The Broken Jug: Adam and Eve's Symbolism

                While reading this play, one thing became very apparent, and that was that the play was not about the literal broken jug.  It was just one of many symbolisms that were used in this play to signify a deeper meaning.  The main symbolism that I saw was with the very names of the characters within the play- Adam, Eve, and Licht.  I am sure that the majority of people recognize the first two names from the Book of Genesis in the bible.  Licht, which I stumbled upon due to my terrible pronouncing skills, can be viewed as the “light” within the play.

                In the Bible, in the story of Adam and Eve, God placed the first two people on Earth in a place of paradise in which Adam and Eve fell away from and began the cycle of integral sin that is a part of everyone now.   These two characters in the play symbolize this as well, although the roles are reversed.  In “The Broken Jug”, Eve is the innocent character of the duo and is corrupted by Adam.  It is the idea of temptation that is carried over from the old literature to this one.  Adam was tempting Eve into sin by offering to help get Ruprecht out of his military leave, and also tempting her to lie to the court by threatening her as presented at the very beginning of the play, “There’s a certificate of induction here in my pocket… or foul play” (67).   Adam is also shown very clearly as a corrupt judge due to his uneasiness and panic when being informed of the Judge Walter coming to verify the court’s processes.  Just as in the Bible, Eve fell to this corruptness.  The jug was to symbolize Eve’s innocence which was broken along with the jug.  Frau Martha, obviously very upset about the jug, was probably more worried about Eve’s reputation being polluted than the actual jug.  It could be suggested that Kleist was hinting that the justice system, along with the world falls into sin. 

                Licht is a character within the play that seems to be truthfully honest, and conducts himself in a conscious, honorable manner.  He is also the one who reveals the truth about the breaking of the jug.  His portrayal of genuine and pure quality of character along with this his uncovering of the truth, can set him apart as the “light” of the play.  Through revealing the truth can also be phrased as “shining light” on the truth. 

The Contrast- Jessamy's Vernacular as a Flag of his Affiliation

The vernacular and manner of speaking of a character certainly carry with them the power to command the way in which the character is perceived by the audience. Keeping that in mind, there are two ways one can really tell what kind of air the characters Jessamy and Jonathan might have been intended to have for the performances of The Contrast, in its era:  their difference in mannerism, and their difference in vernacular. While mannerism is bound to be left to be subject to their actors in particular, a look at the two kinds of speech displayed by the two characters is non-negotiable in comparison, in part because of its blatancy and in part because of the fact that it was written into the play manually. Keeping in mind that the author was in need of appealing to a split audience and their opinions regarding the two different types of characters in the play, it becomes evident what his goal was with these two characters: to make them appear equally detestable by the other camp. To illustrate this, Jessamy will be considered.

For Jessamy, the fashionable, sharp-tongued aide to Mr. Dimple, his vernacular gives away a few things from the start. For one, he obviously places much value in the ideals of the English Statesman Philip Stanhope, the 4th Earl of Chesterfield. To quote the text directly, “--I was going to be guilty of a vile proverb; flat against the authority of Chesterfield.---“ Here, his reverence to this very English (and therefore very unpatriotic) material can be made no more obvious, and as further evidence, the references made to Chesterfield continue throughout the play by both Mr. Dimple and Jessamy, perhaps enough to warrant their consideration as a comedic structure. In addition, Jessamy is seen to use the French language often in his conversation, such as in his introduction to Jonathan at the very beginning of Act 2, Scene 2: “Votre, tres-humble serviteur, Monsieur. I understand Colonel Manly, the Yankee officer, has the honour of your services.” Like the repetition of the Chesterfield references, the repeated use of French was probably intended to display the loathable qualities of those who were very much “un-American” in the play, or to describe it differently, to show that that character and his affiliates placed more value on the customs of Europe than the true-blue colonists did. (Note the coquettish Charlotte utilizes the French language a few times herself.) Jonathan even calls Jessamy out on his “outlandish lingo” a few lines later, just after their introductions in the second act.

The Contrast: Gender Oppresion

One main theme that I discovered from this play is gender oppression. Well-stated by the title of the play, The Contrast portrayed the different and opposite roles of men and women in America at that time. Men were seen to be aggressive and free; while women were to do whatever they could to please men. Although America was battling hard to gain independence from Britain, the society especially the women were yet to be truly free. Take the dialogue of Letitia and Charlotte in the beginning of the play for example [pg. 9]:

CHARLOTTE. Why, my dear little prude, are we not all such libertines? Do you think, when I sat tortured two hours under the hands of my friseur, and an hour more at my toilet, that I had any thoughts of my aunt Susan or my Cousin Betsey? though they are both allowed to be critical judges of dress.

LETITIA. Why, who should we dress to please?

CHARLOTTE. Why, a creature who does not know Bouffon from Souffle—Man! ... ...

When it seemed that they claimed to be libertines, they were not actually free. As we can see from the dialogue, Charlotte was willing to ‘torture’ herself just to please men. She bought a hat from Mrs. Catgut just because the seller said the hat is the most fashionable. She did not seem to have a mind of her own, but to conform to the requirements of the society blindly. Their life purpose was to please each and everyone around them other than themselves. They were degraded and oppressed by the society.

In the case of Maria, she had a desire of her own. She had her own goals, aims, and principles. But she was oppressed by her family – her father. She had no say of her own marriage. She was forced to accept her marriage with Dimple. This oppression shows the inability of women to have their desires fulfilled, or even to have a desire of their own. They were programmed, controlled, and molded to follow the norm of the society – the masculine-based society.

The play ended with marriage proposal between Maria and Manly; and Letitia revealed Dimple’s amoral act which caused Dimple to leave dishonored. So, the ending seemed to suggest that there were hopes for a change in women’s status. Women could truly be free and equal to obtain their desires. And the history of America proves it all.

The Contrast: Jonathon

As seen in other posts, it can be said that both Jonathon and Colonel Manly are both patriotic. Because both are so patriotic in the story, they both symbolize their country, the U.S.A. However, only Colonel Manly gets the girl at the end. Why didn’t Jonathon end up happy with a girl, too? What was Jonathon’s role? (These two questions remind me of that class lecture where Zanetto’s death was questioned in “The Venetian Twins.”)

                In analyzing the situation, it can be implied that Jonathon represents the stereotypical ignorant, simple-minded American seen by foreigners, whereas Colonel Manly represents the honorable, intelligent, respectful, model American. It’s highly possible that Jonathon didn’t get a girl in the end because he didn’t deserve it. First off, he’s too ignorant and naïve to have a girlfriend. He thought the lady outside the Holy Ground was the deacon’s kind, innocent daughter when she was actually some prostitute standing there. He thought the actors in the play “The Poor Soldier” were part of reality. Jessamy was able to manipulate Jonathon into disgusting Jenny by tricking him into thinking multiple bows, excessive kisses, and incoherent speech on love were the ways to court a lady. Jonathon is not capable to be any woman’s man if he’s too stupid to take care of her.

                The second reason for Jonathon not being matched up in the end is because Jenny and Tabitha didn’t seem compatible with him. When Jenny was first introduced in the play, one of things she said was “Why, Jonathon, the New-England colonel’s servant. Do you know he was at the play last night, and the stupid creature don’t know where he has been (pg. 32).” She calls him stupid and defines him as some animal. Tabitha may seem his only other option, but she’s not. He tells Jessamy in their conversation, “There’s Tabitha Wymen, the deacon’s daughter…. She and I have been courting a great while…. I broke a piece of money with her when we parted, and she promised not to spark it with Solomon Dyer while I am gone (pg. 27-28).” It’s not really true love or a good match if he has to pay his girl to promise to not get with another man. Also, Jonathon admits that a bonus with getting with Tabitha is that her father is rich. He then abandons the idea of getting with Tabitha when Jessamy mentions the better wealth in other women. Thus, Jonathon seems to be some gold digger.

                Even though Jonathon symbolizes the simple-minded, ignorant American, “Jonathon’s basic good intentions are redeemed in his loyalty to Colonel Manly (pg 3).” He was still a loyal friend to Colonel Manly.  He was still a patriotic character. His questions towards Jessamy showed he had a chance of understanding how to court women: “Well, but suppose she should be angry with I?... Must I buss her when I am introduced to her (pg. 29)?” Why give his character a decent ending? It can be said that although Jonathon did not get the happy ending with a girl, he still has a potential to earn it. Symbolically, it can be interpreted as this: Americans who are naïve or ignorant have the potential to educate/better themselves. They have the potential to become like Colonel Manly, a true model American. That’s why Jonathon wasn’t given a girl in the end, but was given a decent ending.

Polite Society: The Contrast vs The Misanthrope

The Contrast and The Misanthrope are two plays deeply entrenched in social policy. The characters of both live in a world where politeness, cordiality, and flattery stretch thinly over deeper feelings of deceit, self-advancement, and mockery. So what are some of the differences between The Misanthrope and The Contrast's social politics? That question can be explored further by comparing and contrasting some of the characters in both plays.

There is no circle of Hell deep enough for my kind.

(img: source)

Eliante vs Maria
or The Deserving Woman

Here's a basic question: Which girl got the guy in the end? Simple enough to answer; Eliante in The Misanthrope, and Maria in The Contrast. So here's another question: Why? Why did those particular women get their "happiness" (or at least their pairing). I like to think it's because Eliante and Maria were both two women who played by the rules of society, without manipulating, bending, or even really deviating from those rules.

Eliante and Maria represent The Deserving Woman -- a woman who accepts her place, no matter how difficult it may be (re: Maria's situation with her duty to marry a man she doesn't love), and is not deceitful or harmful to the other characters around her. To the eyes of the audience, this woman deserves her happiness.

Celimene vs Dimple
or The Deceiver Straight-Up Playin'

On the other spectrum of things sit Celimene and Dimple. Both characters are very aware of the social game. They know the rules inside and out, and play to their advantage. But here, subtle differences shine through. Celimene uses her popularity to wind suitors around her little finger, but is also used by her suitors as a source of entertainment. As Alceste put it,

"You lead her on with laughter and applause,

And make her think that she's the more delightful

The more her talk is scandalous and spiteful."

In The Misanthrope, Celimene can be seen as a victim of the attention given to her. But in The Contrast, Dimple is the definitive "bad guy." Even when Charlotte and Letitia deceive, it is Dimple who has moved them to their deception.

Alceste vs Manly
or The Weird Kid Who Doesn't Play By The Rules

In The Misanthrope, Alceste is the outsider. He doesn't want anything to do with polite customs. He considers disproportionate civility a vile thing worth derision. Colonel Manly affects much the same attitude, but his stays firmly rooted in reality. Where Alceste is spiteful of the customs, enough to be labeled a misanthrope, Manly adopts his own sense of propriety. Where one throws out social politics altogether, the other embraces a better social policy -- one of honesty without crassness.

This difference is most importantly seen at the end of both plays. Where Alceste offers to take Celimene despite her flaws (so long as she ultimately chooses him), Manly, despite his love for Maria, can't bring himself to commit the faux pas of offering courtship to an engaged woman. Manly still has some propriety about him, enough to influence Charlotte and Letitia to achieve their own redemption (asking forgiveness for their wily ways), enough to gain the approval of a staunch father (Van Rough), and enough to achieve his own happiness with Maria.

The Contrast: The Manly Siblings

"What a pair!-She the pink of flirtation, he the essence of everything that is outré and gloomy."

One of my favorite things about this play was the number of contrasts found throughout it (almost as if it was hinted to in the title). Of those contrasts, one that really stood out to me was the siblings.

Beyond the obvious of one being a girl and the other being a boy, these siblings are the epitome of opposites. Where Charlotte was obsessed with fashion and being up to date on the latest styles and social trends, Henry was mature enough to see past the foolishness of it all. He had been to war and had traveled with the army, and basically, he’d seen some stuff.

Of the two, obviously Henry was the “better.” He handled himself well, his actions were more thought out, and he was just all around more mature (I don’t remember it mentioning if he was older or not, but he seems to be the older of the two, so the maturity isn’t unexpected). I’m not saying he’s “perfect” by any means, though. For all of his fancy talk, in the end, he wound up “in love” with a person he’d just met. On top of that, he seemed to shoot into random tangents of patriotism.

On the other hand, Charlotte wasn’t all bad. Sure, she was a flighty, materialist gossip whose main concern was looking “fashionable,” but she knew where to draw the line. She was all about playing it up for the boys, but for her, flirting was a game, and when Dimple took it too far, she reacted appropriately.

Another aspect of the siblings that stood out to me was what they represented. The upstanding Henry, who stood up for what was right, didn’t care what others thought of him, respected women, and loved his country and fellow soldiers above all else, was a prime example of what the country looked for in its youths and countrymen. In contrast, Charlotte represented what the country’s youth (and high society) actually was, a bunch of superficial, morally deviant, trend followers who were, primarily, looking out for number one.

Even ending proves this point. The model of what Americans should be like was rewarded for his honor and patriotism by ending up with his perfect match (another character who chose to do the right thing over personal happiness), and those who took part in the trends of the day all ended up alone after being caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

-Andrea

The Contrast: Luxury, Frugality, and Patriotism

I connected The Contrast with Henri Bergson’s Laughter when Bergson brought up the idea that laughter, in a community, is supposed to be corrective for the whole community. Royall Tyler wrote The Contrast as a satire of modern America at that time. Each character represented or brought up some vice or something Tyler saw in American society that he believed to be wrong.  Colonel Manly was portrayed as what Tyler believed to be a good man.

In The Contrast, Colonel Manly gives a speech on why greed and luxury is bad for America. (pg.38-39) One of the things he says is “…Luxury! Which enervates both soul and body, by opening a thousand new sources of enjoyment, opens, also, a thousand new sources of contention and want…” Personally I both agree with this statement and disagree.

Luxury under some circumstances is good and helpful such as when someone goes on vacation. The time off of work and from a busy life is needed and the luxury of staying in a hotel, not having to cook for yourself etc. is really nice for a short period of time. When it gets dangerous is when people continually live this way and expect these luxuries instead of seeing them as such. 

So why then does Colonel Manly seem to think all luxury is bad, even things that aren’t necessarily luxury but common in society? His sister Charlotte urges him to get his military coat tailored to the height of common fashion. Considering most men and women kept up with what clothes were popular, this wasn’t exactly a luxury so much as a common occurrence. However when Colonel Manly replies he says, “…there was a time when this coat was respectable, and some people even thought that those men…, at least deserved that the poverty of their appearance should not be ridiculed.” (pg. 23) So in essence, Colonel Manly doesn’t tailor his old coat not because he’s too cheap, but because he wants to show his patriotism for his country and for the men who fought with him. With this being said he seems to further extrapolate this idea into all of his life; living meagerly and not gambling or spending money where it doesn’t need to be spent. Colonel Manly has seen and lived in true depravity and so chooses to honor his experience, along with the men who died next to him, with frugality and meekness.

The Contrast: This is America

 America, in it's infancy (and I suppose today as well) was obsessed with total freedom. Anything British or otherwise highly European was representative of life before the United States and therefore bad. Ultimately this ideology is why today the US is always that one county that uses a different standard than the world, but I digress.

The Contrast seems to be more or less between America and Europe. On a micro level we see this with the pairings of Jonathan & Jessamy and Manly & Dimple. Jonathan and Jessamy both hold the same relative position, however Jessamy is much more intelligent and refined. Jonathan, on the other hand, is quite simple and often downright stupid. In an inverse of that, Manly's character far surpasses that of Dimple's.

So a balance is struck, right? Well, not exactly. The core of this argument is America's drive, at the time, to be different and their own. Jonathan is simple, but he is not manipulative and ill-willed like Jessamy. In addition, Jonathan is undoubtedly American. It's obvious in things such as the way he talks and his dislike of theater, said in the introduction to be common at the time. Jonathan may be an idiot, but he's our idiot. Much like Jessamy, Dimple is intelligent but manipulative. Unlike Jonathan, Manly doesn't have many ill qualities. Instead he serves almost as a device to speak directly to the American people; more than once he departs on a tangent that feels more like a lecture than a response in a conversation.

In Manly's rants he mentions several things relevant to America at the time, such as the Grecian City-States, however the particular piece I want to focus on is when Dimple confronts him on the quality of American entertainment. To Manly, the quality is not quite as important as the origin and intent – maybe your entertainment is better, but ours is important because it's ours. Ultimately Tyler conveys a very strong sense that, while America may not be the best, it's also not the worst; in addition, it's OURS, and we should embrace that.

(I wrote this in the final hours of Monday with my internet down. I apologize if it's similar to what someone else already posted.)

The Contrast - Manly/Jonathan vs. Dimple/Jessamy

                There is a great and obvious contrast between Colonel Manly and his servant Jonathan and Dimple and his servant Jessamy.  The pairs seem to be on opposite sides of a spectrum.  Colonel Manly and Jonathan are honest and sincere while Dimple and Jessamy are snobbish and unfaithful.  Dimple and Jessamy seem to be overly concerned with how they dress and act.  Colonel Manly and Jonathan on the other hand, keep things simple and dress and act how they choose.

                The first pair, Colonel Manly and Jonathan, are very patriotic Americans.  Colonel Manly fought in the Revolutionary War and he still wears his soldier’s coat.  Jonathan is very much like Colonel Manly.  The second pair, Dimple and Jessamy, are not patriotic in any sense.  They seem to idolize the high society of England and very much so wish to be a part of it. 

                As stated before, the first pair is honest and sincere and the second pair is snobbish and unfaithful.  This together with the first pair being patriotic Americans and the second pair idolizing the high society of England suggests that being American is better than being English.  The play was written just after the Revolutionary war.  With that historical background information, these ideas make a good bit of sense. 

Manly: A True American

In 1787, when The Contrast was published, America had been removed from the Revolutionary War for four years and the America we know today had not been established yet. As a newly independent nation, America was trying to establish its own identity. I believe that Royall Tyler created the character of Colonel Manly as a true American and wished for those in the audience to be influenced by this man’s character.

Colonel Manly shows the traits of an American throughout the play. In ACT II, scene 1, Charlotte criticizes Manly’s clothing because it is not what society finds acceptable, “your coat looks as if it were calculated for the vulgar purpose of keeping yourself comfortable…now another type of coat is fashionable.” Manly wears the coat so he remembers the brave men who fought in the war and the government they had helped create.

In Act IV, scene 1, Dimple criticizes the amusements of America and says those in Europe are far better. Manly is once again defending his nation against Europe as he had done in war by saying, “I love my country; it has its foibles undoubtedly; some foreigners will with pleasure remark them…we, her [America] children, should blush for them in private, and endeavour, as individuals, to reform them.” I read this as Manly saying that if foreigners find errors in America, we must strive to correct them and show the world that no nation is superior to our own.

I believe that Tyler wrote this play as a way to make the citizens of America more patriotic. True Americans must be like Colonel Manly and honor the soldiers who gave their lives fighting in the Revolutionary War and not make it their goal to criticize the faults of their country, but identify those faults and fix them in an attempt to make this great nation better. I believe that Tyler created the characters of Charlotte and Dimple as a way to show what happens to Americans who are not fully detached from Europe. They become selfish, evil, manipulative, and become blind to the greatness of their own country.

The Contrast - Linking transformation of characters to America

            Loyal to the title, there are many contrasts presented in the play. Other than the obvious contrast between the characters in the play, I find myself most attracted to the contrast between the initial and the final shapes of certain characters.

            One of them would be Maria. She is a symbol of the transformation that the women of her time went through. Typically preserved as a reproducing medium and a house keeper, women did not have much say in decisions concerning their welfare. This is shown in the story when Maria attempted to talk to her father about breaking the marriage but backed down instead out of love and respect for her father. However, when Dimple’s cheating was exposed, Maria finally had an official reason to break up with Dimple, much like how the colonists of the American land finally had an official reason to reject the British ruling when taxes were collected without any real standards during the revolutionary war.

If Maria were to end up marrying Dimple, that means this play is no longer a comedy because it does not have a happy and fair ending. Unlike the Venetian Twins where Tonino ended up with the girl of his dreams while Pancrazio was punished in death, Dimple settles in with Maria thus causing grief and pain to three women, Maria, Charlotte and Letitia. Just like if the colonist surrender completely to the British government, America would not be independent just like how Maria would be forced to obey Dimple.

Maria’s change definitely brings out the transformation that she went through, creating a divergence between the Maria at the beginning and the end, which was parallel to the transformation that is promised of the new America after war.

The Contrast: Tragedy or Comedy?

Charlotte:  Pray, Mr. Dimple, was it a tragedy or a comedy?

Dimple:  Faith, Madam, I cannot tell….I suppose it was a comedy.  Yet, on second thoughts, it might be some hero in tragedy, dying so comically as to set the whole house in an uproar.

p. 45

            What differentiates a tragedy from a comedy?  Sometimes it may be hard to find the difference.  In The Contrast, Dimple, although I do not think he is the brightest bulb in the pack, could not tell a tragedy from a comedy. 

            Referencing back to Frye’s The Argument of Comedy, he says that “tragedy is really implicit or uncompleted comedy” and “comedy contains a potential tragedy within itself.”  Tragedy and comedy are intertwined.  Since this class focuses on comedy, I think it’s safe to categorize The Contrast as a comedy.  Let’s see if we can find the potential tragedy within this play.

            Suppose this play ended after Act IV.  We would not have the happy resolution of Act V, and we would end up with discontented characters.  Maria probably would have gone through with her marriage to Dimple, Letitia and Charlotte would be longing for a married man, and Van Rough would be paying off Dimple’s extravagant purchases.  This sounds a lot like a tragedy to me.  Therefore we can affirm Frye’s claim that tragedy is simply an unfinished comedy.

            Fortunately, Tyler included Act V in The Contrast, and we get to see how things unfold.  Dimple’s deceitful ways are exposed, Maria winds up with a man she considers worthy of both her hand and her heart, and Letitia and Charlotte remain in Maria’s good graces and are quickly forgiven for secretly planning to marry Dimple.  This may not seem funny, but it’s certainly not tragic.  This play has the potential to be tragic, but instead takes a turn for the better with the revealing of Dimple’s schemes.  

The Contrast- Marriage

            In The Contrast by Royall Tyler, there are numerous differing, or even contradicting, thoughts and ideas that are presented through the characters. I will be talking about the different views on marriage as seen throughout the play by Maria and Maria’s father.

As the play begins, we clearly see the differences in the definition of marriage as believed by the two characters. Maria is about to take part in an arranged marriage set up by her father. However, she does not want to get married to whom her father arranges her to marry. Her father wants her to marry Mr. Dimple. But her father insists on the marriage despite of his daughter’s feelings. Mr. Dimple is quite different from Maria and she wants out of the relationship as he becomes quite snobbish.     

In the beginning, we hear Letitia and Charlotte talking about the marriage. Letitia says that if Maria gets married to Mr. Dimple, it will be without her heart. Maria insists that she should marry someone who she believes she can cherish for her lifetime. On the other hand, Maria’s father says the marriage is more than a commitment to finding someone of mere profit. His daughter’s feelings are boloney to him and think money is the most important thing she should look out for.

Throughout the play, we read on as Maria falls in love with another man, Charlotte’s brother named Manly. He is supposed to be a contrasting character to Mr. Dimple. Surprisingly at the same time, Mr. Dimple is courting two other women, both Letitia and Charlotte. But in the end, after finding out more about Mr. Dimple, Maria’s father allows the wedding to be canceled and agrees to let his daughter marry the man she truly loves, Manly.