Last Monday I was very lucky to see a performance of Elizabeth Inchbald’s play 1798, Lover’s Vows, at the Theatre Royal Bury St Edmunds. What made this performance very special was the cast: the actors were the members of the same cast which is currently appearing in the touring production of Mansfield Park, which I reviewed, here. As a result we saw Edmund play Anhalt, Mary Crawford play Amelia, Maria Bertram play Agatha, Fanny Price playing the Cottager’s Wife, Henry Crawford playing Frederick, and Mr Rushworth as Count Cassell. I am a firm believer that plays are better understood when seen rather than when merely read, and so it was with this production.
It was, I hasten to add, a Script in Hand performance: one where the actors had had one read-though, then performed the play on stage, script in hand without benefit of costumes or scenery . I’ve seen an amateur performance of this play, but it was revelatory to see it acted by good hardened real professionals. In addition seeing it performed in the tiny Regency theatre at Bury St Edmunds was wonderful: the theatre is very intimate and suits this type of play-where there are many asides made directly to the audience. Another joy was that the theatre was kept illuminated during the performance, just as Georgian theatres were.We are all- actors ands audience, on view. A further layer of appropriateness was that Mrs Inchbald was born in a small village only five miles away from the town: she was born Elizabeth Simpson at Standingfield on October 15th 1753, and she knew Bury St Edmunds well. Her plays, along with most of the Georgian repertoire are very rarely performed these days. However, the restored Theatre Royal has established a very noble tradition, since its restoration in 2007, of performing these forgotten plays and attempting to “restoring them to the repertoire”. They have performed many of Mrs Inchbald’s plays, which is very appropriate given the local connection, and it is obvious that Colin Blumenau , the director of these two plays and once artistic director of the Theatre Royal, is a strong supporter and admirer of her works.

Engraving of Mrs Inchbald after a portrait painted by her friend, Sir Thomas Lawrence from “I’ll Tell You What” by Annabel Jenkins
The play is, to modern eyes and ears, and odd mix of high drama and low comedy. And it is clear that the subject matter- the fate of a fallen woman who had given birth to an illegitimate son, and who was cast off by a noble family, combined with the love story of a young noble girl for her priest- is not at all suitable to be played by the unmarried and engaged Bertram daughters and Mary Crawford. It is really no surprise that Edmund is initially aghast to discover that this particular play was the one the Mansfield Players decided upon:
I cannot, before Mr. Yates, speak what I feel as to this play, without reflecting on his friends at Ecclesford; but I must now, my dear Maria, tell you, that I think it exceedingly unfit for private representation, and that I hope you will give it up. I cannot but suppose youwill when you have read it carefully over. Read only the first act aloud to either your mother or aunt, and see how you can approve it. It will not be necessary to send you to yourfather’s judgment, I am convinced.”
Mansfield Park, Chapter 15
If you would like to read the play you can, by clicking here. After the play had been performed, a question and answer session with the actors and the director, Colin Blumenau was fascinating.Their insights into the technique needed to successfully portray scenes where the actors are requited to switch abruptly from tragedy to comedy were compelling.
Since seeing the play, I’ve had the opportunity to consider it and how Jane Austen used it in Mansfield Park. It is clear that she was very well acquainted with it. As a woman who was very interested in the theatre, she no doubt followed the news of its great success ( it was performed 45 times at its initial presentation at Covent Garden in London) and the controversy surrounding its translation from the German playwright, Auguste von Kotzebue’s play, The Natural Son. She many even have seen it performed, though she does not mention this in her letters. She did have the opportunity, for it was performed at least five times while she lived in Bath, IIRC. For her purposes it was the perfect vehicle for the young people at Mansfield. From its first performance it was a controversial play- with its themes of illegitimacy, inappropriate love,and the decency of the lower orders as opposed to the arrogance and cruelty of the upper classes – and it suited her purposes not only to have the young people act in defiance of Sir Thomas’ strong sense of decorum but for them also to choose to perform the most unsuitable play that they possibly could. Its plot lines also gave them many opportunities to “act out’ their own secret passions and desires, to use the play for their own purposes.
But it goes deeper than that; by casting the play as she did, she subverted and even satirised her own characters. Let’s consider a few examples. Mr Rushworth, the dim but rich cuckold, is transformed into a boastful man about town, Count Cassell,who had made “vows of love to so many women that on his marriage with (Amelia) a hundred hearts will at least be broken. Maria, the adulterous wife who lived openly in sin with Henry Crawford and eventually is cast off by her family to live with Mrs Norris in
an establishment being formed for them in another country, remote and private, where, shut up together with little society, on one side no affection, on the other no judgment, it may be reasonably supposed that their tempers became their mutual punishment,
Mansfield Park, Chapter 48
plays Agatha, who is welcomed back into the bosom of her lovers family with great pomp and circumstance, having previously been abandoned to shift for herself and her son. Fanny- who was finally coerced into agreeing to play the Cottagers Wife, though Sir Thomas’ return prevented it, is meek and kind but relatively powerless to do good until she is exiled to Porstmouth, when her little store of money provides food and intellectual stimulation for her siblings: the Cottager Wife is kind, taking Agatha into her home when no one would help, but sensible enough to eventually take the financial reward offered by Anhalt on Count Wildenheim’s behalf despite the protests of her husband. The Butler, Verdun, is a long comic role: his rambling poetic speeches with concluding morals( which were not written wholly by Mrs. Inchbald but by her friend and college, John Taylor) ramble on: in Mansfield Park , the Butler,Baddeley has only two speeches, and of these the second is of vast significant for it indicates the extent to which the odious Mrs Norris is held in contempt below stairs at Mansfield Park:
Mrs. Norris called out, “Stay, stay, Fanny! what are you about? where are you going? don’t be in such a hurry. Depend upon it, it is not you who are wanted; depend upon it, it is me” (looking at the butler); “but you are so very eager to put yourself forward. What should Sir Thomas want you for? It is me, Baddeley, you mean; I am coming this moment. You mean me, Baddeley, I am sure; Sir Thomas wants me, not Miss Price.”
But Baddeley was stout. “No, ma’am, it is Miss Price; I am certain of its being Miss Price.” And there was a half–smile with the words, which meant, “I do not think you would answer the purpose at all.”
Mansfield Park, Chapter 32.
Mary Crawford, a woman of strong opinions which are fatally and morally flawed, played Ameila , a girl of strong opinions, who was seen as outrageously forward by some sections of its 18th century audience, but who is truly moral and kind, and prepared to marry and love a clergyman, which Mary Crawford, most definitely, was not.
The most striking contrast is found in the attitudes of the head of the households, Baron Wildenhaim, as opposed to Sir Thomas. The Baron,who had been forced by his parents to abandon the low-born Agatha and their son, Frederick, and despite having married and become a widower, regrets ever having to take such a drastic course of action. He assures his daughter, Amelia, that she would never be forced to marry without affection. Once he discovers the true nature of Count Cassell’s sexual offences and bragging, he forbids her to marry him, and eventually consents to her marrying his Chaplain, Anhalt, whose strong moral advice has allowed him to recover Agatha and his natural son Frederick and, also, to give them respectable positions in society, as his son and wife. Sir Thomas, though he offers to allow Maria an escape route from the marriage with Rushworth, failed to allow Fanny the same advantage and punishes her for her “inexplicable” rejection of Henry Crawford, a morally flawed man,who can offer riches and status and, through his connection the Admiral, has arranged for the promotion of her brother, William. There are many more parallels…but I’ll stop here.
As you can see, I’ve been thinking a lot about this play and I now wonder how influential Lover’s Vows was in sowing the germ of the idea for Mansfield Park in Jane Austen’s head. I used to think she merely inserted it as an (in)appropriate play in the private theatrical section of the book, but now…I think the evidence is that its influence is much stronger and deeper with her than that. I do thank the Theatre Royal, its Restoring the Repertoire programme, and the cast of Lover’s Vows for their inspiring performance.
































































16 comments
October 1, 2012 at 2:11 pm
thejaneaustenproject
Thank you so much for this interesting and informative post. I wish I were in England and could see both of these performances. Your excellent reportage is some consolation, though, and the link to Lover’s Vows very helpful.
October 1, 2012 at 5:16 pm
jfwakefield
Thank you- Im glad you found the link to the play helpful.I do wish someone had recorded the play last Monday evening.It would have made an excellent “extra feature’ on a DVD of the Theatre Royas production of Mansfield Park( hints for the future!
October 1, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Jane Odiwe
I would have loved to have seen this-thank you for telling us all about it, Julie!
October 1, 2012 at 5:15 pm
jfwakefield
I woud have loved you to have accompanied me,Jane!
October 1, 2012 at 2:49 pm
imogen88
Absolutely loved this post, great review, unforgettable experience by the sound of it, and a treasure. Love the images, and if you share any more impressions I will be keen to read. Fabulous, Julie!
October 1, 2012 at 5:14 pm
jfwakefield
Thank you, Moni.It was a fascinating evening- with all the associations and resonances.The cast were terrific,Pete Ashmore was an especially affecting Anhalt. Special mention has to go to Alex Packer who played Verdun, the Butler. he was a silent butler in Tim Luscombe’s Mansfield Park- but he played this comic role with relish.
October 1, 2012 at 11:20 pm
Cathy Allen
Oh, me, too! Me, too! I completely agree with Moni, and Jane Odiwe, above. It seems as if everything worked together here to make it an unforgettable event. I’d comment on ALL of the things, but I’ll give you a break and just mention the authentic theater, and ambience. Your evidence causes me to wonder too, about it’s influence on Jane Austen: chicken or egg, indeed! Fascinating thoughts, thank you, Julie
October 2, 2012 at 8:28 am
jfwakefield
It was- I’ve been thinking about it all a lot since last Monday – and there can be no higher praise for a production than that it leaves a permanent mark on you.
October 2, 2012 at 2:52 pm
imogen88
Yes, Julie, I think you have said it in one. ;-)
October 2, 2012 at 2:52 pm
imogen88
Hurrah, Cathy, someone is doing it right!
October 1, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Nancy
Lovers’ Vows is a crucial part of MP and many texts of the novel now include it as an appendix.However, while reading the play is better than not having any idea about it at all, one really has to see it. I have not been fortunate enough to see a real presentation of the play. However, we once moved characters of the play around on the stage of a toy theatre reading the script as we did so. . We didn’t even do the whole play but the part we did perform pointed up the improprieties and the reason why Edmund and Fanny disapproved. Sir Thomas wouldn’t know what parts any one had so I think his disapproval stemmed more from the changes and adjustments made to his house. A stage was constructed, Sir Thomas’s rooms were invaded.. He burnt all copies of the play as though ridding himself of infected bedding. How much the Evangelical opposition to the theatre influenced Jane Austen is still being debated.
October 1, 2012 at 5:04 pm
jfwakefield
Yes,I had assumed that my readers know that Lovers Vows is a crucial part of Mansfield Park :)
I do think that Sir Thomas was a man of the world,and I am afraid I do not agree that his disapproval was based solely in the alterations to his home( though this added to his annoyance!). I am sure that he would have known of the content of “Lovers Vows” from newspaper reports, and would most probably have shared Edmund’s opinion of it.He certainly would have objected, or so it seems for the text, on the grounds that the it was highly improper to perform such a play, acted by the young people so particularly circumstanced and at a time when he was absent:see his thoughts in Chapter 20:
Sir Thomas saw all the impropriety of such a scheme among such a party, and at such a time, as strongly as his son had ever supposed he must; he felt it too much, indeed, for many words; and having shaken hands with Edmund, meant to try to lose the disagreeable impression, and forget how much he had been forgotten himself as soon as he could, after the house had been cleared of every object enforcing the remembrance, and restored to its proper state. He did not enter into any remonstrance with his other children: he was more willing to believe they felt their error than to run the risk of investigation. The reproof of an immediate conclusion of everything, the sweep of every preparation, would be sufficient
Note that Edmund also knows of the play’s content before any copies of the play are purchased for use at Mansfield.it was a very popular play, and it attracted much attention and comment for its content and well as its source. Sir Thomas was, I am sure, quite au fait with all the circumstances surrounding this play.
The impropriety of putting on a private theatrical- any private theatrical- in his absence is summed up neatly by Edmund in Chapter 13:
I think it would be very wrong. In a general light, private theatricals are open to some objections, but as we are circumstanced, I must think it would be highly injudicious, and more than injudicious to attempt anything of the kind. It would shew great want of feeling on my father’s account, absent as he is, and in some degree of constant danger; and it would be imprudent, I think, with regard to Maria, whose situation is a very delicate one, considering everything, extremely delicate.”
Having now seen the play acted by professionals , I am pondering the chicken and egg conundrum regarding Mansfield Park.
As to the Evangelical influence on Mansfield Park, I have been considering this very seriously for some years. I consider that some aspects of the Evangelical movement of the Anglican Church attracted Jane Austen very much, but that others seriously repelled her. And I think this ambivalence on her part is shown in her treatment of “Serious” subjects in this novel. Much more to say on this, but perhaps now is not the place or the time.
October 1, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Melanie Vidrine
Very much enjoyed this post, thx.
October 2, 2012 at 8:20 am
jfwakefield
Thank you for commenting, Melanie!I do appreciate it.
October 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Caitlin
Wow! This is so interesting. It sounds like a very enjoyable, memorable evening. You have given us much food for thought. Thank you for for another insight into JA’s genius.
October 2, 2012 at 8:27 am
jfwakefield
It is fascinating, isn’t it Caitlin.I think it seems very probable that Jane Austen was influenced by this play when she was composing Mansfield Park inner head.I am convinced her all works had a very long gestation period.It would not surprise me if she didn’t see it in Bath and then ran with the idea. I have no proof at all for this idea, save for the characters in both play and novel and how they contrast and compare ;)