Newspaper Reviews: The School for Scandal

1. London Chronicle, May 8, 1777

An Account of the School for Scandal, performed for the first time at Drury-lane Theatre last night.

The School for Scandal is the production of Mr. Sheridan, and is an additional proof of that gentleman’s great abilities as a dramatic writer. The object of the satire is two-fold—detraction and hypocrisy, which are the prevailing vices of the times; by the first the good are reduced to a level with the worthless, and by means of the second the latter assume the appearance of men of virtue and sentiment. Nothing, therefore, could have been more seasonable than this comedy, which, in point of execution, is equal, if not superior, to most of the plays produced these last twenty years. The characters are drawn with a bold pencil, and coloured with warmth and spirit …

The dialogue of this comedy is easy and witty. It abounds with strokes of pointed satire, and a rich vein of humour pervades the whole, rendering it equally interesting and entertaining. The fable is well conducted, and the incidents are managed with great judgment. There hardly ever was a better dramatic situation than that which occurs in the fourth act, where Sir Peter discovers Lady Teazle in Joseph Surface’s study. …The two characters of the brothers are finely contrasted, and those of the Scandal Club well imagined. Upon the whole, The School for Scandal justifies the very great and cordial reception it met with; it certainly is a good comedy, and we should not at all wonder if it became as great a favourite as the Duenna, to which it is infinitely superior in point of sense, satire, and moral.

The Prologue, which was well spoken by Mr. King, is the production of David Garrick, Esq. With great pleasantry it adverted to the title of the play, and shot an arrow of pointed satire at the too general proneness to detraction observable in our daily and evening papers.

In the Epilogue (which was of Mr. Colman’s writing) Mrs. Abington humourously lamented her having, as the reformed Lady Teazle, consented to quit the town, and its fashionable pleasures, for retirement and a country life.

The School for Scandal was well acted in most of its parts. Mr. Smith with great spirit kept up the volatility of Charles Surface, while Mr. Palmer very characteristically displayed the hypocrisy of Joseph. Mr. King’s Sir Peter was admirable. Mr. Yates was well in Sir Oliver, and when he is a little easier in the part, will be still better. Miss Pope, Miss Sherry, Miss P. Hopkins, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Parsons, Mr. J. Aickin, Mr. Baddeley, and Mr. La Mash, did great justice to their respective characters, while Mrs. Abington, in Lady Teazle, gave a fresh proof of her easy, elegant manner, and her unrivalled vivacity.

The play was ornamented with several new scenes, which did honour to the painters. The dresses were new and elegant. That of Mr. Yates, while personating the distressed Mr. Stanley rather too rich—As Lord Mansfield said of the Jew bail, “he would have burnt for the money” he solicited.

2. Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, May 9, 1777

For the Gazetteer. Theatrical Intelligence. Drury-lane.

No modern theatrical piece ever met with a fuller success, nor deserved it more, than the new comedy called The School for Scandal, which was performed last night at this theatre for the first time. It is a production of Mr. Sheridan, junior, who seems to have inherited the exalted genius of both Congreve and Vanbrugh, and bids fair to revive the fallen glory of the British drama. The School for Scandal may properly be said a standard of dramatic perfection. The plot is new and ingenious, the incidents numerous, entertaining, and extremely well managed. The most principal characters in the piece afford a striking novelty, and shoot folly as it flies. The dialogue is sprightly, yet natural, and set off with continual strokes of the mostrefined wit.—Time will not permit us to give a full account of this excellent comedy till to-morrow.—The performers deserve every sort of commendation, for their spirited exertion in supporting the respective characters, especially Mr. Smith, Mr. King, and the incomparable Mrs. Abington. Mr. Baddeley play’d the part of Moses as a real Jew.

3. Public Advertiser, May 9, 1777

… The Persons of the drama have all of them something particular marked in their characters, and the humour of each belongs to that character, and is admirably well sustained throughout. The satire is forcible, and in many places as severe as comedy can admit of. The situations are so powerfully conceived, that little is left for the performers to do, in order to produce what is called stage effect; and the circumstances of the screen and closet in the fourth effect, produced a burst of applause beyond any thing ever heard perhaps in a theatre. With such support it is needless to add that the whole was received with an extravagant warmth of approbation, which seemed to shew that a generous British audience will still overpay the strongest efforts of genius.

4. General Evening Post, May 8–10, 1777

Account of the New Comedy called The School for Scandal, performed on Thursday evening, for the first time, at Drury-Lane Theatre.

[What follows is a replication of the article from the London Chronicle, May 8, with the following amendments:]

… The dialogue of this comedy is easy, engaging, and witty …
… There hardly ever was a better dramatic situation than that which occurs in the fourth act, where Sir Peter discovers Lady Teazle in Joseph Surface’s study. It is almost the first time we ever saw a screen introduced and a closet used, without exclaiming against the incidents as poor devices. Mr. Sheridan, however, has so adroitly placed each, and made both so naturally of advantage to the conduct of the fable, that they appear by no means the instruments of art, or that kind of stage trick which the French term la fourberie du Theatre. The two characters of the brothers are finely contrasted …

… With great pleasantry it adverted to the title of the play, and shot an arrow of pointed satire at the too general proneness to news-paper detraction …

… Mr. Smith, with great spirit, kept up the volatility of Charles Surface …

… That of Mr. Yates, while personating the distressed Mr. Stanley, rather too rich—As Lord Mansfield said of the Jew bail, “he would have burnt for the money” he solicited.

5. London Evening Post, May 8–10, 1777

… this excellent Comedy, [of] which, to be a proper judge of its admirable effect, must be seen. The several … characters, though they cannot be brought upon paper in that order they were brought to the stage, were highly marked and coloured, and had the most refined and unforced wit to support them, aided by the depth of judgment and observation. If the piece had any fault, it is the same which was attributed to Congreve, that his wit flashed too often, and sometimes from characters that it could not be expected from; but when we consider the little quantity of this commodity in the world, and the great difficulty of repressing it in those few who are in possession of it, it would, perhaps, be hypercriticism to find fault with it.

We, therefore, congratulate the lovers of the Theatre on such an acquisition to its declining state as Mr. Sheridan, who, at the same time that he indulges his Muse in all the flights of wit and fancy, restrains it within the pale of decency and morals. Under this poetical St. George, we may expect to see the dragon of mere sentimental drama entirely subdued, and the standard of real comedy once more unfurled, to the literary honour of the nation, and the refinement of public morals.

The Prologue was well spoken by Mr. King, and turned on satyrizing the general itch for scandal, by shewing, that it was reprobated in words—mostly by those who encouraged it by practice. The Epilogue was delivered, or rather acted by Mrs. Abington, in the character of Lady Teazle, regretting the pleasures of a London life in a humorous parody, or that favourite speech in Othello—“Farewell the plumed troops,” &c. which from the writing, and her inimitable performance of it, had every effect of applause.

In short, never was a comedy better received, on the whole, by a crowded and brilliant audience, who gave the loudest testimonies of it, between every act, as well as at the close of the play.

6. Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, May 10, 1777

For the Gazetteer.

It has been remarked by the best judges of the dramatic art, that no character can produce a striking effect on the stage, if it is not properly contrasted. The chief merit of the Mysanthrope, which is the master-piece of Moliere, lies in the opposition of the coquette, whom the surly philosopher has the misfortune to love. Mr. Sheridan, judiciously attending to this rule, has grounded his fable on two characters, which display the most glaring contradiction to each other,—Joseph Surface and Charles Surface.

It is very easy to observe that the story of this piece is admirably suited to the present æra. Scandal indeed is quite coeval with the world, and has proved the bane of society in all ages, but never stared mankind in the face as in our times. Ancient scandal-mongers contented themselves with whispering their malice; but now, detraction is trumpetted out with the most daring assurance; and virtue, innocence, and female weakness, and the usual victims sacrificed to that horrid monster. The business of plays is, to shoot folly as it flies, to mend the heart, and improve the mind. This seems to have been forgot by modern authors, to the great prejudice of the stage. The genius, however, of Mr. Sheridan, has made us ample amends in The School for Scandal; and has happily restored the English drama to those rays of glory, of which it was long shorn by a tedious set of contemptible scribblers. The compass of a news-paper intelligence will not allow us to point out all the beauties, nor to expatiate on the peculiar merit, of this most ingenious comedy; we shall therefore only observe, that the perplexities of the plot are also not only contrived in the most striking, but regular manner;—a superior excellence scarcely known to the ancients, and attained by Moliere along among the moderns. The piece abounds with manly sentiments, intirely divested of affectation, and which are conveyed to the heart through the purest channels of wit. In this particular Congreve eclipsed the fame of all his predecessors, no nation excepted; for the wit of Aristophanes most generally lies in puns, Greek jingles, and local allusions, we know very little of. Plautus’ sales are too low;—nor were les bons mots the great forte of Moliere. They who have a sufficient knowledge of literature, will not offer to contest that Congreve sits unrivalled on the throne of dramatic wit:—and if any author has a right to dispute Congreve’s royal supremacy, it is the writer of The School for Scandal.

7. Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser, May 10, 1777

It is universally agreed, that Mr. Yates was over-dressed for the character of Sir Oliver Surface, in the new comedy of the School for Scandal, on Thursday evening. A plainer suit would not only have become the knight, but have served much better for the assumed characters of Premium and Mr. Stanley—his dress of yesterday evening was infinitely more proper.

The sudden change of the play at Covent Garden Theatre yesterday evening, and the substitution of a hackneyed comedy in the room of an opera, which, from its not having been performed for some time, had some alluring properties, was exceedingly detrimental to the interest of the parties whose tickets were admitted: Though there were no less than eleven of these poor devils in a string, they had not strength enough to draw in a sufficient number of people to make even a tolerable house. For the sake of the appearance and benevolence and feeling, could not the managers have assigned them some play more likely to prevent the tickets being returned to them than She Stoops to Conquer?

8. Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, May 12, 1777

A lady of the town observing how greatly the comedy of the School for Scandal was applauded on Saturday night, remarked, that it was ill-judged of the poet to endeavour to stop the tongue of that fashionable vice: for in proportion, as poisonous breath was confined, it would become more deadly.

A correspondent remarks, that if the School for Scandal has not as great a run as the Duenna, it will be from our economy in pleasure, that will not afford us to be improved and delighted at the same time.

9. St. James’s Chronicle or the British Evening Post, May 13–15, 1777

To evince our claim to impartiality, we have immediately given place to the following critique, though in direct opposition to the account which appeared in our paper of Saturday last. The writer will however, we hope, excuse the omissions of some passions which bore the appearance rather of personal enmity than fair criticism.

On the School for Scandal.

To the printer of the St. J. Chronicle.

Sir,

I, and I suppose many of your readers, have been greatly disappointed by your account of the School for Scandal. The managers have long been in possession of the morning papers, and the theatrical essays and accounts in them are considered as the apologies and panegyriks of professed advocates. Your critic seemed like counsel on the other side, and, being single, he had the more weight and consequence. He had sometimes a little too much severity and personal satire, but his client was the publick, and he was able and faithful in its cause. He laid his finger judiciously, but heavily on the faults and blunders of the managers, and seemed much inclined to single our MR. Sheridan as an object of satire. It may be supposed therefore, when your readers had perused the morning papers on Mr. Sheridan’s last comedy, and had been sickened by his apologists, that they waited with an eager expectation for you paper on Saturday night. I own that this was the case with me. I was in a state of mind similar to that I have been in often at Westminster-Hall. After having heard the numerous dependents of government till I was thoroughly fatigued, I comforted my self that I should hear Dunning on the other side, though alone and in a lost cause. Your theatrical Dunning, I hope, is dead, for though I should be sorry for the loss of his talents, yet I should much prefer to know they were totally lost, than that he could be so miraculously and suddenly converted, as to be the author of the article in your paper on Saturday last. I will therefore believe he is dead; and God deal with him with a little less justice and severity than he dealt with other people. As you have prudently chosen a successor of a different turn, permit me to offer a few things to the publick on the School for Scandal, in the manner of your late critic; for I am truly his disciple.

On this occasion I imagine he would have exerted his abilities; and, as he had a happy knack of tracing great events to little causes, he would have told you two or three anecdotes in Sheridan’s life; which being tracked together made up the fable, if it can be called the fable, of the School for Scandal.

I own it struck me on the representation, as a copy done by a student in the School of Congreve. To such dilettanti as frequent the theatre, the copy may be as well as the original, as there is not one in a thousand of them, who could distinguish a Raphael from any of his copyists: yet to those few on whom a man’s fame ultimately depends, Mr. Sheridan wants the genuine and distinct marks of an original genius. Congreve has probably been his Bible from his early youth. He has studied him with great care since he undertook the management; and altered his plays in order to form a school of morality for our young ladies and gentlemen. And while he was supposed to be dissipating, or sleeping, he was closetted over his Congreve. This is the common trick of modern geniuses, that the world may suppose they do every thing without pains. I think the School for Scandal bears the strongest marks of this kind of industry. It has not the original beauties and faults of Congreve; but it has imitations of them. It is destitute of fable, or has a very uninteresting one. It consists of several groups or characters freely drawn; but all marked with similar features, and all more or less witty. It abounds with what are called situations, surprises, and tricks; none of which are half so well performed as those of Jonas and [Brefew]; but though brought about by improbabilities, [yet they] elevate and surprise the audience. This is the general character of the School for Scandal, if so entire an imitation can be strictly said to have a character of its own. Its fable is trifling, and creates no interest. All its characters, without exception, are witty; and they seem to be assembled to crack jokes to make the folks laugh. The principal surprise in it, that occasioned by the fall of the skreen, and the discovery of Lady Teazle, is brought about by a gross and palpable improbability, that a cunning rogue should leave the room to a husband whose wife he had an intrigue with, and who was separated only by a skreen. This discovery is also made too soon, and renders the last act heavy and tiresome. The character of Joseph is but a sketch, and a bad one. Indeed Congreve was not equal to the task of drawing such a character, much less his scholar Sheridan. But if it had been fully drawn with a real manly and masterly pencil, and with a real knowledge of human nature, it would have given stuff and substance to the play, whereas it is now only lace and fine buttons, and tambour-work and frippery.

I shall be exclaimed against for opposing the public opinion. The public opinion was created by the public inclination; for it never has judgment. People had been wearied out with sentiments and fine sayings; and they longed for witticisms and jokes. If Mr. Sheridan should have a few associates and be blessed with a long life, the people will be cursing jokes, and crying out for a second Steele, or a second Cumberland to touch and mend their hearts. Congreve and Steele, and consequently their disciples Sheridan and Cumberland, move at equal distances from the true ground of excellence in comedy. A piece made up wholly of sentiments, and a piece made up wholly of jokes, are equally reprehensible in the judgment of men of real taste and discernment.

I am, Sir, your constant reader,

And a professed disciple of your lately deceased,

THEATRICAL CRITIC.

Sheridan’s hit comic opera from the season previous.

The School for Scandal