The well-contrived
plot is original and simple (all Farquhar's plots are excellent),
giving rise to a rapid succession of amusing and sensational
incidents; though by no means extravagant or improbable, save
possibly the mutual separation of Squire Sullen and his wife in
the last scene--the weak point of the whole. Farquhar was a
master in stage-effect. Aimwell's stratagem of passing himself
off as the wealthy nobleman, his brother (a device previously
adopted by Vanbrugh in _The Relapse_ and subsequently by
Sheridan in his _Trip to Scarborough_), may perhaps be a
covert allusion to the romantic story of the dramatist's own
deception by the penniless lady who gave herself out to be
possessed of a large fortune, and who thus induced him to
marry her.

The style adopted is highly dramatic, the dialogue being
natural and flowing; trenchant and sprightly, but not too witty
for a truthful reflex of actual conversation. The humour is
genial and unforced; there is no smell of the lamp about it,
no premeditated effort at dragging in jests, as in Congreve.
As typical examples of Farquhar's _vis comica_ I Would cite the
description of Squire Sullen's home-coming, and his 'pot of
ale' speech, Aimwell's speech respecting conduct at church, the
scene between Cherry and Archer about the L2000, and the
final separation scene--which affords a curious view of the
marriage tie and on which Leigh Hunt has founded an argument
for divorce. This play contains several examples of Farquhar's
curious habit of breaking out into a kind of broken blank verse
occasionally for a few lines in the more serious passages.
Partaking as it does of the elements of both comedy and force,
it is the prototype of Goldsmith's _She Stoops to Conquer_, which
it resembles in many respects. It will be remembered that
Miss Hardcastle compares herself to Cherry (Act III.), and
young Marlow and Hastings much resemble Archer and
Aimwell. Goldsmith was a great admirer of the works of his
fellow-countryman, especially _The Beaux-Stratagem_, and refers
to them several times (Citizen of the World, letter 93; History
of England, letter 16; Vicar of Wakefield, ch. 18), and in the
Literary Magazine for 1758 he drew up a curious poetical scale
in which he classes the Restoration dramatists thus:--
Congreve--Genius 15, Judgment 16, Learning 14, Versification 14;
Vanbrugh--14, 15,14,10; Farquhar--15, 15, 10, io. Unlike
Goldsmith, unhappily, Farquhar's moral tone is not high