What do you think?
Rate this book
Lovers' Vows
Lovers' Vows, a play by Elizabeth Inchbald arguably best known now for having been featured in Jane Austen's novel Mansfield Park (1814), is one of at least four adaptations of August von Kotzebue's Das Kind der Liebe (1780; literally "Love Child," or "Natural Son," as it is often translated), all of which were published between 1796 and 1800.
84 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1798
18 people are currently reading
487 people want to read
About the author
Elizabeth Inchbald
196 books24 followersElizabeth Inchbald (née Simpson) (1753–1821) was an English novelist, actress, and dramatist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 114 reviews
April 3, 2019
One of the tests of Jane Austen fan seriousness is whether you seek out and read Lovers’ Vows, the play enacted in Mansfield Park. For one thing, MP is one of Austen’s least-loved novels; for another, who reads eighteenth-century drama anymore? I resisted for many years, but my Jane Austen reading group selected it as their April book, so at last I submitted.
I can report that it’s not so bad! For one thing, the play is mercifully short. And it moves right along, with a melodramatic storyline and a little bit of comic relief. The story opens with Agatha Friburg, a middle-aged lady who has fallen on hard times, collapsing from hunger and illness outside an inn from which she has been ejected for inability to pay. The hard-hearted innkeeper couldn’t care if she expires on his doorstep. A young man comes along—and turns out to be her son Frederick, on leave from his military unit! He tries to help her but has almost no money himself. They chat for a bit, and Agatha reveals the identity of Frederick’s father, who long ago seduced and abandoned her. He is the Baron Wildenhaim, the principal landowner in the neighborhood (the scene is someplace in Germany), who later married and has been absent from his estates for many years.
A kind peasant couple take in Agatha, sharing what little they possess, and Frederick goes off to beg alms so he can better help his mother. Meanwhile, the scene shifts to the local castle: it turns out that Baron Wildenhaim has returned with his daughter, now grown up, his wife having conveniently died in the interim. Visiting the Baron is Count Cassel, an elegant fop who is amusing himself by courting the daughter, Amelia. Amelia is a lively girl who hides a secret love for her former tutor, Anhalt, under a coquettish exterior. She has no use for her aristocratic suitor but settles for poking fun at him, failing for an unaccountable time to tell her father that she wouldn’t marry him if he were the last man on earth. Meanwhile Anhalt has been made the clergyman in the parish, and Baron Wildenhaim summons him to come teach Amelia about marriage and sound out her willingness to marry the Count. Anhalt also loves Amelia, but he tries to set aside his own feelings in order to do his duty to the father who is his patron.
Jane Austen loves the trope of the lover being forced to solicit his/her beloved on behalf of another. It appears in Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park, and, most painfully, in the first version of the ending to Persuasion. So we have a broad hint here that the action of Lovers’ Vows is going to be apposite to the action of Mansfield Park. And there are lots of parallels, especially with regards to the casting of the play in her novel. Readers of MP who are familiar with Lovers’ Vows are clearly being invited to examine Austen’s characters in light of those in the play. For instance, Amelia is played by Mary Crawford, surely the most interesting of Austen’s anti-heroines, and we wonder whether Mary—clearly as clever and flippant as Amelia—is beneath that lightheartedness as fundamentally ethical as the girl she’s portraying, or a darker figure. Anhalt, the clergyman-lover forced to advocate for another, is played by Edmund Bertram, the clergyman-in-training. In the novel there is no other aspirant for Miss Crawford’s hand, but the parallels invite us to consider the differences between the two stories and wonder whether Miss Crawford and Mr. Bertram are really meant for each other. The shocking aspects of Lovers’ Vows—seduction, a child born out of wedlock, a son nearly killing a father and a father nearly killing a son, a man cheerfully wooing women he has no intention of being responsible for—are cartoon versions of some of the action in Mansfield Park.
The drama of Lovers’ Vows unfolds along lines so predictable that I don’t feel like a spoiler when I report that Frederick meets and comes in conflict with his father the Baron; Anhalt is instrumental in sorting out the misunderstandings and thereby earns the hand of Amelia; and Agatha is rewarded at last after her years of suffering. It’s a paint-by-numbers play that is chiefly interesting for the dialogue between its characters and themes and those of Mansfield Park.
I can report that it’s not so bad! For one thing, the play is mercifully short. And it moves right along, with a melodramatic storyline and a little bit of comic relief. The story opens with Agatha Friburg, a middle-aged lady who has fallen on hard times, collapsing from hunger and illness outside an inn from which she has been ejected for inability to pay. The hard-hearted innkeeper couldn’t care if she expires on his doorstep. A young man comes along—and turns out to be her son Frederick, on leave from his military unit! He tries to help her but has almost no money himself. They chat for a bit, and Agatha reveals the identity of Frederick’s father, who long ago seduced and abandoned her. He is the Baron Wildenhaim, the principal landowner in the neighborhood (the scene is someplace in Germany), who later married and has been absent from his estates for many years.
A kind peasant couple take in Agatha, sharing what little they possess, and Frederick goes off to beg alms so he can better help his mother. Meanwhile, the scene shifts to the local castle: it turns out that Baron Wildenhaim has returned with his daughter, now grown up, his wife having conveniently died in the interim. Visiting the Baron is Count Cassel, an elegant fop who is amusing himself by courting the daughter, Amelia. Amelia is a lively girl who hides a secret love for her former tutor, Anhalt, under a coquettish exterior. She has no use for her aristocratic suitor but settles for poking fun at him, failing for an unaccountable time to tell her father that she wouldn’t marry him if he were the last man on earth. Meanwhile Anhalt has been made the clergyman in the parish, and Baron Wildenhaim summons him to come teach Amelia about marriage and sound out her willingness to marry the Count. Anhalt also loves Amelia, but he tries to set aside his own feelings in order to do his duty to the father who is his patron.
Jane Austen loves the trope of the lover being forced to solicit his/her beloved on behalf of another. It appears in Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park, and, most painfully, in the first version of the ending to Persuasion. So we have a broad hint here that the action of Lovers’ Vows is going to be apposite to the action of Mansfield Park. And there are lots of parallels, especially with regards to the casting of the play in her novel. Readers of MP who are familiar with Lovers’ Vows are clearly being invited to examine Austen’s characters in light of those in the play. For instance, Amelia is played by Mary Crawford, surely the most interesting of Austen’s anti-heroines, and we wonder whether Mary—clearly as clever and flippant as Amelia—is beneath that lightheartedness as fundamentally ethical as the girl she’s portraying, or a darker figure. Anhalt, the clergyman-lover forced to advocate for another, is played by Edmund Bertram, the clergyman-in-training. In the novel there is no other aspirant for Miss Crawford’s hand, but the parallels invite us to consider the differences between the two stories and wonder whether Miss Crawford and Mr. Bertram are really meant for each other. The shocking aspects of Lovers’ Vows—seduction, a child born out of wedlock, a son nearly killing a father and a father nearly killing a son, a man cheerfully wooing women he has no intention of being responsible for—are cartoon versions of some of the action in Mansfield Park.
The drama of Lovers’ Vows unfolds along lines so predictable that I don’t feel like a spoiler when I report that Frederick meets and comes in conflict with his father the Baron; Anhalt is instrumental in sorting out the misunderstandings and thereby earns the hand of Amelia; and Agatha is rewarded at last after her years of suffering. It’s a paint-by-numbers play that is chiefly interesting for the dialogue between its characters and themes and those of Mansfield Park.
July 3, 2021
A thoroughly enjoyable read - and very illuminating for rereading Mansfield Park too.
July 26, 2019
I wasn't able to abscond with a sexy Shakespeare-quoting rake as a result of reading this play, and although this may be due to the lack of green baize curtains, I thus can only give it three stars.
June 17, 2025
This was my second time reading this one - I read it last year when reading Mansfield Park, and read it again for the same reason. Honestly, it was better for me on this re-read, maybe because I listened to the audio version that had different voice actors for each character. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was humorous and lighthearted and kind of silly, but fun.
May 10, 2025
Worth reading if you’re working through Mansfield Park, otherwise not much to be remembered or distinguished.
July 4, 2023
I didn't expect to have so much fun reading this! Obviously, like almost anyone else in the review section, I read this because it's the play the characters in Mansfield Park play and... yeah, that other layer on top of this play made the whole experience even better. But even of itself, this was very funny (Fanny Price is such a buzz kill, seriously 🙄🤭 No, obviously I love Fanny and I get why she disapproves of the play). This play is clearly set in the universe where alcohol is cure-it-all medicine, which is hilarious, but also a bit concerning. With butlers that can only talk in verse and convoluted romantic plots. I expected the later and was surprised by the former, so it ended up working for me quite nicely.
Definitely would recommend to all fans of MP or even... you know, fans of telenovelas for example? It was short & fun and I listened to if for free from LibriVox. Which I wholeheartedly recommend, the audio is very nice. I thought that maybe following a play would be too hard for me, but it turned out to be okay and overall this was a wonderful experience.
You can download/listen to the book here: https://librivox.org/lovers-vows-by-a...
(and it's also available on YouTube and e-book version on Guttenberg project...)
Definitely would recommend to all fans of MP or even... you know, fans of telenovelas for example? It was short & fun and I listened to if for free from LibriVox. Which I wholeheartedly recommend, the audio is very nice. I thought that maybe following a play would be too hard for me, but it turned out to be okay and overall this was a wonderful experience.
You can download/listen to the book here: https://librivox.org/lovers-vows-by-a...
(and it's also available on YouTube and e-book version on Guttenberg project...)
August 23, 2014
Today this play is most famous for being put on in Jane Austen's novel Mansfield Park.It is about a women named Agatha who was seduced by the future baron of the village and he didn't marry her and it's many years later and the child they had is grown,the baron married someone and she died and he is a widower with a daughter and has come back to the village,and Agatha is poor and her son has just come back and wants his birth certificate and finds out who his father is.
It is a quick nice little read and you understand even more why there is such a fuss about it being suitable to act in Mansfield Park.I enjoyed seeing more about the characters each person in Mansfield Park would have played and understand the play scene in Mansfield Park better for reading the play.If you are a Jane Austen fan and always wanted to know what was said in Lover's Vows I recommend this book.It is very short only 70+pages and I read it in one sitting.
It is a quick nice little read and you understand even more why there is such a fuss about it being suitable to act in Mansfield Park.I enjoyed seeing more about the characters each person in Mansfield Park would have played and understand the play scene in Mansfield Park better for reading the play.If you are a Jane Austen fan and always wanted to know what was said in Lover's Vows I recommend this book.It is very short only 70+pages and I read it in one sitting.
January 10, 2018
This could have been a great drama / genuine redemption story, if the author had not tried to make it a comedy and give us such a forced ending.
July 19, 2020
"I think love comes just as it pleases, without being asked."
Read this exclusively because it was in Mansfield Park. The verdict: not bad!
Read this exclusively because it was in Mansfield Park. The verdict: not bad!
November 13, 2023
Short and entertaining play. It was very progressive in its themes for its time. I would be interested in reading von Kotzebues' original, as Elizabeth Inchbald made some significant changes for the British audience. I read Lovers' Vow during my re-reading of Mansfield Park. Knowing the play helped me to understand why acting, especially in this peculiar play, was not appropriate for the characters.
July 7, 2017
A short play, adapted from Kotzebue by Mrs. Inchbald, who explains in a preface that she worked from a literal translation from the German, modifying it for the English stage.
Of course, it is worth reading, if only to understand what the characters in MANSFIELD PARK are on about:
"... Simplicity, indeed, is beyond the reach of almost every actress by profession. It requires a delicacy of feeling which they have not. It requires a gentlewoman—a Julia Bertram. You will undertake it, I hope?" turning to her with a look of anxious entreaty, which softened her a little; but while she hesitated what to say, her brother again interposed with Miss Crawford's better claim. "No, no, Julia must not be Amelia. It is not at all the part for her. She would not like it. She would not do well. She is too tall and robust. Amelia should be a small, light, girlish, skipping figure. It is fit for Miss Crawford, and Miss Crawford only. She looks the part, and I am persuaded will do it admirably."
Tom Bertram began again— "Miss Crawford must be Amelia. She will be an excellent Amelia."
"Do not be afraid of my wanting the character," cried Julia, with angry quickness: "I am not to be Agatha, and I am sure I will do nothing else; and as to Amelia, it is of all parts in the world the most disgusting to me. I quite detest her. An odious, little, pert, unnatural, impudent girl. I have always protested against comedy, and this is comedy in its worst form." And so saying, she walked hastily out of the room, leaving awkward feelings to more than one...
The part of Agatha, which the Miss Bertrams both covet, did not strike me as the preferable role- she is Frederick's mother.. but I suppose such a downcast heroine was the ideal showcase role for a 'real actress' in the age of JANE SHORE. I read 18th C. plays all the time, and it was NOT a golden age for drama. I agree with Tom Bertram that Mary Crawford was perfect for Amelia.
I tried to write a plot summary, but it was actually more tedious than the play itself, which is melodramatic, but brisk.
Of course, it is worth reading, if only to understand what the characters in MANSFIELD PARK are on about:
"... Simplicity, indeed, is beyond the reach of almost every actress by profession. It requires a delicacy of feeling which they have not. It requires a gentlewoman—a Julia Bertram. You will undertake it, I hope?" turning to her with a look of anxious entreaty, which softened her a little; but while she hesitated what to say, her brother again interposed with Miss Crawford's better claim. "No, no, Julia must not be Amelia. It is not at all the part for her. She would not like it. She would not do well. She is too tall and robust. Amelia should be a small, light, girlish, skipping figure. It is fit for Miss Crawford, and Miss Crawford only. She looks the part, and I am persuaded will do it admirably."
Tom Bertram began again— "Miss Crawford must be Amelia. She will be an excellent Amelia."
"Do not be afraid of my wanting the character," cried Julia, with angry quickness: "I am not to be Agatha, and I am sure I will do nothing else; and as to Amelia, it is of all parts in the world the most disgusting to me. I quite detest her. An odious, little, pert, unnatural, impudent girl. I have always protested against comedy, and this is comedy in its worst form." And so saying, she walked hastily out of the room, leaving awkward feelings to more than one...
The part of Agatha, which the Miss Bertrams both covet, did not strike me as the preferable role- she is Frederick's mother.. but I suppose such a downcast heroine was the ideal showcase role for a 'real actress' in the age of JANE SHORE. I read 18th C. plays all the time, and it was NOT a golden age for drama. I agree with Tom Bertram that Mary Crawford was perfect for Amelia.
I tried to write a plot summary, but it was actually more tedious than the play itself, which is melodramatic, but brisk.
July 25, 2022
This play follows the sad fortunes of Agatha, who is forced to beg on the street. Her son, Frederick, returns from the army, and she confesses to her son that he is illegitimate. He vows to find his true father, the Baron Wildenhaim. Agatha is taken ill, and some kindly cottagers welcome her into their home, while Frederick wanders the countryside begging. He meets some wealthy noblemen and begs money from them, not realizing that one of them is his own father, Baron Wildenhaim.
Meanwhile, Baron Wildenhaim's daughter, Amelia, considers whether she will marry the wealthy Count or her lowly tutor.
There's not much to the plot. It's very straightforward. There is a slight case of mistaken identity when father and son do not know each other, but it is cleared up fairly quickly. There is not really any suspense regarding Amelia, and who she will decide to marry, because she makes her decision clear in the beginning, and then only has to persuade her father.
The characters spend most of their time crying "Woe is me!" and "Alas!" in a melodramatic fashion. The dialogue is uninspired. There are a couple of good conversations with a couple of witty lines, but most of the play is very forgettable. No wonder Jane Austen made fun of it!
The best part of the play was the butler who loves to talk in rhyme. He writes lengthy poetry for everything that happens each day and tries to recite it to everyone. They are constantly telling him to just talk normally in prose, but he keeps reciting verses because he can't help it. It's hilarious!
Meanwhile, Baron Wildenhaim's daughter, Amelia, considers whether she will marry the wealthy Count or her lowly tutor.
There's not much to the plot. It's very straightforward. There is a slight case of mistaken identity when father and son do not know each other, but it is cleared up fairly quickly. There is not really any suspense regarding Amelia, and who she will decide to marry, because she makes her decision clear in the beginning, and then only has to persuade her father.
The characters spend most of their time crying "Woe is me!" and "Alas!" in a melodramatic fashion. The dialogue is uninspired. There are a couple of good conversations with a couple of witty lines, but most of the play is very forgettable. No wonder Jane Austen made fun of it!
The best part of the play was the butler who loves to talk in rhyme. He writes lengthy poetry for everything that happens each day and tries to recite it to everyone. They are constantly telling him to just talk normally in prose, but he keeps reciting verses because he can't help it. It's hilarious!
March 3, 2020
This is the "scandalous" play that is practiced in Jane Austen's Mansfield Park. It's hardly scandalous to modern-day audiences, but I can see how at the time it would raise some eyebrows, especially in the context of people acting it out, not just going to see it.
Now that I have read this, I feel that I have reached a new level of Jane Austen geekiness.
I listened to the Librivox audio book. It's free, and it's a good, high-quality recording (though not quite professional level) with a full cast of actors, not just one person reading it.
Now that I have read this, I feel that I have reached a new level of Jane Austen geekiness.
I listened to the Librivox audio book. It's free, and it's a good, high-quality recording (though not quite professional level) with a full cast of actors, not just one person reading it.
Read
March 31, 2016Rereading Mansfield Park, and stopped along with Fanny to read the play this time. Poor Edmund, not quite knowing the source of his own distaste.
Now, with the family reunited and the utterly superfluous Count (with his 2-and-40 lines) disposed of, back to Mansfield Park.
Now, with the family reunited and the utterly superfluous Count (with his 2-and-40 lines) disposed of, back to Mansfield Park.
March 11, 2025
Yes, I too am here because of
Mansfield Park
. I'm reading Austen's novel for the second time, in an online book club/writing workshop, and it suddenly struck me as absurd that I had never sought out the play that causes so much drama and consternation for the Mansfield characters. And I call myself a theater person!
Austen's characters choose to stage Lovers' Vows because some of them want a comedy and some a tragedy, and this play has elements of both. (I think I would call it a domestic dramedy.) On the melodrama side of things, we have beggar woman Agatha, her illegitimate son Frederick, and the young man's long-lost father, a wealthy Baron. On the comedy side, we have a love triangle between the Baron's legitimate daughter Amelia, her virtuous tutor Mr. Anhalt, and a silly fop of a Count. Also, the Baron's butler composes doggerel ballads about important events that he has witnessed, and insists on reciting them even when the other characters try to stop him—this quirk was Elizabeth Inchbald's addition to Kotzebue's original (she thought the character of the Butler needed something to make him more interesting) and has to be one of the more bizarre things I've ever encountered in a classic play!
I didn't think this blend of melodrama and comedy worked all that well, and who knows, maybe Jane Austen would agree with me. Nothing about Mansfield Park requires Lovers' Vows to be a good play—just one that is a little risqué by Regency standards and appeals to a bunch of confused young people who otherwise can't agree on anything.
Many modern readers of Mansfield Park find it absurd that anyone could consider Lovers' Vows a risqué play or have moral qualms about acting in it. We no longer think it scandalous for a young lady to play the role of a woman who has had a child out of wedlock, or a girl who boldly proposes marriage to her handsome tutor. (Also, geez, talk about sexual double standards: in Mansfield Park, why is it problematic for Maria Bertram to play a "fallen woman," but not for Mr. Rushworth to play a promiscuous cad?) But what does seem scandalous to me now is the play's "happy" ending, which sees all the loose ends tied up and the family reunited. This might be acceptable if we could believe that the Baron and Agatha were long-lost, star-crossed lovers—and, true, that's the story the Baron tells himself. But when we first hear this backstory, from Agatha in Act One, it's pretty clear that the Baron never loved her, that it's the age-old tale of a careless young aristocrat seducing and abandoning a pretty peasant girl. In middle age, he has come to regret this, and wishes to make amends—but why should it be a happy ending for Agatha to marry a man who slept with her under false pretenses and left her to bear all the shame and sorrow? Even Jane Austen might have seen the problems with that—I mean, yes, Wickham seduces and then marries Lydia in Pride & Prejudice , but does anyone think that their marriage will be a happy one?
Austen's characters choose to stage Lovers' Vows because some of them want a comedy and some a tragedy, and this play has elements of both. (I think I would call it a domestic dramedy.) On the melodrama side of things, we have beggar woman Agatha, her illegitimate son Frederick, and the young man's long-lost father, a wealthy Baron. On the comedy side, we have a love triangle between the Baron's legitimate daughter Amelia, her virtuous tutor Mr. Anhalt, and a silly fop of a Count. Also, the Baron's butler composes doggerel ballads about important events that he has witnessed, and insists on reciting them even when the other characters try to stop him—this quirk was Elizabeth Inchbald's addition to Kotzebue's original (she thought the character of the Butler needed something to make him more interesting) and has to be one of the more bizarre things I've ever encountered in a classic play!
I didn't think this blend of melodrama and comedy worked all that well, and who knows, maybe Jane Austen would agree with me. Nothing about Mansfield Park requires Lovers' Vows to be a good play—just one that is a little risqué by Regency standards and appeals to a bunch of confused young people who otherwise can't agree on anything.
Many modern readers of Mansfield Park find it absurd that anyone could consider Lovers' Vows a risqué play or have moral qualms about acting in it. We no longer think it scandalous for a young lady to play the role of a woman who has had a child out of wedlock, or a girl who boldly proposes marriage to her handsome tutor. (Also, geez, talk about sexual double standards: in Mansfield Park, why is it problematic for Maria Bertram to play a "fallen woman," but not for Mr. Rushworth to play a promiscuous cad?) But what does seem scandalous to me now is the play's "happy" ending, which sees all the loose ends tied up and the family reunited. This might be acceptable if we could believe that the Baron and Agatha were long-lost, star-crossed lovers—and, true, that's the story the Baron tells himself. But when we first hear this backstory, from Agatha in Act One, it's pretty clear that the Baron never loved her, that it's the age-old tale of a careless young aristocrat seducing and abandoning a pretty peasant girl. In middle age, he has come to regret this, and wishes to make amends—but why should it be a happy ending for Agatha to marry a man who slept with her under false pretenses and left her to bear all the shame and sorrow? Even Jane Austen might have seen the problems with that—I mean, yes, Wickham seduces and then marries Lydia in Pride & Prejudice , but does anyone think that their marriage will be a happy one?
August 10, 2024
Read in order to read Mansfield Park (Jane Austen). The play being almost performed is an integral part of it, as well as the structure is mirrored in the book. (I believe lit people call that intertextuality.)
Very melodramatic, pretty fast-paced. It was very popular in the years before Mansfield Park, although it was slightly scandalous in 1800. (The main plot involves a woman with an illegitimate son.)
Very melodramatic, pretty fast-paced. It was very popular in the years before Mansfield Park, although it was slightly scandalous in 1800. (The main plot involves a woman with an illegitimate son.)
October 24, 2025
Illuminating for Mansfield Park.
March 9, 2021
Had a blast reading this with friends so I'm going to throw my hat in the ring and try to combat the lower ratings here. Bemused by the people saying it was "predictable" - yes, that's because it's a "conventional" comedy, not in the sense of being "ordinary" or "bland", but rather in the sense of literally following traditional forms of comedy, which assumed a happy ending and at least a couple of marriages. First performed in 1798, the piece also came some seventy years after the innovation of the "sentimental comedy", which intended to provoke tears as much as, or more than, laughter. Inchbald is probably drawing from the latter for the basic piteous premise, but the sorrowful nature of the play's beginning is deftly balanced with a hilarious cast of characters, each humorous in their own way.
Personally, when I'm reading something "conventional", the measure of what makes it enjoyable (or not) is in what it *does* with that conventional framework re: characterization and subject matter, etc. On these points, Inchbald shines. The characters, as I've said, are funny, but they're also vivid and memorable. The bastard of a landlord, the kind peasants. The "illegitimate" mama's boy back from war, desperate to provide for his mother but willing to reject his father and live the hard life if he won't do right by the woman he got pregnant twenty years prior. The single mother scared her son will scorn her to discover he was a "natural child", but ready to reject the baron's money when she thinks he's trying to buy her off. The mopey, proud, guilt-ridden baron. The unapologetically rakish, scummy count. The baron's unabashedly forthright, funny daughter, dismissive of the Count's wooing, and direct in her love for a poor clergyman who tutors her. That shy, earnest clergyman, his morals at war with regard to the daughter, but steadfast at the end as to how the baron can set things right. Perhaps best of all, the butler who refuses to tell his master anything unless he's allowed to speak in verse.
Someone noted limits to the "feminism" of the play because the son has to stick up for his mother at the end - but this is 1798. At the time Inchbald herself was ten years a widow, and fifteen years into an enormously successful career. I think she does plenty within her own time, and contemporary debates reacting to the play are proof of that - as many know, they were fervent enough that Jane Austen used the controverst as a plot device in Mansfield Park, written some fifteen years later.
From a very modern standpoint one could even ask - why is it desirable that, in the end, the baron marry his son's mother at all? Is marriage really the ideal to be striven for? But such a question would be anachronistic - for the time, I think it's powerful that the son sticks by his mother, and that the clergyman is so assured in telling the baron that marrying her is the right thing to do. The baron quibbles ("would you have me marry a beggar?"), but he's wanted to set things right for a long time, and he too knows that his conscience tells the right way of things. Not just that, but the clergyman insists that the baron marry her before the whole town - they had witnessed her shame twenty years before, he says, and now they should witness the restoration of her honor. The mother's rejection of the baron's money is a powerful moment as well.
And is it out-of-date that the young girl falls for her tutor, and is it scandalous that he loves her in return? Now, in terms of conversations around power relations (teacher-student, older-younger, male-female) anyone should most definitely say yes - but in her own context and era, Inchbald writes the clergy as the shy one trying to do right by his pupil, even if it means losing her, while the pupil herself is entirely certain of who she wants to marry, and tells her father so quite frankly, arranging the whole thing without the clergyman gathering the courage to say a word. Interestingly, Inchbald notes in a preface that the German characterization of this Amelia was far more blunt, and that she (Inchbald) chose to replace this manner with "whimsical insinuations" instead - but I read her as very forthright, and I don't think I'm anything close to a prude.
Some or all of these points are likely debatable, but that's normal - I wanted to have a particularly positive say in reaction to the other comments I read. If it changes anyone's perception, or at least gives them something to think about, so much the better.
Personally, when I'm reading something "conventional", the measure of what makes it enjoyable (or not) is in what it *does* with that conventional framework re: characterization and subject matter, etc. On these points, Inchbald shines. The characters, as I've said, are funny, but they're also vivid and memorable. The bastard of a landlord, the kind peasants. The "illegitimate" mama's boy back from war, desperate to provide for his mother but willing to reject his father and live the hard life if he won't do right by the woman he got pregnant twenty years prior. The single mother scared her son will scorn her to discover he was a "natural child", but ready to reject the baron's money when she thinks he's trying to buy her off. The mopey, proud, guilt-ridden baron. The unapologetically rakish, scummy count. The baron's unabashedly forthright, funny daughter, dismissive of the Count's wooing, and direct in her love for a poor clergyman who tutors her. That shy, earnest clergyman, his morals at war with regard to the daughter, but steadfast at the end as to how the baron can set things right. Perhaps best of all, the butler who refuses to tell his master anything unless he's allowed to speak in verse.
Someone noted limits to the "feminism" of the play because the son has to stick up for his mother at the end - but this is 1798. At the time Inchbald herself was ten years a widow, and fifteen years into an enormously successful career. I think she does plenty within her own time, and contemporary debates reacting to the play are proof of that - as many know, they were fervent enough that Jane Austen used the controverst as a plot device in Mansfield Park, written some fifteen years later.
From a very modern standpoint one could even ask - why is it desirable that, in the end, the baron marry his son's mother at all? Is marriage really the ideal to be striven for? But such a question would be anachronistic - for the time, I think it's powerful that the son sticks by his mother, and that the clergyman is so assured in telling the baron that marrying her is the right thing to do. The baron quibbles ("would you have me marry a beggar?"), but he's wanted to set things right for a long time, and he too knows that his conscience tells the right way of things. Not just that, but the clergyman insists that the baron marry her before the whole town - they had witnessed her shame twenty years before, he says, and now they should witness the restoration of her honor. The mother's rejection of the baron's money is a powerful moment as well.
And is it out-of-date that the young girl falls for her tutor, and is it scandalous that he loves her in return? Now, in terms of conversations around power relations (teacher-student, older-younger, male-female) anyone should most definitely say yes - but in her own context and era, Inchbald writes the clergy as the shy one trying to do right by his pupil, even if it means losing her, while the pupil herself is entirely certain of who she wants to marry, and tells her father so quite frankly, arranging the whole thing without the clergyman gathering the courage to say a word. Interestingly, Inchbald notes in a preface that the German characterization of this Amelia was far more blunt, and that she (Inchbald) chose to replace this manner with "whimsical insinuations" instead - but I read her as very forthright, and I don't think I'm anything close to a prude.
Some or all of these points are likely debatable, but that's normal - I wanted to have a particularly positive say in reaction to the other comments I read. If it changes anyone's perception, or at least gives them something to think about, so much the better.
July 29, 2021
4*
Vídeo de Opinião em: https://youtu.be/Dt6EHD9zxzU
Uma história de enganos amorosos, amor filial e muito sentido de humor. Consigo perfeitamente imaginar Jane Austen a ler esta obra e a rir-se com a ironia.
Lido para o #JaneAustenJuly2021
Vídeo de Opinião em: https://youtu.be/Dt6EHD9zxzU
Uma história de enganos amorosos, amor filial e muito sentido de humor. Consigo perfeitamente imaginar Jane Austen a ler esta obra e a rir-se com a ironia.
Lido para o #JaneAustenJuly2021
August 29, 2015
This 1798 adaptation by Elizabeth Inchbald of the German play Das Kind der Liebe by August von Kotzebue was a surprisingly quick and easy read. The play, about an unwed mother and her illegitimate son, is in some aspects a typical melodrama but the morality advocated isn't of the Victorian variety.
I downloaded this from Project Gutenberg because I am rereading Mansfield Park and this is the play that Tom Bertram and the others decide to put on. Jane Austin's contemporary readers would have been familiar with the play but the scene in which Maria and Julia argue about who will play Agatha was a bit unclear to me. So glad I decided to take the time to read this!
I downloaded this from Project Gutenberg because I am rereading Mansfield Park and this is the play that Tom Bertram and the others decide to put on. Jane Austin's contemporary readers would have been familiar with the play but the scene in which Maria and Julia argue about who will play Agatha was a bit unclear to me. So glad I decided to take the time to read this!
June 26, 2017
Loved it. I've come to love all things Inchbald. She was such an incredible woman and a crucial intellectual in the radical Jacobin scenario; her story is so fascinating and her plays are engaging and modern (adore her feminist views).
Will slowly catch up on other comedies of hers.
Will slowly catch up on other comedies of hers.
October 31, 2025
"All my poetry is true—and so far, better than some people’s prose."
Adapted from a German play, Inchbald's story of a baron contending with his daughter's marriage plans, and the arrival of his illegitimate son, is fascinating in its unevenness. This play does some intriguing work regarding the mutability of class and moral boundaries (compare the Count's casually rakish attitude towards sexual morality versus how Frederick and Anhalt exhort the Baron to honour his vows towards the woman he has dishonoured, and the logic by which the clergyman compels the Baron to marry below his social station); the opening scene that dwells obsessively on monetary transactions in a way that recalls Aphra Behn or John Gay; the interludes with the butler are also legitimately hilarious sequences that I can imagine working excellently in the hands of a comic actor.
However, the rest of the play's action often feels stop-and-start, with interesting avenues for conflict (Frederick and Amelia's surprisingly brief recognition of each other as siblings and the reconciliation between the Baron and Agatha, or the notion of the former as a criminal punished for an ultimately ethical action) that peter out somewhat anticlimactically. The butler's scenes are a case in point, offering bursts of light comedy but vanishing rather abruptly afterwards. Still, with MANSFIELD PARK on my list of books to read, I look forward to seeing the uses that Austen makes of this play.
Adapted from a German play, Inchbald's story of a baron contending with his daughter's marriage plans, and the arrival of his illegitimate son, is fascinating in its unevenness. This play does some intriguing work regarding the mutability of class and moral boundaries (compare the Count's casually rakish attitude towards sexual morality versus how Frederick and Anhalt exhort the Baron to honour his vows towards the woman he has dishonoured, and the logic by which the clergyman compels the Baron to marry below his social station); the opening scene that dwells obsessively on monetary transactions in a way that recalls Aphra Behn or John Gay; the interludes with the butler are also legitimately hilarious sequences that I can imagine working excellently in the hands of a comic actor.
However, the rest of the play's action often feels stop-and-start, with interesting avenues for conflict (Frederick and Amelia's surprisingly brief recognition of each other as siblings and the reconciliation between the Baron and Agatha, or the notion of the former as a criminal punished for an ultimately ethical action) that peter out somewhat anticlimactically. The butler's scenes are a case in point, offering bursts of light comedy but vanishing rather abruptly afterwards. Still, with MANSFIELD PARK on my list of books to read, I look forward to seeing the uses that Austen makes of this play.
October 5, 2025
4.5 stars
i’m not a big fan of plays, id prefer to just read a book, but this shit was funny! elizabeth inchbald there’s a reason you killed. this was a translation she did of a german play and changed to better suit the british but this was so funny, like wdym the butler only gossips in rhyme like hello??
i do now further understand the scandalous nature of the play when it’s used in mansfield park
also it’s a play that doesn’t need a ton of context for modern day readers to get the punchlines (i’m looking at you shakespeare)
i’m not a big fan of plays, id prefer to just read a book, but this shit was funny! elizabeth inchbald there’s a reason you killed. this was a translation she did of a german play and changed to better suit the british but this was so funny, like wdym the butler only gossips in rhyme like hello??
i do now further understand the scandalous nature of the play when it’s used in mansfield park
also it’s a play that doesn’t need a ton of context for modern day readers to get the punchlines (i’m looking at you shakespeare)
July 9, 2021
I love how all the Goodreads reviews for this play basically just say, “Can you even call yourself a Jane Austen fan if you haven’t read Lovers’ Vows?” But truthfully, I enjoyed this play and the deeper insight it’s given me into Mansfield Park.
May 14, 2025
Like everyone else, I read this play because of Jan Austen. It's a short play and thus a short read. You can read it in one sitting. I find reading plays to be odd going and not that pleasurable. They are meant to be acted out so reading them almost feels like reading an outline of a story, if that makes sense.
I can understand why the play was popular. It's fast paced and entertaining. It's a little naughty at times without being vulgar. There is the requisite happy ending. Would have made for a fine time out at the theater.
I can understand why the play was popular. It's fast paced and entertaining. It's a little naughty at times without being vulgar. There is the requisite happy ending. Would have made for a fine time out at the theater.
Read
December 12, 2019Read this because it was an appendix to my Oxford edition of Mansfield Park, and is very helpful for understanding what is going on in the novel. I highly recommend reading it for anyone reading Mansfield Park!
April 5, 2025
I read this in the hopes of being able to understand "Mansfield Park" better (in the hopes of liking it more), and I was shocked that the play is worth reading on its own. "Lovers' Vows" is easy to read, fast moving, emotional, and it has some laughs. If you've thought about reading it, just dive in. I'm looking forward to reading more by Elizabeth Inchbald.
July 16, 2022
3,5 stars rounded up to 4.
February 22, 2023
There's been a copy of this play attached to the back of my copy of Mansfield Park ever since I first read Austen's book 15 years ago. However, I never bothered to read the play that volume 1 of Austen's novel focuses on until today. And I actually really enjoyed it! From reading Mansfield Park and remembering the confrontation between Julia Bertram and the rest of the amateur thespians within the estate, I had thought that the part of Amelia must be scandalous. After all, both Maria and Julia spent the time arguing over who would play Agatha, the character that is the mother of Frederick, who was the character being portrayed by Henry Crawford, the man they both had a romantic interest in. Julia even called the role of Amelia, "in all parts offensive to me," and so I had thought that since they had to ask Mary to do it, it must be particularly scandalous. But actually...it says something really interesting about the character of both Maria and Julia to be against Amelia. Because, at the end of the day, even though Amelia has the forthrightness of Mary Crawford, she has the forgiving and insightful nature of Fanny. When one has a chance to study the play, one realises just how important knowledge of it is to understanding how Austen framed Mansfield Park.
It's easy to see how a casual reader of the book could laugh at Rushworth being Count Cassel because Cassel on the surface is just a foppish idiot. In truth, however, his speeches reveal a character more in line with Henry Crawford. He sees no problem with seeking to marry a baron's daughter while having ruined the reputations and innocence numerous other women, both of rank and without it (and by "he," I mean both Count Cassel and Henry Crawford.) And if you're an Edmund Bertram hater (and if you are, don't talk to me because I love him), then pay close attention to the character of Anhalt. If you study how he is written and bear in mind that Amelia is actually a lot more in line with Fanny than Mary, you can better understand Edmund's off-the-page eventual love story with Fanny. Readers of Austen's novel never get the real details in how or when Edmund fell in love with Fanny after he was disillusioned about Mary, but when you understand Anholt and how Lover's Vows plays out, we get a much clearer picture of what Austen probably pictured but never gave us details about.
And there are some genuinely funny bits in this play. Most of them revolving around the butler who insists on giving important information only in verse and has a war going against prose. It's ridiculous, but some much needed levity in a play that borders on Gothic Romance levels of morality throughout most of it.
For the majority of readers, it will be impossible to read this play without the story of Mansfield Park affecting one's interpretation of it and its importance as a play. Because, despite the fact that this play was a popular one in Covent Garden in 1798, it is mostly known to people today only because Austen mentioned it by name in her novel. (The same with the 7 "horrid novels" in Northanger Abbey.) Would anyone still be talking about it and searching it out otherwise? I can't say. I assume there are some hardcore thespians out there who discuss Elizabeth Inchbald's contributions to English theatre in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. But it would probably be a very select group of people reading this play and mostly academics. What I will say is that it's worth checking out, both because Austen obviously chose this play because its themes worked with her novel in a way no other one out at the time would have done, and also because while the story isn't groundbreaking or anything, it's a good (and quick) story to indulge in. And if you can put on the play in your own house next door to your father's or uncle's private study while he's dealing with business abroad, then so much the better!
It's easy to see how a casual reader of the book could laugh at Rushworth being Count Cassel because Cassel on the surface is just a foppish idiot. In truth, however, his speeches reveal a character more in line with Henry Crawford. He sees no problem with seeking to marry a baron's daughter while having ruined the reputations and innocence numerous other women, both of rank and without it (and by "he," I mean both Count Cassel and Henry Crawford.) And if you're an Edmund Bertram hater (and if you are, don't talk to me because I love him), then pay close attention to the character of Anhalt. If you study how he is written and bear in mind that Amelia is actually a lot more in line with Fanny than Mary, you can better understand Edmund's off-the-page eventual love story with Fanny. Readers of Austen's novel never get the real details in how or when Edmund fell in love with Fanny after he was disillusioned about Mary, but when you understand Anholt and how Lover's Vows plays out, we get a much clearer picture of what Austen probably pictured but never gave us details about.
And there are some genuinely funny bits in this play. Most of them revolving around the butler who insists on giving important information only in verse and has a war going against prose. It's ridiculous, but some much needed levity in a play that borders on Gothic Romance levels of morality throughout most of it.
For the majority of readers, it will be impossible to read this play without the story of Mansfield Park affecting one's interpretation of it and its importance as a play. Because, despite the fact that this play was a popular one in Covent Garden in 1798, it is mostly known to people today only because Austen mentioned it by name in her novel. (The same with the 7 "horrid novels" in Northanger Abbey.) Would anyone still be talking about it and searching it out otherwise? I can't say. I assume there are some hardcore thespians out there who discuss Elizabeth Inchbald's contributions to English theatre in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. But it would probably be a very select group of people reading this play and mostly academics. What I will say is that it's worth checking out, both because Austen obviously chose this play because its themes worked with her novel in a way no other one out at the time would have done, and also because while the story isn't groundbreaking or anything, it's a good (and quick) story to indulge in. And if you can put on the play in your own house next door to your father's or uncle's private study while he's dealing with business abroad, then so much the better!
November 12, 2019
Sir Thomas having just arrived home, I took a break from Miss Austen's most underappreciated novel to listen to the play with the play. I discovered it to be a really quite amusing little melodrama. And the inmates of Mansfield Park could hardly have accomplished a worse performance than this LibriVox cast. But the badness of the acting almost suited the humor and overwrought pathos of the script.
While I do understand why the overserious Sir Thomas would have abominated the idea of his daughters performing in this (or any other) play, and indeed think his sentiments may have suited his society, I would have zero qualms over an average high school drama production in my own day and age. And I would particularly envy whoever got to play the rhyming butler.
While I do understand why the overserious Sir Thomas would have abominated the idea of his daughters performing in this (or any other) play, and indeed think his sentiments may have suited his society, I would have zero qualms over an average high school drama production in my own day and age. And I would particularly envy whoever got to play the rhyming butler.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 114 reviews