The theory has fed on some misreadings of the play that must have an end
put to them if this ghost is to be laid. If the reader, then, will
pardon the obviousness of the following, it is true that Cibber wrote
plays, but the name Plotwell should not be taken in this sense, but
merely as suggesting the gallant skilled in the stratagems which, in the
older comedies, males of this class had been accustomed to use in their
cuckolding operations. Plotwell in the play has never set pen to paper
except for notes sent to wives, and he is not an "actor-manager" or the
like. He and Underplot are simply gentlemen who spend so much of their
time in intrigues in real life that they would have no time for
play-writing.[5] In the part of _Three Hours_ that has led scholars down
this false path--the scene in which the manuscript is judged by Sir
Tremendous and the players--it must be kept in mind that the actual
author of the work being dismembered is Phoebe Clinket, not Plotwell,
who, since he is merely fronting for her, is enabled to meet such
strictures as "Between you and I, this gentleman knows nothing of
poetry" with perfect sang-froid; it is Phoebe whose withers are
comically wrung. Thus there was nothing in the part to offend Cibber,
much less can resentment on his part be deduced from the intermission of
the play after the seventh night.[6]
[5] See the excellent comment on the pair in our Key, p. 212.
[6] To charge him, as one authority has done, with "an arbitrary
withdrawal of _Three Hours_ after a far from unsuccessful week ...
an invidious, if not unwarrantable, decision on his part" betrays an
imperfect understanding of how a theater had to be managed in the
early 18th century when the number of patrons upon which it could
rely was limited. A play would run as long as it continued to draw;
when the house began to fall off a new bill would have to be
announced. The intermitting of _Three Hours_ should be most
naturally read as suggesting that at least in the judgment of the
managers its initial vogue had passed. It would have been brought
back when they thought patrons were ready to see it again--say, in a
couple of months.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account