Our reading for Friday is now available over in the sidebar and here, in case you lost the copy from class on Monday. Please bring the handout or a printout to class with you on Friday.
We'll be re-creating our C18 theater from Monday and performing these two scenes as we discuss them, so be prepared to rearrange furniture. If you would like to take a role, please feel free to e-mail me and let me know that. If, on the other hand, you would rather die than act in front of your classmates, e-mail and let me know that, too.
The citation got cut off the in the copying and scanning, but this text is taken from Stuart Sherman, ed. The Longman Anthology of British Literature, Vol. 1C. 2d ed. (New York: Pearson Longman, 2006).
This play is the textbook (HA!) example of "sentimental comedy," a genre that flourished in the wake of the 1737 Licensing Act, to satisfy the public's desire for new theatrical repertoire without running afoul of the censors. Sheridan was an acknowledged master of the form, and his plays (unlike many sentimental comedies) have stood the test of time and continue to be performed. Don't be too distressed if you don't see the "sentimental" part here--that term (in its C18 sense) tends to apply more to the last act of such plays, which I haven't supplied you with.
That said, what connections do you perceive between this play and other things you have read in this course?
In the light of today's presentation, what do you make of the Prologue?
Deadline: Friday (2/25), start of class.
5 comments:
The Prologue in this piece reminds me of the Prologue we read for class today. D. Garrick, Esqur. relates the playhouse to a battleground. The playwrite must cut off the heads of the monster (a legendary Grecian monster) that is shameful gossip. He would sacrifice himself for the audience's applause, spilling every drop of blood (figuratively, ink). The Prologue we read for class also brings up cavaliers, knights, Greek and Roman mythology, swords, and battles. These references jokingly make the play seem larger than life, much more important than a night at the theater.
When we look at the Prologue for "School for Scandal," it is evident from the very first stanza that the play is bases itself upon social satire. By asking readers if there needs to be "a school this modish art to teach you?/No need of lessons now, the knowing think:/We might as well be taught to eat and drink"(L.2-4). Sheridan comments on the surrounding society by stating that scandal functions as a natural inclination--we do not need to be taught because we are consistently immersed in it. Just as in the Prologue read in class yesterday on women's roles in society and politics, these texts function to comment on the current issues that its audiences deal with on a daily basis. We can also note in the second stanza the tea drinking of Lady Wormwood, fashioning readers with the image of an aristocratic gossip. Sheridan uses this character as a means of showing the rampant fire gossip creates and burns, turning every minute detail into a scandal.
Prologues, as made evident this week, actively work to push the buttons of the surrounding social and political climate.
This prologue in comparisons to the one read for Wednesday’s class differs drastically. One of the presenters pointed out the gender transgressions present in the “Prologue to Percy”. In that prologue we find women depicted as conveying strength and wisdom, but in this particular one, women are driven to their stereotypical self—town gossips. The language of this prologue paints women as lazy, (“Just ris’n at noon) and more concerned with entertainment (“…all night at cards when threshing strong tea and scandal”) than real social problems. For that reason, I would have to agree with the commenter above. These few lines set up this play as a satirical piece. It is drawing attention to the negative social aspects of society by satirizing these women, but it also illustrates how this is problematic in the latter portion of the prologue. The language, in my opinion, adopts a more serious tone. It picks up on images representing strength (e.g. Don Quixote, brave, fight) which is similar to the Prologue of Percy. It shows that these types of acts, gossiping, should be eliminated from society. They do not add to the overall well-being of a people and only create unnecessary monsters and demons that people have to battle. To relay this message to audiences, a satirical piece would be more affective.
I certainly agree with both Molly and Gberry; it's hard not to look at this play and its prologue as anything but satirical. The aristocratic and hugely hypocritical gossip Mrs. Wormwood who can "dish it, but can't take it" (l. 20-28) and the implication that there needs to be no school to teach the "modish art" of scandal (l. 2) are, amongst others, images that immediately signal to us what it is that is being poked fun at; it sheds light on the social problem that needs immediate addressing. What I find interesting though, is not only do the images in the final stanza invoke the idea of battle, as Gberry mentions, but also that it's a battle that's not to be easily won, if at all (we certainly get that through the conjuring of the "hydra" [l. 38]). To me, it seems that Garrick is suggesting that Sheridan is free to do whatever it is he wants, draw out this issue of scandal every which way, but still it won't do much good. It will still remain all that people "eat and drink" (l. 3). And that, to me, is I think what sets it apart from the Prologue and Epilogue we read for class on Wednesday. While the messages expressed in those seemed a bit more ambiguous, Garrick's Prologue here seems to get at exactly what it's saying right away (at least that's what I think it does; I'm hoping I'm reading this correctly).
Overall though, what I'm mostly interested in is a question. I can't help but wonder why, if "The School for Scandal" was a post-Licensing Act play, it would have to be "disguised" as satire (and I put disguise in quotes because I think the satirical veil is quite thin; it's fairly easy to see what exactly is being commented on). I guess I understand that the satire adds a strong level of humor, and if comedy's what is being aimed at here, than what's better than to play it up in every way possible? What's interesting to me though is that if Sheridan honestly did believe that scandal and gossip were in need of social elimination, I don't see why he'd have to tiptoe around it. I can't imagine aristocrats and/or government officials (who were most likely the targets of gossip) would've disagreed with him. My only guess as to why it would have to be "censored" through satire would be because gossip and scandal could've been considered a lowly and tacky topic, and to include clever, intelligent (albeit tongue-in-cheek) banter would be one way of "classing" it up, making it more suitable for those in favor of the Act.
Upon reading the Prolouge for School for Scandal , I instantly though of the “Prologue to Percy” (as did Gberry and others). The only difference though is the two do the exact opposite in portrayal of women. The Percy prolouge does all it can to promote women and the image of them. It tries to show them as strong, and build up their strong points. On the other hand though, SFS completely goes against this. Instead of building up women, it puts them down. It spotlights all the negative characteristics women are supposed to possess. It does this to the extreme, similar to the Vision of the Golden Rump (though no where near to that extreme). Had the play simply bashed women, without portraying the characters as extreme, women would have instantly rejected the play (assuming of course they paid any sort of attention to it). Giving the women characters such drastic flaws though, women really would not relate to the characters of take it as a direct insult to women everywhere. Instead it was more showcasing extreme cases, which the average aristocratic woman could find humor in (since of course she was no where near as bad, if she was at all like the characters).
Post a Comment