The School for Scandal

The opening of Act III continues Oliver’s plot to expose Charles and Joseph’s true character; however, the introduction of Moses reveals a problematic element of English literature from this period. When Rowley introduces Moses, he calls him “the honest Israelite” (409), which immediately frames Jewish people as dishonest, with Rowley pointing out how Moses is an exception to that assumed rule. Upon learning of the change in plan to appear as Premium, Oliver’s concern is, “how the plague shall I be able to pass for a Jew?” (410), which continues their effort to distance themselves from Jewish people.

Oliver assumes that pretending to be Jewish would require some intense modification of his behavior, which he then reasserts by asking if he is not “too smartly dressed to look like a money-lender” (410). Usury as a profession was often linked with the Jewish community due to a long history of their exclusion from other roles in society, and Oliver, here, implies that Jewish people are both impoverished and somehow different to the rest of society. Moses then counsels Oliver on how best to deceive Charles, such as lying about the source of their funds, layering on the stereotyping of Jewish people as dishonest and malicious. This section of the play, as with many examples of English literature from the 18th century, highlights discriminatory attitudes that framed Jewish people as inferior or immoral.

In Peter and Lady Teazle’s argument, they continue the issue of The Moral Conflicts of Human Nature, introducing the issue of money and independence. Lady Teazle asks for money, which Peter begrudgingly provides, and they each suggest that this moment can end their quarrel. When Peter asks, “And you shall no longer reproach me with not giving you an independent settlement” (412), he suggests that Lady Teazle’s primary complaint is her dependence on Peter’s wealth.

However, Lady Teazle’s desire for respect is rooted more in Peter’s refusal to acknowledge her desires as valid, just as Peter’s real issue with Lady Teazle is not her desire for freedom, but her seeming lack of interest in him. Lady Teazle insists that Peter starts their arguments, and, after Lady Teazle leaves, Peter laments: “Plagues and tortures! Can’t I make her angry neither?” (414). Lady Teazle wants validation, and she gets validation from Sneerwell’s crowd, who tell her that she should assert her control through malice in her marriage, even encouraging her to pretend to have an affair with Joseph. Meanwhile, Peter just wants his wife’s affection, and his lamentation that he cannot even anger her shows that his discontent comes from the distance between them.

The scene in which Charles and Careless drink, gamble, and revel with their group shows Charles’s libertinism as a true facet of his personality, reflecting the issue of The Discrepancy Between Public Virtue and Private Vice. Unlike Joseph, Charles shows him extravagance openly; however, unlike Careless, Charles refuses to force Moses and Premium to engage in their degeneracy. Nonetheless, Charles does assume that Moses and Premium have their measure of immorality, asking Premium: “Nay, my little broker, don’t be angry; what need you care, if you have your money’s worth?” (421). Essentially, Charles is highlighting how society arranges itself around material matters, which is his justification for selling his family heirlooms. Much like he assumes of his lenders, he does not care about the morality of his actions so long as they result in a material gain.