Originally Posted by Karen 6th November 2005

We've all seen pictures of the painting of Rochester and the monkey. Mr Jeffreys devoted several pages to conversation between Elizabeth and John Wilmot about the painting including in the conversation bits from Alcock.

Elizabeth questions if he would prefer to have his portrait painted with a monkey.

First Rochester says "In this portrait I am no better than monkey who knows the name of his ancestors."

Then a few lines later he says to Alcock, " I do not mean to upset people, Alcock, it it not a plan that I carry around with me, but I have to speak my mind, because what is in my mind is always more interesting than what is happening in the world outside my mind, and if I cannot connect the two, I will become mad, d'you see?"

What is Mr. Jeffreys having Rochester say to the audience/reader at this point in the story?

Again, how does the want of power and/or position affect this scene?

Lufirel


I love this scene! Some of the things Rochester says here are really revealing. First, he is obviously not really happy with having his portrait painted (he first reveals this in an earlier scene but the distractedness of his general demeanor also attest to this fact). So while he is standing there having his portrait painted and essentially being bored out of his wits his mind is working furiously he comes up with the idea of having a satirical picture painted of himself crowning a monkey with laurels. Now some of Rochester's biographers argue that the monkey is supposed to represent Dryden with whom Rochester had a rivalry, but for the purposes of Mr. Jeffereys's play I don't think that is what is going on. Rather, I think, the point is to highlight Rochester's distaste for affectation. This family picture is being made of him and his wife looking all pompous and contented, clothed in their best frocks and surrounded by finery. Yet Rochester knows perfectly well that he is a drunken cynic who cheats on his wife and thus that the finished picture will be nothing more than a big fat lie in a gilded frame. In the picture he envisions, however, he finds some truth. If you read some of Rochester's poems it's clear that he thought men were viewed as no better and sometimes far worse than beasts. Sometimes he even states that animals seem far more sensible then humans. If we take the picture in this spirit then Rochester may be crowning the monkey because it is actually the superior creature. On the other hand Rochester also sees the world he live in as praising folly. Perhaps the monkey here is meant to represent foolishness and he, as a human, is crowning it to symbolize the respect with which it is regarded.

However one interprets the picture it is clear that in this scene Rochester is much more interested in his own thoughts than he is in what is actually happening. Part of the reason why this is so, as I alluded to earlier, is that he is simply so bored and disgusted with the whole preservation for posterity thing that he must find something else to occupy himself with. I also see Rochester as someone with a vast imagination, however. I think his mind is always going and this scene illuminates that fact (he goes on record as having hated "still life"). Furthermore he really did hate affectation and I think he really does express his honest opinions in this scene.

Karen



Here it is....the infamous painting........

Hibblette

See I kinda always thought it was Charles or Christ.

And look at the robes he is wearing.

I've always thought it was his comment on Divine right of Kings.

Lufirel

Hibblette, that's interesting. I always thought of the picture as a more general kind of comment on the wits or on mankind itself, but given Rochester's feelings for the king I suppose it could have been directed specifically at Charles. I'd be interested to hear you expand on your theory; in other words, if it is about the king (or Christ) what is Rochester trying to say about him?

Mairimaih


I thought it also referred to some of hispoems, or thoughts likeon reason, that its better to be an animal, and the poem, which's name I can't remember now, abot the ladies doting over a monkey

Hibblette

Gosh Lufirel how did I miss this?

I check everyday on this board and totally missed this. Sorry.

Well you have to understand that to them a monkey was not what we see today (you know a little more intelligent) to them yes they saw the human qualities but they did see something lesser then human. So in essence I think he is saying that Charles is a laureled monkey that has been ordained by a God that he doesn't really believe in. And sometimes when studying Charles in history one can quite easily come to that conclusion.

Mairimaih

the standard take on it thoiugh is as the monkey was tolding a piece of 'writng. and Rochester held the 'bays' over it, as awarded to the poet Laurete (sp) at that time his rival Dryden, it was a comment on that, Rochesters monkey was quite famous wasn't it.. he let it run over the company.. defeacating on them.. I think I read somewhere.. but he referred to animals such as horses and monkrey's as more blessed than man, for they lacked reason.. and since this was a personal creed throug Rochesters writing, I always felt it referred to that more

Karen

And we have to also allow for Rochester's sense of humor and willingness to satirize everything. But we are really discussing the play.

SROBERTS101A


From the point of view of the play, I think part of what's being said is that his imagination and intellect were always working and they were in many respects far more extraordinary (at least in his opinion) that those of other people who surrounded him and were part of his life. It was impossible for him to turn it (imagination) off and it often got the better of him because he had to get those thoughts out somehow and he would express them without regard for the impact on others. In a sense, he seems like an outsider who found it difficult if not impossible to find others who thought like he did or to whom he could relate on a more exciting level and the mundane details of ordinary existence bored the hell out of him. So he does what he does to keep from losing his sanity and in the process he alienate those around with. I need another cup of java this morning. This is really inarticulate

SROBERTS101A


It's also a statement on how he views himself. He not only enjoying creating controversy and disrespecting those around him, from the king to his wife, (which he does throughout the film and the play), but he also loathes himself and this is one way of conveying that by comparing himself to the monkey. In many respects, he lives his life and conducts himself like the monkey does -- enjoying himself without a care for the consequences. It's a satirical way to poke fun at or comment on the pompousness, conceit, and boredom of having your portrait done. He's taking the opportunity that the situation affords him to give it an entirely new meaning and amusing himself in the process by thumbing his nose at everyone with the knowledge that this portrait may exist long after he's gone and be a statement about him and his viewpoint for posterity.

SROBERTS101A


Another thought just popped into my head. Must be the coffee is starting to work it's magic! In the Chinese culture, and specifically in the Beijing Opera, the character of the Monkey is known as the mischief maker. Not that that's what Jeffreys was thinking when he wrote this, but Rochester is definitely a mischief maker extraordinaire. So selecting the monkey for his companion in the portrait and comparing himself to it speaks volumes

Mairimaih


I think its true.. the monkey is also more natural less deceived by reason.. I think in the film however there are hints of regret at hurting his wife by the quip, and the world, but especially her not getting it, or him, it is more strongly suggested in the play to me, as they talk of their past, and to me Rochester seems to imply the quiet of the country.. the passive life there is what he can't tolerate, rather than his wife not beign someone he truly cares for. I think this is shown in not just how they speak to each other, but in how he 'explains' himself toAlcock, as if he is feelign guilty for her being upset

SROBERTS101A


Yes, I agree. I don't think it was ever his intention to hurt her and it's obvious at moments that he truly cares about her.

Mairimaih


I liked that in the play he tells her near the, and his end, that he tells her that he 'never ceased to love you. But ' he had ' not loved life'
I especially like it, as its true to Rochesters life, Burnet, the Minister who was behind his conversion on his death bed, and having three unhappy marriages of his own might recognise the signs of that, praised totaly Rochesters husbandly concern for his wife "during his whole sickness, he expressed so much tenderness and true kindness to his Lady, that as it had been in fault formerly, so it drew from her the most passionate care and concern for him that it was possible: which indeed deserves a higher Character than is decent to give of a Person yet alive..'' I realize it is the play we are discussing, but the play draws from his true life, and it is I feel echoing an aspect, we might wish to see, a loving truly in love couple at his death, for a 'happy ending' of sorts.... so I think its relevant that it actually seems to be a real aspect of this couples dynamics. One I was glad to see in the play, and hinted at too in the film, *some spoilers to any who have not seen the film *

by the full circle of their lovers talk in the coach at the start, which is repeated on his death bed.