 564)
Thomas, old Loveyet’s servant, refers to Humphry as a
"country brute," and Maria calls him "a clownish kind of person ... a countryman, I believe."
However, Humphry functions mainly as a messenger rather than a farmer. His social status as errand boy places him on the same level as Jonathan’s "waiter." Humphry's
Ignorance, however, hinders his proficiency as messenger, and he longs to return to the country.
Loveyet: I hope so too;—I must step in, and see; but this is the last time I shall send you with a message.
Humphry: Like enough, for X’m a going home in the country tomorrow, (page 425)
Humphry is referred to as an "illiterate lubber" and although his status is average in the country, his position is lessened in the city. He becomes a simple bumpkin amazed and bewildered by city life. Humphry des cribes his social status as equal to tradesman in the country, and, unlike Tyler's Jonathan, he recognizes that not all individuals are of similar rank: 38
Loveyet: Can you Inform me, friend, where one Mr. Frankton lives? . ■
Humphry: No, I don’t know where anyone lives in this big city,.not 1; for my part, I believe how they all lives in the street, there’, s such a monstrous sight of people a scourging backards and forards, as the old saying is. If I was home now—
Loveyet: Where is your home, if I may make so free?
Humphry: Oh, you may make free and welcome, for the more freer the more welcomer, as the old saying is; I never thinks myself too good to discourse my superiors: There’s some of our townsfolks now, why some of ‘um isn’t so good as I, to be sure. There’s Tom Forge, the blacksmith, and little Daniel Snip,- the tailor, and Roger Peg, the cobbler, and Tim Frize, the barber, and Landlord Tipple, that.keeps the ale-house at the sign of the Turk’s Head, and Jeremy Stave, the clerk at the meeting house, why, there an’t one of ’um that’s a single copper before a beggar, as the*old saying is; but what o’ that? We isn’t all born alike, as father says; for my part, I likes to be friendly, so give us your hand. ... (pages 363-364)
Humphry manages, however, to maintain a crude dignity,
thus somewhat upgrading his position. The Yankee becomes
proficient in bragging of his fighting prowess, “i’ll lick
you out of pure gratitude,” in boasting of his love power, ’’for to be sure, this one [jpair of breeches^ doesn’t look
quite so decent, and if that doesn’t fetch her fDolly], the
devil shall . . and in refuting city manners:
What an unfaithless trollop! She’s got to be very var- tuous since she’s liv’!d in town, but vartue is but skin deep, as the saying is:—wou’dn’t even.let me kiss her . . . (page 383) - -
Mr. Worthnought, an affected and effeminate city man, attempts to degrade Humphry’s social status as he 39 describes the Yankee’s habits:
Ha, ha, ha,—he is pastively a very eccentric bady, and there is a small tincture of a barbarous sart of wit in what he says; but it wants an immensity of cor rection, an infinitude of polishing; he is a mere son of nature, everything he says is express’d in such a Gathic, uncouth, Antl-Chesterfieldian style; and as for his dress, it.is pasitlvely most prepasterously clownish and original, (page 405)
Humphry’s duties as a messenger reduce him to a low status. Although he asserts his position over a few of his fellow ’’townsfolks, ” his recognition of others as his ’’superiors" and declaration of unequal social status, solidifies his meager rank.
Attitudes. Low, obviously influenced by Sheridan’s style, had a fixation with names. Each of his characters’ nomenclature reveal a characteristic trait; Humphry is no exception. The Yankee’s last name is Cubb, a word meaning a rough, awkward, and ill-mannered youth. His attitudes toward manners are crude and disconcerting. His behavior upon seeing his old sweetheart, Dolly, is hardly elegant and suave:
Thomas: I’ve set a bowl of grog before him, pretty much.to the northward, and a luncheon of bread and beef almost as big as his head; for he said he was consumed humgry.
Dolly: I language to behold him;—but I’m afraid he’ll be rude to a body. Oh, as I’m alive, it is Hum phry: old Cubb, the miller's-son! Now will the great bear be for rumpling.and hugging a body, as he us'd to do. 40
Humphry: . . . I’ve eaten up all the beef and grog, so I thought I wou'd go to the cupboard, and cut a small slice.of bread and butter, d’ye see.
Thomas: Why didn’t you cut yourself a larger slice, while you was about it?
Humphry: Oh, it’s big enough, thank’e; I never eat much at a meal; but if I crave more, I’ll speak. (Sees Dolly.) Wha—what—DollI is that you? Oh, the wonderful works of nature!. Wh6’d ha’ thought, to ha’ found you here. What,.don't-you know me? not know your old sweetheart? By-Job, I want to buss you, most lasciviously. ■ (Crams all the bread in his mouth in haste, and offers to kiss her.)
Dolly: Oh, oh!
Thomas: What, do you dare do such a thing before me, you country brute?
Humphry: Aye, no sooner said than done; that’s my way. (page 582)
Humphry is not only crude in his eating and loving manners, but is unschooled in the proper servile attitudes of the period. Instead of allowing a colored servant to perform his appointed duties, Humphry Ignorantly intervenes: Loveyet: ... I know I can depend on you [Humphry], Here, Cuffy, go with this gentleman.
Humphry: Why, if I am a gentleman, Mr. Cuffy needn’t give himself the trouble; I can carry it myself £a trunk}.
Cuffy: Tankee, massa buckaraw; you gl me lilly lif, me bery glad; ...
Loveyet: No, no, you shall carry it; your head is harder than his. (pages 412-415)
Although Humphry’s habits are coarse, he realizes that a good physical appearance aids favorable impressions. 41
Therefore, to gain Dolly’s attention, he purchases new
clothes. He is not unlike the country dandies that were
gracing the British and American stages; his garments are almost fashionable, but his manners are still unacceptable.12
When Loveyet attempts a compliment, Humphry readily agrees
with him rather than accepting graciously;
Loveyet: Your new clothes make you quite smart, Mr. Cubb..
Humphry: Yes, don't I look quite smart, with these new clothes: they!re. all new, I’ll insure you—only a little worse for wear; I.bought ’em at the van- due optioh, at the Fly-Market, (page 386)
Humphry’s social milieu is as rudely uncultured as his
dress; and he lacks finesse. His views on mundane matters
and human affairs appear shallow and unsympathetic. When old Loveyet, upset and enraged after being duped and tricked, makes his final exit, Humphry blithely states, ’’This is, for all the world, like the show I see t'other night, at the Play-house.” Low’s Yankee disregards most social functions, but does remain loyal to one social indulgence, drinking. Moreover, his favorite pastime is sharing an inebriated state:
Loveyet: . . . Well sir, what have you done with the trunk?
Humphry: Why, what you told me, to be sure. I've been a making your man Cuffy drunk, with some of
12A discussion of these type characters appears in Chapter III of this work. 42
the money you give me; but he’s ’most sober now. (pages 422-423)
However, Humphry does express pleasure in other’s
happiness even though the emotion is simple and rustic:
’’That’s clever; X likes to see people good-natur’d,—Itt
makes me as happy at the Great Pogul [Mogul]’’(page 379) ,
or ”... I likes to be friendly, so give us your hand.”
(page 364) Humphry’s simple attitude toward social functions
stems from his limited educational environment experienced
in the country. This country background connotes his basic ruggedness and the homely honesty of his being:
Trueman: Did you never hear your friends in the coun try talk of the new Constitution?
Humphry: Not I, I never heard anybody talk about it, at the Pharisee’s Head tavern ;—I don’t believe Jeremy Stabe, the dark of the meeting-house, no, nor Parson Thumpum himself ever heard of such a word—No, not even old Mr. Scourge, the School master.
Trueman: A hopeful genius, for a Schoolmaster, upon my education. Do you send him to me,—I’ll qual ify him for that important station.
Humphry: And I’ll be qualify’d I never larn' such a ward when.I went to his school.
Trueman: Nor any other one, I believe, properly speak ing.
Humphry: Oh yes, I’ll say that for him;—he us’d to take a great deal of pains for to larn us proper speaking, (page 399)
Although Humphry’s environment is crude and his language simple and naive, he maintains a Calvinist attitude ±3
toward morals. A "rights right and wrongs wrong" philosophy appears in Humphry’s conversation with young Loveyet:
Loveyet: A comical countryman of mine this. What is your name, my honest lad?
Humphry: Why, if you’ll tell me your name, I'll tell you mine, d’ye see; for, one good turn desarves another, as-the old saying is, and, evil he to them that evil thinks, every tub must stand upon its own bottom, and when the steed is stolen, shut; the stable door, and, while the grass grows, the mare starves—the horse I mean . . . (page 564)
Humphry is a result of simple, rustic philosophies common to the naive ignorant milieu from which he came.13
Political spirit and preferences. As Humphry's man ners and philosophies are simple, rustic, and ignorant, so are his attitudes on politics. When confronted with old
Loveyet's and Trueman’s constitutional feud, he confesses his ignorance regarding the controversial subject:
Humphry: Pray now, master barber, what does Constitu tion mean? I hears so many people a quarreling about it,—I.wish I cou'd get somebody to give me the exclamation of.it; here it is among the news too. It’s spelt C, 0, N', con—S, TL, I, stl, consti- T, U, tu-—eonstltu—T, I, tl—constituti—0, Ni, on— Con-stl-tu-tl-on,—but.your city folks calls it. Const!tushon; they've got. such a queer pronouncica- tioni (pages 583-384)
Yet, like Jonathan, Humphry considers himself as wholly
American and an avid patriot. His vocabulary lsn't as free with the word "liberty" as Jonathan's, but his sentiments
1 3 ■'The Yankee's social, economic, and philosophical background is discussed in Chapter III. 44 are the same. He derogates his British cousins and uses their political affiliation as terms of derision:
Frankton: Begone, you illiterate lubber!—My dear Charles, I have a thousand things to say to you, and this is an unfit place for conversation.
Humphry: Why, what a cruel-minded young dog he is! See how he swaggers and struts—he looks very,like the Pharisee’s head, on old Coming Sir, honest Dick Tipple’s sign [.Turk's Head], I. think—No, now I.look at him good, he's the very moral of our Tory, (page 365)
Although his political views are saturated with ignorance and his expressions marked by vulgarities^ Humphry's Ameri can patriotism is explicit as evidenced by the following degradation of King George the third:
Humphry: . . . for my father's great grandfather was a just-ass of the peace,.when King George the third was a sucking baby, and, therefore, as father says, a greater man then, than he was, ha, ha, ha. (page 405)
Thus, Humphry’s political views are hardly scholarly, but do denote the heart of a "true born son of liberty."
Schooling. Humphry's lack of education appears throughout the script. Misinterpretation, misrepresentation of words and sayings, and confusion in logic, all reveal Hum phry’s ignorance. Yet, in monetary matters, Low's Yankee possesses an underlying shrewdness tending toward acquisi tiveness. His bargaining is not as polished as the later
Yankee figures; but his apparent simplicity in transactions results in his being rewarded materially: 45 Charles Loveyet: • . . I’ll reward you for it.
Humphry: As for your rewards, I’m above it, d’ye see: If I do it, I’ll do it without fear or reward, as a body to the-valuation of a mug or so. Don’t you love ale? for they says how the Yorkers Is cursed fellows for strong beer.
Loveyet: What a digression!
Humphry: I scorn your words—’tis no transgression at all to drink ale—Why, Parson Thumpum himself drinks ale.
Loveyet: Well, will you carry the letter? You shall have as much strong beer when you come back as you can stagger under.
Humphry: Why, if I was for to have my beer a-board before I go, I shou'dn’t'get top-heavy, as the saying is: for I can carry as much weight in my head as e’er a he that wears a head, without stag gering. (page 366)
Humphry ’’baits the hook” in the last statement above. He not only gains assurance of receiving the reward, but informs
Charles of his tremendous capacity for ale, thus capitalizing on the former’s offer of ’’buying all the ale he [Humphry] can stagger under.” Additionally, Humphry is quick to remind
Charles of his promise after he has performed the latter’s wishes. The Yankee cleverly, though simply, twists their conversation to the aforementioned bargain:
Loveyet: ... A genteel dress is the very soul of a man, Mr. Cubb.
Humphry: Like enough, for I’ve got more soul to shew myself, now I cut such.a dash; I've got a soul to see the shews at the play-house;- and, I think, I’ve got a great deal more soul to spend a few shillings at the ale-house. 46
Loveyet; That’s true; I’m glad you remind me of my promise. -
Humphry: Not I, I didn’t remind you,—I scorn it.
Loveyet: I dare say you do. (gives him the money.) There, drink my health with that..
Humphry: With all my heart—soul, I mean;—aye, here’s soul enough—(Jingling the money.)—to buy the mat ter o’ twenty,mugs; . . . (page 386)
Humphry possesses just enough confused logic to bewilder his fellow bargainers. His unsophisticated, yet. shrewd way of manipulating conversations to monetary matters, coupled with his feigned pride in denying his avarice and awkward jargon, places the Yankee on a higher level of bargaining intelligence than his eventual provider:
Humphry: Friend me none of your friends; I don’t want such everlasting friends as you, d’ye.see,.becase why, if you never make a beginning-with your friend ship, I’m sure it can’t be everlasting; and if you’ve got a mind to shew your friendliness, I’m sure you cou'dn’t have a more fitten time than-now.
Worthnought: What wou’d the addlty have me say, I wonder.
Humphry: I wou'dn’t have you say anything,—you talk too much already, for the matter o’ that; I like for to see people do things, not talk ’em.,
Worthnought: There (gives him money.)—is that what you want?.
Humphry: Aye, I thought you understood me well enough. —Your friendship wants as much spurring and kick ing and coaxing as our lazy old gelding at home;— I wou’dn’t trust such a friend as far as I cou’d fling.a cow by the tall, (page 406)
However, Humphry’s ignorance cannot be denied. 47.
Where his mlsusage of words and hackneyed sayings may improve
his bargaining, they exemplify his poor education. When
Frankton calls the Yankee a boor, Humphry can only associate
the word with a hog or pig; thus Frankton’s Insult is lost.
He confuses the words ’’digression” with ’’transgression,’’
“assure” with "insure,” and "poverty" with "popery." How
ever, this simplicity provides a great deal of the Yankee’s
humor. His dismay in Trueman’s use of Latin is a source
of low amusement:
Trueman: Avaunt, thou plebeian, thou ignoramus!
Humphry: Why, I lay now I can say that as good as you, for all you’re such a fine scholard.—I won’t be plain, thou-ignorante mouse.
Trueman: "Monstrum Horrendum. eul lumen ademptum! ’’
Humphry: Monstrous memorandusm, cu—no, I can’t say that; that’s too hard for me. Well,.what.a glo rious thing it is for to have good laming, (page 378)
Another example of the Yankee’s illiteracy is his
inefficiency with numbers. Tyler’s Jonathan Is unable to
count, and Low’s Humphry Is deficient in reading numbers.
Young Loveyet commissions Humphry to deliver a trunk to the address of 221. However, the confused Yankee mistakes the address of 122 as his correct destination, for it contains
the same numbers:
Humphry: This here is the house, I warrant you;— these,crooked figures is enough for to puzzle a lawyer.—He said number two hundred and twenty- 48
one:—two two’s and a one stand for that, and there it is. -(page 420)
Humphry’s mental status is unsophisticated, although
he attempts to elevate it with proverbial sayings. His
mutilation of the pithy sayings only serves to substantiate
his lack of finesse. His ineptness at love-making is a result of his social unawareness and his misinterpretations
often.stem from a childish naivete of the spoken language.
However, he still manages to possess an underlying shrewd ness in monetary affairs, which results in a cunning cu pidity.
Other characteristics. Humphry’s physical appear ance is aptly described throughout the script; and the name,
Cubb, provides insight into Low's intentions. His initial appearance is in a rustic, country garb which is inadequate for the city. Thomas, old Loveyet’s servant, indicates
Humphry’s size when he is ordered to throw the Yankee out, and replies, "I'm cursedly afraid of the great two-handed fellow too." (page 381) Thomas later refers to Humphry as a "country brute” and Toupee, the French barber, agrees with Thomas' label when he states to Humphry, "You be von; big 'merlcan brute, sur mon atael" (page 384) Perhaps the best description of Humphry's physique and manners comes from his sweetheart Dolly who says, "Now will the great bear be for rumpling and hugging a body, as he us’d to do." 49 (page 382) Dolly’s statement also implies Humphry’s grace
lessness. In effect, Humphry’s crude mannerisms through
out the play present an awkward and clumsy impression.
Being large, Humphry appears formidable in defending
himself. Moreover, he is the first one to acclaim his fight
ing prowess. He boasts of his strength, in both battle and
love, and consequently affects fearful reactions from those
around him. The Yankee loVes a good fight and a good kiss, but his mannerisms in both affairs are similar—crude, rough, and awkward. The reactions of Dolly and Thomas
toward Humphry’s behavior in Act II, scene ili, exemplify
the above statements:
Dolly: Oh, oh!
Thomas: What, do you dare do sucja a thing before me, you country brute?
Humphry: Aye, no sooner said than done; that’s my way.
Thomas: But you shan’t say nor do your lascivious tricks before me, I warrant you.
Dolly: Oh, the filthy beast! he has frightened me out of my seventy-seven senses; he has given me a fever.
Humphry: I don’t care if you’ll give me a favour, or not; for I-don’t value it an old horse-shoe, not I; I can get favours enough in New York, if I go to the expense. ...
Thomas: Sir, I’d have you know, sir, that I won’t suffer you, sir,,to abuse this young lady, sir, in-this manner, sir; and, sir—in short, sir, you’re a dirty fellow, for your pains, sir.
Humphry: . . . and if you’ll be so friendly as for to fetch the mug of ale you promis’d me, I'll lick 50
you out of pure gratitude: have a care—grog makes me fight like a tyger.
Thomas: It’s a bargain,—I shou'd be sorry to try you; but I’ll go lace your.ale a.little, and that will spoil!your fighting, I warrant you. (Aside, and exit.)
Dolly: You shi’n’t fight him.—Oh, law, I wou'dn’t trust myself-with him alone, for the.riches of the Indians! (pages 382-383)
A final individualistic concept of Low’s Yankee is
his manner of speaking. Humphry's vocabulary is laced with
barbarized words, poor grammar, mlsproununciatlons, and mis
quoted proverbs. These proverbs become so incessant in
Humphry’s discourse that young Loveyet views the Yankee
as humorous, but unbearable:
Humphry: . . . Friendship is a fine thing, and, a friend indeed is a friend in need, as the saying Is.
Charles: What an insufferable fool it is. (half aside.)
Humphry: Yes, it is insufferable cool, that’s sartin: but it’s time to expect it.
Charles: Worse and worse!
Humphry: Yes, I warrant you it will be worser and worser before long; so I must e'en go home soon, and look after the corn.and the~wheat, or else old father will bring his pigs to a fine market, as the old proverb goes.
Charles: You're quite right; you mean your father wou’d bring his corn to a fine market: You mean it as a figurative expression, I presume.
Humphry: Not I, I isn’t for none of your figure expres sions, d'ye see, becase why, I never larnt to cipher;—every grain of corn a pig!—every grain of corn a pig! Ha, ha, ha. .... 51 Charles: A comical countryman of mine this. (Aside.) What is your name, my honest lad?
Humphry: Why, if you’ll tell me your name, I’ll tell you mine, d'ye see; for, one good turn desarves another, as.the old saying is . . .
Charles: What a monstrous combination of nonsense I
Humphry: Don't tell me what I am, but tell me what I have been«-
Charles: Prithee, Mr. Sancho, let's have no more of those insipid proverbs. You was going to tell me your name.
Humphry: My name is Cubb,—Humphry Cubb, at your sar- vice, as the saying is., (page 364)
Humphry’s Individualism stands out in both physical and mental aspects. His awkward and clumsy gait is appro priate for his large frame. His manner of speaking is uniquely dialectal and as rough and crude as his physical appearance. His ineptness at love and his homely honesty exemplify his stubborn adversity to change; his continuance of proverbial assaults reveals his ignorance and naivete of cultural affairs.
FASHIONABLE FOLLIES (1809), BY JOSEPH HUTTON,
Critical analysis of the play. When Joseph Hutton was writing Fashionable Follies. British sentimental come dies were flourishing in America. Sheridan was popular in late eighteenth century America, but Kotzebue, with the aid of William Dunlap, set the pace for the early nineteenth 52
century. Sentiment, of course, was not new to America for
sentiment was evident in both The Politician Out-Wltted and
The Contrast. However, Hutton’s piece demonstrates the
genre of melodrama in addition to sentiment. The play,
unlike some earlier Yankee plays contains a villain in the
character of Charles Delany. Delany’s trickery and evil
deeds are as despicable as those of his later counterparts.
However, Hutton combines sentimentality with poetic justice,
for Delany is not only foiled in his misdeeds but offers repentance:
Delany: I own my guilt and plead for pardon. All my attentions to this lady, whose love I cannot re turn, were but to cover my designs upon your ward; but I come—
Edward: Delany is a villain.
Delany: Villain! Well, I was one. . . . But, sir, I came here.to confess how deeply I had injured him ^Captain Dorrlville], and to redress the wrongs of Mr. Dorrlville! Where I hoped for pardon, I have met with upbraldlngs! I go to prove that I am not a villain.
Delany quickly returns with the bonds acquired from Mr.
Dorrlville by the former’s father in an illegal card game.
The sentimentality of the late eighteenth century British comedy form is completed as Delany produces the bonds to
^Joseph Hutton, Fashionable Follies. in Representa tive Plays by American Dramatists from 18T5-I858, ed. Mon trose J. Moses (New York: E. P. Dutton and.Company, Inc., 1925), II, 82. .Unless otherwise.indicated,.all subsequent references are to this source. 53
Dorriville:
Pelegrine: The fellow’s mad, I’m positive.
Delany: No, sir, he has just regained his senses.
Dorriville: You’ve come sir, I suppose, for the redemp tion of my bonds? Present them,—I’m ready.
Delany: Worlds should not purchase them! Mr. Dorri ville, how my father Injured you is.known to all here; but I am not accountable for his actions, however I regret them. For my own, I come to make atonement, and return those bonds, cancelled, which I held against you!
Dorriville: I’m thunderstruck! For this, accept my hand, and-mlne and my daughter’s pardon, (page 84)
The theme of the play is not unlike The Contrast, for the simple values of the country folks are exalted over the ’’fashionable" manners of the city. Although the city is referred to as "the tabernacle of knowledge’’ by one of the characters, the fashionable way of doing things is held up to ridicule:
Delany: ... If I succeed in this scheme, I shall be the happiest dog in America. I’ll take her CMaria, Dorriville’s daughter3 from theold. fox. Positive, drive like.the devil to Brighton, thence to New York, take lodgings. Yes, it will do.—but what will the old ones say? No matter, it's a fashion able folly, and fashion justifies anything, (page 28)
Hutton’s small footnote attached to the above statement
Indicates his social concepts, "This is not written by the author as a maxim of truth; but is intended as the false reasoning of a deluded imagination." That Hutton’s senti ments were for America and the simple, rustic loyalties of 54
the Yankee fanner Ploughby is further evidenced by the play’s
epilogue:
. . . And here should Fashionable Follies find Critics indulgent, and.our patrons.kind; Now let their hands a native author laud, And make it all the fashion to applaud, (page 86)
Like many early nineteenth century American plays,
Fashionable Follies contains little dramatic action. The
style is not as mechanical as The Politician Out-Witted. but is marked by long exhaustive passages. However, Hutton’s
endeavor was not meant for the closet; it was ostensibly written for the stage and was performed in 1822. The
script is imitative of earlier comedy of manners, but its
strength is in character development. Most of the parts are well defined, although often two-dimensional. The part of Farmer Ploughby is particularly interesting, for he con tains the crude mannerisms of his early Yankee predecessors, although his loyalty and honesty have matured. Ploughby is more integral to the plot than are Jonathan and Humphry, and Hutton’s Yankee contains a kindness not revealed by the earlier Yankees. Ploughby is uniquely different, and many of his habits appear atypical of his character type; for this reason the true Yankee elements are not as well done as Low’s or Tyler’s. Hutton’s endeavor typifies the future trend of the Yankee, for he exaggerates the sentimentalities involved. 55
Rank and position. Fanner Ploughby’s social status is quite low in terms of wealth and rank. However, his posi tion is elevated by a charitable nature. In effect, he is an Impoverished version of Pelegrine Positive and the elder
Dorrlville. Evidence that Ploughby’s honorable soul aids his social eminence is provided by Dorrlville’s reactions to the farmer's kindness:
Ploughby: ... I do think, sir, that he who does good for pay, would do bad for pay, and am a bar tering slave that would sell his honour for a paltry guinea!
Dorrlville: Noble, generous, and Humane! 0, as you value peace on earth and happiness hereafter, preserve a quiet conscience . . . Who will now despise the humble peasant, when he can boast such qualities as these? (page 48)
Ploughby’s occupation is obviously exemplified in his name, country dwelling, and in his son Robert’s comment to the elder Dorrlville’s question of love:
Dorrlville: And do you love Susan?
Robert: Better nor mother’s brindled cow. (page 38)
Young Yankee Robert, like Humphry in The Politician
Out-Wltted. is reduced to the role of messenger. His errand duties tend to lower his position as does his naivete of the period’s social manners. Although Farmer Ploughby is ignor ant in mundane affairs, his attitudes concerning his position and the main purpose for his being are explicit:
Ploughby: Sir, I be a plain man, but must speak, My dear George, you am welcome to datur [daughter] 56
Fanny; and I do hope she’ll raise a hundred such brave soldiers as you am. That’s what I do. (page 83)
In effect, Farmer Ploughby is referred to as a pea
sant plain man, and farmer, thus maintaining a lower social
status compared to other professions. However, his simple honesty and proud assertions of his "honourable soul" tend to upgrade his position in the eyes of the characters surround
ing him. Ploughby’s quality rests in his prominence in humanity rather than his eminence in social affairs.
Attitudes. The two Yankees in Fashionable Follies.
Farmer Ploughby and his son, Robert, have an advantage over their predecessors in setting. Rather than placing them in the social whirls of the big city, Hutton chose to locate them in their natural habitat. However, the situation in which they are placed is just as foreign to them as the social customs of a metropolis. Both characters still reveal crude mannerisms and a naivete even in mundane affairs.
Farmer Ploughby’s initial appearance conveys his attitudes toward city life and his blunt and abrupt manners:
Robert: Well, feyther, how be’est thee? Just came from York?
Ploughby: Yes, lad, I be Just come from the land of wickedness. Well, Dame and how be’est? gi’us a kiss; and, Bob, lad, how be’est thee? -I be shot, but I loves, home best yet. -Here, Bob, take my hat and hang it on the horn over the door. Well, and how am Fanny, at the mansion? 57
Dame: She be pure, John.
Ploughby: Better be pure, Dame, in her father’s cottage, than foul in the palace of a king; for even bad men do pay a respect to virtue, but vice be treated with scorn by every one. But, heh! Dame, where did thee get that new gown?
Robert: She have gotten it honestly, feyther.
Dame: I bought it, John.
Ploughby: Where did thee get the money?
Robert: Why, feyther, from the gentleman.
Ploughby: I can’t feel 'em. (Putting his hands on his head)) (page 41) _
Ploughby’s social recreation is rather limited, yet his public mention of his favorite pastime reveals a little
crudity:
Robert: And he says, feyther, that I and Suke Hub shall be one.
Dame: Two, Robert, one and one makes two.
Ploughby: Yes, Dame, and sometimes, when folks am married, one and one makes three, and being poor, you know— (page 42)
Ploughby^s small preoccupation is reinforced when he gives his daughter, Fanny, to Captain Dorriville:
Ploughby: Sir, I be a plain man, but must speak. My dear George, you am welcome to datur Fanny; and I do hope she'll raise a hundred such-brave soldiers as you am. That's what I do. (page 83)
Ploughby; although generally kind to his wife, does disclose a bold and unmannerly brashness. His curt behavior to Dame Ploughby displays a rustic and ungentlemanly charac 58 teristic:
Dame: Why, sure, John, I—
Ploughby: Hold thee tongue: here be datur Fanny, sir, after you and Mr. Perry went away, corned runnln for dear life, and axed for Mr. Perry, and when I told her he were gone, she failed down on the floor . . .
Marla: Fanny, my lovely girl, look up.
Fanny: 01
Dame: She do speak.
Ploughby: Don't thee make a noise, Dame, (page 75)
Robert, the younger Yankee figure, also reveals an ineptness for polite actions. His frank opinion about
Miss Charlotte Positive’s features is hardly gentlemanly: Robert: Then there am Mr. Perry’s (jPelegrine Positive] sister, Miss Charlotte. She am a kind o’ sort and a kind o’ not sort; more not sort, though. She says, green’s red if Mr. Perry says so. She am up to the chin in love, and by gom, but her chin be as wrinkled as our Towser’s muzzle, and she do want to marry Charles Delany. (page 48)
Ploughby is referred by Mr. Dorrlville as having a
"quiet conscience." This places the Yankee as a perfect foil for the villainous deeds of Delany. The latter’s com ments of the "fashionable" ways is in direct opposition to the simple values of Ploughby:
Delany: I long to know how my tool of vengeance has succeeded. If he caught Dorrlville before he reached Peregrine’s, he is safe within my custody. I don’t know how I feel, but I begin to think that a fashionable life, as I.understand the term, must disturb a quiet conscience. . . . (page 73) 59
Although Delany refers to his attitudes as being
"fashionable," Ploughby’s simple philosophy appears more
socially acceptable. Yet, Hutton’s Yankee still reveals
a confusion for the social big city life. Further, because
of his home environment, Ploughby fails to be completely
exposed to mundane affairs, and situations requiring more
worldly knowledge are foreign and confusing to the backwoods
Yankee.
By placing Ploughby in his natural habitat, Hutton
keeps the Yankee ignorant of worldly ways. His opening
lines regarding "York as the land of wickedness" and his
revelation, "I loves home best yet," exemplify his shel
tered existence. Ploughby’s simple trust and loyalty in
Dorrlville, a strange lodger, depicts his naivete in mun dane affairs. Peregrine, more skeptical about social matters and human nature, warns the countryman of the risks involved in too much trust:
Peregrine: No, Indeed, farmer, you did not, That’s true, and it’s just as I said. I’m positive he is some spy from Europe, or some.impostor.
Ploughby: Postor, sir!
Peregrine: Yes, an impostor, farmer. You have been swallowing the smoke of your chlnmey all your life, and may be easily deceived by appearances; but I have seen the world, and a great many such decep tions; he’ll find it hard to impose upon me, farmer, (page 66)
Yet the good farmer’s honorable Intentions gain 60 praise from another:
Dorriville: . . . Who will now despise the humble peasant, when he can boast such qualities as these? Education may varnish hypocrisy; but nature only could mold a heart like this! simple, god-like virtue! . . . (page 48)
Dorriville also provides a philosophical description of the
Yankee. Following his informative talk with the young
Yankee, Robert, Dorriville reflects upon the farmer’s simple sincerity and unsophisticated nature:
Dorriville: . . . How this child of unsophisticated nature moves me. His language is the mirror to his soul, from which sincerity rises, and the heart’s dictates issue from the lips. Heavenly simplicity, 'tis with thee alone that truth and honesty reside, (page 40)
Many of Ploughby's traits stem from a Puritanical philosophy. His stern hardiness when dealing with his family, his sturdy Individualism when revealing ideas concerning honor, loyalty, and charity, his maintenance of moral convic tions concerning the purity of his daughter, and his reli gious countenance toward duty coincides with the Puritan's concepts of human rights.15 The majority of these traits are revealed in Ploughby’s reactions to his wife's failure to place their lodger in the best room:
Dame: . . . but I couldn't let him have your chamber without you consented.
Ploughby: Well, well, Dame, there. Thee am a good,
'^See discussion of the Puritans' characteristics in Chapter III of this work, pp. 119-120. - 61
kind hearted sort of soul, but remember this, Dame, whenever thee axes who’s at the gate, and am answered, misforten, let her in, and if thee husband be such a brute as to find fault, thee’It have this for thy consolation, that when thee - knock’st at the door of mercy for admission, thee will not find it barred.
Dame: Ah! John, thee am always doing all the good thee.can.
Ploughby: I only do my duty, Dame, that’s what we be sent for. What’s he that ..won’t help a fellow creter in distress? he-be like—I don’t know what—but Dame, when my waggon and horses be stalled, I do all I can to get rem out, and he am a bigger brute than.a horse, that won’t lend a hand to get ano ther out of the slough-of misfortune1 (page 43)
Ploughby, like the Puritans, thrives on hard work,
and although he states he is a "plain man," his honorable
soul and quiet conscience are God-fearing qualities that
link him with a Puritan heritage. His ignorance in worldly
affairs and naivete of big city life and social habits
continues the sociological trend of the early Yankees.
Political spirit and preferences. Although Ploughby’s
social attitudes are as explicit as Tyler’s Jonathan and
Low's Humphry, his political views are almost nonexistent.
However, his loyalties to his heritage are defined by the
following section:
Ploughby: . . . Well, well, I give my consent, and be very glad you took the lodger.
Dame: But he be main misfortunate.
Ploughby: Am he though? then he am the more welcome; I be none of those who do entertain prosperity 62
and spurn adversity from the door; and I trust, Dame, that our country, which am the only soil where true liberty and peace do grow, will ever cultivate that sweet plant which be more fragrant than a rose, charity! . . . (page 42)
Despite the Yankee’s naivete in social affairs and his crude, brash, and abrupt conduct toward his wife,
Ploughby's simple loyalty to his country and morally honest attitudes depict a character more acceptable than the
"fashionable” world.
Schooling. Ploughby and Robert, similar to their early counterparts, possess the inherent characteristic of ignorance. Both have an aversion to the correct usage of words and are prone to malapropisms. However, Ploughby's unsophisticated manner often indicates a sharpness in wit.
Peregrine Positive, named for his excessive use of that affirmative word, is set upon by Ploughby’s apparent con fusion at the use of the adjective, positive:
Peregrine: . . . Who the devil is he?
Ploughby: I don't know, sir.
Peregrine: Are you positive?
Ploughby: No, sir.
Peregrine: No!
Ploughby: You am positive, sir, an or t'other must be wrong.
Peregrine: Pshaw! nonsense . . . (page 66)
Ploughby is also inclined to mix words during his misinter- 63 pretatlon. He coins the word "solemncolly" for solemn and melancholy, twists the word gloom into "gloomified," and mistreats the word disguise with "disguisement." Robert’s ignorance is more profound; the young lad often speaks with little or no understanding of the content of his address:
Peregrine: Didn’t I tell you, sirrah, that if ever I clapped eyes.on you again, I'd send you to the county jail as a vagrant,—how-dare you come here after it?
Robert: So I told father, but he said, Mr. Perry ^Peregrine] am one who do say a great many things and never does any; so I thought I might venture, because I know you loves charity,.and that am toy business her. (pages 51-52)
Robert's lack of awareness of the things he says is also exemplified in the habit of blankly repeating an established fact:
Ploughby: (Within.) So, my lad, rub the nags well down, and put * em safe away.
Dame: There he am.
Robert: Yes, there he am. (page 41)
However, like his father, Robert shows surprising percep tion of Mr. Positive's character and also his own lack of education:
Dorriville: And who compose the family now? Robert: Why, there am Mr. Perry (^Peregrine Positive], who be certain of everything, . and lord,, sir, if you were to see how often he be mistaken, you'd laugh. Everybody must agree with he, or else.he won't agree with any body; and then what an uproar!
Dorriville: Very eccentric, Indeed! but had he no good 64
qualities, my honest lad?
Robert: 0! Yes, plenty; he do look for all the poor people about, and send all the unnatural children to school but, thank Heaven! I be a natural child, (pages 38-39)
Although Ploughby and Robert reveal a crude keenness, their mental status lacks social finesse. Their misunder standing of certain words and phrases is obvious, and their general ignorance of the events around them denotes a lack of awareness of the significance of situations and solidifies their unlettered behavior. Robert’s reply of "nan” when asked by Dorrlville if he knew all the residents around the country, but quick answer of "yes" when Dorrlville rephrases his question to "do you know everyone about here?" exempli fies the Yankee’s unfamiliarity with a usually recognizable vocabulary:
Other characteristics. The most striking aspect of
Hutton’s Yankees is their susceptibility to sentiment. As previously mentioned, this trait was to become a typical trend in the Yankees to follow. The melodramatic facade of the play is encompassed by sentimentality. Mention of
Ploughby’s honorable soul, quiet conscience, and kind heart literally permeates the entire script. The bold and bois terous farmer is not even above shedding tears at the mis fortunes of others:
Ploughby: Yes, sir, I be very willing to oblige, but am one who do love the whole truth . . . 65
Dorrlville: You would but say the truth, my good friend, for although I am rich, yet still am I in great distress. A.father’s feeling trembles at my heart,—a father, separated for sixteen i tedious years from all his heart holds dear on earth, a darling son, a beloved daughter—
Ploughby: That's enough, sir—say no more—sixteen! mercy on me! (Tears.) I'll go, sir, if I tell a bouncer as big as a.barh.
Dorrlville: Good farmer, your feelings are Indeed honourable . . . (pages 47-48)
Another individual characteristic, or lack of one,
is cupidity. Unlike the majority of his type, neither
Ploughby nor his son are mercenary In actions. In effect,
they present the opposite extreme as both refuse money in
performing their duty. However, Ploughby's homespun honesty
seems loosely patterned after Humphry Cubb’s honesty:
Ploughby: ... I have got a heavier purse than that.
Dorrlville: Indeed!
Ploughby: What be worth all the gold in the world, sir; and will weigh heavier than gold, when all come before the Great Judge; it be a quiet con science. I be thankful to you, sir, but I won’t be paid for doing my duty. That would make kind ness no kindness at all. . ... (page 48)
The above statement appears comparable to Humphry’s ori ginal refusal of reward:
Humphry: As for your rewards, I’m above it, d’ye see: .If I do it, I’ll do it without fear,or reward, as the saying is . . . (Low, page 366)
A final Individual concept is Ploughby's boastful nature. Although the contents of his boasts contain no 66
reference to his fighting prowess like Jonathan’s and
Humphry’s, Ploughby's style is just as bold:
Ploughby: ... I be none of those who do entertain prosperity and spurn adversity from the door . . . (page 42)
Ploughby: I only do my duty, Dame, that’s what we be sent for. What’s he that ..won’t help a fellow creter in distress? . . . (page 43)
Ploughby: ... I have a heavier purse than that. . . . and will weigh heavier than gold, when all come before the Great Judge; it be a quiet conscience. . . . (page 48)
Although Hutton’s Ploughby and Robert deviate from
the typical Yankee, theirthomespun honesty, crude keenness,
uneducated dialect, rugged mannerisms, bold assertions,
and unworldly ignorance definitely place them in the cate
gory. Their primary importance, however, is in establishing
a trend toward sentimentalism.
TEARS AND SMILES (1807), BY JAMES N. BARKER
Critical analysis of the play. James Barker, a
Philadelphian, had never been acquainted with a real Yankee when he wrote Tears and Smiles. The part was written espe
cially for the fine, English, low comedian, Joseph Jefferson.
Therefore, Nathan Yank, the play’s Yankee figure, may have been subjected to a superficial American portrayal. Jeffer son had not the benefit of Royali Tyler's counsel as did
Thomas Wignell when the latter performed Tyler's Jonathan 67
in The Contrast. Although Nathan Yank is actively a low
comic figure, he conveys Important mannerisms associated with the American country type. Barker admits his Yankee
figure was skimpy and undeveloped, hut Internal evidence
in the script establishes that certain Yankee characteristics might have aided future Yankee comedians in developing their portrayals.
The play, much like Tyler's and Low's endeavors, has a complicated plot and minor dramatic action. Long passages of dialogue result in several tedious moments; yet
Barker’s style does attempt to establish American rusticity in opposition to the sophisticated effects of a foreign dominated society. In effect, the language style is a copy of Tyler and Low, and the plot is definitely a contrived one. However, a contrived plot seems to be common among these early Yankee scripts.
Barker's script contains two love affairs and a pair of re-unitlngs, but all are contrived and easily deciphered.
The fashionable society, as in most Yankee plays, is satir ized and held up to ridicule. The author's American fop,
Mr. Fluttermore, exemplifies Barker's concept of the many nineteenth century Americans influenced by foreign manners and customs.*6 Barker literally denounces these American
1^See Chapter III for a discussion regarding European influences in America... 68
"hypercritics" in. his preface to the play:
This term of derision J_Columbianism] applies to every delineation an American may attempt to make of American manners, customs, opinions, characters, or scenery. Thus while they rapturously applaud the sentiments of a foreign stage patriot, the lover of his country [such as Barker himself] in an American play utters only contemptible Columbianisms. . . . They can never pardon the endeavor to depict our national peculiarities, and yet they will listen with avidity to Yorkshire rusticity or Newmarket slang.1?
Barker continues his criticism of America’s Insincere sophis
tication as Fluttermore concedes that the new world is too green to please a man of gusto:
Fluttermore: tl] Set Paris in a blaze, shook London to its center; dazzled most of the Italian cities; made Vienna totter; and was the gaze everywhere. Ha, monsieur?
Mon. Galliard: Ohl Oui; wherever you are, de peuple gap at you. Yes; dam tis not true, (page 20)
The play is neither as skillful as later Yankee plays nor as original and novel as those that preceded it. How ever, it serves as a transitional piece in the development of the stage Yankee toward the sentimental movement of the future nineteenth century plays.
Rank and position. Nathan Yank's social status is depicted by his tasks as Jack Rangely’s waiter, errand boy, and everybody’s messenger. Yank spends a major portion of
1?James N. Barker, Tears and Smiles (Philadelphia: T. and G. .Palmer Publishers, l8o8)", p. 11. ..Unless other wise Indicated, all subsequent references are to this source. 69
the play chasing after Jack, aiding and abetting others,
and has no real central scene in the script. The Yankee’s
low position is established early in the play when he con
fronts his master:
Jack Rangely: Where can this Yank loiter?
Yank: Beg pardon, sir, for being out o' the way, and out o' breath. Hope you ha'n’t wanted—Whew.
Rangely: How, now, Yank! Why, man, you've lost you're breath.
Yank: Not quite, sir; though and 'twer gone fir good, I should be 'nation glad to lose it for you, sir; ay, and what's more nor that, my life into the bargain.
Rangely: Pshaw, remember what I've told you.
Yank: And mayn't I remember what you've done for me too, sir? .How you found me and old folks sick, and nothing to eat but pumpkins; and how you put old folks into a tidy house, and gave 'em money; and make me your man? I reckon I can't forget it, sir. (page 14)
Barker is also quick in establishing Yank's rustic qualities. The above passage, with its reference to old folks and pumpkins, indicates his possible country origin. However, Yank carries his new "waiter" position with self esteem and satisfaction. His position is somewhat upgraded when he relates how hard he works, and his boast of fight ing prowess indicates his pride and bearing. When telling his master of his activities, Yank's rustic servitude is explicit:
Yank: I'll discount my adventures, sir. First and 70
foremost I looked If your baggage were safe and sound; afterwards, I saw your horses had a belly- full, and then I ate my breakfast. Secondly I made black Will.wash curricle, grease wheels,, and sop, and then I basted Frenchified gentleman’s servant for calling me Yankee Doodle, (page 15)-
Yank obviously holds his position high above the poor black slaves when he boasts of making “black Will’’ perform certain tasks. His anger at being called “Yankee Doodle" also indi cates his desire for respectability. Though his status is low, it is tempered with an overwhelming pride in his work, an honest loyalty to his master, and a boastful behavior regarding his sociological heritage.
Attitudes. Yank’s rustic mannerisms and bold encoun ters with Mr. O’Connor and Widow Freegrace reveal his crude and naive habits in dealing with society. His curt and unsophisticated discourse with Widow Freegrace exemplifies the Yankee's Ineptness at intelligent and social discourse:
Widow Freegrace: Stop! Whither are you hurrying? Yank: To General Thengumbob’s CCampden], ma’am, to tell him LJack] the news; only tell me one thing: is your name Gallac Cittydale?
Widow Freegrace: No, my name is—
Yank: Cognita. Yes, that’s what he calls you. Good by, m’aml
Widow Freegrace: . . . Plague take the stupid fellow! . .. . (pages 39-40)
Yank is the perfect foil to Mr. Fluttermore, the figure of affected sophistication. Fluttermore finds America 71 dull compared to Europe, for the former contains no opera, no promenade, and no masquerade. Yank, however, finds
America lively, exciting, and amazingly confusing. His demeanor is lively, simple, straightforward, abrupt, and sincere, whereas Fluttermore's language abounds in flour ishing metaphors, long illusory passages, and presents an insincere, contrived facade which is shallow and insipid.
Where Fluttermore is mundanely intelligent, Yank is ignor antly confused; where Fluttermore is libertine in behavior,
Yanksls naively conservative.
Fluttermore attempts to diminish his own American heritage, but Yank's origin is easily deciphered in his name. Yank's reaction to the "Frenchified sarvant," how ever, is unique. Barker has his Yankee more oriented toward the British view than do either Tyler or Low. Nathan's pugilistic reaction toward the term "Yankee Doodle" is opposed to the typical proud response. However, Barker's
Yankee reveals a crude pride for his honesty. His colonial background is seen through his loyalty and eagerness to please his master. However, his Puritanical heritage is unclear, even though a fear of God is present in his being.
When Rangely and O'Connor arrange for their duel, Yank's comments, ignorantly humorous though they may be, comply with the early colonists' views of the hereafter:
O'Connor: Faith, now's the best time; but for the 72
place, let me see . . .
Rangely: ’Tis but stepping into the next state. Yank, you'11,attend us.
Yank: What! into the next state? I an’t afear'd to die, sir, only going so lightly into another state, without knowing whether its a blessed state or no— (pages 61-62)
Once again, ignorance appears the key to Yank’s character as he naively comments on Rangely’s attempt to explain the meaning of “state”:
Rangely: Simpleton, I only want ye to cross the Dela ware with me. .
O'Connor: Ay, only to step over the river. It's mighty easy, sure.
Yank: It must take a tarnal long stride to do it. (page 62)
Socially, Yank is lacking in all respects. His know ledge of social events is limited to one line referring to a ’’show" he happened to view, "i'll argufy the tropic, as the man says in the show." (page 38) Even his brawling nature exposes his lack of sophistication when he witnesses the gentlemanly custom of dueling. His awkward and confused manner with Rangely and O’Connor during the formalities indicates his social naivete.
Political spirit and preferences. Barker's Yankee possesses all mannerisms similar to the eighteenth century
Yankees except a strong political spirit. The nearest clues of Yank’s attitudes toward liberality, freedom, and American 73 democracy are in his thankfulness to Jack Rangely for his position and his concept of the term ’’Yankee Doodle.”
Rather than making the term symbolically patriotic, he views it as a form of British derision as evidenced by his brawl with the ’’Frenchified sarvant.”
Schooling. Although Barker was unfamiliar with the native characteristics of the Yankee, he credibly develops the Yankee’s mental status. In effect, Nathan’s unsophis ticated mentality heightens his low comic form. Being a fine low comedian, Joseph Jefferson could easily have based his comic portrayal on Yank’s ignorance alone. A major por tion of Yank’s humor rests with his apparent misunderstand ing of names, places, and his misuse of words. When Nathan tells his master of his encounter with the Widow Freegrace,
Jack wants to be sure that the Yankee is talking of the same strange woman whom he saved earlier. As Jack was unable to discover the Widow’s identity during his rescue mission, he refers to her as being his unknown lover.
However, Yank misinterprets his master’s vocabulary:
Rangely: Heavens! my incognita! are you sure 'twas she?
Yank: I don’t know if her name’s Cognita, but I’m sure ’twer she. I took notice enough that time.when you were so long with her: for I had nought to do, not I, but look on and whistle., (page 15)
When Rangely asks his faithful servant to take him to the 74
spot where he saw Widow Freegrace, Yank appears humorously
confused:
Rangely: Lead me instantly to the spot. You know the house?
Yank: Lord, sir, I clean forgot to take notice.
Rangely: Idiot;
Yank: Yes, sir, I know you allow me none o’ the ’cutest, hut may he I.could find out.
Rangely: Go then, good Yank, and task your Ingenuity.
Yank: Yes, sir. Let me see; first, there wer a church; and then—
Rangely: Away, my fine fellow, away, (page 16)
However, when examining Yank’s alleged confusion in the above passage, one receives the impression that the Yankee is nobody’s fool; for his behavior seems teaslngly naive. Thus, even though Yank appears ignorant of names and the signifi cance of situations, he possesses a keen wit. The Yankee’s quick retorts of the obvious also supply a great deal of his low humor: Yank: . . . And bye and bye out comes she [Widow Free grace] with a man, not the other lady that were with her.
Rangely: With a man did you say? a young man?
Yank: Middling.
Rangely: The devil.
Yank: Naught like him. sir—purtyish enough, like me or you. (page 33)
Further evidence of Yank’s humorous ignorance is supplied 75 in his scene with Rangely’s Irish rival, Mr. O’Connor. The
Yankee’s awkward, approach to the stage Irishman and his
naivete in the vocabulary of others establishes his best
developed mannerism:
Yank: (approaching ridiculously) Sarvant, sir, Pray sir—him I As you come out o’ you house you mought tell a body—Pray, sir—heml- What o'clock mought it be?
O’Connor: A strange fellow. Because I came out of that house!—Tis two o'clock, my lad.
Yank: Thank ye, sir; much obliged to you, sir; and mought I be so bold as to put another question to you sir? Pray, does old Gallic Cittydale [misinterpretation of Fluttermore’s metaphor to ward Madam Clermont] or young Cognita live in Yan?
O’Connor: Now what are you talking about?
Yank: You don't know?
O'Connor: Get away you big blockhead!
Yank: I saw you fetching a walk with Miss Cognita [Widow Freegrace], sir.
O’Connor: You’re mad. I know no such a person. Well, now.for Compdon’s villa.
Yank: Big blockhead! I wonder who’s the biggest. He. comes pop out of a house, and don't know who lives in it. Then he fetches a walk-with Miss Cognita, and don't know sitch a person . . . (pages 38-39)
Yank’s humorous ignorance is explicitly developed throughout the play. His awkward confusion at unfamiliar words, his simple replies to aside comments, and his over- zealous naivete in the situations in which he is placed mold him into a low comic puppet. 76
Other characteristics. As Yank’s basic function is
that of messenger and low comic, he has little to do with
advancing the plot. His awkward and clumsy appearance is
referred to by several characters and is exemplified in his
scene with Mr. O’Connor when inquiring about the living quar
ters of Widow Freegrace. The scene briefly aids in estab
lishing Yank’s physical appearance as unkempt, brazenly bold,
awkward, and young. The latter is evidenced by O’Connor’s
calling the Yankee a "lad." Further information regarding
Yank’s age is sketchily indicated in his opening speech with Rangely concerning the ’’old folks.”
A final mannerism is Yank’s continuance of what tv* appears to be a Yankee playwriting tradition, use of dialect.
Although Yank’s manner of speech is not as well drawn as his predecessors, he still manages to present a native flavor with “much obliged,” ”sitch, " "fetching,” "twe?^"
"sarvant," etc. Barker, however, admittedly Ignorant of the real-life Yankee, fails to develop Yank’s dialect to its fullest extent.
LOVE AND FRIENDSHIP (1809) BY A. BL. LINDSLEY
Critical analysis of the play. Although much of the script is dull and lacks action, Llndsley’s endeavor excels in the development of the Yankee character. Love and Friend ship was Llndsley's Initial exposure to playwriting, yet his 77
unique display of Yankee dialect and character dilineation
is perceptive and skilled. However, the nlneteen-year-old
author deemed it necessary to accompany his script with a
written apology:
Should the pedantic critic graciously condescend to glance the eye of disapprobation over these pages, he may recollect or let it alone, that they are the first, the maiden production of a partially educated youth, who courts not his favor and shall never fear his Impotent malevolence.
Llndsley presents not one, but three Yankee charac
ters for examination; each one different in conception, but
similar in type and manner. Jack Hardweather, one of the
first nautical stage Yankees, even aids in advancing the
plot. However, the plot is not unlike previous Yankee en*s&
deavors, for it is influenced by sentimentalism. The story
is fairly complicated as it deals with the amours of a young man and his battle with his love’s parents, the rogueries.’’ of the young man’s rival, the wickedness of the rival’s father, and the final restoration of the young man’s riches.
True to the sentimental style, the villains repent their wrongs and are heartily forgiven by their adversaries.
Llndsley even offers an early example of the future temper ance melodramas as the young Dick Dashaway not only repents along with his father, but also swears off drinking. The
Bi Llndsley, Love and Friendship (New York: D. Longworth, Dramatic Repository,,1809). Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent references are to,this source. 78
script, like its predecessors, is plagued with long tedious
passages but does offer some dramatic action. The three
Yankees have several scenes In which they are central and
are responsible for the play’s pace. Jack Hardweather and
Jonathan, two of the Yankees, even have several scenes by
themselves.
Although the play abounds in sentiment, it contains lively sparkles of political satire. Young Dashaway’s con stant mention of his college election club meetings and appraisal of his father’s political status achieved through wicked deeds, indicate LIndsley’s dissatisfaction with
current politics.
LIndsley’s use of dialect for the three Yankees and the two black servants is humorously appropriate. The young author was one of the first American playwrights to attempt a realistic Yankee dialect. The influence of previous
Yankee figures is evidenced chiefly in Jonathan, although some originality appears in his dialect and cunning wit.
Jack Hardweather and Captain Horner are fairly new forms of this comic type and add an Interesting comparative note.
Finally, LIndsley heightens the Yankee’s Importance by opening the play with a Yankee (Jack Hardweather), an unusual procedure in early Yankee scripts.
Rank and position. Jack Hardweather and Jonathan 79
share similar positions in society, yet Jack appears less
crude. Captain Horner, however, enjoys a higher social
rank as he is a self-supporting Yankee peddler. Jack and
Jonathan are clearly country rustics and reduced once more
to the common Yankee trades of waiter and messenger. How
ever, Jack appears the more independent of the two, for he
chooses his position:
Seldreer: What mean you lad, and who are you?
Jack: Avast there! not quite so fast, or you’ll throw me all aback.. Though to be answering you as fast as I can—I am Jack Hardweather, a piece of a sailor d’ye see, but d__n me, since the embargo, I have good reason to be almost tired of your salt sea sprays, so I am on the look out for a dry rock, or snug birth on shore, for a cruise. Are you in want of a cabin-boy or steward?
Seldreer: What can you do as waiting man?
Jack: 0, d__ n me, anything—wind a call, carry a message, box a good battle, drink grog, haul taughs and belay, hand, reef, and steer; recon noitre an enemy, live and die, like a true tar LCarollnian], under Columbia’s flag,—find a pretty girl, and protect her, too! .(pages 6-7)
Jack’s position is somewhat upgraded when he proudly announ
ces his versatility as a waiting man. Jonathan also boasts of his Yankee ingenuity, yet his status is lessened by being the servant of another Yankee, Captain Horner. Jonathan’s rustic nature and background as farmer is evidenced in his speech concerning the cupidity of his Yankee brother Jack:
Jonathan: ... It beets all nater! never fetch me, ’f I don’t wish I was’t hum agin with all my heart, long side.father’s hog pen in Suffleld, 80
eaten mush and milk. Here comes that feller of a sailor CJack] agin, what stole over Capun's notions. It beets all nater! but I’ll show.urn I can be spunky about it, I’ll warn'.d um! I’ll let um see what sort a stuff brother Jonathan, the suffield Yankee boy’s made on; darn'd if I don't though! (Struts about) ’f I only.had a. torpedo I’d blow um up man a-war fashion—oh for a torpedo! (page 37)
Captain Horner's position as a peddler and master
to Jonathan heightens his social rank, but his dialect and
crude mannerisms tend to equate him with the other two.
Jonathan's brief character description of his Captain,
coupled with the latter's curt retort, exemplify Horner’s
social position:
Jonathan: . . . Why you’d beet dady’s old leaden horse holler; darn my skin, if you wouldn’t dewe it clean as mud.
Captain: Never seem tewe mind it. Jonathan, you’ll git yuste tewe me by be bye, my heart 'f wax; but we're got enamost up tewe the shops, and Its time for um tewe open; and 'f I sell my notions well, Jonathan, we'll buy a dram, (page 8)
Although the three character types represent a lower portion of society, all maintain a proud esteem for their positions: Jack through a display of versatility, Jonathan
through rustic boasts, and the Captain through a self- assuredness of his trade.
Attitudes. LIndsley's Yankees exhibit crude manner isms, naive boldness, and rustic assertions of independence.
Jonathan, the most bewildered of the three, often expresses 81
his naivete in the polite customs of society. He repeatedly
refers to his knowledge of good manners, yet succeeds in
revealing only his ignorance in the situations surrounding
him. His rustic behavior is displayed in such a confusing
state that only he appears to understand his communication.
Jonathan’s bold crudeness is exemplified through virile
boasts concerning the terror of his aroused wrath when han
dled impolitely and unfairly:
Jonathan: . . . When I cum’d board 'f this here old schuner, says I, I meant tewe use you well 'f you did me; and so.I says yit, ’f you dewe, but-’f you don't says I; I’ll kick-up sich a dust on’t as you ayn’t seed this here many a long day, by gum. Darnation, cuss you Jonathan says 'e [Cap tain!;, it beets all nater Capun, says I;.tewe think friends’ll fall out so like the deuce, and quarrel enamost-for jest nothen at all, says I; so make it up, and let me sop some 'f our burnt punken ’lasses, capun, says I:—you may sop hell, Jona than! says he—’bllghed to you Capun, says I, but I knows what duty and good manners; . . . (page 11)
Jonathan, moreover, is not beyond accepting polite compli ments of his performed duties; in effect, he admires the
appreciative civility of thanking an individual for perform
ing a dutiful action? Yet Jonathan’s recognition of such gentlemanly actions doesn’t lessen his crude facade as evi denced in his comments after delivering a message to Sel- dreer:
Seldreer: Thank you, Jonathan: I am obliged to Cap tain Horner and will see him.soon.
Jonathan: ‘Thank you, Jonathan! Well said by gum! it beets all nater on'y tewe see how civil some 82
folks is arter a body’s put umself tewe the trouble ’f doen um a favor for nothen, never fetch me! it’s nation strange though; it's the fust civil word I have hearne spoke tewe me since X left Bos ton, by gum! but ’e’s a gentleman Yankee, that’s the reason on’t, I suppose my lads. Huzza! bunker hill forever tewe.the enemies of Columby, and the sweet kisses of her pretty gals tewe her galyant sons, (pages 29930)
Jonathan’s bewildered reaction to being thanked illustrates the Yankee's unfamiliarity with social politeness. The last portion of the above dialogue also reveals Jonathan’s loyalty to government and country.
Jack, too, displays crude mannerisms when he blatantly barges into Miss Augusta’s room and rudely interrupts, "Damn me I’m driving away at twelve knots.” (page 44) The nauti cal Yankee’s bold attitude with Jonathan and his brazen approach in acquiring a sample of the Captain’s notions is further evidence of Jack's rough exterior:
Jack: I say, shipmate, I wish you tell me what you’ve got in that bottle?.
Jonathan: Got! oh its got some ’f our capun’s cyder in; its charmen stuff; we stopt at New York, and took in a few barrels ’f old Newark ’ticular, jist from the Jarsays ... we are taken it up for the groce marchants tewe try for example.
Jack: For a sample you mean. I say, brother Jonathan, I should like to broach it.Just by way of .example, my boy! . . . Ay, ay, iny ldd, lets have a bit of a pull.at it; I am a brother Yankee too, if you did not know it, though I suppose you don't like me any better for that; eh! brother Jonathan? (pages 8-9)
Although their exterior is rough, all three Yankees 83 display a cunning perceptiveness of their own character
types. Captain Horner thoroughly enjoys his position as a
possible money lender and is quick to assert his prowess
as a peddler of notions:
Seldreer: So you will lend me no money Captain?
Captain: Kaynt dewe it now, haynt sold my notions yet; perhaps, arter I spose 'f my cheese and cyder I’ll let you mave matter 'f five or six dollars. I-got the best notions in.all New England . . . (page 9)
While the Captain exudes confidence in the peddling profession, Jonathan reveals a shrewd skepticism in his
fellow Yankees' susceptibility for cupidity. His attitude toward Jack’s ’’brotherly” manner reveals that the Yankees’ general reputation for trickery was widespread:
Jack: . . . I am a brother Yankee too. if you did not know it, though I suppose you don’t like me any better for that; eh! brother Jonathan?
Jonathan: No, darn'd if I dewe. I knows their tricks. But it beets the very rot and.nater, never fetch me! I believe the Yankee goes all threwe the world —I am sure they are all spread all over the New England states for sartain. . . . (page 9)
Although Jonathan shows a true quality of Yankee stubbornness and a Puritanical attitude for facing reality even at the risk of slandering his own kind,19 he ironically conveys his naivete in worldly matters. His simple linking of "all the New England states" with "all threwe the world"
19see Chapter III, p. 119. 84 exemplifies his Ignorance concerning the vastness of the world.
Jonathan’s religious convictions can also he linked with the stubborn determinism of his Puritan fathers to establish an ’’ideal” and ’’correct" faith. The Yankee ser vant Is labeled by Jack as being a "blue-skinned presby- terian" and the former’s conversation with the Captain indi cates a religious prejudice:
Captain: Darnation Jonathan! what dewe say? What have you been doen all this here time? You tarnation sleep hown, you?
Jonathan: Capun, don't swear so, I beg on't; for the land sake and maisies alive; what would our parson say? you're a darned sight wars’n a methodlst preacher, (page 10)
Jonathan's prejudice does not terminate with simple religious convictions. His attitude toward the Jew complies with the popular practice of early American and English writers to degrade all believers in that faith:
Jonathan: ... I must keep tewe eyes bout me, or I shall be intewe King-street, and the black barded Jews'll shave the hair off my teeth. Folks says they!re keener than Yankees for all they aynt half the wit; yit a poor lubbery country cracker, stands no more chance with um, thout he’s a brother Jona than, than a lettle Tomy cat in hell 'thout claws, or a fly sklppen bout in a hot glew pot. (pages 36-37)
The above passage also provides evidence for the synonymous linking of the Yankee type with the name Jonathan.
Thus Jonathan, Jack, and the Captain, although proud 85 of their heritage and sincere in their social convictions,
are not above prejudice and conceit.
Political spirit and preferences. Both Jack* s and
Jonathan’s sentiments toward America and her new government
are the same. The two Yankees constantly refer to their
infant liberty with pride; and their political expression
is as bold as their attitudes toward manners:
Jack: —Here’s success to Columbia’s sons, commerce, and freedom, and may the eagle.have a shot in the locker till doomsday, and a jolly tar to heave it a head, with a gallant officer at the ensign hal yards of all our national ships, to stand by and buoy up, but never to haul down, (page 9)
Jonathan's brief description explaining why New England's
cider is better than any other is as patriotically expres
sive as Jack's toast quoted above:
Jonathan: ... we stopt at New York, and took in a few barrels ‘f old Newark ’ticular, list from the Jarsays, and-somehow folks-thinks it’s better'n ourn, for its true jarsay blue, made.arter the pattern 'f seventy six . . . (page 8)
Though their manners are crude and rustic and their atti
tudes naive and blatant, Lindsley's Yankees are sincere in
their convictions.
Schooling;. Previous stage Yankees displayed an
Ignorance of the situations in which they were placed.
Their mental status was unsophisticated, and Llndsley’s
Jonathan is no exception. Jack, however, reveals a shrewd 86
cunning and often finds Jonathan an easy mark. The latter, although confused at Jack's shrewdness, attempts to match wits with the nautical Yankee, hut usually to no avail.
Jonathan's technique for this mental competition rests in producing such a confused manner of speaking.that he bewil ders himself as well as Jack:
Jack: Ah! you landlubber, you'd puzzle a Philadelphia lawyer. What ca-capaclty.are you?
Jonathan: Oh, I spose 'e means what commission I holds. It.beets the very rot and all nater! tewe see.how some folks is for all!' Why sometimes I cook, steward, cabin boy, sailor, mate, and bottle washer . . . (Exit Jonathan)
Jack: Ah! the green horn! but I wish I had time to go-go aboard and try.some more of.his notions. . . . (page 40)
Jack's statement of trying "some more of his notions" is evidence of his rascality and ability to outwit the slower
Jonathan. Upon their first meeting, Jack's alertness is far superior to Captain Horner's servant. While Jonathan is ordered to watch over Horner's notions, Jack cleverly occupies the seemingly Ignorant Yankee's attention with idle talk and easily slips the Captain's apples and cheese into his pocket. Following his little theft, Jack trium phantly exalts his cleverness. Later, in an inebriated state, he speaks generally of the Yankee’s ability to bar ter shrewdly and, if necessary, unscrupulously:
Jack: ... My eyes, but you forgot to pull the ca- capstain tell you have ho-have the cable all out. 87 There's nothing in her—but leave a Yankee a lo- lone for shaving, he'll shave a barber himself, though he never took.a man by the nose in all his life, (page 39)
The Captain, having a minor part compared to the
other two Yankees, doesn't reveal his mental capacity as
readily. However, his dominating attitude with Jonathan
and his authoritative position with young Seldreer sharpens
his mental appearance even though his dialect is crude
and Yankeeized.
Other characteristics. All three Yankees are blatant
braggarts; Jack and Jonathan of their fighting prowess,
loyalty, and wit; Captain Horner of his notions and worth
as a peddler. Jack is explicit in his menacing attitude
toward the young villain, Dick Dashaway, and reveals his love for a good brawl as he states, "a worthless land lubber;
I wish I had the reefing of him, I'd square his head yards."
(page 21) The Yankee sailor is just as explicit in his display of loyalty for his master; although his honesty is dubious as a result of his trickery with Jonathan, Jack is sincerely honest in his concern for young Seldreer's safety:
Jack: You are a stern of the lighter there, sir; for I told Mr. Portraln all about the danger as every honest tar should his shipmate, as we came up channel, that he might be on the look out.
Seldreer: You are too—but leave the room.
Jack: I always obey me commander as long as he points with the needle of recitude, so I'll go and keep 88
a lookout a-head for privateers and breakers. (page 50)
Jonathan, like Jack, exemplifies the Yankee’s exag
gerated boasts of fighting when he confronts Jack with the
theft of the Captain’s notions. However, the “land lubber’’
Yankee quickly asserts his trait for being an honorable
pugilist:
Jonathan: Never fetch me, but 'e don’t see me, so I'll smoke um; tarnation seize me, but I'll cab bage his bottle. No. I'll bring um on his beam eands. No, that won't.dewe nuther by gum, Jona than! The Yankee's ’-spise to take ' vantage . over a weak friend when ’e ’spects nothen and aynt fixed for't by gum!. (page 37)
Finally, Jonathan and the Captain have a tendency to
swear, but in an unconventional way. The Captain uses the
terms "sure as guns," "tarnation sleepy hown," and "darna-
tion," while Jonathan's favorite profanities are "it beets all nater," "never fetch me," and "you may sop hell."
Regardless of their swearing oddities, both demonstrate a
crude vocabulary and a coarse dialectal expression. In
effect, their Yankee dialect is a good technical device in establishing their characters. As previously stated, Llnds ley appears to be one of the first Yankee playwrights to attempt the language of the actual Yankee. Both Jonathans' and Captain Horner's manner of speaking transcends the bounds of native flavor, for Llndsley resorts to sound spelling for most of the two Yankees' speeches. Although 89
LIndsley’ s dialect may not have been authentic, it is a more mature endeavor compared with the scripts preceding it.
THE YANKEY IN ENGLAND (1816)
BY COL. DAVID HUMPHREYS
Critical analysis of the play. Col. Humphreys'
script is a culmination'of previous Yankee endeavors; The
Yankey in England borrows from a number of scripts contain
ing the Yankee type. Doolittle, Humphreys' Yankee, appears
closer to the Yankees of the 1820-30 specialty acts; cer
tainly his numerous appearances are Indicative of the Yan kee' s future capacity as a major role. Although Doolittle still barely influences the plot and is primarily used as a low comedian, his presence is felt continously. As he profits from his Yankee predecessors, Doolittle displays a more refined and polished development; he is sharper- wltted, more fun, more capable in repartee, and conveys more dramatic action. The play's title signifies Doolittle's
Importance, not necessarily in plot, but in comic.success.
In the play’.s preface, Col. Humphreys critically appraises
Doolittle's character:
The character of the Yankey, from where the play de rives its name is little understood in several parts of America; still less in Europe.
Although this Yankey, whose characteristics in the abstract are designed to be personified in Doolittle, may be fairly a subject of risibility on account of 90
his dialect, pronounclation, and manners; yet his good qualities, even in the estimation of a rigid censor; will, doubtless, more than compensate for his singular! ties and failings. . . . Made up of contrarieties— simplicity and cunning . . . suspicious, vigilant, and quick of perception, he is ever ready to parry or repel the attacks of raillery, by retorts of rustic and sarcastic, if not of original and refined wit and humor.20
The script is plagued with long tedious passages,
especially delivered by the play’s duller characters. The
plot is long and complicated in its dealings with love
and sentiment. Although the play lacks dramatic action,
the repartee is fast and often witty; Doolittle’s constant
appearance aids in movement of the action. However, the
length of the script necessitates cutting and editing;
although Doolittle is the most interesting figure, his
scenes are superfluous to plot advancement and tend to form
a separate playlet. In effect, this piece could be trans
formed into a Yankee specialty act, for the numerous Doo
little scenes stand basically independent of the rest of
the script. There is sufficient evidence that Charles
Mathews, popular British comedian of the early nineteenth
century, borrowed heavily from Humphreysb'1 script in the
former's development of the American country type.21
20David Humphreys, The Yankey in England (Printed according..to the act of the State of Connecticut,. John Trumbull, 1816), pp. 14-15. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent references are to this source. 21 21 See Chapter IV, p. 169. 91 However, much more useful than Doolittle’s character Itself, are Humphreys;’ notes on real-life Yankees and his inclusion of a Yankee glossary of words and dialect. Unfortunately,
Humphreys’ perceptive comments about this unique American type are not wholly displayed in Doolittle; and since the plot is subjected to rambling dialogue and trite situations and characters, the play is hardly stageworthy. Humphrey^' real contributions are in depicting the first stage Yankee to be based on the genuine type, in carefully developing the Yankee dialect, and in providing a unique reference book for future stage Yankees.
Rank and position. Humphreysexplicitly established
Doolittle’s backwoods origin. In a scene involving General
Stuart (a refined American), the Yankee humorously relates the confused story of his heritage. The scene not only displays Doolittle’s crude beginning, but exemplifies the
Yankee’s blatant and witty form of ignorance. The comments referring to several parts of New England also provide evi dence of Col. Humphreys’ knowledge regarding the habitat of real-life Yankees:
General Stuart: . . . Since you belong to America, as I am acquainted there, I make free., to Inquire in what part were you born?
Doolittle: You know where New-Haven is?
General Stuart: Yes. 92
Doolittle: Well, I wasn’t born there.
General Stuart: Why did you ask the question?
Doolittle: Because my daddy was; but afore I was born, he moved up country, into the back parts, for me to cum forth there, I spose.
General Stuart: Back parts! What town gave you birth?
Doolittle: Nun, I vow: I was brought forth In the woods, as they tell.me, for I don’t remember nothing about it myself.
General Stuart: Strange! But where, as the story goes?
Doolittle: Sumwheres in Varmount, between Brattle- borough and Bennington—I take it, pri.tty much as the Indian said he was born at Nantucket, Cape- Cod,, and all along the shore there, (pages 39-40)
Doolittle's backwood's environment naturally limits his adaptability for a working skill. In addition, his name Implies a trait similar to most Yankees when eommmiis- sioned to perform a certain task. Of course, Doolittle is the first to disagree about any deficiency in his work out put. However, Humphreys has his Yankee refer to his handi ness in such general terms that the truth is hard to decipher:
Neuman: If we can agree, I will employ you: but I like diligence. What can you do? > Doolittle: As much as most fokes, I take it. You'll find,me.handy at most jobs, and about the quickest at larnln. (page 20)
Although Doolittle's evasive answer is misleading, he is hired by Neuman. However, the Yankee is slow to discover that his job consists of being a low ranking servant. Once 93
again, the apparent Yankee trait of pride aids in upgrading
Doolittle's low status and gives him some sort of social
eminence. Doolittle, like most of his predecessors and his
eventual followers, is indignant when thinking that his
liberty is challenged. Thus, his servitude, although
placing him in a low ranking position, is subjected to a
strong pride:
Neuman: You'll be prudent. (Putting his fingers on his lips.) Mum!
Doolittle: Dumb! (holding both his hands over his mouth.), ,
Neuman: Say nothing!
Doolittle: Nothing.
Neuman: Always respectful, call her Countess, Ladyship.
Doolittle: When I don't forget.
Neuman: You won't forget! You are too clever of a fellow. Remember—never fall to call her Coun tess, Ladyship! Never!
Doolittle: Never.
Neuman: I shall be your friend as long as you act well, as her Ladyship's servant.
Doolittle: (Aside.) Sarvant!!! By jingoes! Sarvant! I wonder wherels the being,on. a pair of.legs, that I'd call master! I'm mad! But I'll bite in a breath, (pages.30t31)
Even though he blatantly protests, Doolittle is
reduced to being a messenger and waiter for Countess St.
Lue. Yet his Yankee pride and disdain for his position
partially upgrade his low social status. 94 Attitudes. Doolittle’s bold and crude assertions of pride are transferable to his social mannerisms. His rude and abrupt habits are displayed in his dealings with Neuman.
When the latter inquires of Doolittle what he expects to be paid, the Yankee rudely Interrupts him with, ”l shan’t be boggling and dilly-dallying much about that; now I am all dripping wet as dung. Wnat will you give me?” (page 20)
Just as crude and ignorant as his mannerisms, are
Doolittle’s attitudes toward social politeness. Humphreys’
Yankee reveals his social naivete in both matters of dress and proper etiquette. Doolittle functions under the mis conception that his breeding is perfect: Doolittle: ... If she [Doolittle's new mistress, Countess St. Lue] speaks to me, I'll tawk but despud leetle, and try to please.her with my mannerliness. . . .
Countess: You are, I presume, the American lately taken into my service?
Doolittle: (Aside.) Sarvlce, agin! but stop a piece. (Loud.). I expect I be, Ladyship. (Aside.) There now, I.didn’t forgit. ...
Countess: Will you carry this note to that house on the opposite side of the street? It is for a priest: if he be there, wait for- an answer.
Doolittle: I guess I will, Miss Countess! (Aside.) Well done agin—rthat's mannerly—parfect.breed ing—like her'n. (pages 36-37)
Doolittle transfers his "parfect breeding" to his taste in clothing styles. His bold and unpretentious manner in self- compliments is humorously naive. Although Mr. Neuman baits 95
Doolittle with revealing his puerile attitudes in proper dress, the Yankee’s proud wit offers some compensation for his naivetC:
Neuman: What come hack so soon? How fare you Doolittle?
Doolittle: Cleverly. Stiddy, pritty stiddy, and quite chirk again; I thank you.
Neuman: You look better; I hope you feel better, and are better.
Doolittle: Why, I expect I du. And I guess I be all three. (Strutting.) .I know.I be, as to,the first perticklar, namely,.„changing my old shabby duds, for these new Sabbada close, fit for a go-to-meet ing day, enny wheres. (page 29)
Doolittle's mannerisms and attitudes are a direct result of his social heritage and environment. The Yankee is socially naive and sheltered in his ideas of worldly affairs:
Doolittle: . . . Oh, Doolittlel Doolittle! you've Ijf brought your pigs to a fine market. Now, I guess you'd better staid at hum with mother, next time. She.tell'd you all about the paerils of the salt sea: (vexed with himself) but you woodn't believe 'em. .No! no; you were too darned cute;-too pla- guey knowing in argufying the case, (sobbing) for poor mother: and you e'en-a-most broke her heart; . . . (busting into tears) yes; yes; you were a nation.deal wiser than brother Jonathan, brother Josiah, sister Deborah, sister Keziah . . . Oh, Doolittle! Doolittle! I wonder what will become of you next?. I am despud sick of being in strange parts. . . .■ (pages 19-20)
Doolittle's grief is somewhat relieved by Mr. Neuman's offer of a job to which the Yankee proudly replies, " . . .
And I should be glad to know, what I have to du? for it is 96
not my way ... to promise more than I can perform."
(page 21) The preceding statement Implies the Puritanical
traits of honesty and hard work, but Doolittle* s concept of
performing hard labor is different from his pilgrim fore fathers.22 In effect, Doolittle represents the later Yan
kee’s alteration of several Puritanical ideas. No longer
are the struggles and hardships inevitable in his character;
for, unlike the early settlers, the nineteenth century Yan
kees have experienced the satisfaction of independence and
freedom. Therefore, life has become easier to endure:
Doolittle: ... I take things fair and easy, jest as I can hold 'em.
Neuman: "Fair and easy, Jest as you can hold ’em?"
Doolittle: Mock me? You had better. Yes; fair and easy, jest as I wood a day's work at mending an old rotten brush fence, (page 32)
However, one Puritanical belief that is unaltered by the Yankee, concerns the supernatural and witchcraft.23
Doolittle, true to his forefathers, complies with the lat-
ters' stern and stubborn adherence to the power of black magic and demonic sorcery:
General: Black art! Do you believe in witchcraft?
Doolittle: I guess, you had better ax me first, if I believe what is printed. Who do you think the witch of Endor was, if she wasn't the witch of
22See Chapter III, p. 119.
23lbid. 97 Endor? (page 58)
Doolittle not only succeeds in establishing his belief in
the supernatural, but also reveals his gullibility. The
Yankee’s naive faith in the validity of all printed mate rial is similar to the "Yankee Peddlar" stories appearing sixteen years earlier in The Farmer's Almanac.24
Political spirit and preferences. Doolittle's atti tudes toward his country and the concept of freedom are
just as bold and boisterous as his social views. He often speaks about the Yankee's bravery and self-pride:
Doolittle: ... We wasn't brought up in the woods, to be scart at an owl in an ivy-bush. You can't scare me so; nor make me not luv my country, with all its forts. It’s a nation deal better than enny other I know'd on. ... I am a free-born American. Didn't father fight for freedom and independence tu? And won't I stand by 'em tu, stiff as a poker? . . . (pages 33-34)
The above passage is an example of the early Yankee's trait of associating his beginning with the American Revolution.
Although the war occurred some forty years prior to Doo% little's creation, his Yankee pride of independence emulates his predecessors.
Schooling. Doolittle has a more refined wit than his predecessors. His ability at word play is sharper and his mentality keener. Yet, the Yankee's basic tendency
22*See Chapter III, p. 128. 98
toward misinterpretation is still apparent in several
passages:
Countess: . . . You see where she lives; five doors down the street, on the right“side.
Doolittle: I didn't'suppose it the wrong side for you, where she lived.
Countess: Poh! on the right hand side; . . . (page 53)
Although Doolittle’s ignorance is obvious, it is tempered with his ability to twist his own misunderstanding into a witty barage of confusion:
Neuman: . . . You are a footman; you have not the honor of being her body servant.
Doolittle: Body sarvant! Hah! no; I hope I be’nt her body sarvant, nor enny body’s sarvant, nor your sarvant. I don’t choose to be (as the saying is) a sarvant of sarvants and a slave to the dlvil.
Neuman: Pretty time of day! Restive are you? You don’t seem to see your duty clear.
Doolittle: I rusty! You are tarnation bright—clear as mud. . . . (page 32)
As evidence of his refined wit, Doolittle is not easily duped. Actually, his tendency to attack sarcastically the minds of others elevates one’s opinion of his mental capacity. When Neuman tests Doolittle’s gullibility, he is surprised with the Yankee's retort:
Doolittle: . . . if you think me a little dumbish, and want to poke your fun at me, you had better, next time, send me to look for eggs in a mare's nest; and you won't find me so great a fool as you yourself—take me to be. (page 22) 99
Doolittle's wit and shrewdness precedes the 1820
Yankee's cunning in matters of cupidity. The Yankee charac
ters of the specialty acts are sharp in dealings and bargains but, like Doolittle, maintain a basic Ignorance. Humphreys'
Yankee, however, does not really convey a trait for cupidity.
Rather, he resembles Farmer Ploughby and Humphry Cubb. All three are often preoccupied with money matters, but tend to display a basic honesty. When offered money by the Count,
Doolittle proudly asserts his terms of acceptance:
Doolittle: No, it's only weak things that want to be strengthened. I guess more of my good properties stan In need of that. I never take money till I arn it fairly, (page 52)
However, some of Doolittle's wit and word play ability is dependent upon his monetary attitudes. In effect, the Yan kee becomes adept- at questioning satirically other's intel ligence; while conveniently overlooking his own failures:
Doolittle: . . . But I don't chuse to have sumthing for nothing—and so I should be glad to know, what kind of way you count to improve me in?
Neuman: Improve you! Oh, that's impossible!—you are too parfect already. Doolittle: (Aside.) Flinging his fun agin! (Aloud.) Well, mister, if you don't understand plain Eng lish, that isn't my fort. . . . (page 29)
Perceptive and witty though Doolittle is, he cannot fully disguise his basic lack of education. Much of his sparkling repartee depends on his initial misinterpretation 100
and misuse of words. His failure to comprehend the situa
tions in which he is placed and his vocabulary deficiency
adds to the development of his comic type.
Other characteristics. Doolittle’s character depends more on the concept of independence that do the earlier Yan
kees. His determined stubbornness in expressing his rustic
individualism prompts Mr. Neuman to surmise, ” . . .1 do
not doubt that he is an independent, honest fellow, with all his oddities. ..." Moreover, Doolittle's fervent and bla
tant display of Yankee pride becomes an object of praise and admiration:
Neuman: I admire your independent spirit. I like to have people think well of themselves. You have convinced me of your spunk. I am your— your—friend, (page 34)
Another of Doolittle’s individual traits, and directly related to the Yankees before him, is his clumsy and awkward appearance. Several stage directions depict the Yankee as a bumbling bumpkin. Even those that share an equally low social position with Doolittle, laugh at the Yankee’s crude and odd bearing:
A waiter: Here is a footman who has just been taken into that family [the St. Lue]; and as he is very inquisitive, he may perhaps give your honor some information: at least he cannot fail at affording you some amusement by his awkwardness and oddity.
General Stuart: I shall relish that amazingly. He looks like a true Yankey. ... I must lend 101
motives to draw out his humor. (Enter Doolittle, bowing awkwardly.) (page 39)
Despite Doolittle’s awkward alre, he fancies himself
a lady’s man. Although his Ineptness for loVe-maklng is
evident, he boasts of his ability to woo the opposite sex
and is willing to place his charms on display:
Neuman: . . . can you be spry, nimble, bustle about, and work early and late?
Doolittle: Why, yes; mainly, by day, and meb-be by night, if you want me to help the gals, at their work.
Neuman: Help the gals! What, courting! sparking! Ah, you flippant blade! you rogue, you! Well, well. . . . (page 20)
Thus, Col. Humphreys has compiled many of the early
Yankee traits for his development of Doolittle. The rustic individualism, the witty display of ignorance, the suscep tibility toward naivete in manners and social concepts, and a crude upgrading of a low social position through blatant pride, represents Doolittle and the basic traits of his predecessors. Humphreys’ diagnosis of the Yankee character, however, is more perceptive than the ideas that were culti vated before his script. His expert handling of the Yankee dialect excels the attempts of his predecessors and his con cept of the comic type's wit and cleverness presents an apparent prototype for the Yankee figures that follow. 102
SUMMARY
In order to establish better whether or not the Yan
kee characters appearing in these six early plays are pos
sible prototypes of the post-1820 Yankees, there is a need
to relate the two Yankee forms. Therefore, the following
is a brief review of the Yankee characteristics in these
early scripts which appear to have changed or matured, those which remain basically the same, and those which appear to
come and go in a transitional manner.
The fully developed Yankee characters such as Hiram
Dodge in the Yankee Pedlar. Jonathan Ploughby in The Forest
Rose.and Solon Shingle in The People* s Lawyer are all country bumpkins and exhibit a basic confusion at the ways of city
life. They appear to rebel against the hustle-bustle envi ronment of the "citified" and often resort tb taking more time in thinking matters over. This particular trait also
seems typical of the early Yankees. From Tyler's Jonathan
to Humphreys' Doolittle, these early scripts contain a num ber of passages in which the Yankee talks things over with himself. However, this concept appears to have matured greatly; for whereas Jonathan, Humphry Cubb, and Nathan Yank briefly reflect upon a situation, Farmer Ploughby, Lindsley's
Jonathan and Jack, and especially Humphreys’ Doolittle pos sess a number of long soliloquies reviewing their particular 103
situations. In effect, both Doolittle and Lindsley's Jona
than devote considerable time to such reflection in the very
first scenes in their respective plays. In addition, all the Yankee characters with the exception of Nathan Yank, which appear after Tyler’s Jonathan, have their country back ground more fully developed.
Another mannerism of these early Yankees, which obvi ously matured, is that of dialect. Tyler’s Jonathan conveys merely a simple flavor of the Yankee’s speech, whereas Linds- ley’s Jonathan and Jack and Humphreys’ Doolittle appear to be fervent attempts to record accurately the "down-east” dia lect. The effort devoted to "sound spelling" by both Llnds ley and Humphreys seems to exemplify a conscious endeavor to develop more fully the actual Yankee’s manner of speech.
In addition, Humphreys’ Yankee dictionary provides further evidence for the maturing of the Yankee dialect.
A characteristic which seems to have matured, yet is not completely developed in the early Yankee characters is an underlying shrewdness with a tendency towards cupidity. The
Yankee characters discussed in the first four plays of this chapter convey a simple wit beneath their uneducated behav ior. All misuse words and misinterpret other characters’ ideas, yet still manage to hold their own with anyone on stage. However, not until Lindsley’s Jack and Humphreys’
Doolittle is there an unusually overt display of wit and 104
shrewdness. Tyler’s Jonathan does manage to confuse his
chief adversary, Jessamy, and Humphry Cubb manages to gain
his desired ends from Charles and Worthnought, but their
manner is simple compared to Jack’s deceptive behavior with
Jonathan, and Doolittle’s satiric handling of Neuman’s com
ments. However, most of these early Yankees lack a real
cupidity; this trait is only simply developed through Hum
phry Cubb’s haggling for drinks, Captain Horner’s dealings
with Jack Seldreer, and Doolittle’s shrewd «job-bargaining
with Neuman.
Several characteristics of the fully developed Yankee
character appear strongly in these early Yankee figures, yet
remain basically unchanged rather than maturing. They all
demonstrate an unflagging self-respect and individuality,
as evidenced by Lindsley’s Jack choosing his own profession,
Doolittle’s proud stand against Neuman’s innuendos, and Jona
than’s insistance on being referred to as a waiter rather
than a servant. They also appear generally uncouth and are
referred to as being clumsy, awkward, and Ignorant of mun dane affairs. The latter is especially true of Farmer .
Ploughby in his discussions with Pelegrine and Dorrlville.
In addition, all the Yankee figures display a loyalty to their American heritage and emerge as sharp contrasts to a more educated and sophisticated society. In essence, a great deal of the Yankee's humor is a result of this contrast. 105
The tendency toward sentimentalism and concepts con
cerning the Yankee’s basic honesty are traits which appear
to be transitional: non-existent in a few of the early char
acters, or not fully developed. In effect, sentimentality
does not appear until Hutton’s Farmer Ploughby cries on
stage and speaks of his "quiet conscience" and not again un
til Humphreys’ Doolittle expresses his joy at a happy ending} basic honesty appears only in the characters of Farmer Plough by, Humphry Cubb, and Doolittle. CHAPTER III
EMERGENCE OF THE YANKEE CHARACTER
OUTSIDE THE AMERICAN. THEATRE
In the late eighteenth century, America was a new
country with a newly formed government. The victorious
struggle for independence created responsibilities difficult
for any young nation; yet, an optimistic spirit and enthu
siasm prevailed. As the government attempted to solve its
problems, so did society. However, the latter seemed more
susceptible to foreign influences. American writers were
apparently influenced by the European products and mostly
conformed to the English style. Many British manners and
customs were preserved in America following the Revolution.
Still, in America’s effort to break most ties with England, a coarser and cruder culture developed. Individuals were more boisterous and less polished in their tastes, yet de pended a great deal, as before, on the British social milieu
Although the Yankee was frowned upon by most European au thors, ironically the latter appears to have aided in esta blishing a possible prototype.
The objective of this chapter, therefore, is to esta blish how the pre-1820 Yankee emerged in oral humor and in all forms of literature other than the early American drama.
In essence, a discussion concerning what other genres before 107
1820 aided in developing this American comic type and whether
or not the milieu outside the American theatre offered assis
tance in establishing the Yankee’s humor, may help in decid
ing if first, the early form of the Yankee character served
as a prototype for the Yankee specialists and secondly, if he
reflected the culture of the period.
Although the Yankee character appears wholly American,
he most likely was a composite of previously established lit
erary types. Therefore, the first section of this chapter
briefly discusses the susceptibility of Americans to the
influences of the British travelers’ accounts concerning the
American character, of the British drama, and of the German-
Prussian folk literature characters such as Baron Munchausen.
In addition to these possible European influences,
the overall development of the Yankee's character appears evident in early American non-dramatic literature. The Yan kee’ s coarse spirit epitomized America’s war attitudes and his charismatic charm appears to have elevated him to folk hero. Thus, his rustic individualism, uncultured dialect,
crude mannerisms, and mock oaths were displayed in almanacs, periodical anecdotes, newspapers, and poetry. The Yankee’s spirit was also present in popular American folklore. This folklore appears to have stemmed from the early Puritans’ philosophies and attitudes and from the early settlers’ eco nomic and political milieu. In addition, the simple tales 108
and lore of the American Indian, the American literary humor
of the times presenting similar type characters and the real-
life Yankees such as Samuel Sewell appear to have aided in
developing the Yankee character prior to 1820.
In essence, although the Yankee’s theatrical carica
ture became popular during the 1820’s, there is a need to
discuss if and how the Yankee’s emergence in the European
and American non-dramatic literature of the eighteenth and
early nineteenth centuries influenced his popularity and
aided in establishing his prototype.
EUROPEAN INFLUENCES
British travelers' accounts. A report from the Black
wood1 s Magazine, in 1817, reveals that a number of Europeans
set sail for American soil. More explicitly, during July of
1817, 649 English, 581 Irish, 137 Scottish, and 31 French travelers arrived in New York.1 This was a small sample of
the many foreigners who visited the United States during the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Male and
female travelers from England and other countries toured
America, wrote down notes of the terrain, conditions, and
inhabitants, and published their works for all to read. That
Americans were aware of these travel books is noted by Walter.
1Wllliam Blackwood, Blackwood's Magazine (Edinburgh: Baldwin, Cradock, and Joy, 1017)7 T» ¿49. 109
Blair ln his Native American Humor :
Their discoveries [the travelers] were likely to be in fluential, for the travel books were read by great num bers of hypersensitive Americans—with pride and horror, with indignation or with shame.2
Although America was more traveled in post revolutionary times, earlier travelers added insights to the overall American character and the comedy of the New England
Yankee. Sarah Kemble Knight, on one of her visits to New
York, recorded this picture of a Connecticut lad and his amour in 1704j
CHe was] ... a tall country fellow, with his alfo- geous full of tobacco; for they seldom Loose their Cudd, but keep Chewing and Spitting as long as they's eyes are open,—he advanc’t to the middle of the Room, makes an Awkward Nodd, and spitting a Large deal of Aromatick Tincture, he gave a scrope with his hands under his arms, Stood staring rown'd him like a Catt let out of a Baskett. At last, ... he opened his mouth and said: ’Have you any Ribinen for Bumpkin Simpers, cryes its confounded Gay I vow; and beckning to the door, in comes Jane Tawdry, dropping about 50 curtsees, and stands by him: he shows her the Ribin. 'Law you,' sais shee, 'its right Gent, do You, take it, tis dreadfull pretty.’3
With the passing of the Revolutionary War, the spirit of independence was strong, and such Americans as the Yankee peddlers expanded their businesses outside their usual ter- taln. However, many of these enterprising Americans were
2Walter Blair, Native American Humor. 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, Inc., I960), p. 28.
^Sarah Kemble Knight, "Private Journal of a Journey from Boston to New York, in Blair, pp. 8-9. 110
frowned upon by their own countrymen as noted by Estrick
Evans in his tour of the western states:
The Inhabitants of Pittsburgh are very suspicious of Yankees and, judging from the character of a few, uncharitably condemn the whole. This is more or less the case throughout the west.4
Many of the later English travelers were influenced
by those who preceded them. Before setting sail, they would
read earlier travelers' accounts of how Americans differed
from the British, and biases were formed. Their travels
were usually short, and opinions, rather than facts, com
pleted their reports on the uncultured habits of Americans.
However, Frances Wright, traveling in America from 1818-
1820, was determined not to pre-judge Americans, for she
reasoned "... that to judge a nation by the reports of
its enemies was ridiculous." During Miss Wright's two years
in the United States, she became impressed with the indus
trious, moral, and determined spirit of the inhabitants:
The portion of the Union that has most generally pre served her ancient moral distinction is New England. The reason may be found in the rigidity of her early religious creed and in the greater separation of her people from the rest of the nation. Strictly moral, well-educated, industrious, and intelligent, but shrewd, cautious, and, as their neighbours say, at least, pecu liarly long-sighted to their interests, the citizens of New England are the Scotch of America. Like them,
^Estrick Evans, "A Pedestrious Tour of Four Thousand Miles Through the Western States and Territories, 1819,“ in Jennette Tandy’s Crackerbox Philosophies in American Humor and Satire. 2nd ed. (Port Washington, N. Y.: Kennlkat Press, Inc.',""19645, p. 11. 111
they are Inhabitants of a comparatively poor country and send forth legions of hardy adventurers to push their fortunes in richer climes. There is this differ ence, however, that the Scotchman traverses the world and gathers stores to spend them afterwards in his own barren hills, while the New Englander carries his penates with him and plants a colony on the shores of the Ohio, with no less satisfaction than he would have done on those of the Connecticut.5
Most of the travel journals included sections like
those quoted above, devoted to descriptions of America’s
strange inhabitants; and, eventually, an English concept
of the American Yankee slowly emerged. Thus, the early for
eign travellers may have aided in establishing the Yankee's
prototype since they described the crude and vulgar habits
of the more uncultured American, the mendacity of the Yan
kees, and the raw, independent attitude of Americans toward
like. Most of these elements, as previously suggested in
Chapter II of this work, were typical of the Yankee charac
ters appearing in early American drama and somewhat repre
sentative of the fuller developed mannerisms of the Yankee
specialists as discussed in Chapter I, pages seven and eight.
British drama and theatre. During the eighteenth cen
tury, Britain maintained a firm cultural grip over America.
The comic genre popular in England became prominent in Ameri
can theatres. However, the nature of Britain's drama changed
^Francis Wright, Views of Society and Manners in America, ed. Paul R. Baker (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 195. 112
throughout the century and introduced new characters equiva
lent to the Yankee prototype.
The cold, barbed wit of the Restoration that had
ushered in the eighteenth century was soon under attack for
its disregard of morality. As early as 1698, Jeremy Col
lier’s famous blast in his treatise, A Short View of the
Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage, made it
inevitable that the Restoration comedy of manners would under
go extensive changes. The prevailing comic attitudes were bound to be modified by a softer view of human follies.
Thus, Colley Cibber with his play, Love* s Last Shift, intro duced the eighteenth century to the new genre of sentimental
comedy. Richard Quintana, in his introduction of Eighteenth-
Century Plays, describes this comic form, ’’. . .we hear of the tender emotions which assert themselves in crisis, and witness scenes of reconciliation or reform brought about by a change of heart.”6 The witty comments on the follies and vices of fashionable life depicted in the Restoration did not lie dormant, however. Instead, one form of late eight eenth century comedy became the sentimentalized comedy of manners, or a combination of the two genres. As a result of this form, a new comic figure appeared, the country bumpkin
^Richard Quintana, “introduction,” Eighteenth-Century Plays, ed. Richard Quintana (New York: Random House, Inc., 1952), p. xv. 113 or would-be-dandy. The bumpkin was noted to be boastful,
boisterous, awkward, Impertinent, a rascal of wit, and fairly
ignorant of worldly ways. In essence, the bumpkin contained
a number of the ingredients that marked the early Yankee
figures, A notable comic figure revealing all of the above
traits was Sheridan’s Bob Acres in The Rivals. Although
Sheridan meant this 1775 play to be a satire on the senti
mental comedies, he actually retained many of that genre’s
qualities. However, the figure of Bob Acres was refreshing.
His clumsy antics and his blatant boasting were traits re
vealed in later Yankee characters such as those already d
described in Chapter II. Repeatedly, Acres reveals his
"country bumpkin" mannerisms as he talks of social affairs
with ignorance and the code of honor with underlying coward
ice. His speech on the use of "sentimental swearing" serves
as an example of his pseudosophistication and his social
ignorance:
... I assure you that there is no meaning in the common oaths, and that nothing but their antiquity makes them respectable ... to swear with propriety, says my little major, the "oath should be an echo to the sense": and this we call the oath referential, or sentimental swearing—Aye, aye, the best terms grow obsolete. Damns have had their day.'
That Acres’ character influenced Royall Tyler in his crea tion of Jonathan in The Contrast seems likely. As previously
7Richard Brinsley Sheridan, The Rivals. in Eighteenth Century Plays, p. 431. 114
mentioned in Chapter II, Jonathan’s picturesque swearing,
"maple log seize it" and "swamp it" seems an American appli
cation of Acres’ "oath referentia," and an example that com mon "hells" and "damns" have been replaced by a more colorful
terminology.
Thus sentimentalism became an Influence in British
eighteenth century comedies. At the same time, the "manners"
school exerted a certain influence, and frequently, the two forms combined. This combination produced the humorous country bumpkin and would-be-dandy characters such as Tony
Lumpkin in She Stoops to Conquer and Bob Acres. These indi viduals appears to be forerunners of the early American Yan kee figures such as the one described in John Trumbull's poem
The Fop and of several of the Yankees discussed in Chapter
II. In essence, although the Yankee appears wholly American in spirit and his ideas belonged to America, his general countenance seems to partially reflect the traits of the
English characters which preceded him.
The heavily British background of theatre, both in repertoire and production style, was obvious in eighteenth century America. The American theatre was actually a trans plant of the British theatre. In effect, it was an echo of
London's cultural activities.
From the beginning, America's theatre was dominated by British personnel. The early professional troupes of 115
players in America came from England. The Hallams, all
British, are credited with giving America her first profes
sional troupe of actors. Some of these British performers
were excellent actors and provided a sound background for
the quality of early American theatres. After permanent;
theatres were established, America was often a haven for
actors who couldn't substantially succeed on the London
stage, for players past their prime, or for young hopefuls willing to go to any extreme for a successful theatrical
career.
Virtually all the great acting names in early American
theatre history were British; and Englishmen such as Thomas
Wignell and John Hodgkinson performed the low comedian roles.
In effect, the Yankee character first emerged as a mere low comic type. Moreover, it was Wignell who created the role of Jonathan in Tyler's The Contrast. Of course, being Bri tish, Wignell may not have caught the real flavor of the Yan kee dialect, but as one critic noted upon witnessing that opening night in 1787, ". . . if Wignell had not quite the right pronounclation of Jonathan, he made ample amends by his inimitable humor.
England not only influenced America's production
^Anonymous, "Dally Advertiser," in Bernard Hewitt, Theatre U. S. A. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959), P. 3^. 116
styles, but also the repertoire and theatre management. The
early settlers could hardly be expected to evolve a theatre
of their own and supply it with competent actors and managers/
In addition, the British felt compelled to present scripts with which their own personnel were familiar and that any trial of new scripts should come from the best source—thea
trical London. In essence, the practical result was that the
British adhered to familiar practices rather than indulging
in innovations.
Thus, America’s theatrical style in the eighteenth century appeared more dependent on the more experienced and knowledgeable British. The susceptibility of America’s practice in repertoire, play selection, and production styles, to British influences seems strong.
German-Prus slam influence: Baron Munchausen. An article in Robert Thomas' Almanac 1804 serves as a warning against the gullibility through an exaggerated tale:
This is a fine season for the farmer to enjoy the com pany of his friends. In these long evenings he can now have leisure to peep into the newspaper; but read both sides of the question before you judge. Believe not every story you hear. Pin your faith upon no man’s sleeve.9
Fortunately for the Yankee character, however, tall
^Robert B. Thomas, The Farmers Almanac (1804), in George L. Kittredge, The Old Farmer and His Almanack. 4th ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924), p. 250. 117 tales were welcomed by the eighteenth and nineteenth century
Americans. Stories of the Yankee's quick presence of mind in alarming situations and of his masculine dexterity regard ing hunting and rugged sports were circulated throughout the young nation.
These exaggerated tales were hardly original to Amer ica, for there are numerous correlations of the Yankee tales with the fantastic adventures of the Germanic hero, Baron
Munchausen. The accounts of Baron Munchausen's travels and campaigns were published in 1785, but the main contributor,
R. E. Raspe, was actively writing prior to that date.
Raspe's character resembled the Yankee, for both were excel lent sportsmen, rugged fighters, capably-wltted, prone to exaggerate, smitten with the ladies, brash and coarse in their manners. An early Munchausen hunting tale is remarka bly similar to the one printed in Thomas' Farmers Almanac some nineteen years later in 1809. The latter relates the exploits of a Vermont Nimrod and will be cited later. Mun chausen' s yarn, however, serves as an example of the exag gerated boldness and sharp mindedness of the rugged hunter:
One morning I saw through the windows of my bed-room that a large pond, not far off, was, as it were, covered with wild ducks. In an Instant I took my gun from the corner, run down stairs, and out in such a hurry, that imprudently I struck my face against the door post. Fire, light, and sparks, flew out of my eyes, but it did not prevent my intention. I soon came within shot, when leveling my piece, I observed to my sorrow, that even the flint had sprung from the cock, by the violence of the shock I had just received. There was no time to 118
be lost. I presently remembered the effect it had had upon my eyes, therefore opened the pan, leveled my piece against the wild fowls, and my fist against one of my eyes. A hearty blow drew sparks again, the shot went off, and I had five brace of ducks, four pldgeons and a couple of teals. Presence of mind is the soul of manly exercises.10
Such heroism linked with the term ’’presence of mind’’ seemed
common among many Yankee yarns. Further tales of Munchausen
relate his disregard for polite social activities, but his
willingness to impress the young ladies. When attempting
to break a wild horse and to display his skilled mastery of
horsemanship, Munchausen:
. . . forced him [the horse] to leap In at one of the open windows of the tea room, walked round several times, pace, trot, and gallop; and at last made him mount the tea-table, there to repeat his lessons . . . which was exceedingly pleasing to the ladies, for he1performed them amazingly well, and did not break either a cup or saucer.1*
Raspe’s heroic figure appears similar to the Yankee
character, as well as the American level and style of liter
ature. By 1820, America was saturated with adventurous tales
and anecdotes of Munchausen-type characters. These tales were widely circulated through almanacs, newspapers, periodi
cals, poems, novels, and the theatre.
1^R. E. Raspe, Adventures of Baron Munchausen. 2nd ed., reprinted (New,York: Dover Publications, Inc., I960), pp. 6-7.
11 Raspe, p. 17 119
AMERICAN INFLUENCES
Indian folklore. The American Yankee may have been
a result of grafting Old World beliefs onto a New World
environment. The first Puritans in America encountered a
strange and foreboding continent of dense woodlands, unfa
miliar waters, and demonic savages. The latter only served
to heighten their views of devilish ghouls, spectorx of the
night, and other supernatural phenomena. The colonists could
interpret their hazardous experiences only through Divine
Providence, witchcraft, and harmful demonic occurrences.
Therefore, the milieu of the early English colonists was
formed by an uprooted European heritage confronting a fierce
and barbaric habitat. This new world, to the Puritans,
was a juxtaposition of fruitful lands and uncivilized cul
ture. This juxtaposition was the mold for American folk lore.12 Richard M. Dorsen states that America’s setting
supplied three special themes for the narrations of hardy
settlers: 12Hundreds of tales regarding the Yankee’s boldness and courage appearing in American folklore seemed to emerge from Puritan determinism. The Puritans believed that man was wholly sinful by nature; only through severe and unre mitting discipline could he achieve good. Therefore, hard work was considered a religious duty. In addition, his willingness to face the truth and live with it developed other traits of the New England Puritan character: a Spartan hardiness and reserve, shrewd thrift and resourcefulness, and above all, sturdy individualism and maintenance of moral convictions. 120
The land itself, with its strange denizens and luxur iant, unfamiliar growths, furnished the stuff of sensa tional reports. The savages who inhabited the land reveled in barbarous customs and diabolical sorceries astounding to Europeans. And the hazards of life in a wilderness providentially governed by God as His special preserve inspired awesome ^relations."13
As Dorsen indicates, the colonists faced the dangers of an unknown terrain and the barbaric human mind of the
Indians. The Indians, however, no matter how uncivilized and uncultured they appeared to the early Colonists, were far from being unintelligent. They cleverly attempted to dissuade the white man from exploring the new world. Early travelers were deterred by the Indians' horrifying accounts of terrestrial dangers. The red man often observed that these new white invaders were gullible and naive, so they depicted the Mississippi River as "a horrid whirlpool, com plete with monsters and serpents, that swallowed up every thing that came near it and eventually terminated into a hideous and bottemless pit. "I2*' Strange tales regarding the
Indians' mesmerism of the white man were told by Cotton
Mather and William Wood. The latter, in reporting of the wizardry and enchantment of Pissacannawa, stated, ". . .he can make the water burn, the rocks move, the trees dance [and can] metamorphize himself into a flaming man."15
15Richard Dorsen, American Folklore, 6th ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1959), p. 9.
I^Ibid., p. 16. 15lbld.. p. 17. 121
Stories of the Indians’ sorcery and culture were repeated throughout the early settlements and eventually
developed into tall tales. Thus, small anecdotes were exag gerated into fanciful myths. One example of this mytholo gizing comes from the reply of an eighty-year-old Indian when asked of his tribe’s origin:
The red man drew on the floor with a hot coal a little circle, with four paws, a head, and a tail. “This is a tortoise lying in the water," he said, and moved his hand around the figure. "This was all water, and so at first was the world of the earth, when the tortoise eventually raised its round back up high, and the water ran off it, and thus the earth became dry." Then he took a little straw and placed it in the middle of the earth, and the root of this tree sent forth a sprout beside it and there grew upon it a man, who was the first male. This man was then alone, and would have remained alone but the tree bent over until its top touched the earth, and there shot therein another root, from which came forth another root, from which came forth another sprout, and there grew upon it the woman; and from these two are all men produced.’’1®
This mythology, coupled with the Indians’ performances of rain dances, cure-conJurlngs, and powow magic, entranced the Devil-fearing English settlers.
However, the settlers’ gullibility grew into skepti cism, their naivete blossomed into maturity, and a comic as well as supernatural folklore emerged. Soon, the Indians were playing the fool and becoming the butt for Englishmen’s tricks. Unfamiliar with such civilized inventions as rum, books, gunpowder, and fire-arms, the red man resembled the
1^Dorsen, p. 19. 122 ignorant bumpkin stereotype of the future Yankee character.
Complete with mutilations of the English dialect and bewil dered numbskulled antics, the Indian provided the English settlers a perfect foil. The red brave’s ignorance in the use of gunpowder resulted in many anecdotes. In fact, sev eral Powhatan savages were blown sky-high after attempting to dry gunpowder on a plate of armor in the sun. Others were outwitted by believing the hole in the ground was a storage-bin for the plague rather than gunpowder. One naive brave asked a New England settler if he might utilize this
’’plague’’ to destroy a hostile tribe.
Another amusing anecdote stems from The Present State of New England (1675) which relates how Captain Mosely, with sixty men, outwitted three hundred savage tribesmen. The
Captain plucked off his periwig and tucked it into his ./r breeches, preparatory to fighting, whereupon the red men turned tail and fled, crying out, ”umh, umh, me no stawmerre fight, Engls mon, Engis mon got two heads, if me cut off un head he got noder a put on beder as dis.’’1?
Still, the Indian contained an uncultured intelli gence, and much like the stage Yankee of the nineteenth cen tury, revealed a low cunning beneath his crudity:
Hendrick, chief of the Mohawks, in a council meeting told the British superintendent of Indian affairs in
17Kittredge, The Old Farmer and His Almanack, p. 354; 123
America, Sir William Johnson, that the previous night he had. dreamed Sir William had given him a fine laced coat. Knowing the Indian commitment to dreams, John son immediately pulled off his rich garment and gave it to the delighted chief, who departed crying out "Why ah” in great good humor. At the next council meeting, Sir William Informed the Mohawk that he too had dreamed, namely that the chieftan had given him a fertile flve-thousand-acre tract along the Mohawk River. Hendrick accordingly deeded over the land, hut remarked ruefully, ’’Now, Sir William, I will never dream with you again; you dream too hard for me."1°
The dialect-speaking Indian revealed a keen wit,
and his ability to satirize often reduced the Englishmen’s
customs, traditions, and religion to absurdity. They
revised the settlers’ story of the creation by stating Eve’s
bite of the apple turned her and Adam into rogues, thus pro
ducing other rogues; and the red man eventually related this roguery to his personal adversaries. This uncouth display of exuberant Ignorance foreshadowed the emergence of the
American Yankee, as described in Chapter II. Soon the Yan kee would take the Indian’s place as a sharp contrast to a more cultivated and polished society. The underlying shrewd ness beneath the rapacity of Hendrick, the Mohawk chief, was soon to become evident in the characters of Jonathan
Ploughby, Solomon Swap, and Hiram Dodge, as they were revealed in the nineteenth century.
Literary humor of the times. The American folk tales
I^Dorsen, p. 22. 124
centering on strange beasts, Indian habits, and unexplored
lands lasted for a century and a half. However, the Indians’
gullibility became tiresome, and their naivete lost novelty;
the beasts were no longer strange, and the lands were being
explored; thus, Americans began concentrating on themselves
as models for folk tales.
By mid-eighteenth century, regional types appeared
and provided material for oral and literary humor. Through
out novels, jest books, short stories, and travel accounts,
the Yankee, Lubberland, Clay Eater, and Ringtailed Roarer were humorous individuals filled with homespun philosophies
and wild uncivilized spirits. They became the butts for the
educated wits and cultured Englishmen.
Almanacs, newspaper articles, and poems were non- dramatic forms of literature contributing to the Yankee’s development. Even before the 175°'s, Franklin’s Poor Rich
ard* s Almanac contained the frugal, industrious, and aphor istic spirit of the Yankee. By 1793, Franklin was joined in popularity by Robert B. Thomas and The [Old] Farmer* s Alma nac. The latter’s essays contained numerous Yankeeisms that were widely read in the early nineteenth century. Anecdotes, idle rumors, village gossip, terse epigrams, and boastful tales were among thè most popular materials. Thomas even used satire to help develop the Yankee character:
My wife, the other day, siliywoman, undertook to bake 125
a pudding by the book. And she book’d it and book’d it, and after all never cook’d it. Zounds, aaid I, Sarah, this never will do for working farmers.19
Ladies, fads, and popular gadgets were objects of Thomas’
Yankee satire as evidenced by the following:
Say, father Dupey, did you ever see a kaleidoscope? Aye, fags, I have I our John brought one of these fiddle-faddles from college the last vacation, and sat our girls all bewitched. He said as how the Boston ladies drew off all the pretty pictures and butterflies seen in that thing, and worked them into the dresses. So at it the girls went and filled the house with crape and musline. No business was done but marking, paint ing, and sticking collarettes, trifle-ettes, and bum- besettes. (Sept., 1819)20
Much of Thomas’ material stemmed from popular oral humor; the rest was a blending of previously written anecdotes and
Thomas’ imaginative originality. Some almanacs, however, seemed to simply substitute the Yankee character for an early countryman in previous tales. The following is an example of an early countryman tale:
A countryman, seeing a lady in the street in a very odd dress, as he thought, begged her to be pleased to tell him what she called it. The lady, a little surprised at the question, called him an impudent fellow. Nay, I hope no offense, madam, cried Hodge. I am a poor countryman, just going out of town, and my wife always expects I should bring her an account of the newest fashion, which occasioned my inquiring what you call this that you wear: It is a sack, said she, in a great pet. I have heard, replied the coun tryman (heartily nettled at her behavior) of a pig
19Robert B-. Thomas, The Farmers Almanac (August, 1819), in Tandy, Crackerbox Philosophies, p. 14.
20Ibid. 126 in a poke, but never saw a sow in a sack before.21
The similar Yankee anecdote appeared five years later in
the Columbian Almanac and is reprinted here with underlined
portions Indicating the differences of the Yankee versions
A countryman, seeing a lady in the street in a very odd dress, as he thought, says to her, Madam, if I may be so bold, what do you call this? taking hold of the dress. The lady, not a little surprised at the question, called him an impudent fellow. Nay, I hope no offense, cried Jonathan. I am a poor countryman, just going out of town, and my woman always expects I should bring her an accouht of the newest fashions, which occasioned my asking what you call this thing that you wear. It is a sack, said the woman in a pet. I vow, (reply* d the countryman, heartily nettled at her behaviour) I have heard of a pig In a poke, but I111 swamp it. if ever I saw a sow in a sack before.22
While the almanacs were developing the Yankee’s popularity,
they also were aiding in sharpening his wits. The Yankee's
humor seemed to broaden from a short aphorism or witty
epigram to a knavish trick or practical joke. His image
changed from a harmless mixture of ignorance and shrewdness
to that of a mischievous, sly rascal. Although he was aften
the butt of horseplay, his ingenuity in economics and bar gaining provided the settings for numerous “Yankee tricks."
Characters such as a stupid Dutchman were outwitted by the
sharper Yankees, and the almanacs' of the early nineteenth
century printed such knavish dealings as the following:
21 The American Jest-Book (Boston, 1796), Part II, Part II, in Blair, Native American Humor, p. 18. 22Columblan Almanac 'Ç1801), in Blair, p. 18. 127
Not long since a gentleman from Connecticut, (whom I shall designate by the letter B.)—being on his way to the westward, was stopped in York state, on Sunday, by a miserly Dutchman, who was invested with civil authority. Mr. B. in vain pleaded the necessity of pursuing his journey unmolested. At length, taking a five dollar bill from his pocket book:—"Sir,” said he, "this is at your service, onscondition you will give.me a pass." After a few minutes’ pause, this mer cenary character replied, "Yes, I give you von pass for five tollars; you may write de pass, and I make my mark X." Mr. B. accordingly sat down, and drew an order on a.merchant in town, for 50 dollars in cash, and 50 dollars worth of English goods: with the Dutch signature; and takes his leave with, "Your humble ser vant." . . . Soon after, the merchant.calls on our noble.Dutchman for the balance of the order; and on seeing.his niark the Dutchman exclaimed, "Dis is dat dam Yankee pass!" But found himself reluctantly obliged to cancel the demand; swearing, "dat if he could see dat damn rascal, he would give him von horse lickln. *'2^
This perpetration of a sale through Yankee trickery marked a mannerism soon associated with the mid-nineteenth
century peddler—cupidity. Literary humor helped popular
ize the Yankee's shrewd bargaining, and the Yankee often boasted about his cunning economics:
... my neighbour Dupy has got a nack of making his cider so good and nice, that he gets about double Price for all of it. The Boston folks have got a taste for it, and they.are full of notions, as the saying is, you know, and they love good things and will give a good price for them too. Now no sooner is my neighbour’s cider ready for market, than they grap it as quick as a hound with a wood-chuck, and pay him his price down upon the nail. Zuckers, John, let's try what we can do! (Sept., 1817)24
2^Nathan Daboll, The New-England Almanac (1800), in Dorsen, American.Folklore. p. 46. .
24Thomas, The Farmer* s Almanac. in Kittredge, The Old Farmer and His Almanack. p.-&4. 128
John Davis in his Travels in the United States (1801) noted how delighted the farmers were when the Yankee peddlers appeared at their door. A "Sam Lace" or a "Tim Twighlight" was greeted with joy and eagerness. Their wares ranged from pots and pans to the latest popular ballads; and their huckster techniques put present-day door-to-door salesmen to shame:
"And here," cried the pedlar, "is the account of a whale, that was left ashore by the tide in the bay of Chesapeak, with a ship of five thousand tons in his belly, called the Merry Dane of Dover. She was the largest ship ever known."25
The truth of such tales was rarely doubted for the peddler would assure the buyer of the power and reliability of the press.
There were a few, however, who frowned upon the ped dling occupation. Dr. Timothy Dwight, president of Yale
College in the early nineteenth century, warned both peddlers and buyers of the malignancy of such dealings. However, his comments provide more descriptive material for the possible
Yankee prototype:
The consequences of this employment, and of all others like it, are generally malignant. Men, who begin life with bargaining for small wares, will almost invariably become sharpers. The commanding aim of every such man will soon be to make a good bargain: and he will speed ily consider every gainful bargain as a good one. The ‘ trick of fraud will assume, in his mind, the same place,
25john Davis, Travels in the United States of America, in Kittredge, pp. 142-14j. 129
which commercial skill and an honourable system of deal ing hold in the mind of a merchant. Often employed in disputes, he becomes noisy, pertinacious, and impudent.26
The rising swell of folk humor in the late eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries foreshadowed the Yankee’s popularity on the American stage during the l830’s. Richard
Dorsen notes three main contributors responsible for this rise of folk humor: ’’the boastfull speech and eccentricities of frontiersmen, the drolleries of Yankees, and the stock fictions of roguery and mendacity.”27 The Yankee’s drol leries were enhanced by his talent for mendacity. Such men dacious acts served as useful mannerisms for Hackett, Hill, and Silsbee. The humor of this mendacity was enhanced by the New Englander’s habit of understating small anecdotes.
An example of a mendacious Yankee anecdote is printed in
Thomas’ Almanac of 1809:
Mr. Thomas, We have frequently heard of the wonderful feats and extraordinary stories of Simonds, old Kidder, and Sam Hyde; but I believe neither of them have exceeded the following, related by G. H__ 11, a mighty hunter, and known in that part of the country where he lived by the name of the Vermont Nimrod.—It may serve to divert some of your evening readers. A • Z.
”l was once," said he, "passing down the banks of the Hudson in search of game, and suddenly heard a crackling on the opposite bank. Looking across the
^Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and New York, in Kittredge, p. 145. 2?Dors en, p. 48. 130
river, I saw a stately buck, and instantly drew up and let fly at him. That very moment a huge sturgeon leaped from the river in the direction of my piece.—That ball went through him, and passed on. I flung down my gun —threw off my coat and hat, and swam for the floating fish, which, mounting, I towed to the bank and went to see what more my shot had done for me. I found the ball had passed through the heart of the deer, and stuck into a hollow tree beyond; where the honey was running out like a river! I sprung round to find something to stop the hole with, and caught hold of a white rabbit, —It squeaked just like a stuck pig; so I thrash’d it away from me in a passion at the disappointment, and it went with such force that it killed three cock par tridges and a wood cock."!!!2^
In addition to the almanacs and oral humor, poetry at
the turn of the century revealed some of the Yankee's manner
isms. One of the best poets to expound upon the Yankee's
courting habits was Thomas Green Fessenden. Fessenden's long poem, Jonathan* s Courtship« or The Country Lovers.
expresses the Yankee's naive exuberance for love and mar riage. 29 A portion of Jonathan Jolthead’s proposal will be quoted later.
One of the earliest descriptions of the Yankee comes from John Trumbull's "The Country Clown" written in 1772.
This pre-revolutionary is not the rustic, boisterous indi vidual of the nineteenth century, but Trumbull's work does
^Thomas, Farmers Almanac (1809), in Kittredge, pp. 240-241. 29As suggested in Chapter II, this characteristic is prevalent in the characters of Jonathan in The Contrast. Humphry Cubb in The Politician Out-Wltted. and Doolittle in The Yankey in England. 131
provide an excellent physical description of the early Yankee:
Bred in distant woods, the clown Brings all his country airs to town; The odd address with awkward grace, That bows with all-averted face; The half-heard compliments, whose note Is swallow’d in the trembling throat; The stiffen’d gait, the drawling tone, By which his native place is known; The blush, that looks, by vast degrees, Too much like modesty to please; The proud displays of awkward dress, That all the country fop express The suit right gay, though much belated, Whose fashions superannuated; The watch, depending far in state Whose iron chain might fora a grate The silver buckle dread to view, 0’ershadowing all the clumsy shoe; The white-gloved hand, that tries to peep From ruffle, full five inches deep; With fifty odd affairs beside, The foppishness of country pride.3°
Walter Blair, in his excellent discourse of Native
American Humor, concludes that the countless versions of
“Yankee Doodle,’’ coupled with parodies of new-classic pas
torals and Della Crusan poems, proved helpful in establish ing the Yankee character.31 Moreover, both the pastorals
and Miss Crusan’s narratives influenced a group of young men who were interested in the arts. This select group, led
perhaps by John Trumbull, provided the newspapers and week
lies of the 1780’s with their own pastorals. Royall Tyler,
3°John Trumbull, ’’The Country Clown,” Poets and Poetry of America, ed. Rufus W. Griswald (Philadelphia: Carey and Hart, 1846), p. 39.
31Blalr, p. 24. 132 another prominent member of this group eventually played a significant role in developing the stage Yankee with his character of Jonathan in The Contrast, discussed in Chapter
II of this work. XIn effect,, Jonathan stops the show as he sings several refrains of "Yankee Doodle."
Father and I went to camp, Along with Captain Goodwin; And there we saw the men and boys, As thick as hasty pudding. Yankee Doodle do, etc.
And there we saw a swamping gun, Big as log of maple, On a little deuced cart, A load for father's cattle. Yankee Doodle do, etc.
And everytime they fired it off, It took a horn of powder, It made a noise like father’s gun, Only a nation louder. Yankee Doodle do, etc.52
This favorite American song became commonplace and infiltrated the courtship habits of the Yankee character.
An excellent example of the "bumpkin's" amours was provided by Thomas Green Fessenden in his The Country Lovers (1795).
This exaggerated, yet delightful display of verse, "set to the tune of 'Yankee Doodle,'" not only expressed Jonathan
Jolthead’s love for "Miss Sal," but served as a parody of the highly artificial vernacular discovered in the sentimental poems of the period:
52 Ye young men all, and lads so smart Who chance to read these vasses, His next address pray learn by heart To whisper to the lasses. Miss Sal, I’s going to say, as how, We’ll spark it here tonight, I kind of love you, Sal, I vow, And Mother said I might . . . Miss Sal, you are the very she, If you will have me now, That I will marry—then you see You’ll have our brindled cow. Then we will live, both I and you In father’s t’other room For that will sartin hold as two When we’ve moved out the loom. Next Sabbath day we will be cried And have a ’taring wedding And lads and lasses take a ride If it should be good sledding.33 ’’Yankee Doodle’’ also appears to add insight into the Yankee’s geographic location, for as Walter Blair states, the song ’’caught several qualities of the rustic New Englander. ”34 Although the early attempts of describing the Yankee were often general and vague, they helped provide a partial basis for a more polished portrayal. The oral and literary humor of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries described in part the characteristics of the Yankee. The boasting, independence, shrewd wit, cupidity, and rustic enthusiasm were at least primitively displayed in American 33Tandy, Crackerbox Philosophies. p. 8. 34Biair, p. 17. 134 non-dramatic literature prior to 1820. Influential type characters. Some historians have stated that the American Yankee did not appear suddenly; his character was a composite of previously established literary types. Jennette Tandy in Crackerbox Philosophies in American Humor and Satire suggests that the Yankee is a blend of Tony Lumpkin of the eighteenth century comedy and the homely wits of the American almanacs.35 - in effect, some of the comic characters by American authors, such as Washington Irving in the Salmagundi Papers (1807), might well have been English rather than American. Irving’s early characters were por trayed in a generalized style and not until his creation of Ichabod Crane in The Legend of Sleepy Hollow does he attempt to establish some eccentricities of the Yankee type. Hugh Henry Brackenridge, in his book Modern Chivalry (1792), discovered the Irishman to be a humorous foil for more cultivated Individuals. His creation of Teague 0’Reagan contained many mannerisms later associated with the American Yankee. Lewis Leary, in his Introduction to Brackenridge’s book states, "He [O’Reagan] was sturdy, sometimes honest, and not always bright; but he prevailed.”36 35iandy, p. 2. 36Lewis Leary, ’’introduction, ” Modern Chivalry, by Hugh Henry Brackenridge (New Haven; College and University Press, 1965), p. 19. 135 Throughout Brackenridge’s satiric work are descrip tions of this immigrant Irish laborer, or bog-trotter; his characteristics include coarse and crude mannerisms, physical dexterity, and uneducated views toward society. Perhaps the best insight of the Irishman’s correlation with the American Yankee is provided by Brackenridge’s character, Captain Farrago, as he describes Teague to a group of philosophers who wish to make the latter a member of their society: He is but a simple Irishman, and of a low education; his language being that spoken by the aborigines of his country. And if he speaks a little English, it is with the brogue on his tongue; which would be un becoming in a member of your body. It would seem to me, that a philosopher ought to know how to write, or at least to read. But Teague can neither write nor read. He can sing a song, or whistle an Irish tune; but is totally illiterate in all things else. . . . He is a long-legged fellow, it is true; and might be of service in clambering over rocks, or going to the shores of rivers, to gather curiosities. But could you not get persons to do this, without making them members? I have more respect for science, than to suffer this bog-trotter to be so advanced at its expense.57 Although the Yankee is given more credit for his wit and wisdom than is Teague, there is a resemblance in physical appearance, in ignorance of worldly matters, and in rustic pursuits. In addition, Teague, as did the Yankees, spoke in a dialect peculiar to his country. His language was marked with coarseness, vulgarity, and grammatical errors. More over, Teague, like the Yankee peddlers, had a talent for 5?Brackenrldge, pp. 46-47. 136 mendacity. Brackenridge cites an incident where Teague accuses a clergyman of ravishing a young maid. Teague’s own dialect helps convey the humor of the situation: ”By shaint Patrick,’’ said he, "I was aslape in my own bed as sound as the shates that were about me, when I heard the sound of this young crature’s voice crying out like a shape in a pasture; and when after I had heard, aslape as I was, and come here I found this praste, who was so whaly, and praching, all night, upon the top of the bed, with his arms round this young crature’s neck; and if I had not given him a twitch by the nose, and bid him lie over, dear honey, he would have ravished her virginity, and murdered her, save her soul, and the paple of the house not the wiser for itJ'38 That Teague’s presence of mind was sound was certain. He not only accused the clergy, but when approached by the Captain [FarragoJ to confess the truth of the matter, Teague thought the priest ought to pay a little ’’smart money, ” for one shouldn’t confess without being compensated. Thus, Teague’s resemblance to the Yankee in both mendacity and cupidity seems sound. The Irishman's confession also reveals the naive exuberance in matters of love, that was associated with the Yankees in nineteenth century literature: "Master prastes," said he, "I persave you are all prastes of the gospel, and can prach as aslly as I can take a chaw of tobacco. Now the trut of di story is dis: I was slaping in my bed, and I tought vid my self it was shame amonst Christian paple that a young crature should slape by herself, and have no one to take care of her. So I tought vid myself to go and slape vid her. But as.she was aslape, she made excla mation, and dis praste that is here before you, came ^Brackenridge, p. 53 137 in to save her shoul from the devil; and as the cap tain my master, might' take offense, and the devil, I am shartain that it was no better person, put it into my head, to lay it on the praste. This is the trut master prastes, as I hope for shalvation in the king dom of purgatory, shentlemen."39 The comic Irishman was not alone in his similarity to the Yankee character; the Yorkshire farmer, the pompous, obtuse Dutchman, the keelboatman, and the country dandy were all predecessors containing similar mannerisms of the American Yankee. Walter Blair states that Royall Tyler, and later, Seba Smith;; in their strong portrayals of the Yankee, benefited from the past developments of these comic types.One such character appears in John Trumbull’s poem, entitled "The Fop” taken from his larger work, The Progress of Dulness. written in 1772; How blest the brainless fop, whose praise Is doom’d to grace these happy days, When well-bred vice can genius teach, And fame is placed in folly’s reach; Impertinence all tastes can hit, And every rascal is a wit. The lowest dunce, without despairing, May learn the true sublime of swearing; Learn the nice art of jests obscene, While ladies wonder what they mean; The heroism of brazen lungs, The rhetoric of eternal tongues; While whim usurps the name of spirit, And impudence takes place of merit, . . .2*'' 39Brackenrldge, pp. 55-56. 40siair, Native American Humor. PP- 23,40 ^1John Trumbull, ’’TheFop,’’ in Poets and Poetry in America, ed. Griswald, p. 39. 138 The references to "impertinence,” "rascal is a wit," and "heroism of brazen lungs" correlates with the Yankee’s bold manner, knavish wit, and boastfulness. In effect, early American authors appear to have created several type char acters with mannerisms similar to the Yankee type. Economics and politics. The economic and political development of America was a fierce struggle of endurance, perseverance, and stamina against seemingly insurmountable odds. Supernatural explanations involving God and the devil guided early colonists in decisions on government, the clergy, farming, and servitude. Within one hundred years after the Mayflower’s landing, the early settlers had mastered the soil and prospered in trade and commerce. New England expanded in wealth and population and by the late seventeenth century disrupted the motherland's policies. Earlier in the seven teenth century, the colonies had been overlooked or ignored by England, for they were small and economically unimportant. Now, they were a prize well worth exploiting, and they expe rienced a vice-like grip of control issued by the king. Eng land’s decision to "tighten the reins" on the American colo nies culminated in the American Revolution. The economic and political restrictions placed on the colonies inevitably aroused resentment and resulted in the severing of all ties with the motherland. 139 England’s view, however, of the wealth and prosperity of the colonists was slanted by early American writers’ attempts to describe a land of milk and honey. These early correspondents were so earnest and serious that their endeav ors later proved to be amusing and eventually developed into an "American humor." A prime example comes from a paragraph written by Francis Higginson and reprinted in Blair's Native American Humor. Higginson, in new "New England's Plantation" (1630), wrote enthusiastically of New England’s fertility, its plentiful game and fish, and its salubrious climate: Corn . . . Thirty, forty, fifty, sixty fold increases are abundant here. Yes, Joseph's increase in Egypt are outstrlpt. . . . Our planters hope to have more than a hundredfold this year. . . . Root vegetables both bigger and sweeter than ordinarily is found in England. . . . Wild beasts, bears, and they say some lions also . . . several sorts of deer, some whereof bring three or four young ones at once, which is not ordinary in England . . . wolves, foxes, beavers, otters . . . furnish food a-plenty and precious furs. . . . fish almost beyond believing . . . our fishermen take many hundreds together . . . they fill two boatss at a time. . . .42 Such exaggerated accounts were not uncommon in early American writings. The unconscious comedy of such ecstatic passages was heightened by a naive complacence and often yielded a humor of twisting fate. Mr. Higginson’s climactic passage concerning New England’s climate, describing it as the most healthful place in the world, serves as illustration: ^Blair, pp. 4-5. 140 Many that have been weak and sickly in Old England, by coming hither have been thoroughly healed, and grown healthful and strong. None can more truly speak hereof . . . than my self. ... My friends that knew me can well tell how sickly I have been, and continually in physic, being much troubled with tormenting pain . . . and abundance of melancholic humors. But since I came hither ... I thank God I have had perfect health, and freed from pain . . . and whereas beforetime X clothed myself with double clothes and thick waist coats to keep me warm, even in the summertime, I do now go as thin clad as any. ... A sup of New England's air is better than a whole draught of Old England's ale.43 The twisting fate was that Mr. Higginson sickened and died within a year after writing the above passage. Thus, the nature of American humor, soon to be fully exploited by the Yankee, rested heavily on exaggeration. The Yankee's homely metaphors, mock oaths, and uncouth pronunciations found partial root in the magnification of situations. America's soil also yielded unfamiliar growths to the early colonists. Among the earliest economical crops was tobacco. This strange vegetation produced wonderment and pleasure. As cited in Dorsen's American Folklore, John Josselyn paid tribute to the green leaf weed; It helps digestion, the gout, the toothache, prevents Infection by scents; it heats the cold, and cools them that sweat, feedeth the hungry, spent spirits restoreth, purgeth the stomach, killeth nits and lice; the juice of the green leaf healeth green wounds, although poi soned; . . . and all diseases of a cold and moist cause; good for all bodies cold and moist taken upon an empty stomach; taken upon a full stomach it precipitates digestion. ^Biair, p. 5 44Dorsen, pp. 10-11 141 One humorous anecdote regarding the ’’miracle weed” pertains to Sir Walter Raleigh's servant. The latter assumed Sir Walter had been set aflame when he observed smoke coming from his master's head. Only quick thinking and a thorough dousing with a bucket of water saved the master; and only a sturdy sense of humor saved the servant. The servant's naive ignorance toward worldly manners eventually charac terized the stage Yankee. For instance, as previously sug gested in Chapter II, Royall Tyler's Jonathan becomes both bumpkin and fool when he^misinterprets his viewing of "the wicked players in the devil’s drawing room;" similar to Sir Raleigh's servant, the Yankee reveals his ignorance in socially accepted customs. Also, Jonathan's talent for act ing before completely understanding the situation is revealed in his "chock full of fight" line to Dimple. The Yankee's bombastic reaction in disregarding the gentlemanly art of dueling correlates with Sir Walter Raleigh's servant’s response when the latter fails to recognize the gentlemanly art of smoking. The shipping trade was the most lucrative Yankee busi ness in eighteenth century New England. Although New Eng land' s larger towns were seaports, inland river towns such as Norwich and Hartford shared the wealth. Unlike the Southern colonies, which shipped raw goods to England in exchange for manufactured products, New England developed into a center of 142 handicraft industries; some of which directly competed with the mother country. New England ships were also competing with British ships in sea trade, and Yankee fishermen were proving more than a match for their British counterparts. It was this fierce, competitive spirit in sea economy that nur tured the tales of Yankee bargaining and ingenious innova tions. Yankee sea men soon earned the title of "the hardest bargainers in existence" and the reputation for doing almost anything to pad their pocketbooks. For example, Chapter II of this study reveals the case of the nautical Yankee Jack and his behlnd-the-back dealings with Jonathan in Lindsley’s Love and Friendship. In essence Jack appears to convey the Yankee seamean’s reputation for cleverly padding the pocket book. Another prime example discovered by Richard Dorsen comes from a Maine fisherman, Curt Morse, recalling Barney Beal in a betting episode: They was all standing around on the wharf chewing the rag at Rockland. There was an anchor there weighed twelve, fifteen hundred pounds. Fellow said. "I’ll give five dollars to anybody who'll lift it. ' "Well." Barney said, "I'll lift it but it'll spoil my shoes." It would squat his feet out—he had to wear special shoes. The fellow said, "i'll give you five dollars and buy you a new pair of.shoes too." So Barney lifted the anchor. Then the fellow squealed out he wouldn't pay. So Barney carried it over to the edge of the wharf and. dropped it right through the fellow's sail boat. ... He was the best feller ever was till you crossed him and then he'd spank your ass till you cried.45 45Dorsen, American Folklore, p. 127 143 This powerful display of Yankee stubbornness and determina tion when involved with economics, eventually developed the Yankee trick. These tricks rivaled the oral traditions of backwoods boasts and hunting fictions and were developed by the slick and knavish Yankee peddling his wares. Although English rogue tales were nothing new to the early colonists, the flavor of a good American diversion was somewhat differ ent. Take, for example, this small bit of chicanery printed in the Hampshire Gazette in 1789: A farmer, overhearing a conversation of two of his neighbours, in which they expressed much faith in dreams, took occasion to tell them, with great secrecy and strict injunctions not to mention it, that he had dreamed there was a-^large sum of money buried in a dung hill in his field, and promised them a share in the booty if they would help him search for it. It was agreed to carry the dung out upon the land for the bet ter certainty of examination, and they brought their ;* carts and set to work; but not finding the expected prize, one of them expressed a persuasion that it must be under the ground where the dung hill lay, and was proceeding to dig where the dung hill lay, when the faring er told them his dream went no farther than the removal of the dung hill, which he was much obliged to them for doing, as he could not himself have effected it before the snow came on.^o This clever piece of tomfoolery flourished with later Ameri can humorists such as Mark Twain in the tale of Tom Sawyer and the white picket fence. This type of economic chicanery also marked many stage Yankees. Alphonso Wetmore's character of Nutmeg in The Pedlar sells three lanterns to different ^bporsen, p. 45. 144 membersfbf the same family, thus earning his self-appointed title as "the greatest genius in the universe." Trickery coupled with tall tales of the sea helped distinguish the New England Yankee from his English cousins. The economic background of early America and its effect on the Yankee character can be found in Joel Barlowe's pleasant depiction of a typical American scene (1793): For now, the corn-house fill'd, the harvest home Th’invited neighbours to the.Husking come: A frolic scene, where work, and mirth, and play Unite their charms, to chance the hours away. Where the huge heap lies-,center' d in the hall, The lamp suspended from the cheerful wall, Brown corn-fed nymphs, and strong hard-handed beaux, Alternate rang’d, extend in circling rows, Assume their seats, the solid mass attack; The dry husks rustle, and the corn-cobs crack; The song, the laugh, alternate notes resound, And the sweet-cider trips in silence round. The laws of Husking ev'ry wight can tell; And sure no laws he ever keeps so well: For each red ear a general kiss he gains, With each smut ear she smuts the luckless swains: But when to some sweet maid the prize is east, Red as her lips, and taper as her waist, She walks the round, and calls one favor’d beau, Who leaps, the luscious tribute to bestow. Various the sport, as are the wits and brains Of well pleas'd lasses and contending swains; Till the vast mound of corn is swept away, , And he that gets the last ear, wins the day.4' These early Yankee colonists unveiled a spirit and conduct in both work and play that often devastated, awed, and repelled their English counterparts. By mid-eighteenth ^Joel Barlow, "The Hasty Pudding, " Poets and Poetry of America, ed.. Griswald, pp. 56-57. 145 century the Americans were beginning to thrive economically, and the enthusiasm In trade carried into politics. Between 1651 and 1696, the British Parliament passed a series of shipping and trade laws; however, the colonists’ resentment didn’t come to a boil until the passage of the Stamp Act in 1765. Amidst this turmoil, a shrewd politician in the guise of a philosophic humorist appeared. He inaugu rated the use of the Yankee in political satire and influ enced the political satires of Seba Smith, H. H. Brackenridge, John Trumbull, and James Russell Lowell. These men became masters of their trade, but they were Indebted to the inno vator of their genre, Benjamin Franklin. As the crisis between the motherland and the colonies culminated with the Stamp Act, Franklin sent a letter to a London newspaper. The letter contained all the tail-tale techniques later used by New England Yankees and Mississippi River-boat men to confuse and tantalize English travelers. However, Franklin’s aim was not to mislead the English, but to promote an understand ing of the Colonies’ stand toward the English law. The fol lowing statement was hardly misconstrued; ’’Englishmen, Sir, are too apt to be silent when they have nothing to say; too apt to be sullen when they are silent; and, when they are sullen, to hang themselves."2*'® ^Benjamin Franklin, "To the Editor of a Newspaper," The Comic Tradition in America, ed. Kenneth S. Lynn (New 146 In addition to satirical statements regarding politics, Franklin includes in the same lettery wry comments on the slanted English accounts of American economics: Dear Sir, do not let us suffer ourselves to be amus'd with such groundless objections. The very tails of- the American sheep are so laden with wooll, that each has a little car or waggon on four little wheels, to sup port and keep it from trailing on the ground. 9 This anecdote and later satirical essays link Franklin with the future Yankee peddler. Such essays, according to Con stance Rourke in American Humor, distinguished themselves with the element of disguise. In essence, Franklin appears to be a memorable incarnation of the mythological Yankee salesman. Although Franklin's letter did not cause the Revo lution, it and others like it, stoked the boiler. During the war, political satire was a crucial weapon and represented the outcry of democracy against oligarchy. One of the most influential satirists was Mrs. Mercy Warren, wife of the famous Revolutionary figure and sister of James Otis. Her most significant work was The Group, written early in 1775.^° It influenced future war satires as it held British policies and affectations up to ridicule. This attack on British York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1958), p. 7. ^9lbid.. p. 8. 5°Arthur Hobson Quinn, The History of American Thea tre (New York: Harper and Brothers., 1923?, p. 39. 14? hypocrisy was relentlessly pursued by later American play wrights and developed Yankee characters as perfect foils to the cultivated snobbery of the nineteenth century English. Mrs. Warren’s play, however, was hardly stageworthy. From a dramatic view, it lacked sufficient action and became noth ing but a conversation in dialogue form. "The Group” satir ized was the King’s appointed council concerned with the charter of Massachusetts. As illustrated by the characters’ names of Hateall, Fribble, Dope, and Spendall, it contained necessary elements for the genre of satirical farce. How ever, its basic importance rests with the standards set for satiric pamphleteering rather than stage drama. Even though Mrs. Warren failed theatrically, she succeeded in presenting an effective political satire of an actual event. Her con ventions were not original, but her attitudes toward present situations were patriotically sound and scornful. Another political satire attributed to Mrs. Warren (although the crudity and coarseness in language Indicate she had no hand in it) was The Blockheads, or The Affrlght- ened Officers. Even though Mrs. Warren may not have written the script, the satire was obviously prompted by her works.51 The play was inspired by General Burgoyne's The Blockade, a farce ridiculing the patriot army then blockading the city 51Quinn, History, p. 46. 148 of Boston. While the latter was the work of an ardent royal ist, The Blockheads revealed the views of the ardent patriot. The play depicts British officers and Tory refugees lamenting their starvation in Boston. Mrs. Warren is also given credit for penning a clear predecessor to Tyler’s The Contrast with The Motley Assembly published in 1779. Although the latter contained no Yankee figure, the views expressing the “affected social standings” of the British, could easily have come from the mouths of Jonathan or Col. Manly. Moreover, the staunch and proud efforts of Captain Aid were a ’’cue’’ for Royall Tyler: Mrs. Flourish: I believe Mr. Washington, or General Washington, if you please, is a very honest, good kind of a man, and has taken infinite pains to keep your army together, and I wish he may find his account in it. But doubtless there are his equals —so say no more. Capt. Aid: If you meant that as a compliment, madam, it is really so cold a one, that it makes me shiver.52 This keen satire, reflecting a distaste for Americans with a half-hearted allegiance to the cause, was soon the battle cry for the ’’true sons of liberty." Both Jonathan and Col. Manly blatantly state their disapproval of Individuals who operate behind shams. Dimple and Jessemy become personifi cations of the "Yankee punchin’-bag." 51 Quinn, History, p. 46. 52lbld.. p. 54. 149 A main "Yankee" objective appears to exalt American life and thought over the "superficiality" of the British. The political satires of the Revolution, although lacking the artistry of later satirical endeavors, did manage to provide a favorable contrast between British affectation and coarse American sincerity. Most writings ridiculed foreign affecta tions and created a sturdy, though tarnished, native of Amer ican soil. Although the Yankee appeared crude in originality and development, his caricature was elevated to patriotic heroism. The liberality on stage following the Revolution was significant to the freedom of the country as a whole. In a description of the political satire, Sans Soucl, alias Free and Easy, or an Evening* s Peep into a Polite Circle, Arthur Quinn perceptively observes the importance of this eighteenth century genre: The dialogue is clever at times and is interesting as revealing the Puritan expression of the national point of view. It is of more than usual significance that our first professional comedy, The Contrast, should have continued to express that New England point of view, modified by a liberal attitude toward the theatre and with so little provincialism in its tone that it created in its chief comic character a caricature of the New England Yankee that has been a prototype for over a century.53 However, the early Yankee character was not exempt from satire himself. Many writers of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries became quite concerned with 53QUinn, History, pp. 63-64. 150 the possible instability of a "Yankee” form of politics. Once again, satire became the main weapon, and the targets were the Ignorant Individuals being elevated to prominent positions. A main advocate of such satire was Hugh Henry Brackenridge.54 Although Brackenridge denounced such char acters as the "bog-trotter" Teague O’Reagan, his writings advanced the Yankee characteristic of self-determination. The common man was rapidly asserting himself in politics as well as trade. Apparently, the Yankee was not just a product of the war, but contained the spirit and thought of a budding nation. The native humor of the Yankee and the satires leveled against him provided many readers with pleasure and many newspapers with articles. The transmission of such wit rested not only with the medium of the press, but with that of the theatre as well. The latter form was accelerating in development, and the Yankee became its chief exponent. The stage Yankee, however, sought root through the talented essayists and novelists of the time. It was char acters such as Brackenridge’s Teague O'Reagan and Seba Smith’s Major Jack Downing that gained the most favorable reactions. Young Americans saw their kind in print and reveled in their exploitation. They were quite willing to rely on the premise that "a free government is a noble 54see pp. 134-137 of this chapter. 151 acquisition to a people,” and. they were only too happy to reveal their political power whenever they received, the chance. Brackenridge's "How the Bog-Trotter is Nearly Elected to the Legislature” from his novel Modern Chivalry, serves as an example. Because the illiterate 0’Reagan is often persuaded to run for political office, he continually frustrates his master, Farrago, who believes that although it is possible for the lowest citizen to become chief magis trate, it should be sufficient Just to possess the right and not necessary to exercise it. The will of the comman man is strong, however, and the stubborn Yankees are deter mined to make up their own minds: The people were tenacious of their choice, and insisted on giving Teague their suffrages; and by the frown upon their brows, seemed to indicate resentment at what had been said; as indirectly charging them with want of judgment; or calling in question their privilege to do what they thought proper. "it is a very strange thing," said one of them, who was a speaker for the rest, "that after having conquered Burgoyne and Corn wallis, and got a government of our own, we cannot put in whom we please. This young man may be your servant; but if we choose to make him a delegate, what is that to you? He may not be yet skilled in the matter, but there is a good day comln. We will empower him; and it is better to trust a plain man like him, than one of your high-flyers, that will make laws to suit their own purposes. 55 Brackenridge wrote Modern Chivalry eight years before the nineteenth century began, and it foreshadowed the eleva tion of the common man. Men of this youthful nation were ^Brackenridge, pp. 38-39. 152 expressing views openly and were delightedly basking in the dawn of freedom. It made no difference if they were ignorant and crude or Intelligent and suave, for freedom was the prop erty of all men. Moreover, this liberty was not just for the male; women gathered their thoughts with the best of them. Jenny Stitchem wrote a letter that appeared in the Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Journal and was reprinted for the Hartford Courant in April, 1805, revealing her dissatisfaction with current political trends: "Hard working foaks," objected Jenny, "can't afford to lose so much time about pollytlcs when its all of no use—thats where theres no oppersltion."56 Although the letter was marred by bad spelling and poor gram mar, it displayed the commoner's frustration with the nation's failure to produce a political hero from their peers. Mrs. Stitchem’s objections, however, were partially rectified some twenty years later. The presidential elec tion of 1828 placed the first "commoner" in the White House. The election of Andrew Jackson possibly symbolized the rapid rise of what might be referred to as the "Yankee folk hero." Road and river travel increased and opened new horizons for the popular cultural media; new audiences craved the regional color of folk humor. The theatre, with its Yankee character and display of rustic scenery, appeared to be a welcomed form. ^^Biair, p. 25 153 True Yankee symbol: Samuel Sewell. The early folk humorists’ influence in the development of the Yankee char acter appears strong, but the living Yankee provided an excellent model. Samuel Sewell, well-known magistrate in early New England, was representative of the individuals being influenced by practical economics. The spirit and character of the American Yankee was a composite of Puritan idealism and rugged native conservatism striving toward a hew form of liberality. The latter philosophy emerged through the gentry, a group of capable merchants who con trolled the commonwealth up to the rise of industrialism. They were all sons or grandsons of tradesmen, and Samuel Sewell was a worthy representative. His serious and pruden tial manner, however, was tempered by a love for mankind. Merchantman though he was, Sewell learned to be a farmer and countryman and was never above chatting with a workman or doing a kindness to an old nurse, as indicated by this sec tion in his diary: October 6th. A little after six p. m. I went to Madam Winthrop's. She was not within. I gave Sarah Chickering, the maid, two shillings, Juno; who brought in wood, one shilling. Afterward the.nurse came in, I gave her eighteen pence, having no other small bill.57 Sewell was industrious, public-spirited, shrewd, and 57samuel Sewell, His Diary, in Three Centuries of American Poetry and Prose, ed. Alphonso Gerald Newcomer, Alice E. Andrews, and Howard Judson Hall (Chicago: Scott Foresman and Co., 1917), p. 75. 154 conservative, but he possessed no creative curiosity. As suggested in Chapter II, this non-creativity can be seen in Tyler’s Jonathan with his encounter of "the wicked players in the devil's drawing room." Both Sewell and.Jonathan lacked enthusiasm for intellectual matters and concentrated their curiosity on people and happenings rather than on ideas. Both were somewhat prudent, and both displayed as their dominant ambition the attainment of a dignified posi tion among their fellows: Sewell, through wealthy merchan dizing and the honor of being appointed magistrate; Jona than, through his insistence of being Colonel Manly's "waiter" rather than a mere servant. Sewell found frugality to be advantageous and proved more than once to be a shrewd bargainer. The acquisitiveness was evident even in his courting Sessions. His diary dis closes a discussion with his third betrothed, Madam Winthrop, concerning the terms of settlement: November 2 [1790] . . . Spake of giving her a hundred pounds per annum if I died before her. Asked her what sum she would give me, if she should die first? Said I would give her time to consider it. She said she heard as if I had given all to my children by deeds of gift. I told her 'twas a mistake; Polnt-Judith was mine, etc. That in England, I owned, my.father's desire that it should go to my eldest son; 'twas Z" 20 per annum; she thought 'twas forty. I think when I seem'd to excuse pressing this, she seemed to think 'twas best to speak of it: a long winter was coming on. Gave me a glass or two of Canary.58 58Three Centuries, p. 78 15| Unfortunately, Sewell and Madam Winthrop could not come to terms, and the Judge married Mrs. Mary Gibbs two years later. Sewell’s wealth, accumulated through commerce, land speculation, and money-lending, entitled him to a prominent position in Massachusetts. He never forgot his prudence, for he kept a strict record of all his benefactions and armed himself with evidence for his Judgement Day; October 21 [1720] ... So I came home by star-light as well as X could. At my first coming in, I gave Sarah five shillings. I.writ to Mr. Eyre his name in his book with the date October 21, 1720. It cost me eight shillings. Jehovah jirehl [The Lord will provide]59 Sewell’s contribution to the development of the Yan kee figure in his literal transformation of English Puritan ism to New England Yankeeism, and he was among the first to reveal such a metamorphosis: Sewell is the first Yankee who reveals the native kindliness of the New England village. He was zealous to do kind and to deal generously with others, because he had been generously dealt with. Growing more human with the ripening years, yet instinctively conservative, stubbornly intent on managing his own affairs in his own way and by his own agents, provincial to the core and strong in.local pride, he reveals the special bent of the New England character, as it unconsciously dif ferentiated itself from its English original. Not.as American as yet like Franklin, and no longer wholly English like Winthrop, far from democratic and yet no Tory, he was the progenitor of a practical race that was to spread the gospel of economic individualism across the continent.®0 59Three Centuries. p. 77. 6°v. L. Parrlngton, The Colonial Mind (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1954), pp. 97-98. ISO CHAPTER IV. ACTING THE YANKEE CHARACTER BEFORE 1820 When the American Yankee emerged on stage in the late eighteenth century, the "grand style" of acting was well established. The period from 1705 to 1780 was the age of actors and actresses, and there was little or no respect for the playwright.1 The actors wanted vehicles to display their virtuosity; the public desired variety and light relief. Consequently, the playwright accommodated both with inclu sions of dances, songs, and pantomimes. The early Yankee offered no exception to the above treatment, for he was often given the opportunity to display his vocal and physical dexterity. Since the major purpose of this study is to discover whether or not the early form of the Yankee figure served as a prototype for the 1820-1830 stage Yankee specialists, a discussion concerning the possible acting style of that early form appears appropriate. The six scripts analyzed in Chap? ter II of this work have indicated that each playwright, although apparently influenced by the writings which appeared prior to his respective script, handled the Yankee character in an individualistic style. Thus, the concept that each of 1Lyn Oxenford, Playing Period Plays. 3rd ed. (Chicago: The Coach House Press Inc., 1966), p. 172. 157 these early stage Yankee characters was subjected to indi vidualized portrayals seems valid. The possibility that the early Yankee actors aided in developing and molding the characteristics of the early Yankee character appears likely. As indicated in Chapter II, the early Yankee scripts were hardly literary masterpieces; yet the comic possibili ties of this Americanized figure must have been revealed in such a fashion as to warrant the attention of the Yankee specialists in the 1820's. Thus, some of the early Yankee's attractiveness and appeal may have come from individualized stage portrayals rather than from the playwriting. However, there is Insufficient evidence regarding actual accounts of the stage Yankee portrayals prior to 1820. Therefore, this section is subjected to a generalized approach of the possible acting styles utilized by the early Yankee actors. In essence, this chapter describes the basic acting styles of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries with specific emphasis on the Yankee type. The acting of the early Yankee character was not wholly American, for the accepted style was British. For almost a decade beginning in 1784, the professional players known as the American Company, managed by English actor Lewis Hallam, Jr., enjoyed a monopoly of theatrical events in America. The troupe's leading actor was another English man, Thomas Wignell, and when the Company staged the first 158 native American comedy, The Contrast. Wignell enacted the Yankee Jonathan.2 Even though the first Yankee actors were British, the playwrights’ inclusion of Yankee dialect and Americanized habits offered some variations of the accepted English style. Since English actors were prominent figures on the American stage prior to 1820, the possible impact on the shaping of the Yankee character by Charles Mathews, the Brit ish performer of specialty acts, is not surprising. Mathews, with his one-man show, Trip to America, presented a program of stories, songs, imitations of actors, and character sketches which prompted the format of early Yankee special ists such as James Hackett and George Hill. This popular English comedian even included the American Yankee among his character sketches and eventually collaborated with R. B. Peake in satirizing the crudity and vulgarity of the rustic American countryman with the play, Jonathan in England. Thus, special mention is given to Mathews in this chapter as being a forerunner of the 1820 American specialty acts and possible figure of transition between the acting styles of the stage Yankees prior to 1820 and the Yankee specialists of the 1820's and 30's. That the acting style of the indi viduals portraying the early Yankee characters served as a 2Quinn, History of the American Drama, p. 65. 159 prototype for the polished Yankee specialists, may be par tially revealed by discussing Mathews’ relationship to both the acting styles accepted prior to 1820 and that which developed during the 1820's and 1830's. This section also includes a brief analysis of the stage Yankee’s dialectal patterns, which correlates with the reproduction of Humphreys* Yankee dictionary found in the appendix. As previously suggested, one of the most overt attempts in developing the stage Yankee character by the early playwrights was a concentration of the manner of speech peculiar to the Yankee figure. Conceivably, however, the Yankee dialect as recorded or surmised by these early Yankee playwrights was subjected to the individualized inter pretations of the actors portraying the early Yankee comics. Thus, the effect in presenting a flavor of the Yankee dialect was probably not complete until it was handled by actors with varying styles. The dialect of the ’’Jonathans’’ probably pre sented problems, but may have contributed toward the develop ment of the Yankee character since it was a conscious attempt by both playwright and actor to relate the stage comic with the real life Yankee figure. Also included in this section is a brief analysis of the costumes and make-up of the stage Yankee and their con tributions to early ’’Yankee'* plays, as well as an analysis of the character's mental and physical characteristics. 160 British performer: Charles Mathews. The popular no tion that the actor was the key to a theatrical production in the early nineteenth century gave Impetus to Charles Mathews’ performances.3 Mathews excelled in impromptu exhi bitions; as a result many of his roles were handed to him in, outline form to be filled in by himself.2*' Thus, unfor tunately, many of his solo performances were never recorded in final form; he often ad libbed and provided Impromptu variations.5 Even the recorded Mathews’ material fails to provide the present day reader a true insight into this popular Englishman’s acting talents. Much of his existing documented material lacks the intrinsic literary qualities which appear necessary for its complete effectiveness. Apparently then, the success of Charles Mathews rested with his spontaneity as a performer rather than with the quality of his material. For instance, Mathews’ comic song, "Illi nois Inventory" from his Trip to America, is hardly a skilled literary endeavor and requires expert handling to be effective. However, the song does depict the homey atmos phere of a lower American society and satirically discourages emigration to the new country: ¿Hewitt, p. 123. ^Nancy Mathews, Memoirs of Charles Mathews. Comedian, (London:. Richard Bentley, New Burlington Street, 1836) , I, 420 ^Francis Hodge, Yankee Theatre (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1964), p. ¿7. 161 ’'Recitative" I’ll give you an inventory of what belongs to me And then you’ll be enable to jedge of my property: So, to commence, pray notice what I mention For I think they'll prove quite worthy your attention. AIR I've a house that’s built with logs, A-sty that's built for hogs, A kennel built for dogs, And near me lots of bogs; My pig’s without a sow, My calf’s without a cow; A boat without a paddle, No horse, but I've a saddle; A gun without a-trigger, A whip without a Nigger; A knife without a steel, A chest without the meal; A clock without a hand, A basin without a stand; A spade without a handle, A stick without a candle . . .6 Although stylization of gesture, pose, and make-up was the common practice of the period, Mathews' contemporary critics acclaimed him for his avoidance of caricature and ability to create faithful and natural copies of natural models.7 Perhaps a simple estimation could be made that this natural concept influenced early American playwrights in their inclusion of Yankee dialect for providing local, color. Very likely, however, the English comedians such as Thomas Wignell ^n..a., The London Mathews (Philadelphia: Morgan and Yeager, Chestnut Street, Siigon Probasco, Printer, 1824), PP. 34-35. 7Mathews, IV, 435. 162 and Joseph Jefferson in their portrayals of American Yankees, resorted to stylized stereotypes since their knowledge of the true Yankee product was fragmentary. More specifically, in regard to Wignell’s portrayal of Jonathan in The Contrast, a letter signed simply Candom and published in the Daily Advertiser reviewed the play's opening night. Although the reviewer compliments Wignell as being a fine comedian, he makes several critical comments regarding Wignell's inter pretation of the Yankee character: "... The laughing gamut has much humor, but is dwelt rather too much upon, and some times degenerates into force. ..." and ". . . Wignell had not quite the right pronounclation of Jonathan . . .In addition, the early Yankee actors did not enjoy Mathews’ freedom of creating a great many characters within a short time; thus Mathews was able to avoid playing any one charac ter so long that it became static. Mathews played a great many original roles, the first being Risk in Coleman's Love Laughs at Locksmiths. He was able to alter his face, his voice, his gait, his gestures, his thought patterns and expressions in a matter of seconds. In effect, Mathews often displayed his powers of metamorpha- sis for friends who knew him well. The comedian would retire from his friends' presence, only to return shortly under the ^Candom, "Review of The Contrast." reprinted in Hewitt, pp. 35-36. ~ 163 guise of another character. Mathews used to assume such characters so skillfully that his best friends failed to recognize him.9 His versatility in character development and ability to mimic life-models perhaps gave impetus to the required physical prowess of later American Yankee roles as they appeared closely patterned after the off-stage Yankee.1^ Much of Mathews' comedy was based on the extravagan cies of a character. Although he was not a caricaturist, his perceptivity as an observer enabled him to depict the comedy resulting from the ldlosyneracies and peculiarities of an individual’s involuntary actions. One of Mathews’ critics was quick in asserting that the British comedian did not resort to over-exaggeration: He has been called a caricaturist. This is not true: the caricaturist exaggerates and distorts; Mathews, on the contrary, was always natural. He was a faithful portrait-painter, though he was fond of painting odd and extraordinary faces. He was the satirist and the rebuker,—a gentle and amusing one,—of the vices, the follies, and the extravagancies of the day. He did not distort his characters, but his incidents. He chose those circumstances under which the peculiarities of his characters could be best displayed—a privilege which every novelist and dramatist has claimed from time immemorial.11 Since early American playwrights appear to have ^Mathews, II, 8-9. 10The Yankee specialist, G. H. Hill, was a native New Englander; Joshua Silsbee, another Yankee star, was raised in the Yankee region of Penn Yan. 11Mathews, IV, 435. 164 provided exaggeragions of the Yankee character rather than simple peculiarities, the early Yankee actors may not have had the freedom of naturalness that Mathews enjoyed. How ever, Mathews’ comic timing and overt delineation of charac ter could be employed in the roles of Jonathan, Humphry Cubb, Farmer Ploughby, and Doolittle. The placement of the Yan kee in alien situations and locales by the early playwrights also coincided with Mathews’ concept of satirizing and dis playing "the follies and the extravancies of the day." This overt placement possibly enabled the Yankee actor to exag gerate the Yankee’s ineptness in manners and approved social habits to a point of ridiculousness. Mathews,, himself-ex presses the importance of developing this display of habit ual ludicrousness, "... showing how easily peculiarities become disagreeable, if suffered to grow into habits; and how frequently habits,, if so indulged in, may become ridiculous."12 Mathews was not unlike modern impressionists, for he impersonated famous actors in their vehicle roles. However, as previously suggested, Mathews had the ability to assume the mental, as well as the vocal and physical characteristics of the individual he was imitating.13 This quality would have aided many later Yankee actors because they were con stantly confronting the Yankee dialect and overt misuse of 1^Mathews, III, p. 60. 1^Mathews, III, 155. 165 words in the script. As Mathews was closer to the mimic who imitates exactly rather than to the mimic who gives satirical approximations,1^ his style was appropriate to the acting of the early Yankee figures, for the early Yankee roles were more effective when imitative rather than satirical. Most likely, however, the early Yankee actors followed the path that Wignell apparently took in his interpretation of Jona than; thus, they probably resorted to superficial and exter nal mimicry rather than any in-depth mental perception since their knowledge of the real Yankee was limited. Of course, some of this artificiality was probably relieved when Hum phreys, with The Yankey in England, offered a script more closely based on the characteristics of the genuine type.15 One of Mathews’ finest attributes was his skill in assuming dialects, a necessity for the nineteenth century Yankee actors. Not only was Mathews meticulously accurate, but his excellent ear enabled him to localize his dialect studies; he did not merely portray a stage Frenchman, but rather a man from Paris, from Southern France, or from some other localized dialect area.1^ In addition to his French accents, Mathews was adept at varieties of Scotchmen, l2*Mathews, IV, 405. 15see Chapter II, pp. 89-101. 1 Mathews, IV, 136. 166 Italians, Irishmen, and Americans. As to the latter, he was especially skillful in handling the Yankee, the Bostonian, the Southerner, and the frontiersman.1? In his comic acting for the legitimate drama, Mathews followed the tradition of David Garrick, who introduced details imitated from natural models. Especially helpful to early Yankee actors would have been Mathews’ portrayals of the English Yankee predecessors, Bob Acres in The Rivals and Tony lumpkln in She Stoops to Conquer. Comedy, in the late eight eenth and early nineteenth centuries, was considered the mirror of common life as contrasted to the elevation required in noble tragedy. Leigh Hunt, a noted journalist and essay ist during the nineteenth century, states that comedy is principally concerned with and reflects the habits of men in common life; thus, the comedian has only to observe and to copy in order to act naturally.1® Mathews’ "natural” touches of characterization in the tradition of Garrick rather than Cibber, Quinn, and Barton Booth were apparently an accepted style, which may have been reflected in many of the early Yankee portrayals. Most of Mathews’ critics agreed that he was not a 1?Hodges, pp. 65-67. 1®Leigh Hunt. "Critical Essays on the Performers of the London Theatres" (1808), in.Edwin Duerr, The Length and Depth of Acting (New York: ..Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, W, p. 305. - 167 mechanical actor, although his techniques were polished and exact. The British comedian had the ability to adapt, his performance to the audience's reaction; in effect, he de pended upon their response as a guideline for his comic rou tines.1 9 To Mathews, a comedian could never really be effec tive unless he was able to maintain a creative state of mind. Since all the Yankee roles were comic, this creative state andM ability to adapt to an audience appears vital for an effective response. Thomas Wignell and Joseph Jefferson, already schooled in low comedy, very likely employed these two techniques in ther initial appearances as Yankees. The early Yankee roles with the asides and the witty play on words suggests a partial dependency upon the actor's direct relationship with the audience. Apparently, the early Yankee actors were fairly successful in eliciting such a favorable reaction, for the type became exceedingly popular. Whether their acting technique was as fine as Mathews' or whether they appealed solely to the pit, however, is still an uncertainty. Mathews' movements on stage were controlled and viva cious until an unfortunate accident rendered him lame. He was also skilled in the art of pantomime, and his flexible vocal range enabled him to speak and sing with ease.2® This 1 Mathews, IV, 199 20Hodge, pp. 62-63. 168 dexterity of voice and body was also required of other Yankee actors, if only to a lesser degree. Although many of the early Yankee plays contained little dramatic action, several scenes call for the Yankee actor to either sing, dance or engage in pantomime. Singularly, Mathews in his solo enter tainment "At Homes," introduced comic songs, and/or dances at regular intervals. These original comic songs, usually bridged by ad lib, patter, were combined with verbal and pan tomimic comedy and the visual comedy of outlandish costume, make-up, and gimmick-properties. Mathews’ mimicry, acting, singing, dancing, recitations, and lectures were all con nected with a central theme, thus unifying his various skills.21 Although the early Yankee actors weren’t required to be strenously varied, the playwrights of the early Yankee scripts apparently desired an actor with enough versatility to perform successfully songs, dances, pantomimes, and dia lectal comedy involving word play, for all these elements were included in the early plays. Mathews, being a dialect comedian, copied American characters with masterful skill.22 Although he viewed Amer ica through the eyes of an aristocrat, pessimist, and poten tial yellow fever victim, one of his most successful crea tions was Jonathan W. Doubikln., or "the doubtful." Complete 21Mathews, III, 563-568. 22Hodge, pp. 61, 69. 169 with the revealing dialogue of "I guess," "I reckon," "I cal culate," Mathews later developed the character in Jonathan in England into an uncouth, stupid, stubborn, and unmannerly braggart lost in a civilized society. Many of Mathews1 character concepts are evidence of his use of Col. Humphreys’ glossary compiled for The Yankey in England.25 in 1824, when compiling material for Jonathan in England. Mathews confessed he loaned his collaborator, R. B. Peake, a copy of Humphreys’ glossary which the comedian had acquired earlier that year with his first trip to Amer ica. Further, the collaborated version of Jonathan in England contains a number of words and expressions identical to those appearing in Humphreys’ glossary. Although Mathews was often bitterly satirical in his portrayal of the low American, his technique in developing the overt characteristics of the type was noted as being perceptive and skillful. However, no matter how Insulting Mathews’ performance may have been to the Americans, he must be credited with giving Impetus to the 1820 Yankee specialty acts performed by Americans, which were undoubtedly retalia tions of the talented Englishman’s offerings. Yet, in essence, Mathews' versatile style of performing closely 23see Appendix. 24Mathews, III, 583. 170 paralleled the acting style likely required of the Yankee actors during the early nineteenth century. American styles of acting. In attempting to decipher the acting style of the first Yankee characters, a study of the accepted acting style of the early nineteenth century is necessary.2® With the rising acceptance of melodrama from 1770 on, and the tendency in America to sentimentalize, it. is likely the actors retained the broadened attack advocated by Quin and the "old school."2® Ranting and raving, stamping and storming plus exaggerated buffoonery in comedy apparently composed the acting style of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.2? Yet evidence of a more natural style, better suited for the exact mimicry of natural types such as the Yankee, has been described by the period’s ardent critics. One such critic was Washington Irving. Although still a very young man, he perceptively revealed the faults of the "old style" of acting. Cleverly disguising himself as Jonathan Oldstyle, an advocate of the "old school" of acting, Irving represents his distaste for bombastic art with a playful attack on -the critics (such as himself) of the day. This 2®Much of the material for this section comes from three major sources: Duerr, Oxenford, and the unpublished dissertation, (Stanford University, 1955) by Stanley Glenn, "Ludicrous Characterization in American Comedy from the Beginning until the Civil War." 2®0xenford, pp. 172, 176. 2?Duerr, pp. 285-286. 171 Ironic attack catalogued such faults as unnatural exaggera tion, buffoonery in comedy, and ranting and roaring. By representing Jonathan Oldstyle as a person, being prevented from enjoying the bad acting of old, Irving pleads for a change toward a more natural acting style. That his plea was further supported by other contemporary critics .vindicates a gradual acceptance. In addition, Irving also disguised himself as a sympathetic friend of Oldstyle’s, agreeing with the latter's taste, but warning him of becoming too much of a critic: In your remarks on the actors, my dear friend, let me beg of you to be cautious. . . . The critics, my dear Jonathan, are the very pests of society; they rob the actor of his reputation—the public of their amusement; they open the eyes of their readers to a full perception of the faults of our performers . . . [Irving proceeds with an explication of these faults.] I can remember the time when I could hardly keep my seat through laughing at the wretched buffoonery, the merry-andrew tricks, and the unnatural grimaces played off by one of our theatric Jack Puddings; when I was struck with awful admiration at the roaring and ranting of a buskined hero, and hung with rapture on every word; while he was tearing a passion to tatters—to very rags! I remember the time when he who could make the queerest mouth, roll his eyes, and twist his body with the most hideous distortions, was surest to please. Alas! how changed the times, or rather how changed the taste . . . ° Irving’s last statement, above, indicates a change V toward a natural school of acting. His direct reference to the changing times signals a gradual withdrawal from the 2®Washington Irving, ’’The Letters of Jonathan Old- style,” in Hewitt, pp. 65-66.. 172 bombastic, exaggerated style of the eighteenth century. Con ceivably however, since Irving wrote his "Letters of Jonathan Oldstyle" in 1802, the Yankee actors prior to the 1800's still resorted to the exaggerated buffoonery noted in the letter above. The Yankee plays appearing in the early nineteenth century depict the comic type in a more natural fashion than do those written in the late eighteenth century. The three Yankees in Lindsley’s Love and Friendship and Doolittle in Humphreys' Yankey in England are closer to the natural prod uct than either Tyler’s Jonathan or Low's Humphry. Hutton places Farmer Ploughby in his natural setting for Fashionable Follies written in 1809. The apparent change from exaggera tion. to a more natural style is also evidenced by the fervent attempts of the nineteenth century Yankee playwrights to record accurately the "down-east" dialect. The contrast between Jonathan's simple dialect in The Contrast and the Love and Friendship* s Jonathan and his more involved dialect exemplifies such attempts: Jonathan #1: Yes; why an't cards and dice the devil's device; and the playhouse the shop where the devil hangs out the vanities of the world, upon the ten derhooks of temptation. I believe you have not heard how they were acting the old boy one night, and the wicked one came among them sure enough; and went right off in a storm, . . .29 2^Tyler, The Contrast, p. 64. 173 Tyler, Indeed, caught a slight flavor of the Yankee’s crude dialect, but when compared to Lindsley’s endeavor, the former’s attempt is quite mild: Jonathan #2: . . . When I cum’d board ’f this here old schuner, says I,.I meant tewe use you well ’f you did me; and.so.I says yit, 'f you dewe, but ’f you don’t says I; I111 kick-up sich a dust on 't as you ayn’t seed this here many a long day, by gum. Carnation, cuss you Jonathan says ’e; it beets all.nater Capun, says I; tewe think friends’ll fall out so like the deuce, and quarrel enamost for just nothbn at all, says I; . .3° Although concrete evidence regarding Yankee acting , prior to 1820 is scarce, many critics of the early nine teenth century advocate and appraise the change from exag geration to a more natural acting style. Also, critics note that James Hackett was greatly inspired by Charles Mathews’ precise mimicry of various characters; Hackett even attempted to imitate the respected Englishman’s performances.®1 Fol lowing Hackett, was George H. Hill, whom the critics acclaimed as having a ’’quiet, natural manner:” There is a quiet, natural manner in his acting [Hill] the "Down East Yankee," which takes possession of the risible faculties of his audience, giving them full employment during the time he continues on the stage. He is the best representative of what may be styled American comedy. . . .®2 30Llndsley, Love and Friendship, p. 11. ®1Hodge, p. 81. ®2Francis C. Wemyss, Twenty-six Years in the Life of an Actor and Manager, in Hewitt, p. 124. 174 Conceivably then, Mathews and. the early Yankee actors served, as prototypes in style for Hackett, Hill, and. the other Yankee specialists of the 20*s and 30's. Although the early Yankee plays were far from realistic with their inclu sions of songs, dances and overt pantomimic action, the script’s preoccupation with exact Yankee dialect and the play wrights’ attempts to compare their character with the Yankee type off the stage may have Impelled the early actors of this comic type to present a more realistic style of mimicry. However, it is highly doubtful that this early realistic form was close to the present day term of naturalism, for the techniques of the "old school" were still employed by many Yankee actors. Also, as a result of the period's custom to employ asides, songs, and dances in the scripts, the natural style, although sincere and a step beyond the "old school," was broadened with audience asides and presentational ele ments which dissipated the natural display of voice and movement. Costume and make-up. Perhaps the weakest area of evi dence regarding the early presentation of the Yankee type in the American theatre is that for costumes and make-up. The Information available provides little more than generaliza tions of the overall styles and practices during the eight eenth and nineteenth centuries. Thus, the research for this 175 section: can provide, at best, only a few generalizations denoting the possible costumes and make-up displayed by the early Yankee actor. Stage costumes from 1750 to 1820 presented numerous variations.¿3 in 1787, John Philip Kemble played Othello in the military dress of the day, while his Iago wore a uni form of an earlier period. By the early 1800’s, actors were attempting to dress in the period of the play, thus present ing incongruities with others who remained in contemporary attire.34 Low comedy characters, however, such as a Falstaff in eighteenth-century England, were usually attired in a cos tume established by tradition.35 Therefore, as Shylock al ways wore a black gown and a red wig, it might be expected that the low comic Yankee was attired in a costume which was established through tradition. Yet, there is minimal evife dence suggesting that the costume Wignell wore for Tyler's Jonathan was more subdued in both color and flare than the one used by later Yankees. William Dunlap, in recording Wignell's performance months after the latter's Yankee debut, notes the American's dress as being similar to the popular attire of the English country rustic.36 As wigs were still 33oxenford, p. 180. 34jiewitt, p. 64. 35Hewltt, p. 19. 36Hodge, p. 48. 176 in fashion on stage, the first Yankees were probably shaggy and unkempt. Knee breeches with dark stockings were first employed, but in the early nineteenth century striped stock ings were popular for dandles, country dudes, and low comle Yankees.37 a long coat was the typical dress of the country rustic along with plain linen to contrast with the fancy linen of the city characters. However, a change to brightly colored linen for later stage Yankees as sly, ingenious horsetraders is quite possible. As evidence of the latter, a colored lithograph from the Harvard College Library pic tures George H. Hill as Hiram Dodge in thin-striped breeches, brightly striped vest, colored silk tie, and tails Instead of the long coat. The partially subdued costume of Wignell as Jonathan was probably changed to a brighter, more flam boyantly buffoonish costume for the low comic specialists of the 1820’s. The early Yankee costumes probably had to be loose- fitting enough to permit ample freedom for dances and comic business; although usually, coats fitted tightly across the shoulders and breeches were skin tight. These required the actors to maintain a standing position, to strike exaggerated poses, and prevented them from lounging or crossing their legs in a sitting position.38 However, loose garments, seemingly 37oxenford, p. 196 . 38Qxenfora> pp. 190-191. 177 essential to the Yankee, would have permitted him to lounge unsociably in a chair and allowed him to cross his legs, an ungentlemanly piece of business in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries' sophisticated society. The make-up of the early Yankees was probably minimal. It was usually the tradition to portray this comic type with the vitality and exuberance of a country boy and possibly not until John Owens appeared as Solon Shingle in The Peo ple's Lawyer in i860 did the Yankee reveal a more matured age which required more make-up. Therefore, the early Yan kees appeared as young and natural as possible and maintained a simple cherubic facade. In effect, the costume and wig were probably more responsible in overtly displaying the Yankee character than was the make-up. Dialectal concepts. Perhaps the greatest single con tribution toward the unification of early Yankee characters and the Yankee specialists was dialect. The physical and vocal development of character very likely was left to the discretion of the individual Yankee actor, but all were challenged by the playwright's attempts at the Yankee dialect This unique manner of speaking developed rapidly, from the Yankee's Initial appearance as Jonathan in Tyler's The Con trast to the specialty acts in 1820. Each playwright prof- lted from those preceding him and then added original 178 concepts based on observation.¿9 Col. David Humphreys edited one of the first attempts to record the typical speech of the New Englander.40 Although from a scientific viewpoint, a true New England dialect cannot be identified during the Yankee-theatre period since this would require extensive historical research, Humphreys did provide a useful suggestion of what was regarded as the language. Humphreys not only offers words peculiar to the Yankee character such as "gimcracks," "swamp it," "gump tion," "tarnation," and "boot, to boot," but also provides insight into the pronunciation of certain vowels and conso nants. For instance, words containing an "er" sound are pro nounced as "ar": terms (tarms), service (sarvlce), servant (sarvant), certain (sartin); words with the vowel sound "e" as in "get" sound like "git": kettle (kittle), steady (stiddy), friend (frind), and devil (dlvil); and words con taining a long "o" are substituted with the "u" sound of "mud": whole (hull), close (clus), and home (hum). Although brief mention has been made of how little the writers, Tyler and Low, knew of the character type they ^The early Yankee playwrights, Tyler, Low, and Barker, openly confessed their lack of personal.contact with real Yankee figures. ^®See Appendix. 41 George Philip Krapp, The English Language in America (New York: The Century Co., 1925), I, 231. 179 created, their simple dialect very likely gave impetus to the later endeavors of Hutton, Lindsley, and Humphreys. However, not until Lindsley’s Love and Friendship written in 1809, did a Yankee dialect fully emerge. Where previous endeavors succeeded in only suggesting Yankee dialect, Lindsley at^ tempted to record accurately the real Yankee’s manner of speech. In doing so, however, Lindsley and later Humphreys, probably created a problem in communication; for they were apparently concerned with "sound spelling" as well as the peculiarities in misused words and phrases. Idiosyncrasies in dialect spelling had been previously attempted as early as 1788. Low, in The Politician Out-Wltted. has Humphry puzzling over the peculiarities of accepted spelling: Humphry: Pray now, master barber, what does Constitu tion mean? . . . It’s spelt C, 0, N, con—S, T, I, sti—const!—T, U, tu—constltu—T, I, tl— constltutl—0, N, on—con-sti-tu-ti-on,—but your city folks calls it Constltushon; they’ve got such a queer pronouncication.2*'2 The above is as much as Low attempts; a simple beginning com pared to Lindsley’s and Humphreys’ more complex endeavors. Many of the words used by Lindsley’s Jonathan are spelled according to their sound or in conjunction with diph- thonic or inflectional twists. There is a tendency to run words together to represent apparent sloppiness of diction. Omission of certain letters is another prevalent factor ^^Low, Politician Out-Wltted. pp. 383-384. 180 distinguishing Yankee dialect; however, a double meaning is often the result. For Instance, "f" is frequently used for either "if,” "of,” or "off"; "enamost" is Interchangeably used for "we’re almost," "in the most," and "almost." The problems encountered in interpretation arise from accurately deciphering whether a word is to be purposely misused or if the pronunciation is to be exact, but either slurred or chopped. Most likely, however, the early Yankee playwrights were more concerned with depicting the flavor of the "Down- East" drawl than with literally recording the incorrect spelling. The following is an example of the use of mis spelled words for effect and the prevalent omission of letters: Jonathan: Never fetch me, but ’e don’t see me. so I’ll smoke 'turn; tarnation seize me, .but I’ll cab bage his bottle. No. I’ll bring um on his beam eands. No, that won’t dewe nuther by gum, Jona than! the Yankees ’spise tewe take ‘vantage over a weak friend when ’ e ’spects nothen and aynt fixed for’t by gum!43 . If the above passage is read exactly the way it is written, then the Yankee’s discourse would seem to be almost unintel ligible. However, the early Yankee actors may have profited from the playwright’s hints regarding which words or phrases were to be emphasized and which were to be delivered in a slovenly manner. Thus the word "eands" was perhapsi?"eyands"; ^^Lindsley, Love and Friendship, p. 37. 181 the phrase "’spise tewe take ’vantage" may have been "’sposed tewe take a-vantage," or some derivative thereof, rather than being pronounced exactly as written. Very likely, each indi vidual actor Interpreted the playwright’s writings somewhat differently, but the desired end was likely the same--to be understood while producing an acceptable dialect flavor. Although dialect presents problems in interpretation, character development seems enhanced by its use. The contri butions of dialect to the Yankee character ranged from vocal variety to psychological implications. Apparently, dialect not only provided the geographical flavor of a "down-East- erner," but aided in exposing the Yankee’s mental capacity and basic attitude toward life and society. Misspelled, mis pronounced, and hyphenated words seem to reveal the Yankee’s lack of intelligent vocabulary and his exuberant style. Many Yankee characters appear lazy, as expressed through the short cut means of hyphenated words and are seemingly sloppy in speech, as noted by their running words together. Much of the early Yankee dialect also reveals its etymological source in its resemblance to the slovenly pronounced cockney of the English country rustic. For example, A. Bl. Llndsley in his play, Love and Friendship, has his character Jonathan drop a number of "h" sounds, a definite characteristic of the British cockney. Low’s Humphry Cubb in The Politician Out-Witted substitutes the British 182 pronunciation of the word "dark" for "clerk." Jonathan, in Tyler’s The Contrast, profusely uses the cockney slang exclamatory expression, "Gor!" and, as do all the early Yankees, resorts to a form of "sentimental swearing" origi nated by Sheridan's English country bumpkin, Bob Acres, in The School for Scandal written in 1775» While Acres pro posed that "damns have had their day," the early American stage Yankees adapted Sheridan’s suggestion for their own "oath referentials." Tyler's Jonathan is expressive with "Maple-log seize it," "swamp it," "burnin rivers," and "am brosia"; Low’s Humphry utilizes "By Job," "cruel minded young dog," and "He’s the very moral of our Tory"; Yank in Tears and Smiles is fond of "i’ll be a nation glad," and "tarna tion"; Llndsley’s Jonathan is explicit with "darnation" and "it beets all nater! never fetch me!"; and Doolittle is some what mild with "tarnation" and "By jingoes." Nevertheless, peculiarities of idiomatic phrases placed the Yankee in a designated locale (New England) and served to exaggerate his contrasting social and environmental habits. In essence, the Yankee dialect, despite its problems, may have provided the early Yankee actor an overt individu ality which he could have employed in developing a seemingly natural and effective comic character. It? CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Yankee character prior to 1820 has been traced in order to determine if his development established a concrete prototype for the mid-nineteenth century stage Yankee spe cialists. Included were sections concerning the Yankee's development in American dramatic literature, the Yankee's emergence in American and European non-dramatic literature and in oral humor prior to 1820, as well as the influence of the early Yankee actors upon the stage Yankee’s humorous mannerisms. This chapter briefly summarizes the material and provides conclusions regarding the early Yankee's emer gence as a prototype for the Yankee specialists of the 1820's to 1840’s, his contributions to advancing the popularity of these nineteenth century stage Yankee comics, and his esta blishment as a mythological symbol reflecting the culture of early America. There are few hard conclusions, however, to be drawn, as much of the evidence includes the impression istic views of earlier historians. Therefore, many of the conclusions resulting from this study rely on coincidental developments and should be regarded as highly conjectural. In tracing the development of the Yankee character in American dramatic literature prior to 1820, six early Ameri can plays containing the Yankee figure have been analyzed. 184 The Yankee Characters that emerge from these early scripts present several crude and coarse traits which are definitely similar to those developed by the Yankee specialists of the 1820’s to 40’s. However, before concluding that the early Yankee form served as a definite prototype for the special ists, there is a need to summarize the changes which occured in the early stage Yankee as the concepts of his character matured. This study has revealed that some characteristics appearing in these early stage Yankees changed or matured from their initial concept, others remained basically the same, still others were more transitional and not substaifc-,. tially established. More explicitly, the following are the characteristics of these early Yankee figures which matured in development throughout the period involved in the six plays analyzed, and which appear as fully developed traits in the characters presented by the Yankee specialists: the characters are coun try bumpkins, astonished and confused at the ways of city life; they use the ‘'down-East” dialect typical of the real- life Yankees of New England stock; their wit and shrewdness, beneath an uneducated and unsophisticated behavior, although making them the butt of a good deal of fun, enables them to confuse and comically top the other stage characters. The mannerisms of the early Yankee characters which remained unchanged from inception to 1820 and appear as strong 185 traits in the Yankee specialists are: a provincial conserva tism in their attitudes toward manners and politics; an unflagging self-respect and individuality, a tendency to exaggerate; and a generally uncouth display of exuberant Ignorance in mundane affairs. Finally, the traits appearing in the early Yankee characters which are transitional and not fully developed are a tendency toward sentimentalism and an overt display of their basic honesty. The early stage Yankee characters analyzed in this study must have provided the later Yankee specialists with the needed inspiration and direction in establishing a basic low comic type. The traits exhibited in the Yankee scripts from 1809 to 1815 provided distinct possibilities for char acter adaptation and solid material for a Yankee specialty act. Tyler’s Jonathan in relating ,his theatre experiences, suggests a tendency toward exaggeration which conceivably advanced the later Yankee’s proficiency at mild mendacity. Jack Hardweather‘s pilfering of the "Capun's" notions and Humphry Cubb’s collecting money for drinks, provided a basic concept for the shrewdness and clever manipulation of others and employment of Yankee trickery utilized by the later stage Yankee characters such as Hiram Dodge and Solon Shingle; these traits eventually developed into obvious Yankee cupi dity. The Yankee characters from 1809 to 1815, although 186 ignorant, displayed a witty adeptness at dialectal word play, which could have developed very easily into the exaggerated and elaborated stories which later Yankees used to confuse the more sophisticated and educated characters. The overtly rustic and slapstick scenes involving Jack and Jonathan in Love and Friendship may have given impetus to the techniques used in later Yankee sight gags. Finally, Hutton's character of Farmer Ploughby is very similar to Solon Shingle in The People* s Lawyer as portrayed by the well-known Yankee spe cialist John Owens in i860; both Shingle and Ploughby pre sented a direct, simple picture of a homely New England X&f farmer. The Yankee characters displayed in these six early plays were either conscious or unconscious attempts to pro mote a genuine low comic type with local color. In conclusion, if one accepts the definition for a prototype as being an ancestral form or a model upon which later efforts are based, then the early Yankee characters appearing in the six analyzed scripts serve as likely proto types for the Yankee specialists of the 1820’s, 30’s and 40’s This study has also partially traced the pre-1820 Yankee character’s emergence outside the American theatre in order to determine whether the Yankee type character was susceptible to European influences such as British travelers' accounts, the tall tale devices of the German-Prussian,,work, 187 Baron Munchausen, and the British theatre. Although Ameri ca’s culture was not as polished and refined as its European contemporaries, it reflected a rugged national spirit that was recorded by early British travelers’ in their encounters with the “crude and coarse Americans." Several of the travel Journals include sections devoted to descriptions of America’ strange inhabitants. For example, Sarah Kemble Knight de scribed the crude and vulgar habits of an uncultured Connecti cut lad; Estrick Evans wrote of the mendacity of the Eastern Yankee characters in general, and Francis Wright recorded the raw and independent attitude of American Yankees toward life. Thus, a foreign concept of the American Yankee character emerged In the literary accounts of early travelers. In addition to the British travelers’ accounts, the exaggerated tales of Baron Munchausen, written prior to the American Yankee's literary appearance, presented an individ ual that conveyed characteristics such as rugged independence brash and coarse manners, and a crude wit. These traits were displayed by the American Yankee characters. Thus, as Mun chausen was a mythological symbol reflecting the rusticity of the German-Prussian culture, so the Yankee, in his display of Munchauslan traits, was expressive of a similar uncultivated spirit in early America. The Munchaus6m.tales may well have inspired American writers and tall tale spinners. A part of European culture which obviously influenced 188 America was the British drama. The English country bumpkin, which emerged from the British drama, was a comic character similar to Baron Munchausen; some of the former’s English mannerisms coincide with the early American Yankee character; he was boastful, boisterous, awkward, impertinent, a rascal of wit, and fairly ignorant of worldly ways. All of these traits are readily seen in the British characters of Bob Acres and Tony Lumpkin. Thus, this study of the Yankee figure refers to a character that grew out of similar type charac ters. Although there always have been comedy characters of this general kind, the Yankee took on the unique details and peculiarities of American local color; these details made the Yankee stand out. Further evidence of American susceptibility to the influences of British drama was the popularity of the melo dramatic movement and sentimentalism in both countries. Although these movements were not as fully developed in Amer ica as they were in England, early Yankee characters such as Fanner Ploughby and Doolittle somewhat represented them in their respective plays, Fashionable Follies and The Yankey in England. Thus, the American Yankee’s early development was obviously Indebted to the material provided by the European culture of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. An in-depth comparison of low comic characters throughout the ages and their dependency upon similar comic techniques and 189 mannerisms is not the major purpose of this study. Still, there appears to be a strong connection between the British country bumpkins and the Yankee figure. Perhaps a study con cerned with tracing the development of comic stereotypes would establish a more conclusive relationship. Also, such a study may reveal evidence helpful in relating the dramatic functions of similar comic types. Certainly, the function of comic relief was provided by both the European and Ameri can low comics in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In addition to European influence, this study has revealed the possibility of American influences outside the theatre toward the development of the Yankee character type. The Yankee figure expressed the country’s rustic environment and crude attempts at expressing a new found liberty. The low comic figure presented characteristics of the general American in post-Revolutionary times: a stubborn Independent spirit, a patriotic pride, and a naive ignorance in terms of social awareness. Although the Yankee type was not original to America, his character or one like him was a natural development. The Yankee, expressed in the literary humor of the times, was a direct reaction against the British satirical attacks on the inferiority of American low life; these attacks were ex pressed through early travelers’ accounts and derisive songs 190 such as “Yankee Doodle." Conceivably then since Americans possessed the qualities of patriotic pride, stubborn inde pendence, and rustic individuality, the new country was inspired to strike back, and thus accepted as a national sym bol the Yankee character, developed by American authors at the time. The Yankee could be labeled as a national folk figure of America; and not until the later appearances of the frontier backwoodsman, the Mississippi keelboatman, the city Bowery b'hoys, and the Kentucky ringtail roarers did the Yankee’s status dwindle. Although the political image of the early Yankee char acters, as they appeared in the almanacs and the early Revo lutionary political satires of Mrs. Warren and others, was crude, rustic, and often naive, all characters expressed a sturdy loyalty to country and home and a basic liberated spirit. Not until the 1820’s, however, did the full force of the Yankee character’s political image and patriotism gain popular distinction, and that was due in part to the endeavors of Seba Smith and James Russell Lowell. The Yankee figures before 1820 merely suggested a spirit that required more or ganized cultivation. That the spirit was there, however, is obvious, and it found itself expressed a bit later in the # election of President Jackson Ifi 1828, who represented the common man as truly as did the stage Yankee. The early Yankee also displayed a crude Interest in 191 economic power and an uncanny sense for manipulating others. The tales of Yankee chicanery appearing in the almanacs, such as the sharp Yankee outwitting the stupid Dutchman, the farmer tricking his neighbors into helping him fertilize his field, and the strong Yankee peddler delivering a salespitch to his gullible and unsuspecting customers, all reveal the Yankee’s ability to succeed in achieving his desired ends. Through tales such as these, the early American non-dramatic literature and oral humor helped develop the Yankee type and was influential in establishing his character as a national symbol. He was well represented in poems, almanacs, politi cal satire, and popular folklore; his character was a reflec tion of at least a part of early American culture. Finally, the acting styles and dialectal approaches utilized by early American actors followed to a degree the comic style of foreign predecessors, but employed a more natural acting approach. The apparent attempts of early American playwrights to reflect accurately the attitudes, mannerisms, and dialect of the off-stage Yankee may have in fluenced the early actors’ utilization of a more realistic comic style. Even the critics of the period desired a more natural approach to acting. Thus, the early stage Yankee in his more natural style contributed to the advancement of the Yankee specialists' popularity and to his establishment as the major stage comic of nineteenth century American 192 theatre. Without doubt, the early Yankee actors were Inspi rational instigators of a new development in American comedy, a development that eventually established a strong acting tradition based on a native realistic style. 1^3 BIBLIOGRAPHY 194 Barker, James N. Tears and Smiles. Philadelphia: T. and G. Palmer Publishers, 18ÖS5 Blackwood, William. Blackwood* s Magazine. Edinburgh: Baldwin, Cradock & Joy, 1817. Blair, Walter. Native American Humor. 2nd ed. San Fran cisco: Chandler Publishing Company, Inc., I960. Brackenridge, Hugh Henry. Modern Chivalry. New Haven: College and University Press, 1965. Daboll, Nathan. The New England Almanac (1800), in American Folklore. 6th ed. Richard Dorsen. Chicago: The Uni versity of Chicago Press, 1959. Davis, John. Travels in the United States of America, in The Old Farmer and His Almanack. George L. Kittredge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924. Dorsen, Richard. American Folklore. 6th ed. Chicago: The University of Öhlcago Press, 1959. Duerr, Edwin. The Length and Depth of Acting. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1962. Dwight, Timothy. Travels in New England and New York, in The Old Farmer and His Almanack. 4th ed. George L. Kittredge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924. Evans, Estrick. "A Pedestrious Tour of Four Thousand Miles Through the Western States and Territories, 1819," Crackerbox Philosophies in American Humor and Satire. 2nd ed. Jennette Tandy. Port Washington, N. Y.: Kennikat Press, Inc., 1964. Glenn, Stanley. "Ludicrous Characterization in American Comedy from the Beginning Until the Civil War." Unpub lished dissertation, Stanford University, 1955. Griswald, Rufus W. (ed.). Poets and Poetry of America. Philadelphia: Carey and Hart, 1848, Hewitt, Bernard. Theatre U. S. A. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 19^9. ” Hodge, Francis. Yankee Theatre. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1^64. . 195 Humphreys, David. The Yankey In England. Printed according to the act of the State of Connecticut, John Trumbull, 1816. Hunt, Leigh. ’’Critical Essays on the Performers of the London Theatres" (1808), The Length and Depth of Acting. Edwin Duerr. New.York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1962. Hutton, Joseph. Fashionable Follies, in Representative Play3 by American Dramatists 1815-1855. Edited by Montrose J. Moses.. New York: E. P. Hutton & Co., Inc., 1925. Irving, Washington. "The Letters of Jonathan Oldstyle," Theatre U. S. A. Bernard Hewitt. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company , Inc., 1959. Kittredge, George L. The Old Farmer and His Almanack. 4th ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924. Knight, Sarah Kemble. "Private Journal of a Journey from Boston to New York,“ Native American Humor. 2nd ed. Walter Blair. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Com pany, Inc., I960. Krapp, George Philip. The English Language in America. New York: The Century Co., 1925. Kronenberger, Louis. Cavalcade of Comedy. New York: Simon and Shuster, Inc., 1953. Llndsley, A. B. Love and Friendship. New York: D. Longworth Dramatic Repository, 1Ö09. The London Mathews. Philadelphia: Morgan and Yeager, Chest nut Street, Simon Probasco, Printer, 1824. Low, Samuel. The Politician Out-Witted, in Representative Plays by American Dramatists 1?<65-1819. Edited by Arthur H. Quinn. New York: Century Col, 1917. Lynn, Kenneth S. (ed.). The Comic Tradition in America. New York: W. W. Norton and Company,.Inc., 195^7 Mathews, Nancy. Memoirs of Charles Mathews. Comedian. 4 vols. London: Richard Bentley, New Burlington Street, 1838-1839. 196 Moody, Richard (ed.). Dramas from the American Theatre 1762- 1909. Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 19667 Moses, Montrose J. (ed.). Representative Plays by American Dramatists 1765-1819. New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 191o. _____ -(ed.). Representative Plays by American Dramatists 1815-1858. New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1925. Oxenford, Lyn. Playing Period Plays. 3rd ed. Chicago: The Coach House Press, Inc.', 1966. Parrington, V. L. The Colonial Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1966. Quinn, Arthur Hobson (ed.). Representative American Plays. New York: Century.Co., 1917. ______. The History of American Theatre. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1923. Quintana, Richard (ed.). Eighteenth Century Plays. New York: Random House, Inc., 1952. Raspe, R. E. Adventures of Baron Munchausen. 2nd ed. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., I960. Scllhamer, George 0. History of the American Theatre. Philadelphia: Globe Printing House, 1Ö88. Sewell, Samuel. Diary, in Three Centuries of American Poetry and Prose. Edited by Alphonso Gerald Newcomer, et. al. Sheridan, Richard Brinsley. The Rivals. in Eighteenth Century Plays. Edited by.Richard Quintana. New York: Random House, Inc., 1952. ______. The School for Scandal, in Cavalcade of Comedy. Louis Kronenberger. New York: Simon and Shuster, Inc., 1953. . Tandy, Jennette. Crackerbox Philosophies in American Humor and Satire. 2nd ed. Port Washington, N. Y.: Kennikat Press, Inc., 1964. Thomas, Robert B. The Farmers Almanac (1804), in The Old Farmer and His Almanack. 4th ed. George L. Kittredge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924.. 197 Thomas, Robert B. The Farmers Almanac (August, 1819), In Crackerbox Philosophies in American.Humor and. Satire. 2nd. ed. Jennette Tandy. Port Washington, N. Y. : Kenni kat Press, Inc., 1964. Tyler, Royall. The Contrast. Philadelphia: Prichard and Hall Press, 1790, reprinted in Representative American Plays. Edited by Arthur Hobson Quinn. New York: Century Co., 1917. Wemyss, Francis C. Twenty-six Years in the Life of An Actor and. Manager, in Theatre U. S. A. Bernard Hewitt. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959. Woodworth, Samuel. The.Forest Rose, in Dramas from the American Theatre 1762-1909. Edited by Richard Moody. Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1966. Wright, Francis. Views of Society and Manners in America. Edited by Paul R. Baker. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1963. 198 APPENDIX 199 DAVID HUMPHREYS’ GLOSSARY OF YANKEE WORDS* The Glossary appended to the published edition of David Humphreys’ play The Yankey in England (1815) is repro duced here in facsimile. It was one of the earliest attempts to record the typical speech of western New England, and it served as a specific model for Charles Mathews and Richard Peake when they put together their stage pieces of Trip to America and Jonathan in England (both performed in 1824). Though no specific evidence supports such an assumption, in all probability James H. Hackett, and others who worked with the Yankee character during the 1820's, found it a useful description of the regional language. *Francls Hodge, Yankee Theatre (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1964), Appendix B. GLOSSARY Of words used in a peculiar sense, in this Drama; or pro nounced with an accent or emphasis in certain districts, different from the modes generally followed by the In habitants of the United States; including new-coined American, obsolete English, and low words in general. Abord, for, on board. A-nuff, enough. Afeard. afraid. Argufying, arguing. Afore, before. Arter. after. Agin, again. Atarnal. eternal. Ant I, probably from, and Atarnlty. eternity. I, used however rather as Awful, ugly. a negative. Ax. ask. Ban*t. ] am, or as, or Boot, to boot, something Ben-'t. j are not. . given into the bargain. Becalse. because. Bred-stuffs, all kinds of Berrying, burying. . flour, meal, farinaceous Beleve.believe. substances, grain. In Bile, boll. England, corn is used as Bln, been. the generic term. In Blssy. busy. America, corn is always Blssness. businesa. Intended to apply to Blud. blood. maize—otherwise called Boggling, difficulty, delay Indian corn—the most a ing, unnecessarily hesi abundant and useful ve tating. getable production in Boost, raise up, lift up, the United States, from exalt. the extreme northern to Borred. borrowed. the southern boundary. Brlled. broiled. Buty. Beuty. Brussels, bristles. Calculate, used frequently Cleverly, very well. In an improper sense, Close, clothes. as reckon, guess. Clus. close. Captivated, captured, tak Concarnlng. concerning. en prisoner. Cood. could. Cent. 1-1OOth part of a Copper, formerly current dollar—a copper coin of money of the value of a the United States. halfpenny in England. Clever, relating to moral Count, (in provincial use,) character—not skillful estimate, reckon. ness or dexterity. Cum, came. Chaffering, holding a long Cumfort. comfort. talk. Currldge, courage. Chaunce. chance. Crltturs. creatures. Chirk, churk. brisk, lively, Curious. extraordinary. in good spirits. Cuss, curse. Chares, chores, trifling Cussed, cursed. employments at or near Cute, acute, smart, sharp. home. Darned, old English. Du. do. Darter, daughter. Dubble, double. Dasent. dare not. Duds, old clothes. Despud, desperate, Dum. dumb. Despudly. desperately. Dumpish, heavy, silly. Dllly dallying, wasting Du pry tel, (exclamation time for little purpose. . probably from) do pray Dlvil. devil. tell. Druv. driven. Duse, does. Dreadful. used often as, very, excessively; even as it regards beauty, goodness, &c. E Eend, end. E1en-a-most. almost. Enny. any. Extrumpery. extempore. Enny-wheres. any where. F Falrce. farce. fierce. Forrerd. forward. Falrm. farm, firm. Fort, fault. Farmament, firmament. Fortin, fortune. Fleering. 1 tenus of con Fortino. fortizno. for fronting, j tempt, vulgar. . aught I know. Flip. liquor made of rum, Forzlno..far as 1 know• Seer and sugar, with a F'all that, for all that, or hot poker put into the .notwiths tanding, &c. mug to stir it. FrifiBil, frigate. Flustratlon. extreme agi Frolics, country festival tation. sports. Fokes. folks. Frlnd. friend. Forgit, forget. Furder. farther. G, Gals, girls. Guess, instead of being Gawkey. awkward. applied to things con Gimcracks. (nice baga jectural, misapplied to telles) curious trifles. such as are past, pre Gin, given, gave. sent—certain; believe, Glneral. Gln'ral. General. think. Glneratlon. generation. Gum, foolish talk, nonsense. Glib, smooth, easy. Gumtlon. sense, under- Gownd. gown. standing, intellect. Granny, grand-mother. H Han't. have not Heerd. heard. Havn1t Hlld. held. Hansum. handsome. Hose, horse. Harty. well Huffy. ill natured. Hectored, bullied, insult Hull. whole. ed by domineering. Hum, home. Her'n. her own, hers. Humbly. homely. I lie, oil. Inyons. onions. Improve, employ, occupy. J Jeerlngs. contemptuous Jumping Jings. jingoes, ex sneers. . pletives indicative of Jest. Just. confirmation. Jeestlng. jesting. Jark, jerk. Jiffing. or Jiffin, instanta neously. K Keow. cow. Kittle, kettle. Ketch, catch. Klver. cover. Kill-dried. (the prepara*? Knack, faculty of doing tlon of the meal of maize things with facility. or Indian corn for ex Know'd. knew. portation,) Kiln-dried. LaraIng. learning. Lines, loins. Leetle. little. Lovyler. lover. Lengthy, long. Lug, (very vulgar) bring, Licker, liquor. . bring in, lift, hand. Mad, (not in the usual Mayn't, may not. sense, insane,) to make Meb-be. may be. angry. Munching. (low word,) Mainly, mostly. chewing with a mouth Mannerliness, good breed full. ing, good manners. Muggy, sultry, close air, Marcy, mercy. very hot. Masslful. merciful. Naborly. neighbourly. Nationality, attachment to Nation, very extraordina* clan or country, belong rily. ing to, or fondness for a nation. Native, (last syllable pro Notion. used frequent- nouneed long,) native. Notions. < ly not in the Neest. nest. Notional.J English sense Nice, smart, tidy, spruce. of the words. Nicely, in good health. Nuther. neither. Nip, (original American.) Nick nacks. trifling super pint, half pint bowl. . fluous articles. 0, the Dickens. exclama- Outlandish, strange, for *” tlon. eign. Obstropulous. obstreper Overmatch, superior. ous. Owny. towny, (ownydow- On*t. on it, of it. ny. ounty tounty) pe Ort. ought. culiarly belonging to one. Paerlls. perils. Poke your fun, jeer, pes Parfect, perfect. ter, plague. Parson, person. Potecary. Apothecary. Peek. to observe Poorly. miserably, ill. Peeking, s slily and Prehaps. perhaps. Peep. J sneakingly. Presarved. preserved. Pertectlon. protection. Prltty. pretty. Pertest. protest. Pluck, heart, courage, Pestered, very excessive spirit. ly* Put out, disobliged, of Plaguy. as a degree of fended. comparison—very—to enhance the force of the word with which it is connected. Quarte. quart. Qulddles. disorder in the Quiddities. trifling nice head, moping disease in ties, odd behaviour. horses, dizziness. R Rallly. really. Reckon, calculate, depend Rather, (pronounced nar on the fact, sometimes row on.the first syllable) nearly in the sense in frequently used to di which guess is misap minish or qualify the plied. term to which it Is ap Roiled, disturbed, applied plied—sometimes pro to liquors and temper. nounced Ruth-er. Rubblge. rubbish. Ruff, roof. Sale, say. Sneaking, used in a pecul Sabba-da. Sabbath-day. iar sense. Salsse. or Salrse. sauce. Sparked it, (young men Salsy. saucy. keeping company with Sarpent. s erpent. young women and sit Sarvlce, s ervlce. ting by the fire after K Sarvant, servant. the family has gone to Sartlnly. certainly. bed.) courting. Scart. scared. Spook, (a word used by the Scholard. scholar. Low Dutch in some Seed, saw. parts of America,) ap Sen, since. parition, ghost, hob Sheep, ship. goblin. Sha'n't. shall not. Spose. suppose. Shabby. } applied to ill Spry, acute, nimble. Shabbily, J looks or ap- Sperit. spirit. ppearance in dress, vul Spunk, courage. gar. Staggars. horse-apoplexy, Shood. should. wild conduct, madness. Shugar. sugar. Stan, stand. Shute. shoot. Stickling, hesitating, de Shure. sure. laying. Sltch. such. Stiddy. steady. Slim. used in a peculiar Strait, stralght. Slink.5 sense. Stur. stir. Snap, to break short. Stunded. stunned. Snappish, petulant, easily Stump, challenge. Provoked. Sumwheres, somewhere. Swags. exclamation. Swound. swoon. Swamp it. ridiculous kind Swap. Swop, exchange. of asseveration. Suzzl Sursl a corrup Swlmmed. swam. tion from Sirs. Tarms. terms. Trim, habiliments, dress. Tarnation, used in a pe Trade. physic, medicine. culiar sense. Truck, to barter, exchange Tantrums. Tantarams. do. one thing for another. Tatteratlons. do. Trampoosing. traversing. Tawklng. talking. Tuff, tough. Techy, easily irritated, Twang, nasal pronuncia froward. tion. Telled. told. Twlstical. tortuous, not Toddy, (beverage) rum . above-board, not quite sugar and water mixed moral. together. Twitted, reproached. To-rlghts. immediately, instantly. Under1in. an inferior ani Uppish, (vulgarism) proud, mal. arrogant. Unposslble. impossible. Vacarme. (French) to Venture, offer a bet, lay make a noise, racket, wager, stake. scold. Vouch, vouch it. vouch on* t. Van, exclamation. a species of asseveration. Vaggers, do. Vow, do Vartuous. virtuous. Vum. do. Varmount. Vermont. Vumpers. do. Varses. verses. Vlges. voyages. Vlttles. victuals. w Wage, or wager, to bet Wood. would. 1 Yawping, (probably from Ylt. yet. yelping) a noisy fellow Your*n. your own, yours