Note on Eighteenth Century English Drama

The dramatic literature of the eighteenth century was low. In fact, there was a gradual deterioration in the
situation, and during the last quarter of a century the drama was approaching its lowest level. One of the
reasons for the decline of drama in the eighteenth century was the Licensing Act of 1737, which restricted
the freedom of speech of playwrights. As a result, a number of writers, such as Fielding, who could have
achieved success as playwrights, left the theater and turned to the novel.
In the field of tragedy two opposing traditions—Romantic and Classical—exercised their influence on the
dramatists. The Romantic tradition was the Elizabethan way of writing tragedy. Those who followed this
tradition made use of intricate plots and admitted horror and violence on the open stage. The Classical
tradition which was mainly the French tradition of writing tragedy was characterised by the unfolding of a
single action without any sub-plot, and long declamatory speeches delivered by the actors. The traditional
English pattern of drama was exemplified by Otway’s Venice Preserved, while the Classical tradition was
strictly upheld in Addison’s Cato (1713), which is written in an unemotional but correct style, and has a
pronounced moralising tone. Other tragedies which were written according to the Classical pattern were
James Thomson’s Sophonisba (1729) and Dr. Johnson’s Irene (1749). But none of these tragedies,
whether following the Romantic or the Classical tradition came up to a respectable dramatic standard,
because the creative impulse seems to have spent itself. Though a very large number of tragedies were
written during the eighteenth century, they had literary, but no dramatic value. Mostly there were revivals
of old plays, which were adapted by writers who were not dramatists in the real sense of the term.
In the field of comedy, the same process of disintegration was noticeable. Comedy was deteriorating into
farce. Moreover, sentimentality which was opposed to the authority of reason, came to occupy an
important place in comedy. This ‘sentimental’ comedy which gained in popularity was criticised by
Goldsmith thus:
“A new species of dramatic composition has been introduced under the name of sentimental comedy, in
which the virtues of private life are exhibited, rather than the vices exposed; and the distresses rather than
the faults of mankind make our interest in the pieces. These comedies have had of late great success,
perhaps from their novelty, and also from their flattering every man in his favourite foible. In these plays
almost all the characters are good and exceedingly generous; they are lavish enough of their tin money on
the stage; and though they want humour, have abundance of sentiment and feeling. If they happen to have
faults or foibles, the spectator is taught, not only to pardon, but to applaud them, in consideration of the
goodness of their hearts; so that folly, instead of being ridiculed, is commended, and the comedy aims at
touching our passions without the power of being truly pathetic.
Steele was the first exponent of the sentimental comedy in the eighteenth century. In his plays, such as
The Funeral, The Lying Lover, The Tender Husband, The Conscious Lovers, Steele extolled the domestic
virtues. His object was didactic, and he tried to prove that morality and sharpness of intelligence can go
together. In his plays in which tears of pity and emotion flowed profusely, Steele held that Simplicity of
mind, Good nature, Friendship and Honour were the guiding principles of conduct.
Other dramatists who wrote sentimental comedies were Colley Cibber, Hugh Kelley and Richard
Cumberland. In their hands comedy was so much drenched in emotions and sentiments that the genuine
human issues were completely submerged in them. Thus there was a need to rescue the drama from such
depths to which it had fallen.
The two great dramatists of the eighteenth century, who led the revolt against sentimental comedy were
Oliver Goldsmith (1730-74) and Richard Sheridan (1751-1861). Though in his novel, The Vicar of
Wakefield, and in his poem, The Deserted Village, Goldsmith showed clear marks of a sentimental
attitude to life, in his Good-Natured Man he covers it with ridicule by portraying the character of
Honeywood as unadulterated ‘good-nature’. Though the play is a feeble one, his intentions of mocking
the excess of false charity are obvious. His next play, She Stoops to Conquer (1773), which is his
masterpiece, was an immediate success. It has always remained one of the half-dozen most popular
comedies in the English language. In spite of the obvious improbabilities of the plot, the play moves
naturally in a homely atmosphere, full of genuine humour which provokes unrestrained laughter. Here
there is no artificiality of sentimental comedy. The main characters—Hardcastle and Tony Lumpkin are
very clearly delineated. They are at once types and individuals. They are the images of their age, and yet
recognizable as human figures. She Stoops to Conquer went a long way in restoring comedy to its own
province of mirth and laughter and rescuing it from too much sentimentality.
Richard Brinsely Sheridan is best known for his two comedies—The Rivals (1775) and The School for
Scandal (1777). Sheridan brought back the brilliance of the witty and elegant Restoration comedy, purged
of its impurities and narrowness. He created, instead, a more genial and romantic atmosphere associated
with the comedies of Shakespeare. His characters are as clearly drawn as those of Ben Jonson, but they
move in a gayer atmosphere. The only defect that we find in these comedies of Sheridan is that there is all
gaiety, but no depth, no new interpretation of human nature.
The intrigue in The Rivals, though not original, is skilfully conducted. The audience heartily laugh at
humours of Mrs. Malaprop, Sir Anthony, and Bab Acres. In The School for Scandal Sheridan showed
himself as a mature dramatist. Here the dialogue has the exquisite Congreve-like precision, and wit reigns
supreme. Even the stupid characters, the servants, are witty. Though the main characters, the quarrelsome
couple and the plotting brothers; the ‘scandal-club’ of Lady Sneerwell; and the intrigue leading inevitably
to the thrilling resolution in the famous screen scene, are all familiar, and can be found in many other
plays, yet they are invested with novelty. In both these plays Sheridan reversed the trend of
sentimentalism by introducing realism tinged with the geniality of romance. He had no message to
convey, except that the most admirable way of living is to be generous and open-hearted.