What do you think?
Rate this book
She Stoops to Conquer (Dover Thrift Editions) by Oliver Goldsmith
The action of She Stoops to Conquer (1773) is largely confined to a night and a day in Squire Hardcastle's somewhat dilapidated country Young Marlow, on his way there to meet the bride his father has chosen for him, loses his way and arrives at the house assuming it is an inn. The prospect of meeting the genteel Miss Hardcastle terrifies the diffident youngster; but the serving-girl Kate - in fact, Miss Hardcastle, who chooses not to clarify the misunderstanding - immediately catches his fancy and cannot complain of a lack of ardour in her well-born suitor. After a series of trifling confusions and the inevitable eavesdropping-from-behind-a-screen, all is resolved so pleasingly that the comedy has been a favourite with amateur and professional companies and their audiences for over 230 years.
Paperback
First published January 1, 1773
172 people are currently reading
5847 people want to read
About the author
Oliver Goldsmith
3,542 books152 followersLiterary reputation of Irish-born British writer Oliver Goldsmith rests on his novel
The Vicar of Wakefield
(1766), the pastoral poem
The Deserted Village
(1770), and the dramatic comedy
She Stoops to Conquer
(1773).
This Anglo-Irish poet, dramatist, novelist, and essayist wrote, translated, or compiled more than forty volumes. Good sense, moderation, balance, order, and intellectual honesty mark the works for which people remember him.
This Anglo-Irish poet, dramatist, novelist, and essayist wrote, translated, or compiled more than forty volumes. Good sense, moderation, balance, order, and intellectual honesty mark the works for which people remember him.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 447 reviews
February 24, 2022
Long on my classics 'bucket list'; much of the conviviality has been lost due to passing conventionality; but still a play that anyone interested in English literature will want to be aquatinted with. While this romcon was not my favorite play I still found it an entertaining example of 'protested love due to mistaken identity' that the English have a particular talent (and predilection) for.
May 18, 2015
أعـتـرف أنّ أكـثـر الأشـيـاء بـهـجـة -بـالـنـسـبـة لي- بـعـد مـتـعـة مـطـالـعـة الـكـتـب، هـي مـشـاهـدة فـيـلـم سـيـنـمـائي أو تـجـسـيـد مـسـرحي لـ روايـة أنـهـيـت قـراءتـهـا. مـؤخـرًا كـان الـرّب كـريـمًـا مـعي، إذ هـيّـأ لي مـقـعـدًا أمـامـيًـا في إحـدى دور الـعـرض، شـاهـدت فـيـهـا تـمـثـيـلا رائـعـًا لـلـقـصّـة الإنـجـلـيـزيّـة "تـمسكـنـتْ حـتى تـمـكّـنـت". الـنّـص خـفـيـف، مُـضـحـك، زاده الـعـرض الـمـسـرحي طـرافـة.
July 24, 2017
A Question of Class
24 July 2017
What is it with romantic comedies? I grab a book from a second hand bookshop containing some comedies from times past, and of the fours, plays three of them are romantic comedies. Okay, the other compilation of comedies that I had was a little better, but with regards to this collection I’m sort of a little disappointed that the only comedy that I can appreciate (namely isn’t some comedy of errors surrounding mistaken identities between lovers) is a play by Ben Jonson. Well, maybe we have Shakespeare to thank since pretty much all of his comedies generally fall into that category (and some of them are pretty sickening when I think about it).
You’ve probably guessed by now that I’m not one for romantic comedies. I’d have to say that I’m more of a Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels type of guy than, say, Pretty Woman or some such. Okay, there are some romantic comedies out there that I have liked, such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but then I really didn’t particularly find that funny, which is another thing: why is it that when you have a film that is basically a romance you have to throw the word comedy next to it even though there isn’t actually one funny line in the entire script?
So, that brings us to the story of She Stoops to Conquer. Okay, sure, it’s a romantic comedy, but at least it is clever in its construction and simply doesn’t fall into the category of boy meets girl, boy looses girl, and boy gets girl back and everybody dances off and gets married and sing happy songs while Malvolio ends up rotting in a pit somewhere. Okay, everything does end up working out well in the end, but I’d hardly call it a spoiler since we pretty much are expecting that the moment we sit in our seats with a bottle of craft beer and the curtain rises for the act, with one exception – this play actually isn’t performed all that much, or at least where I tend to drift about.
Then again, I suspect that maybe I wouldn’t be rushing out to actually see this play in a hurry, namely because it is a romantic comedy and they really don’t do all that much for me. Well, let us consider this one though – our hero has this problem in that he simply is not able to communicate with high class girls, so he ends up going after lower class women such as maids. However, there is a young lady that is interested in him, so to grab his attention she pretends to be a maid, only to discover that the world of the lower classes is pretty horrifying to a woman from a high-born social group.
This I can easily understand, particularly when it comes to me intermingling with Christians (and I’m not talking about those over zealous, fundamentalist Christians either, I’m talking about average middle class people who happen to be Christian). The thing is that like it or not our world is divided into various social classes, and while we might pretend that we live in this so called classless society, in reality we don’t. For instance bankers and bricklayers simply do not mix, nor do fashion designers and engineers – while they may not necessarily be of a different class in the sense of aristocratic or working class, they still exist in a class of their own, which brings me to the point with regards to Christians – most of them are university educated middle class people.
Okay, I’m technically middle class, and I’m also university educated, but I come from a vastly different background to what many of them have come from. In fact I remember when I was in university most of them simply hung around in their own little clique, and rarely stepped outside of it to actually see what was going on. I didn’t stay within the clique – I ended up walking out of it into a completely different social group, and saw and did things that would make people’s head spin (unless of course you were in a similar group). Yet, when I wandered back I discovered something quite surprising – they were economically and politically conservative, and I was completely the opposite. In fact most of the people in the finance industry are economically conservative, which is probably why I don’t really mix all that well.
It seems as if I, as usual, have drifted far away from the original premise of this play, but then again I probably haven’t. In a way it has some similarities to the first part of Henry IV, though I don’t think anybody was actually chasing young Harry around the inn, it is just that, like our hero in this play, young Harry finds himself associating with people not really of his class.
24 July 2017
What is it with romantic comedies? I grab a book from a second hand bookshop containing some comedies from times past, and of the fours, plays three of them are romantic comedies. Okay, the other compilation of comedies that I had was a little better, but with regards to this collection I’m sort of a little disappointed that the only comedy that I can appreciate (namely isn’t some comedy of errors surrounding mistaken identities between lovers) is a play by Ben Jonson. Well, maybe we have Shakespeare to thank since pretty much all of his comedies generally fall into that category (and some of them are pretty sickening when I think about it).
You’ve probably guessed by now that I’m not one for romantic comedies. I’d have to say that I’m more of a Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels type of guy than, say, Pretty Woman or some such. Okay, there are some romantic comedies out there that I have liked, such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but then I really didn’t particularly find that funny, which is another thing: why is it that when you have a film that is basically a romance you have to throw the word comedy next to it even though there isn’t actually one funny line in the entire script?
So, that brings us to the story of She Stoops to Conquer. Okay, sure, it’s a romantic comedy, but at least it is clever in its construction and simply doesn’t fall into the category of boy meets girl, boy looses girl, and boy gets girl back and everybody dances off and gets married and sing happy songs while Malvolio ends up rotting in a pit somewhere. Okay, everything does end up working out well in the end, but I’d hardly call it a spoiler since we pretty much are expecting that the moment we sit in our seats with a bottle of craft beer and the curtain rises for the act, with one exception – this play actually isn’t performed all that much, or at least where I tend to drift about.
Then again, I suspect that maybe I wouldn’t be rushing out to actually see this play in a hurry, namely because it is a romantic comedy and they really don’t do all that much for me. Well, let us consider this one though – our hero has this problem in that he simply is not able to communicate with high class girls, so he ends up going after lower class women such as maids. However, there is a young lady that is interested in him, so to grab his attention she pretends to be a maid, only to discover that the world of the lower classes is pretty horrifying to a woman from a high-born social group.
This I can easily understand, particularly when it comes to me intermingling with Christians (and I’m not talking about those over zealous, fundamentalist Christians either, I’m talking about average middle class people who happen to be Christian). The thing is that like it or not our world is divided into various social classes, and while we might pretend that we live in this so called classless society, in reality we don’t. For instance bankers and bricklayers simply do not mix, nor do fashion designers and engineers – while they may not necessarily be of a different class in the sense of aristocratic or working class, they still exist in a class of their own, which brings me to the point with regards to Christians – most of them are university educated middle class people.
Okay, I’m technically middle class, and I’m also university educated, but I come from a vastly different background to what many of them have come from. In fact I remember when I was in university most of them simply hung around in their own little clique, and rarely stepped outside of it to actually see what was going on. I didn’t stay within the clique – I ended up walking out of it into a completely different social group, and saw and did things that would make people’s head spin (unless of course you were in a similar group). Yet, when I wandered back I discovered something quite surprising – they were economically and politically conservative, and I was completely the opposite. In fact most of the people in the finance industry are economically conservative, which is probably why I don’t really mix all that well.
It seems as if I, as usual, have drifted far away from the original premise of this play, but then again I probably haven’t. In a way it has some similarities to the first part of Henry IV, though I don’t think anybody was actually chasing young Harry around the inn, it is just that, like our hero in this play, young Harry finds himself associating with people not really of his class.
June 28, 2021
One of the great comedies in the history of theater, produced first in 1773, seen by me in live production once, at the Stratford (Ontario) Festival in 1972, and now again I listened to in a LA Theater Works audiotaped live production featuring, among other people Joanne Whaley and James Marsters (known best to me as Spike in the Buffy the Vampire TV series). Wonderful production. It was initially titled Mistakes of a Night and has been adapted several times into films.
As always seems to be the case in classic canonical comedies, such as School for Scandal, School for Wives, and so on, this play features two brash young men seeking the hands (or whole bodies, let's be honest) of two women. Charles Marlow is free and easy with working class women, but he stumbles around women of his own class. He approaches Kate Hardcastle assuming she is a barmaid, but it is actually she who has "stooped" from her upper crust life to "conquer" Marlow.
Marlow, tricked by his friend Tony, is operating under the false assumption that the Hardcastle house is actually an inn, and so he is rude, but we laugh at his class arrogance, as over time others are in on the trick and they all have him as the butt of their jokes. So it's a bit of a comedy of manners where we learn of the double standard some rich folks have for the poor, which Goldsmith endeavors to point out and correct. I liked it a lot, again!
As always seems to be the case in classic canonical comedies, such as School for Scandal, School for Wives, and so on, this play features two brash young men seeking the hands (or whole bodies, let's be honest) of two women. Charles Marlow is free and easy with working class women, but he stumbles around women of his own class. He approaches Kate Hardcastle assuming she is a barmaid, but it is actually she who has "stooped" from her upper crust life to "conquer" Marlow.
Marlow, tricked by his friend Tony, is operating under the false assumption that the Hardcastle house is actually an inn, and so he is rude, but we laugh at his class arrogance, as over time others are in on the trick and they all have him as the butt of their jokes. So it's a bit of a comedy of manners where we learn of the double standard some rich folks have for the poor, which Goldsmith endeavors to point out and correct. I liked it a lot, again!
January 26, 2019
Surprisingly funny and readable for something written in the 1700s! It relies on larger than life characters and ridiculous misunderstandings all carried off with zeal and bawdy humor. I want to see it performed!
(I'm currently toiling through Samuel Richardson's Pamela; or, Virtue Rewarded, and while that book precedes this play by a good 30 years, I do believe She Stoops to Conqueror might have re-reconciled me to eighteenth century literature. At least until I pick up Pamela again.)
(I'm currently toiling through Samuel Richardson's Pamela; or, Virtue Rewarded, and while that book precedes this play by a good 30 years, I do believe She Stoops to Conqueror might have re-reconciled me to eighteenth century literature. At least until I pick up Pamela again.)
April 14, 2020
4.5*
2020 reread - just what I needed today!
--------
2016 reread:
I still think that this play needs to be seen to fully appreciate it but I liked this audiobook recording of a live performance. It was easier to listen to this time (I have had more practice!) and thus I found it even funnier than when I heard it a few years ago.
-----------------------
May 2014 review
4.5 stars. This full cast audiobook was a fun way to revisit one of my favorite Restoration comedies. However, I did find that some of the humor was a bit harder to visualize listening rather than reading.
2020 reread - just what I needed today!
--------
2016 reread:
I still think that this play needs to be seen to fully appreciate it but I liked this audiobook recording of a live performance. It was easier to listen to this time (I have had more practice!) and thus I found it even funnier than when I heard it a few years ago.
-----------------------
May 2014 review
4.5 stars. This full cast audiobook was a fun way to revisit one of my favorite Restoration comedies. However, I did find that some of the humor was a bit harder to visualize listening rather than reading.
September 19, 2021
I am fortunate to have seen She Stoops to Conquer on the stage before reading it, and that recollection carried me through the reading. It is a lighthearted comedy of misunderstandings, very well written but so shallow as to be a bit tiresome on the page.
Young Mr. Marlow has been sent down to the countryside to woo Miss Hardcastle, the daughter of his father’s old friend. Through the mischievous deception of Mr. Hardcastle’s stepson, Mr. Marlow believes himself to be in a roadside inn instead of his prospective father-in-law’s house and behaves accordingly. He is a young man tongue-tied and bashful around gentlewomen but all too bold around the lower classes; when he first meets Miss Hardcastle he can’t even look at her, but when he encounters her again, believing her to be a barmaid, he is all too bold. For mysterious reasons this combination appeals to the damsel, who sets out to lead him a merry dance. Miss Hardcastle is a clever, witty young woman in the vein of Elizabeth Bennet (in fact, there are phrases here that Jane Austen echoed in her later work), and she runs circles around the hapless Marlow before taking pity on him in the end.
Add to the mix the gently absurd Mr. and Mrs. Hardcastle, the prankster son, and another pair of lovers and you have a fast-paced, nonstop-action farce. By all means see it on the stage if you have the chance; simply reading it doesn’t quite measure up.
Young Mr. Marlow has been sent down to the countryside to woo Miss Hardcastle, the daughter of his father’s old friend. Through the mischievous deception of Mr. Hardcastle’s stepson, Mr. Marlow believes himself to be in a roadside inn instead of his prospective father-in-law’s house and behaves accordingly. He is a young man tongue-tied and bashful around gentlewomen but all too bold around the lower classes; when he first meets Miss Hardcastle he can’t even look at her, but when he encounters her again, believing her to be a barmaid, he is all too bold. For mysterious reasons this combination appeals to the damsel, who sets out to lead him a merry dance. Miss Hardcastle is a clever, witty young woman in the vein of Elizabeth Bennet (in fact, there are phrases here that Jane Austen echoed in her later work), and she runs circles around the hapless Marlow before taking pity on him in the end.
Add to the mix the gently absurd Mr. and Mrs. Hardcastle, the prankster son, and another pair of lovers and you have a fast-paced, nonstop-action farce. By all means see it on the stage if you have the chance; simply reading it doesn’t quite measure up.
December 5, 2017
Re-reading for a bit of fun - still amusing!
Considering this was written in the late 1700s, it feels remarkably fresh and very accessible, and some of the jokes are even funny by today's standards, which is an impressive thing for Goldsmith to have pulled off!
It's classic Restoration fare - bawdy humour, plenty of misunderstanding and miscommunication, and a happy resolution at the end. The characters are particularly 'larger-than-life' which helps keep the attention; think typically Shakespearean-based plot-line, only a bit less wordy!
Good fun.
Considering this was written in the late 1700s, it feels remarkably fresh and very accessible, and some of the jokes are even funny by today's standards, which is an impressive thing for Goldsmith to have pulled off!
It's classic Restoration fare - bawdy humour, plenty of misunderstanding and miscommunication, and a happy resolution at the end. The characters are particularly 'larger-than-life' which helps keep the attention; think typically Shakespearean-based plot-line, only a bit less wordy!
Good fun.
February 16, 2025
A hilarious English comedy of mistaken identity and good-natured deceit! This is the first work I’ve read by Goldsmith, but it won’t be the last.
A few favourite quotes:
“There was a time, indeed, I fretted myself about the mistakes of government, like other people; but finding myself every day growing more angry, and the government growing no better, I left it to mend itself.” 🤣
“In this hypocritical age there are few that do not condemn in public what they practise in private, and think they pay every debt to virtue when they praise it.”
“When a girl finds a fellow’s outside to her taste, she then sets about guessing the rest of his furniture. With her, a smooth face stands for good sense, and a genteel figure for every virtue.” 🤣
A really fun romp with some subtle statements on class and societal expectations. I enjoyed it!
A few favourite quotes:
“There was a time, indeed, I fretted myself about the mistakes of government, like other people; but finding myself every day growing more angry, and the government growing no better, I left it to mend itself.” 🤣
“In this hypocritical age there are few that do not condemn in public what they practise in private, and think they pay every debt to virtue when they praise it.”
“When a girl finds a fellow’s outside to her taste, she then sets about guessing the rest of his furniture. With her, a smooth face stands for good sense, and a genteel figure for every virtue.” 🤣
A really fun romp with some subtle statements on class and societal expectations. I enjoyed it!
February 26, 2023
"Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies."
That might as well be the official motto of this witty comedy by Oliver Goldsmith.
I read it as a comedy of manners, delivering sendups of class snobbery, but this play could also be considered a "laughing comedy," such as was written by Richard Sheridan.
Whichever genre you prefer to use for this play, the best word for it might be "funny."
That might as well be the official motto of this witty comedy by Oliver Goldsmith.
I read it as a comedy of manners, delivering sendups of class snobbery, but this play could also be considered a "laughing comedy," such as was written by Richard Sheridan.
Whichever genre you prefer to use for this play, the best word for it might be "funny."
January 29, 2019
As subtle as a thunderclap and as realistic as wax lips, this is still mighty witty 245 years after its first production. I am looking forward to seeing it on the stage.
November 30, 2020
I was hoping to enjoy this more than I did. It seemed a bit too farcical for my taste. The best thing I can say is that it was short.
January 13, 2025
This is a multifarious work of art and as such several arguments and schemes stick out of it. One of the premises is the distinction between manifestation and realism.
Facades are misleading, but they are continually taken for reality and truth.
From this arise a number of gaffes, so many that it would be correct to call the play a great “comedy of errors”. The dramatist had these errors in mind when he gave to the play the sub-title ‘The Mistakes of a Night’.
A concise deliberation of some significant illusory appearances would make the point clear.
*The residence of Mr. Hard castle — an outdated rambling house — appears very much like an inn. It has a buck’s head fixed to the outer gate, very much like the sign-board of an inn. Marlow and Hastings are deceived by its appearance, and do in fact take it to be an inn. This deceiving appearance of the house leads to a number of errors on the part of both Marlow and Hastings. They mistake Hard castle to be an “uncommon” innkeeper for this reason, and order him about as they would an innkeeper. The readers take pleasure in the fun of it.
*Marlow takes Kate Hard castle to be a barmaid. She is dressed straightforwardly, as a commonplace country-girl. Heruncomplicated and unadorned appearance deceives Marlow, and he takes the appearance to be the reality. The result is he makes love to her, as he would to an ordinary bar-maid, who are usually women of easy-virtue. Taking appearance for truth, he makes a fool of himself to the great enjoyment of the readers and spectators who know the truth.
*Tony seems to be a vagrant, a thug, spoiled by his mother, and in disagreement with his step-father. This is simply appearance, for in actual fact he is gracious and obliging, and has several dignified qualities of head and heart. Without a doubt, he is partial to handy jokes and tricks, but this is just an expression of his enthusiasm for life and high animal spirits. He makes friends with Miss Neville and Hastings throughout, and the triumphant finale of their love- story would not have been probable devoid of his opportune assist. He may seem to be a great fool, but in point of fact he is moderately bright and can work out apposite plans for his purposes.
*To his father, Marlow seems to be a very modest young man who is shy and reserved in the presence of women. He recommends him to Mr. Hard castle as one of the most modest of young men. But to Hard castle he appears to be a very impudent and insolent young man. Both the friends are thus deceived by first appearances. Marlow is impudent to Hard castle because he takes him to be an innkeeper and he is so forward and bold in making love to Kate Hard castle because he takes her to be, first, a bar-maid, and then a poor relative of the family. Appearances are deceptive and lead to complications, which are resolved as soon as the truth which lies beneath is known.
*Constance and Tony seem to be in love with each other; they go in corners and make love. But it is only an appearance. They are making a show of love to deceive Mrs. Hard castle. The truth or reality is entirely different. In reality Tony loves Bet Bouncer, and Constance loves Hastings. The appearance of love is meant merely to cover up the reality—Hastings-Neville plan of elopement. Constance dissimulates so cleverly, that her aunt is completely deceived and is even ready to give her fortune to her. When she discovers the truth, she is mad with rage and the audience enjoys her discomfiture.
*In the screen-scene, Marlow thinks that he is alone with Kate, and so proceeds to make love to her. He even kneels before her, and begs her hand in marriage. In reality they are not alone, but are being watched by both Sir Charles and Hard castle from behind the curtain. Kate knows this tint, and so does the audience. But Marlow does not know it. In this way, his double character and the fact behind many appearances, come to light, and all complications are resolved.
*The theme of appearance versus reality is kept up till the very end. To Mrs Hard castle it appears that she is at a great distance from her house, and further that a highwayman is about to kill her darling son. So, she comes out of her hiding and prays to him to spare the life of her son. But the truth is otherwise. As it happens, she is in close vicinity of her home, and it is not a highwayman but her own husband out for his usual after-supper walk. In fact her son has deceived her, by seeming to drive forward, while in effect he was just going round and round the house.
In short, appearances are unrepresentative, and deceived by appearances, the characters in the play commit numerous mistakes, which result in hurdles.
However, these impediments are resolved when the reality is known. The movement of the action is from manifestation to certainty, from fabrication to fact, from proximity and hypocrisy to frankness and unaffectedness. In this way, the mistakes of the night are crowned with merriment in the morning.
It has all been an uproarious ‘comedy of errors’.
Addendum 2025:
This tome is rich with symbols, allegory, and motifs that enhance its themes of social class, identity, and romantic confusion. Below is an analysis of these elements:
Symbols:
The Mansion (Hardcastle House) - Symbol of Social Hierarchy: The Hardcastle mansion represents the rigid structure of the social class system. Its mistaken identity as an inn underscores the superficial judgments characters make based on appearances.
Duality: It symbolizes both wealth and simplicity, reflecting Mr. Hardcastle’s old-fashioned values versus the modern, materialistic outlook of Marlow and Hastings.
Clothing
Symbol of Identity and Deception: Kate Hardcastle’s shift between upper-class attire and her "barmaid" disguise represents how appearances can be manipulated to create different perceptions of identity. Clothing plays a critical role in her ability to "stoop" to conquer Marlow's affections.
The Inn (Mistaken Setting) - Symbol of Miscommunication and Comedy: Tony Lumpkin's prank of misdirecting Marlow and Hastings to believe the Hardcastle house is an inn sets the comedic tone of the play. It symbolizes confusion and the folly of assumptions.
Allegory:
Class and Courtship - The play as a whole serves as an allegory for navigating class barriers in relationships. Marlow's contrasting behavior with women of different perceived social statuses critiques societal norms about class and courtship.
Goldsmith portrays how love and understanding transcend the artificial boundaries of class.
Country vs. City Values - The Hardcastle family represents traditional, rural values, while Marlow and Hastings embody urban sophistication and pretension. The interactions between these groups allegorize the cultural tensions of 18th-century England.
Motifs:
Mistaken Identities: A recurring motif, mistaken identity drives the plot and creates dramatic irony. Characters' false assumptions—like Marlow mistaking the Hardcastle home for an inn or Kate pretending to be a barmaid—highlight the gap between perception and reality.
Social Masks and Hypocrisy
The theme of outward behavior masking true intentions is repeated throughout the play. Marlow's shyness with upper-class women contrasts sharply with his forwardness with "lower-class" women, emphasizing societal double standards.
Marriage and Matchmaking
The pursuit of suitable matches is a central motif, reflecting 18th-century concerns about wealth, status, and romance. The play ultimately subverts these norms, celebrating love over material considerations.
Comedy of Errors: From Tony's schemes to the characters’ misunderstandings, the play repeatedly explores the humor in human folly and miscommunication.
Las words - The symbols, allegory, and motifs in She Stoops to Conquer enhance its critique of societal norms and human behavior. Goldsmith weaves these elements seamlessly into the narrative, creating a timeless comedy that satirizes class divisions and celebrates the triumph of love and wit.
Facades are misleading, but they are continually taken for reality and truth.
From this arise a number of gaffes, so many that it would be correct to call the play a great “comedy of errors”. The dramatist had these errors in mind when he gave to the play the sub-title ‘The Mistakes of a Night’.
A concise deliberation of some significant illusory appearances would make the point clear.
*The residence of Mr. Hard castle — an outdated rambling house — appears very much like an inn. It has a buck’s head fixed to the outer gate, very much like the sign-board of an inn. Marlow and Hastings are deceived by its appearance, and do in fact take it to be an inn. This deceiving appearance of the house leads to a number of errors on the part of both Marlow and Hastings. They mistake Hard castle to be an “uncommon” innkeeper for this reason, and order him about as they would an innkeeper. The readers take pleasure in the fun of it.
*Marlow takes Kate Hard castle to be a barmaid. She is dressed straightforwardly, as a commonplace country-girl. Heruncomplicated and unadorned appearance deceives Marlow, and he takes the appearance to be the reality. The result is he makes love to her, as he would to an ordinary bar-maid, who are usually women of easy-virtue. Taking appearance for truth, he makes a fool of himself to the great enjoyment of the readers and spectators who know the truth.
*Tony seems to be a vagrant, a thug, spoiled by his mother, and in disagreement with his step-father. This is simply appearance, for in actual fact he is gracious and obliging, and has several dignified qualities of head and heart. Without a doubt, he is partial to handy jokes and tricks, but this is just an expression of his enthusiasm for life and high animal spirits. He makes friends with Miss Neville and Hastings throughout, and the triumphant finale of their love- story would not have been probable devoid of his opportune assist. He may seem to be a great fool, but in point of fact he is moderately bright and can work out apposite plans for his purposes.
*To his father, Marlow seems to be a very modest young man who is shy and reserved in the presence of women. He recommends him to Mr. Hard castle as one of the most modest of young men. But to Hard castle he appears to be a very impudent and insolent young man. Both the friends are thus deceived by first appearances. Marlow is impudent to Hard castle because he takes him to be an innkeeper and he is so forward and bold in making love to Kate Hard castle because he takes her to be, first, a bar-maid, and then a poor relative of the family. Appearances are deceptive and lead to complications, which are resolved as soon as the truth which lies beneath is known.
*Constance and Tony seem to be in love with each other; they go in corners and make love. But it is only an appearance. They are making a show of love to deceive Mrs. Hard castle. The truth or reality is entirely different. In reality Tony loves Bet Bouncer, and Constance loves Hastings. The appearance of love is meant merely to cover up the reality—Hastings-Neville plan of elopement. Constance dissimulates so cleverly, that her aunt is completely deceived and is even ready to give her fortune to her. When she discovers the truth, she is mad with rage and the audience enjoys her discomfiture.
*In the screen-scene, Marlow thinks that he is alone with Kate, and so proceeds to make love to her. He even kneels before her, and begs her hand in marriage. In reality they are not alone, but are being watched by both Sir Charles and Hard castle from behind the curtain. Kate knows this tint, and so does the audience. But Marlow does not know it. In this way, his double character and the fact behind many appearances, come to light, and all complications are resolved.
*The theme of appearance versus reality is kept up till the very end. To Mrs Hard castle it appears that she is at a great distance from her house, and further that a highwayman is about to kill her darling son. So, she comes out of her hiding and prays to him to spare the life of her son. But the truth is otherwise. As it happens, she is in close vicinity of her home, and it is not a highwayman but her own husband out for his usual after-supper walk. In fact her son has deceived her, by seeming to drive forward, while in effect he was just going round and round the house.
In short, appearances are unrepresentative, and deceived by appearances, the characters in the play commit numerous mistakes, which result in hurdles.
However, these impediments are resolved when the reality is known. The movement of the action is from manifestation to certainty, from fabrication to fact, from proximity and hypocrisy to frankness and unaffectedness. In this way, the mistakes of the night are crowned with merriment in the morning.
It has all been an uproarious ‘comedy of errors’.
Addendum 2025:
This tome is rich with symbols, allegory, and motifs that enhance its themes of social class, identity, and romantic confusion. Below is an analysis of these elements:
Symbols:
The Mansion (Hardcastle House) - Symbol of Social Hierarchy: The Hardcastle mansion represents the rigid structure of the social class system. Its mistaken identity as an inn underscores the superficial judgments characters make based on appearances.
Duality: It symbolizes both wealth and simplicity, reflecting Mr. Hardcastle’s old-fashioned values versus the modern, materialistic outlook of Marlow and Hastings.
Clothing
Symbol of Identity and Deception: Kate Hardcastle’s shift between upper-class attire and her "barmaid" disguise represents how appearances can be manipulated to create different perceptions of identity. Clothing plays a critical role in her ability to "stoop" to conquer Marlow's affections.
The Inn (Mistaken Setting) - Symbol of Miscommunication and Comedy: Tony Lumpkin's prank of misdirecting Marlow and Hastings to believe the Hardcastle house is an inn sets the comedic tone of the play. It symbolizes confusion and the folly of assumptions.
Allegory:
Class and Courtship - The play as a whole serves as an allegory for navigating class barriers in relationships. Marlow's contrasting behavior with women of different perceived social statuses critiques societal norms about class and courtship.
Goldsmith portrays how love and understanding transcend the artificial boundaries of class.
Country vs. City Values - The Hardcastle family represents traditional, rural values, while Marlow and Hastings embody urban sophistication and pretension. The interactions between these groups allegorize the cultural tensions of 18th-century England.
Motifs:
Mistaken Identities: A recurring motif, mistaken identity drives the plot and creates dramatic irony. Characters' false assumptions—like Marlow mistaking the Hardcastle home for an inn or Kate pretending to be a barmaid—highlight the gap between perception and reality.
Social Masks and Hypocrisy
The theme of outward behavior masking true intentions is repeated throughout the play. Marlow's shyness with upper-class women contrasts sharply with his forwardness with "lower-class" women, emphasizing societal double standards.
Marriage and Matchmaking
The pursuit of suitable matches is a central motif, reflecting 18th-century concerns about wealth, status, and romance. The play ultimately subverts these norms, celebrating love over material considerations.
Comedy of Errors: From Tony's schemes to the characters’ misunderstandings, the play repeatedly explores the humor in human folly and miscommunication.
Las words - The symbols, allegory, and motifs in She Stoops to Conquer enhance its critique of societal norms and human behavior. Goldsmith weaves these elements seamlessly into the narrative, creating a timeless comedy that satirizes class divisions and celebrates the triumph of love and wit.
November 10, 2015
MISS HARDCASTLE: I never knew half his merits till now. He shall not go, if I have power or art to detain him. I'll still preserve the character in which I stooped to conquer, but will undeceive my papa, who, perhaps, may laugh him out of his resolution.
-Act IV
I have to be honest: I have been meaning to read She Stoops to Conquer for quite a long time, but just never got around to it until recently. Plays are in high favor for me because of their tendency to be easy to read in one long sitting, unless the play is bad and it feels as if it drags on for ever and ever. Good thing this play was exactly the opposite. Stoops is a wonderful comedy of manners that feels clever, is written wittily by a fantastic playwright, and is probably a whole lot of fun for actors as well. I can only imagine that seeing this play would be quite a riot; I plan on seeing it when I get the chance.
The basic premise is that a man is set to be engaged to a woman of high class, but he has a weird anxiety around high class women that renders him almost speechless and extremely awkward. However, he takes a special liking to lower class girls such as maids. Additionally, the step brother of the young lady is quite the trickster who figures out this oddity and causes the identity confusion that really carries the play through.
I thoroughly enjoy the way this play is written in particular. I know that a lot of other reviewers have commented on the difficult vocabulary, but to me this makes it that much more colorful and vivid. Additionally, I am sad that Goldsmith has a small bibliography, so I do not plan to rush on to his next work. For now, I will savor what a brilliant little play Stoops is- it is compact, vibrant, and terribly, terribly funny and dripping with wit and intelligence.
-Act IV
I have to be honest: I have been meaning to read She Stoops to Conquer for quite a long time, but just never got around to it until recently. Plays are in high favor for me because of their tendency to be easy to read in one long sitting, unless the play is bad and it feels as if it drags on for ever and ever. Good thing this play was exactly the opposite. Stoops is a wonderful comedy of manners that feels clever, is written wittily by a fantastic playwright, and is probably a whole lot of fun for actors as well. I can only imagine that seeing this play would be quite a riot; I plan on seeing it when I get the chance.
The basic premise is that a man is set to be engaged to a woman of high class, but he has a weird anxiety around high class women that renders him almost speechless and extremely awkward. However, he takes a special liking to lower class girls such as maids. Additionally, the step brother of the young lady is quite the trickster who figures out this oddity and causes the identity confusion that really carries the play through.
I thoroughly enjoy the way this play is written in particular. I know that a lot of other reviewers have commented on the difficult vocabulary, but to me this makes it that much more colorful and vivid. Additionally, I am sad that Goldsmith has a small bibliography, so I do not plan to rush on to his next work. For now, I will savor what a brilliant little play Stoops is- it is compact, vibrant, and terribly, terribly funny and dripping with wit and intelligence.
January 1, 2018
This was a funny play about mistaken identities which I picked up because of the title. 'Stoops to conquer' is a phrase that was made popular by Aphra Behn in the mid 17th century in her play The Rover, referring to a person of the upper class pretending to be a maid/servant in order to gain the affections of their intended.
December 15, 2013
I listened to an audio performance of this play, knowing very little about it or the author going in. It was a pleasant surprise. She Stoops to Conquer has aged well, and, I feel, should be studied alongside Austen.
The play predates Austen by about 30 years, but it fills in a lot of the gaps in Austen's work. She rarely acknowledges servants or employees of any kind, while this play highlights, if not the people themselves, how the gentry treated them.
Marlow is a painfully shy young man, off to meet Kate Hardcastle, the girl his father hopes he'll marry. He's accompanied by his friend Hastings, who's in love with Constance Neville, a ward of the Hardcastle family. On their way to the house, Marlow and Hastings get lost, and Tony, the stepson of Mr. Hardcastle, tells them the house is really an inn. Marlow is much more comfortable talking to servants and barmaids, but his behavior is baffling to Mr. Hardcastle. It allows Kate to see another side of her suitor, though, and she keeps up the pretense to draw him out.
Marlow's behavior toward the Hardcastle family is truly appalling, but all is forgiven when the mistake is uncovered. It goes to show how differently servants were treated in so-called polite society. Anyone who wants to resurrect the Napoleonic attitudes needs to realize the vast majority of us are people who work for a living, and are therefore subject to being treated like we're subhuman. The scandals in Austen's work where people fall in love with those below their station is much more easily understood, in this context.
Marlow, who's considered the very model of a gentleman, tries to proposition Kate as a prostitute, and is confused to be rebuffed. Her distance and objections are seen as flirtation, and he assumes she can't possibly mean "no" when she says it. It simply doesn't occur to him that a simple barmaid wouldn't want to sleep around.
L.A. Theatre Works, who recorded this production, includes the sounds of an audience. Though the audience often found remarks uproarious, I found very little to laugh about in this play. It's sharply satirical, and a comedy in the classical sense, in that nobody dies and there's a happily ever after. But, I found the play more eye-opening than funny. Maybe if I were more familiar with the context, as audiences of the time would've been, I would've laughed more.
The performance was a good one. It sounded like a stage production, well-acted by professionals. The inclusion of James Marsters in the cast certainly added to my decision to pick this up, but the others were also excellent.
The play predates Austen by about 30 years, but it fills in a lot of the gaps in Austen's work. She rarely acknowledges servants or employees of any kind, while this play highlights, if not the people themselves, how the gentry treated them.
Marlow is a painfully shy young man, off to meet Kate Hardcastle, the girl his father hopes he'll marry. He's accompanied by his friend Hastings, who's in love with Constance Neville, a ward of the Hardcastle family. On their way to the house, Marlow and Hastings get lost, and Tony, the stepson of Mr. Hardcastle, tells them the house is really an inn. Marlow is much more comfortable talking to servants and barmaids, but his behavior is baffling to Mr. Hardcastle. It allows Kate to see another side of her suitor, though, and she keeps up the pretense to draw him out.
Marlow's behavior toward the Hardcastle family is truly appalling, but all is forgiven when the mistake is uncovered. It goes to show how differently servants were treated in so-called polite society. Anyone who wants to resurrect the Napoleonic attitudes needs to realize the vast majority of us are people who work for a living, and are therefore subject to being treated like we're subhuman. The scandals in Austen's work where people fall in love with those below their station is much more easily understood, in this context.
Marlow, who's considered the very model of a gentleman, tries to proposition Kate as a prostitute, and is confused to be rebuffed. Her distance and objections are seen as flirtation, and he assumes she can't possibly mean "no" when she says it. It simply doesn't occur to him that a simple barmaid wouldn't want to sleep around.
L.A. Theatre Works, who recorded this production, includes the sounds of an audience. Though the audience often found remarks uproarious, I found very little to laugh about in this play. It's sharply satirical, and a comedy in the classical sense, in that nobody dies and there's a happily ever after. But, I found the play more eye-opening than funny. Maybe if I were more familiar with the context, as audiences of the time would've been, I would've laughed more.
The performance was a good one. It sounded like a stage production, well-acted by professionals. The inclusion of James Marsters in the cast certainly added to my decision to pick this up, but the others were also excellent.
August 9, 2017
It’s rare that I get to review a play after both reading and seeing it in a short period of time (although I've now had the chance to do that twice within a month).
Admittedly, I’m predisposed to like She Stoops to Conquer. I like Oliver Goldsmith and consider The Vicar of Wakefield tremendously underrated. I held off reading She Stoops to Conquer simply because Mr. Goldsmith doesn’t have an extensive bibliography, and I want to savor his works.
She Stoops to Conquer was worth the wait as both a piece of literature and a play. It’s an innocent comedy of manners, full of mistaken identities, crossed signals, and ridiculous misdirections. I enjoyed reading it, but, given all of the physical comedy, seeing it performed raised it to another level.
For those wary of classical theatre or intimidated by the language, She Stoops to Conquer would be a good introduction. Like so many good comedies, a delightful timelessness pervades She Stoops to Conquer, both grounding the play and allowing it to transcend its own era. Highly recommended.
Admittedly, I’m predisposed to like She Stoops to Conquer. I like Oliver Goldsmith and consider The Vicar of Wakefield tremendously underrated. I held off reading She Stoops to Conquer simply because Mr. Goldsmith doesn’t have an extensive bibliography, and I want to savor his works.
She Stoops to Conquer was worth the wait as both a piece of literature and a play. It’s an innocent comedy of manners, full of mistaken identities, crossed signals, and ridiculous misdirections. I enjoyed reading it, but, given all of the physical comedy, seeing it performed raised it to another level.
For those wary of classical theatre or intimidated by the language, She Stoops to Conquer would be a good introduction. Like so many good comedies, a delightful timelessness pervades She Stoops to Conquer, both grounding the play and allowing it to transcend its own era. Highly recommended.
November 28, 2019
The central problem in this play is that Mr. Marlow believes himself to be too modest to speak to women of a high class. He states his trouble in this way, “[a]n impudent fellow may counterfeit modesty, but I’ll be hanged if a modest man can ever counterfeit impudence.” But we soon learn that he's a complete douchebag. But I think that's the point. Hilarity ensues! And it's actually pretty funny.
October 23, 2014
A beautiful and light play by Oliver Goldsmith, which is filled with misunderstanding, practical jokes, and deceit! The play addresses various themes and ideas, such as class (the characters’ behaviors and actions are changeable according to the social status of the other person), the importance of money and property (e.g. the jewels), appearances vs. reality, the importance of keeping one’s appearance, love and courting, wittiness, cheating and tricks as means for achieving one’s goals, and parent-child relationship. I loved the happy ending and the dialogue was so beautiful.
March 5, 2012
I had to check the dictionary more often compared to when reading regular books. And sometimes, the dictionary doesn't even contain the words from this 1700's comedy! Other than that, it was pretty funny. I bet that it's more hilarious when performed. (Got to check out if there's some on YouTube.)
September 2, 2018
The introduction notes that this text is part of a debate between comedians on the nature and purpose of the thalian arts. The classical theory, “which Ben Jonson had handed on to the Restoration playwrights,” contended that “the purpose of comedy was to expose, by hardheaded, satirical ridicule, the follies and vices” (vii) of fictional persons so as to correct those defects in the Real. We might think of it as a Hegelian theory of comedy, defined by the confrontation of Right with Wrong (as opposed to tragedy, the confrontation of Right with Right)—does Malvolio, for instance, have any plausible Right (as opposed to Goneril)? Goldsmith by contrast thinks that “folly, instead of being ridiculed, is commended” (ix), a sentimental representation that teaches audiences to pardon and sympathize.
This debate is taken up in the text. The Prologue promises that those who deal in “sentimentals” will succeed (xvi), and the aesthetic polemic continues with lines such as “I have often been surprised how a man of sentiment could ever admire those light airy pleasures where nothing reaches the heart” and “There must be some who, wanting a relish for refined pleasures, pretend to despise what they are incapable of tasting” (25). Some equivocation perhaps on whether it possible to be “too grave and sentimental” (39).
Plenty of wit and mistaken identity and whatnot otherwise to go around. As the title suggests, there is a class conflict here. The title refers specifically to .
Whereas a “reserved lover, it is said, always makes a suspicious husband,” it is difficult when “I’m disposing of a husband, before I have secured the lover” (5)—but one also can be ‘threatened with a lover” (6), NB.
Some dialectic between impudence and modesty: “An impudent fellow may counterfeit modesty, but I’ll be hanged if a modest man can ever counterfeit impudence” (15) and thereafter. This is tied into a repeated refrain about the rights arising from the oikos: “a man in his own house” being unrestrained (19 e.g.). This is all ultimately confounded (a repeated term in the text) in a character’s “modest impudence” (58) on the one hand and another’s “mild, modest, sentimental man of gravity” (67) on the other.
Recommended for those who find the art of reconciling contradictions, readers who send forth sublime commands in peremptory tones, and persons who mistake assiduity for assurance and simplicity for allurement.
This debate is taken up in the text. The Prologue promises that those who deal in “sentimentals” will succeed (xvi), and the aesthetic polemic continues with lines such as “I have often been surprised how a man of sentiment could ever admire those light airy pleasures where nothing reaches the heart” and “There must be some who, wanting a relish for refined pleasures, pretend to despise what they are incapable of tasting” (25). Some equivocation perhaps on whether it possible to be “too grave and sentimental” (39).
Plenty of wit and mistaken identity and whatnot otherwise to go around. As the title suggests, there is a class conflict here. The title refers specifically to .
Whereas a “reserved lover, it is said, always makes a suspicious husband,” it is difficult when “I’m disposing of a husband, before I have secured the lover” (5)—but one also can be ‘threatened with a lover” (6), NB.
Some dialectic between impudence and modesty: “An impudent fellow may counterfeit modesty, but I’ll be hanged if a modest man can ever counterfeit impudence” (15) and thereafter. This is tied into a repeated refrain about the rights arising from the oikos: “a man in his own house” being unrestrained (19 e.g.). This is all ultimately confounded (a repeated term in the text) in a character’s “modest impudence” (58) on the one hand and another’s “mild, modest, sentimental man of gravity” (67) on the other.
Recommended for those who find the art of reconciling contradictions, readers who send forth sublime commands in peremptory tones, and persons who mistake assiduity for assurance and simplicity for allurement.
July 8, 2013
A surprisingly funny and readable play with the classic Shakespeare-style mistaken identity twists but without the heavy wordplay. I quite liked it, to my surprise, even though I embarked upon reading it mostly as a sort of compare/contrast with Shakespeare thing.
Goldsmith and Shakespeare weren't contemporaries, the former being born a hundred years after the latter's death, but it seems the plot of comedic plays hadn't evolved too much in the interim. Rhyming prologue, five acts, one romance, one sub-romance, goofy parents, ends in double weddings, etc. The play involves class more directly than Shakespeare in a sort of Jane-Austen-y eighteenth century way, but other than that the plot is quite similar to the lighter Shakespearean comedies.
Perhaps the difference in time period shows most in the language, which seemed so readable it almost felt like cheating. Most of the puns were understandable! Not sure if it's the century, or an author who just wasn't as devoted to putting fifteen levels of meaning into every bloody word. The dialogue was positively understandable! The main male love interest mumbles idiotically in the presence of nice ladies, and his stammery half-sentences made me feel right at home. The whole thing is a couple hours read at most and that was quite refreshing really.
Which is not to say that I didn't at times miss Shakespeare's incredible wordplay, or his deep devotion to iambic pentameter. A good Shakespeare monologue is like watching a perfectly executed Olympic dive, and Goldsmith has the good sense to avoid anything so ambitious and stay on the shallow end of the linguistic swimming pool, contenting himself with quips and zingers and some decent banter here and there. It is easier to notice the incredibly contrived and predictable plot when you don't hang puns all over every thing, but honestly it's all in good fun and I enjoyed it immensely.
Goldsmith and Shakespeare weren't contemporaries, the former being born a hundred years after the latter's death, but it seems the plot of comedic plays hadn't evolved too much in the interim. Rhyming prologue, five acts, one romance, one sub-romance, goofy parents, ends in double weddings, etc. The play involves class more directly than Shakespeare in a sort of Jane-Austen-y eighteenth century way, but other than that the plot is quite similar to the lighter Shakespearean comedies.
Perhaps the difference in time period shows most in the language, which seemed so readable it almost felt like cheating. Most of the puns were understandable! Not sure if it's the century, or an author who just wasn't as devoted to putting fifteen levels of meaning into every bloody word. The dialogue was positively understandable! The main male love interest mumbles idiotically in the presence of nice ladies, and his stammery half-sentences made me feel right at home. The whole thing is a couple hours read at most and that was quite refreshing really.
Which is not to say that I didn't at times miss Shakespeare's incredible wordplay, or his deep devotion to iambic pentameter. A good Shakespeare monologue is like watching a perfectly executed Olympic dive, and Goldsmith has the good sense to avoid anything so ambitious and stay on the shallow end of the linguistic swimming pool, contenting himself with quips and zingers and some decent banter here and there. It is easier to notice the incredibly contrived and predictable plot when you don't hang puns all over every thing, but honestly it's all in good fun and I enjoyed it immensely.
December 19, 2007
choose between putting your fiance in a challenege and test to see whether or not they do believe in true love of feelings and not that of emotions and find out for yourself whether or not they deserve your true love and decency or not.
is it true that a woman could win the heart of any man she wishes in such as stooping to conquer method?and what about what seems to be a saloon marriage which ends up in a modernly fashionable way of getting around fate to win more love and respect for wittiness of ethics and smartness rather than be beautiful and use it to be a 'bar tender's ethics'?is it worth stooping to conquer?read the prologue first in her defence and the epilogue and then decide for yourself.
is it true that a woman could win the heart of any man she wishes in such as stooping to conquer method?and what about what seems to be a saloon marriage which ends up in a modernly fashionable way of getting around fate to win more love and respect for wittiness of ethics and smartness rather than be beautiful and use it to be a 'bar tender's ethics'?is it worth stooping to conquer?read the prologue first in her defence and the epilogue and then decide for yourself.
March 16, 2015
Okay. If I was writing an encylopaedia (and why not? That sounds like a fascinating thing to do), this would be the definition of farce. It's fast, with entrances and exits, declarations of love, caskets of jewels, innuendos, and pithy wits flying back and forth as fast as the tennis balls at wimbledon. Oh, and in case that can't hold your attention, we've got plenty of mistaken identities thrown in too. It gallops along to a smashing conclusion that's as pat and fun and ridiculous as a falling anvil. I need to see this play. Or watch some cartoons.
July 14, 2020
Ridiculous reader confession: James Marsters is the only reason I listened to this audioboook. Hits me as a lesser Oscar Wilde, but absurd romcom satire isn't my genre of choice, so its connoisseurs are free to call me wildly off base.
June 1, 2025
She Stoops to Conquer is a 1773 comedic play written at the end of the career of Anglo-Irish writer Oliver Goldsmith (1728–1774). The play takes place over a night and a day in Squire Hardcastle's country house, also inhabited by his wife, his daughter, a scamp of a young son Tony Lumpkin and Miss Neville, his niece. The Hardcastle’s hope to arrange two marriages: their son to Miss Neville when Tony comes of age and, the more imminent one, their daughter with the son of Hardcastle’s old friend, Sir Charles Marlow.
Young Marlow along with his friend Hastings, who is also Miss Neville’s friend, is on his way to the Hardcastle house to meet the bride his father has chosen for him when, losing his way, he stops at a tavern where he is tricked into thinking the Hardcastle house is an inn. That begins a whole series of misunderstandings, deceptions and confusions that complicate the prospective matchups and the attitudes of the characters to one another.
It all resulted in some very clever dialogue and scenes. The characters often portray their true thoughts in fairly witty asides aimed at the audience rather than other characters. Surprisingly, these worked well and enhanced the clever dialogue and well-paced activity.
This was a pleasant surprise, especially after reading Oliver Goldsmith’s more tepid storytelling performance in the novel The Vicar of Wakefield. I rate this as 4 stars.
Young Marlow along with his friend Hastings, who is also Miss Neville’s friend, is on his way to the Hardcastle house to meet the bride his father has chosen for him when, losing his way, he stops at a tavern where he is tricked into thinking the Hardcastle house is an inn. That begins a whole series of misunderstandings, deceptions and confusions that complicate the prospective matchups and the attitudes of the characters to one another.
It all resulted in some very clever dialogue and scenes. The characters often portray their true thoughts in fairly witty asides aimed at the audience rather than other characters. Surprisingly, these worked well and enhanced the clever dialogue and well-paced activity.
This was a pleasant surprise, especially after reading Oliver Goldsmith’s more tepid storytelling performance in the novel The Vicar of Wakefield. I rate this as 4 stars.
November 7, 2022
A free read for Kindle from Amazon. If you had asked me in Trivial Pursuit who wrote this, I would have said Shakespeare and I would have been wrong.
A romcom, a quick read and pretty easy to understand, even though it was written in 1773. I added a star for it lasting so long. According to the interwebs, this play has outlived almost all other English-language comedies from the early 18th to the late 19th century. However Goldsmith died the year after he wrote this.
A romcom, a quick read and pretty easy to understand, even though it was written in 1773. I added a star for it lasting so long. According to the interwebs, this play has outlived almost all other English-language comedies from the early 18th to the late 19th century. However Goldsmith died the year after he wrote this.
April 28, 2024
a silly sweet fun little play. A fantastic palette cleanser:)
March 1, 2023
FUNNAY! i liked the characters and reading it in class was fun. i feel some some parts went on though so 4 stars total. if mr sullivan is reading this, ecod!! i also feel like the ending was also kinda meh
November 28, 2016
Oliver Goldsmith's 18th-century hit comedy of errors remains readable today, because it's timeless and funny. By timeless, I mean that its humor is far more reliant on dramatic irony than recognition of inapropos references to pop culture -- although this edition does an excellent job of annotating the few that appear -- to allow for skillful substitution to more contemporary settings.
A brief example of what I mean, from Act II (ostensibly scene 4, though the action has continued unabated in the same space with only conveniently-timed exits and entrances). Here we have a suitor trying to impress a dowager, enumerated annotations in this instance are mine and hidden behind the spoiler:
Despite this example, reference-laced or wit-based humor is rare in this play; the majority of the levity derives from the characterization (the fussy, dowager-fool, for example, as played off against straights or her wicked clown of a son) and the plot. This latter takes a while to set up, but the basic premise has two suitors traveling to the home of a country gentleman to woo his daughter and niece-ward, respectively, arriving under the misapprehension that the host (whom they haven't met) is but an upstart innkeeper. The rake slated for the daughter mistakes her for a barmaid, a good thing, considering that he would otherwise be psychologically incapable of conversation with her. The other couple face different, and more serious complications, but those are mere subplot. Can romance bloom despite the deception? Can it be sustained ere the error is o'erthrown? Such is the stuff that sustains interest in the work.
This is a nice edition in that it includes in addition to the aforementioned annotations, a biographical sketch of the playwright, the play's originally published reviews (mostly, if not entirely laudatory), period illustrations of stage settings and reference materials, and a short discussion of the plot innovations that set this comedy apart from others of its (albeit not Shakespeare's) time.
A brief example of what I mean, from Act II (ostensibly scene 4, though the action has continued unabated in the same space with only conveniently-timed exits and entrances). Here we have a suitor trying to impress a dowager, enumerated annotations in this instance are mine and hidden behind the spoiler:
HASTINGS: ...You amaze me! From your air and manner, I concluded you had been bred all your life either at Ranelagh, St. James's, or Tower Wharf.[1]
MRS. HARDCASTLE: O! sir, you're only pleased to say so. We country persons can have no manner at all. I'm in love with the town, and that serves to raise me above some of our neighbouring rustics; but who can have a manner, that has never seen the Pantheon, the Grotto Gardens, the Borough, and such places where the nobility chiefly resort?[2] All I can do is to enjoy London at second-hand. I take care to know every tete-a-tete from the Scandalous Magazine,[3] and have all the fashions, as they come out, in a letter from the two Miss Rickets of Crooked Lane.[4] Pray how do you like this head, Mr. Hastings?[5]
HASTINGS: Extremely elegant and dégagée, upon my word, madam. Your friseur is a Frenchman, I suppose?[6]
MRS. HARDCASTLE. I protest, I dressed it myself from a print in the Ladies' Memorandum-book for the last year.[7]
Despite this example, reference-laced or wit-based humor is rare in this play; the majority of the levity derives from the characterization (the fussy, dowager-fool, for example, as played off against straights or her wicked clown of a son) and the plot. This latter takes a while to set up, but the basic premise has two suitors traveling to the home of a country gentleman to woo his daughter and niece-ward, respectively, arriving under the misapprehension that the host (whom they haven't met) is but an upstart innkeeper. The rake slated for the daughter mistakes her for a barmaid, a good thing, considering that he would otherwise be psychologically incapable of conversation with her. The other couple face different, and more serious complications, but those are mere subplot. Can romance bloom despite the deception? Can it be sustained ere the error is o'erthrown? Such is the stuff that sustains interest in the work.
This is a nice edition in that it includes in addition to the aforementioned annotations, a biographical sketch of the playwright, the play's originally published reviews (mostly, if not entirely laudatory), period illustrations of stage settings and reference materials, and a short discussion of the plot innovations that set this comedy apart from others of its (albeit not Shakespeare's) time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 447 reviews