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?
John Gay does a great job in The Beggar’s Opera of showing London their own true colors. In the beginning of the play we see Macheath as a highway man and a killer. However, as the play goes on, we start to see others stoop to his level (those who we would not expect). When Peachum discovers that his daughter, Polly is going to marry the caption of a gang of robbers (Macheath) he wants to capture and kill him. This is the first indication that the upper class man who is in the justice system, is manipulating it. Peachum punishes robbers and murders, yet he wants to murder, just as they do. Another manipulator in the play is the prime minister. In act 2 scene 10 Peachum and Lockit conspire against the justice system by saying, “like great statesman, we encourage those who betray their friends.” It is said that the crowd could relate to the play during this point because they saw their own society, a society driven by greed and consumed in crime. Gay’s use of satire in this play, to me, basically accused England’s upper class people such as the lawyers, ministers, and statesman of being just as low as the lower class people like the beggars, prostitutes, and thieves. I think Gay’s comparisons are realistic, sometimes we think the people that are supposed to enforce the justice system may be manipulating it…the bad thing is, we will never know. I believe this play may have brought comfort and realization to the audience in London to what may actually be going on behind closed doors.
ReplyDeleteI neither agree or disagree with Young September. It does seem though, that Irwin’s view makes more sense under the modern conception of gender equality. But aside from that- I don’t necessarily understand the question you are asking us. “Which view of women seems more realistic to you” Do you want us to comment on which perspective we agree with most for the woman of that era- or for the modern era? Although you could make an unethical argument that Pope’s description of women holds true today, most people would strongly disagree. Women are much more prevalent in the intelligent world today than they were at any time before. Assuming you had asked us which is more realistic for the modern female; Irwin’s views are much closer to our reality.
ReplyDeleteIf you are asking us to side with one of the two arguments on the reality of a woman from nearly 300 years ago, the debate would become more interesting. Pope seemed to show a bitter hate towards woman, particularly demeaning their intellectual properties. And I agree with him- But before I get an onslaught of angry female responses, I would like to clarify what I agree with. If I was a male in that era, I would find myself holding the same cynicism as Pope. Although the males had molded females to be no more than a doll that was useful for procreation only, you have to consider the power each sex has over the other- How can one mold the other? The females didn’t necessarily mold the males to be studious, hard-working, noble beings. The males seemed to take more initiative for their outcome while the woman seemed to be happy to take orders. They never seemed to question the status quo. I think this is truly what sparked the cynical fire within Pope. I do not believe that he thinks a male is born with a cerebral disposition than females; He just seems bothered that the females never truly garnered their brain’s capabilities.
In a way I think both perspectives are equally realistic. To me it seems that both Pope and Irwin are almost in agreement, but with different perspective. Yes, Pope was correct, the woman of that era were not at the forefront of intellectual works- Irwin seems to agree too, the main reason they were not is because the males didn’t want them to be (or allow them to be). Irwin creates a metaphor comparing the formulization of intellect to the cultivation of a harvest, “A female mind like a rude fallow lies/No seed is sown, but weeds spontaneous rise./As well might we expect, in winter, spring,/As land untilled a fruitful crop should bring;” Then goes on, cleverly finishing her metaphor, “Wit, judgment, sense--fruits of the human mind” She shows that she realizes that the females, at the time, were second in the gender race of intelligence. But she notes- that you can’t say that a female’s mind is weaker than a male’s because it was never fashioned to be used for greater thinking. Paralleled in the thought of crops, if you never seed and till the land, there will obviously be no crops; but that does not mean that the farmland is unable to grow a plentiful harvest.
I agree and disagree with Young September. When they say they agree that John Gray does a great job of showing London their own true colors in the Beggars Opera. The play begins with a character known as Macheath, a highwayman, and killer. Another character we know as Peachum seems to go below his class and stature when he finds out his daughter is going to marry Macheath. Vowing to hunt them down, capture and kill him. Showing that people we would never think to ever falter can and will when situations deem it necessary. “…methinks I can’t find in my heart to have a hand in his death” (2624). Showing that Peachums “seems” to have compassion, which may pull the sheep’s wool over others eyes. Yet, even a justice in Peachums case, a man who tries and convicts murders, cutthroats and thieves to fullest extent, who seems to want to take justice into his own hands. Going against everything he stands for and against the morals of the man he is. Declaring to the people of London, that high class people such as the lawyers, doctors, and ministers are no better in heart, than those of the lower class such as the beggars, thieves and murderers. I disagree to the point that it may be due to things going on behind closed doors. In retrospect, nothing on this planet is perfect including the judicial system and society. Therefore, mistakes will happen in the justice system, even those that seem to possibly be in the favor of one person or the other. Yet, isn’t that what happens in reality? It is not always the middle road and rarely ever is. It is many times the luck of the draw, about who gets the better hand.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with RedBlue when they talk about Gray’s opinion on a woman’s intellect. For women during that time period were not at the intellectual forefront of any conversation. Gray’s dislike for women’s intellect does not stem from their like of thought, but from their not using it to their full potential. Not allowing their minds to expand as intellects, allowing them to be placed in their spot of society. Which has no power over the minds of men, due to lack of thought, not brains.
-queso
Gray’s comparisons seem very relevant to our society today.Throughout the opera
ReplyDeleteMrs Peachum arrives with the alarming news that their daughter Polly is so fond of the highwayman Captain Macheath, and she has heard that she is interested in marrying him. Peachum is scared that this will be the ruin of his daughter so Peachum goes off to investigate, leaving Mrs Peachum to reflect that there is no reason why marriage should cut a woman off from other men.Blueshark seems to agree with my views.Blueshark says “ when Peachum discovers that his daughter, Polly is going to marry the caption of a gang of robbers (Macheath) he wants to capture and kill him. This is the first indication that the upper class man who is in the justice system, is influencing it. Peachum punishes robbers and murders, yet he wants to murder, just as they do.”
I also agree with Anonymous I feel like women throughout this society are portrayed as somewhat stupid. Gray’s dislike for women’s intellect does not stem from their like of thought,but from their not using it to their full potential. Not allowing their minds to expand as intellects, allowing them to be placed in their spot of society. Which has no power over the minds of men, due to lack of thought, not brains.It seems as if the government and people in power are putting up these rules for their own benefit. They don’t want to help the lower classes. This seems to be very relevant to society today.In the text on page 2614 it says,”Like me too he acts in a double capacity,both against rogues and for em for tis but fitting that we should protect and encourage cheats,since we live by them.”
I agree with the statement that Blue Shark made. John Gray did do a great job in showing London their true colors. He shows us that even though people may belong to different classes, we are still human and many of us have the same intentions. There seems to be someone who represents almost every class of people. There is a informer (Peachum), jailer (Lockit), highway-man (Macheath), pickpockets (Twitcher and Diver), thieves and burglars (Nimming Ned and Budge), and prostitutes (Trull and Doxy). My favorite quote is how Scene 1 Act 1 begins. It sets the tone for the play and gives the message John Gay is trying to convey. He states, “Through all employments of life each neighbor abuses his brother…” Each character in the play, as well as people in the real world presents these qualities when trying to get what they desire.
ReplyDeletePolly marrying Macheath stirred up trouble with her parents. This represented a conflict of classes, her parents did not think he was suitable for their daughter. The Peachums decided they would try to eliminate Macheath, and relinquish all ties he had to their daughter. There is irony present in the situation, being that Mr. Peachum works for the justice system and is willing to go through extreme measures to remove Macheath. In addition to Gay’s content, he also portrays the women in his play to be quite simple. Their intellect is not as profound as their male counterparts and in many points in the play, they appear to be uneducated.
----Dream Big
John Gay's comparisons are relevant and realistic to our society today. As much as everyone respects professionals with degrees such as lawyers or judges, they still depend on bad people to have their job in the first place. They also tend to carry the same characteristics as the people they make money off of. I think Gay portrays the dependence of the upper class on the lower class very well in the first act with Mr. Peachum and his assistant Filch. As Filch prepares to leave he says, "Certainty gives a Man a good Air upon his Trial, and makes him risk another without Fear or Scruple." This passage shows that Mr. Peachum plans to let perpetrators go for a small fine because he knows they will mess up again and bring more money in the long run. In a way, he is just like the crooks he is sentencing. He is out to get the most money in the easiest and most convenient way possible. I agree with Blueshark in that Gay uses his satire in a way to show the English that although the upper class may act different, their ambitions are the same of the lower class they belittle. Throughout the first two acts, people in power abuse it. Such as Mr. Peachum wanting to execute Macheath for marrying his daughter. As a prosecutor of the law, Mr. Peachum is supposed to uphold the laws of society. He takes on the characteristics of the people he prosecutes however when he plans to murder Macheath on account of marrying his daughter.
ReplyDeleteI agree with dirty bird with the fact of how people respect one another on the morals and how they value whats around them. In this story Gay shows how no matter how high or low. In this play Mr. Peachum's daughter is about to marry a highway man, a murderer and this just makes him go insane and stoop to the level of a murderer. Now when Peachum begins to plan his way to change this all he shows how anyone no matter their level in social class can make rational decisions. In the play, Macheath's escaping to women. These, though they are of the lowest possible class of society, although the subject of their conversation is their success and how they earn a living by stealing. Two of them, to Macheath's great surprise, have contracted with Peachum to capture him, and Macheath finds himself a prisoner in Newgate, the great City prison. Here, it develops, the jailor's daughter, Lucy Lockit, awaits her chance to upbraid Macheath for having promised to marry her, and reneged. So Macheath fights for his love and shows that his social class has nothing to do with the emotions you feel and how you express the things you want. Gay shows a great deal of emotion in his characters and this shows that "all men are created equal" I quote this from the constitution, all men are equal so all men can brew a bad decision or a terrible outlook on things. No matter your status, anyone could have money, and still be a murderer that doesn't change how much money you have so social class, is not something to disctintively separate the way people should think.
ReplyDelete