The Beaux-Stratagem | Page 2

instant. The
well-contrived plot is original and simple (all Farquhar's plots are
excellent), giving rise to a rapid succession of amusing and sensational
incidents; though by no means extravagant or improbable, save
possibly the mutual separation of Squire Sullen and his wife in the last
scene--the weak point of the whole. Farquhar was a master in
stage-effect. Aimwell's stratagem of passing himself off as the wealthy
nobleman, his brother (a device previously adopted by Vanbrugh in
The Relapse and subsequently by Sheridan in his Trip to Scarborough),

may perhaps be a covert allusion to the romantic story of the dramatist's
own deception by the penniless lady who gave herself out to be
possessed of a large fortune, and who thus induced him to marry her.
The style adopted is highly dramatic, the dialogue being natural and
flowing; trenchant and sprightly, but not too witty for a truthful reflex
of actual conversation. The humour is genial and unforced; there is no
smell of the lamp about it, no premeditated effort at dragging in jests,
as in Congreve. As typical examples of Farquhar's vis comica I Would
cite the description of Squire Sullen's home-coming, and his 'pot of ale'
speech, Aimwell's speech respecting conduct at church, the scene
between Cherry and Archer about the £2000, and the final separation
scene--which affords a curious view of the marriage tie and on which
Leigh Hunt has founded an argument for divorce. This play contains
several examples of Farquhar's curious habit of breaking out into a kind
of broken blank verse occasionally for a few lines in the more serious
passages. Partaking as it does of the elements of both comedy and force,
it is the prototype of Goldsmith's She Stoops to Conquer, which it
resembles in many respects. It will be remembered that Miss Hardcastle
compares herself to Cherry (Act III.), and young Marlow and Hastings
much resemble Archer and Aimwell. Goldsmith was a great admirer of
the works of his fellow-countryman, especially The Beaux-Stratagem,
and refers to them several times (Citizen of the World, letter 93;
History of England, letter 16; Vicar of Wakefield, ch. 18), and in the
Literary Magazine for 1758 he drew up a curious poetical scale in
which he classes the Restoration dramatists thus:-- Congreve--Genius
15, Judgment 16, Learning 14, Versification 14; Vanbrugh--14,
15,14,10; Farquhar--15, 15, 10, io. Unlike Goldsmith, unhappily,
Farquhar's moral tone is not high; sensuality is confounded with love,
ribaldry mistaken for wit The best that can be said of him that he
contrasts favourably with his contemporary dramatists; Virtue is not
always uninteresting in his pages. He is free from their heartlessness,
malignity, and cruelty. The plot of The Beaux-Stratagem is
comparatively inoffensive, and the moral of the whole is healthy.
Although a wit rather than a thinker, Farquhar in this play shows
himself capable of serious feelings. It is remarkable how much
Farquhar repeats himself. Hardly an allusion or idea occurs in this play

that is not to be found elsewhere in his works. In the Notes I have
pointed out many of these coincidences.
The Characters. This play has added several distinct original
personages to our stock of comedy characters, and it affords an
excellent and lifelike picture of a peculiar and perishing phase of the
manners of the time, especially those obtaining in the country house,
and the village inn frequented by highwaymen. The sly, rascally
landlord, Boniface (who has given his name to the class), is said to
have been drawn from life, and his portrait, we are told, was still to be
seen at Lichfield in 1775. The inimitable 'brother Scrub,' that
'indispensable appendage to a country gentleman's kitchen' (Hazlitt),
with his ignorance and shrewd eye to the main chance, is likewise said
to have been a well-known personage who survived till 1759, one
Thomas Bond, servant to Sir Theophilus Biddulph; others say he died
at Salisbury in 1744. Although Farquhar, like Goldsmith, undoubtedly
drew his incidents and personages from his own daily associations,
there is probably no more truth in these surmises than in the assertion
(repeatedly made, though denied in his preface to The Inconstant) that
Farquhar depicts himself in his young heroes, his rollicking 'men about
town,' Roebuck, Mirabel, Wildair, Plume, Archer. Archer (copied by
Hoadley in his character of Ranger in The Suspicious Husband) is a
decided improvement on his predecessors, and is the best of all
Farquhar's creations; he is assuredly the most brilliant footman that
ever was, eminently sociable and, with all his easy, rattling volubility,
never forgetful of his self-respect and never indifferent to the wishes or
welfare of others. As Hunt has pointed out, the characters of Archer
and Aimwell improve as the play progresses; they set out as mere
intriguers, but prove in the end true gentlemen. They are sad rogues, no
doubt,