The Englishman
from Paris

(1756)

Introduction by
Simon Trefman

PUBLICATION NUMBER 137

WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY

University of California, Los Angeles

1969

GENERAL EDITORS

William E. Conway, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

George Robert Guffey, University of California, Los Angeles

Maximillian E. Novak, University of California, Los Angeles

ASSOCIATE EDITOR

David S. Rodes, University of California, Los Angeles

ADVISORY EDITORS

Richard C. Boys, University of Michigan

James L. Clifford, Columbia University

Ralph Cohen, University of Virginia

Vinton A. Dearing, University of California, Los Angeles

Arthur Friedman, University of Chicago

Louis A. Landa, Princeton University

Earl Miner, University of California, Los Angeles

Samuel H. Monk, University of Minnesota

Everett T. Moore, University of California, Los Angeles

Lawrence Clark Powell, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

James Sutherland, University College, London

H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., University of California, Los Angeles

Robert Vosper, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

CORRESPONDING SECRETARY

Edna C. Davis, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Mary Kerbret, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

INTRODUCTION

Arthur Murphy's afterpiece, The Englishman From Paris, was given its first and last performance at Drury Lane on 3 April 1756. According to the prompter's account the play "went off well," and the receipts for the night, £240, indicate that a large audience attended.[1] However, despite these optimistic signs, Murphy never published the play nor did he allow it to be presented again on any stage. It is even possible that Murphy tried to destroy all traces of it; for the Lord Chamberlain's copy from which this edition is printed was not found in the usual depository, the Larpent Collection. Instead, the manuscript got in the hands of private collectors, was wrongly ascribed to Samuel Foote, and was sold in a series of auctions as an unconsidered part of a lot of rare biblical and Shakesperian items.[2] In this manner the play finally came into the possession of the Newberry Library where it eventually was correctly catalogued, but its adventitious provenance is marked by it being the only manuscript play in the collection.

Certainly one important reason for Murphy's reticence to exhibit his play can be found in the events leading up to its production. Samuel Foote, who at this time was known as a comic actor and a writer of farces, was a close friend of Murphy's and in the summer of 1754, when Murphy was short of money, had taken him into his house. He encouraged the young Murphy to become an actor, gave him lessons, and, no doubt, was useful in getting him started in his new career at Covent Garden. The following summer saw Murphy in far better circumstances. Garrick articled him to act as a replacement for Mossop and also scheduled Murphy's first farce, The Apprentice, for production that same season. In a gush of confidence, Murphy told Foote, whose help and encouragement had borne such fruit, of his plans for a new farce. He was going to write a sequel to one of Foote's plays, The Englishman in Paris (C. G. 24 March 1753), a popular farce that satirized the boorish antics of a young English squire in a country where politeness is the mode. Murphy's idea was to show this blood returned to England as a Frenchified effeminate fop at odds with his family and former friends. Foote listened closely as Murphy gave him the plot and even some of the dialogue. Then, thinking that no one had a better right to a sequel than the author of the original, Foote, keeping his own counsel, wrote The Englishman Return'd From Paris in time for the new season.[3]

Although Foote was accused of plagiarism by Murphy and then by others who had not seen the play, the charge was not strictly true. There are general similarities because both plays are based upon the same idea, and, if one looks closely, certain jokes and other bits of dialogue are too alike to be accidental. It is also possible that Crab of Foote's play was developed from certain characteristics of Quicksett. Yet on the whole, Foote's plot, characterization, and dialogue are so distinctly different from Murphy's that Foote can be given credit for writing his own play. The attitudes of both writers towards their objects of satire were entirely different. Foote wrote a wild and whimsical farce where much of the humor is slapstick. Murphy's play is a carefully worked out comedy where extreme behavior of any kind is gently ridiculed.

Despite Foote's desire for secrecy while getting his play ready for production, Murphy would be sure to hear the news as soon as plans were given out for costumes, sets, and rehearsals. His first response to Foote's betrayal of their friendship was to publish anonymously The Spouter: or, the Triple Revenge. This unplayed farce was probably published in late January, a week or two before Foote's play was to be shown. In an understandable but scurrilous rage, Murphy vilified Foote (as