Symbolic elements in R. B.

Sheridans The School for Scandal

It might be valid to say that the first thing that most probably comes to the readers mind when starting to study Sheridans The School for Scandal is the conspicuous use of symbolic names names that signal certain properties of the characters, such as Sneerwell, Surface, Snake and practically all the others. This observation can prompt the reader to watch out for other symbolic meanings while advancing in the drama, and this attitude can turn out to be useful in creating an interpretation and in trying to find a main theme that organises the whole play. A symbol is generally understood to be something that stands for, with the tool of association, something else. This association is based on convention, just like language itself. Symbols usually have a great role in the effect of literary works on the readers or the audiences mind, and are essencial in constructing the different levels of meaning of a text; this is what they differ in from non-literary texts. Apart from this, symbols create a kind of duality, paralellism in meaning, and the readers task is to discover these and decide what they mean to him- or herself. This feature of multiplicity is strongly present in the play of Sheridan. While it is fairly easy to understand the plot and realise the comedys criticism on restoration society, it requires a bit more thinking and analysing to get to the deeper layers of the drama. As it was already mentioned above, names are crucial in analysing The School for Scandal, they suggest a particular attitude with which we are supposed to view the characters. They can be straightforward attributes or ironical ones, such as the names of the two scandal queens: the previously reigning Mrs Candour and the present one, Lady Sneerwell. Both of them share the property of being malicious and inventing gossips in order to entertain themselves, and they do not feel pity for those who are ruined by their false stories. However, Mrs Candours name means the opposite, it suggests benevolence, and what is even more 1

comical or outrageous, this is her attribute that people mention when they characterise her, while everybody knows her not to be so, as it turns out from the remark of Joseph Surface: Whenever I hear the current running against the characters of my friends, I never think them in such danger as when Candour undertakes their defence. As we are informed at the beginning of the play, Lady Sneerwells reason to create gossips is not for the sake of mere entertainment, but also for taking revenge for a past injury of hers. Although this event has no further description in the text, we might suspect that in the world of those times it was not a unique story, as Louis Kronenberger writes in his essay The Polished Surface: There had just emerged a new kind of slanderous journalism, what we still describe as the scandal sheet; and the Town and Country magazine and the Morning Post newspaper were making of tattle and innuendo at once an art and a thriving industry, so that every one in society was in panic over his own reputation while gorging on the curdled reputation of others. However, the most important characters to be examined through their names are the Surfaces. All three of them has something by which they deserve to be called Surface, though we can find a different reason in each case. What is common in their trio is that they (voluntarily or involuntarily) appear to be other than they really are: Joseph the most amiable character, Charles with bankrupt reputation and Sir Oliver in two disguises, as Mr Pemium and Mr Stanley. Joseph Surface makes a great effort to be considered a decent gentleman, which is exactly the opposite of his real character. He constantly plays a role to conceal his vices, as it is pointed out by Lady Sneerwell in the first scene: O lud, you are going to be moral and forget that you are among friends. JOSEPH: Egad, thats true, Ill keep that sentiment till I see Sir Peter. He seems to think that appearance and spoken words are the only things that matter, and not deeds and what is under the surface, while he knows that this is wrong. His attachment to Maria also reinforces this attitude of his: it is probable that he only cares about 2

her wealth and not herself, besides he is courting other women, for example Lady Teazle, Lady Sneerwell and probably some more, as it can be suspected from remarks of other characters of the play. On the contrary, Charles is regarded to be worse than he really is, although he also has his defects in personality. It is true that he is a squanderer and he does not pay back his loans, but at least he is not trying to hide his faults, he appears in front of society as he really is. For example he, as everybode else, is supposed to love and respect his ancestors, but he openly refuses to do so, even if this might lead to be frowned at. His relationship with Maria is different from that of his brother, although it is not thoroughly elaborated in the play. He probably loves her, and they seem to have a relationship based on real emotions they understand each other without words, as it is seen at the end of the comedy: SIR PETER: What, you rouge, dont you ask the girls consent first? CHARLES: Oh, I have done that a long time above a minute ago and she looked yes. In summary, the most conspicuous difference between the two brothers is that while Joseph lives to create an image of himself that is accepted by other people, Charles lives the way he likes without caring about others opinion. However, their uncle, Sir Oliver is connected to the name Surface from a different aspect, as he has nothing to do with hypocricy, neither is there any reference in the text that he would be considered something else than he is. He creates a false identity, what is more, two disguises in order to get to know the truth about his nephews. This theme seems to be a little bit contradictory: is it appropriate to use a lie as a tool for discovering the truth? Whatever is the answer, Sir Oliver is among the few people who suspect that the reputations of the two Surface brothers do not reflect reality, as Eric Rump mentions in his Introduction written to the Penguin Classics edition of Sheridans plays:

 he [Sir Oliver] expresses a distrust of Sir Peters praise for Josephs gravity, propriety and sentiments on the grounds that they run counter to youths natural ebullience: too much youthful prudence, as he sees it, can be like ivy round a sapling which spoiles the growth of the tree (II, iii) Although Sir Oliver is right when he puts on trial his nephews, and even he is right when deciding that Charles is the one who deserves more to inherit his wealth, it is a bit ridiculous that he comes to this conclusion only because the younger brother is not willing to sell his portrait. Though it is a nice gesture towards Sir Oliver, it probably did not come from clear affection, since Charles never met his uncle before; besides, he makes this judgement in spite of seeing that his younger nephew cannot handle money too wisely. The fact that Sir Oliver contradicts himself within a very short period of time (Oh, Ill never forgive him this never! [III, iii] and I forgive him for everything! [IV, i]), makes his whole character even more ridiculous, and then it is hightened even further in Act IV, scene ii, when he repeats three times but he wouldnt sell my picture as a counter argument for Moses who is counting Charless faults of personality. Not only names have symbolic significance in The School for Scandal. There are some very important scenes that we need to take a look at, namely the auction scene, that is Charless trial, and the screen scene which is followed by the other trial scene, that of Joseph. All of them are crucial parts of the drama, and they are the most climactic and thus most memorable ones. The situations for the trials of the Surface brothers hearts are set by Sir Oliver, appearing in his disguise, taking advantage of the fact that his nephews cannot recognise him, because neither of them has ever seen him. While Charles (unconsciously) succedes in convincing his wealthy uncle that he is worthy to be his heir, Joseph fails the test, and he is unmasked before society, although we can suspect that he will put on a mask again.

The so called auction scene (IV, i) as it is written in Mita Choudhurys essay (Sheridan, Garrick, and a Colonial Gesture: The School for Scandal on the Calcutta Stage) becomes the symbol of benign materialism. Here, we can see Charless attitude towards money: he does not want it for the sake of having it, as lot of people do, but for what he can buy with it, not only for himself - in the preceeding scene we saw how generous he was with his friends, and after it, we will see that he bears in mind the needs of his poor relative too. Not only can we learn about Charless financial issues in the auction scene, but we can also get to know his opinion about his ancestors. At first it may seem outrageous and cruel how he talks about them and how he treats their portraits as if they were worth as much as mere wallpaper, but then we have to consider his reasons to think so. All this could be the expression of his opposition to this kind of social moralism, that is, superficiality, which was illustrated in the whole play. We could not expect Charles not to express what he feels towards the representatives of that society, it would have been unlike himself if he tried to seem to have the socially accepted feelings towards family members. The other prominent climactic scene of The School for Scandal is the third one in Act IV, which is set in Josephs library room. Here, the screen can be seen as the symbol of hiding dirty secrets, and a tool with which people are enabled to overhear conversations, and these two actions are also the bases of scandal itself. As the scene advances, the tension is getting higher and higher, either when reading the play or seeing it on stage. On the one hand, it is a source of strong and striking humour, but on the other hand it is the hardest critcism on the society of the age. It depends on the personality of the reader or viewer whether he or she perceives one or the other more, but it is probable that we have both in mind when we take it in.

The fact that Joseph has to hide two persons in a way that one cannot be informed about the presence of the other, is funny, ridiculous and sad at the same time, in one word, it is absurd. It brilliantly illustrates that the society of those times was full of secrets and peoples social life was in a large part spent with concealing these dirty little mischiefs. It is important to note that it is Charles who throws down the screen, the character in the play who stands for honesty and against secrecy. An other interpretation of the screen is that it can be viewed as a seperating line between people. Lady Teazle, by obstinately following fashion and thus consenting to becoming the lover of Joseph Surface, seperates herself from his husband; Sir Peter is the one she is hiding from behind the screen. Their relationship consists of quarrelling, over the same subject again and again. In the end Sir Peter decides to give her what she wants, that is the money by which she can maintain her fashionable life. It seems that Sir Peter does this because of his affection towards his wife, and we can feel sorry for him when he is being cheated at the moment he tells his decision to Joseph. On the other hand, he could have had another reason too to make up with his wife, that is he must have been tired of the never-ending fighting. However, when the screen falls down, the characters stand in front of each other naked and have to decide how to react: Joseph chooses his usual way, he quickly and wittily makes up a lie, but Lady Teazle confesses the truth. If we interpreted the screen as a division between the couple, it could be predicted that she would not try to give a false explanation, what is more, in later parts of the drama it appeares that the Teazles relationship entered a new phase; this is the first time when they agree and stand together against Joseph when his unmasked self has to face the other characters of the drama.

As it was mentioned before, symbols have an important role in creating the meaning and giving possible interpretations of a literary work, and they even work in those readers minds who are unconscious of them this is the power of art, and this is what distinguishes a good piece of literature.

Sources: Sheridan, Richard Brinsley (1988) The School for Scandal and Other Plays, London, Penguin Group JSTOR articles: The Polished Surface: Essays in the Literature of Worldliness (New York, 1969) Mita Choudhury: Sheridan, Garrick, and a Colonial Gesture: The School for Scandal on the Calcutta Stage (1994)