THE BEGGARS OPERA

Juan Francisco Elices

(a) A brief overview on the socio-historical context of the play

Plot, main features and structure
(b) Characterisation
-Peachum .............................................................................................................
-Macheath
-Main female characters: Polly, Lucy and Mrs Peachum
(c) Setting
(d) The satirical component

(e) Self-assessment questions ...........................................................................................

1. A Brief Overview on the Socio-Historical Context of the Play

When The Beggars Opera was published in 1727, the socio-historical situation in Great
Britain was far from being propitious for an adequate development of playwrighting and stage
performances. With the return of Charles II from exile and the beginning of the so-called
Restoration age, drama underwent a period of reasonable growth, in which such impresarios as
Charles Davenant commenced to re-open some of the theatres that had been previously closed
down due mostly to censorship policies. Davenant managed to re-launch a certainly devalued
dramatic world as well as to rehabilitate theatres such as the Lincolns Inn Field and the Drury
Lane Theatre, in which performances had been long banned. Although censorship was still
severely exercised on a significant majority of plays, the gradual political and ideological
liberalisation the new monarch implanted immediately brought about the revitalisation of those
genres that had been repeatedly ostracised by the British government. Restoration drama is
mainly identified for its comic and satiric pieces in which authors such as William Congreve,
William Wycherley or George Etherege denounced the vices, follies, excesses, and trivialities of
both courtiers and ordinary citizens.
Unfortunately enough, the socio-political and historical difficulties that flared up along
the first half of the eighteenth century soon destabilised this revivalist tendency that had
characterised the dramatic context at the end of the previous century. In this vein, the world of
The Beggars Opera does not substantially differ from the desolating situation the country was
living through at the time the play was put on stage. The social differences triggered off an
atmosphere of suffocating tension in which speculation, crime and alcoholism became
inextricable part of the day-to-day reality. Focusing particularly on London, the context is even
more complex since the progressive alteration of the urban configuration caused an unequivocal
modification of the hierarchical patterns that had so far governed the city. Most affluent citizens
began to move out towards Londons periphery, seeking to evade from an increasing criminality
rate and an unpalatable political situation. This movement provoked that the most downtrodden
sectors of the population started to occupy all the vacancies left by those rich families. Londons
city centre soon became a core of operations in which the fortunes amassed by speculators grew
rapidly. On the other hand, the working and economic conditions in which the most
dispossessed were immersed were patently unfavourable, a fact that indirectly augmented the
rate of street criminality and the consume of alcohol. Some critics have argued that heavy
drinking turned out to be an epidemic plague from 1720 to 1751, in which the numbers of alehouses, pubs and also brothels experimented a spectacular increase. It is no wonder, thus, that
this economic dismantling resulted in the uncontrollable outburst of drunkards, pickpockets,
thieves, and all kinds of criminals that turned the city into a ceaseless flow of pillage.
However, the political and judicial response to this unbearable situation did not solve
out the problem, yet, paradoxically enough, worsened this visibly precarious social context. By
the time The Beggars Opera was premired, Robert Walpole was an openly vituperated Prime
Minister, whose economic and administrative inefficiency was being overtly criticised and
whose political performance was highly dubious. Furthermore, the corruption that flourished
among the judiciary was another impediment that eventually hindered the enforcement of
appropriate legal measures for the eradication of crime. As the play demonstrates, even those
characters that seem to be carrying out legitimate social duties end up revealing a corrupted side
that casts serious doubts upon that outward image of inviolable integrity they try to show. It
should not be surprising, thus, that the figure of Robert Walpole became one of the most
recurrent targets for most satirists of the time, among whom John Gay proved to be one of the
most venomous. Swift, Pope, Arbuthnot, Parnell, among many other authors, mercilessly
condemned Walpoles irresponsible administration, turning him into an object of the utmost
scorn and ridicule, or, even, as can be observed in The Beggars Opera, as a mere pickpocket,
drunkard and fond of spending his money on prostitutes. The circumstances in which England
was immersed at the time The Beggars Opera was first staged determined the way the author
approached its writing as well as the themes and motifs that are more recurrent. In spite of the

rigid censorship that Walpoles administration exerted upon the literary activity, The Beggars
Opera turned out to be an indisputable commercial and critical success, being the play that
managed to achieve the most populous attendance for a long period of time.

The Beggars Opera: argument, main features and structure

From its opening page, The Beggars Opera shows a series of traits that are recurrent
throughout its evolution and eventual resolution. The play has been generally acknowledged as
a deep-rooted satiric piece that entails a wide scope of targets that are severely denounced by the
author. The Beggars Opera is embodied within a mock-heroic context in which the author
draws on an operistic framework in order to deal with the underworld of thieves, prostitutes and
criminals. By the time in which the play was premiered, the flux of Italian operas that were
imported by English managers was very significant, even to the extent that, with the exception
of Henry Purcell, there was no other English composer that could possibly balance this
unstoppable flow of European operas. Bearing these circumstances in mind, the title of the play
was certainly the first element that puzzled the audience mainly due mainly to its oximoronic
dimension. The terminological clash that existed between these two diametrically opposing
words beggar and opera was the key issue in the attainment of the mock-heroic tone the play
conveys. Nevertheless, audiences were acquainted with a very different kind of performances,
in which the display of sophisticated costumes and a extraordinary stage machinery contrasted
with a patent absence of plot or character development. These operas were prevailingly focused
on members of the aristocracy who, usually due to love intrigues, are involved in complex
contrivances they are finally able to solve out. The viewers were not, in this sense, very
demanding, since the opera surely satisfied their initial expectations, that is, comprehensible
plots, appealing characters and, above all, happy endings.
The Beggars Opera emerges as a counterpoint to this genre and arises as a comic
deconstruction of the most distinguishable traits of these operas. The author, in this vein, flouts
the conventions that were associated with these shows and constructs a brilliant parody of the
Italian operistic models. One of the first differences the reader can appreciate is articulated
around the intervening characters and the settings where the action unfolds. Gay situates The
Beggars Opera in the most dispossessed areas of London, where crime, murder, drinking and
gambling incessantly thrive up, and where good-natured conducts are hardly recognisable.
There are no longer aristocrats or nobles taking part in the action but rather drunkards, jailers,
pickpockets and gamblers. The play, in this sense, frolics with this seemingly incongruous
combination of effects, that is to say, the utilisation of an apparently prestigious embodiment to
depict the experiences of a group of underdogs whose main aspiration is to contrive the best
stratagems to cheat on law enforcement organs. The Beggars Opera presents a multi-layered
action that is based on a series of bipolar or opposing forces, epitomised by a series of
characters whose outward appearance shows profound contradictions with their actual attitude
and behaviour. The author concentrates, on the one hand, on a group of street thieves or, as they
used to be called in the eighteenth century, highway-men and their illicit activities. On the
other, Gay introduces a sentimental sub-plot in which the daughter of a crime prosecutor fells in
love with the leader of a street gang, although her father considers this relationship as totally
unacceptable. Thus, it seems that the sentimental episode The Beggars Opera poses offers
substantial similarities with respect to the plots that were recurrent in those Italian operas, in the
sense that the prospects of this affair do not seem to be very optimistic.
The structure and development of the play follow very traditional theatrical guidelines.
It is divided in three main acts, and each act is composed of multiple scenes. The only
difference with respect to other plays of the time is that it intertwines a series of musical asides
called airs, brief sketches in which most satirical comments of the play are contained. Before
the actual action of the play commences, the author incorporates a brief dialogue between a
beggar and a player. The former claims the plays authorship and points out that he has been
quite careful to introduce the most recognisable aspects of the Italian operas:

Beggar The piece I own was originally writ for the celebrating the marriage of
James Chanter and Moll Lay, two most excellent ballad singers. I have introduced
the similes that are in all your celebrated operas: the swallow, the moth, the bee,
the ship, the flower, etc. Besides I have a prison scene which the ladies always
reckon charmingly pathetic. As to the parts, I have observed such a nice
impartiality to our two ladies, that it is impossible for either of them to take
offence. I hope I may be forgiven, that I have not made my opera throughout
unnatural, like those in vogue; for I have no recitative; excepting this, as I have
consented to have neither prologue nor epilogue, it must be allowed an opera in all
its forms. [Introduction]
In this first intervention, the beggar somehow Gays alter ego confesses that his play does not
consistently follow the typical conventions of operas, and tries to justify its heterodoxy, which
does not prevent it from being considered an opera in its full sense.
In the first act the author introduces some of the characters that are going to play a
fundamental role in the development of the play. The first to intervene is Peachum, whose initial
discourse apparently endows him with a kind of respectable aura that, as the action unfolds,
would rapidly vanish. His task consists of seizing thieves and criminals and imprisoning them, a
seemingly legitimate social function he upholds in the following quotation:
Peachum Wat Dreary, alias Brown Will, an irregular dog, who hath an underhand
way of disposing of his goods. Ill try him only for a Sessions or two longer upon
his good behaviour. Harry Paddington, a poor petty-larceny rascal, without the
least genius, that fellow, through he were to leave these six months, will never
come to the gallows with any credit. Slippery Sam; he goes off the next Sessions,
for the villain hath the impudence to have views of following his trade as tailor,
which he calls an honest employment. [Act I, sc. iii]
Besides Peachum and all the rogues and rascals that turn up in this act, Gay also
partially introduces the sentimental sub-plot we mentioned before. Polly Peachums daughter
confesses that she is in love with Macheath, the leader of a gang of thieves, and that she has
even married him. Her parents cannot put up with the scandal, although the way they react does
not accord very much with what would be initially expected. They do not suggest their daughter
to abandon him, simply to murder him in order to obtain a recompense:
Peachum Fie, Polly! What hath murder to do in the affair? Since the thing sooner
or later must happen, I dare say, the Captain himself would like that we should get
the reward for his death sooner than a stranger. Why, Polly, the Captain knows,
that as tis his employment to rob, so tis ours to take robbers, every man in his
business. So that there is no malice in the case.
[.]
Mrs Peachum But your duty to your parents, hussy, obliges you to hang him. What
would many a wife give for such opportunity!
Polly What is a jointure, what is widowhood to me? I know my heart. I cannot
survive him. [Act I, sc. x]
The first act finishes with a sentimental dialogue between Polly and her beloved Captain
Macheath, in which she warns him about the risks he is running and the dangers that are
awaiting him, should not he be cautious:

Polly But my papa may intercept thee, and then I should lose the very glimmering
of hope. A few weeks, perhaps, may reconcile us all. Shall thy Polly hear from
thee?
Macheath Must I then go?
Polly And will not absence change your love?
Macheath If you doubt it, let me say and be hanged.
Polly o how I fear! How I tremble! Go But when safety will give you leave, you
will be sure to see me again; for till then Polly is wretched. [Act I, sc. xiii]
The second act changes the scene completely and moves to Londons most
downtrodden areas, where Gay attempts to reproduce the language, the manners and the
attitudes of the characters that dwell in these dispossessed locations. The play is suddenly filled
with references to thieves, highway-men, prostitutes, taverns, prisons, brothels, that is, all the
elements that configure the scenario where the bulk of the action actually takes place. The first
three scenes develop in a tavern in which the author depicts a group of thieves preparing their
forthcoming operations. Curiously enough, they also complain about the way rich people hinder
their activity:
Matt of the Mint We retrench the superfluities of mankind. The world is avaricious,
and I hate avarice. A covetous fellow, like a jackdaw, steals what he was never
made to enjoy, for the sake of hiding it. These are the robbers of mankind, for
money was made for the free-hearted and generous, and where is the injury of
taking from another, what he hath not the heart to make use of? [Act II, sc. i]
Form this very first scene, the author purports in this second act to present a detailed vision of
the cores of vice and corruption, which, dramatically enough, are direct reflections of the
degeneration that overwhelmed London at the time The Beggars Opera was being performed.
From the tavern, the action moves to a brothel that Macheath is very fond of attending and
where he is going to be eventually captured by Peachum:
Peachum I seize you, sir, as my prisoner.
Macheath Was this well done, Jenny? Women are decoy ducks; who can trust
them! Beasts, jades, jilts, harpies, furies, whores!
Peachum Your case, Mr Macheath, is not particular. [Act II, sc. v]
The last section of this second act takes primarily at Newgate prison, where Macheath is
sent after being arrested by Peachum and his constables. It is at this moment that the plays plot
and sub-plot eventually converge. The author reveals that Macheath has maintained two
simultaneous marriages, both with the above-mentioned Polly and with Lucy. The final scenes
depict Lucy and Polly struggling to prove who is Macheaths real wife, but at the same time
conspiring against the rogues unscrupulous attitude towards both of them:
Polly Where is my dear husband? Was a rope ever intended for this neck! O let me
throw my arms about, and throttle thee with love! Why dost thou turn away from
me? Tis thy Polly. Tis thy wife.
Macheath Was ever such an unfortunate rascal as I am!
Lucy Was there ever such another villain!
Polly O Macheath! Was it for this we parted? Taken! Imprisoned! Tried! Hanged!
Cruel reflection! Ill stay with thee till death. No force shall tear thy dear wife
from thee now. What meanss my love? Not one kind word! Not one kind look!
Think what thy Polly suffers to see thee in this condition. [Act II, sc. xii]

The final act unfolds in the same settings but it is articulated around Macheaths
runaway from prison, which becomes one of the plays most crucial the turning points.
Peachums initial celebratory attitude contrasts with his disappointment and rage after realising
that his efforts have been fruitless. Peachums desire to see Macheath executed is blatantly
frustrated, although he does not give up his prosecution. Macheath knows for sure that his
escape from prison means immediate execution:
Macheath For my having broken prison, you see, gentlemen, I am ordered
immediate execution. The Sheriffs Officers, I believe, are now at the door. That
Jemmy Twitcher should peach me. I own surprised me! Tis a plain proof that the
world is all alike, and that even our gang can no more trust one another than other
people. Therefore, I beg you, gentlemen, look well to yourselves, for in all
probability you may live some months longer. [Act III, sc. xiv]
However, Macheaths hope of regaining freedom is soon deflated because he is
captured again and sent to prison, where he is sentenced to execution. The end of the play,
though, is profoundly meaningful. The beggar and player that opened the play appear once
again at the end in order to discuss the appropriateness of the ending that awaits Macheath. The
player, who is acquainted with the Italian operas that were en vogue, cannot understand this
dramatic resolution, and asks the beggar to modify the original story-line so to include a happy
ending:
Player But, honest friend, I hope you dont intend that Macheath shall be really
executed
Beggar Most certainly, sir. To make the piece perfect, I was for doing strict
poetical justice. Macheath is to be hanged; and for the other personages of the
drama, the audience must have supposed they were all either hanged or transported.
Player Why, then, friend, this is a downright deep tragedy. The catastrophe is
manifestly wrong, for an opera must end happily.
Beggar You objection, sir, is very just; and is easily removed. For you must allow,
that in this kind of drama, tis no matter how absurdly things are brought about. So
you rabble there run and cry a reprieve let the prisoner be brought back to his
wives in triumph.
Player All this we must do, to comply with the taste of the town. [Act III, sc. xvi]
Once again, the author draws on meta-theatrical strategies in order to vary substantially the
course of the action. The player reminds the beggar that the success of the play depends on the
response of the audience, who demands satisfactory and happy endings. This passage cited
above reinforces the idea that eighteenth-century authors should not be only concerned with the
very act of writing, but, more importantly, on the commercial benefits their works could
eventually produce. Furthermore, this brief intercession ends up with the habitual moralising
comment that was included in most works published throughout the eighteenth century. The
beggar points out:
Beggar Had the play remained, as I at first intended, it would have carried a most
excellent moral. Twould have shown that the lower sort of people have their vices
in a degree as well as the rich: and that they are punished for them. [Act III, sc.
xvi].
The moral teaching of the play is, therefore, conspicuous. The beggar suggests that both rich
and poor people have the same vices and that, although rich normally elude punishment, they
deserve as much as poor people do. The play, thus, concludes merrily, and shows Macheath

addressing an enthusiastic group of people. He finally chooses Polly as his wife and asks all the
party-goers to get together and dance happily.
2. Characterisation in The Beggars Opera

Characters in The Beggars Opera perform a decisive function in the construction of the
overall plot and resolution of the play. It seems that the central characters are Peachum and
Macheath, who, in appearance, represent two very distinct social spheres, although, as will be
pointed out later on, these differences are practically non-existent. The initial impression is that
the play is sustained upon a tour de force between two opposing polarities, and that the author is
going to build his argument on the traditional striving between the unreconciled forces of good
and evil. On the one hand, we have Peachum, a kind of police officer or constable whose main
undertaking is to cut down on the criminality rate that exists in the streets of London. On the
other, there is Macheath, the character that epitomises the degeneration and venality that
flourished in London at the time being. Besides Peachum and Macheath, The Beggars Opera
depends on secondary characterisation to deepen into the sordid reality the author pinpoints
throughout the play.
In order to have a more detailed picture of the most significant primary and secondary
characters, it can be worthwhile focusing more specifically on some of their features:
(a) Peachum

The character of Peachum is surrounded by an aura of vagueness and ambiguity that

complicates his categorisation. As was pointed out above, Peachum seems to be part of the law
enforcement corps, whose aim is to maintain the order and security in the city. However, the
reader soon realises that his function is not so legitimate as it may initially have seemed. The
following monologue gives away his actual purpose:
Peachum Mat of the Mint, listed not above a month ago, a promising sturdy fellow,
and diligent in his way; somewhat too bold and nasty, and may raise good
contributions on the public, if he does not cut himself short by murder. Tom
Tipple, a guzzling soaking sot, who is always too drunk to stand himself, or to
make others stand. A cart is absolutely necessary for him. Robin of Bagshot, alias
Gorgon, alias Bluff Bob, alias Carbuncle, alias Bob Booty. [Act I, sc. iii]
In this passage, Peachum alludes to a series of rascals and rogues he has under his command in
order to carry out his duties. The inner ambivalence of this character, however, resides in the
very meaning of his name. In The Beggars Opera, most names conceal an underlying
symbolical implication, and Peachum is perhaps the most symbolical of all. The verb to
peach, as Loughery and Treadwell suggest, means to betray or to inform against another
person, which is precisely what Peachum does throughout the play. His position with respect to
the law cannot be possibly defined: he can be said to be within the legal margins in the sense
that he actively collaborates to arrest criminals, although his intention goes beyond the mere
capture of thieves.
In this vein, Peachum responds to a very defined profile, that of the double-faced
character, whose outward appearance is conspicuously misleading. In spite of his legal
commitment, Peachum emerges as the leader of a street gang, which he manipulates in order to
obtain the highest benefits. As the previous passage suggests, Peachum wants his subordinates
to carry on with their activities until the very moment in which he decides to seize them so as to
receive outstanding rewards. Many critics have stated that this character is based upon the figure
of Jonathan Wild, a thief-taker whose function resembled very much that of Peachum. The

system Wild projected led him to dominate the English underworld, since he managed to control
the criminal activity of a vast majority of thieves. The procedure was simple but astoundingly
effective: Wilds first step was to set up the so-called Lost Property Office in London,
where all the goods that his network of thieves stole were sent. There, he would receive the visit
of all those citizens whose properties have been pillaged. Wild assured them that their
belongings would be returned in two or three days, although the citizens were obliged to pay a
fee worth up to one third or a half of the value of the object. Though incurring in patently
punishable offences, Wild was regarded as a national celebrity, since he was apparently
contributing to eradicate crime and pillage. The magistrates ignored Wilds actual modus
operandi since they were simply interested in the numbers of thieves and criminals he was
arresting. The fortune Wild amassed was certainly impressive and the ruthlessness with which
he treated his subordinates were limitless. His popularity was such that, besides becoming
Peachums metaphoric background in The Beggars Opera, he was also protagonist of one of
Fieldings most acclaimed novels entitled Jonathan Wild, the Great (1743). Wilds illicit
transactions were finally penalised when it was discovered that he received a substantial reward
for goods he knew that have been stolen. He was eventually hanged, but his legendary career
was remembered for centuries.
The same ruthlessness that can be devised in Wilds behaviour can be also noticed in
Peachums, who emerges as the epitome of unscrupulous businessman that is exclusively
concerned with how profitable a human being can be. Peachum overtly demonstrates his
coldness in the way he approaches his relationship with Polly, his daughter, whom he sees as a
source of profit. In the following passage, Peachum absolutely despises his daughters feelings:
Peachum Parting with him! Why, that is the whole scheme and intention of all
marriage articles. The comfortable estate of widowhood, is the only hope that
keeps up a wifes spirits. Where is the woman who would scruple to be a wife, if
she had it in her power to be a widow whenever she pleased? If you have any
views of this sort, Polly, I shall think the match not so very unreasonable. [Act I,
sc. x]
The previous passage reveals Peachums merciless disposition since he acknowledges
widowhood as the most convenient state to obtain money from the deceased husband. He is not
only forcing his daughter to kill Macheath but, more terribly, he is justifying his murder in
terms of the reward he is going to receive for the capture. Pollys consequent astonishment
clashes with her fathers uncompassionate stance:
Peachum Secure what he hath got, have him peached the next Sessions, and then at
once you are made a rich widow
Polly What, murder the man I love! The blood runs cold at my heart with the very
thought of it. [Act I, sc. x]
Thus, it could be concluded that Peachum represents the most sordidly degenerated side of the
human condition, both because his vile professional task promoting theft in order to arrest
criminals and obtaining the reward for them and his sombre personal profile he prioritises
his pragmatism over anything that is connected with sentiments. He is definitely the banner of
the type of society that reigned in England at the time being, dominated by citizens who are
exclusively impelled by the satisfaction of their material needs.
(b) Macheath

If Peachum appears as the most ambivalent and ambiguous character in The Beggars
Opera, Macheath could be regarded as the materialisation of the society Gay is actually
portraying in his play. As was pointed out above, Macheath emerges as Peachums counterpart,
as the character that contravenes the legal and civic principles that govern societal life. From the
plays very beginning, the author depicts Macheath as an outcast, who has consciously dragged
himself out towards the fringes of London, and whose life ultimately depends upon pillage and
theft. Furthermore, as the play advances, the author reinforces the conflict between Peachum
and Macheath, prosecutor and prosecuted respectively, upon which the plot is sustained and
which eventually leads to its final resolution. Macheath, in this sense, appears as the leader of a
street gang who, due to his criminal background, is being incessantly pursued by Peachum.
Furthermore, the liaison between these two characters becomes triangular when Polly
communicates his father that she is in love with Peachum and that she is about to marry him.
Pollys desire, therefore, contradicts Peachums intention with respect to Macheath, a fact that
explains why he is so eager to dissuade her daughter about her idea of marrying the rogue.
In The Beggars Opera, Macheath also appears as a suitable exponent of the doubledealer, that is, the character that relies on his resourcefulness in order to cope with highly
enduring and complex circumstances. First and foremost, Macheaths personality is
undoubtedly determined by his attitude towards women. Throughout the play, Macheath
maintains a double relationship with two ladies, Polly and Lucy, to whom he unreservedly
declares his unbound and true love. Macheath would appear, therefore, as a most appropriate
representative of a theme that had prevailed in most sixteenth and seventeenth century English
literature, that of the contrast between appearances and reality. The following passage, in
which Macheath adopts a Romeo-like countenance to uplift Pollys infatuation, can illustrate
this idea:
Polly And are you as fond as ever, my dear?
Macheath Suspect my honour, my courage, suspect anything but my love. May my
pistols misfire, and my mare slip her shoulder while I am pursued, if I ever
forshake thee!
Polly Nay, my dear, I have no reason to doubt you, for I find in the romance you
lent me, none of the great heroes were ever false in love. [Act I, xiii]
This quotation is certainly quite revealing for further exploration upon the personal patterns that
regulate the behavioural responses these two characters show along The Beggars Opera. In
first instance, Macheaths discourse upholds his condition of mountebank or charlatan who
finds himself at ease drawing on a florid and pompous, though void, language in order to
inflame Pollys sentiments. Polly, on the other hand, appears as an ingen, a character whose
naivete leads her to have a conception love that is almost Quixotic, as she states in the previous
passage: for I find in the romance you lent, none of the great heroes were ever false in love.
Pollys knowledge, in this sense, is completely misled by the idealised vision of love that
romances and genres that are akin to this literary form do usually present. Macheath takes
Pollys innocence for granted and purposefully uses a grandiloquent language that reminisces
the tone and style of the most renowned love stories.
If Macheath represents the embodiment of that fantasised approach to love Polly
evinces, Lucy his other wife arises as a much more down-to-earth, realistic and
confrontational character whose relationship with her husband is determined by the tension
provoked by his infidelities. If we explore the way Macheath interacts with Lucy, we can see
how he is forced to adopt a clearly defensive positioning, seeing Lucys forceful
straightforwardness:
Lucy You base man you how can you look me in the face after what hath past
between us? See here, perfidious wretch, how I am forced to bear about the load of

infamy you have laid upon me. O Macheath! Thou hast robbed me of my quiet to
see thee tortured would give me pleasure.
[.]
Macheath Have you no bowels, no tenderness, my dear Lucy, to see a husband in
these circumstances?
Lucy A husband!
Macheath In every respect but the form, and that, my dear, may be said over us at
any time. Friends should not insist upon ceremonies. From a man of honour, his
word is as good as his bond.
[.]
Macheath The very first opportunity, my dear, (have but patience) you shall be my
wife in whatever manner you please.
Lucy Insinuating monster! And so you think I know nothing of the affair of Miss
Polly Peachum. I could tear thy eyes out! [Act II, sc. ix]
In this dialogue, Macheath tries to convince his wife by means of employing the same
stratagems as with Polly. His interventions are full of references to honour and faithfulness,
which, observing his overall conduct in the play, turn out to be certainly ironic. With the
character of Macheath, Gay ironises about the codes that prevailed in most chivalric accounts by
means of presenting an underdog attempting to behave according to the values of the courtly
love tradition.
Nevertheless, his words contain falseness and contradiction, since his natural tendency
is towards enjoying the pleasures of the flesh. One of the moments in which Macheath openly
reveals his real identity takes place at the beginning of the second act, where, after a pseudoromanticised encounter with Polly in which she warns him about the dangers that surround him,
he enters a tavern. There, he does not only meet all his fellow-thieves whom he joins in their
drinking, but also a group of prostitutes with whom, according to the way he addresses them, he
seems to be very well acquainted:
Macheath Dolly Trull! Kiss me, you slut; are you as amorous as ever, hussy? You
are always so taken up with stealing hearts, that you dont allow yourself time to
steal anything else. Ah, Dolly, thou wilt ever be a coquette! Mrs Vixen, Im yours,
I always loved a woman of wit and spirit; they make charming mistresses, but
plaguey wives. Betty Doxy! Come hither, hussy. Do you drink as hard as ever?
You had better stick to good wholesome beer; for in troth, Betty, strong-waters will
in time ruin your constitution. You should leave those to your betters. What! And
my pretty Jenny Diver too! As prim and demure as ever! There is not any prude,
though ever so high bred, hath a more sanctified look, with a more mischievous
heart. Ah! Thou art a dear artful hypocrite. [Act II, sc. iv]
This quotation stresses Macheaths double-facedness, in the sense that his exalted defence of
honour and respectability clashes frontally with this scene, in which he gives free rein to his
fleshy and carnal side. His former claims of fidelity and unrestrained love towards both Polly
and Lucy give way to a flirtatious and adulating attitude with the prostitutes. However, the way
Macheath addresses them evinces his deeply rooted male-oriented stance, which is especially
noticeable in the rudeness of the terms he employs: slut, plaguey wives, prude,
mischievous heart, artful hypocrite. For the time being, Macheaths derogatory discourse
should be framed within a generalised atmosphere of discrimination that was exerted upon
women along the eighteenth century. Women, as Macheath states in the previous passage, were
regarded as perfidious, treacherous and mischievous, who enjoyed contriving and conspiring
against the male authority. Female behaviour, in this vein, was frequently measured and tested
in terms of the so-called humours theory, through which they were often categorised as
venomous and hysterical persons, not very appropriate to rely on.

(c) Main female characters: Polly, Lucy and Mrs Peachum

As has been briefly anticipated above, the role of female characters in The Beggars
Opera accurately reflects the hostile ambience that existed against women at the time the play
was being performed. It is no wonder, thus, that the vision of female characters the author
presents is a highly stereotyped one, in which women were normally sorted out in categories
they were unable to alter or modify. In The Beggars Opera, female characters do respond to
clichs that regarded women as either innocent, chaste and pure or as impulsive, carnal and
mischievous. This fact explains why in the eighteenth century, women were repeatedly exposed
to the biting criticism of satirists, who considered that they, together with lawyers and
politicians, were the responsible for the social chaos in which England was immersed. The
following lines summarise these ideas:
Filch Tis woman that seduces all mankind,
By her we first were taught the wheedling arts:
Her very eyes can cheat; when most shes kind,
She tricks us of our money with our hearts.
For her, like wolves by night we roam for prey,
And practice evry fraud to bribe her charms;
For suits of love, like law, are won by pay,
And beauty must be feed into our arms. [Act I, sc. ii]
Therefore, The Beggars Opera includes scarcely developed or round female characters,
although we can still perceive a slight evolution in the ones we are going to focus more
specifically. In the case of Polly Peachum, it was suggested before that she was the epitome of
ingenuity, a fact that somehow blinds her appreciation of Macheaths real composure.
Throughout the first and second acts, Polly completely ignores her beloveds fraudulent
activities and his flirtatious disposition, which leads her to believe that she is his unique love.
However, as the play advances the reader can observe how Pollys initial naivete turns into a
more sceptic attitude when she discovers that Macheath is married to another woman. It is at the
end of the second act that Pollys tone becomes much more aggressive and passionate, a
moment in which she abandons any trace of romanticism and denounces Macheaths hypocrisy:
Lucy Am I then bilked of my virtue? Can I have no reparation? Sure men we born
to lie, and women to believe then! O villain! Villain!
Polly Am I not thy wife? Thy neglect of me, thy aversion to me too severely proves
it. Look on me. Tell me, am I not thy wife?
Lucy Perfidious wretch!
Polly Barbarous husband!
Lucy Hast thou been hanged five months ago, I had been happy
Polly And I too. If you had been kind to me till death, it would not have vexed me
and thats not very unreasonable request, (though from a wife) to a man who hath
not above seven or eight days to live. [Act II, sc. xiii]
Nevertheless, the plays ending resumes Pollys loving feeling towards her husband. She cannot
stand the very idea of seeing him hanged and that is why she pleads mercy and forgiveness to
her father:
Polly Sure there is nothing so charming as music! Im fond of it to distraction! But
alas! Now all mirth seems an insult to my affliction. Let us retire, my dear Lucy,

and indulge our sorrows. The noisy crew, you see, are coming upon us. [Act III, sc.
xii]
As far as Lucy is concerned, we see that her evolution along the play offers substantial
differences with respect to that of Polly, although, eventually, both women end up manifesting
similar concerns about Macheaths impending hanging. It was pointed out above that Lucys
initial mistrustfulness towards her husband leads her to adopt a profoundly critical stance.
Contrary to Polly, Lucy does not in the least surrender to Macheaths embellished words, yet,
through her comments, we can discern a somehow ambiguous attitude towards her husband.
This explains why Lucy combines moments of utter vehemence with others in which she
declares her tenderness. The next two excerpts ratify Lucys changeable mood:
(a) Lockit Whence come you, hussy?
Lucy My tears might answer that question
Lockit You have been then whimpering and fondling, like a spaniel, over the fellow
tat hath abused you.
Lucy One cant help love; one cant cure it. Tis not in my power to obey you, and
hate him. [Act II, sc. xi]
(b) Lucy O villain, villain! Thou hast deceived me I could even inform against
thee with pleasure. Not a prude wishes more heartily to have facts against her
intimate acquaintance than I now wish to have facts against thee. I would have her
satisfaction, and they should all out. [Act II, sc. xiii]
We can observe, therefore, an inverse development in both characters in the sense that Pollys
initial uncontested love towards Macheath decays at the end, whereas Lucys process is the
other way round. At the end, we can see Lucy using a discourse that resounds the one Polly
utilised at the beginning of the play:
Macheath My dear Lucy. My dear Polly. Whatsoever hath passed between us is
now at an end. If you are fond marrying again, the best advice I can give you, is to
ship yourselves off for the West Indies, where youll have a fair chance of getting a
husband apiece; or by good luck, two or three, as you like best
Polly How can I support this sight!
Lucy There is nothing moves one so much as a great man in distress. [Act III, sc.
xiv]
It turns out to be certainly paradoxical to hear Lucy referring to Macheath as a great man
when villain or monster have been indissoluble part of the terms he attributes to her
husband. However, her apparent toughness fells through when she realises that her husband is
about to be hanged. Her sensitivity relentlessly flourishes, proving herself incapable of not
shedding tears when she gets to know her husbands fatal destiny.
Finally, Mrs Peachum represents the perfect complement to her husbands enterprise.
She emerges as a woman who is simply concerned with the material aspect of life, thus utterly
disregarding the humane component of her fellow-citizens. Even though she has got a daughter,
we have seen the way she treats her and how authoritarian her attitude towards Polly results to
be. There are multiple scenes in which Mrs Peachum appears to be helping her husband in the
dealings with his company of thieves, an image that does not seem to accord very much with the
kinds of female character that turn up in the play. In the following passage, Mrs Peachum
personally evaluates the goods stolen by one of her husbands subordinates:

Mrs Peachum Come hither Filch. I am as fond of this child, as though my mind
misgave me he were my own. He hath as fine a hand at picking a pocket as a
woman, and is a nimble-fingered as a juggler. If an unlucky Session does not cut
the rope of thy life, I pronounce, boy, thou wilt be a great man in history. Where
was your post last night, my boy?
Filch I plied at the opera, madam; and considering neither dark nor rainy, so that
there was no great hurry in getting chairs and coaches, made a tolerable hand ont.
These seven handkerchiefs, madam.
Mrs Peachum Coloured ones, I see. They are of sure sale from our warehouse at
Redriff among the seamen
Filch And this snuff-box
Mrs Peachum Set in gold! A pretty encouragement this to a young beginner. [Act I,
sc. vi].
Insensitive as it may seem, the relationship she maintains with her own daughter is equally
determined by these pragmatic standpoints. However, she has to face the way Polly deviates
from her expectations, since she does no longer respond to the archetypes her mother
acknowledges to be more adequate for a human being. As the next quotation reveals, good
education for Mrs Peachum means to be able to appreciate exclusively the material side of life:
Polly I did not marry him (as tis the fashion) coolly and deliberately for honour or
money. But, I love him
Mrs Peachum Love him! Worse and worse! I thought the girl had been better bred.
O husband, husband! Her folly makes me mad! My head swims! Im distracted! I
cant support myself O! [Faints]. [Act I, sc. viii]
Setting

One of the great novelties that The Beggars Opera incorporates lies basically on the
settings in which the action occurs. It was pointed out before that the present play openly
challenged the expectations of an audience whose conception of opera was intimately associated
with the Italian models that prevailed in the English stage at the time. We suggested that these
Italian operas were characterised by the richness of the costume design and the scenarios in
which the performance took place. The precedents created by these shows provoked that opera
was exclusively associated with luxurious ambiances and aristocratic plots. The Beggars Opera
constitutes a traumatic deconstruction of its antecedents, and puts forward a new dimension in
the eighteenth-century dramatic panorama. The authors intention with his play was primarily to
demystify the unreserved upholding of European operas and also to parody the conventions that
were part of this operistic paraphernalia. Besides all the aspects that enable Gay to carry out this
parody, there is one element that proves to be crucial for its achievement, that is, the creation of
a very particular atmosphere and settings, which necessarily came to defy these pre-established
conventions that have been alluded so far.
In this sense, The Beggars Opera examines the most sordid and sombre side of London
underworld, which means that the action fully focuses not only on personal dispossession but
also on spatial dislocation. The play develops in the most downtrodden areas of London, a fact
that leads the author to include abundant references to taverns, brothels, prisons, that is, to all
those places where crime and roguery were mostly originated. From its very beginning, The
Beggars Opera openly questions the norms of decorum that had historically dominated the
British scene and deepens into the darkest side of the human condition. The author, in this
sense, purports to select a series of locations in which these behaviours are more clearly
exposed. We have briefly alluded to taverns and brothels as the places where most London
rogues and rascals gathered together, although these milieus also allow Gay to depict the

drinking habits that existed at the time. It was previously argued that alcoholism became almost
a plague in England, which eventually triggered off the increase of ale-houses, and pubs.
Furthermore, critics and historians point out that brewery factories intensified their production
in these years, thus becoming one of the few profitable activities within the depressed British
economy. The following excerpt illustrates the way drinking turned into the only possible way
of evading from this harsh reality:
Jemmy Twitcher Our several stations for the day are fixed. Good luck attend us
all. Fill the glass
AIR XIX Fill evry glass
Matt of the Mint
Fill evry glass, for wine inspires us,
And fires us
With courage, love and joy.
Women and wine should life employ
Is there ought else on earth desirous?
Chorus Fill evry glass. [Act II, sc. I]
Besides taverns and brothels, it seems conspicuous that prisons are intrinsic part of the
world The Beggars Opera portrays. However, the way the author approaches the very concept
of imprisonment turns out be deeply parodic. The play is full of allusions to Newgate, which
was Londons principal prison and the place where the most dangerous criminals were sent. In
the play, however, the way characters come to terms with the idea of being arrested accords
with the general mocking tone, since none of them seems to be particularly affected by the idea
of incarceration. When Macheath is arrested, Peachum suggests his fellows to visit him at
home:
Peachum Your case, Mr Macheath, is not particular. The greatest heroes have been
ruined by women. But, to do them justice, I must own they are a pretty sort of
creatures, if we could trust them. You must now, sir, take your leave of the ladies,
and if they have a mind to make you a visit, they will be sure to find you at home.
The gentleman, ladies, lodges in Newgate. Constables, wait upon the Captain to his
lodgings. [Act II, act v]
In this quotation, we can see how Peachum subliminally suggests that Macheaths long and
repeated stays in prison make them feel at home when he is sent to Newgate. Nevertheless, it is
Macheaths himself who reinforces the mocking attitude he adopts before entering prison:
Lockit Look, ye Captain, we know what is fittest for our prisoners. When a
gentleman uses me with civility, I always do the best I can to please him. Hand
them down I say. We have them of all prices, from one guinea to ten, and tis
fitting every gentleman should please himself.
Macheath I understand you, sir [Gives money.] The fees here are so many, and so
exorbitant, that few fortunes can bear the expense of getting off handsomely, or of
dying like a gentleman.
Lockit Those, I see, will fit the Captain better. Take down the further pair. Do but
examine then, sir. Never was better work. How genteelly they are made! They will
seat as easy as a glove, and the nicest man in England might not be ashamed to
wear them. [He puts on the chains.] If I had the best gentleman in the land in my
custody, I could not equip more handsomely. And so, sir I now leave you to your
private meditations. [Act II, sc. viii]

The incongruity of the present scene is precisely what provides it with an underlying satiric
tone. Although Macheath has been seized and is about to enter prison, his sole preoccupation is
to get a pair of nice fetters. This situation, which is normally associated with sadness and
distress, is portrayed as though Macheath were going for shopping. Furthermore, the jailor
appears as if he were a shop-assistant, listening to Macheaths demands and trying to do his best
to satisfy them. The irony of this dialogue, therefore, resides on the clash that emerges from two
conspicuously antagonistic situations and discourses, in which the threatening dimension of
prison is openly demystified by Gays mocking satire.
The satirical component

It is widely known that the eighteenth century is the Golden Age as regards satirical
literature, a period in which such eminent satirists as Alexander Pope, Jonathan Swift, Dr
Arbuthnot, or Richard Sheridan, among others, utilised their works as a vehicle through which
to denounce the vices, follies, corruption and pettiness that unstoppably flourished in their
contemporary society. The consolidation of satire as the key literary mode throughout the
eighteenth century is the response of a series of writers to social, political, judicial, and
economic circumstances that were chaotic. Their writings sought to condemn all kinds of
political abuses, and this explains why the Prime Minister Robert Walpole became the epicentre
of most satires written during this period. However, the situation for the satirist was not very
favourable since the government aimed to control the publication of satires and seditious libels
by means of strict censoring measures. The Beggars Opera underwent sheer difficulties to be
performed because the highly controversial comments it directed at the Prime Minister. This is
the reason why the characters that appear in the play do have fictitious names, although
eighteenth-century audiences know for sure when the author was alluding to this or that public
figure. In this sense, Robert Walpole was popularly known as Bob Booty, and the first
allusion we encounter is already scornful:
Mrs Peachum What of Bob Booty, husband? I hope nothing bad hath betided him.
You know, my dear, hes a favourite customer of mine. Twas he made me a
present of this ring.
Peachum I have set his name down in the Black-List, thats all, my dear; he spends
his life among women, and as soon as his money is gone, one or other of the ladies
will hang him for the reward, and theres forty pound lost to us forever. [Act I,
sc.iii]
The degeneration of Walpoles administration run parallel to his own personal decadence, since
citizens had the certainty that he was a heavy drinker and that he spent his all his money on
prostitutes. Peachum even assures that Bob Booty is included in his Black-List composed by
those who were prone to go to the gallows due to his inefficiency as a thieve. By means of
using a false identity, Gay diverts the attention of those who might be in charge of censoring the
play, but still manages to direct a subtle attack at the Prime Ministers venality. As the next
passage demonstrates, this is precisely the way eighteenth-century satirists were able to get
round the impositions of censorship:
AIR XXX How happy we are
When you censure the age
Be cautious and sage,
Lest the courtiers offended should be;
If you mention vice or bribe,
Tis so pat to all the tribe;
Each criesThat was levelled at me. [Act II, sc. x]

Cautiousness and verbal wit were the two foundational bases of satire, and they both had to be
consistently used if the intended effect was to be successful. Satirists had to combine the
forcefulness of their criticism with the temperance and circumvention of their words so as to
achieve the expected degree of indirection.
The satirical background that underlies The Beggars Opera mainly arises from the socalled airs, brief asides in which the authors pours all his acid comments. Although the play
may initially seem exclusively concerned with the London underworld, we gradually deduce
that the authors intention is to establish a caustic parallelism between the English high and low
life. Thus, in the first of these brief musical passages, we read the following:
AIR I An old woman clothed in grey
Through all the employments of life
Each neighbour abuses his brother;
Whore and rogue they call husband and wife:
All professions be-rogue one another.
The priest calls the lawyer a cheat,
The lawyer be-knaves the divine;
And the statesman, because he is so great,
Thinks his trade as honest as mine
Peachum A lawyer is an honest employment, so is mine. Like me too he acts in a
double capacity, both against rogues and forem; for tis but fitting that we should
protect and encourage cheats, since we live by them. [Act I, sc. I]
Satire theorists have traditionally argued that one of the purposes of satire is to set everyone at
the same level, no matter the social, economic or political differentiations there may exist. In
this quotation, we can see how Peachum suggests that there are no recognisable disparities
between his job as a thief-taker and that of lawyer, since they both share the same ambiguous
position within and outside the legal boundaries. With this comment, he challenges the
indisputable trustworthiness of certain professions and subtly points out that even statesmen are
as corrupted as the rogues and rascals that are going to appear in the play. Gays critique
towards lawyers becomes even more venomous in this air:
AIR XXIV When once I lay with another mans wife
Jenny Diver The gamesters and lawyers are jugglers alike,
If they meddle your all is in danger.
Like gypsies, if once they can finger a souse,
Your pockets they pick, and they pilfer your house
And give your state to a stranger. [Act II, sc. iv]
According to these lines, lawyers are no more than mere pickpockets or gamblers whose only
ambition is to take money away from their clients. With this passage, the authors blurs the line
that supposedly separates high and low society since even lawyers, who are supposed to be the
epitome of integrity and righteousness, are sources of corruption as well.
Finally, although the satire conveyed by The Beggars Opera aims at very particular
targets, we can conclude that the author seeks to articulate an overall attack at the very roots of
his civilisation. That is why the play is prolific in the inclusion of comparisons between human
beings and animals, a very traditional satiric strategy that mainly purported to downgrade the
dignity of human beings and to show our own shortcomings:

Lockit Peachum then intends to outwit me in this affair; but Ill be even with him.
The dog is leaky in his liquor, so Ill ply him that way, get the secret from him, and
turn this affair to my own advantage. Lions, wolves, and vultures dont live
together in herds, drives, or flocks. Of all animals of prey, man is the only sociable
one. Every one of us preys upon his neighbour, and yet we herd together. [Act III,
sc. ii]
The references to human beings as animals of prey is certainly quite recurrent in satiric
literature, for instance in Ben Jonsons Volpone, or the Fox, in which most characters are named
after carrion birds whose only function in the play is to wait for Volpones death to receive his
fortune.
Bibliography

BEVIS, Richard W. English Drama: Restoration and Eighteenth Century, 1600-1789. London
and New York: Longman, 1988.
GAY, John. 1728. The Beggars Opera. Penguin: London, 1986.
CARTER, Ronald & John McRae. The Routledge History of English Literature. London and
New York: Routledge, 1997.
SANDERS, Andrew. The Short Oxford History of English Literature. Oxford: Oxford UP,
2000.
STYAN, J. L. The English Stage. A History of Drama and Performance. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1996.