A few Words on Richard Sheridan’s School for Scandal

First thing, I wish that I had written my final essay on this play instead of The Way of the World.  In my essay, I had posited Congreve’s play as a well-structured critique of the illusive masks worn in the public sphere (particularly, through the characterization of Lady Wishfort). However, Joseph Surface is a much better example. Evidently, his name “Surface” underlines the artificial mask of sentiment that he consistently wears in the public sphere. Through the discovery of his true rakish self, Surface is punished to a greater extent for his hypocrisy than Wishfort ever was. Sheridan’s play also opposes the world of scandal and dishonour by revealing how such stories can be entirely fabricated. In one particular scene, Crabtree, Benjamin, and Mrs. Candor all fabricate facts about the discovery of Joseph’s treachery and Sir Peter’s humiliation. Benjamin and Crabtree even debate about whether Sir Peter was “thrust in a segoon, quite through his left side” (Sheridan V. ii. 78) or wounded by “a bullet lodged in the thorax” (Sheridan V.ii. 79). Thus, Sheridan parodies this public fabrication of private events through this scene. Finally, Sheridan’s rejection of “sentiment” or public masks is solidified when Sir Peter declares to Rowley “Hold, Master Rowley! If you have any regard for/ me, never let me hear you utter anything like a/ sentiment. I have had enought of them to serve me/ the rest of my life” (Sheridan V.iii. 287-290). At this moment, Sir Peter realizes how his false praise towards Joseph has only helped him mask his corrupt character and he now acknowledges “the fewer we praise, the better” (Sheridan V. ii. 207).

However, although the play critizes the hypocrisy of men of sentiment like Joseph, Charles, a minor rake, must still follow the road of the penitent rake and reform at the play’s end. While he does not completely reform in the end, he is expected to by Sir Oliver and the audience. On a side note, I did find it amusing that, although Charles is repeatedly depicted by others as an extravagant rake, he is rather tame. However, the difference between his image in the public sphere and his actual character further underlines the illusiveness of an individual’s public image (like that of Joseph). 

One aspect that I really liked in the play is Charles’ metatheatrical moment in the final act where he asks the audience’s consent on whether he should marry Maria with the line “You can indeed each anxious fear remove,/ For even scandal dies if you approve” (Sheridan V.iii. 295-296). Metatheatrical moments like this or Prospero’s address to the audience in The Tempest are always interesting. Unfortunately, by asking the audience to decide upon Maria’s marriage with their clapping (I assume), she is given very little choice in the matter.

 In addition, Sir Oliver’s continous masks reminded me of the Colonel in A Bold Stroke for a Wife and his plan to manipulate a public mask in order to achieve a personal goal. Like Centlivre’s play, School of Scandal also possesses a discovery scene in which all of the play’s dominant characters (Charles, Lady Sneerwell, Joseph, etc) are exposed to a revelation by Sir Oliver.

In addition, I also found it interesting that, although Lady Teazle putsher temporary sexual desire for Joseph into action by going to his home, it is Joseph, the seducer, who is primarily punished for his adulterous lifestyle (like Fainall in The Way of the World). Usually, adulterous or “fallen” women like Mrs. Marwood, Angellica, Calista, Lucy in The Beggar’s Opera punished for their sexual transgressions or desires, thus reinforcing a sexual double standard. In this play, there is virtually no such criticism or denigration of Lady Teazle after her intentions are discovered and only Joseph is punished for his excessive use of sexuality (to achieve his goals). One could argue that, because Lady Teazle does not have sexual relations with Joseph, she is free from this social stigmatization. However, her initial desire to do so remains sincere and it is interesting that Sir Peter easily forgives her and re-unites with her (not overtly interesting though). The only other Restoration characters, who are able to circumvent the social ostracization usually caused by the sexual exploits or desires of women, are the ladies of quality in The Country Wife (unless I am forgetting one). 

On a final note, why would anyone trust like Lady Sneerwell trust a character named Snake? Didn’t they read Genesis? Oh well.