Dapperwit) using all the advantages of a once close friendship. In addition to being accused of plagiarism, Foote had all his personal foibles held up to public ridicule. Though an able and often eager controversialist, Foote made no reply but slyly advertised that his play would open 3 February at Covent Garden and would be "a New Farce Sequel to The Englishman in Paris, by the same author." The audience's response to Foote's version justified Murphy's worst apprehensions; it proved to be a brilliant success and was played nineteen times that season.[4]

It seems probable that Murphy did not plan to bring out his new play that season because he had already introduced The Apprentice (D.L. 2 January 1756). But he was an irascible man and it was undoubtedly galling to watch Foote reap fame and fortune on his idea. Providing himself some small measure of satisfaction and thinking he had little to lose, Murphy made plans to give the play at least one performance on his benefit night as an actor (he had already been given a benefit as an author) and to alter some parts of the play to expose further Foote's duplicity.

Although he did not act in the play, Murphy spoke the prologue which bemoaned the fate of the dramatist:

Shall he consult his friends?—when once 'tis shown
If some friends like, they make the hint their own.[5]

Two contemporaries also quote a last minute addition that is not in the manuscript of the play. Foote's Englishman, Buck, probably dressed similarly to Foote who played the role, appears on stage to say: "O Yes! I grant you there has been an imposter about town, who with easy familiarity and assurance, has stolen my writings, &c.; and not only thus treacherously robbed, but impudently dared to assume my very name even to my face; but I am the true Charles Buck, I assure you."[6] The manuscript too makes a reference to Foote's plagiarism when Bob Wildfire and Harry Foxchase ask Jack if he had seen Buck in his travels. This part too is probably a late insertion for it is irrelevant to the plot and the characters.

Interestingly enough, Murphy's sequel is based on different characters from those appearing in Foote's play, but it is closer in spirit to the original than Foote's own sequel. Murphy's is an ironic and gentle comedy that at first glance seems to be chauvinistically anti-French and pro-English, reflecting public sentiment prior to the outbreak of the Seven-Years' War with France. Though the climax of the plot is the fop's rejection of French affectations (and Murphy made sure that the French dogs did not get the best of it), English brutality and intolerance are also exposed; and care is taken that nothing irrevocable is done so that there is room for reformation on both sides. Foote's sequel, unlike his original, is a fast-paced, almost brutal farce that depends on slapstick and whimsy for belly laughs. Foote did pay some lip service to the superiority of English manners and morals, but he was more interested in getting his audience to laugh than to applaud. Murphy's play is more serious, more sensible, and more tolerant than Foote's, but it would suffer in comparison with the livelier play. Murphy's realization of this inevitable comparison would probably be a strong reason for him to disown his play.

Murphy's attitude is exemplified by his characters. Except for Florid, none of them is truly treacherous or malicious; though some may be foolish and intolerant, they are not beyond redemption. Characters that represent simple-minded patriotic attitudes—such as Quicksett, Roger, and The Mob—were likely to be cheered by the galleries; but the more judicious part of the audience would have been able to recognize their naivety and inflexibility. Quicksett as a no-nonsense John Bull squire may serve to draw Jack Broughton out to his foppish worst, but he is also too set in his ways to appreciate anything beyond his own narrow views of property and propriety. Roger, the servant, is sincere in hating his French compeers, and his thrashing of the French servants undoubtedly elicited applause; but his limited understanding is also held up to ridicule.

On the other side, Abbé Millamour, who is writing a book of observations on the English nation, is Murphy's response to Jean Bernard Le Blanc, a French Abbé whose published comments on the English did not endear him to that people.[7] Though the Abbé is made an object of laughter, he is allowed to come to an understanding of the English virtues, and he praises them at the end of the play.

Florid's role in the play is more ambiguous than that of the other characters. As a false philosopher who spouts nonsense, he represents an affectation that is universal rather than national. Murphy, by placing him in Jack's entourage as a tutor and by having Florid claim that his theories are partly French, does put him on the French side. But it is also clear from references made to "characteristics," "plastic nature," "systems of harmony," and the like that he is a Shaftesburian. Furthermore, Florid's "gay contempt" as a reaction to "the motley Livery of incongruous Appearances" is a paraphrase of some lines of The Pleasures of the Imagination by Mark Akenside, the Shaftesburian poet.[8] Florid's incomprehensible spoutings can be seen as mocking Akenside's turgid and abstract style, but I do not think that Murphy meant to be taken seriously in