A Critical Study of Richard Brinsley Sheridan's The School for Scandal*

HarοId Leung-k

Departmen t of Eng1ish College of Liberal Arts

I. INTRODUCfION

The School for Scandal is generally considered as Sheridan's masterful play in succession of the well-receiveζplay The Rival. lronical旬， the play excels in its blend of sentimenta1ism with the attack on sentimentalism. Some regard it as a revolt against the dominant sentimental comedy of Sheridan's t加 e. 1 Historical­ ly, comedy of manners preced~d sentimental comedy. Sheridan's success 1ies in his ski1lful combination of elements from both traditions. As a dramatist, Sheridan has created virtual1y all that a come'dy of intense qualities could provide: amusing characters, funny intrigues, jaunty and ridiculous situations, witty dialogue, incisive social satire, deft commentary on human foibles and penetrating insight of human relationship. Sheridan's characters follow their comic bents more consistently than abruptly. More laughter and wit than surprising episodes are poured into the play. He never lets up unti1 he has wrung the last drop of laughter frbm every situation possible. These all add up to account for Sheridan's early success (roughly at the age of 25). The School For Scandal is a marvelous a訂ay of comic characters of a highly “civ立泣叫， urbane" society of which the playwright plays an active role. It stirs uproar and wins admiration. It is so . much a caricature of his own time and society. In view of the interrelationship

between Sheridan's comic art, 1iterary mien, his time and social climate, this paper is an attempt to deal with the play's cnaracterization with reference to

*The author is very grateful to Professor Marion E. Hawkins of the University o f. Wis∞ nsin-River Falls for her va1uable comments and suggestions to the preliminary draft of this paper.

-441 一 趴1l1et卸 of National Taiwan Nonnal University Vol. XXVIl

Sheridan's own persona1ity.

11. BIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

Richard Brinsley Sheridan (1 751-1816) was a man of two major careers-the theatre and politics. Sheridan's life formed a fascinating history-acting and reacting as an outstanding playwright, a parliamentarian, a theatre manager of Drury Lane Theatre, a bold and romantic lover (suitor). Despite his briIliant successes in the fields of theatre and politics, a passio'n for 1iving expensively and . spiritedly in the fashionable society of London brought him domestic unhap­ piness and harassing poverty. His last years were wretched, but his funeral and burial in Westminster Abbey were splendid.

Just how much .5heridan's ancestry contributed to his literary and 01叫 orica1 talents is difficu1t to determine. Born in Dub1in, 1751 , the Anglo-Irish drarnatist had a paternal grandfather who was a biographer of Jonathan Swift. The tradition of the Sheridan family carried significance in that it ref1ects the social status and career development of the family. In addition to being a biographer of J onathan Swift, his grandfather, Thomas Sheridan, Doctor of Divinity, was a schoolmaster.

He was lacking in , discretion (or tact) and thus sacrificed opportunities for preferment for the sake of a quip. Poor, hag-ridden, he died a pauper. Richard Brinsley's father, Thomas Sheridan, was an actor, theatre mànager, and teacher of elocution, having considerable success in Dublin and England. His

mother, Frances, was a prominent author before she was twenty-on~. Miss Sidney Bidulph, one of her works, was a famous novel in her daY. Thomas Sheridan became also an educator and .1ecturer, putting forth the merits of oratory.and rhetoric as an antidote to cure immorality, ignorance, and bad taste. Despite all

these noble ventures, the family was forced to move to France 扭 1754 to es個 pe his debts. However, Richard Brinsley Sheridan had a fairly good education at Harrow,

a fashionable pub1ic school ne缸 London. Although he was not an outstanding student, he was a popular one who quickly learned whatever knowledge he needed ，的“shed light on conduct and manners in social life. 叫 During his Harrow years, he produced a dramatic sketch based on Goldsmith's The Vicar of Wakefield, revealing his early skí1l at witty dialogue.

-442 一一 A Critical Study of Richard Brinsley Sheridan's The School for Scandal*

Richard Sheridan started witl: writing lampoons, and with a friend composed a bur1esque opera, Jupiter. In 1771 (aged 20) the Sheridans moved to Bath.

(lts effect on Sheridan's dramatic career is to be e1aborated 泊 the fo l1owing section.) Bath lay to a considerable degree beneath everything Sheridan wrote. Notice that The Rivals was set there; The School for Scandal was set in London with a “sustained flavor of the life of Bath" in its most interesting scenes. Three plays-al1 in 1775-marked Sheridan's entry into the theatrica1 wor1d. They were The Rivals, St. Patrick's Day, and The Duenne. The Rfvals had to be rewritten in order for Sheridan to be successfully launched into a theatrical career at the age of twenty-four. St. Patrick's Day was a “potboiler." The Duenne wàs an adaptation of old material. His A Trip to Scarborough in 1777 was a reworking of The Relapse by Sir John Vanbrugh. The School for Scandal, in the same year,“put on the stage. .. the psychology of the overtrained wor1d of fashion. 吋 His last play, The 0戶itic (1 779) was a satire on the Georgian stage. Pizarro, Sheridan's play of tragedy, was produced in 1799. He also revised The Stranger, a play by the German writer August von Kotzebue. In 1776, Sheridan decided to buy, with the aid of his father-in-1aw and a friend, a share in the' Drury Lane Theatre owned by David Garrick, the actor-manager-playwright. For some thirty-odd years from 1776, Sheridan was a part-time theatre manager. However, he went into politics in 1780 when he was e1ected to Par1iament to represent the town .of Stafford. He was a strong supporter of the Whig Party until the end of his political career in 1812. Sheridan a1so was often heard in defense of the American colonies, for which Congress reportedly tried to make him a gift of twenty tholisand pounds, which he refused.4

His wit and charm earned him many friends in 1ρndon society. Samuel

Johnson we1comed him 詛 to his libera1 cIub, saying that the man who had

“written the two best comedies of his age is sure1y a considerable man. 吋 Sheridan tried to carry on paral1el careers, but he neglected each. His aristocratic colleagues never quite fully accepted him because they thought of him essentially as a dramatist, not a “gentlemen." After a11, he was not of nob1e birth. During his political career, his theatre, the Drury Lane, which had been declared an unsafe structure 扭 1791 ， had to be remode1ed at great cost. In 1809, ~t burned to the grou

-443 一 Bulletin of National Taiwan Nonnal University Vol. XXVIl years later, apparent1y neglected by friends. In all, his political career lasted about thirty-two years; and his career as a dramatist for about seven or eight. Never­ theless, he is remembered better asa dramatist, f10t a statesman. Sheridan's own life was chaotic. He drank too much, courted too many women, hastened to remarry. Alcohol, women,“taste," extravagartce and “ quality of 1ife," al1 these made Sheridan himself a goodspokesman of his time and the subject matter of'his play The School for Scandal. In one sense, Sheridan is labeled as a typical “ romantic prodigal," intelligent, eloquent, quixotic, and playful.

llI. SOCIAL MILIEU

Sheridan's time was an age of conversation, fashíon, costume, color and gossìp. The School for Scandal reflects faithfully the social temper-the tastes, customs, and morals of the modish society of its age in which, Alvin Redmen notes,“therich lived in magnificentstyle and dressed. . . in ermine, silks, satins, and brocades. . . exquisitely embroidered with gold or silver thread. . .也e gent1emen vied with their ladies in the fantastic display of ostentatious fashion. ; . manners were rigid and morals were lax. "6 The socíety was elaborate and artificíal. Small talk,. scandalizing, drinking, and gamb1ing were more important than occupation .with the world of trade, the church, or the 訂ts.

Bath-‘'The Sanctuary for Neutral Scandal" 一 is the backdrop of The School for Scandal. For good reasons, Bath is considered as a unique place-the hub of English social life. ‘'The place of. fountains" was fJIst made known by Samuel Foote's The Maid 01 Bath. Even Horace Walpole frequented the place out of admiration and perhaps, vogue. Apart from the pomp, popularity andprominence of the place, it is most notable of all the places that Sheridan finds valuable inspiration and revelation for his plays, including Th e School for Scandal.

Sheridan's hectic romance, though its price is “fairly" de缸， starts bravely at Bath, and makes a name for himself for his elopement to France and two dueIs. To Sheridan, the enchantress ìs the sparkling singer of ballads, Elízabeth Ann Linley, who lends her aid to her'“ Roman Father" in his attic Entertainment. Because of David Garrick's prologue, Elizabeth Ann Linley gets acquainted with the Sheridans. She pours out her heart to the Sheridan sisters, Lissy and Bes呵，

-444 一 A Critical Study of Richard Brinsley Sheridan's The School for Scandal* and thus, Richard Brinsley Sheridan. The courtship consists of love letters, secret meetings, recriminations and disapproving parents, forming a very so1id basis of a winning corr..edy. Like many good resorts for lovers and places for social intercourse, Bath's Pump Room is “perenially" crowded, like a Welsh fair or an lndian bazaar. Bath is fi11ed with a gay crowd. Ladies with hideous and unbecoming costume come and go. The idea of being seen in such a situation by whoever loo:

Avon, sent油lental damsels and lovers seek the silence or sleep which is to be found among lonely hil1s.

Other charming places scholars would 詛臼 to “worship" are the booksel1ers' shops. They are offices of intelligence of a11 the reports of the day; all the private transactions of Bath are first entered and “ discussed in length in just about the same way the London Magazine, the Town and Country Magazine specia1ize in the tete-a-tete feature. "8

In a nutshell, Bath is the hotel, the coffee house, the theatre, the 、 beauty parlor of the eighteenth-century Eng1and. “A11 kinds of people, men and women, flock here; notables and notorieties, quaäs, members of Par1iament, rakes, duchesses, usurers, brokers, bishops and gossips. "9 There you will encounter characters of Sheridan's plays like Mrs. Candor, Lady Sneerwel1, Sir

Benjamin B1ackbite and his uncle 愉. Crabtree. People go to Bath for gout, for vapors, for all sorts of rea1 and fake diseases.

Elegant ladies be1ieve that it is the crucial thing to do if one wishes to remain 扭 fashion. Some go by stagecoach, some on horseback, others in their carriages. “ Go to Bath" means “ you're mad."10 This “ watering place" isjust like a Chinese tea house in Hong Kong,u You are supposed to ta1k, to dispute ané. to “ com­ ment" , on domestic and international affairs when hot tea is served by 也e “whit e­ collar" waite'ts. Recognizing the high cc;>st of psychiatrica

-445 一 Bulletin of Natíonal Taiwan Normal University Vol. XXVII to think that there is nothing wrong. with gossiping provided those involved understand fully that it is merely a friendly eXGhange , of “sent加 ents" and in. formation(notice the case of Lady Sneerwell who tries to sell out her p6ison for psychological compensation. Is it not helpful to have somebody to share her old wound and misgiving? Other than old hags, we find in Bath beauties of all ages who come to show off thdcharms and Gsturn 帥， young girls and widows in quest of husbands, and married women who seek solace for the unpleasant ones they “possess," actors, musicians, gangsters, .dupes, sharpers, rustic greenhorns, and would-be beauxY Gentlemen and ladies are here to kí1l time. People come and go without cultivating genuine friendship. Like the fate of friendship, ieljgion succumbs to ceremonial functions. People go to church daily in order to see their lovers, make assignations, and pass love letters (bil1et doux) as if they were to rectify their social status by so doingY The real reasons of th9ir visit to Bath is “pleasure" in a11 íts fonns-gal1antry, intrigue, moral license, etc. In additíon it is a wonderful matrimonial market for suc且“ slightly tarníshed goods" as have not succeeded in finding purchasers elsewhere. Fortùne hunters flock in Tunbridge in search of a wife, "maids in search of a husband. It is all done and avenged above board. Young men come to Bath to take a course in profligacy. In fact, promising young men and danglers

consider a season at Bath the last trainìng neces甜ry before approaching the metropolitan London area. Such is the society of Bath. Scrace's livery stables stil1 assist elopements, and Gill, the confectioner stil1 shelters conSiSìent (and/or inconsistent) couples. Bath is at once an epitome of London and a rehearsal of it. Bath permeates Sheridan's whole career-His piays are founded on its experience(祖 1771 he moved to Bath at the age of 19), his wit tráined in its assemb1ies, his fortunes decided by its events. ln essence, Bath breathes in al1 Sheridan's characters. The Rivals is Bath

humorized, The School for Scandal is Bath sat扭扭 ed (though London is its nominal scene).

-446 一 A Critical Study of Richard Brinsley Sheridan's The School for Scan血?

IV. CHARACfERIZATION

A. General Survey Much of the success of Sheridan's The School for Scandal 1ies in the rich humorous exposition of characters. The de1ineation of characters is pr油1 缸ily designed to provoke laughter and entertainment. The hypocrite who fails, the forger who fears a reputation for honesty are more objects of laughter than devices of moral comment. No one in The School for Scandal acts as he does simply because some circumstance compels him: people act ou t of their own characters and shape events accordingly. When circumstances take the form of accidents and misunderstanding, theireffect upon characters is always to display something we know to be there, not to reveal something entirely new to us. MUL.< of the play's comic force springs from this trea.ment. The audience, let into the secret of a character, expects him to behave accordingly. When he does, Sheridan then devises ingenious circumstances to delight us (as in the auction and screen scenes) with his inventiveness. At the same time, as he pleases and amuses us by

showing the character confirming itself in behavior. By design and ιraft ， there is an undisrupted flow of characterization. The plot unfolds itself a10ng with the portrayal of characters. Hence, the plot is somewhat subordinated to the line of characterization. The continuity and intensity of characterization are achieved through “the policy of gossiping" and “technique of scandalizing" within “ the academy of scandalmongers." Fashioned to suit the final showdown of “surface characters," the plot breaks into three major parts: (1) the testing of Charles and Joseph by their uncle Sir Oliver Surface; (2) the problem of Sir Peter and Lady Teazle (the latter often referred to as the most successful character in the play); and (3) the events surrounding the scandalous school driven by the desire for revenge, fortune and fame. The play takes shape and begins to c1imb to a series of climaxes with the arrival of Sir 0 1ive了 Surface from India. The School for Scandal opens with a scene in which Lady Sneerwell in­

troduces many of the complications th了ough an idle, gossiping conversation. We learn an astonishing amount of the social c1imate, plot and character before Joseph Surface's entrance. The quiet opening is deceptive. Lady Sneerwell, “president" of the Academy of Scandalmongers, reveals her own character by a

-447 一 Bulletin of Nationa1 Taiwan Nonna1 University Vo1. XXVII

discussion with Snake~ Snake questions, in a businesslike manner, Lady Sneer­ well's motives in the matter of Sir Peter Teazle. In so doing, Sheridan reveals his power 9f insinuation as well as plot. Furthermore, Lady Sneerwell's circum­ stantial.answer supplies some of our knowledge of her character, pointed by her reference to suffering in youth from “ the envenomed tongue of s1ander," namely an emotiona1, impulsive vulnerability which, in this instance, leads her to reveal more than she should to Snake. Her tender wound is spotted; her, innate character

s1ips and comes to the surface. Later, Joseph Surface men世 ons 出 e danger of this “lapse , of the tongue" and inclination. At the end of the play Snake gives Lady Sneerwell reason to regret confiding in him. Judged from this aspect, part of the- ending is skillfully foreshadowed. The end is ladden 卸 the beginning. When

Lady Sneerwell describes J oseph as “a sent加lental knave" the reader is given a comment on the nature of a character who is about to show up. With the entrance of Joseph, we know more about the plot and characters.

We have a1ready learned thatαlarles Surface and Maria have an attachment ，也at

Lady Sneerwell, due to her love of Charles，叫pports Joseph in his attempt to win Maria (SirPeter's ward) for himself (and thus her fortune). Now Joseph informs us that his brother Charles is h叮叮ing to di圓ster. He does so 姐 the smooth language of sentiment which lends itself so easi1y to transparent hypocrisy:

Aye, poor Charles! I'm sure 1 wish it were in my power to be of any essential service to him; for the man who does not share in the distresses ofa brother, even though merited by hisown misconduct, deserves' . . .

IJt is certainly. a charity to rescue Maria from such a libertine.

A11 these remarks carry “reverse overtones" and hyperbole. Here for the frrst time J oseph is associated with one of the under1ying themes-hypocrisy degenerated into malice and villainous schemes. Snake's exit soon occurs. And Joseph's comment to Lady ,sneerwell that the man is treacherous and wi1l betray them both completes Sheridan's portrait of him in all essentials.

Sheridan's “smooth-tongued makers of plots,"14 motivated entirely by cold

self-interest, acting under cover of morality and goodness, is presented 扭 toto caelo at one stroke. Lady Sneerwell has already spoken of him in her gossiping way, and hisentrance and subsequent behavior exactly match the description.

-44&一 A Critica1 Study of Richard Brins1ey Sherid妞 's 訂閱 School for Scanda1串

HOWéV缸， SheridaJl'S sk也 resides in his revelation of Joseph's character in action.

J oseph ta1ks to Lady Sneerwell an通 Snake as one of a trip of plot-makers and scanda1izers who are conc訂ned with how to make progress of “business." His sharp observation that Snake's friendship with old Rowley is dangerous turns out to be accurate. Joseph appears to be gossiping and, of course ，扭 a sense 函， but really gossip is simply the for::rιapplie 丘 by Sheridan to "po1icy" to tell the story, to reveal foresight and W話. His character emerges here as the shaping force behind dialogue and plot.

The play moves easi1y 訊tò its presentation of scandalmongering without diminishing the audience's sense of the onward movement of 抖。 t. Lady Sneerwell . presides over a scandalous schooI , composed of M.rs. Candour, Crabtree, Sir . Benjamin Backbite, Snake and Joseph. Nothing new is added to the plot until

Crabtree asks if it is true that Sir 0 1iver is coming home from India. 甘lÌS 也usion i of movement 臼res卸u戚呦i詰地tωs from 訟Sh昀缸缸ej:r笠泌rJ gOSSlp. The gossip wi11 turn sooner or later to Charles Surface; he is too good ~

sù旬 ect to miss. As it ranges over other people and their affairs we become more and more entertained by our sense of anticipation of characters. Primary at­ tention is given to the major characteti in'the fol1owing analysis.

ß.αlarles Surface

He 1s the nominal hero of the play, both 卸 the slight romantic plot and as a

con甘'ast to his hypocritical brother, Joseph. 1S Despite the fact that he i軍 a cent缸

。 f attention, he does not appear untiI scene three of the third act, a1most ha1f way through the play. His presence, however, is felt 扭 many of the scenes þreceding his entry, making hlm a focus of il:terest long before he appears. References to Chatles are carefully manipulated by Sheridan so that, without having seen him,

the audience recognizes him as an 泊tegral part of the framework of the play.

The 扭扭rest taken in him by many of the characters forces the aduience to wait expectantly for his first appearance so that it can test its judgement against that of the various :::haracters who either li.ke or disHJce him. Lady Sneerwell,

who herself 1S fond of Charles, remarks on ch缸扭 s:

MUSï 1 corJ"ess thatαlarles一位13t libertine , that extravagant ，位13t bankrupt in fortune and reputation-

-449 一 Bulletin of National Taiwan Nonnal University Vol. XXVII

The key to Char1es's character could lie with Maria, who has been coupled with Charles by Lady Sneerwell and Snake. Her resentment of the derogatìon of his character argues that something can be said in his behalf, but she actually offers nothing at all about him. She is too busy trying to escape the advances of Sir Benjamin to have an opportunity to comment on her feelings about Charles. But María earns the respect of the audience not only by appearíng comparatively innocent in her conversation, but by aligning herself against the gossips. In aU, the character of Char1es, phony or genuine, is a conversation focal point of the first scene. Had the play followed the conventional pattern of dramatic ex­ position, Charles could reasonably have been. expected to make his entrance ih the next scene or so; but, in order to sustain ínterest in Charles and manipulate the expectation of the audience, Sheridan wìthholds him for quite a while. Joseph Surface constantly provokes Sir Peter and other scanda1izers to condemn Charles. However, Charles finds a supporter, Rowley, who is older, wiser, and more courteous than any of the other characters. In order to develop the difference between Charles and Joseph, Sheridan has made Rowley withhold the really important information of the scene until the end. The play now takes on new interest as the arrival of Sir Oliver is certain to uncover the real character of Charles as contrasted with that created by the scandalous rumor. Sir Oliver agrees completely with Rowley's opinion of the relative merits of his two nephews. To Charles, he opines,“If Charles has done nothing false or mean, 1 shall compound for his extravagance." In marked contrast, Sir OHver speaks of Joseph as “If he salutes me with a scrap of mora1ity in his mouth, 1 shall be sick directly."

In Ill，函， Charles is presented to the audience in his native habitat, drinking, singing, toasting Maria, and living up to his reputation as an uninhibited wastrel. He is boisterous and carefree, in sharp. contrast to his reserved and polished brother. This scene and the one that follows, the auction of the pictures, substan­ tiate Rowley's favorable impression of Charles in spite of his high living. Un­ doubtedly, he is wi1d and full of clever talk in the first place; however, he even­ tually shows hip'明 lf to be inherently decent. His bluntness apd recklessness are anathema to the gossips, "hut his generosity to hís poor relation, Mr. Stanley, and appreciation (perhaps respect) of past help from Sir 0 1iver, put him solidly

-45。一 A Critical Study of Richard Brinsley SJ ‘ 'ridan's 甘le SchooI for Scandal*

on the side of common decency and honesty. The image of Ch arles has been completed in this scene. He has survived the scandalous gossip to carry the day in his unc1e's eyes.

Sheridan's decision to hold 2. major character out of play until it is half finished adds considerably to the “ dramatic richness, and accentuates the comic

effect. "16 It generates great interest in Charles's persona1ity and, at the same time, is a device by which the various characters expose themselves by means of their remarks about Charles. Maria, Rowley and Sir Oliver a11 have faith in and under­ standing of Charles, whi1e J oseph, Lady Sneerwell, and the rest of the gossips express disgust at his prof1igacy. These attitudes only .serve to characterize themselves. The testing of Charles provides one of the severa1 emotional climaxes of the play. Interest has built on Charles until it is natural that he should be the center of attention when he appears. His most important scene, the auction scene, comes immediately after his introduction to the audience. From this scene, the audience can come to understand his true skin. This “ snap yet ef­ fective" treatment is indeed managed with dexterity.

C. J oseph Surface Where CI:arles is direct and frank, Joseph is devious; where Charles is honest, -Joseph is deceitful; where Charles iS"generous to a fault, Joseph is mean to the point of vice, which he dresses up as virtue. The “ professional hypocrisy" and contrived tactic's are relentlessly peeled (stripped) off in the famous screen scene (Act IV, scene iii). Two characters (Joseph and Maria) soon become three (with Sir Peter added), the third overhearing the other two, and then four, two overhearing the other two. The action proceeds through a series of exposed duplicities ending in a major revelation. The straightforward Charles throws down 『 too screen to expose Joseph's perfidy and hypocrisy in the shape of the abashed Lady Teazle. Joseph reminds us of his ingratiating with Lady Teazle by saying in Act II:

1 wish 1 may not lose the heiress, through the scrape 1 have drawn myself into with the wife; however, Charles's imprudence and bad character are great points in my favor.

This anticipates the events of the scene to ensue. The servant announces

-451 一 Bulletin of National Taiwan Nonnal Univer滋ty Vol. xxvn

Lady Teazfe ，組y卸g she “always leaves her chair at the milliner's 姐 the next s訂eet ，" th自 efore planting the word “mi1linèr" in Joseph's mind for future use. !.oseph ordei"s the servant to set up the s臼een to ensure privacy from the “ prying eyes" of a maiden lady across the street. TI時. irony becomes so evident and plain when Lady Teazle hides behind it.

Act V, scene i, runs on from the sαeen scene with Joseph, the bad-tempered, blaming not .himself but Fortune and abusing his servant. However, the audience expects Joseph to have a moment of composure. It does happen，扭 reallife ， that a man is “pounded by unremitting mìsfortune but genera11y there is a pause. 叫 7

Joseph surveys' the wreck of hishopes ruefully. His annoyance 缸ises from the offended prìde of aprofessional schemer: “Sure Fortune never played a man of my policy such a trick before!"

He cännot believe that di組ster has befallen him through an errorof judge­ ment-as it .has insofar as he has faì!ed to understand Sir Peter and Lady Teazle­ and attrìbutes everything to the confrontation and revelatiöns in his library;, Apart. from his “miscalculations" about theTeazles, his scheme to have an affair with Lady Teåz島 as a cover for his approach to Marìa throughSir Peter has not been carefully thought out.

/' 訂閱 effect Sheridan 'seeks and achieves in the characterization of Joseph Surface is tlull this man of “þolicy" is too clever by half and that “his discom­ fitureis just the punishment for his nasty combination of hypo叮isy ， self-seeking, and. conceit. ;'18" Thêre is some d~ger that Sherìdan may oveæ1ay his hand and, in.Act V, portray Joseph as too repellent. Angry that his schemes have collapsed, Joseph is a specialist in pursuing his own ends under “a cloak of mora1ity" and searching his own goals with a “cynical dîsregard of 司 others." Nevertheless, he succeeds 泊 pq. tting a good face on his interview wit11 Stanley. There is~ ∞ n­ sequent1y,. something “almost" admirable about the “sheer professiona1ism" of this “man of policy. "的﹒ In Act V, the scenes are brief and powerful. Joseph speaks the perfect language of sentiment in order to fob off his “beggar." To explain his 卸ab血ty to 斟呃， he holds up a mirror in which his own image is drawn and ref1ected. “Avarice. . . is the viceofthe age," he observed. J oseph tends to use “ sentiment" (sent卸lent 恤 the e~hteenth century sense) to offset the disadvantages of his reputation for benevolence, and r,

-452 一 A Critica1 Study of Richard Br.虹l s1ey Sheridan法官le School for Scandal* rnends the technique to other rnen of “po1icy" as heartless as hirnself. He desires respp.ctabi1ity-position and wealth-no rnatter how many bodies he has to cl卸lb over to achieve it. He spouts smug and sententious pieces of advice ，缸tful ， selfis..lt and rna1icious. If we regard Sir Joseph as a sinner, then his brother, Sir Charles, is a 阻int. Not so! Not so rnuch of a c1ear-cut line of demarcation! Sheridan would neither allow these two brothers to go to hdl nor paradise! .He gives them each a human foible and Ïnherent flaw to make them sound íand appear agreeable and laughable on the stage. For Charles, it is his extravagance and dissipation that smite him most. For Joseph, it is restlessness, wít, and avarice that betray himself in the frrst place!

D. The Teazles Sir Peter Teazle 1S named after the teasel, a thorny and prickly plant which suggests Sir Peter's vexatious nature. Sir Peter, the unhappy bridegroom and

confident of h~s rnore 1ively friend, Sir Oliver, fills three roles of varying degrees of irnportance.20 As far as the entertainment value of the play is concerned, his most irnportant function lies in his roleas the husband of Lady Teazle. These two engage in several üloroughly witty exchanges in the course of the action, which mak:e thern a de1ight to have on the stage. Sir Peter is obviously cast in the

beginning as ar.. aging comic husband who marries a young country girl (May~and­ Decernber marriage). Sir Peter does stand alone for part of the play, talking to

the audience or Rowley. He ceases to be specifically the husband of Lady Te位le

and becornes rnore generally the stock comic figure of ~he woe..begone husband

with serious difficulties on his hands. “τ'he Restor泣 ion concern with horns has been replaced 'jy a concern with extravagant expenses"21 but the overa11 comic effect is much the same. Lady Teazle is peripheral to this kind of comedy. In fact, Lady Teazle has frequently been referred to as SheridaJl'S best charactercreation. Besides being a source of entertainment, Sir Peter is also important to the actual movement of the play in his role as confident to Sir 0 1iver. It ls through

him and because of him that Sir Oliver decides on the di略uises to test each of his

nephews. Had it not been for Sir Pet~r's oppositìon to Rowley's judgements,

Sir 0 1iver might never have felt it necess訂y to go to the extremes he does to test the brothers.

-453 一 Bulletin of National Taiwan Nonnal University Vol. XXVII

The third role Sir Peter acts is as a contrast in character to Sir Oliver. Unlike Sir Oliver the unmarried shrewd, often he is both comic and pathetic, particularly in the scenes with Lady Teazle. In these encounters, his situation is pathetic in that his marital problem seems insurmountable. His approach to Lady Teazle is a blend of love and affection, with an attempt to win her with kindness and father­ ly understanding. At times, Sir Peter seems to be the dupe of Joseph, who has a design on Maria. He appe缸 s to be a “solid citizen," despite his name, who approves the virtues professed by Joseph, and is a sober representative of the moral order. But when Sir Peter praises Joseph's feelings, he is unable to tell the difference between hypocrisy and honesty. In general, Sir Peter poses as a figure for sympathy because of his trouble with marriage and self-proc1aimed righteousness. The sympathy built up for him in the first scene, however, is modified by his very first 1ine which puts h前1 in a different framework a1together,“Whenan old bachelor takes a young wife, what is he to expect?" The audience knew what he could expect. Having complained of his wife's expenses and admitting that he loves her, he concludes: “However, I'11 never be weak enough to own it." Here he produces a truly comic attitude. By the end of the scene, Sir Peter has classed himself as a simple country squire, not very well suited to the complexities of life in the city. He is st血 likeable in his own stubborn way, but his fau1ts are readily discernible. By his widespread involvement in all the action, Sir Peter plays an important part in providing the connecting persona1ity between the disparate characters of the play. He is the guardian of Maria, the overseer of Charles and J oseph, the husband of Lady Teazle, the emplòyer of Rowley, and the friend of Sir Oliver. As such, he is “a nexus for all of them within the world of the play."22 This con­ nection of the characters through Sir Peter is clearly borne out by the number of scenes which take place at his house. Of the fourteen scenes in the play, five take place at ~ir Peter's. (The rest include three in Joseph's 1ibrary; two at Lady Sneer-' well's; two in Charles's dining room; and one each in Charles's anteroom and pìcture room.) Sir Peter appears in eìght scenes, over half of those in the play.

This figure is exceeded only by Sir Oliv缸， who appears in ten scenes, and far overshadows Joseph, who appears in five scenes, and

一 454 一 A Critica1 8tudy of Richard Brins1ey Sheridan法官le 8chool for Scandal*

Lady Teazle, as a counterpart of Sir Peter, is not quite a hoyden. She has become a charming, lovely young woman who has attained somel).ow her place in London society. As a matter of fact, her charm and superior wit often leave Sir Peter the comic butt of .their arguments. Intoxicated with city life, clothes, and gossip, she is flattered by the attentiori of a worldly and handsome young man, J oseph Surface. As a g1ittering personality :.and “novice of the worldly affairs," she is one of the important vehicles for Sheridan's wit. Without her daily "jangle" with Sir Peter, this would be a duller play. The audience shares the sense of danger when she plays with fire.

'E. Sir Oliver Sir 0 1iver, appearing in ten of the fourteen scenes of the play, is instrumental to the development of characterization. Once he makes his entrance :n .the third scene of the second act, he is never again off the stage for more than part of a scene.

“The antiquity of the business of testing character' 咐 would make a role such as Sir Oliver's easily recognizable to the audience. In the role of tester, Sir Oliver will be the prime mover in the evehts to follow, but not necessarily the hero, that :role devolving upon Charles. Sir 0 1iver well demonstrates an ability to see the unfortunate side of his friend's marriage. He began by laughing at the stock comic situation reminiscent of The Country Wife:

“80 my old friend is married, hey?-a young wife out of the country-ha!ha! ha!."

But he shows compassion for the personal situation upon being appraised of it by Rowley. In al1 essentials, Sir Oliver represents the vigorous proponent of truth and good humor. Such aman could be a Peter Teazle before he made the mistake of marrying a young wife. To mùe a comparison between Sir Peter and Sir Oliver, both are kindly.

But Sir 0 1iver has more common sense (although vanity is his weakness 扭曲e auction scene) and broader humanity. Sir Peter is s1ightly se耳centered. It is likely that his love for humanity was tempered by his frequent maulings by the social backbiters. Yet he is fair and not too exacting in his dealings with his wife whose inclina tion to、 an expensive gaiety is all too human.

-455 一 Bulletin of National Taiwan Normal University Vol. XXVll

F. Other Minor αlaracters Sheridan makes each character embody a single trait in order to show the follies of London's fashionable life in the late eighteenth century. The significance of this type of characterization is evident in the very names which Sheridan gives his actors. Sir Benjamin Backbite is just that-a clawing,“catty kind of man." Premium reminds us of the extra bonus or high interest which a money lender or a us叮叮 would exact from a borrower. Careless is careless of his tongue. Snake, who is called Spatter in an earlier draft of the play, is a snake in the grass, darting his poisonous tongue at anybody for a prioo. The supposedly virtuous Mrs. Candour with her assumed sweetness of disposition is ironi個 lly named. Lady Sneerwell, the attractive widow, is an unpleasant, vindictive scandalmonger, retaliating on the world. She knows “no pleasure equa1 to the reducing others to the level of [her] own injured reputation." Trip plays the fop and is a burlesque exaggeration of his master's vices. Moses is set as a J ewish moneylender with canting speech.

Any discussion of Sheridan's characters inevitably brings up the ~atter of “round" versus “ flat" characters. However, G. S. Street holds that Sheridan's personages are not studies of character, but occasional figures, suggestive of the Restorationcomedy or of"Moliere, who are only useful in creating background. 24 Louis Kronenberger points out,“The real characters are the practices of society itself. "25

V. CONCLUSION

Witty, sparkling dia10gue is the hallmark of Sheridan's plays. Tat10ck and Martin liken it to “ the fireworks which emit a steady shower of sparks, and now and then an exploding ball of fire." Everybody, including servants and fops, displays wit in The School for Scandal. Even when a leading character such as Sir Peter Teazle loses his composure while quarreling with his wife and explodes with “Aye, . . . you had no taste when you married me!" he does not lose his wit. His lines are of equal wit with those of his wife, whose earlier words,“If you wanted authority over me, ypu should have adopted me, and not married me. 1 am sure you were old enough." The whole play is full of epigrams and aphorism. “ Charity begins at home," is but one of the many that we still cherish at home.

一 456 一 A Critical Study of Richard Brinsley Sheridan's 官le School for Scandal*

To say the least, Sheridan's wit is an incessant flame. What distinguishes it from ordinary wit is that it has inherent charm and grace.

In addition to his witty and epigrammatic dialogue, Sheridan is sk:il1ful 扭

manipulating intrigues. 訂閱 playwright is inventive enough to give us an entertain­ ing story in Th e School for Scandal :ln a vivadous manner which moves us smooth­ ly from one incident to another. He is a master of good “ theatre," as revealed in the screen scene in the library of Jöseph Surface's house. The scene is a three­

ring circus done so well that it does not degenerate 扭to common broad farce.

前le marvel of Sher吋 an's dramatic craft can also be attributed to his applica凶 tion of comic suspense and estabHshment of authenticity. From the comic suspense, the audience gains joy and delight. Knowledge of action does not lessen

the enjoyment because Sheridan adroit1y 叩 bordinates action to anticipation.

Through authentic portrait, live油less permeates Sheridan's characters. Veri­

s油1幽tude is his own disguise and m在squerading 品 there is enough inconsequence

to suggest reaLism. As an actor-manager Sheridan possesses a sensitive feel扭g for his audience, transforming in-action and boredom into fun and wisdom; Most significant, The School for Scandal is not a11 for exposing scandals; it is a blend of satireand ωmpassion. Sheriàan was a sharp observer of a modish

society; however, the brilliance of bis satire was tempered wi也 humanity. When

he 阻tirizes the ballooning of the rumor concernL.'1.g Sir Petei"'s mythical duel with Charles, Sheridan is not vindictive, but just “reportoria1.' "

In sum, the most generousestima鈍。f Sheridan's dramatic achievement, . reminiscent of Samuel Johnson's advice to authors to study Addison, can be

drawn from Stainforth's comment: “訂閱 workmanship of so pure a writer of English as Sheridan is wel1 worth the attention of a11 who would learn the difficult

_.art of combining ease and polish, being, at the same 位me ， idiomatic and elegant."

Notes

1. See Comedy and the Uses of the Co mic Spirit by George Meredith, 1897, many edJitions. 2. For detai!ed biograprucaI account of Sheridan, see Thomas Moore's Memoirs of the Life of R. B. Sheridan.

3. Lo1.tis Kronenberger,. The 1有 read of Laughter (New York, 1952),

-457 一 Bulletin of National Taiwan Normal University Vol. XXVIl

Alfred Knopf, p. 112. 4. Jack D. Durant, R. B. Sheridan (G. K. HaU and Co. , 1975), p. .2 8. 5. A. Bosker, Literacy Criticism in the Age o[Johnson (New York, 1953), p. 117. 6. See Introduction in Twelve Famous Plays o[ the Restoration and Eighteenth Century by Cecil Moore, 1933.

7. Oscar Sherw妞 ， Uncorking Old Sh e.rry: The Li[e and Times o[ Richard Brinsley Sheridan (New York, 1960), p. 63. 8. Norman A. Jeffares, The School [or Scandal(London: Macmil1an, 1967), pp. xvii-xix. 9. Oscar Sherwin, Uncorking Old Sherry, 10. . Ibid., p. 65. 11.“Joseph Liu, The Chinese Bazaar in Hong Kong," Ming Pao Monthly Vol. 11, No. 2. February, 1976.

12. Oscar Sherw泊 ， Uncorking Old Sherryp. 66. 13. See Pope's The Rape o[ the Lock. 14. C. J. L. Price,“The Completion of The School for Scandal," The Time Literary Supplement, December 28, 1967, p. 1265. 15. Thomas Moore, Memoirs o[ the Li[e o[ the Rt. Ho n. Richard Brinsley Sheridan (New York: Redfield, 1853),1, 162. 16. Andrew Shil1er,“The School [or. Scandal: The Restoration Unrestored, PMLA, 71 , (September, 1956), p. 701. 17. Sheridan, Moore, pp. 140-15 1.

18. T. Creh側 ， A Critical Cdmmentary: The School [or Scandal (London: University of London, 1967), p. 34. 19. Ibid. 20. Thomas H. Jordan, The School [or Scandal (New York: Revisionist Press, 1974), p. 126. 21. Ibid., p. 128. 22. Ibid., p. 132. 23. Louis Koronenberger, 1有 e Thread o[ Laughter, p. 197. 24. G. S. Street, Sheridan and Mr. Shaw, Blackwood's Magazine, 1900, Volume 167. 25. Edwin P. Whipple, Essays and Reviews, 1958, Volume 11, pp. 42-44.

-458 - A Critical Study of Richard Brinsley Sheridan 法官le School for Scanda1')

SELECTED BmLlOGRAPHY

Bate, W. J. From Classic to Romance: Premises ofTaste in 18th Century England.

B泊拉伯九 Made1eine. Sheridan, The Track of a Comet. Lοndon: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1972. Bond, Wil1iam H. Eighteenth Century Studies. Crehan, T., ed. The School for Scandal. University of London Press, Ltd., 1967. Dee1man, Christian. “The Origina1 Cast of Th e,School for Scandal," The Review

of English Studies, 13 (1 962), 257 自266. Durant, Jack D. Richard Brinsley Sheridan. Boston: TWâyne Publishers, 1975. Durham, W. Critical Essays ofthe 18th Century.

Fujimura, Thomas H. Th e Restoration α medy of Wit. 扭扭ceton: Princeton University Press, 1952. Jeffares, A. Norman, ed. The School for Scandal. New York: Macm i11an, 1967. J ordan, Thomas H. The Theatrical Craftsmanship of R. B. Sheridan 's The School for Scandal. New York: Revisionist Press, 1974. Kronenberger, Louis. The Thread of Laughter. New York: A1fred Knopf, 1952. Loftis, John, ed. Restoration Drama-Modern Essays in Criticism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966. Quintana, R. Eighteenth-Century Plays. Schil1er, Andrew. Th e School for Scandal, The Restoration Restored, PMLA LXXI, 4 (September, 1956), Part 1, 694-704.

Sherwin, Osc訂 • Uncorkfng Old Sherry: The Life and Times of Richard Brinsley Sheridan. New York: Twayne Pub1ishers, Inc., 1960.

-459 一 師大學報第二十七期

試就浮世繪一劇評析謝立敦的劇藝

--、肉肉"肉"們，..、‘---

女學院 英語菜

簫亮期

中文摘要

本文討論的範圍包括劇作家整主重的生平、設本續寫作的社會背境及劇中人

物性格的描盟，研討的童心則放在人物刻劃上。

謝氏家學淵顫，祖父為杖師，母幸且為文壇才女，謝民本人少年得志，廿四歲

便以 The Riva]s 一劇成名，一生成就跨越戲劇與政治兩方面;除種營運星籃劇

院多年外;會搶任國會議員違 32 年之久。 1772年與伊麗莎白﹒林莉私奔，童年

正式結婚，謝氏雖才華橫溢，個性豪爽，唯不善理財，晚年更耽於杯中物，以致

撩倒而絡。

至於劇作家寫作的社會背景可以旦豆豆一地為代表，該地為盒重社交名流雲集

之處，但不良投機份子亦混雜其中，各懷鬼胎，充浦僑善矯飾氣氛，此一社交重

地給謝民很多靈感。

法本遁的人物描寫生動逼真，笑料百出。透過影射、閒話長短典詩強方式拱

托出人物的個性，其中主角之一查理士.沙菲斯在前二幕只是其他角色的開談童

心，直至第三幕第三景才出場，頗故懸君之效，概查理士為{典型毒品榜子弟，雖

天性豪放不羈，揮霍成性，部是慷儷率直，毫不矯情;反之，其弟兄約瑟則貪婪

誨晨，善於欺詐毀謗，極盡鵲善之能事，為求目的，不揮手授，到頭來，自食惡果

。另一重要角色很德.泰索爾故鄉紳自居，與年育的太太常起爭執，引發很多老

夫少妻的軟事。奧利花爵士則以試揮者〈七 ester) 的身份出現，全車且4 景中他在

10 景中出現，此人幽默且精通世故。

配角的描塑恰到好處，每一配角的取名均別具匠心，如 Careless 一角暗示

口沒盤欄，粗心大意 Candour 一角取名頗具反諷性 ;L叫y Sneerwe口一角則

是一位存心報復的中傷者。

綜言之，劇中對人性喝點到劃入傲，繪聲繪影。劇中人物對自充浦機智，珠

譏鈔語連連不紹，不獨別人發笑，而且發人深省，諷刺之中帶同情，謝氏透過如

此生動的人物刻劃反映了十八世紐墓園的社會風俏。

-46。一