Behn, The Feign'd Curtizans (1679):Introduction

Editor’s note

This edition intends to be as close to the first printed edition as possible. However, the original breaks have been left out, in order to present a continuous text. Spelling mistakes have only been corrected in obvious cases of printer’s errors and the changes have been marked by means of square brackets [ ]. In cases where mistakes could lead to changes in meaning, no corrections have been carried out. Small capitals have been replaced by bold capital letters. Punctuation mistakes have not been corrected. Whenever there were asides within a speech of a character, the asides were put into the continous text and closed square brackets were added. A selection of the footnotes of Janet Todd’s edition of 1996 (Todd, Janet, ed. The Works of Aphra Behn. London: William Pickering, 1996) has been adopted and partly changed. In addition, footnotes have been added where additional stage directions seem necessary.

The play in performance

The Feign’d Curtizans , or A Nights Intrigue by Aphra Behn was first acted in 1679 at the Duke’s Theatre in Dorset Garden. There is report of a play called Midnight Intrigues which was possibly acted at Dorset Garden in May, 1677. As the author is unknown, it can be assumed that it was an earlier version of The Feigned Curtizans, although there is no proof for that. The first reliable record was in March 1679, with a cast well-known to the Restoration audience. James Nokes, a famous comic actor, played Sir Signall Buffoon, and William Smith, who played the Willmore in the Rover before, played Fillamour. Betty Currer, who also spoke the prologue, was Marcella, and Cornelia was played by Elizabeth Berry, to name only a few actors in the cast. Maybe because of the political situation the play was not very well received as it was only acted one more time on record, a year later at Court. After that it disappeared from the stages for nearly 20 years. The next staging is recorded in July 1716 at the Lincoln’s Inn Fields Theatre, when the play was acted a few times. But after 1717 it seems no longer part of the repertoire of the London theatres. It was licensed for printing on 27th of March in 1679 and was printed for Jacob Tonson. There exists a variant title page where next to Jacob, Richard Tonson is mentioned. The printing is interesting in that the composing was inattentive, as there are a lot of spelling and punctuation mistakes, muddled-in text parts, missing exits and entrances, etc. There is no proof that a second edition was printed during Behn’s lifetime.

About the play

Aphra Behn’s comedy The Feign’d Curtizans, written in 1679, is set in Rome. The two sisters Cornelia and Marcella are in a hopeless situation: Cornelia, who was raised in a convent, is to become a nun and Marcella is promised to the young count Octavio, whom she does not love. To escape these fates, they have fled from their uncle, the old count Morisini, and disguised themselvers as courtesans, under the names of Silvianetta and Euphemia. They have fallen in love with the two young English gentlemen Galliard and Fillamour, and have to find ways to meet them without being discovered. However, they are not the only ones disguising themselves as courtesans: Laura Lucretia, who is promised to Cornelia’s and Marcella’s brother Julio, wants to escape the marriage with him and attract Galliard’s attention instead. She, too, passes herself off as the courtesan Silvianetta. After one night of many intrigues, disguises and confusion, new couples form and fates are decided. In the comical subplot the young English Sir Signal Buffoon and his Puritan tutor Tickletext hypocritically try to meet the notorious courtesan Silvianetta.

The Feign’d Curtizans shows striking similarities to The Rover (1677), an earlier play by Behn. Just like The Feign’d Curtizans, The Rover tells the story of young English cavaliers in exile in Italy and of young ladies trying to escape the future their male relatives have planned for them. The English friends Belville, Ferdinand and Blunt, soon joined by the ‘rover’ and womanizer Willmore, are in Italy to celebrate Carnival. Belville is in love with Florinda, an Italian girl, whose brother Pedro wants her to marry his friend Antonio. Willmore is especially interested in Florinda’s sister Hellena, who is destined to live in a convent. Blunt, who lacks the wit Willmore has, is fooled by the prostitute Lucetta and her pimp. Nearly every character in The Feign’d Curtizans has its counterpart in The Rover. Hellena and Cornelia are both witty young women, determined to live in nunneries but filled with worldly interests; their sisters, Florinda and Marcella, are both beautiful and virtuous young ladies, in love with the noble heros Belville and Fillamour, but promised to unloved friends of their brothers, Pedro and Julio. Sir Signal and Tickletext share the part of the fool Blunt, and Laura Lucretia’s story is just as sad as the story of Angelica in The Rover, who falls in love with Willmore but whose love remains unfulfilled.

The Feign’d Curtizans is a play about ‘a night’s intrigue’. The intrigue mostly deals with love; young people try to find ways to get the lover they want. However, Behn dipicts lovers with different intentions: Fillamour, a romantic hero just like Belville in The Rover, is in love with the beautiful and virtuous Marcella and wants to be faithful to her. He says that in Marcella he has met “one of the loveliest persons in the World“ (Act I, Sc I) and that to him “there is no pleasure like Constancie.“ (ActI, ScI) This is just the way Belville speaks of his “fair, [...] dear Florinda“ (Act IV, ScI). However, in The Feign’d Curtizans the character of the romantic hero has developed slightly; Fillamour is a more complex character than his predecessor Belville. Both Florinda and Marcella test their lovers’ fidelity by disguising themselves as different women and trying to tempt them. While Belvile’s love and fidelity to Florinda passes the test and he sends the ‘other’ lady away, Fillamour feels strongly attracted to the curtizan Euphemia, who really is his beloved Marcella. He appears to be torn between the two ladies; the lovely Marcella and Euphemia, who is beautiful and exciting, but “want’s that Virtue I admire!“ (Act III, Sc I) The fascination with the prostitute is even stronger than his love for Marcella:

“‘tis no encrease of flame that warms my heart,

But a new fire just kindled from those - eyes -

Whose rayes I finde more piercing than Marcella’s.” (Act III, Sc I)

Although Fillamour tries to convert Euphemia, he is not the perfectly virtuous hero we know from the Rover. Unlike Belvile, who because of the “Vow“ he has made “to a very fine Lady“ (Act III, ScI), is not willing to meet another woman, Fillamour is ready to go back on his promise to marry Marcella.

Galliard, like Willmore, who “loves every new Face he sees“ (Act III, Sc I), is an opponent of constancy and does not want to be “one of those dull Lovers who believe in their Duty to Love a Woman till her Hair and Eyes change Colour for fear of the Scandalous Name of an inconstant.“ Instead his “Passion like great Victors hates the lazy Stay, but having vanquisht, prepares for new Conquests.“ (Act I, ScI) He criticizes his friend for his old-fashioned concept of love: “Away with your Antiquated Notions, and let’s once hear sense from thee: Examine but the whole World Harry, and thou wilt finde a Beautifull woman the desire of the Noblest, and the reward of the Bravest.“ (Act I, ScI) His counterpart Willmore shows the same attitude towards love; Talking to Angelica, he says: “I wish I were that dull, that constant thing, [w]hich thou woud’st have, and Nature never meant me“ (Act V, Sc I) As the title suggests, a major topic treated in The Feign’d Curtuzans is prostitution. On the one hand, the fact that all the heroines in the play pretend to be prostitutes makes the topic more explicit than in The Rover, and the question of women as purchasable goods becomes more current, inasmuch as the line between honourable woman and prostitute becomes rather indistinct. On the other hand, unlike in The Rover, where prostitution actually takes place, in The Feign’d Curtizans the heroines stick to their honour and are merely disguised as prostitutes.

In The Rover the heroines use disguise as a means to escape their male guardians as well as in the The Feign’d Curtizans. However, they are never disguised as prostitutes. The female protagonists can clearly be divided into two groups: honourable women (Hellena, Florinda and Valeria) and prostitutes (Lucetta and Angelica). Although Willmore takes Florinda for a prostitute (Act III, Sc III), none of the women passes herself off as a prostitute, whereas in The Feign’d Curtizans the heroine’s identities get mixed up between those of honourable women and curtizans. Cornelia even considers really becoming what they now only pretend to be:

“Whe if all these if’s and or’s come to pass, we have no more

to do then to advance in this same glorious Profession, of which now

we only seem to be: - in which to give it its due, there are a thousand

satisfactions to be found, more then in a dull virtuous life!“ (Act II, ScI)

However, they do not. All three ‘feigned curtizans’ stay the way they are, honourable, and in the end take off their disguise and marry. Angelica and Lucetta in The Rover do not have the possibility to just take off their identity as prostitute in order to lead ‘a dull virtuous life’; For them prostitution is not a game, but reality. This is what makes The Feign’d Curtizans at the same time more scandalous and more harmless than The Rover.

In both plays, however, prostitution involves a certain fascination and excitement for the male characters as well as for the female ones, whereas marriage appears to be something everyone seeks to avoid. Both Willmore and Galliard have to be persuaded to marry. Cornelia even has to promise Galliard to be “the most Mistriss like wife [and] as expensive, insolent, vain Extravagant, and Inconstant, as if [he] only had the keeping part, and another the Amorous Asignations“ (Act V). It seems to be the fear of the ‘dull virtuous life’ which makes the two witty heros shrink back from marriage. Willmore says:

“If it were possible I should ever be inclin’d to

marry, it should be some kind young Sinner, one that has

Generosity enough to give a favour handsomely to one that

can ask discreetly, one that has Wit enough to manage

an Intrigue of Love...” (Act IV, Sc II)

Both statements indicate the importance of keeping a marriage interesting. It should not simply consist of “making a Maid a Mother“ (The Rover, Act V, Sc I); the wife ought to keep up the fascination of the prostitute. This is shown as well when Julio is satisfied to marry the woman he has been fleeing from when she turns out to be the courtesan he has been pursuing.

In The Feign’d Curtizans as well as in The Rover the living conditions of women play a major role. Hellena and Florinda in the Rover, just like the three heroines in The Feign’d Curtizans, are in hopeless situations, trying to escape a fate which has been imposed on them by men. Marcella prefers death to the marriage with the unloved Octavio: “‘tis better to dye then fall into the hands of Octavio. I’me desperate with that thought, - and fear no danger!“ (Act III, Sc I) Cornelia, too, is desperate with the thought of the future she is to spend in the convent; she says she has “but this short night allow’d for Liberty! Perhaps to morrow I may be a slave?“ (Act IV, Sc II) When Marcella suggests selling their jewells when their money is used up, Cornelia asks her: “When they are gone, what Jewell will you part with next.“ She is sure that should she be forced to return to the nunnery she will “whistle through a Grate like a Bird in a Cage, - for [she] shall have little heart to sing:...“(ActII, ScI) However, the heroines are not willing to accept a future which appears to be unchangable and fight with the weapons they have: Disguise, intrigue and femininity. But however hard and courageously the female protagonists struggle to avoid their predetermined destinies, in the cases of Laura and Angelica it is not sufficient. Laura is disappointed that she could not manage to spend one night with the man she loves before entering her unwanted marriage; while she has lost Galliard to Cornelia, Angelica has lost Willmore to Hellena. The fates of both these women show that the female luck still lies in the hands of males.

In spite of the women’s dependence on men in both plays, a change can be observed regarding violence towards women in The Feign’d Curtizans as compared to The Rover. While in the earlier play, Florinda twice is in danger of being raped (first by Willmore and later by Blunt and Frederick), in the later one no violence towards women is indicated.

Criticism on the Feign’d Curtizans

In general the works of Aphra Behn have long been ignored by literary critics. Only in the last 20 years have Aphra Behn and her work attracted more critical attention. But in the case of the Feign’d Curtizans as a lesser-known play there is not much criticism, particularly in comparison to her well-know play The Rover (1677), which has been more widely discussed among the critics. There might be other critical voices about The Feign’d Curtizans, but the focus here lies on five critical essays, of which at least three can be counted as by main literary critics, which concentrate on the Feigen’d Curtizans. There are a few central recurrent topics which are discussed by the critics. It is important to mention that it is difficult to divide the topics into independent areas because some of the topics are interrelated or dependent on each other. Nearly every essay is concerned with the topic of prostitution which plays an important role, as the main characters of the play pose as prostitutes. What prostitution meant in the Restoration Age and how the figure of the prostitute functions in the play are examined. This is closely related to the topic of marriage, especially how the view of marriage during the Restoration period is displayed in the play. Along with this goes the topic of deceit which is connected to the topic of disguise. The female characters use certain disguises to trick the male characters. They do not only pose as prostitutes but also disguise themselves as men. The critics also take a look at political and religious intentions of the play. They focus on the influence of historical events like the Popish Plot and its influence on the play and raise the question of the political orientation of the author. The play is also discussed in terms of feminist issues. Finally, the discussion about the originality of the play is also interesting.

Jane Spencer was the first to write about the Feign’d Curtizans. The main aspect of her examination is deceit and dissembling, as the title of her essay shows. In her eyes, the topic of prostitution is closely related to the topic of disguise. Prostitution is not only obviously present in the play it is also more complex than one might think. The special circumstance that the courtesans are only feigned is very important in Spencer’s eyes. Being a prostitute was similar to wearing a mask or a vizard, as the prostitutes of Restoration times did. “The play juggles with the notions of deceit within deception involved in falsely adopting a vizard. The vizard or mask worn by the prostitute was synonymous with her: In the Restoration, a courtesan was a mask.”(Spencer 1993:98) The courtesans in the play use the masks to hide their virginity and their true love. Here, Pilar Crudar Domínguez adds in his essay that the vizard also helps them to hide from their guardian. Spencer further notes that the role of the female characters as persons in charge of initiating the action is only possible by using disguises, as courtesans and also as boys. These disguises help the women to overcome the image of the modest women who would not be able to speak and act as freely as their chosen identities allow them. (see Spencer 1993:95) Domínguez cites Spencer and also shares this point of view. Talking about disguise, Scott adds another interesting aspect. She accuses Aphra Behn herself of wearing a disguise similar to her feigned courtesans. “She writes a play that will appeal to men and women while subverting her own views on sex and marriage.” (Scott 2000:175) Another aspect concerning the topic of prostitution that adds more complexity is that in Restoration times actresses were equalled with courtesans. The sexual reputation of an actress often interfered with the character she played on stage. In the case of The Feign’d Curtizans, Marcella, who was supposed to be a feigned courtesan, was played by Betty Currer, who referred to her offstage reputation as a prostitute in the prologue. Spencer sums it up: “[T]he feigned courtesan was being played by a real one, and this surely twists any moral about female truth and honor that the play might express.” (Spencer 1993:99) Domínguez takes also a look at the figure of the prostitute and suggests three ways of interpreting it. He also refers to the connection between actress and prostitute as Spencer did and adds the aspect that the author also equals the figure of the prostitute, here he refers to the immodesty of the profession of an author: An author, like his or her texts, becomes a commodity, like prostitutes, who sell themselves. (see Domínguez 1997:129) The third way of reading the figure of the prostitute is built upon Alison Shell’s reading, when she suggests that the Catholic Church in the Restoration period was often referred to as a harlot “whose outside appeal contrasted with her inner corruption” (Domínguez 1997: 130) But Domínguez does not share this point of view. He sees this theory as “far-fetched”.

He rather concentrates on the connection and differences between honesty and prostitution which are prominent topics in the play. He says that the line between the two instances is not at all clear. In The Feign’d Curtizans, all female characters are honest and prostitutes - even if they are feigned - at the same time. He notes that“[t]he difference between honest women and prostitutes results from the different methods patriarchy deploys in marketing the “goods” i.e. women. This is why the play recurrently engages the notions of marriage and prostitution in terms of economic modes.” (Domínguez 1997:131) He also presents two approaches which are contrasted constantly in the play: The residual mode, which is represented by Fillamour, and the capitalist mode, which is present in the speech and acting of Galliard. He concludes that both modes commodify women, only in different ways. He thinks the fact that the female characters only pose as courtesans is used by Aphra Behn “in order to point towards the fact of the position of all women as exchangeable property among men.” (Domínguez 1997:133) Concerning women as commodities Scott states: “Behn equates the bartering of women in the marriage marked with prostitution in order to show that prostitution is only one aspect of the sexual commodification of women.”(Scott 2000:170) Spencer also discusses the connection between marriage and prostitution and says that in the play “[f]orced marriage is […] seen as an equivalent to, indeed a less desirable form of, prostitution.” (Spencer 1993:99) Scott concludes that men and women saw marriage as slavery and as prostitution, “but women prefer[red] it to nunnery or to spinsterhood, and, most especially, they want[ed] the power to choose their mates.” (Scott 2000: 175)

Concerning a feminist point of view in the play, Scott notes that the play contains more anti-feminist statements than any other of Behn’s plays. Although “Behn did much to advocate the right of women to express and follow their sexual desires, overall this play panders to and even flatters men, supporting the political und domestic status quo.”(Scott 2000:174) The reason for that is seen by Scott in Behn’s position as a female playwright in an “essentially male field”. (Scott 2000:174) Spencer too, marks the misogynist tone of the play, which is uttered through Laura Lucretia who equates women with deceit. By bringing arguments forward which regard the statement in its context, she concludes that “Laura Lucretia’s remark […] is not a misogynist statement but a witty reversal of one.” (Spencer 1993:96)

Spencer shares the opinion that Behn’s work responds to the taste of a male audience, but she also emphasizes that the female playwright shifts the balance of power and action between hero and heroine more towards the women. She states that research has found that it is not necessarily direct feminist protest which marks the plays of women writers but more their “emphasis on various strategies to empower female characters” (Spencer 1993:90) which is also true for Behn’s plays. Shell clearly sees feminism as one of Behn’s themes which occurs also in The Feign’d Curtizans. She argues that it is transmitted by the mockery of whoredom practiced by Behn in the play.

A universally discussed topic is the political intention of the play. Spencer states that despite the Popish Plot, the play has no prominent political message. She justifies this statement by pointing out that at the time of the Popish Plot, which had its effects on the theatres and audiences, it would have been safer for Behn to turn to the intrigue comedy to attract audiences instead of transmitting a political message through this play. (see Spencer 1993:92)

In this respect Alison Shell suggests a completely different reading. The concern of her essay is to discuss whether The Feign’d Curtizans has a political and/or religious intention, namely if the play can be read as pro-Catholic and therefore as pro-Tory. She tries to find evidence for this claim, draws parallels to other authors who had a clear political opinion expressed in their plays and examines the play in the context of the Popish Plot. As her argumentation is very detailed and complex, her conclusion best sums up her findings: Concerning the Catholic orientation of author and play she says: “Deep spiritual needs can not be demonstrated from [Behn’s] writing. She seems to have valued Catholicism for a number of non-religious reasons: for its visual beauty […] for its cloak-and-dagger aspects so well demonstrated by the comedy of intrigue she wrote, and for the opportunities it gave her for Tory mischief.” (Shell 1996:45) Further she concludes “The Feign’d Curtizans is unique in Behn’s oevre in downplaying Catholic wickedness reconceived as Catholic naughtiness; but in so doing, in the charged times it was written, it demonstrates her characteristic combination of acute political sensitivity and provocativeness.”(Shell 1996:46)

Paulette Scott responds in her essay to Shell’s argumentation of The Feign’d Curtizans having pro-Tory and pro-Catholic content. Scott believes that Shell has argued wrongly because she thinks it was dangerous at that time to avow openly to Catholicism in such a form. She supposes that “Behn was cautious not to offend.”(Scott 2000:167) Scott disagrees with Shell and tries to refute Shells arguments by finding evidence for the pro-Anglican orientation of Behn in the play.

Another concern of the critics in a fairly different direction is the discussion whether the plot of The Feign’d Curtizans is original to Aphra Behn or not. No critic denies the similarities of the structure to the Rover, still nobody claims that the Rover is also the source of The Feign’d Curtizans. For most critics the originality is just a fact. Scott states that the play “is not dependent on any literary sources by male authors.” (Scott 2000:174). Spencer mentions that the form of the intrigue comedy, based on Spanish models, was popular at the time of the Restoration in England. Dolors Altabar-Artal also states that Restoration playwrights adapted Spanish dramas for the English stage, but he goes a step further when he claims The Feign’d Curtizans “was an adaptation of Casa con dos puertas mala es guarder, one of the finest comedies of Pedro Calderón de la Barca (1600-1681).” (Altaba-Artal 1995:29) This is the concern of his essay, discussing and presenting similarities between - what he thinks - the original play and Aphra Behns adaption of it. He says “Behn went farther than a translator would, for she dialogized Calderón’s text and changed the cape and sword play into a very witty, strong and contemporary English satire.” (Altaba-Artal 1995:29) Even more interesting is the fact that all the other critics ignore this discussion, although it was published after Spencer but before the other critical essays. Whereas in the other essays the ideas of the other critics are stated and discussed further, Altaba-Artal isn’t referred to in any of them.

Bibliography

General

• Todd, Janet. Aphra Behn. Contemporary Critical Essays. Hampshire/ London: Macmillan, 1999.
• Todd, Janet. The Secret Life of Aphra Behn. London: Andre Deutsch, 1996.
• Anderson, Misty G. Female Playwrights and Eighteenth-Century Comedy. Negotiating Marriage on the London Stage. New York/ Hampshire: Palgrave, 2002.
• Hughes, Derek: The Theatre of Aphra Behn. Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2001.

Critical Essays

• Spencer, Jane.”Deceit, Dissembling, all that’s Woman: Comic Plot and Female Action in the Feign’d Courtesans.” Rereading Aphra Behn. History, Theory, and Criticism. Ed. Hunter, Heidi. Charlottesville/ London: University Press of Virginia, 1993. 86-101.
• Scott, Paulette. “There is Difference in the Sexes: Masculine Sexuality and Female Desire in the Feign’d Curtizans.” Aphra Behn (1614-1689). Identity, Alterity, Ambiguity. Eds. O’Donnel, Mary Ann and Bernard Dhuicq and Guyonne Leduc. Paris/ Montreal/ Budapest/ Torino: L’Harmattan, 2000. 167-176.
• Shell, Alison. “Popish Plots: The Feign’d Curtizans in context.” Aphra Behn studies. Ed.Todd, Janet. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1996. 30- 49.
• Altaba-Artal, Dolors. “Aphra Behn’s The Feign’d Curtezans; Or, A Nights Intrigue From Calderon’s Casa Con Dos Puertas Mala Es De Guardar.” Resoration and 18th century theatre research. 10.1 (1995). 29-43.
• Dominguez, Pilar Cuder. “Pretty Contradictions: The Virgin Prostitutes of Aphra Behn’s The Feign’d Courtesans (1679).” SEDERI VII. Eds. Pablos, Juan Antonio Prieto and Manuel Gomez Lara and Maria Jose Mora Sena. Sevilla: Univeristy of Sevilla, 1997. 129-133. Also: http://www.uniovi.es/SEDERI/Sederi08.pdf (1.Mai 2007)