Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, Ireland | Published: 18 December, 2023 | Views:
ISSUE 18.2 | Pages: 1-10 | PDF | DOAJ | https://doi.org/10.24162/EI2023-11982

Creative Commons 4.0 2023 by DAVID CLARE | This text may be archived and redistributed both in electronic form and in hard copy, provided that the author and journal are properly cited and no fee is charged for access.

Since the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922, theatres and theatre companies in the twenty-six counties have had an uneasy relationship with the work of Derry-born playwright George Farquhar. This is presumably because Farquhar’s fervent loyalty to the English crown and his “unenlightened” views on religious tolerance – including the frankly sectarian treatment of Catholicism in his later plays – do not sit well with theatremakers who want to rebrand him as a narrowly and uncomplicatedly Irish playwright. While some post-independence productions of Farquhar have subtly and cleverly exploited Irish elements already present in his scripts, most have crudely imposed Irish elements onto his work. Farquhar is, of course, not the only playwright from the distinguished line of England-based, Irish Anglican dramatists to have had his England-set works “Hibernicised” in this way; works by Oliver Goldsmith, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, Oscar Wilde, and Bernard Shaw have all suffered a similar fate in the Irish Free State and Irish Republic since 1922. However, Farquhar has been subjected to this “Hibernicising” process significantly more than any other playwright from the august Irish Anglican dramatic tradition. And, as this article demonstrates, a reluctance to fully engage with Farquhar’s Irish/British hybridity and his views on religion is a key feature of most productions of the playwright’s work in the twenty-six counties since independence. This is, of course, an insult to a man who – according to legend – was inside the walls during the Siege of Derry, who fought for King Billy at the Battle of the Boyne, and whose childhood home (his father’s parsonage) was burned to the ground by Catholic rebels.

Desde la creación del Estado Libre Irlandés en 1922, los teatros y compañías teatrales de los veintiséis condados han mantenido una relación un tanto incómoda con la obra del dramaturgo George Farquhar, nacido en Derry, posiblemente porque la ferviente lealtad de Farquhar a la corona inglesa y sus opiniones “poco ilustradas” sobre la tolerancia religiosa – incluido el tratamiento sectario del catolicismo en sus últimas obras – no encajan bien con aquellos creadores teatrales que han querido rebautizar a Farquhar, sin mayor complicación, como un dramaturgo estrictamente irlandés. Aunque algunas producciones de Farquhar posteriores a la independencia han explotado sutil e inteligentemente elementos irlandeses ya presentes en sus guiones, la mayoría han proyectado burdamente elementos irlandeses en su obra. Farquhar no es, por supuesto, el único dramaturgo de entre la distinguida línea de dramaturgos anglicanos irlandeses afincados en Inglaterra que ha visto como sus obras allí ambientadas eran “gaelizadas” de esta manera; obras de Oliver Goldsmith, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, Oscar Wilde y Bernard Shaw han sufrido un destino similar en el Estado Libre Irlandés y en la República de Irlanda desde 1922. Sin embargo, Farquhar ha sido sometido a este proceso de “gaelización” de forma mucho más prominente que cualquier otro dramaturgo de la augusta tradición anglicano-irlandesa. Y, como demuestra este artículo, la reticencia a abordar plenamente la hibridez irlandesa/británica de Farquhar y sus opiniones sobre la religión es una característica clave de la mayoría de las producciones de la obra del dramaturgo en los veintiséis condados desde la independencia. Esto es, por supuesto, un insulto hacia un hombre que – según la creencia – participó en el asedio de Derry, que luchó por el rey Billy en la batalla del Boyne y cuya casa natal (la casa parroquial de su padre) fue quemada hasta los cimientos por rebeldes católicos.

George Farquhar; dramaturgos irlandeses; teatro irlandés; protestantes irlandeses; Ulster.

Since the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922, theatres and theatre companies in the twenty-six counties have had an uneasy relationship with the work of Derry-born playwright George Farquhar. This is presumably because Farquhar’s fervent loyalty to the English crown and the frankly sectarian views regarding Catholicism in his later plays do not sit well with theatremakers who want to rebrand him as a narrowly and uncomplicatedly Irish playwright. While some post-independence productions of Farquhar have subtly and cleverly exploited Irish elements already present in his scripts, most have crudely imposed Irish elements onto his work. Farquhar is, of course, not the only playwright from the distinguished line of England-based, Irish Anglican dramatists to have had his England-set works “Hibernicised” in this way; as I have demonstrated elsewhere, works by Oliver Goldsmith, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, Oscar Wilde, and Bernard Shaw have all suffered a similar fate in the Irish Free State and Irish Republic since 1922 (Clare 2015, 2018). However, Farquhar has been subjected to this “Hibernicising” process significantly more than any other playwright from the Irish Anglican dramatic tradition. Historian Eamon O’Flaherty, in his review of the Abbey Theatre’s 2007 production of The Recruiting Officer, notes that “the Orange banners” beloved of Farquhar “were absent from the stage”. However, as this article demonstrates, a reluctance to engage with Farquhar’s Irish/British hybridity and his views on religion is a key feature of most productions of the playwright’s work in the “South” of Ireland since independence. This is, of course, an insult to a man who – according to legend – was inside the walls during the Siege of Derry, who fought for King Billy at the Battle of the Boyne, and whose childhood home (his father’s parsonage) was burned to the ground by Catholic rebels (Blake 2006: vii). As Brown (2014) has argued, Irish Anglican writers such as Edmund Burke wrestled with the concept of “Britishness” even before the 1800 Acts of Union. Therefore, even though Ireland did not technically become part of the United Kingdom until the Acts of Union in 1800, Farquhar can be grouped with other eighteenth-century Irish Anglican writers such as Burke, Goldsmith, and Sheridan in regarding himself as Irish but also as a contributor to a common Anglophone culture developing across England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. I refer, of course, to what today we would call “British” (as opposed to merely “English”) culture.

Critics have noted that Farquhar’s “unenlightened” mocking of Irish Catholics – and Catholics more generally – gets significantly stronger in the plays he wrote after The Constant Couple (1699) (Clare 2014; Ward 2019: 21, 36; Morash 2002: 37; Deane 1994: 119-21). The Protestant Loyalist Farquhar seems to have taken exception to English commentators such as John Oldmixon and George Etheridge – jealous of The Constant Couple’s tremendous success – referring to him as a “Teague” whose “Irish farce[s]” are in a “dreadful War, with Wit and Sense” (they even advised him to return to his “native Boggs” where “he might justly reign”) (cited in Kenny 1988: 131-33, 325). To “convince […] English audiences of his doctrinaire Protestantism and his loyalty to the English crown”, Farquhar, in all of his post-Constant Couple plays, “either aggressively criticises Catholicism or features an offensively stupid Irish Catholic character” – for example, Macahone from The Stage-Coach (c. 1701-2), Teague from The Twin Rivals (1702), and Foigard from The Beaux’ Stratagem (1707) (Clare 2014: 162). The sectarianism in the later plays directly contradicts ideals traditionally associated with the Enlightenment, such as “toleration” and “individual conscience” (including the liberty to choose one’s own religion) (Brown 2014: 7; Bradley 2001: 225). Within an Irish context, even relatively sectarian clergymen who were contemporaries of Farquhar, such as Rev. John Abernethy (a Presbyterian minister) and Archbishop Edward Synge (from Farquhar’s own [Anglican] Church of Ireland) regularly railed against “popery” and “Papists” but also defended a Catholic’s “liberty to worship God according to their [own] consciences” (Abernethy 1751: 60-71, 80-90, 120-29, 175, 214, 262-86; Synge, cited in Brown 2014: 86; Abernethy 1731: 48; Brown 2014: 59, 51).

Farquhar was also unlike other prominent Irish playwrights from the “long” eighteenth century, several of whom (both Protestant and Catholic) used their work to actually promote Enlightenment ideals around religious tolerance. Much has been written about Charles Macklin’s engagement with Enlightenment thinking, including as regards religious tolerance (Newman and O’Shaughnessy 2022; O’Shaughnessy 2017); however, one could name several other prominent anti-sectarian Irish playwrights from the “long” eighteenth century. As I have shown elsewhere, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, born into the Church of Ireland, used Spanish-Peruvian relations as a metaphor for Anglo-Irish relations in Pizarro (1799), in order to advance not only an anticolonial message but also to push for Catholic Emancipation (Clare 2020-21: 393-94). Bridget Orr argues that the Jesuit-educated Arthur Murphy does something similar in his Peru-set Alzuma (1773): she writes that Murphy’s tragedy “severely condemn[s] attempts to enforce religious uniformity in a subordinate territory” (2019: 204). As Helen Burke has shown, in his play The Poor Soldier (1783), John O’Keeffe – also Jesuit-educated – “drew on some of the Enlightenment principles that Catholic apologists like [Charles] O’Conor were using in their arguments to counter [sectarian] prejudice” (2019: 235). And Anglican Maria Edgeworth, in keeping with her belief in religious tolerance, chose not to clarify if the warm-hearted Irish character Rory O’Ryan, from her play Eton Montem (1800), is Catholic or Protestant. This parallels the decision that she and her father made not to discuss denominational differences (or, in fact, to discuss “religion and politics” at all) in their “determinedly secular” treatise Practical Education (1798) (Edgeworth and Edgeworth 1835: viii; Ó Gallchoir 2021: 56). As Clíona Ó Gallchoir notes, this decision was heavily criticised by “conservative Anglicans” (2021: 56).

In contrast to these “enlightened” playwrights, Farquhar – with his firmly “unenlightened” sectarianism – was certainly an awkward figure for theatres and theatre companies in the twenty-six counties to consider producing in the new, initially hyper-Catholic state that emerged after Irish independence. And yet, steadfastly and indefinitely ignoring such a giant figure in the history of English and Irish drama would not have been desirable for these theatre organisations, either. As is demonstrated below, theatremakers in the new state frequently overcame their misgivings about Farquhar’s religious views and his British political loyalty by making his plays seem less religiously intolerant and more “orthodox” in their Irishness; and the tendency to “Hibernicise” Farquhar’s work grew significantly stronger with the onset of the Troubles in Northern Ireland from the late 1960s onwards.

The initial productions of Farquhar in the decades immediately following the founding of the Free State were marked by sporadic, relatively conservative “Hibernicising” of his plays. The first post-independence production was the Gate Theatre’s staging of The Beaux’ Stratagem in 1930. Director Hilton Edwards interestingly chose to have the English, anti-Catholic servant Scrub played as Irish, thereby making him an effective “Loyalist” foil to the Irish priest, Father Foigard (real name MacShane, who is pretending to be a Belgian cleric). While this was a subtle decision that added an additional layer of tension to the play, the way in which Scrub was portrayed was anything but subtle. Instead, it fit in perfectly with the post-independence tendency to crudely impose monolithic Irishness onto works which are in fact genuinely “Anglo-Irish” works – a term used here not to connote ethnicity but to reflect the hybrid status of works written by Irish playwrights but set in England among the English. The Irish Times reviewer was one of many who criticised John Barton for indulging in “paddywhackery” when playing Scrub, writing that the servant came across as “a cousin to Handy Andy”, the famous Stage Irish character created by nineteenth-century Irish novelist Samuel Lover (The Irish Times 1930; cf. The Irish Independent 1930 and The Irishman 1930).

The next four productions of Farquhar in the twenty-six counties featured no “Hibernicising” of any kind. In 1950, Longford Productions (the company led by Lord and Lady Longford, which occupied the Gate Theatre for six months of each year between 1936 and 1960) mounted a hyper-orthodox production of The Recruiting Officer (1706) at the Gate. According to the Irish Times reviewer, it was an “old world play […] done in the old-world manner” (The Irish Times 1950). The Globe Theatre Company’s production of The Beaux’ Stratagem at the Gas Company Theatre in Dún Laoghaire in 1956, as well as Imprimatur Theatre Company’s production of the same play at the Gate in 1967, were high-spirited but ultimately orthodox in terms of imposed elements (Gray 1956; Kelly 1967). The 1966 Dublin Theatre Festival featured a production of the most Irish of Farquhar’s plays: Love and a Bottle (1698), in a radical adaptation by William Morrison and Michael Ruggins. This well-received production was mounted at the Gate and directed by English dancer and choreographer William Chappell. The imposition here was not extra Irishness but the fact the play was done as ballet – with all of the actors in leotards.

1969’s Dublin Theatre Festival included the first attempt to transfer one of Farquhar’s England-set plays – The Recruiting Officer – to an Irish locale. Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer (1773) had received the same treatment at the festival the year before, so theatre practitioners in the Republic were clearly starting to get a bit bolder in the liberties that they would be prepared to take with the “English” plays written by Irish Anglican playwrights. That said, the “Hibernicising” in the case of this particular Farquhar production was relatively tentative. Dominic Roche’s adaptation, which was played at the Olympia Theatre and starred Luke Kelly of the Dubliners as Sergeant Kite, involved little more than changing the English place names included in the script to Irish ones. This was thought to be so transgressive that the play was given a totally new title: The Mullingar Recruits. To contemporary eyes, such timidity around the “Hibernicising” process is bemusing, given the extreme liberties that have been taken in later productions of Farquhar in the Republic.

With the intensification of the Troubles in the North of Ireland between the late 1960s and early 1980s, Farquhar was – perhaps understandably – ignored by theatres and theatre companies in the twenty-six counties. Then, after decades of neglect, there was suddenly a tremendous revival of interest in Farquhar in the Republic. Between 1985 and 1990, there were four major productions of his work, and they were all accompanied by significant and, at times, heavy-handed “Hibernicising”. The most subtle and clever “Hibernicising” was in the first of these four productions. For the Gate Theatre’s 1985 staging of The Recruiting Officer, director Patrick Mason interestingly chose to have Captain Plume played as an Ulsterman. Without appreciably changing Plume’s part, Mason was acknowledging that a loyal officer in the English (later British) Army could, of course, be an Ulster Protestant. Various critics noted the “broad” Ulster accent employed in the role by Ian McElhinney (Myers 1985; Roche 2018), the Belfast actor who has since gained much wider attention as Granda Joe in the television series Derry Girls (2018-2022), created and written by Lisa McGee.

In 1986, the Abbey, founded in 1904, put on a Farquhar play for the first time in the national theatre’s history, presumably inspired by the Gate Theatre’s successful production of The Recruiting Officer. They took on The Beaux’ Stratagem and went to great lengths to play up the Irishness of Foigard. As the video of this production in the Abbey archives demonstrates, the actor playing Foigard – Dónall Farmer – employed a strong Connacht accent with occasional faux-Belgian hints. Also, the Gaeilge-sounding noises Foigard makes in the original play (such as “Ubooboo”: Farquhar 1988, vol. 2: 219) became actual phrases in the Irish language in this production, which Farmer muttered under his breath.

In 1990, Waterford’s Red Kettle Theatre Company put on Farquhar’s unsung masterpiece The Constant Couple. This production, which toured around the country after its opening run in Waterford city, was directed by Judy Friel and praised for its liveliness. However, it was criticised in some quarters for “its mishmash of [English and Irish] accents” (White 1990). The willingness to let various actors use their native Irish accents clearly allowed audiences in the Republic the opportunity to not worry that they were seeing an “English” play, but one by a “safely” Irish playwright.[1]

Later that same year, Rough Magic produced a heavily “Hibernicised” version of Farquhar’s Love and a Bottle (1698). One would have thought that the original play was Irish enough. After all, it features three Irish Anglican characters – Roebuck, Lovewell, and Leanthe. While Lovewell and his sister Leanthe own estates in both England and Ireland, Farquhar demonstrates that their ties to Ireland are strong: Leanthe is able to pass herself off as a lower-class Irish servant boy for much of the play – even Irish-born people are fooled – and Edward wants to have “an Irish entertainment” at his wedding, which his sister subsequently arranges (Farquhar 1988, vol. 1: 108). The play also features Farquhar’s most sympathetic Roman Catholic character (the Dubliner, Mrs. Trudge), and ends with raucous Irish music and dancing. Nevertheless, in adapting the play for Rough Magic, playwright Declan Hughes appears to have felt that the play needed significantly more Irishness – and Irishness of a kind that would be easily recognised by audiences across the Republic. Hughes chose to make the English playwright character, Lyrick, an Irishman, placing him at the centre of the action and adding numerous reflections by him and other characters on Irish playwrights living and working in London. Hughes also turned Lovewell from a “Big House” Irish Anglican into a Stage Englishman: his speech is peppered with Stage English tics like “I say” and “dash it all”, and at one point he says: “These Irish! Very colourful characters, right enough, but so often like little children – and just like little children, they need constant watching” (Farquhar 1988, vol. 1: 234). Hughes makes Trudge more “Oirish” through his intrusive additions to her dialogue. She repeatedly utters Irish words of endearment like “Alana”, “a mhic”, and “dote”; Stage Irishisms like “Arra”, “at all at all”, and “Jaysus!”; and frequently applies Irish proverbial expressions to the situations in which she finds herself (1988, vol. 1: 225; 255; 255; 258; 280; 258). Similarly, Roebuck is given additional “Oirishisms”. For example, he has frequent recourse to the words “begob” or “begod” and is even made to use the word “sure” at the end of sentences, as in “she had no fortune sure” (1988, vol. 1: 221, 239; 242, 287; 221).

In Hughes’s version, there is one acknowledgement (however crude) of the Protestant Farquhar’s Loyalist sympathies and “Ascendancy” status – a term coined at the end of the eighteenth century to apply to Farquhar’s British government-backed, Irish Anglican community (see McCormack 1994: 62-3). At one point, Roebuck insults rural-dwelling Irish speakers: after explaining to the English character Lucinda that Ireland has most of the same kinds of people that England has (including lords, ladies, churchmen, and sex workers), Roebuck adds: “as for your Gaelic ape – well, he eats potatoes and so on, Madam, [but] we keep him in the country, you know, so, to hell with him” (Farquhar 1988, vol. 1: 219).

For those with respect for Farquhar’s original vision, the “Hibernicising” of his work in the Republic unfortunately did not stop there. In 2007, the Abbey produced The Recruiting Officer, with Lynn Parker of Rough Magic directing. The “Hibernicising” was extreme and not carefully considered. For one thing, the play was re-set in the Irish midlands, like 1969’s The Mullingar Recruits. As in that earlier production, no attempt was made to consider how this change of locale might affect the action in the play. After all, if the story told in the play had actually taken place in eighteenth-century Ireland, certain middle- and upper-class characters (being in the “professions”) would definitely have been well-to-do members of the Irish Anglican Ascendancy, while the lower-class characters, and some of the arriviste middle-class ones, would have been mostly or exclusively Irish Gaelic Catholics. If one or two had wandered down from the North of Ireland, they might possibly be Ulster Scots Presbyterians. And, since poor Irish Anglicans did exist, it is conceivable that a couple of these working-class and “new money” characters might have been from impoverished or “downstart” Church of Ireland backgrounds. However, none of these factors of social class, political affiliation, and accent were taken into account by the Abbey. Indeed, Plume’s accent was faintly Anglo-Irish and Melinda’s was a weird mix of RP English, middle-class Dublin, and American “Southern Belle”, but the rest used generic “culchie” accents instead of an appropriate variety of accents reflecting that some would presumably be “posh” Irish Anglican landlords, magistrates, and officers while others would be poor Irish Catholic (or, in individual cases, poor Ulster Dissenter or Irish Anglican) recruits.

Worse still, Parker and her team also ignored the fact that the eighteenth-century Irish rural tenantry would have regarded English Army recruiters very differently than the English country people who encounter them in Farquhar’s original script. This is especially true since recruitment into the English Army was technically outlawed in Ireland at the time, due to Roman Catholics being ineligible to serve – though it should be noted that, as Andrew Dorman has shown (2022), English recruiters found ways around this ban. Similarly, several of the characters pay extravagant tribute to the Queen without hesitation or irony, despite the historic contentiousness of such oaths of loyalty in Ireland (Farquhar 1988 vol. 2: 41, 60). Admittedly, Farquhar does cheekily have one of the characters imply that Queen Anne looks like a man: the character assumes that a picture of her on a coin is actually of King Charles II – he refers to the image as “Carolus” (1998 vol. 2: 60), Latin for “Charles”.

Dramaturgical decisions related to the script were no less problematic. The original play’s references to various English counties, London, and the Severn were usually changed to various Irish counties, Dublin city, and the Shannon but not always, which was very confusing. Most shocking of all was that some of the original play’s concrete references to Ireland were actually dropped as part of the Abbey’s script-cutting process, including the play’s most overt Irish reference: that is, the moment when Sergeant Kite confesses that one of his many wives is Sheely Snickereyes, who “sells Potatoes upon Ormond-Key in Dublin” (1988 vol. 2: 43). Likewise, Farquhar’s references to the Gunpowder Plot, to Irish Catholic troops fighting for England’s enemies on the Continent, and his decision to have the stupidest recruit use a Catholic expression (“I have a Month’s mind”) (1988 vol. 2: 63), which are all clearly expressions of Farquhar’s Irish Protestant Loyalism, go from being subtle coded messages about Ireland in an otherwise English play, to views that seem incongruous and strange coming from the mouths of people who speak like Boucicault-esque “broth of a boy”, Irish Catholic “peasants”.

What is more, the change to an Irish setting made a nonsense of another key example of Farquhar subtly referencing his native country in the play and/or reflecting on Irish issues. Justice Balance’s Welshness and the repeated references to the Welsh Hills help Farquhar deliberately contrast the England where the play is set with the other (marginalised) “Celtic” countries that also belong to the English crown. As I have noted elsewhere, Irish playwright Elizabeth Griffith, working later in the eighteenth century, similarly demonstrates how Wales and Ireland are “Othered” by the English in her hit 1768 play, The School for Rakes (Clare 2021: 33).

Theatres and theatre companies in the Republic would be well-advised to copy post-partition theatremakers in Northern Ireland (such as Belfast’s Lyric Theatre and Derry’s Blue Eagle Theatre Company) in simply staging Farquhar’s works as they were written, without bothering to “Hibernicise” them. Love and a Bottle has interesting things to say about Protestant and Catholic Irishness, as well as about Irish emigration to London. The Constant Couple is not only brilliantly funny; the play’s French-educated lead character, Sir Harry Wildair, can be seen as a “surrogate Irish” character, since he has such an outsider perspective on the English (indeed, the two actors most famous for playing him during the eighteenth century were both Irish: Farquhar’s friend, Robert Wilks, and Peg Woffington, who obviously played the part in a girdle). What is more, as I have noted elsewhere (Clare 2021: 33), The Constant Couple’s Vizard fits into a long line of two-faced English characters created by England-based, Irish Anglican playwrights – including Charles Macklin, who was actually a convert, having been born Cathal MacLochlainn into an Irish-speaking Catholic family in Donegal. Macklin’s Colonel Mushroom in The True-Born Irishman (1763) contributes to this lineage, along with young Marlow in Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer, Joseph Surface in Sheridan’s The School for Scandal (1777), the Bromleys in Elizabeth Griffith’s The Times (1779), Sir Robert Chiltern in Wilde’s An Ideal Husband (1895), and Tom Broadbent in Shaw’s John Bull’s Other Island (1904). These characters help Irish Anglican playwrights to affirm Wilde’s contention that England is “the native land of the hypocrite” (1994: 118) and seem to suggest that hypocrisy is a peculiarly English vice.

While Farquhar’s later plays may have sectarian overtones, they still make interesting “Irish” reflections on the English “national character”. In this respect, they illustrate Joep Leerssen’s case (1996) that Irish literature has, since the eighteenth century, been fixated on the Enlightenment notion that each country possesses a distinct temperament. They also evidence an idea of national character that accommodates the traits of all four countries in the Atlantic Archipelago (traditionally “British Isles”). Farquhar’s efforts in this respect anticipate the work of Edmund Burke and complicate the tendency of some modern critics (Deane 1987) to diminish this archipelagic identity by conflating “British” with “English”. Most importantly, however, these plays give us deeper insight into the Ulster Loyalist mindset. It must always be remembered that Farquhar should not be treated simply as an Irish or even an “Anglo-Irish” playwright; he must be regarded, much more specifically, as a proudly Protestant, Ulster playwright who repeatedly expressed his diehard loyalty to the English crown. In the spirit in the Good Friday Agreement, theatre practitioners and audiences in the Republic of Ireland must be open to Farquhar’s Irish/British hybridity and must even be willing to acknowledge and engage with the implications of his “unenlightened” religious views. They must not simply efface or ignore these elements in his work, as so many of the theatres and theatre companies discussed in this article have attempted to do.


[1] As one might imagine, the programme for this production neglected to mention the fact that in the sequel to The Constant Couple, Sir Harry Wildair (1701), the hero brags about having raped six Roman Catholic nuns.

Works Cited

Abernethy, John (1731). The Nature and Consequences of the Sacramental Test Considered: With Reasons Humbly Offered for the Repeal of it. Dublin: n.p.

______ (1751). Scarce and Valuable Tracts and Sermons, occasionally published by the late and learned Rev. John Abernethy. London: Griffiths.

Blake, Ann (2006). “Introduction to The Beaux’ Stratagem by George Farquhar.” The Beaux’ Stratagem by George Farquhar and edited by Ann Blake. London: Bloomsbury Methuen. vii-xli.

Bradley, James E. (2001). “The Religious Origins of Radical Politics in England, Scotland and Ireland.” Religion and Politics in Enlightenment Europe, edited by James E. Bradley and Dale K. Van Kley. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press. 187-253.

Brown, Michael (2014). “The English Identity of Edmund Burke.” Studies in Burke and His Time 24: 38-61.

______ (2016). The Irish Enlightenment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burke, Helen (2019). “Worlding the Village: John O’Keeffe’s ‘Excentric’ Pastorals.” Ireland, Enlightenment and the English Stage, 1740-1820, edited by David O’Shaughnessy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 226-48.

Clare, David (2014). “Why Did George Farquhar’s Work Turn Sectarian after The Constant Couple?” Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review 103 (410): 159-68.

______ (2015). “Review of Rough Magic’s 2013 Production of Sheridan’s The Critic.” Eighteenth-Century Fiction 27 (3-4): 761-64.

______ (2018). “Goldsmith, the Gate, and the Hibernicising of Anglo-Irish Plays.” The Gate Theatre, Dublin: Inspiration and Craft, edited by David Clare, Des Lally, and Patrick Lonergan. Dublin: Carysfort / Oxford: Peter Lang. 239-59.

______ (2020-21). “‘I Feel Bould at All Times’: Irishness in Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s St. Patrick’s Day and Pizarro.” Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review 109 (436): 386-99.

______ (2021). Irish Anglican Literature and Drama: Hybridity and Discord. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Deane, Seamus (1987). “Irish National Character, 1790-1900.” The Writer as Witness: Literature as Historical Evidence, edited by Tom Dunne. Cork: Cork University Press. 90-113.

______ (1994). A Short History of Irish Literature. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Dorman, Andrew (2022). “Army Recruitment and Desertion in Eighteenth-Century Ireland.” Conference paper delivered at the 2022 Eighteenth-Century Ireland Society [ECIS] Conference, at University College Cork, 18 June 2022.

Edgeworth, Maria and Richard Lovell Edgeworth (1835). Practical Education. New York: Harper.

Farquhar, George (1988). The Works of George Farquhar, Volume I, edited by Shirley Strum Kenny. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

______ (1988). The Works of George Farquhar, Volume II, edited by Shirley Strum Kenny. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gray, Ken (1956). “Custard-Pie Routine Is Missing.” The Irish Times (January 7).

Hughes, Declan (1998). Plays:1. London: Faber & Faber.

Kelly, Seamus (1967). “A Glorious Romp at the Gate.” The Irish Times (June 21).

Kenny, Shirley Strum (1988). Notes to The Works of George Farquhar, Volume I by George Farquhar and edited by Shirley Strum Kenny. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leerssen, Joep (1996). Mere Irish and Fíor-Gael: Studies in the Idea of Irish Nationality, its Development and Literary Expression prior to the Nineteenth Century. Cork: Cork University Press.

McCormack, W. J. (1994). From Burke to Beckett: Ascendancy, Tradition and Betrayal in Literary History. Cork: Cork University Press.

Morash, Christopher (2002). A History of Irish Theatre, 1601-2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Myers, Kevin (1985). “An Irishman’s Diary.” The Irish Times (May 24).

Newman, Ian and David O’Shaughnessy, eds. (2022). Charles Macklin and the Theatres of London. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

O’Flaherty, Eamon (2008). “Theatre Eye: The Recruiting Officer / George Farquhar / The Abbey Theatre.” History Ireland 16.2 (March/April). https://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/theatre-eye-3/

Ó Gallchoir, Clíona (2021). Maria Edgeworth [Key Irish Women Writers]. Brighton: Edward Everett Root.

Orr, Bridget (2019). “From Ireland to Peru: Arthur Murphy’s (Anti-)Imperial Dramaturgy.” Ireland, Enlightenment and the English Stage, 1740-1820, edited by David O’Shaughnessy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 189-204.

O’Shaughnessy, David (2017). “‘Bit, by some mad whig’: Charles Macklin and the Theater of Irish Enlightenment.” Huntington Library Quarterly 80 (4): 559-84.

Roche, Anthony (2018). “George Farquhar: A Migrant Life in Reverse – A Compelling Biography.” The Irish Times (October 6).

Synge, Edward (1730). The case of toleration consider’d with respect both to religion and civil government, in a sermon on Luke xiv. 23 before the Honourable House of Commons on Saturday the 23rd of October 1725: being the anniversary of the Irish Rebellion. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Fleming.

The Abbey Theatre (1986). Video of the 1986 Production of The Beaux’ Stratagem, by George Farquhar. The Abbey Theatre Digital Archive in Special Collections at the University of Galway’s James Hardiman Library.

The Irish Independent (1930). “A Restoration Nights’ Entertainment: Comedy of Manners.” August 21.

The Irish Times (1930). “‘The Beaux’ Stratagem.’” August 21.

______ (1950). “Two Substitutes for Pantomime.” January 7.

The Irishman (1930). “Theatre Reviews: Gate.” August 30.

Ward, James (2019). “Caught in a Contract: Congreve, Farquhar and Contractarian Masculinities.” Ireland and Masculinities in History: Genders and Sexualities in History, edited by Rebecca Anne Barr, Sean Brady and Jane McGaughey. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 19-38.

White, Victoria (1990). “Restoration Vision of Gilded Emptiness: ‘The Constant Couple’ at Garter Lane.” The Irish Times (November 15).

Wilde, Oscar (1994). The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde. New York: Barnes & Noble.

| Received: 05-09-2022 | Last Version: 12-07-2023 | Articles, Issue 18.2