Beggar\'s Opera Reading Guide 23-01-13 PDF

Preview

Summary

Beggar's Opera...

Description

THE BEGGAR’S OPERA Juan Francisco Elices

(a) A brief overview on the socio-historical context of the play………………………… • Plot, main features and structure (b) Characterisation -Peachum ............................................................................................................. -Macheath -Main female characters: Polly, Lucy and Mrs Peachum (c) Setting (d) The satirical component

(e) Self-assessment questions ...........................................................................................

1. A Brief Overview on the Socio-Historical Context of the Play

When The Beggar’s Opera was published in 1727, the socio-historical situation in Great Britain was far from being propitious for an adequate development of playwrighting and stage performances. With the return of Charles II from exile and the beginning of the so-called Restoration age, drama underwent a period of reasonable growth, in which such impresarios as Charles Davenant commenced to re-open some of the theatres that had been previously closed down due mostly to censorship policies. Davenant managed to re-launch a certainly devalued dramatic world as well as to rehabilitate theatres such as the Lincoln’s Inn Field and the Drury Lane Theatre, in which performances had been long banned. Although censorship was still severely exercised on a significant majority of plays, the gradual political and ideological liberalisation the new monarch implanted immediately brought about the revitalisation of those genres that had been repeatedly ostracised by the British government. Restoration drama is mainly identified for its comic and satiric pieces in which authors such as William Congreve, William Wycherley or George Etherege denounced the vices, follies, excesses, and trivialities of both courtiers and ordinary citizens. Unfortunately enough, the socio-political and historical difficulties that flared up along the first half of the eighteenth century soon destabilised this revivalist tendency that had characterised the dramatic context at the end of the previous century. In this vein, the world of The Beggar’s Opera does not substantially differ from the desolating situation the country was living through at the time the play was put on stage. The social differences triggered off an atmosphere of suffocating tension in which speculation, crime and alcoholism became inextricable part of the day-to-day reality. Focusing particularly on London, the context is even more complex since the progressive alteration of the urban configuration caused an unequivocal modification of the hierarchical patterns that had so far governed the city. Most affluent citizens began to move out towards London’s periphery, seeking to evade from an increasing criminality rate and an unpalatable political situation. This movement provoked that the most downtrodden sectors of the population started to occupy all the vacancies left by those rich families. London’s city centre soon became a core of operations in which the fortunes amassed by speculators grew rapidly. On the other hand, the working and economic conditions in which the most dispossessed were immersed were patently unfavourable, a fact that indirectly augmented the rate of street criminality and the consume of alcohol. Some critics have argued that heavy drinking turned out to be an epidemic plague from 1720 to 1751, in which the numbers of alehouses, pubs and also brothels experimented a spectacular increase. It is no wonder, thus, that this economic dismantling resulted in the uncontrollable outburst of drunkards, pickpockets, thieves, and all kinds of criminals that turned the city into a ceaseless flow of pillage. However, the political and judicial response to this unbearable situation did not solve out the problem, yet, paradoxically enough, worsened this visibly precarious social context. By the time The Beggar’s Opera was premièred, Robert Walpole was an openly vituperated Prime Minister, whose economic and administrative inefficiency was being overtly criticised and whose political performance was highly dubious. Furthermore, the corruption that flourished among the judiciary was another impediment that eventually hindered the enforcement of appropriate legal measures for the eradication of crime. As the play demonstrates, even those characters that seem to be carrying out legitimate social duties end up revealing a corrupted side that casts serious doubts upon that outward image of inviolable integrity they try to show. It should not be surprising, thus, that the figure of Robert Walpole became one of the most recurrent targets for most satirists of the time, among whom John Gay proved to be one of the most venomous. Swift, Pope, Arbuthnot, Parnell, among many other authors, mercilessly condemned Walpole’s irresponsible administration, turning him into an object of the utmost scorn and ridicule, or, even, as can be observed in The Beggar’s Opera, as a mere pickpocket, drunkard and fond of spending his money on prostitutes. The circumstances in which England was immersed at the time The Beggar’s Opera was first staged determined the way the author approached its writing as well as the themes and motifs that are more recurrent. In spite of the

rigid censorship that Walpole’s administration exerted upon the literary activity, The Beggar’s Opera turned out to be an indisputable commercial and critical success, being the play that managed to achieve the most populous attendance for a long period of time.

The Beggar’s Opera: argument, main features and structure From its opening page, The Beggar’s Opera shows a series of traits that are recurrent throughout its evolution and eventual resolution. The play has been generally acknowledged as a deep-rooted satiric piece that entails a wide scope of targets that are severely denounced by the author. The Beggar’s Opera is embodied within a mock-heroic context in which the author draws on an operistic framework in order to deal with the underworld of thieves, prostitutes and criminals. By the time in which the play was premiered, the flux of Italian operas that were imported by English managers was very significant, even to the extent that, with the exception of Henry Purcell, there was no other English composer that could possibly balance this unstoppable flow of European operas. Bearing these circumstances in mind, the title of the play was certainly the first element that puzzled the audience mainly due mainly to its oximoronic dimension. The terminological clash that existed between these two diametrically opposing words –beggar and opera– was the key issue in the attainment of the mock-heroic tone the play conveys. Nevertheless, audiences were acquainted with a very different kind of performances, in which the display of sophisticated costumes and a extraordinary stage machinery contrasted with a patent absence of plot or character development. These operas were prevailingly focused on members of the aristocracy who, usually due to love intrigues, are involved in complex contrivances they are finally able to solve out. The viewers were not, in this sense, very demanding, since the opera surely satisfied their initial expectations, that is, comprehensible plots, appealing characters and, above all, happy endings. The Beggar’s Opera emerges as a counterpoint to this genre and arises as a comic deconstruction of the most distinguishable traits of these operas. The author, in this vein, flouts the conventions that were associated with these shows and constructs a brilliant parody of the Italian operistic models. One of the first differences the reader can appreciate is articulated around the intervening characters and the settings where the action unfolds. Gay situates The Beggar’s Opera in the most dispossessed areas of London, where crime, murder, drinking and gambling incessantly thrive up, and where good-natured conducts are hardly recognisable. There are no longer aristocrats or nobles taking part in the action but rather drunkards, jailers, pickpockets and gamblers. The play, in this sense, frolics with this seemingly incongruous combination of effects, that is to say, the utilisation of an apparently prestigious embodiment to depict the experiences of a group of underdogs whose main aspiration is to contrive the best stratagems to cheat on law enforcement organs. The Beggar’s Opera presents a multi-layered action that is based on a series of bipolar or opposing forces, epitomised by a series of characters whose outward appearance shows profound contradictions with their actual attitude and behaviour. The author concentrates, on the one hand, on a group of street thieves or, as they used to be called in the eighteenth century, “highway-men” and their illicit activities. On the other, Gay introduces a sentimental sub-plot in which the daughter of a crime prosecutor fells in love with the leader of a street gang, although her father considers this relationship as totally unacceptable. Thus, it seems that the sentimental episode The Beggar’s Opera poses offers substantial similarities with respect to the plots that were recurrent in those Italian operas, in the sense that the prospects of this affair do not seem to be very optimistic. The structure and development of the play follow very traditional theatrical guidelines. It is divided in three main acts, and each act is composed of multiple scenes. The only difference with respect to other plays of the time is that it intertwines a series of musical asides called “airs”, brief sketches in which most satirical comments of the play are contained. Before the actual action of the play commences, the author incorporates a brief dialogue between a beggar and a player. The former claims the play’s authorship and points out that he has been quite careful to introduce the most recognisable aspects of the Italian operas:

Beggar The piece I own was originally writ for the celebrating the marriage of James Chanter and Moll Lay, two most excellent ballad singers. I have introduced the similes that are in all your celebrated operas: the swallow, the moth, the bee, the ship, the flower, etc. Besides I have a prison scene which the ladies always reckon charmingly pathetic. As to the parts, I have observed such a nice impartiality to our two ladies, that it is impossible for either of them to take offence. I hope I may be forgiven, that I have not made my opera throughout unnatural, like those in vogue; for I have no recitative; excepting this, as I have consented to have neither prologue nor epilogue, it must be allowed an opera in all its forms. [Introduction] In this first intervention, the beggar –somehow Gay´s alter ego– confesses that his play does not consistently follow the typical conventions of operas, and tries to justify its heterodoxy, which does not prevent it from being considered an opera in its full sense. In the first act the author introduces some of the characters that are going to play a fundamental role in the development of the play. The first to intervene is Peachum, whose initial discourse apparently endows him with a kind of respectable aura that, as the action unfolds, would rapidly vanish. His task consists of seizing thieves and criminals and imprisoning them, a seemingly legitimate social function he upholds in the following quotation: Peachum Wat Dreary, alias Brown Will, an irregular dog, who hath an underhand way of disposing of his goods. I’ll try him only for a Sessions or two longer upon his good behaviour. Harry Paddington, a poor petty-larceny rascal, without the least genius, that fellow, through he were to leave these six months, will never come to the gallows with any credit. Slippery Sam; he goes off the next Sessions, for the villain hath the impudence to have views of following his trade as tailor, which he calls an honest employment. [Act I, sc. iii] Besides Peachum and all the rogues and rascals that turn up in this act, Gay also partially introduces the sentimental sub-plot we mentioned before. Polly –Peachum’s daughter– confesses that she is in love with Macheath, the leader of a gang of thieves, and that she has even married him. Her parents cannot put up with the scandal, although the way they react does not accord very much with what would be initially expected. They do not suggest their daughter to abandon him, simply to murder him in order to obtain a recompense: Peachum Fie, Polly! What hath murder to do in the affair? Since the thing sooner or later must happen, I dare say, the Captain himself would like that we should get the reward for his death sooner than a stranger. Why, Polly, the Captain knows, that as ‘tis his employment to rob, so ‘tis ours to take robbers, every man in his business. So that there is no malice in the case. [….] Mrs Peachum But your duty to your parents, hussy, obliges you to hang him. What would many a wife give for such opportunity! Polly What is a jointure, what is widowhood to me? I know my heart. I cannot survive him. [Act I, sc. x] The first act finishes with a sentimental dialogue between Polly and her beloved Captain Macheath, in which she warns him about the risks he is running and the dangers that are awaiting him, should not he be cautious:

Polly But my papa may intercept thee, and then I should lose the very glimmering of hope. A few weeks, perhaps, may reconcile us all. Shall thy Polly hear from thee? Macheath Must I then go? Polly And will not absence change your love? Macheath If you doubt it, let me say –and be hanged. Polly o how I fear! How I tremble! Go – But when safety will give you leave, you will be sure to see me again; for ‘till then Polly is wretched. [Act I, sc. xiii] The second act changes the scene completely and moves to London’s most downtrodden areas, where Gay attempts to reproduce the language, the manners and the attitudes of the characters that dwell in these dispossessed locations. The play is suddenly filled with references to thieves, highway-men, prostitutes, taverns, prisons, brothels, that is, all the elements that configure the scenario where the bulk of the action actually takes place. The first three scenes develop in a tavern in which the author depicts a group of thieves preparing their forthcoming operations. Curiously enough, they also complain about the way rich people hinder their activity: Matt of the Mint We retrench the superfluities of mankind. The world is avaricious, and I hate avarice. A covetous fellow, like a jackdaw, steals what he was never made to enjoy, for the sake of hiding it. These are the robbers of mankind, for money was made for the free-hearted and generous, and where is the injury of taking from another, what he hath not the heart to make use of? [Act II, sc. i] Form this very first scene, the author purports in this second act to present a detailed vision of the cores of vice and corruption, which, dramatically enough, are direct reflections of the degeneration that overwhelmed London at the time The Beggar’s Opera was being performed. From the tavern, the action moves to a brothel that Macheath is very fond of attending and where he is going to be eventually captured by Peachum: Peachum I seize you, sir, as my prisoner. Macheath Was this well done, Jenny? Women are decoy ducks; who can trust them! Beasts, jades, jilts, harpies, furies, whores! Peachum Your case, Mr Macheath, is not particular. [Act II, sc. v] The last section of this second act takes primarily at Newgate prison, where Macheath is sent after being arrested by Peachum and his constables. It is at this moment that the play’s plot and sub-plot eventually converge. The author reveals that Macheath has maintained two simultaneous marriages, both with the above-mentioned Polly and with Lucy. The final scenes depict Lucy and Polly struggling to prove who is Macheath’s real wife, but at the same time conspiring against the rogue’s unscrupulous attitude towards both of them: Polly Where is my dear husband? Was a rope ever intended for this neck! O let me throw my arms about, and throttle thee with love! Why dost thou turn away from me? ‘Tis thy Polly. ‘Tis thy wife. Macheath Was ever such an unfortunate rascal as I am! Lucy Was there ever such another villain! Polly O Macheath! Was it for this we parted? Taken! Imprisoned! Tried! Hanged! Cruel reflection! I’ll stay with thee ‘till death. No force shall tear thy dear wife from thee now. What meanss my love? Not one kind word! Not one kind look! Think what thy Polly suffers to see thee in this condition. [Act II, sc. xii]

The final act unfolds in the same settings but it is articulated around Macheath’s runaway from prison, which becomes one of the play’s most crucial the turning points. Peachum’s initial celebratory attitude contrasts with his disappointment and rage after realising that his efforts have been fruitless. Peachum’s desire to see Macheath executed is blatantly frustrated, although he does not give up his prosecution. Macheath knows for sure that his escape from prison means immediate execution: Macheath For my having broken prison, you see, gentlemen, I am ordered immediate execution. The Sheriff’s Officers, I believe, are now at the door. That Jemmy Twitcher should peach me. I own surprised me! ‘Tis a plain proof that the world is all alike, and that even our gang can no more trust one another than other people. Therefore, I beg you, gentlemen, look well to yourselves, for in all probability you may live some months longer. [Act III, sc. xiv] However, Macheath’s hope of regaining freedom is soon deflated because he is captured again and sent to prison, where he is sentenced to execution. The end of the play, though, is profoundly meaningful. The beggar and player that opened the play appear once again at the end in order to discuss the appropriateness of the ending that awaits Macheath. The player, who is acquainted with the Italian operas that were en vogue, cannot understand this dramatic resolution, and asks the beggar to modify the original story-line so to include a happy ending: Player But, honest friend, I hope you don’t intend that Macheath shall be really executed Beggar Most certainly, sir. To make the piece perfect, I was for doing strict poetical justice. Macheath is to be hanged; and for the other personages of the drama, the audience must have supposed they were all either hanged or transported. Player Why, then, friend, this is a downright deep tragedy. The catastrophe is manifestly wrong, for an opera must end happily. Beggar You objection, sir, is very just; and is easily removed. For you must allow, that in this kind of drama, ‘tis no matter how absurdly things are brought about. So –you rabble there– run and cry a reprieve– let the prisoner be brought back to his wives in triumph. Player All this we must do, to comply with the taste of the town. [Act III, sc. xvi] Once again, the author draws on meta-theatrical strategies in order to vary substantially the course of the action. The player reminds the beggar that the success of the play depends on the response of the audience, who demands satisfactory and happy endings. This passage cited above reinforces the idea that eighteenth-century authors should not be only concerned with the very act of writing, but, more importantly, on the commercial benefits their works could eventually produce. Furthermore, this brief intercession ends up with the habitual moralising comment that was included in most works published throughout the eighteenth century. The beggar points out: Beggar Had the play remained, as I at first intended, it would have carried a most excellent moral. ‘Twould have shown that the lower sort of people have their vices in a degree as well as the rich: and that they are punished for them. [Act III, sc. xvi]. The moral teaching of the play is, therefore, conspicuous. The beggar suggests that both rich and poor people have the same vices and that, although rich normally elude punishment, they deserve as much as poor people do. The play, thus, concludes merrily, and shows Macheath

addressing an enthusiastic group of people. He finally chooses Polly as his wife and asks all the party-goers to get together and dance happily. 2. Characterisation in The Beggar’s Opera Characters in The Beggar’s Opera perform a decisive f...