Printed - Redalyc

Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal
Sistema de Información Científica
MORA, María José
The political is personal: the attack on Shadwell in Sir Barnaby Whigg
SEDERI Yearbook, núm. 15, 2005, pp. 115-128
Spanish and Portuguese Society for English Renaissance Studies
Valladolid, España
Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=333527601007
SEDERI Yearbook,
ISSN (Printed Version): 1135-7789
sederiyearbook@yahoo.es
Spanish and Portuguese Society for English
Renaissance Studies
España
How to cite Complete issue More information about this article Journal's homepage
www.redalyc.org
Non-Profit Academic Project, developed under the Open Acces Initiative

The political is personal:
th e attack on Sha dwell in Sir Barnaby Whigg
Ma ría José MORA
Lillillersity of Seuilu:
ABSTRAer
TI1e paper discuses tite importance of personal satire in the
Restora tion plays of the Exclusion Crisis (1679-82), focusing on
Tho mas Ourfey 's Sir Bnmn by W/ligg (1681). Although the caricature
of the poet Thomas Shadwell in the figure of Sir Bam aby has been
generally recognized, recent discussions o f the play have tended to
downplay its reso nance and emphasize instead more general
aspects of the political satire on the \Vhig party. However, the
pol itical element in this comedy is nol central lo the plo l; iI is
inlroduced mainly through a secondary character, whose main
function in the play seems lo be only lo mock a rival poet who had
made no sec ret of his commitmen t to the wh íg cause . Sínce Sir
Samal1}! Wltigg was produced soon after the defeat of the
Exclusionisls, Ihe attack on Shad well seems almost an afterthc ught,
an addition designed to increase topi cal interest - on the wake of
the controversy provo ked by 17JCLancnshirc Witchcs - and lo arouse
par tisan supparl for the play.
0 11 the wa ke of the anti -Catholic paranoia triggered by the Popish
Plol (1678), England wen l through a period of a cu le political crisis:
in 1679, the faction that around thi s lime carne lo be ca lled th e
Wh igs in lroduced the firs l of three succ essive bilis lo excl ude lhe
Ca tho lic Duke of York from the succession; bul the Kin g
manceuvered lo frustrate their aim s, drawing on the s up porl of the
so-called Tories and resorting to his prerogative to prorogue or
dissolve Parliam ent.' But political controversy was not restricted to
parliarnentary debale: it ex lended lo th e s lreels and popular
meeting p laces, like clubs and coffee-houses, Th e thea tres also
engaged actively in the political slri fe. Plays like Bancroft's The
Trngedy of Sertorius (1679), Se ttle's Tite Feinole Prelate (16&) or
Shad well's Tite Lancasttire Witcltes (168 1) at tacked Popery and
1 Fora ccncee account oí the Exclusi ón Crisis, see for instance Harrt s (l 99Y &:>-11 6).
it; ,¡"'ri '5 (2005: pp."5-28)

endorsed Whig ideals. Tory poels relalialed wi th works that
denounced rebellion and exalted loyalty, like Tate's Tlte Loynl
Gel/eral (1679) and The History of Kil/g Richan: tlte Secol/d (1681/82),
Whilaker's The Conspimcu (1680), or Dur fey's The Roynlist (1682);
once the Exclusior rists were de fea ted in 1681, the Whigs w ere
mercilessly ridi cul ed in plays like Behn's Tlte Roundheads (1682) or
Crown e's Ci/y Politioues (168) .
One of the firsl comedies lo make comic capital of the
Wh igs was 1110mas Durfey's Sir Bnm nby Wlligg, produced by the
King 's Companv in October 1681. The play presen ts severa] love
intrigues agai nst a background of plots and conspiracies w hich
provides the occasion for ab un dan t mockery on the Wh igs nnd ,
more particularly, a carica ture of 1110mas Shadwell in the tiLlecharacter:
Sir Barnaby, a mem ber like Shadwell of the Wh ig Green
Ribbon Club, is presented al the beginning as a loud -mout hed
radical rebel :' but a l the first sign o f danger he tu rns his coat and
betrays .1 11 his former friends. Although the identi fica tion between
Sir Barnaby and Shadwell is generally rccognizcd , stud ics of thc
theatrica l production of the Exclusi ón years - Roper (1989), Owen
(199) , ' 996) - have d ownplayed the imporlan ce of persona l sa tire
in the plays, arguing that such " particu la ris t approa ch" obscures
the po litical sign ificance of the themes and tropes used by the po ets
and "refuses lo acknowledge the bigger picture of drama tic and
politícal shifts" (Owen ' 996: 27). In this line, Susan Owen reads Sir
Bnm nby Wlligg as "a par tisan play, a Tory satire on the Whigs" in
wh ich there are "sorne specific jibes a t Shadwell" (1996: '94)' Bu t
the weigh t of these "specific jibes" needs lo be reassessed : the
celebration of Tory triumph and ridiculing of the Whi gs are nol - as
they are in Durfey 's subseq uent comedy, Tite Roynlist (1682) - part
of the fabri c of the wo rk: in Sir Bnmnby, the who le subs tance of thc
poli tical sa tire revol ves upon an element that is largely extraneous
lo the plot: the carica ture of the riva l po et.
It is true that the characterization of Sir Barna by borrows
elemen ts frequently usen in anti-Whig propaganda , w h ich 15 not
1 The Creen Ribbon Club had begun mee ting C.I6¡S at the Kmg's Head Tavern at
Chancery Lane End . The Club was tho ught te be responsible for the Exdusionis t
periodical A Wwkly PIlCqllrl (J! Aill'irl" [ mm Rt J1I/t:' and for the d tstrfbutíon o f ' ....'hig
propaganda thrc ughou t the country. It also ccllabora ted in rhe organiza tion of the
pope-burmng processíons held on the anmversary of the accession of Queen
Ehzabeth (17 Nove mber ). See Harris (l99 J 84-8S)·
116

surp nsmg if we bear in mind that Shad well was one of the
playwrigh ts more closely associated with the Whig cause. Thus, Sir
Barna by is defined in the Drnmntis personac as na Phanatical Rasca},
one of Oliver's Knighls; one that always prelends to fear a change
of Covem men t yet ci nes his best to cause O TlP . " ) Resides indicntin g
the author's contempt for the cha racler (idenrified as a "rasca)" ), thc
description d raws on the connn on partisan trope of presen ling the
Whigs as the re-incarnat ion of the Roundheads, and associating
them , therefore, wirh the ghost of the Civil War and the puritan
republic; it also presents their professions of lovalism - their
defen ce of English law and liberty - as hypocrit ical, iden tifying
them w ith the spirit of sed ition. Th is portrait comes lo life as soon
as Sir Bamaby makes his firsl appea rance on slage. He speaks wil h
nosla lgia of "the blessed year of 48" (11) and resorls lo puntan
rhetoric as he refuses lo kneel and bare his head lo drink the king's
health: "Not I Sir, yo u musl spare me: I never kneel (not 1) but lo
pray ... Sir, we never uncover, 'tis not OU T method; we never use
any Ccrcmony" (11). His anti-monarchical stance rcndcrs him a
trailor in the eyes of the other cha racters:
SIRBA R~ABY : ... 1knew your Father long ago, M,. Wildíng; he was
always a free, generous soul índ eed - but (betw íxl you and 1)
would not be rul'd: he wou ld still be on the wrong side : Come,
come, he 100"d the King too well: had he not lov'd the King, he
had been a brave felIow.
B ~ED I CK: Otherwíse called a Rasca!. (9)
Yet, Sir Bamaby identifies the Whig cause wi th the true national
spirit, and speaks of his party as the only guaranlors of p roperty
and freed om: "1 can lell you, that if OUT soul-saving Party do not
settle the Nalion, I say 'tw ill crack, 'twill unhinge - whi p, you're
gon,old An tichrisl will ha ve YO UT Lands and Bodies, and the Devil
YO\IT sou ls " (10).
Besides these commonplaces, other fealmes are added lo
turn Sir Barna by into the prolotyp ical Whig of Tory partisan
w riting . Thus, el central eleme n t in this cha rac teriza tion is the
" Other characters wi thin the play corroborate this descríption o f Sir Bamaby. See,
for insta nce, the first references to hlm in act 1:
BENEDICK: Whigg is hisname? Oh, I believe I know him, a huge fat fellow,
one of Olivet's Knights.
WI L.OI NC:Th e sam e, and the most busie, seditíous Coxcomb alíve . (9)
" 7

allusion lo the greed of the Whi gs. In the fírs t act of the play
Wild ing poinls lo the Whig claim that " theirs is the Church­
Militant," bul observes tha t in fact "Money is both their Cod and
King " (9); Sir Bamaby himself confirms this view of the Wh igs as
he says that his so n l is " alw avs in th e heart o f the City - in
Lumba rd street" (JO), the slreel where go ldsmiths and Illon eylenders
had their shops. Ind eed , later on in the play he appears
willing lo change his religion for moneyr' in a rder to milrry a rich
Turk ish heiress, he agrees lo tum Ca tholic first, and even Muslim in
the end :
SIR BAR..'JABY: ... \Vell, wel1, since it can 't be help't, 1'11 tum Turk,
man, [e w, Moor, C raec ian, any thing: Pox on't, I'Ie not lose a lady
and such a sum for the sake of any Religión und er the Sun, by
Mahomet, no t I.
SWIFT: Bul does nol yo ur Conscience prick you a Httle?
SIR BAR.."I.JABY: Not a jot, faith. Why, you old fool, O UT Conscience is
OUT lnterest always, and I have nol been a rebel so long SUTe lo
have any squeamish fits al these years. (50)
Sir Barna by, m oreo ver, associates h im sel f with th e corrup t practices
and the manípulat ion of the London erowds attributed lo the
Wh igs:'
l'le go presently and corru pt my Men; some with bribes, some
with promises and fair words, others with preferments: 'I'hen sow
Sedition 'mongst the Mobile, win 'em with Pots of Ale, and Peny
4 The aUusion to the change of re bgton may ind eed be a personal jibe at Shadwell. A
few months after the performance of this play Shadwell was accused in a Tory
pamphlet of being a "Papíst" and h3\' 11g been married by a "Poptsh pn est." His
reply nppeared in J \\'hig publícation, 1711' ímpartíal Prolt'stllllt M",cllry (jan. 4 -27,
1682); Shadwell reportedly denied lile accusa tion, though he admitted bavm g leaned
" towa rd Popery for about etght Months (19 OI 20 Years síuce)." See Borgman (1m:
55-56).
s On the active t nvolvement of t he Londo n crowds in t he political strtfe of these
years, see Harris 1987, esp. 1 5~88 . Although both Whigs and Torí es attempted to
enltst the sllpport of the conunon people, the staunchly Protestant sympathies of the
City mad e pro-wlug demonstrations much mor e consptcuous . Tory propagand a
therefore accused the Whigs of cour ting the "rabble" and tnstígatíng rebelhon
(Owen 1996: 149'"56). and ann-whtg plays often make this point; see, for íns tance,
Lord Lambert's song in Behn's The RIlJ lt1l l}, t'(III~ (4.3-97-112), the Preface to Durfey's
17w R(JYlllisl (1682), or the discovery of the "Tory" plot in Crowne's City Po/diques
(+l.2S7-}I) ·
118

Loafs, to com mít Ryots, Murders; there's your Polícy! J'le do't 1
sayo(50)
Whig paranoia, their chronic fear of plots and French in vasions, is
a lso introduced in the caricature; thus Sir Barnaby is outraged to
discover that his nephew, Sir Walter, has no weapons in the house
to use in their own defence:
SIR BAR'iABY: A eareless Villain - he shall nol own the blood of the
Whiggs tha t neglecls his Counlrey thus: - ne'r a Musquel a Rogue
- in this Popish Age too, and but one Sword, Ilay, and in a fam ily
of sixleen People uprising and downlying - a Dog- a Rascal - bUI
ene Swerd? ._. A Son of a \\'hore, ne'r a Dagger neither, nor a
Case-knife sharp at end - nor nothing - not so much as a Penknife?
(10)
Creed, corrup tion, and coward ice are presented as the
visible ma rks of a total lack of principIes. One of the gallan ls makes
the point, as he says that Sir Barnabv will "in .111 turns of State
ehange his Opinion as easily as his Coa t, and is ever zealous in
Voting for that party that is mosl Powerful" (9). This impression is
soo n eon finn ed. For a ll his ranting, Sir Barnaby is quiek lo defect
frorn the Whig cause as soon as he believes there is real danger
() .2); he nol only changes sides, bu l lum s in .1 11 his fonner friends:
W ILDINC: ... The green Ribbon Club I find is now dispers'd: pray,
where's yo ur late ftiend and brother Sir Miles Mutinous?
SIR BARN A BY: IVhere? In Newgale.
BENEDI CK: How! Newgale! IVho has Impeach't him?
SIRBAR.'JABY: 1, 1myself, man: Impeacb't him! and more than that,
intend to hang him the next Sessions .
HD:EDICK: A fine, friendly, Christian-like Act, in troth.
SIR BAR.\f ABY: Ay, Cad - friend or father in such a case: up they go
to save my own neck: 1 don"t leve hanging, for my part - others
mayo(40-41).
Bul if these po inls may be comrnon in anli-Whig sa tire,
there are other prominen t traits in the characterization of Sir
Barnaby that are aimed particularly at Shadwell. Most conspicuous
of them all is, obvíously, the character's physical size. Sir Barnaby is
described in the pla y as "a big fat Iellow" (9) and he refers lo
himself as "a Portly, ]olly, Fa t man: a ma n of Faith and Belly" (11).
References to Shadwell's corpulence were a sta ple element in
" 9

0 0 " He
satirical a ttacks against hím: they would pursue him even after his
death, as in the mock-epítaph wrilten by Tom Brown : " Heav'n, if it
please, may ta ke his loyal Heart/ As for the rest, sweet devil, fetch
a Ca rt" (Borgrnau 1969: 99). These allus ions often wenl logelher
with jibes a l the poet's over-ea ting and , especiallv, drinking .
Dryden, for instan ce, d evelops this image in the portrait of
Shadwell as Og in the second par t of Absnlolll nlld Achit ophel (1682):
Now stop your noses Readers, all and some,
For here's a lun of Mídnight-wo rk lo come,
Og from a Treason Tavern rowling heme.
Round as a Globe, and Liqu or 'd e\" ry chink,
Good ly and Creat he Sayls behin d his Link;
With a 11 this Bulk there's no thing lost in Og
Por e\"ryinch tha t is not Fool is Rogué."
(Swed f'Tl be rB & Oea rinB '972 : 7;)
Dmfey also makes the connection in this play; as Sir Barnaby
expresses his d isI11c1Y that astrologers ha ve predicted el fam ine,
Benedick observes: "This Epicu re I see never considers anything
fur ther than the pleasures of eating and d rinking" (11). He
reintrod uees the topic in the second act, when Wilding speaks with
eonlempl of Sir Barnaby as "s woln and bloated " (19); this lime
Dmfey exploils thc comic po tcn tial of this cha ractcr trai t, as Sir
Barnaby takes offence and emphatically den ies wha t his physical
presence on stage ma kes obvious: "1bloated ! what, because - I arn
plum p, plump, a man of kidney or so - 1 bloated " (19). Dmfey
insists again in act 5, as Sir Barnaby is accused of indulging in the
sins of the flesh: "You are fu11 of sin, Son, Fat, fa1; \'ery Iat": he
replies ind ignanlly: "Portly, portly, like the Ancien l British Race, a
Vesse l of choice Wares, a Man of Kidney" (49)'
Sir Barnabv also incorpo rales prom inen l fea tures
associated wil h Shadwell's professiona l actlvity. He is presented by
6 Dryden plays the same not e in his Vimlim tioll oftlte DI/ke {~· G ll j~ (1683): "Og may
wríte against the King if he pleases. so long as he Drinks for him, end hís Wr itings
will never do the Co ver nment so much harm , as his Drmking does it good: for true
Subjects will not be m uch perverted by his Libels; but the w íne Duríes rise
considerably by lus Claret 0 adds a mocking reference to the poet's fall al a
popular tavem, The Old Devil: '11e broke no Ríbbs, because the hardness of the
Stairs cou'd reach no Bones. and for my part, I do not wcn der how he carne to fall,
for 1have always known him heavy : the Miracle ís, how he gOl "P agaín" (Dearing
& Roper 1992: 32~30) .
120

Wildi ng as "an audacíous and impudent libeller" (19) , allnd ing lo
Shadwell's work as a pamphleleer for the Whig cause." Like
Shadwell, he ta kes pr ide in his musical skills: "This fellow valúes
himself exlremely by playing on the Musick" (10) , a commen t
w hich seerns espec iallv sa rcastic coming fmm the pen o f a mas te r of
song -writing such as Dnrfey." More no lorio usly, Sir Barnaby is
made lo play a song that rid icules his theatrical pro d uction:
Farew ell tny Lov'd Science, my fonuer deligh t,
Moliere is quite rifled, then how sho uld I write?
My fancy's grown sleepy, my quibling is don e;
And design or invention , alas! I have naneo
But still let the Town never d oubt my conditian;
Though r fall a damn 'd Poet, I'le moun t a Musician .
I go l Fam e by fil chin g from"
Poems and Plays,
Bul 111Y Fidlin g an d Drinking has lost me the Bays;
Like a Furv I rail'd, Iike a Satvr 1writ,
Thersites t;W Humour, an d Fleckno mv wu.
But lo m"k~ some amend s for my snarlíng an d lashing,
Idívert all theTown with my Thrummíng and Thrashing. (28)
For all its brevi ty, the song is a thorough bash ing of
Sha dwell as a poe!. Durfey clearlv makes comic capital of Drvden's
infamous lampoon on Shadwell, as he porlray s Sir Bamaby as an
incompetent playwright and associates him with Flecknoe." He
allud es mockingly lo Shadwell's claim lo musical lalen l and lo his
most successfnl comedy, TI/e Virluoso (1676), which Look the rise of
70 n the pronunence acq uired by Shadwell as Whig pamphleteer in the early t680s,
see Borgman (1969: 55).
11 60th Shadwell and Durfey a ttached grea t importance to the use cf songs and muste
in their plays, but Durfey's popularity in thís ñeld was unsurpassed . The DidiOlIllf)1
of Nali01ll11 Biogm" IY allud es to an often quo ted anecdo te that "Charles 11 had leaned
famil iar ly on his shoulder, holding a comer of the same shee t of music from wluch
Dur fey was síngmg t he burlesqu e song.. ' Remember, ye whígs, what was fonnerly
done.:" See aleo McVeagh (2000: 5) and Wheatl ey (2001 : )44).
'1 M lcFlt'ck/Ult' was not published until October 1682, yet the poem had been written
ell. 1678and had circulated in manuscr ipt (Swedenberg & Dean ng lCf72 : 299")00).
121

the new experimen tal science as its cen tral theme." He also accuses
h ím of plagiari zing, a jibe w hieh was com rnon in d isput es among
poets; the a llusion to Mol iere in this cas e must have hit hem e, since
Sha dwell ha d lifted seenes or w hole pl ots from him in severa ] of hi s
ea rlv co rn ec{ies - TI", S/lII..II Loters (1668), TI", HYI'0crite (16(>9) TJ¡e
Misa (1672) - and had taken pains in the Dedications of these plays
lo d efend himself from sim ilar charges o f merely eopying from the
Freneh poet." But the elemenl that Durfey seems lo ridicule rn ost
poinled ly is Shadwell's identifica tion with the jonsonian m od el o f
instructional sa tire: the comedy of humours, Th us, Shadwell's
avowed purpose of exposing the vices of the tim e is transformed by
Durfey inlo "snarling and lash íng" and railing "like a Fury" : m ost
poinLed ly, his role as a sa liris t is presen ted, wilh a ve ngeance, as h ís
"hum ou r" - that is, the "bias of the mind" (lo use Shadwell's 0""
words) that makes a cha racter a coxcom b." To round o ff the
caricatu re, this sa tirical humour is identified with the character o f
Th ers ites, the clownish and q ua rrelsorne troublemaker in T J¡.. l liad
who is takcn lo task by Odysseus for his ínsolcncc in abusing thc
Greek lead ers.
11,e relish wilh which Durfey hea ps ridicul e on Sha dwell 's
poetic agenda clearly smacks o f more than political rivalry, Indeed,
as Derek Hughes (1996) has poin led ou t, Durfey may have had
sorne sco res lo se ttle with Shad we ll, w ho had pilloried him and his
d ramatic prod uction in A Tril" Wino1V (1678). Shadwell had
in lrod ueed in this play the cha racter of Yonng Maggot, described as
"a n lnns of Cou rt-Man , w ho neglects his Law, and ru ns mad aft er
Wil, prelending much lo Love, and bo th in spighl of Natu re, sinee
10 There are other jíbes at the expense of t his play. Sir Barna by occastonally
tncorpo ra tes by-word s characten snc of Sir Sam uel Hearty in '11k' Virtuoso, such as
"písh", "whip" or " íucr", Sir Walter aloe introd uces a conuc echo of this play as he
threa tens lo kill Townly, telling lum to prepare hiruself vto be dissected, ana tonu zed
like a Chíchester Cock-Lobster, or so" (2 ) . On the dissection of the Chiches ter cock­
Iobster , see 1711" Virtuoso 1 .1.118-19, 1.1 . 247-48 aud 2.2.28) (Prieto- Pablos et sl. 1997).
II Shadwell rephed te accusa tions of plagtarí ztng r...Ioliere in the dedícations te 111t'
SIIJ1t''' [,mlt'rs and 111e Mj~ r . 111t' JlYl lf.lCrite apparently did not succeed on stage and
was never pubhshed.
u In the epilogue to J11t'H I I11 /(1 r i~ s (16]"1 ) Shadwell d efined Humour as foll ows: ..A
Hum or is the Bvas of the Mind , I Bv which with violence ' lis one wav ínclin'd : l it
makes our Actions lean on one side'stíll, I And in a l1 C hanges that \~ay bends the
will" (Surnmers ' 927 1: 254)' Shad well d efended the use o( humours in comedy in
the dedications to most of his plays, beginning with 171t" SI/IIt·u 1 ~ 1l lt'r s , and 171t'
J11I/11f1rists.
122

his Face makes h ím un fit for one, and his Bra ms for the other"
(Sununers y 287)' Hughes contends tha t th is "obsessive poetast er"
is a caricatu re of Durfey, "being sim ilar ly ugly, and ha ving
sim ilarly deserted law for the pursuit of poetry" (1996: 221); he also
observes tha t act '1 of A Trile iNMolO is set in the playhouse, whe re
the characters watch a sex comedy which is "a malicious parody"
of Durfey 's inunenselv successful A Fond HIIsbnlld (1 677)."
Although Hughes is in good measure right, his
obse rvation s can be further refined . The attack on Durfey is clea r
bul his id en tification of Young Maggol wilh Durfey is debatable:
Young Maggo t does not presen t himself as the au tho r of the play
the cha racters attend in ac t 4, but as the poel's patron: the play, he
says, is "one Pricketl 's, Poel Prickett " (y 334)." Inlereslingly
enough, "Poet Prickett" is a nicknarne tha t was also associated w ith
Durfey a few years later in a pamphlet criticiz ing his comedy The
Mnrringe-Hnter Mntc/¡'d (1692)." As for the fragmen tary playwi
th ín- the-play, it is clearly a parody of the sex eomedy which was
in \'oguc in thc 16705. Although Sha dwcll may be aiming al scvcral
works in this parodv, the action does resemble Durfey's A FOI1l!
Husband in so rne crucial d eta ils: there are two lo vers cornpe ting for
the favours of a m arried wom an, a husband who attempts to
surprise his wife in the act, and a farcica l episode in which a lover
hides under a table an d is discovered as the table is acc íden tally
overturn ed . 111e table-episod e is especial1y signifiean l; Shadwel1
uses il nol only lo ridicule Durfeys play - m aking nol one, bu t two
" Contemporary sources agree on the success of A I~)//d J1usbmld. Langbame refers to
this play as "one of [Durfey's] bes t Comedies," and notes that it had been
"frequently acted wíth good App lause" (16g1: ISo). Downes observes that the play
" took extraordinarily well" (1928: :;6), and Steele recorded that the comedy "was
honoured with the pr(""...ence of King Charles the Second three of its ñrst ñve rughts"
(71wGlIIlrtiiI11l, 15 juue 171)) .
'4 It is true, hcwever, that total ccincidence is no t necessar v to make the caricature
work. S had well's rítle-character in 111~ Viril/O...' does not fuÍly correspond to Robert
Hooke; for one thing, Hooke was a prominent member of the Royal Society, whereas
we are told in the play that Sir Nicholas was refused admissíon. Yer Hooke c1early
saw himself personared in the comedy and , more stgntñcantlv, felt that e\'eryone in
the eudience idenrified him with Sir Nicholas. See Pneto-Pablos rl 111 (1997: xxxiixxxí
v).
' 5 P llt'tll illfil1llis, or, A I..lrl IHlt ln,rth l/1wgi"S: Ilf'illg 11 ¡Jilllogw" llt'twt't'll LysI1111n Vlll f'lIt i"f',
mili ,..Jrl J1rieket (1692). The title page attributes the authorship to Olarles Gildon. but
this is questionable. Gildon had written a long commendatory Ietter ,...hich was
publishe-d toge ther with the play.
12)

lovers hide under the table - bu t also to highlight his contempt for
Durfey's conception of comedy. In the prologue lo A FOI/tI HlIsbmul,
Om fey had defended the preeminence of plot and design over wit
and conversation:
lf Plot and Bus'ness Comical and New ,
Could please the Criticks that sit here lo view,
The Poet mtght have thought this Play would do.
But in this Age Oesign no praise can gel :
You el)' it Conversation wan ts, and \Viti
As if tite Obvious Rulesuf Comedy,
\Vere on ly du ll Grimace and Repartée .
Such, Sirs, have been your Darlings prov'd of late:
The Author therefore careless of his Pete, ­
And knowing Wit a Chattle hardly got,
Has ventut'd his whole Stock upon a Plot. (1-11)
Shad well obv iously had these lines in mind as he w rote the
Dedication o f A T rile ~\'idmv. He is clea rly pointing to Durfey w hen
he refers to "the Hule Poetasters of the fourth Tate" who hold "tha t
Wit signifies nothing in a Comedy; but the putting out of Candles,
kíckíng down of Tables, fallíng over [oynt-stools, impossible
accidents, and unnatural mistakes, (which they 11105t absurdly call
Plot) are the poor lhin gs they rely upon" (Summers 1927 3: 284)".
There is a tradition abou t Durfey that holds that he was
slow to take offence. The Dictionaru of Nntionnt BiogrnpllY, for
inslance, claims tha t "he was ullerly devoíd of malice, his sa tirical
spirit wa s mirthful and never revengefu l" and po ints out that when
bitterly lampooned by Tom Brown in ' 689, he "made no angry
rejoinder but took the abuse as a joke." In a recent s tudy of the poet,
John McVeagh concu rs: "Du rfey took such ab use in his stride "
,6 Christopher Wheatley finds in Shadwell and Durfey "li ttle personal amm us
against each oth er." His conclusión is based on what he sees as "S had well's
awareness that Durfev wa s beneath lum, not merelv in rank and aclríevement, but in
terms of dramatic subjects. Shadwell wro te comedy , and Durfey frequen tly wrote
the lowest subcategory of ccmedy , farce" (200 1: )44). But such awareness must have
made the success of inferior dramatic forms all the more galling: A Trile Widllw
fatled: A Fmul ll llsblllulremained a favourite.
' 24

(2000: 14).'7 Yet, before he produced the carica ture of Shad well in
Sir Bom oby Whigg, he had already singled ou l this poel among
more prominen l Whigs in the sa tire Tite Progress o" HOllesly (1681),
and would do so again in ScO/ulohm/ Mogllolllm; Or, Pot0l'ski's Cose
(16fb), in which polirical

portends fulure successes, though sorne fat Whiggs of Sir
Bamaby's tríbe made all the interest they could lo cry it clown.
By introducing the caricature in the play, Durfey also
capita lizes on the scanda l provo ked by Shadwe ll's The Lancashin:
Witclles, slaged only a couple of mon ths before.' He cerlainly
makes th e con necrion betw een hoth plays clear: Sir Rarnilht s
family is associated with Lancashi re - his nephew, Sir Walter, is
described in the Drnmmis perso1lal? as "an Opinionated Fool and
Cuckold : A Lancashi re-Knigh t." If Shadwell used his play lo
defend Whig ideals and a ttacked both the Anglican Church (in lhe
character of the cha plain Sm irk), and Ihe Ca tholic (in Teague
o'Divelly, the Irish pri est), Durfey ridicules his rival's s tance 1110 St
effective ly as he makes Sir Barna by recant on stage, 111e scene in
which the actor impersona Ling Shadwell appears d ressed as -81, that ts, from autumn 16& to
sununer 1681; seeOwen 1

References
Behn , A. 1996 (1682): T1Ie Rouudheods. T1Ie Works of !lp/lra Behu. Vo1.6. Ed. j.
Todd . London: Pickering.
Borgman, A.S. 1969: Thomne Slwdwd/ : His Lijc nnd Comedies. New York:
Blom.
Crowne, j. '967 (1683): Cily Po/itiql/es. Ed. j. Harold Wilson. London:
Edward Am old .
Dearing, V.A. and Roper, A. (eds .) ' 992: '111e Works of jollll Drvden, Vol. '4.
Berkelev: Univers itv ofCalifornia Press.
Dictionory oi Noííonol ' Biograp1ly 011 CD·ROM ' 995: Ox ford: Oxford
Uníversity Press.
Downes, J. 1928 (1708): Roscius Aug/icmms. Ed. M . Summe rs. London:
Fortun e Press.
Durfey, T. 1677:A Fond Huslmnd;or, TI/e Plotting S;slus. London.
_ .1691: LolXfor MOlley;or, T1Ie Boarding Se1l001. London.
_ .1682:T1Ie Royali'/ . London .
_. 1682: Scandoíum Mngnatll1lJ; or, Potnpski's Case; A Satyr agniust Polish
Opprcsion, London.
_ . 1681: Sir Bamaby Whigg;or, No Wit Likca Womall 's. London.
Harri s, T. 1987: London Crouxts in íhe Rrígn of Charles íl: Propaganda and
Po/itics frolll the Rcstorntioll unííl 11u: Exclnsíon Crisis. Cambridge:
Ca mbridge Un iversity Press.
_
. ' 993' Polities undcr 11Ie Latcr Stl/arts: Party Conflict in a Diuided Socie/y,
1600- 1715. Harlow: Longman.
Hugh es, D. 1996: EI/gli,1I Drama, 1660-'700. Oxford: Clarendo n.
Langbaine, G. 1691: Al1 ACCOlll11 oflhe El1glish Dranunic Poels. London.
McVeagh , j. 2000: Thomas DlIlfey and Restoratiol/ Drama: T1Ie Work of a
Forgoncn Writer. Aldershot : Ashgate.
Owen, S. J. 1993= "Interpreting the Politics of Restoratíon Drama." TI/c
Scocnteeníh CClltury 8:67-97.
_. 1996: Restorntioll Theaíre nnd Crisis.Oxfo rd: Clarendo n.
Prieto-Pablos, j.A. et al. (eds.) ' 997' Thomos S1Iadwel/: TIIe Virllloso. Sevilla:
Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sev illa.
Roper, A. 1989: "Drawíng Parallels and Making Applications in
Restoration l.iterature." Politics as Rej 1cctcd ;1/ Litcratllrc. Ed. R.
Ashcraft. Los Angeles : \ViIliam Andrews Clark Memorial Líbrary. 29­
65·
Summers, M. (ed.) '927: TIIe Complete Works of Thonms Shnduxll, London:
Fortune Press.
Swedenbe rg, H.T. and V.A. Dearing (eds.) '972: Thc Works of jolm D"!ldcll.
Vol. 2 . Berkeley: University of Califomia Press.
Van Lennep .l. (ed.) 1965: TIIe Loudon Slage: 1660- 1700. Carbonda le:
Southe rn lI1inois University Press.
lVilson, j. H. 1964: Mr. Coodmon, ttse Player. Pittsburgh : University 01'
Pittsburgh Press.
127

Wheatley, e j . 2001: "Who Vices Dare Explode ': Thomas Shadwell,
Thomas Durfev and Didactic Drama ofthe Restoration." Ed. S. Owen.
A Compon ían t~ Rceromuon Drama. Oxford: Blackwell. 340-)4 .
128