1) What is the
“school for scandal,” anyway? Who’s in school? Who’s teaching whom? Discuss an
instance in which reputation & blackmail seem to be occurring alongside
schooling or learning (even if it’s just in the sense of the experiential
school of living / finding out the ways of the world).
or
2) What do you
think of Charles Surface in the middle action. He is obviously meant to be
opposed to Joseph. How do you think he fares in the middle action of the play?
or
3) We
definitely should not ignore the presence in this play of Moses, the “honest
Israelite.” What do you think of this character? Is this an anti-Semitic
depiction? What about “Mr. Premium?” What exactly is going on with these
depictions? (See 3.1, e.g.)
or
4) Discuss another part of today’s reading that
seems to be in need of exploration, elucidation, or comment.
I was waiting for “Merchant of Venice” to crop up, and it finally did in III.iii. Part of the parallelization was in the use of the Jewish character type, but Maria gave off a bit of a Portia vibe at one point, and I’m looking forward to see if that will pan out. She’s subject to the rule of a dead father, and while it’s not a marriage-game she does have to theoretically obey Sir Peter’s word on the matter as per her father’s will. She’s also very independent when it comes to her love life, and the object of her affections is completely bankrupt and is a bit… inconsistent, shall we say (as his drinking song suggests).
ReplyDeleteBut Moses is the pivot upon which the associations turn, really. And as this is a Restoration comedy, and we know that people were fond of retelling or referencing classics and Shakespeare, it makes sense that it should be here. There’s the flesh-and-blood dialogue with Charles, of course, and the blatant reference to Shylock, but I found Moses’ reaction to Sir Oliver asking about how one acts like a usurer to be a reply to the “hath not a Jew eyes” speech. The first presumption is that the money-lender he’d be impersonating is Christian, and he is immediately told that that idea is incorrect--that already puts Christians and Jews on more “equal footing.” The same goes for the manner of dress being the same, and the language is not as different as that of a noble. The lines between money-lender, Jew, Christian, and Englishman (or Italian, if we’re in Venice) get more blurred by the minute.
True: Moses is talked down to most/all the time, and he’s given a mild accent (“atal” and “dat” struck me as odd, possibly it comes from the immigration effect?), and he is constantly referred to as “honest.” The honesty can go in two directions: it’s a way of saying “look, this Jew is a-okay and not like Shylock who went nuts”; or it can be ironic, as Moses does lie outright to Charles about Sir Oliver’s identity when questioned about the uncle’s scheme and he is still strongly associated with usury. And the Moses’ and Jews in general’s sense of “equality” in dress and mannerisms might also be parodized here, in it it would be a negative thing in the face of reopening England’s borders.
I was kind of surprised at how flawed Charles' character turned out to really be. With this whole setup of Joseph and Charles opposite each other, each not being what he was presented as, I kept expecting Charles to be revealed as some kind of saint. After all, Joseph is supposed to be all things good, and he turns out to be a ruthless character assassin. According to this pattern, Charles' excellence of character should be directly proportionate to his nasty reputation. In fairness to him, he's a pretty nice guy - but he's still a drunk and more than a bit of a loser. A nice loser, but still. I guess this divergence from the Jean Valjean-esque bad-guy-is-saint is a sign of Sheridan's originality and should feel refreshing, but I couldn't help feeling that Charles had somehow let me down but not becoming Superman or something.
ReplyDeleteI also don't get what he (and every other male character) sees in Maria, unless they really are all after her money. She doesn't do much, besides for get chased by a bunch of older guys with funny names. It's that chased/chaste thing again. Maybe Charles is planning to be likable enough for the two of them, because I didn't really see what was so irresistible about her. She didn't even have much of Sheridan's wit, which he was criticized for indiscriminately pumping into his characters. Then again, maybe Charles is really just after Maria's money (as the jealous Sneerwell suggests) - but that would make him a lot less admirable. And more of a loser.
On a side note, I really enjoyed the moments where the "bad guys" make their badness into a respectable, if not admirable, trait. Like when Joseph makes some comment (referring to Sneerwell, I think) about how annoying it is to be double-crossed by your confederate in evil, or something similar. Snake also has a great moment, when he begs the good guys not to "malign him with praise" after he does the right thing by outing Sneerwell. I'm still not sure how this was the right thing, since the good guys bought his testimony outright, but there's probably a course on that in the School for Scandal.
I think Charles is such an interesting character. When Oliver went to test Charles's honesty, I fully expected to find him as an honest, upstanding fellow, and instead we are greeted with a drunk who is more than happy to sell of pictures of his relatives. One aspect I find really interesting, is that until now, many of the characters are very outright conniving and backward. Joseph is corrupt in so many different senses, whether it be his pursuit of Maria, and also his kind-of relationship with Sneerwell, to his kind-of relationship with Teazle. Then Teazle, and Sneerwell are both horrible gossips, so it is clear where they fall. Charles, on the other hand, has some good aspects and some bad aspects to his personality. He is a drinker, but wouldn't sell Oliver's portrait. He feels grateful, he did not want to do a dishonest business transaction. He seems to be the only character that doesn't fit into a particular mold. He's neither angelic, or satanic, and that makes him the most realistic character of all. In regard to his relationship to Joseph, I find it striking that Charles thinks of Joseph as the "honest brother". I found a great example of this when Charles says "I should be obliged to borrow a little of your morality" when he is stating how he would have to resist a young woman throwing herself at him. The deeper meaning is so hilariously ironic, and I'm trying to figure out if the double meaning reflects onto Charles or to Joseph. Meaning: Charles would in fact act immorally with a woman, OR, its just plain old dramatic irony, in which Charles thinks Joseph is the honest one.
ReplyDeleteMoses is very much a stereotypical character. He's an expert on all things money, and is depicted as that type of character in the play. I don't think he's necessarily portrayed in an obvious anti-semitic way, he just clearly follows the obvious stereotype. By giving advice to "Mr. Premium" and teaching him exactly how to be a money-lender, Sheridan highlights his very Jewish character. Still, Moses as described as a "friendly Jew". Moses also serves as the character who helps Oliver carry out his plan, and because he isn't doing anything that is inherently or morally wrong- i.e. he is giving over his skills as a money-lender to another- he isn't necessarily portrayed as anti-semitically.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, I found it interesting that Moses is repeatedly described as honest, which would seem contradictory to the stereotypical money-lending Jew. I thought the term is simply trying to negate the anti-semitic aspect to money-lenders and their clear associations with Jews, almost to try and prove that Moses himself is nothing like the rest of the money-lending Jews. When interpreted this way, the reader can indeed feel the anti-semitic aspect of bringing in Moses into the play, since it's just trying to show how Moses is different than all other money-lending Jews.