Printed - Redalyc

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)