DRAME A CLEF IN THE AGE OF WALPOLE

WILLIAM EARL DEMAREE, Purdue University

Abstract

Usually defined with reference to their common moral "purpose," satire, lampoon, and burlesque are generally said to be attempts to reform social corruption or artistic mediocrity through exaggeration and ridicule. During Sir Robert Walpole's tenure as Prime Minister (1721-1742), several satiric playwrights wrote a number of drames a clef--thinly disguised dramatizations of Augustan politician leaders and events--many of which merely exploited contemporary scandals or attempted to discredit specific politicians (Walpole) or specific political maneuvers (Walpole's Excise Bill of 1733). Rather than merely exploit or attack, some playwrights tried to elucidate contemporary politics; consequently, they ordered their material so that, beyond the ridicule of political figures, a point about politics is made. These playwrights frequently relied on dramatic conventions and structures to make their points. John Gay, for instance, structures The Beggar's Opera (1728) according to the conventions of Italian opera, allowing him to lampoon Augustan politics in two ways: he ridicules the Hanoverian Court by burlesquing its favorite art form, the Italian opera; and by equating Walpole with the "hero," Macheath, he implies that Walpole's retention of ministerial power is as absurd as the Italian opera's typically contrived "happy ending," burlesqued in Macheath's "reprieve." Following The Beggar's Opera, many dramatists attacked Walpole in drames a clef similar in form to Gay's ballad opera. They were not as subtle as Gay: they wrote general satires which did not focus on specific contemporary figures or else they lashed out at Walpole in bitter lampoons. Early in his career, though, Henry Fielding wrote nonpartisan political lampoon; his Grub-Street Opera (1731), although boldly ridiculing the Royal Family, spoofs both Walpole and his opponents. Since the play makes the characters representing Augustan politicoes appear ineffectual and foolish, Fielding's early political lampoon makes politicians seem laughable rather than dangerous. The Wedding (1734), a blatant imitation of The Grub-Street Opera, viciously implies that George II is a tyrant who uses his minister Walpole to subjugate the English people. Although both plays are outspoken in their ridicule of the Royal Family, they imply their own defense against accusations of treason: by reducing the Court to a squabbling rustic family and their servants, both plays suggest that they are ridiculing not royalty but human beings, with human eccentricities and conflicts, who happen to be a country's leaders. Throughout most of The Wedding, Queen Caroline is ridiculed for her shrewishness and niggardliness; late in the play, however, she is exonerated, for the playwright indicates that Caroline has had to become domineering to compensate for the King's disregard of his kingly responsibilities. Toward the end of his career as a dramatist, Fielding also created a lampoon which explains and exonerates as well as ridicules Walpole. Eurydice Hissed (1737), a mock-tragedy which conflates the failure of Walpole's Excise Bill and the failure of Fielding's own play, Eurydice (1737), analyzes Walpole's leadership, suggesting that he has failed because of his dependence on the patronage system. Fielding's explanation is metaphorical, for in the play, political (and theatrical) failure is equated with tragic conventions. Although they have satiric elements, many of these drames a clef do not attempt to reform morals or oust an unpopular leader; instead they analyze and explain, metaphorically clarifying contemporary politics in terms of theatrical conventions. In these plays, satire, lampoon, and burlesque are not agents of reform but of understanding.

Degree

Ph.D.

Subject Area

British and Irish literature

COinS