The Scandalous School

Richard Brinsley Sheridan's, The School for Scandal, is a play dealing with gossip, scandal, and sin. A very outdated play, The School for Scandal is difficult for modern audiences to appreciate. This has undoubtedly caused the play to be scarcely performed anymore. Among the many reasons why this play is outdated is the blatant anti-Semitism portrayed by the character, Moses. A majority of the play revolves around this theme and one other. Gossip works as the other major theme in Sheridan's play, which helps to relate the story to modern audiences. Throughout the play, Lady Sneerwell and her school for scandal wreak havoc on other characters' reputations and lives. In fact, Sheridan's characters gossip about sin so much that one forgets how little sin is actually committed throughout the play.

Anti-Semitism was a part of eighteenth-century English life. In 1754, an act that would have permitted Jews to become naturalized citizens was repealed immediately when anti-Semitic street mobs loudly protested the law. When the character, Moses, is introduced in Act III of Sheridan's play, his name is prefaced with the character description, Honest. Since it was Moses who led the Jews from Egypt to their salvation during Exodus in the Bible, Sheridan gets the audience to expect that this money-lender will help Charles Surface to his reward. But just as important as his name, is the description that precedes it. Sheridan makes an effort to place great emphasis on honest, using the word various times to describe Moses. He is obviously trying to

Laos 2

imply that while Moses is an honest man, the majority of money-lenders are not.

(The Jew Bill of 1753)

The same is true for the overly used descriptions, friend or friendly. Sheridan goes through the trouble of describing Moses as a good man, inferring that most money-lenders are not their client's friends. Throughout history, Jews have been identified with banking or money-lending, and in School for Scandal, Sheridan also identifies the Jewish race as dishonest and unfriendly by continuously differentiating Moses from the rest of his religion, race, and occupation with character descriptions that make him out to be an honorable person and businessman.

In Sheridan's eyes, to be a moneylender is to be a cheat and he inputs this prejudice into his play. In Act III, Sir Oliver is told by Moses that to be successful in fooling his nephew, he must demand forty or fifty percent interest. Unless of course his nephew seems especially desperate, then one hundred percent interest would be appropriate. Therefore, to be successful in his disguise of a money-lender, Sir Oliver must also be greedy, unfeeling, and cold hearted. In Sheridan's play, Jews must even look different from other men. Sir Oliver asks if he shall be able to pass for a Jew. The response is that this moneylender is a broker which was a step up socially.

The dialogue or text in the play never explain what a typical Jew should look like, but Sir Oliver's fancy clothes are fitting for a broker and not just a plain money-lender. Sir Oliver is even told that money-lenders speak differently from other men. All of these points, when looked at together, create an image of Jews that sets them apart from other businessmen and other races. The implication is that Jewish businessmen are different in clothing, in speech, and even in

Laos 3

business ethics. Sheridan makes it clear that England viewed Jews as shady, second class citizens.

While this depiction of Jews would have raised little concern in the last decade of the eighteenth century, present day audiences have the Holocaust to look back on. With this example of how anti-Semitism is never quite harmless or acceptable it is easy to see why this play has been reproduced in theater so few times since the eighteenth century. The images from the Holocaust would boldly barge in on the otherwise light hearted and comical play by Richard Sheridan. It is because the scenes with Moses and the disguised Sir Oliver form an important section of the text that their deletion would be nearly impossible from a directorial perspective and the play would remain very anti-Semitic. However, were some of the dialogue and the character descriptions to be altered, the play could perhaps see a rebirth in modern theater.

Its portrayal of money-lenders and Jews definitely takes something away from School for Scandal. However, Sheridan's writing offers a peak into the ethics and social customs of the time period in England. This offers other things for a modern-day audience to appreciate. The gossip and plotting that takes place in the play is quite entertaining.

This is a play with a sense of mischievousness and playfulness. This play is mostly