Representations of Ideal English Societies by Hannah More and Elizabeth Inchbald

Hannah More’s chapbook series, Cheap Repository Tracts and Elizabeth Inchbald’s play Lovers’ Vows were both published during the 1790s, a highly contentious time in British politics. More and Inchbald ensured their works reached audiences of all classes, More by mimicking the style of penny chapbooks and Inchbald through the role of theater. The texts respond to the revolutionary fervor in Europe differently. More condemns revolutionary sentiment as detrimental to the success of England and sinful in the eyes of God, believing that social order is divinely ordained. Unlike More, Inchbald sees the value in passion and sentimentality as a check on misguided reason. More wants to reform the relationship between the upper and lower class into a teacher-student relationship, where the upper class teaches and surveys, and the lower class obeys. She rejects the taverns as a hub of social interaction, arguing that a more rewarding social life would revolve around the domestic sphere. Inchbald recognizes the value of education, but sees fault in the rigid hierarchy, as it can interfere with an individual's decision to act virtuously. Both women criticize aspects of the English society through their depictions of alternative societies. Although More’s emphasis on social order would normally pin her as conservative, her subversion of traditional gender roles reveals a more progressive aim. Inchbald emphasizes the necessary role of emotion in society by adapting a melodrama and changing Amelia’s character, careful not to directly criticize the aristocracy.

More’s representation of English society is simultaneously highly conservative and intrinsically radical. The sentiment of the Cheap Repository Tracts reflects the conservative fear of revolutionary attitudes spreading to England. More’s writings are meant to convince the English of the dangers associated with altering traditional social structures, similarly to Edmund Burke’s Reflections on The Revolution in France (Stabler 167). The importance of hierarchy is emphasized through More’s character descriptions. In The Way To Plenty, she refers to the characters by their roles: “Farmer Jones,” “Farmer Wilson,” and “Butcher Jobbins” (More 22). Similarly, Betty Brown and Mrs. Sponge’s social functions are defined in the title of Betty Brown The St.Giles’s Orange Girl With Some Account of Mrs.Sponge, the Money Lender. Additionally, More depicts the authority figures in her works as just. When the Justice in Betty Brown hears about Mrs. Sponge’s immoral actions, he “refund[s] poor Betty’s money” and sends Mrs. Sponge to prison (More 61). Burke would agree that the hierarchy contributes to justice because it is founded on collective, age-old wisdom, and should thus, remain intact. However, More believes that something is not moral just because it is old, but if it is both old and moral than it “has had the stamp of ages, and the sanction of experience on its worth” (More 18). She sees herself capable of determining which institutions are moral, and which must be reformed.

More envisions an English society grounded in Christian values. While Burke argues that “a religion connected with the state” is necessary to infuse “sublime principles” “into persons of exalted situations,” More believes that the social hierarchy itself is divinely ordained (Burke 137-138). This concept allows More to give “religious sanction to the existing social order” (Pederson 85). More believes each citizen has a duty to fulfill the obligations of their respective social class (Gilmartin 515). In Tom White, Tom states that “...all that belongs to us is, to do our duty in that state of life in which it shall please God to call us” (More 9). Tom’s passive voice mirrors More’s idea that the English should graciously accept the duties God bestowed upon them. This idea appears in Betty Brown when the Justice’s wife states, “...we may please God in any calling, provided it be an honest one. In this great town there must be a barrow woman to sell fruit” (More 61). Her righteous and pragmatic tone strengthens the veracity of More’s argument. More believes every individual, regardless of class, must be held accountable for fulfilling their roles. Many scholars have argued that More’s deference to God is used to justify a system “in which the responsible stewardship of elites [is] consistently met with grateful deference from below” (Gilmartin 513). Alternatively, it enables her to criticize members of the upper class who shirk their responsibilities. More also attributes England’s success to God. In Betty Brown, the narrator states there was no “charitable Society then,” “whereas, this now is often the case in London; blessed be God for all his mercies” (More 55). Similarly, in Tom White, the narrator spends a paragraph praising the “Christian country” “we live in'' because of its “excellent” hospitals and benevolent treatment of the poor (More 8). The use of first-person plural allows her to develop a sense of intimacy and trust with the reader.

More appeals to the working class by presenting morality as a prerequisite for financial success. In Tom White, when Tom began living by the Bible, he “soon grew rich for one in his station; for every gentleman on the road would be driven by no other lad if careful Tom was to be had” (10). More’s reference to “one in his station” illustrates Tom’s embracement of his God-given role. The narrator asserts that “...the same principles which make a man sober and honest, have also a natural tendency to make him healthy and rich…” (10). More’s parallel sentence structure underscores her paralleling understanding of morality and financial success. Similarly, in Betty Brown, Betty’s “earnings became considerable” when she resolved to stop drinking and swindling customers (61). Ultimately, More’s stories try to persuade the working class that virtuous behavior, defined by More, enables them to “have the material rewards [their] employers have” and “save [their] Christian souls,” an improvement in both the temporal and spiritual realm (Mellor 22).

More denounces rebellion in England by appealing to a transcendent authority. In the 1790s, “Cheap Repository Tracts were often credited with preventing rebellion and thereby saving the monarchy in England” (Mellor 15). Similarly to her argument about respecting social structure, More asserts that rioting is both economically and morally detrimental. In The Riot, Jack says “What a whimsey to think we shall mend our spare diet - By breeding disturbance, by murder and riot!” (More 125). The euphonious diction and alliteration of “what a whimsey” produces a pleasant tone, contrasting the cacophonous diction of “disturbance, murder and riot.” More patronizes the working class through the repetition of the word “whimsey,” as it suggests that they are idealistic in believing that rebellion will improve the economic conditions. More asserts that the working class’s anger is misdirected, as “the King...may prevent a bad law, but can’t help a bad season,” deferring responsibility from the state to God (More 127). 

Although More supports the social hierarchy, she believes traditional class relations must be reformed. Prior to the revolutionary fervor of the 1790s, the upper and lower class cultures did not intersect. Conservatives normally addressed only the upper class, unlike Thomas Paine whose appeal to the working class proved incredibly effective (Gilmarten 507). More imitated Paine’s “direct and colloquial style,” which contrasted Burke’s flowery, theatrical language (Stabler 167). In Sinful Sally, More calls all maidens, from “Country Lass [to] London Belle” (More 131). The alliteration creates unity between these distinct classes. More rejects the existence of disparate cultures, instead imagining a country unified under Christianity (Shaw xix). This required feelings of mutual responsibility between classes, not then existent (Pederson 87). More believes the upper-class must instruct the poor and treat them generously (Dozier 213). In turn, the lower classes would live by their instruction and acquiesce to their respective social positions. In The Riot, Jack argues against rebelling because he knows that the “Gentlefolks...will afford [them] supplies” (More 127). Here, More divides the responsibility of preventing rebellions between the rich and the poor. While More utilizes the strategy of revolutionaries to push a conservative agenda, her emphasis on mutual accountability was rarely seen in conservative writings.  

More believed that all individuals are capable of reasoning and should receive an education. She believed women should be trained to fulfill their domestic roles. This is demonstrated through Mrs. White’s and the Justice’s Wife’s lessons to the lower-class women and Betty Brown respectively. More’s contrasting characterizations of Betty Brown and Sinful Sally work in conjunction to highlight the importance of female education. At first, Mrs. Sponge teaches Betty how to swindle customers, and Betty obliviously obliges. Her lack of education leaves her susceptible to Mrs. Sponge’s exploitation. It is not until the Justice’s wife, an upper-class woman “open[ed] [Betty’s] eyes'' by teaching her the importance of honesty and frugality, that Betty could live an unoppressed, virtuous life (More 61). Similarly, Sally is ignorant and sinful without an education. In an extended metaphor comparing women to flies, More suggests that “the cruel spider stretches - Wide his web for every fly; Then each victim that he catches - Strait he poisons till he die” (More 134). This impotent and weak characterization necessitates education to avoid manipulation. More’s educational system solidifies the working class’s dependence on the gentry. E.P. Thomson, a British historian, states that More’s Sunday Schools for workers were “an exercise in discipline and repression in which the bourgeois brainwashed the working classes into submission” (Mellor 16).

More believes that education and charity should work towards the same ends, forming the basis of English society. Education was necessary to teach the working class virtue, and charity was necessary to ensure it was being sustained (Dozier 214). More wanted to weave these into the fabric of daily life “so densely that each individual life became one daily lesson of instruction leaving no inroad for revolutionary subversion” (Gilmartin 525). She believed charity included educating the lower classes. In Betty Brown, the Justice’s wife teaches Betty to become financially independent, emphasizing sobriety and frugality. More says that the Justice’s wife “would gladly have given the girl the five shillings; but she thought it was beginning at the wrong end” (More 60). The third-person omniscient narrator allows More to suggest that the upper class have an intrinsic ability to teach. More sees charity as a “contract between rich and poor,” ensuring lower-class subordination (Gilmartin 498). The Justice’s wife “made [Betty] a present of a gown and a hat, on the easy condition that she should go to church” (More 61). The informal diction of easy develops a sense of intimacy between the narrator and the reader, implying the reader should trust More’s candor assessment. It also indicates that it would be in the best-interests of the lower class to comply. At first Betty agrees “as an act of obedience…”, “but she soon began to go for a better motive” (More 61). This highlights More’s prediction that the lower-class would internalize the higher principles guiding upper-class education and charity. Similarly, in The Way To Plenty, during the feast at the White’s home, “the Doctor and the ladies condescended to walk from one table to the other, and heard many merry stories, but not one profane word or one indecent song…” (More 22). Here, the Whites provide a feast to reward the working-class populace for their diligence. The lack of profanity suggests the education was successful. However, the surveillance reveals More’s indefinite distrust of lower classes.

More’s emphasis on upper class surveillance helps explain her aversion to taverns as the heart of social interaction. More had a deep-seated “antipathy to the plebeian tavern underworld” for both social and political reasons (Gilmartin 494). She believed they were centered around an immoral culture of excessive drinking. They discouraged men from committing themselves to God, working hard, and saving money. Moreover, taverns were places of unsupervised interaction, conducive to discourse and the production of anti-monarchical sentiment. Tom’s broken leg in Tom White is a physical manifestation of the dangers of drinking and pub culture, a warning to the readers of the associated risks. Dr. Shepherd in The Way To Plenty dislikes the sheep-shearing and harvest-home ceremonies because they lead to “ribaldry, and riot, and drunkenness” (More 21). Tom White suggests that the ceremonies should be altered rather than eliminated, mirroring More’s desire for reform. He shifts the drunken, public festivity to a feast within the domestic realm, where the working-class can be adequately surveyed (Gilmartin 494).

More suggests that all aspects of daily life should revolve around the home, as “community life, with the exception of churchgoing, is equally inimical to virtue” (Pederson 91).  Her texts propose a new social structure that takes place predominantly in the domestic sphere, elevating family life and teacher-student relationships between the rich and poor (Pederson 97).  During the Parish Meeting, Dr. Shepherd asks Mrs. White to provide guidance to the poor by saying,“I am not very knowing in these matters myself; but I know that the rich would be twice as charitable, if the poor made a better use of their bounty” (More 25). Here, Dr. Shepherd confesses his ignorance of domestic matters, abdicating authority to Mrs. White. Tom White later says “...though charity begins at home, yet it ought not to end there” (More 23). When these two quotes are read in conjunction, More seems to argue that although women’s power should remain within the domestic sphere, it will ultimately permeate into all aspects of society. Predominantly men in The Way to Plenty are shown to engage in the sinful tavern culture. Thus, if the entirety of social interaction shifts from taverns to the domestic, then women could potentially have more influence than males. This point is supported by the earlier quote that deems “ladies” responsible to survey. 

From this angle, More’s view of the relationship between men and women is quite radical. Unlike other women’s rights advocates at the time such as Mary Wollstonecraft who tried to empower females from outside established institutions, More might be working to expand female influence from within. She subverts traditional gender roles to transform the domestic realm into the “the central principle for the management of national affairs” (Gilmartin 499). More’s work is highly contradictory, as it is “patriarchal and maternal, repressive and enabling, conservative and radical” (Shaw xxvii). The contradictions might represent More’s simultaneous desire to propose reform, and fear of being disregarded as an idealistic revolutionary. Ultimately, More depicts a society where upper class women are responsible for influencing public opinion through their commitment to their divinely ordained roles. This aligns with her desire for social and political influence, as she is an upper-class, religious, educated woman.

During the 1790s in England, theater played a significant role both politically and socially. The Stage Licensing Act was introduced in 1737, preventing the performance of scenes with “any hint of criticism of the aristocracy or mention of revolutionary activity...” (O'Shaughnessy 31-32). Consequently, many playwrights had to construct their social critiques carefully. Inchbald’s adaptation of August von Kotzebue’s play circumvented censorship by criticizing stereotypical aristocratic traits, rather than the aristocracy itself. The criticism of nobles in Kotzebue’s play would not have been deemed acceptable by The Examiner (Bode 304). Thus, Inchbald’s adaptation turned “Kotzebue’s political play into [a] domestic drama,” entitled Lovers’ Vows (Burwick 740). As discussed above, conservatives such as Burke, were fearful of revolutionary sentiment spreading to England. He denounced French revolutionaries for succumbing to their passions. In Reflections on the Revolution in France, Burke criticizes Reverend Hugh Peters for expressing a political opinion as he is “wholly unacquainted with the world, in which they are so fond of meddling...they have nothing of politics but the passions they excite” (Burke 14). Here, Burke’s dichotomous thinking suggests that politicians rely purely on reason, whereas revolutionaries are emotionally driven. Alternatively, Kotzebue believed that ”if rigid conventions and wrong-headed ideas are the source of all social evils, then the panacea is to listen to the true voice of feeling…” (Burwick 736). In Lovers Vows’ Inchbald envisions a middle-ground between Burke and Kotzebue, idealizing a society that is formed through reason and emotion.

Inchbald’s characters are more multifaceted than Kotzebue’s, which decreases the political dimension of the play (Burwick 736). Inchbald adapts the Count’s character to make him more of an “individual character” and less of a “social type” (Bode 303). Unlike the Count who feels no remorse for promising himself to multiple women, the Baron “wished to make some recompense” after recognizing his similar mistake (Inchbald 64). Here, Inchbald creates two vastly different images of the aristocracy, enabling her to criticize the Count’s greed and selfishness, without criticizing the aristocracy as a whole. The Review of Lovers’ Vows inappropriately denounces Inchbald for “exhibit[ing] the brightest examples of virtue among the lower classes of society…” (Reitzel 453). Although Inchbald glorifies Frederick’s loyalty to his mother, she scorns his threat to the Baron. Immediately after he does so, he states, “what have I done!” (Inchbald 35). This short, abrupt sentence signals a shift, as Frederick uses reason to recognize the consequences of his impulsive action. Thus, while Frederick is a sympathetic character, he is depicted as flawed. 

Through the characters of the Baron, Agatha, and Frederick, Inchbald illustrates potential detrimental consequences of being led entirely by emotion. Agatha states “I was intoxicated by the fervent caresses of a young, inexperienced, capricious man, and did not recover from the delirium till it was too late” (Inchbald 10). The words “intoxication” and “delirium” highlight Agatha’s impotence in rationalizing the Baron’s confession of love. Both characters succumbed to their inhibitions, causing Agatha to become a social pariah, and causing the Baron to be consumed with guilt. Similarly, when the Baron recounts his mistake, he states that “[he] had no instructor but [his] passions; no governor but [his] own will” (32). The short, parallel sentence structure and rephrasing of the first clause emphasizes the dangers of unbridled passion. The metaphor of his passions as an instructor creates a disconnect between him and his feelings, as they appear to act independently of his mind. In Kotzebue’s original play, “Amalie seems like a simple child of nature, raised...on Rousseauistic principles...to follow the true voice of feeling only” (Bode 300).  Inchbald drastically alters Amelia’s character, making her acutely aware of the effects of her actions.

Inchbald does not entirely denounce emotion, but envisions a society where individuals are taught to use moral intuition to validate intellectual decisions. Amelia’s education prevents her from falling into the same trap as Agatha did. While Agatha was intoxicated by the Baron’s charm, Amelia disregards the Count’s compliments as foolish, recognizing the insincerity (Inchbald 26). She makes several jabs at the Count throughout their conversation that go over his head, but are clear to the audience. This establishes the relationship between Amelia and the audience, placing the Count on the periphery. Anhalt is a figure of intellectual superiority, whose education has enlightened him to the proper relationship between emotion and reason. At the end of the play, the Baron wants to marry Agatha but is hesitant because of the class differences. He tells Anhalt that his “conscience and [self] are at variance,” to which Anhalt replies “Conscience is always right-because it never speaks unless it is so” (85). Through this dialogue, Inchbald suggests that one’s inner voice can be used to determine the morality of conclusions founded on reason. This stands in opposition to More’s argument that “girls should be led to distrust their own judgment...” (Parker 255). Thus, Inchbald seems most concerned about the social structure in England when it encourages individuals to act against their conscience.

Inchbald underscores the value of emotion through the Butler’s use of verse. Poetry is often reserved for expressions of sentimentality. Anhalt tells the Butler, “no, no Mr.Verdun, we find no fault with your poetry; but don’t attempt to impose it upon us for truth,” suggesting that emotion is fallaciously understood as existing in opposition to truth (Inchbald 47). When the Baron demands that the Butler speak in prose, the Butler replies “I beg your pardon, my Lord; but the verse will intrude in spite of my efforts to forget it” (60). Here, “the verse” is referenced as an independent entity, highlighting its power and its inability to be repressed, despite efforts. The role of emotion is directly tied to the governance of English society in the epilogue; “Independent of this I conceive rhime has weight In the higher employments of church and of state, And would in the mind such advantages draw, Tis a pity that rhime is not sanctioned by law” (Inchbald Epilogue). Here, Inchbald indirectly criticizes conservatives for seeing all passions as threatening, and suggests that emotion can be used to reform English society within limits. 

Although Amelia departs from standard gender roles, her power is ultimately circumscribed by men. The Baron asks Anhalt to “form the Count after your own manner” because he does not think the Count is currently suitable for Amelia (30). Although the Baron gives Amelia the freedom to choose her husband, the Baron feels entitled to intervene in her potential marriage without telling her. When the Baron decides to marry Agatha, he states “Friend, wish me joy- I will marry Agatha’’ (Inchbald 87). The assertive diction highlights Agatha’s lack of power. The truncated sentence structure and em dash emphasize his autonomy in making the decision. Additionally, despite Anhalt’s love for Amelia, he refuses to marry her without her father’s consent (Inchbald 42). Amelia recognizes and exploits her inherent inferiority by choosing when to play into the stereotypes. When Amelia tries to speak to her father about Anhalt, she says “Pray, my Lord…” (Inchbald 49). Her docile tone and reverential diction contrast her normal assertiveness. This behavior can be compared to Inchbald herself whose “independent attitude, and (…) ability to nudge the limits of acceptable feminine behaviour without ever laying herself open to scandal, struck her contemporaries as remarkable” (Spencer 6).

Similar to More, Inchbald’s play equates female education with womens’ domestic duties. The Baron supports Amelia’s education and believes a woman must demonstrate the “exalted character of a wife, and a mother” (Inchbald 27). The righteous diction of exalted suggests that a woman’s value is based on her ability to fulfill these roles. Additionally, Agatha states “I will forget my wrongs as a woman, if the Baron will atone to the mother-he shall have the woman’s pardon, if he will merit the mother’s thanks…” (82). The repetition of “woman” and “mother” creates a hierarchy where motherhood is elevated over womanhood. Ultimately, the Baron values female education only within the bounds of the patriarchy. He asks Anhalt to ask his daughter “if she thinks she could fulfill [the] duties [of a wife and mother], as the wife of Count Cassel” (31). Here, he believes Amelia’s education makes her capable of choosing a husband, but does not warrant her to have a profession. Despite Amelia’s strong-mindedness, she tells Anhalt, “I will be your scholar still, and use more diligence than ever to please my master” (89). All of her independence and determination throughout the play culminate in her dedicating herself and her studies entirely to her husband. 

Inchbald, similar to More, envisions a society where true happiness is derived from familial relationships. However, More believes that the social hierarchy is conducive to domestic bliss while Inchbald sees it as potentially harmful. Anhalt teaches Amelia that “birth and fortune are inconsiderable things, and cannot give happiness,” which is the opposite of More’s teachings (Inchbald 23). Amelia internalizes this idea, exemplified when her father declares she has a brother and asks “...but what return can I make to you for the loss of half your fortune…?” (79). She replies, “My brother’s love will be ample recompense” (79). Her father’s concern with class and status inhibits him from originally marrying Agatha. He ends up marrying a “haughty and proud” noblewoman instead (19). Even after he decides to marry Agatha, he tells Anhalt he is concerned about the “first interview,” who replies, “Agatha’s heart is to be your judge” (88). This quote emphasizes the extent to which societal structures have formed Baron’s conception of happiness. Anhalt reminds the Baron that love should reside outside the sphere of public opinion. At the end of the play, the Baron declares that “the victory [he] gained, [he] owe[s] to [Anhalt]” (88). This quote contrasts More’s belief that the upper class must educate the lower class. Here, the Baron is thankful for all Anhalt, a commoner, has taught him. The Baron believes one’s “principles” can “exalt” his rank in life to a level with the noblest family…” (88-89). This forms an image of English society where social mobility is more fluid than it was at the time.

In the Cheap Repository Tracts, More grounds her representation of society in the existing social hierarchy. She makes it seem as if she wants to strengthen the relationship between the upper and lower classes to ensure the development of a virtuous society. In actuality, she cloaks her conservative sentiment in appeals to Christian morality to convince the lower classes into accepting their subordination. While More is often deemed an anti-feminist, a closer inspection of her stance on gender roles might suggest the opposite. She subverts gender roles to empower wealthy, “virtuous” women by describing a society where a woman’s domestic power permeates into all aspects of life. In Lovers Vows, Inchbald envisions a society where individuals recognize the power of both emotion and reason. Without directly denouncing the aristocracy, Inchbald uses the dichotomy of emotion and reason to criticize the rigidity of class.