The Beggar’s Opera has for its heroes and heroines highwaymen, thieves, prostitutes, fences and police informants. John Gay wrote it as a satire on upper class morals. He said of his play, “It is difficult to determine whether the fine Gentlemen imitate the Gentlemen of the Road or the Gentlemen of the Road the fine Gentlemen.” Comment upon the ways that these unsavory characters from London low life reflect the lives of the upper classes, particularly lawyers, ministers, refined lords and ladies, and statesmen. Do Gay’s comparisons seem realistic to you?
In The Beggars Opera Gay comedically outlines the similarities between criminals and so called honorable people. In the opening chorus, Act I Scene 1, he points up how every profession from clergy to statesman be-rogues the other. Gay calls out lords and ladies and their prefence for profitable mariages over love in his telling of Polly's marriage to Capt. Macheath. In Act I Scene 9 Gay satirically compares money to cleaning clay in it's ability to purify a reputation. He makes a mockery of legitimate businessmen by protraying the gang of thieves, highwaymen and pick pockets as though they were having a board meting in Act 2.Gay doesn't leave any element of polite society unscathed but seems to reserve his strogest disdain for lawyers. Peachum compares himself, an informant, to a lawyer since both act in "double capacity, both against rogues and for'em". Gay implies lawyers will do anything for money in the chorus of Act I Scene 2 and in the same Act Scene 9 he outlines items a fox, whore, daughter or wife may steal but claims a lawter "steals your whole estate". It made me wonder if Gay had some really bad experiences with lawyers. I think I could read The Beggars Opera 20 more times and still find more satire of the upper class.
ReplyDeletegolfguy13
As Anonymous previously stated, I also agree that Gay may have had bad experiences with lawyers, however, from what he says in Act 1 Scene 1, “Like me too he acts in a double capacity, both against and for’ em; for tis but fitting that we should protect and encourage cheats, since we live by them” gives me the feeling that Gay views lawyers as dishonest but accepts their motives because the world is full of dishonesty anyway. I’ve also noticed in Act 1, after scene 2, Gay’s view on ladies are more harsh than one can imagine. Filch states “Tis woman that seduces all mankind’ as woman are more seductive than men and that women can cheat just with their eyes, while tricking them with love, just for their money. This viscous image of women may be considered unrealistic because women usually tend to fall for the heart first rather than their money. Throughout the two acts, Peachum and Mrs. Peachum’s lives reflects the lives of a lord and his lady, with Peachum having the power to hang criminals (thieves) and Mrs. Peachum supporting and obeying her husband but at the same time displaying a caring, sentimental character. Furthermore, as Peachum displays an ill- feeling towards lawyers, he also has similar qualities that a lawyer must obtain for instance, having a good arguments backed up with evidence, and being able to detect the wrongness in people (Macheath) and wanting them prosecuted or even hung as their punishment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Icy_Me. Yes the beggar talks negatively about the lawyers and such, but he groups himself in with their flaws as well from the very beginning. In Act One Scene One he writes: “A lawyer is an honest employment, so is mine. Like me too he acts in a double capacity, both against rogues and for ‘em; for ‘tis fitting that we should protect and encourage cheats since we live by them.” Later at the end of Scene Nine, however, he says that “[lawyers] don’t care that anybody should get a clandestine livelihood but themselves.” This is not completely contradictory, but it does shed a more negative light on the lawyers than the original statement did. The negative beliefs on the upper-class do not seem that out of line for their time. It is easy to believe that a beggar would be envious and harsh when judging those who are wealthier; it is a very realistic viewpoint. His ideas on women, however, are unforgiving. To say that women seduce all mankind out of their money is a very drastic statement. Peachum in the second act also states that “there is nothing to be got by the death of women—except our wives.” In this section of the play, he describes women as animals to hunt; it is entertaining to watch them live. Wives, however, are free for the killing. It appears that Peachum agrees with Filch, who is defending women, but really Peachum is insinuating that women have venereal diseases. Unlike the upper-class, there seems to be no motive in belittling women.
ReplyDeleteLike Icy_Me, I also agree that sometime during his life, Gay may have had at least one bad experience with a lawyer. It is either that or he has a genuine distrust for people. When Gay says, “…tis but fitting that we should protect and encourage cheats, since we live by them” in Act 1 Scene 1, I think he is showing that no matter how high your position is that people in general are corrupt and dishonest. So there is no need to or way you can always protect people from cheats, so why not encourage it. GolfGuy13 pointed out a good point about the comical parts of this reading. In Act I Scene 9 Gay money to cleaning. I understood the comparison to mean that with them more money you have, the less you have to worry about having a bad reputation, because you can simply “purify” your reputation with your wealth. I think a few of Gays views were realistic. One being when Filch stated “Tis woman that seduces all mankind’… women can cheat just with their eyes, while tricking them with love, just for their money.” I believe this is absolutely true. Even though it may seem a bit harsh, the modern term gold-digger doesn’t resonate from thin air. Women will definitely use their looks and charm your socks off, and really only be interested in what you have to offer them. Women will even go so far as to sacrifice other things, just to maintain the upper-class way of life. I would have to disagree with Icy_Me when he/she says this view is unrealistic.
ReplyDeleteJohn Gay’s basic thesis for “The Beggar’s Opera” is that humanity’s naturally sinful nature transcends all social classes and professions. There are liars and cheats in every walk of life, regardless of wealth, status, or profession. Gay professes this belief when he says in Act 1, Scene 1, “Through all the employments of life, each neighbor abuses his brother.” He goes on to compare how each “noble” profession has a direct parallel in the lives of the poor and the destitute. For every businessman, there is a highway thief, and for every lawyer, there is a devious informant. Right away we learn that Gay despises lawyers, as Golfguy and all the other bloggers noticed. He compares lawyers to the main character Peachum, who is a terribly two faced informant. He sarcastically states that “a lawyer is an honest employment” because like himself they must “act in a double capacity, both agains rogues and for’em.” In this way he degrades the profession of law describing it as something that will “protect and encourage cheats.” Without the “cheats” the lawyers would be out of business. Gay also goes on to compare women to a being that “seduces all mankind” in scene 2. Like the lawyers, women are seen as deceptive and manipulative. They are described as gold-diggers as Jaldora T expressed, and they bend mens’ will through greedy causes. Gay then moves on at the beginning of Act 2 to business men, comparing them to a gang of highway thieves, who take great pride in their work claiming themselves as having and “industrious” and noble profession.
ReplyDelete