SOURCE: Biswanger, Raymond Adam. Introduction to Thomas D'Urfey's The Richmond Heiress: An Edition with Introduction and Notes, edited by Raymond Adam Biswanger, Jr., pp. xi-cxvi. New York: Garland Publishing, 1987.

[In the following excerpt, Biswanger describes how the popularity of Durfey's songs lasted longer than that of his plays, and discusses Durfey's contribution to the development of the sentimental comedy as a dramatic genre.]

Thomas D'Urfey was a prolific writer. Taken as a whole, this list of plays would seem to be a tremendous achievement, numbering as it does, twenty-three comedies, five tragedies, three operas, a burlesque opera, and a tragi-comedy, but the truth is that few of these works have any literary merit whatever. Comedy is D'Urfey's dramatic forte, but even the majority of his comedies are little more than farces. His real skill is exhibited in his songs, of which there are hundreds, written throughout his career. These songs are of three main types: political songs, court songs, and country songs.¹ Nearly all of them are humorous or satirical. The political songs illustrate an interesting phase of D'Urfey's career. For a long time D'Urfey was a staunch Tory, and his songs had a strong anti-Whig bias. After the Revolution of 1688, however, D'Urfey's party lost power, and with this change D'Urfey lost much of his financial support. It was then that he took a summer position as a singing teacher at Josias Priest's boarding-school for girls, a circumstance which inspired his Love for Money.

D'Urfey's dramas have long been neglected, and the general attitude of scholars toward his work was one of indifference until in 1916-17 Forsythe discussed his plays and reprinted one of his comedies.² It is true that many of D'Urfey's plots, characters, and situations are borrowed. As Langbaine says of him:

He is accounted by some for an Admirable Poet, but it is by those who are not acquainted much with Authors, and therefore are deceived by Appeareances, taking that for his own Wit, which he only borrows from Others: for Mr. Durfey like the Cuckow, makes it his business to suck other Birds Eggs.³

These accusations of plagiarism cannot be denied, but it is his contribution to sentimental comedy in which we are here interested. In this aspect D'Urfey owes little to anyone, for he is a pioneer in the portrayal of that “virtuous woman” who was to become such an integral part of the sentimental novels and plays of the eighteenth century. Speaking of Fulvia in The Richmond Heiress, John Harrington Smith says, “… it is true that in no preceding play had the heroine exhibited such high standards.”⁴ This shift in emphasis, it must be admitted, probably resulted from practical expediency as much as from any altruistic motive. D'Urfey had had a long run of unpopular plays and may have concluded that a policy of catering to the ladies in the audience would have a beneficial effect upon box-office receipts. Whatever his reason, D'Urfey clearly wrote many of his later comedies with the women of his audience in mind, and much that John Harrington Smith has said about Shadwell and the ladies⁵ can be applied to D'Urfey as well. In fact, if we accept his thesis that Shadwell is sentimental because he caters to the ladies, then D'Urfey has outdone him, for Mirtilla and Fulvia are presented much more favorably, from a woman's point of view, than for example Lucia in The Squire of Alsatia. Smith has cited an instance illustrating D'Urfey's concern over the feminine segment of his public.⁶ D'Urfey called women “that essential part of the audience.”⁷

In 1698, along with Otway, Dryden, Wycherley, Congreve, and Vanbrugh, D'Urfey underwent a tongue-lashing from Jeremy Collier. The specific object of the attack was Don Quixote, and the charges were:

1. Profaneness with respect to Religion and the holy Scriptures.
2. Abuse of the Clergy.
3. Want of Modesty and Regard to the Audience.⁸

D'Urfey replied in a twenty-seven page preface to The Campaigners, weakly defending himself and the stage. D'Urfey's battle with Collier seems no more effective than his Don Quixote's fight with the windmill, and D'Urfey was yet to endure more blows to his vanity. A Comparison Between the Two Stages, published anonymously in 1702, names a long list of D'Urfey's plays which were damned by his audience, with the comment: “I'm glad on't; he deserves no better.”⁹

But D'Urfey did have friends among royalty. Addison writes:

I my self remember King Charles the Second leaning on Tom d'Urfey's Shoulder more than once, and humming over a Song with him. It is certain that Monarch was not a little supported by Joy to great Caesar,¹⁰ which gave the Whigs such a Blow as they were not able to recover that whole Reign.¹¹

D'Urfey was notably vain, and as one might expect, he himself makes mention of one occasion on which he and Charles II sang together, in the title of one of his songs:

Advice to the City, a famous SONG, set to a Tune of Signior Opdar, so remarkable, that I had the Honour to Sing it with King CHARLES at Windsor; He holding one part of the Paper with Me.¹²

D'Urfey tells us that when he was in the presence of that monarch:

I … through Imperfection, Fear, or Shame,
Could never utter to Great CHARLES my Name.(13)

It seems that great Charles took a liking to the poet, however, and attended some of his plays. According to Steele, A Fond Husband “was honoured with the Presence of King Charles the Second three of its first five Nights,”¹⁴ in 1677. The king was notoriously easy to please. But later, D'Urfey sang for King William one night, “and a Gentleman, who was commanded to accompany his Voice with his Instrument, told me very lately, that the King laughed very heartily, and ordered him a Present,”¹⁵ wrote Whincop. This speaks well for D'Urfey's talent, for as Day points out, “William was not usually appreciative of foolery … nor did he have leisure for recreation of any kind during his troubled reign.”¹⁶ One of the songs in Pills to Purge Melancholy is entitled: “The KING's Health, an ODE; Perform'd before His Majesty King William at Montague-house.”¹⁷ In fact, if we can take D'Urfey's Dedication to the Pills at face value, we can assume that the poet was quite popular with royalty for many years:

And when I have perform'd some of my own Things before their Majesties King CHARLES the IId, King JAMES, King WILLIAM, Queen MARY, Queen ANNE, and Prince GEORGE, I never went off without happy and commendable Approbation.

If the general public had been as pleased with D'Urfey, he would have been a success.

Unfortunately, this was not to be. D'Urfey made some friends, but many enemies. Even those who remained loyal to him could not resist an occasional gibe at the beak-nosed poet. Addison, who devoted an entire issue of his periodical to an appeal that the public might support benefits for this dramatist,¹⁸ probably had tongue in cheek when he compared D'Urfey with Pindar:

I shall only take notice of two who have excelled in Lyricks, the one an Ancient, and the other a Modern. The first gained an immortal Reputation by celebrating several Jockeys in the Olympick Games, the last has signalized himself on the same Occasion by the Ode that begins with—To Horse, brave Boys, to New-Market, to Horse.¹⁹ My Reader will, by this time, know that the two Poets I have mentioned, are Pindar and Mr. d'Urfey. The former of these is long since laid in his Urn, after having, many Years together, endeared himself to all Greece by his tuneful Compositions. Our Countryman is still living, and in a blooming old Age, that still promises many musical Productions; for if I am not mistaken, our British Swan will sing to the last.²⁰

This observation was occasioned by the remark made by D'Urfey, quoted in the same issue of The Guardian, that he had “written more Odes than Horace, and about four times as many Comedies as Terence.” Yet, with this apparent jocularity at D'Urfey's expense, Addison never missed an opportunity to refer to D'Urfey as “my old friend, Tom.”

Steele once took occasion to ridicule D'Urfey. In The Tatler, he wrote:

That ancient Lyric M. D'Urfey, some years ago writ a dedication to a certain lord, in which he celebrated him for the greatest poet and critic of that age, upon a misinformation in Dyer's Letter that his noble patron was made lord chamberlain.²¹

Yet it is said that at his death D'Urfey left Steele his gold watch and diamond ring.²² At another time, D'Urfey took offense at some statements of Shadwell, but forgave him in a preface to Shadwell's posthumous play The Volunteers (1693).²³

D'Urfey at one time entertained hopes of being appointed poet laureate, and even hired a page to attend him when he traveled in public, in order that he might appear sufficiently dignified for the office. When the laureateship was given to Shadwell, D'Urfey expressed his disappointment in several poems.²⁴

Later, D'Urfey was mentioned for that honor—possibly satirically—by Dr. Arbuthnot, in a letter to Swift:

Mr. Rowe, the Poet Laureate, is dead,²⁵ and has left a damned jade of a Pegasus²⁶. … I would fain have Pope get a patent for life for the place, with a power of putting in Durfey his deputy.²⁷

Perhaps in an effort to further these aspirations, D'Urfey attempted to advertise his noble French ancestry—he claimed to be related to the renowned French poet Honoré d'Urfé, author of L'Astrée. Probably with this aim in mind, D'Urfey affected an apostrophe in his name after 1683, his name having appeared as “Durfey” on the title-pages of his early works. Furthermore, he frequently published under the name “Thomas D'Urfey, Gent.” However, in 1686, A Common-Wealth of Women appeared, containing the simple ascription, “By Mr. DURFEY.” This practice continued for some years, causing the following allusion to him in the anonymous satire (possibly by Tom Brown) Wit for Money (1691), as:

… a certain Poet, who before the Poll Acts,²⁸used to write himself T. D. Gentleman. …²⁹

Love for Money was written by “Mr. DURFEY,” as was Bussy D'Ambois, but The Marriage-Hater Match'd returned to the “Tho. D'Urfey, Gent.” form. The last play to append the title “Gentleman” is the first issue of the first edition of The Richmond Heiress. All later states of this title-page and all subsequent plays return to the less pretentious style.

D'Urfey was more respected as a writer of songs than as a dramatist. Langbaine was one who held this opinion,³⁰ but Gildon is of the rarer group of critics who enjoyed his plays also:

For my part, I can only say, that I have laught heartily at his Plays, which is one end of Comedy, or Farce at least; and if the Criticks will deny him to be a good Writer of Comedy, they must allow him a Master of Farce.³¹

But D'Urfey's songs continued to be sung long after his plays were forgotten. Most of them were collected in 1719-20 in the first two volumes of a six-volume work entitled Wit and Mirth: Or, Pills to Purge Melancholy. D'Urfey had originally planned to call the work Laugh and be Fat, Or, Pills to Purge Melancholy, a “Facetious Title” which Steele could not “sufficiently admire.”³² What Steele probably did not notice is that D'Urfey's title is obviously borrowed from an earlier collection of songs entitled An Antidote against Melancholy: made up in Pills (1661).³³

D'Urfey appears never to have been wealthy, and in his later years he became poor indeed. It is said that he was not even able to pay for “three Livery Suits for his Footmen.”³⁴ More than once he was given benefits at the theater, and D'Urfey personally delivered orations at these performances.³⁵ Doran's comment seems unduly harsh:

Long-nosed Tom D'Urfey was poor enough to be grateful for a benefit given in his behalf, the proceeds of which furnished him with a fresh supply of sack, and strengthened him to new attempt at song.³⁶

D'Urfey died in 1723. He was buried at the expense of the Duke of Dorset, in St. James's Church, Piccadilly. A stone above his grave bears this simple inscription:

TOM DURFEY

Dyed Feb^r. y^e. 26^t. 1723

The following epitaph was printed three years later:

EPITAPH ON TOM D'URFEY

HERE lyes the Lyrick, who with Tale and Song,
Did Life to threescore Years and ten prolong:
His Tale was pleasant, and his Song was sweet;
His Heart was chearful—but his Thirst was great.
Grieve, Reader, grieve, that he, too soon grown old,
His Song has ended, and his Tale has told.(37)

D'URFEY'S CONTRIBUTION TO SENTIMENTAL COMEDY

D'Urfey's participation in the development of sentimental drama differs from that of other dramatists in the movement. Cibber and Steele began their stage careers with sentimental plays, and Shadwell turned from anti-sentimental plays to the sentimental type after the Whig Revolution. D'Urfey's work shows no such pattern. Of D'Urfey's thirty-odd plays, some dozen contain marked elements of sentimentalism,³⁸ but these are scattered components, and do not represent any definite trend. There are, however, a handful of these plays which are strikingly moral and largely sentimental. These are, in chronological order, Madam Fickle: Or, The Witty False One (Dorset Garden, November 4, 1676); The Virtuous Wife; Or, Good Luck at Last (Dorset Garden, c. September, 1679); Love for Money: Or, The Boarding School (Drury Lane, March 1691); The Richmond Heiress: Or, A Woman Once in the Right (Drury Lane, c. April, 1693); and The Campaigners: Or, The Pleasant Adventures at Brussels (Drury Lane, c. April, 1698).³⁹

D'Urfey selected three of these five notably sentimental comedies among those plays he named to refute Collier's charge that he was an immoral dramatist. To quote from D'Urfey:

… amongst twenty of my Comedies Acted and Printed [Collier] never heard of the Royalist, the Boarding School, the Marriage Hater Match'd, the Richmond Heiress, the Virtuous Wife, and others, all whose whole Plots and designs I dare affirm, tend to that principal instance, which he proposes, and which we allow, viz. the depression of Vice and encouragement of Virtue.⁴⁰

D'Urfey's Madam Fickle presents a plot which soon became a stock situation in sentimental comedy—one which Cibber used to great advantage in Love's Last Shift—the reformation of a wayward husband through the virtue of a clever wife. The play deals with the attempt of Madam Fickle to gain revenge on all men by leading them on, an attitude which resulted from Madam Fickle herself having been deceived in love, but her affairs are innocent enough, and through it all her virtue remains untarnished. The play is full of disguises: Madam Fickle masquerades as a man to escape from all her suitors just after she had led each of them to believe she was ready for marriage. In the meantime, her husband, Friendlove, has been disguised as the servant, Dorrel. Before Friendlove reveals himself, Madam Fickle's disguise as a man is exposed, and she has no recourse but to explain her actions to her astonished suitors:

… and since I am discover'd, you shall know why I have us'd you thus. I lov'd, and was betray'd, and for this cause swore a Revenge on all that should love me. To make it plainer to ye I am marry'd. My husband fir'd with jealousie, forsook me to spend his time in Travel; since I have liv'd a Widow in opinion, and wheadled many Suitors, but lov'd none.⁴¹

Then Friendlove discovers himself, admits the error of his ways, and begs forgiveness:

oh my Sweet—Consider humane frailty, and forgive my Crime of too much Jealousie.⁴²

Upon Madam Fickle's recognition and acceptance of her wayward husband, Friendlove then expresses his deep repentance and avid desire to reform:

I swear I have been cruel to thy Virtue, but my whole life shall sue to make amends; and my noble Lord, and you Gentlemen, whatever Presents on this Ladies behalf have been received, shall be returned with ample satisfaction, and since espousing her perfection, I am bound to have a particular interest in her actions: If any one here holds himself wrong'd, my person shall give him the acknowledgment he demands, and my Sword the satisfaction of a Gentleman—.⁴³

The suitors, somewhat disappointed at their loss, but not sufficiently so to accept the offer of a duel, transfer their affections to other girls, and everyone is satisfied. Madam Fickle also voices regret over her conduct, and pleads to the female audience for forgiveness:

Through crooked paths, dark plots, and ways obscure,
Revenge still loves, to make it's action sure,
I have been false to night, and purchast hate,
But Ladies, on your smiles depends my fate:
Let me gain one happy glance from you,
And th' Witty False One shall be ever True.(44)

It must not be forgotten that this play was produced nineteen years before Cibber's Love's Last Shift!

A variation of this theme recapturing and reforming a wayward husband occurs in D'Urfey's The Virtuous Wife, a play in which the wife remains pure and constant throughout. Olivia, although trying everything in her power to regain the affection of her husband, Beverley, resorts to a standard method—she tries to make him jealous. But she has no callous disregard for the feelings of Beauford, the man she uses in her scheme, and her relationships with him are always beyond reproach. Finally, sympathizing with Beauford, she broods:

… here comes Beauford too, whom I must confess I have us'd scurvily, in so long delaying the reward due to his passion, but 'tis his misfortune, for the only satisfaction he desires, is the one thing I dare not grant him.⁴⁵

She tells Beauford that he must keep his compensation “within the list of Honour, Reason, and Virtue,” and confides to him how she had used him:

… know (oh most unfortunate person) that I have fool'd thee all this while, made thee a down-right property, and am a very Miser in affection. In fine, Sir, by the way of Advice, let me tell ye—you do but swim against the stream, and vainly dash against the rock of my Constancy; therefore desist in time, do; Marry, grow vertuous, and love honestly …⁴⁶

Meanwhile, Olivia's plot has succeeded, and Beverley breaks off with his “Town Jilt,” Jenny, exclaiming:

… this piece of Countrey dirt was once my Mistriss, Lady of my Heart, of all my Love, my Honour, whose face made me forget a virtuous Wife …⁴⁷

The speech of repentance by the contrite Beverley is strongly sentimental:

Come to my bosom, thou art mine again—all—all my own, and shalt be so for ever—for from this moment, all base drossy thoughts, that soil'd my life and lustre of my Judgement, shall vanish; and instead of those, thy Beauty, Love, Constancy, and Wit, shall crown my heart—blot from thy breast my faults, and let our union teach the Wild, Roving, and inconstant World, how they should Live and Love, my dearest Creature.⁴⁸

Olivia, although never a weakling, is apparently convinced of Beverley's sincerity, and agrees to take him back. Miss Lynch has noted the great similarity between Olivia in this play and Amanda in Cibber's Love's Last Shift. Their attitudes toward their reformed husbands have much in common.⁴⁹

Love for Money presents another exemplary heroine: Mirtilla, an orphan, who is “witty, modest, and virtuous.”⁵⁰ Her lover, Will Merriton, is a fine young man, “A witty modest well-bred Gentleman, tho of small fortune, a great lover of Learning, and skill'd in Philosophy, Poetry, and Musick.”⁵¹

Their love is described by Sanville:

Over-emotional in their adherence to virtue and honor, their affections are far removed from the Restoration love game, and nowhere in their dialogue can there be found any attempt at wit or repartee. Theirs is a serious affair of the heart with not even echoes of the ‘gay couple’ convention that had so long dominated the stage.⁵²

Love for Money meets all the requirements of sentimental comedy. Actually, it is D'Urfey's first completely sentimental play, Madam Fickle and The Virtuous Wife having strong sentimental overtones, particularly in their last acts, but not having been plotted throughout as such.

Mirtilla has been placed in a boarding school by her covetous guardian. Merriton, remarking that he had an intrigue at that school, draws the retort from the rakish Amorous: “Hast thou? gad that's rare, what is't a pretty Whore?” to which the virtuous Merriton replies: “A Whore! the Devil's in thee, thou think'st all Women are of that sort. … Thou art a lewd Fellow, and can'st not relish an Intrigue of honour.”⁵³

Merriton constantly praises Mirtilla's virtue and her accomplishments:

… she's skill'd in Books friend, a rarity in Women, … she has all her Sexes Graces without their frailty, Modesty without their Affectation, Wit without their Mischief, and Love without their Levity; then for Beauty, she had enough to make a Man an Atheist, believing there could be no greater Heaven.⁵⁴

Even when she learns of her great fortune, Mirtilla does not become proud, and when Merriton comes to the school to court her, she does not in any way wish to compromise herself; in short, Mirtilla is an outstanding example of the sentimental heroine, the virtuous woman.

D'Urfey's play The Campaigners is full of the characteristically sentimental spirit of benevolence. The plot concerns a campaigner of the royal army in Brussels, Colonel Dorange, a typical rake, who finally has fallen truly in love. The object of this affection is Angellica, a young girl whom Dorange discovers he had once met and seduced in London. Angellica's brother, Don Leon, upon learning that Dorange had wronged his sister, forces him into a duel. In the fight, Dorange is wounded, but Don Leon is disarmed. Dorange spares his life, and gives him his sword, with these words:

… there, noble Sir, there is your Sword again—and once more use it in your just revenge, you have not yet, Sir drawn out the wild blood that wrong'd your Sister, try your skill again.⁵⁵

But Dorange's gracious act has impressed Don Leon, and he says:

No, were she dear as my Soul, as she's my Sister, I wou'd not fight again, thou brave young man; this honour has regained her honour lost, and fix'd me for thy Brother.⁵⁶

They are reconciled, and Dorange speaks contritely:

Thus, thus for ever I seal to that: And now, dear Sir, assure ye, my late neglectful words of your fair Sister, were not intended basely, as I spoke 'em, but from a conscious sense of my own mischiefs, and to provoke you to a severe justice, which you have done too slightly for a fault of such uncommon nature.⁵⁷

Seeing Dorange's wound, Don Leon cries passionately:

You bleed, pray take this Scarf, which my dear Sister gave me as a kind-present, when I went to Travel; and as it binds the wound up in your Arm, may mine, yours and my Sisters heart, be tyd in lasting union.⁵⁸

Angellica, coming upon the scene, is shocked at the sight, but Don Leon comforts her. Dorange falls on his knees before her and begs for forgiveness:

Thus low, I first thank heaven for my blessing—then beg your pardon and leave to love for ever.⁵⁹

Joyfully, Angellica accepts his plea and his love. To clear her name, Dorange tells a group of Angellica's friends that he has been married to her secretly for two years, an action termed by Don Leon “brave and honourable.”⁶⁰

In the light of these strongly sentimental plays, written over a twenty-two year span, it is evident that D'Urfey's contributions to the development of sentimental comedy were numerous and important. Many of D'Urfey's heroes, although they may be typical Restoration rakes throughout the first four acts, undergo decided changes of character in Act V. They put off their former cloaks of hypocrisy, and expose the true virtue beneath, formerly hidden, but present nevertheless. Even if these men are not completely reformed at the final curtain, they often show some promise of this reform, or at any rate, their evil tactics lead to failure. Those who are out-and-out villains, although melodramatic in their cunning, never gain their ends, and usually suffer final punishment. But D'Urfey's greatest contribution is the exemplary woman, chaste in romance, modest in demeanor, true in marriage. She is the true prototype of the sentimental heroine so common throughout the eighteenth century. These women created by D'Urfey always gain their desires; their virtue is constantly rewarded. Cruel and mercenary guardians are thwarted by their goodness; wayward husbands are reformed; undesirable suitors are refused. D'Urfey's heroines are not weak, sickly characters, however; Olivia, the virtuous wife, is a witty, high-spirited woman, who takes no back-talk from her wild, extravagant husband. Mirtilla, the orphan, lacks the “frailty” of her sex. D'Urfey kept in close touch with the pulse of his audience, and consciously attempted to please his female spectators with heroines they could admire, respect, and even emulate. He showed love as an affair of honor rather than an affair of intrigue. Inconstancy and greed in marriage were frowned upon. Marriages were not arranged for the sake of money, power, or convenience, but developed out of sincere feeling and deep understanding.

These are some of the reasons that Allardyce Nicoll, speaking of pioneers in sentimentalism, says: “Chief among these undoubtedly was Thomas D'Urfey. He more than anyone else aided in urging forward the progress of sentiment.”⁶¹

AN ANALYSIS OF THE RICHMOND HEIRESS

1. PLOT AND TONE

The Richmond Heiress: Or, A Woman Once in the Right is one of D'Urfey's most sentimental plays, despite the fact that only one character, Fulvia, is notably sentimental. Her friend, Sophronia, it is true, is patterned after her to a lesser degree, but Fulvia is the very essence of truth and morality. She is as wise and shrewd as she is rich, and in every way more than a match for any of her suitors. Frederick, her unworthy lover, says of her:

… she's the Soul, the Miracle of her Sex:
Young, yet discreet, without Ill-nature witty,
Rich without Pride, and without Art is pretty.(62)

Fulvia's love for Frederick is true and pure—until she learns of his falseness:

If faithful Love, and an obedient Wife can make him happy, he may assure himself of me; I know his Merit, and have a Soul to prize it.

Nor shall the wretched Customs of the World, That change the sweets of Love t' a sordid Bargain, Ever corrupt my Nature, wealth is a good addition, And shall be given by me a Slave to vertue, And wait upon the kind brave Man I love. …⁶³

But unlike Mirtilla in Love for Money, Fulvia has no truly exemplary hero to sustain her ideals; there is no Will Merriton in this play. Rather, Fulvia stands alone as a righteous woman, upheld only partially by her true friend, Sophronia. Notwithstanding this lack of support, Fulvia bends not an inch from her high position as a “woman of sense.”

The Richmond Heiress is one of D'Urfey's best plays. Genest remarks that “it is a good bustling comedy but might be shortened to advantage.”⁶⁴ It is true that farcical and serious scenes are indiscriminately mixed, with the same characters taking part in both, but this is not a grievous fault. Subsequently, Genest says of D'Urfey:

… his Love for Money—Marriage-Hater Match'd—Richmond Heiress—Don Quixote and Campaigners are certainly good plays—and even the worst of his comedies are not without a tolerable degree of merit.⁶⁵

As in Love for Money, the scene of The Richmond Heiress is laid outside of London, the locale of the first being Chelsea, the site of this play being Richmond in the county of Surrey, a considerable distance from the London city limits. This placing of a play in another town is in itself an idea rather foreign to Restoration tendencies, which almost unanimously held up London life as the ideal.⁶⁶ Richmond, however, was merely a nearby village, boasting little more than a few handsome villas, a royal botanical garden, and a group of mineral wells.

Against this background we find Fulvia contriving through feigned madness to escape the wishes of her guardian, Sir Charles Romance, that she marry his son, Tom. There are two major reasons Fulvia objects to this scheme of her guardian: the first is that Tom Romance is a “vain, fluttering, lying Fellow … perpetually intriguing and never constant to any,” and the second is that Fulvia is actually in love with “a witty, young Town-Spark” named Frederick. But it becomes obvious that Frederick is a typical Restoration gallant, full of vice and inconstancy—obvious, that is, to everyone but Fulvia, who believes in him almost to the end of the play.

In Act IV, Scene ii, Fulvia dreams:

Frederick was False, Sordid and Mercenary: And that he only lov'd me for my Fortune;

but then she hastily adds:

I give no credit to Sleep's Idle Whimseys.⁶⁷

Later, when Sophronia confirms the correctness of her dream, Fulvia still refuses to believe any ill news about Frederick:

What, that Frederick's false! Oh 'tis ridiculous Mallice, and I'll not believe it: I know she lov'd him her self once, and this is now the product of her Envy.

[Aside.⁶⁸

Fulvia goes on to say that Sophronia must be insane to think such things about Frederick, but eventually the truth dawns upon her, rather suddenly in fact, when she is shown Frederick's written promise of marriage to Sophronia. This marriage contract had been broken by Frederick when he learned of Fulvia's much greater fortune, for Frederick had openly maintained: “… there is no Quality belonging to a Woman, unless it be her Money. …”⁶⁹

Greatly incensed, Fulvia gives Frederick his promise of marriage to Sophronia, and cries:

… you, Sir, that through the baseness of your sordid nature, and mercenary thirst of gain, abus'd me, take that as a reward for your Ingratitude and my Eternal hatred for the future.

Frederick, realizing what the document is, exclaims:

… this is the Thunderbolt I always dreaded, and 'tis fall'n with a vengeance.

Fulvia retorts:

Read there a base Deceiver's Character, and for thy sake may never generous Maid, trust thy false Sex to be again betray'd.⁷⁰

It is too late for Frederick to mend his ways; he does not reform, but he is clearly beaten and disheartened. He slinks off the stage⁷¹ while Sophronia praises her friend Fulvia for her firm, courageous stand in spurning a man who loved her money more than her character:

Most generous Maid, thou art a dear Example for all thy Sex to copy out thy Virtue, for that a kind and tender heart like thine, moulded for Love, and softned with Endearments, should generously on the account of honour, resist a Traytor, that with strong Enchantments of Vows and Oaths, had long time made Impression, is a performance heightned to a wonder, and will be reverenc'd in succeeding ages.⁷²

Fulvia's reply demonstrates the purity of her nature in contrast to the wickedness of man:

My eyes in contradiction to the World, I have ever (scorning Interest) fix'd on Merit, and led by Love and Generous Inclination have strove to make that Sentiment appear by a free present of my Heart and Fortune to one I thought as nobly had deserv'd em. But, oh! the Race of Men are all Deceivers, and my relief, is my resolve to shun 'em; 'tis, my dear Friend, as thou hast lately told me, which for Instruction I will still repeat.

Love may seem great that in it self is small, Looks cover thoughts, and Interest governs all; When Damon to an Heiress speaks kind things, 'Tis not for what she is, but what she brings.⁷³

Forsythe's baseless statements that Fulvia marries Quickwit⁷⁴ probably result from a careless or hasty reading of the end of the play. The fact is that Fulvia does not marry Quickwit or anyone else. Rather, it is her strong determination to shun all men which makes Fulvia such an outstandingly sentimental heroine. To Fulvia, “Marriage … is a thing of weight,”⁷⁵ and she will not consent to marry any man whom she does not love, and as for Quickwit:

I will with Gold reward thy Industry … ;⁷⁶

that is all he can expect from Fulvia.

As for herself, Fulvia says firmly:

Since such a general defect of honesty corrupts the Age, I'll no more trust Mankind, but lay my Fortune out upon my self, and flourish in contempt of humane Falshood.⁷⁷

Thus Fulvia stands alone at the end of the play.

These elements caused Nicoll to say of the drama:

In The Richmond Heiress … we find the sentimental note so apparent in the last-mentioned play [Love for Money] even deeper and more pronounced. The last speeches of Fulvia and of Sophronia might have come from a drama of 1750, and the former's rejection of mankind has something in it of the later temper.⁷⁸

In this judgment Sanville concurs, saying,

Even more strikingly moral than Love for Money is The Richmond Heiress, which, in its denouement, preaches its message so militantly that there can be no misunderstanding of its meaning.⁷⁹

Sophronia, too, is a decidedly moral woman, much given to sententious moralizing about the evils of society. The passion for money comes under her particular censure:

Money is now the Soul o'th Universe: The States-man, Commoner, and Countryman, Phisitian, Lawyer, Cittizen, Priest, greedily damn their own for't every day; the man that's Rich must be accomplished too, his Apish Tricks are Gentleman like Carriage, his silly Speeches called refin'd and Witty, if he be Prodigal they stile him generous, if Covetous, a close, wise wary fellow, if he detracts or Lyes, he's a fine Courtier, if Blasphemous, a Witt, if finnical a Beau, if drunk, he's then a merry Jolly Fellow, or if unmanly Lewd, a Rare Companion.⁸⁰

She then reviews the unfortunate position of the poor but honest:

… vertue Sir is generally poor, and Poverty can give no Bribe for Praise, the virtuous Man that's poor, must be a Fool, a wretched sort of an uncurrant Coyn, that few or none will deal with; Tho he be wise, his best opinion is thought ignorance, his talk rediculous, his Person hated, he still fares worst, yet pays the dearest for it; has he a cause at Law? it shall be lost, has he a Claim in Love? he shall be Jilted, his Ingenuity is worse than Witchcraft, and every venial Error past forgiveness.⁸¹

Such a serious treatment of a moral problem is characteristic of D'Urfey, and of sentimental comedy in general. The ideals of Fulvia and Sophronia are expressed to all who may hear, with firmness and determination. Sophronia also ridicules the useless daily life of the typical man of fashion, an observation which will be discussed subsequently in connection with the possible indebtedness of Vanbrugh's The Relapse to Sophronia's description. Sophronia is not the heroine of The Richmond Heiress, and her part does not have the importance of Fulvia's, but she is clearly of the same stamp as Fulvia, and high in the ranks of the exemplary women of Restoration comedy.

Notwithstanding these ethical characters and sentiments, it is obvious that there are some remarks in this play which would not have pleased Jeremy Collier, had he read it. In her pretended madness, Fulvia accuses a clergyman of intemperance:

I know … by the red tip of his Nose; the Parson hates Lambswool; he loves the Bowl, the Bowl, the lusty Bowl; and there alas his poor Soul will be drown'd.⁸²

This corresponds exactly with one of Collier's criticisms of Don Quixote: “Women are sometimes represented Silly, and sometimes Mad, to enlarge their Liberty, and screen their Impudence from Censure.”⁸³ But this play contains a far greater abuse of the clergy than this one accusation of a parson for drinking. Cunnington makes this comment in Act III, Scene ii:

I have not see de inside of one Shurch dis—sixteen year, and begar I find de Town ver mush of my humour; de People and de Priest make de grand difference; he can say ver little or noting dat dey believe, and dey, Begar, vill do noting vat he advise; so I never trouble de Shurch at all.⁸⁴

D'Urfey had recommended The Richmond Heiress to Collier as a play which depresses vice and encourages virtue,⁸⁵ but with these improprieties, some doubtful situations, and vulgarities of language remaining in the play it is improbable that it would meet with the cleric's approval. Nevertheless, D'Urfey was far from being the greatest offender, and even though he was just another Restoration dramatist, catering to the whims of his public, he tried his best to conform to some moral standards, and as time passed his productions became increasingly clean.

2. CHARACTERS, SOURCES, AND ANALOGUES

While Fulvia is the only truly outstanding character of The Richmond Heiress, there are others worthy of note. Cunnington is a sly and crafty villain who will stop at nothing to gain his selfish ends. In Act IV, Scene i, he seems strikingly like the typical mustachio-twirling villain of later date, as he rehearses his plan to seize the heiress for himself instead of bringing her to Sir Charles:

Little does he think what's hatching in this Brain of mine: for, what will I do now, but instead of carrying her to him, keep her my self, and make her Marry me, or Compound swingeingly, which is all one; there's Wit now; ha ha ha, there's Mischief! Gad I love Mischief dearly.⁸⁶

Cunnington's mischief gets him nowhere, however, and at the end of the play he is forcibly seized and carried off to the constable, presumably to be punished for his evil-doing.

Cunnington is opposed in his schemes by Quickwit, a friend of Frederick. Quickwit is equally clever, but his abilities are used unselfishly in the interest of his friend. In the end he is rewarded with gold. Quickwit is as near to the ideal “man of sense” as any in this play, but there is no real hero in The Richmond Heiress; the central figure in this comedy is a woman: Fulvia.

In Act IV, Scene i, Cunnington and Quickwit are contending for the control of certain influential papers. The importance of documents—in this case, the “Writings of [Fulvia's] Estate”⁸⁷—is an external characteristic extremely common in eighteenth-century melodrama, in which the documents were usually deeds or mortgages. It is true that these important papers are common in Elizabethan and early seventeenth-century drama as well⁸⁸, but in later melodrama they became almost an obsession. The Richmond Heiress is an early play to stress this point, and the power to control others which the possessor of these papers held is every bit as great here as it was to be in later plays. It is not strange that Quickwit and Cunnington were so anxious to gain possession of these records.

D'Urfey has introduced a comical Welshman as one of the minor characters. Welsh men and women in Elizabethan and Restoration plays were nothing new,⁸⁹ but Rice⁹⁰ ap Shinkin is somewhat unusual in that he is a fop and a beau. D'Urfey's debt to Shakespeare's Captain Fluellen is perhaps an indirect one, as many dramatists have patterned their Welshmen after the comical soldier of Henry V. Shinkin's love of cheese and metheglin is typical of these stock characters. So are his epithets of “By St. Davy!” and “By Cadwallader!” Other common traits are his use of plurals for singulars, her for other pronouns, t's for d's, c's for g's, f's for v's, and so on. His preference for the harp is not at all unusual. Only in his imitation of the mannerisms of Frederick, the man about town, is Shinkin distinctive. D'Urfey had used a Welsh jilt named Winifrid in an earlier play, Sir Barnaby Whigg.

Mrs. Stockjobb, the French refugee, is only one of a series of D'Urfey's characters who speak in a foreign dialect. Others of this type are La Mure in A Common-Wealth of Women, Le Prat in Love for Money, Bertran in The Campaigners, Pistole in The Old Mode and the New, and Tokay in The Two Queens of Brentford. Mrs. Stockjobb is not treated at all sympathetically by D'Urfey. This hostility toward immigrants from France was probably a general one, particularly since the war with France. The large influx of foreigners was doubtless viewed with resentment, especially since many of the newcomers were decidedly lower class.

Numps, who speaks in a western dialect, is but a counterpart of Flaile in Madam Fickle, the tenants in The Royalist, Roger in A Fool's Preferment, the sergeant and the page in The Path, Copyhold in The Modern Prophets, and others.

Fulvia's guardian, Sir Charles Romance, is a mild version of Sir Rowland Rakehell, Mirtilla's guardian in Love for Money. Perhaps the major distinction is that while Sir Rowland coveted Mirtilla's money for himself, Sir Charles was content to have his son, Tom, acquire Fulvia's fortune. Sir Charles, however, is a better-humored, more kindly old man than his predecessor. Both these men presage the oppressive fathers and guardians so prevalent in eighteenth-century melodrama.

The bantering between Cunnington and Sir Quibble in Act III, Scene ii, concerning the people of the moon and Cunnington's visit to that far-off land⁹¹ reflects a similar passage in Squire Oldsapp, in which Sir Frederick Banter tells Pimpo of a whale that came from the moon. In The Richmond Heiress, the satire concerning the inhabitants of the moon seems to involve the current fashion in ladies' headdresses: the commode. In a note to D'Urfey's political poem based on Hudibras, Collin's Walk, commodes are described as follows:

This is a new Invention for the Ladies to dress their Heads upon, by the Convenience of which the whole Dress may in a Minute to be taken off, or put on without any trouble.⁹²

The episode in which Cunnington, disguised as a French fortune-teller, informs Marmalette that she will marry Quickwit and that he is about to become a duke⁹³ was undoubtedly suggested by similar incidents in two other plays by D'Urfey: in Sir Barnaby Whigg, Act V, Scene i, Sir Barnaby exclaims, “My Astrologer's a damn'd Dog for telling me I shou'd be a Luke though,”⁹⁴ and in A Fool's Preferment, Act IV, Scene ii, Lyonel says to Toby, “Let me see—You shall be before Christmas next—… A Duke at least.”⁹⁵

But these are all borrowings of character and event by D'Urfey from D'Urfey. It appears that in this play there is very little which has been adopted by D'Urfey from other dramatists. The main plot, the wooing and losing of an heiress, is partially old, partially new. There is such a wealth of literary plots concerning marriages for money or for power⁹⁶ that it is clearly impossible to establish a “source” for this circumstance. Yet, D'Urfey's marriage for money is decidedly unusual in that it never comes about, and like Henry James' Washington Square, over a century and a half later, this story ends without any marriage whatever. This is indeed a novel situation in comedy. As D'Urfey writes in the Epilogue:

The Satyr's gentle, and I think 'tis new.⁹⁷

D'Urfey is probably obliged to other dramatists, however, for a few minor items in The Richmond Heiress. The reference to Quickwit as “of the ancient Family of the De la Fool's of the South,”⁹⁸ is clearly based upon Sir Amorous la Fool's genealogy, given in Ben Jonson's Epicoene:

They all come out of our house, the La Fooles o' the north, the La Fooles of the west, the La Fooles of the east, and south—we are as ancient a family, as any in Europe.⁹⁹

This is little more than an allusion, however, as is D'Urfey's reference to Ananias somewhat later in the play.¹⁰⁰

According to Forsythe:

The part of the play which deals with Dick Stockjobb and his unfaithful wife was not unprobably suggested by Colonel and Mrs. Hackwell in Shadwell's posthumous comedy, The Volunteers, produced in 1692 with a prologue by D'Urfey.¹⁰¹

At first glance this seems a probable explanation. Shadwell's play, in fact, is subtitled The Stock-jobbers, and it is obvious that D'Urfey was familiar with the comedy since he wrote its prologue. The plot of The Volunteers concerns Colonel Hackwell Senior, a stock-jobber, whose deceitful wife carries on an affair with Nickum, her suitor, right before Hackwell's eyes, but completely dupes him until the last of the fifth act, when she is finally exposed and forced to flee, uttering these parting words:

This is a most complete Ruin. I will hide my head in some dark hole, and never see the light again.¹⁰²

True, there are some distinct similarities here, but note Montague Summers' comments on the source of The Volunteers:

The simple, and yet so natural, discovery by Colonel Hackwell of his wife and Nickum after all their sleights and subterfuges, is similar to the scene in D'Urfey's The [sic] Fond Husband, Dorset Garden, spring of 1676, where at the end of the play, Peregrine Bubble suddenly realizes that he has been well cornuted by Emilia and Rashley.¹⁰³

Bubble, indeed, is very similar to Dick Stockjobb in many ways. Like Mrs. Stockjobb, Bubble's wife also gives away her jewels (gifts from her husband) to her lover. If we then consider the theories of Forsythe and Summers, we are faced with the awkward situation of D'Urfey borrowing from D'Urfey, via Shadwell.

Another complication in this confusion of borrowings is the fact that Dryden may have based his Mr. Limberham upon D'Urfey's Bubble. As Ned Bliss Allen puts it:

The resemblance of Mr. Limberham¹⁰⁴ to A Fond Husband is striking in many ways. In the first place, the character Limberham's excessive credulity, his readiness to apologize to his erring mistress, even his habit of calling her by the pet name of “Pug,” may have been suggested by D'Urfey's character Bubble, who calls his mistress “Chicken.”¹⁰⁵

Still another D'Urfey play, earlier than The Volunteers, contains a similar plot. That play is Love for Money, in which Deputy Nicompoop, “a softly sneaking uxorious Citizen, Husband to Lady Addleplot,” is openly cuckolded by her and her lover, Nedd Bragg, “an impudent lying Town Sharper.” Even this wittol is not original with D'Urfey, according to the satirical Wit for Money, which claims:

… your Nicompoop is just the very image of Bisket in Epsom-Wells, who is a quiet humble civil City Cuckold, govern'd and beaten by his Wife, whom he very much fears, loves, and is proud of … ; he courts her Gallant to go to her. …¹⁰⁶

Wit for Money apparently gives us the proper clue, for D'Urfey's Nicompoop—and to an equal extent, Dick Stockjobb—are images of Bisket in Epsom Wells, and the comparatively early date of this play—1672—establishes Bisket as the probable prototype for this willing cuckold. The entire problem of source, however, demonstrates the extensive interrelationships of Restoration plots and characters. Of the six wittols involved—Bisket, Bubble, Limberham, Nicompoop, Hackwell, and Stockjobb—the earliest and the most recent still have much in common. The scenes in The Richmond Heiress where Stockjobb encourages men to discuss business and lay wagers with his wife¹⁰⁷ are extremely similar to a scene in Epsom Wells, where Bisket pleads with Rains:

… come and play at Cribach with her to day; for she loves Cribach most intemperately. I do wonder that a Woman should love Gaming so.

To this Rains replies:

I cannot be so inhumane to refuse a Husband that invites me to his own Wife. …¹⁰⁸

Of interest is Bergman's comment on The Volunteers:

Through Colonel Hackwell Senior [Shadwell] inserts a satirical thrust at stock-jobbing, an activity here treated, I believe, for the first time in English drama.¹⁰⁹

If Shadwell's play is the first to deal with stockjobbing, then surely D'Urfey's is the second. This sub-theme in The Richmond Heiress gives the play a great deal of realism, and illustrates D'Urfey's frequent use of topical material, for stockjobbing was becoming very important to Englishmen about this time. As John Houghton pointed out June 15, 1694, interest in stockjobbing arose since the war with France,

… for trade being obstructed at sea, few that had money were willing it should lie idle, and a great many that wanted employments studied how to dispose of their money, that they might be able to command it whensoever they had occasion, which they found they could more easily do in joint-stock, than in laying out the same in lands, houses, or commodities, these being more easily shifted from hand to hand: this put them upon contrivances, whereby ome [sic] were encouraged to buy, others to sell, and this is it that is called stockjobbing.¹¹⁰

These two plays also indicate the popular interest in the newly-rebuilt Royal Exchange, the center of London's stock market activities. Almost simultaneously with Shadwell and D'Urfey, the practical-minded Defoe was doing his bit to preach the necessity of trade to an expanding empire.

Although D'Urfey borrowed but little in The Richmond Heiress, The Gentleman-Cully, an anonymous comedy published 4° in 1702 and attributed to Charles Johnson, owes practically its entire plot to D'Urfey's play, a fact overlooked by M. Maurice Shudofsky in his article on that comedy.¹¹¹ Compare the plot of The Gentleman-Cully, as stated in Shudofsky's words, with that of The Richmond Heiress:

The piece deals in the main with the discomfiture of a pair of roues, Faithless and Townlove. The latter, who is the gentleman-cully of the title, comes to London in order “to dash his University Lerning with a little Town-breeding.” Townlove is gulled and bled white by the bawds and whores. His crony, Faithless, casts a covetous eye upon the fortune of a marriageable heiress, Sophia; but he loses his chance of winning her when she discovers that he has debauched her maid. Sophia also rejects the suits of Flash, a lineal descendant of Sir Fopling Flutter, and of Ruffle, a miles gloriosus. At the final curtain, the heiress and her confidante, Aurelia, make plans to remain forever wedded to the single state.¹¹²

Sophia and Aurelia are Fulvia and Sophronia, respectively. Sophia's discovery that Faithless had debauched her maid corresponds to Fulvia's discovery that Frederick had promised marriage to Sophronia. Flash and Sir Quibble Quere are parallel characters; so are Townlove and Tom Romance. Other minor characters correspond in the two plays. Lady Rakelove, an amorous old woman, is equivalent to Marmalette in The Richmond Heiress, and both parts were played by Mrs. Leigh.

Shudofsky's statements: “The interesting feature of this piece is the adverse treatment of the two rakes,”¹¹³ and “I have yet to read a piece of this period in which the libertines receive such short shrift as do Faithless and Townlove,”¹¹⁴ are interesting in the light of the treatment of Frederick and Tom Romance in The Richmond Heiress.

Compare this attitude of Sophia with that of Fulvia:

In earnest, Aurelia—woud'st thou have me commit my self to a Creature by Nature inconstant and deceitful; whose Passions are roving and wild, whose Affections are changeable: For Man, my Aurelia, is a Sex that looks pleasing and serene, but covers nought but Rocks and Quick-Sands.¹¹⁵

This is merely an expansion of “The Race of Men are all Deceivers.”¹¹⁶ Even this concept was by no means new with D'Urfey. It is in evidence throughout literature from the earliest times.¹¹⁷ For example, in Romeo and Juliet, III, ii Shakespeare had the nurse say:

There's no trust, No faith, no honesty in men; all are perjur'd, All forsworn, all naught, all dissemblers.—

In the last act of The Gentleman-Cully, there is a speech that could easily have been made by Fulvia to Sophronia:

SOPH.
Half my Fortune's yours, and that I can tell you is the best half of me; we shall live happier than we can imagine, wast our Days without Jealousie, our Sleeps without fear, converse when we please, and have no imperious Lordly Husband to countermand our desires. (To Aurelia)(118)

Upon this offer, Aurelia replies: “I declare for Liberty and a single Life.”¹¹⁹

Moreover, it appears likely that Vanbrugh owes a debt to D'Urfey, for Lord Foppington's description of his day¹²⁰ is extremely similar to Sophronia's description of “the course of life of all you Men of the Town,”¹²¹ especially where the conduct in the theater and the tavern is concerned.

Mrs. Centlivre, furthermore, almost certainly is indebted to Quickwit and Cunnington's disguises as Quakers for Colonel Feignwell's similar disguise in A Bold Stroke for a Wife (1718). In this comedy, Feignwell impersonates the Quaker Simon Pure to outwit one of Ann Lovely's four guardians, the rigid old Quaker, Obadiah Prim.¹²² Through this disguise he gained access to Prim's home, and eventually succeeded in his quest for Ann's hand.

There seems to be no real source for the odd Quaker cant employed by Cunnington and Quickwit in these scenes of The Richmond Heiress. Apparently it is based upon the cant actually spoken by some of the more straitlaced Quakers of the day, possibly exaggerated for comic effect. There is some resemblance to the language used by the Puritan Ananias in The Alchemist, but no definite analogies can be traced.

Notes

1. See Cyrus Lawrence Day, The Songs of Thomas D'Urfey, Cambridge, Mass., 1933, pp. 10-11, 34.

2. Robert Forsythe, ed. A Fool's Preferment, Cleveland, 1917.

3. Gerard Langbaine, An Account of the English Dramatick Poets, Oxford, 1691, p. 179.

4. The Gay Couple, p. 189.

5. “Shadwell, the Ladies, and the Change in Comedy,” MP, XLVI (Aug., 1948), 22-33.

6. Ibid., p. 31.

7. Preface to Don Quixote, Part III. See also herein, p. xci, l. 1.

8. A Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage, London, 1698.

9. Staring B. Wells, ed., Princeton, 1942, p. 19.

10. Printed in D'Urfey's Pills to Purge Melancholy, London, 1719, II, 154-156.

11. The Guardian, No. 67, May 28, 1713.

12. Pills, I, 246.

13. Ibid., I, 338. That D'Urfey stuttered is well known.

14. The Guardian, No. 82, June 15, 1713.

15. Thomas Whincop, A Compleat List of all the English Dramatic Poets, London, 1747, p. 225.

16. Songs of D'Urfey, p. 15.

17. II, 92.

18. The Guardian, No. 67. See also Steele, The Guardian, No. 82, and The Lover, No. 40.

19. Printed in Pills, I, 332-333, as “TO Horse, brave boys of Newmarket, to Horse.”

20. The Guardian, No. 67.

21. The Tatler, No. 214, Tuesday, August 22, 1710. The reference is to D'Urfey's dedication, in rhyme, of Don Quixote, Part II to Charles Earl of Dorset, as lord chamberlain, &c.

    “To whom the World united give this due,
    Best Judge of Men, and best of Poets too.”

22. See Day, Songs of D'Urfey, p. 28. This information is written in William Oldys' annotated copy of Langbaine, British Museum: C. 28. g. l.

23. See ibid., p. 16.

24. See ibid., pp. 15-16.

25. He died December 6, 1718.

26. Probably his successor, Laurence Eusden.

27. Swift's Correspondence, ed. F. E. Ball, London, 1910-14, III, 22. The letter is dated London, December 11, 1718.

28. For some years after 1688, poll-taxes were a favorite means of raising money for the prosecution of the war with France. Under the system set up, the gentry paid more money than the commoners.

29. Epistle Dedicatory, purportedly by Critick Catcall.

30. Op. cit., p. 179.

31. Charles Gildon, The Lives and Characters of the English Dramatick Poets, London, 1698, p. 48.

32. The Guardian, No. 29, Tuesday, April 14, 1713. The word “admire” here was probably used in the sense “to wonder at.”

33. This anonymous work has been ascribed to Thomas Jordan, and others. For the origin and development of these titles, see C. L. Day, “Pills to Purge Melancholy,” RES, VIII (1932), 182-184.

34. The Session of the Poets, Holden at the Foot of Parnassus-Hill, July the 9th. 1696, London, 1696, p. 14.

35. June 3 and 7, 1714; May 29, 1716; May 27, 1717. The orations are printed in Pills, I, 339, 337; II, 313, 317.

36. John Doran, Their Majesties Servants, Boston, n.d., I, 306.

37. D. Lewis, ed., Miscellaneous Poems, by Several Hands, London, 1726, p. 6.

38. For a discussion of these elements in D'Urfey, see particularly R. S. Forsythe, A Study of the Plays of Thomas D'Urfey, Cleveland, 1916; D. C. Croissant, “Early Sentimental Comedy,” Essays in Dramatic Literature (Parrott Presentation Volume), Princeton, 1935; K. M. Lynch, “Thomas D'Urfey's Contribution to Sentimental Comedy,”PQ, IX (1930), 249-259; and John Freehafer, The Emergence of Sentimental Comedy (Unpublished dissertation in the University of Pennsylvania Library), 1950.

39. All dates of performances are those given by Day, Dates of Plays.

40. Preface to The Campaigners (1698), p. 3.

41. Madam Fickle (1677), p. 64.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid., pp. 64-65.

44. Ibid., p. 66.

45. The Virtuous Wife (1680), p. 52.

46. Ibid., p. 57.

47. Ibid., p. 63.

48. Ibid., p. 64.

49. See Lynch, op. cit., pp. 253-254.

50. Love for Money, ed. Donald W. Sanville (Unpublished dissertation in the University of Pennsylvania Library), 1950, p. 7.

51. Ibid.

52. Ibid., p. xiii.

53. Ibid., p. 13.

54. Ibid., p. 14.

55. The Campaigners (1698), p. 58.

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid.

58. Ibid., pp. 58-59.

59. Ibid., p. 59.

60. Ibid.

61. Op. cit., p. 260.

62. The Richmond Heiress, p. 11, 11. 37-38, p. 12, 11. 1-2. All page and line references are to the present edition.

63. Ibid., p. 46, 11. 1-8.

64. Rev. John Genest, Some Account of the English Stage, Bath, 1832, II, 47.

65. Ibid., II, 517.

66. In fact, Richmond is here praised for its beauty and its climate. See The Richmond Heiress, p. 30, 11. 26-35.

67. The Richmond Heiress, p. 79, 11. 18-21.

68. Ibid., p. 97, 11. 21-24.

69. Ibid., p. 97, 11. 8-9.

70. Ibid., p. 117, 11. 15-25.

71. Note also that the profligate lover Tom Romance is disinherited by his father, a just punishment for his evil ways. See the text, p. 119, 11. 1-2.

72. Ibid., p. 119, 35-42.

73. Ibid., p. 120, 11. 1-13.

74. Op cit., pp. 5, 94, 97.

75. The Richmond Heiress, p. 101, 1. 18.

76. Ibid., p. 119, 1. 15.

77. Ibid., p. 119, 11. 9-12.

78. Op. cit., p. 264.

79. Op. cit., p. xxxi.

80. The Richmond Heiress, p. 87, 11. 25-34.

81. Ibid., p. 88, 11. 10-19.

82. Ibid., p. 39, ll. 8-11.

83. Op. cit., 5th ed., London, 1730, p. 7.

84. The Richmond Heiress, p. 60, ll. 21-27.

85. See p. xxxviii of this study.

86. The Richmond Heiress, p. 78, ll. 9-14.

87. Ibid., p. 76, l. 19.

88. E.g., Molière's Tartuffe (1669).

89. See J. O. Bartley, “The Stage Welshman,” MLR, XXXVIII (1943), 279-288.

90. A cognate of Rhuys, Rhys, Reece, Reese, and similar names.

91. The Richmond Heiress, p. 58, ll. 6-38, p. 59, ll. 1-10.

92. Collin's Walk, London, 1690, p. 201.

93. The Richmond Heiress, p. 48.

94. Sir Barnaby Whigg (1681), p. 51.

95. A Fool's Preferment, ed. Forsythe, p. 66.

96. E.g., Jason in Euripides' Medea.

97. The Richmond Heiress, p. 121, 1. 32.

98. Ibid., p. 34, 11. 33-34.

99. Epicoene, Act I, scene i. No D'Urfey plays (only poems) are mentioned in The Jonson Allusion-Book, by Jesse Franklin Bradley and Joseph Quincy Adams, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1922. The Richmond Heiress is cited, however, in C. B. Graham's article, “Jonson Allusions in Restoration Comedy,” RES, XV, No. 58 (April 1939), 200-204, particularly 203-204.

100. p. 78, 1. 21.

101. Op. cit., p. 93.

102. The Volunteers, Act V, scene iii.

103. The Works of Thomas Shadwell, ed. Montague Summers, London, 1927, V, 153.

104. Better known by its other title, The Kind Keeper (1677).

105. The Sources of John Dryden's Comedies, Ann Arbor, 1935, p. 196. See also pp. 194-202. Also note Dryden's letter to Lord [Latimer] in The Letters of John Dryden, ed. Charles E. Ward, Durham, NC, 1942, pp. 11-12.

106. Wit for Money, p. 17.

107. The Richmond Heiress, pp. 71, 73-74, 101-102.

108. Epsom Wells, Act I, Scene i.

109. Albert S. Bergman, Thomas Shadwell, his Life and Comedies, N.Y., 1928, p. 250.

110. Husbandry and Trade Improv'd, No. xcviii, revised by Richard Bradley, London, 1727, I, 261. Note the comedy by William Rufus Chetwood, The Stock-Jobbers, or, The Humours of Exchange Alley. 8° 1720.

111. M. M. Shudofsky, “The Gentleman-Cully,” MLN, LV (1940), 396-399.

112. Ibid., p. 397.

113. Ibid., p. 398.

114. Ibid., p. 399.

115. The Gentleman-Cully, p. 9.

116. The Richmond Heiress, p. 120, 1. 6.

117. E.g., Euripides' Medea.

118. The Gentleman-Cully, p. 43.

119. Ibid., p. 44.

120. The Relapse (1696), Act II, Scene i.

121. The Richmond Heiress, pp. 29-30.

122. A Bold Stroke for a Wife, Act IV, Scene ii. For a discussion of D'Urfey's attitude toward Quakers, see Ezra Kempton Maxfield, “The Quakers in English Stage Plays before 1800,” PMLA, XLV (1930), 263-264, where this scene is cited.