Blog

Hey, I was reading The Rover by Aphra Behn as part of my college syllabus for my second semester and…I had some pretty unexpected revelations during it.

Both of them also being…kinda contradictory.

Here’s how it happened.

The first realization I had was that even having spent years studying English in kindergarten, then school, and reading hundreds of books and watching movies in that language, I was still pretty bad at understanding what Aphra Behn was trying to say in her prologue. In the first attempt, at least.

That realization was immediately replaced by something completely in contrast—and it was that…it wasn’t the problem of the English as much as it was of the belief that understanding this play was gonna be hard, and it was supposed to be hard because…why else would I have to study it in college if it’s not to take my excellency in the language a notch further?

I just had to focus. Like, duh.

The prologue is generally the easiest thing to understand in the work, I believe that, but then, uhhh, try your hand at the General Prologue of the Canterbury Tales.

Let’s make sure Chaucher has his own post. In this post, I better kick off with the prologue of The Rover by Aphra Behn.

To read about restoration era literature and the background and context of The Rover, check out this article: The Rover: Restoration Comedy, Comedy of Manners.

The Rover by Aphra Behn: Basic Summary, But Detailed

Witty physicians can never agree on anything, especially when they come from different social circles. This line introduces the concept talked about in the prologue itself, saying how witty and clever people often have very differing opinions and views, just like doctors debate over which are the best medical treatments are.

Rabel’s drops were a very common medicine during the time this play was written, and surely doctors would belittle or discourage it, but it wasn’t a negative reaction as strong as what the new and unknown authors faced.

Aphra Behn introduces in the very fist lines how she expects that this new play by an unknown author (a woman on top of it, even if it hasn’t been mentioned yet) will surely face critical judgment and harsh opinions.

Even the doctors will not be as harsh in their disapproval in their own field as the poets are in their obvious exclusion of someone who’s not from their own literary clique (cabal).

A young writer is judged even if they do end up writing something relatable and good. And what’s the basis for that judgment? Jealousy, spite, as Aphra Behn says. Just because they can, you know.

These people are called ridiculous elves who preside in the human race and dislike people without any particular reason.

The whole conflict of the matter is that the wit that these new plays bring into the scene is still not given the position it should be, is still damned solely because these learned and influential people from literary groups either hate someone, or love them in a similar way, by still disapproving of them and calling them out for their inadequacies.

Poets sit together in their groups and councils like they’re religious leaders holding a secret meeting to plan for a…mutiny, yeah? They hold discussions in which they condemn someone or praise them as their mood allows; they’re not objective in their criticism at all.

And then Aphra Behn takes a different route to say how all these critics are not really good at what they do either. they’re not perfect, and they do make mistakes, they might write good sometimes, even, but most of the good stuff in their works is stolen from others who came before them.

Like honeybees sucking from flowers their sweet nectar, these people also deprive others of good stuff to please their own readers under the implication that their work is original and authentic. Which, obviously, it is not.

And then Aphra Behn talks about how some people do write their characters as good and genteel people deserving of praise but she says how toiling it is for these people to write every line. What seems plain and easy to us is actually a product of hard labor on the behalf of the author.

Sometimes, these pains they undertake is just copying the ideas of people spontaneously. Some who are actually witty enough, write lampoons (rude, comic poems), even though their chief skill surely lies in writing an indecent song.

Aphra Behn talks about talking to the author of the given play The Rover, (which is herself, and she refers to this author in masculine terms, hiding her identity as a woman, which is just a glimpse into the condition of society at that time where women playwrights were not to be taken seriously, imagine a woman writing for the market! Oh the horrors!)

Aphra Behn’s aim for writing the prologue is to bring the attention of the readers towards how a writer receives bad reviews just because of their name being not so famous or their influence being not as much.

The supposed author of the upcoming play The Rover tells the speaker of the prologue that it was well known how the audience coming to watch the play weren’t there for the sake of the playwright, but rather for themselves.

Moreover, the audience liked a particular kind of plays, those which were full of crude jokes or corrupt people which provided them with the entertainment that they needed with the kick off of this new Restoration Era.

Find More to Read

Here ends the prologue. The post for Act 1 is coming out soon, so stay tuned!

Sift through more stuff here:

“Rape of the Lock” by Pope: A Complete Guide to Canto 1