The School for Scandal

Act II opens with Peter and Lady Teazle arguing about their marriage. While Peter sees Lady Teazle in the wrong, his justification is that she is not abiding by the social norms in which he initially met her. Lady Teazle counters Peter by noting how “fashion,” or society, is different in town. This discussion continues the theme of The Moral Conflicts of Human Nature, reframing Lady Teazle’s transformation in view of the dominant social structures of their time.

The critical element of Lady Teazle’s argument is revealed when she tells Peter, “I’m sure I’m not more extravagant than a woman of fashion ought to be” (398). Her use of the term “ought” contrasts with Peter’s argument: “[S]o a husband is to have no influence, no authority?” (398). Each character is arguing a facet of social norms, with Lady Teazle insisting on keeping up with upper-class society, while Peter relies on traditional gender roles. Both of them, without realizing it, are arguing that they need to maintain social norms within their marriage, bringing the issue of human nature to the question of whether social norms are inherent to humanity, or if they can deviate from these norms to achieve happiness in their marriage.

The gathering at Sneerwell’s home in Scene 2 emphasizes The Destructive Nature of Gossip and Scandal by showing how rapid and intense gossip can become. Sneerwell, Crabtree, Benjamin, and Candour do not only discuss a single person, but a multitude of people, criticizing everything from behavior to appearances to morals. When Peter interrupts the gossip, judging the group for their malice, Candour asserts, “But sure you would not be quite so severe on those who only report what they hear” (404), framing sharing gossip as less immoral than starting rumors. Peter rejects this assertion, highlighting how “only” reporting gossip is the precise act in which the damage of scandal is done. Even as Peter leaves, he says, “but I leave my character behind me” (404), acknowledging both that the group is likely to gossip about him when he leaves and asserting his superior morality by refusing to engage in the destruction of other characters.

Cracks form in the schemes of the play beginning in Act II, specifically regarding Joseph’s character. First, Lady Teazle sees how Joseph is trying to seduce Maria, interrupting their conversation by asking: “What’s this, pray? Do you take her for me?” (405). Lady Teazle is beginning to see how Joseph uses others for his own benefit, which starts to cast doubt on his intentions with her. Lady Teazle asserts that she would never sleep with Joseph, but Joseph refers to an affair as the “only revenge in [her] power” (406), which upsets Lady Teazle by revealing the assumed implication of adopting Joseph as her gallant.

Sir Oliver, upon arriving at Peter’s, rejects Joseph’s sentimentality, reflecting The Discrepancy Between Public Virtue and Private Vice, by asserting: “If he salutes me with a scrap of morality in his mouth, I shall be sick directly” (407). Unlike Peter and Lady Teazle, Oliver sees how Joseph behaves as a direct indication of his malice. Specifically, Oliver paints a picture of society at large, noting, “Everybody speaks well of him! Psha! Then he has bowed as low to knaves and fools as to the honest dignity of genius or virtue” (407). Buried in Oliver’s statement is an element of classism, framing virtue as something the lower classes cannot possess, but his ultimate point is that a person well-liked by all must align their interests, in part, with all different sensibilities and morals—including those of flawed or corrupt people.