University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Doctoral Dissertations University of Connecticut Graduate School 5-7-2015 The Good Imperialists: Empire, National Identity, and Gender in British Theater, 1660-1790 Jennifer Ryer University of Connecticut - Storrs, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations Recommended Citation Ryer, Jennifer, "The Good mpeI rialists: Empire, National Identity, and Gender in British Theater, 1660-1790" (2015). Doctoral Dissertations. 770. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/770 The Good Imperialists: Empire, National Identity, and Gender in British Theater, 1660-1790 Jennifer Ryer, PhD University of Connecticut, 2015 This work deals with one way in which imperialism could be convincingly rationalized to average people who had little to no substantial, direct investment in it and who may have understood it as something that went against their values as Britons. Through media like the theater, Britons who were sympathetic to empire-building could reframe it as a patriotic and humanitarian endeavor, connect it to their audiences’ national identity, and could present those audiences with respectable models for imperial citizenship. Public debate about Britain’s expanding empire bled heavily into the theaters, where authors could stage their own immediate contributions to the debate in ways to which a general audience could relate. Over the course of the Restoration and eighteenth century, the overlap between national identity and imperialism become more pronounced. While many Restoration plays portray other cultures, including those of distant English settlements, as threats to English purity, and imperialism as the potential vehicle for that threat, plays from c. 1690 to c. 1790 increasingly portray other cultures as part of an imperial family headed by Britain, a nation that nurtures and disciplines its subordinate nations like a husband or father would nurture and discipline immediate family members. By the end of the eighteenth century, the diversity of people who call themselves British have rendered more traditional markers of national identity useless—being British lies in a performance of certain social values and a benevolently patriarchal relationship with members of the cultures against which Britons define themselves at the time. i The Good Imperialists: Empire, National Identity, and Gender in British Theater, 1660-1790 Jennifer Ryer B.A., Mercer University, 2002 M.A., University of Connecticut, 2006 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Connecticut 2015 ii Copyright by Jennifer Ryer 2015 iii APPROVAL PAGE Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation The Good Imperialists: Empire, National Identity, and Gender in British Theater, 1660-1790 Presented by Jennifer Ryer, B.A., M.A. Major Advisor _________________________________________________________________ Jean Marsden Associate Advisor ______________________________________________________________ Charles Mahoney Associate Advisor ______________________________________________________________ Dwight Codr University of Connecticut 2015 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..………1 Empire and the Ideology of Britishness………………………………………….………..1 The Gender of Britishness………………………………………………………………...3 Imperialism on the Stage………………………………………………………………….5 Significance……………………………………………………………………………….7 Chapter Summaries………………………………………………………………………..9 Chapter 1—Psychobitches: Imperial Anxieties in Restoration Heroic Drama…………………..15 Black Legends and Critiques of Imperialism…………………………………………….17 The Case for an English Empire…………………………………………………………20 Preserving an English Identity in Imperial Relationships………………………………..25 Heroes and Psychobitches in Heroic Drama……………………………………………..29 The Line Between Heroism and Tyranny in The Conquest of Granada ………………...32 Alexander and the Enemy Within in The Rival Queens …………………………………45 The Limits of Heroic Drama and the Endurance of the Psychobitch……………………54 Chapter 2—Men Behaving Badly: Liberty, Property, and Human Commodification in Late Restoration Drama………………………………………56 The Commodification of Liberty………………………………………………………...58 Possessive Individualism in Oroonoko …………………………………………………..64 Men Behaving Badly…………………………………………………………………….71 The Limits of Power in Ibrahim …………………………………………………………76 The Right to Personhood in Almyna ……………………………………………………..83 The Problem with Saving the Men Behaving Badly…………………………………….92 v Chapter 3—The Good Imperialists: Virtue, Commerce, and Custody in Eighteenth-Century Drama……………………………………………………..95 The Bonds of Credit……………………………………………………………………...98 The Blessings of Commerce……………………………………………………………102 The Evils of the Money Trader…………………………………………………………104 The Virtues of the Good Imperialist……………………………………………………110 The Rewards of Duty in The Conscious Lovers ……………………………………..…118 The Consequences of Self-Interest in The London Merchant ………………………….127 The Problem of Personal Virtue………………………………………………………..137 Chapter 4—The Return of the Nabob: British Colonial Figures in Late Eighteenth-Century Comedy………………………………...139 The Strangeness of the Colonies………………………………………………………..141 An Empire of Misfits in The Widdow Ranter …………………………………………..145 The Emergence of a British Imperial Heroism…………………………………………151 Decline and Redemption: The Return of the Nabob……………………………………157 Trials of the Heart in The School for Scandal …………………………………………..160 Men of Feeling in Inkle and Yarico …………………………………………………….169 The Meaning of Britishness…………………………………………………………….177 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………...178 References……………………………………………………………………………...……….182 1 INTRODUCTION In this work, I examine the intersection of imperial politics, British national identity, and gender conventions in representations of empire in British theater during the Restoration and eighteenth century. I argue that, during this period, the theater helped to connect empire to British national identity by presenting models of imperial citizenship for audiences to admire and emulate. At a time when many intellectuals and cultural leaders saw imperialism as a corrupt and destructive (albeit highly attractive) enterprise, the theater became a useful venue in which empire could be reframed as an expression of the best of British manhood. The qualities of Britishness were represented as less innate and more chosen or acquired, more an ideology than an ethnicity as we tend to define those terms today. Imperialism became an important facet of this ideology at it was increasingly represented as a service to the world: “responsible” participation in the British empire was frequently portrayed as humanitarian, patriotic, progressive, and benevolently paternal. Such representations helped justify Britain’s national investments in imperial projects and practices to theater-goers who had little direct investment in them and who might have otherwise considered them to be violations of their national values. Empire and the Ideology of Britishness At the beginning of the Restoration, critiques of imperialism were widely available and portrayed empire as an alluring enterprise that would inevitably lead to destruction, both economically and morally. English intellectuals, politicians, and artists were not ignorant of imperial criticism, much of which we might recognize in postcolonial theory today; nor were they bereft of critical imperial histories, many of which offered carefully considered autopsies of legendary empires. While the English were familiar with the pitfalls of absolute power, many writers seemed to recognize that imperialism was a different beast, and they warned of the moral 2 and practical dangers that empire presented to everyone involved. Public debate about Britain’s expanding empire bled heavily into the theaters, where authors could stage their own immediate contributions to the debate in ways to which a general audience could relate. However, as the English empire grew into the much larger and robust British empire of the eighteenth century, it became widely accepted as an extension of the British nation, and the overlap between national identity and imperialism become more pronounced. The difference lies in the increased visibility of international relationships to average people and their heightened sense of dependence on these relationships. These relationships served dual, intertwining purposes in debates and representations of English and later British national identity: they were useful in addressing concerns about the corrupting effects of blurring the lines between “British” and “other”; and these same fuzzy areas could be helpful in redefining and sharpening the distinctions between “British” and “other.” Many representations of these relationships on the stage focus on the power and privilege of Britishness and the necessity of remaining faithful to the admirable features of the British character in order to reap the privileges. While many Restoration plays portray other cultures, including those of distant English settlements, as threats to English purity, and imperialism as the potential vehicle for that threat, plays from the eighteenth century increasingly portray other cultures as part of an imperial family headed by Britain, a nation that nurtures and disciplines its subordinate nations like a husband or father would nurture and discipline immediate family members. British identity was represented as a font of strength and virtue but also as a brand