The life of the low-born and illegitimate Dora Jordan echoed the theatre’s predilection for plays depicting social metamorphosis. From her humble, obscure origins, she had risen to be the mistress of a prince and a royal estate.80 Epilogues were written for Jordan with pointed reference to her private circumstances. In 1791, when the Duke was stepping up his courtship of Jordan, she played for her benefit an adaptation of Fletcher’s The Humorous Lieutenant called The Greek Slave: or The School for Cowards.81 Jordan played the part of a slave girl who is in love with a prince, and is eventually discovered to be of noble birth. The epilogue drew attention to her assumption of genteel roles, both on and off stage:
How Strange! methinks I hear a Critic say,
What, She the serious Heroine of the Play!
The Manager his want of Sense evinces
To pitch on Hoydens for the love of Princes!
To trick out Chambermaids in awkward pomp –
Horrid! to make a Princess of a Romp.82
The epilogue also drew attention to the fact that, while she was acclaimed for her ‘low’ parts, her roles in polite comedy were often condemned. It seems that Jordan, even among her admirers, was considered to be a ‘natural’ at low parts. Even her adoring biographer Boaden described her low parts as ‘natural … the genuine workings of nature within her’.83 Leigh Hunt believed that Jordan was at her best in low comedy, and declared that she was ‘all deficient in the lady’ and unable to bring off genteel roles because of her lack of ‘a certain graceful orderliness, an habitual subjection … of impulse of manner’, claiming, however, that ‘If Mrs Jordan were what she ought to be in the lady, we more than doubt whether she could be what she is in the boarding school-girl or the buxom woman’.84
Hunt’s remarks betray a consciousness about the ease with which actresses could play the lady on stage and cross social boundaries off stage. Perhaps this was because so many former actresses married into aristocratic circles. Famously, one of Mrs Jordan’s co-stars, Elizabeth Farren, quit the stage to marry the Earl of Derby.85 Catherine Stephens married the Earl of Essex and Miss O’Neill retired early to become Lady Wrixon Beecher. Jordan’s rise from illegitimate child-actor to royal mistress, crossing almost every social barrier, added an extra comic dimension to her role as Nell in Charles Coffey’s farce The Devil to Pay.
In 1814 Jane Austen saw Jordan in this play, in what was perhaps her most famous role, that of a timid cobbler’s wife who is magically transformed into an aristocratic society mistress.86 Jordan played the part of the downtrodden wife who makes a better wife to Sir John, and a kinder mistress to her servants, than the irascible Lady Loverule. Lady Loverule’s metamorphosis into the cobbler’s wife eventually brings about her moral transformation. The rough treatment she experiences at the hands of the cobbler is partially responsible for the change in her attitude towards her exalted position:
There’s nought but the devil
And this good strap
Could ever tame a scold.87
The comedy had long amused the public, who enjoyed seeing Jordan’s metamorphosis from rags into riches, just as she herself had been transformed, seemingly, by her liaison with the Duke of Clarence. Jordan was dubbed ‘Nell of Clarence’ by Horace Walpole, who intended a reference to her famous predecessor as royal theatrical mistress, Nell Gwynne.
By the time that Jane Austen saw The Devil to Pay in 1814, however, Jordan was separated from the duke and had returned to the stage.88 Austen declared herself ‘highly amused’ with the farce. She was in good company – Hazlitt described Jordan’s Nell as ‘heavenly’:
Her Nell … was right royal … Miss Kelly is a dexterous knowing chambermaid: Mrs Jordan had nothing dexterous or knowing about her. She was Cleopatra turned into an oyster-wench, without knowing that she was Cleopatra, or caring that she was an oyster-wench. An oyster-wench, such as she was, would have been equal to a Cleopatra; and an Antony would not have deserted her for the empire of the world!89
The Devil to Pay, the play that was so closely associated with Dora Jordan, exemplifies the drama’s obsession with the concept of social mobility, and its endless play on rank and manners. The metamorphosis of a timid country girl and a termagant wife and society mistress highlighted the same sort of class tensions initiated by the unprecedented success of Richardson’s Pamela. Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer was another favourite eighteenth-century comedy that examined uneasy social stratifications by a series of ironic reversals.
It is striking, but perhaps not surprising, that Austen favoured comedies where social roles were turned topsy-turvy, such as Coffey’s The Devil to Pay, Townley’s High Life Below Stairs and Colman’s The Heir at Law.90 Such comedies were popular with a wide and varied audience. Theatre historians have shown how the need for public theatres to appeal to a socially diverse audience of box, pit and gallery led to a mixed programme of entertainment.91 The opposition between ‘high’ and ‘low’ became a perennial theme in eighteenth-century comedy, depicting the dramatic situations and comic scenes that arise when a person crosses the boundaries from low life to high, or vice-versa. The device of bringing together contrasting types, whereby different styles of action and language are attached to different classes and ironically juxtaposed, allowed the writer to exploit the comic potential of ‘high’ and ‘low’ life in Georgian England, and please the upper galleries as well as the pit.
Pleasing the upper galleries and the boxes was, however, only part of the intention. Writers for the theatre also knew that fashionable comedy was genteel, and that its audience was predominantly middle class; therefore farces that criticised aristocratic manners and poked fun at ‘low’ characters were particularly successful. The increasingly frequent appearance of wealthy merchants, sympathetically treated in the plays of the 1790s, has been ascribed to the development of ‘middle-class’ attitudes.92
Ever since the success of Gay’s Beggar’s Opera, writers for the stage had used low life as a means of satirising high. In Cowley’s Which is the Man? one of the ‘low’ characters duly exclaims: ‘He must be a Lord by his want of ceremony.’ In The Devil to Pay, Nell’s gentle manners and innate dignity reflect badly on Lady Loverule. In Pride and Prejudice, Austen was also to depict the moral defeat of a high-ranking aristocrat (another Lady Loverule?) by a young woman ‘of inferior birth … without family, connections, or fortune’ (PP, pp. 355–56). In Mansfield Park the rendition of Fanny’s ‘low’ family in Portsmouth exploits the dramatic situations and comic scenes resulting from a woman’s movement across the boundaries between high life and low. Yet, in the end, it is the lower-ranking Price children (William, Fanny and Susan) who turn out better than the high-bred Bertrams.93
It is evident throughout her work, distinguishable even from the early reference to Lewis and Quick, that Jane Austen was particularly attuned to the discrepancies between rank and manners within the tightly circumscribed social structure of her world. That understanding was shaped and informed by her interest in the drama. Her special interest in social metamorphosis, with its comic interplay between high and low types, was stimulated by the influence of eighteenth-century comedy.
The