Lumpkin

Tony Lumpkin. From the beginning, he is the guy everyone loves to hate. Except for his mother. He's the reason the book is funny, deceiving everyone. But once his deceptions have been revealed to those who have been deceived, people start blaming him for things that may not have been his fault. When Miss Neville's plot to run away with Hastings is foiled because Tony couldn't read, she and Hastings blame him for everything, even though he was just trying to help them run away. And Marlow blames him for all his embarassment. Without Tony, the situation would not have happened, but it was Marlow who acted so impudently. Is anyone else with me?

Tony is crucial to the happy ending. Once he finds out that he is of age, he immediately takes Constance's hand and sets her free. He doesn't hesitate to help her and Hastings out. And I don't much care for Mrs. Hardcastle, so once he made her angry, I was happy. He is evil, but still good. Why would Goldsmith put someone like Tony in the book? Is it solely for humor, or could there be something in Tony's character that we are glazing over? 1201986777

You may want to think of Tony as one certain chemical that is needed to bring all the other chemicals to life ... a catalyst. What is this compound that Goldsmith has created? 1201995280

Tony is crucial to the happy ending, and to the humor of the book. The blame mentioned above that fell on him added to the hilarity of the play. The deceiver had the tables turned on him, with funny results. A deciever cannot be believed, even when he tells the truth. Furthermore, throughout the play, it is he who is the catalyst of further humor, for he continues to decieve. In conclusion, I do not think that there is anything about Tony's character that we are missing. Tony is a simple guy who lives as he wants to. He does not hide who he is: a fun-loving, playful, deceitful fellow.1202058872

I think that we can safely say that Tony is the catalyst to the entire story. Without him, it would be nothing; however, that argument can also be made about any other character in the play. I think that each character in the play is a catalyst to create the compound of the story that Goldsmith tells. Tony, however, is unique because he is the one who creates most of the humor that is involved in the play. Because he is a little self-centered, he only does something if it will help himself. He helps Hastings and Miss Neville becaus this way he can get out of marrying Miss Neville. This alone adds to the humor of the story.1202066753

KLe- You said that Tony is evil, but still good. I disagree. I don't think he is evil at all. He's simply a funny guy who likes to mess with people in order to have a couple of laughs. I don't think that makes him evil at all. He is good-natured at heart. Just look at all the good things he does when he realizes that Miss Neville and Mr. Hastings need his help. He steals for them, lies for them, tricks his mother, and then in the end makes Miss Neville available to marry Hastings. He is naive, goofy, and mischievious, yes, but not evil. I personally thought it was hilarious when he got the letter from Hastings and revealed the secret to Mrs. Hardcastle because he couldn't read. They blamed it on him, but really it was just because he was so naive... he is so accustomed to having his mother read his mail that he couldn't think why she shouldn't. Come to think of it, that probably was Hastings's fault. Why would he send a letter to a person he knows cannot read? Another thing-- Tony (and many other characters, actually) mentions that he is spoiled. He uses this as an excuse for his behaviour. Do you guys buy it?? How many of his actions are due to his upbringing? Is Mrs. Hardcastle to blame? We certainly do see her spoiling him a bit, or at least turning a blind eye to his flaws. 1202072923

I think that Tonys actions are partly due to his upbringings. I mean, when you have a mother like Mrs. Hardcastle, who can blame you? He has grown up partying, messing around, and doing whatever he feels like without getting punished, so that's why he plays all those jokes on the other characters.

As Kho mentioned, Tony still does have admirable qualities that enabled him to do all those nice things for Miss Neville and Mr. Hastings. However, I couldn't help but remember Tony's real motive for setting Constance and Hastings up: if you look back on pg. 26, Tony agrees to help Hastings because that would take Miss Neville out of the picture (in regards to marriage) and leave him to pursue his lover, Bet Bouncer. He also mentions Bet again in the second epologue. To me, Tony seemed to go through great extents to ensure that Neville and Hastings would get together out of the kindness of his heart. Is his real motive purely the selfish reason to hook up with Bet? I find that hard to believe, but all evidence points that way. 1202164987

I find it easy to believe that he is selfish and only participating in this escape plan to benefit himself and I think that his upbringing has everything to do with it. He is use to getting everything he wants when he wants it and I assume that whenever things do not go his way he complains. The last thing in the world that he wants is to marry Ms. Neville so he does whatever he can to stop it, he even steals from his mother. Although I would like to believe that he is helping Hastings and Neville out of the goodness of his heart, I know that he is only doing it to help himself and by chance he is helping someone else.

I think that at this point in his life he is tired of his mother telling him what to do and he wants some freedom. He sees this relationship with Bet as a way to get out of his having to marry Neville, but the only way to fix this is to help Hastings and Neville escape.1202176019

I will not lie. I started from the beginning not liking Tony Lumpkin. He seemed like a little bit of a brat, out to deceive and ruin it. Plus, he was making the whole Neville and Hastings getting together more difficult. He was, in my opinion, getting in the way of love and fate and all that business. But..I have to admit that as much as he drove me crazy; he was a necessary character to have. While he was in the way of Neville and Hastings, I guess I have to blame Mrs. Hardcastle for that. He did allow them to be together in the end. He was the source of comedy, but he also was necessary for the outcome of the novel....he was an interesting character and although I started out disliking him...he is growing on me a bit. 1202257423-

I thought it quite appropriate to have the end of the book, the second Epilogue, be spoken by Tony Lumpkin. After all, it was because of his efforts in the end that the relationships were brought together well as they were. And it was mostly he who made the play a comedy Thus, on the last page, he says he will stir things up in the town and go about doing what he wants once again, independently. This is perfectly suited for him. There is even a little comment on "we'll set the fashions," which is comical because that had been a semi-critical aspect in the play; here, Tony just jokes about it, mocking it by saying that he does not need to follow anyone else's rules but his own -- and that everyone and everything else will follow. He does not have regard for conformist manners: "[he] know[s] what's damned genteel, as well as they" (63)!1202335137

I, like MFi, didn't like Tony. I thought of him as this guy who just got in the way and ruined everyone's plans. But then as the play went on I actually started to like him. The play would have been so different without him and it definitely would not have turned out the same way. He played such an important role in bringing the other characters together, although I didn't realize this until the end of the play, I saw him as someone who drove people apart. I think that he bringings a lot of the comedy to the play and he tends to always lighten the mood a little but and ends up helping people and showing that he wants the best for them and wants them to be happy, like helping Miss Neville's relationship with Mr. Hastings. In the end I really appreciated this character and his role in the play. 1202935899

Hey, um Br. Tom didn't you almost fail chemistry, ahahah just kidding, please credit this post. Anyways, in response to KLe's question, I don't believe we are glossing over any possible symbolic element that could possibly be drawn from his character because remember Goldsmith's intentions were to write a play for actual entertainment as hard as that is for our AP minds to conceive of, and as Br. Tom stated Lumpkin really serves as that catalyst for all the important events to happen. Not only that, but he also serves as the hapless fool whom everyone loves to blame and laugh because he is so foolish, making him the comic relief from all the confusing subplots and planning that occurs is SStC. He also provides relief from a play that is romance and driven by courtship, without him the play would be quite boring and a lot more dry than I would have liked.user:MSu-c

Tony was definitely an essential ingredient to the plot and tone of the play--he added a lot to the satire and the comical nature of the story. He is the one character that everyone looks to for something, whether it be to help them get what they want, a name to place the blame on, or for his humorous nature. He's there to take their minds of their problems, and give them a way out when they need it. He is the perfect opposite of the proper, obedient son common to the time and to sentimental comedies and his tricks and plots make for an amusing play. I think without him, the play would've been entirely different--he added a special element that the other characters had; he wasn't just in it for himself. It was like Tony had the guts to do what all the other characters wanted to do, and therefore he was essential to getting things done. 1203049494

I've talked about Tony elsewhere, but I feel this is important to say. I think over time I've come to this realization that Tony is set up as this misunderstood guy who actually has a heart of gold underneath all the drinking and such. As it was mentioned in the first post, as soon as he learns he is of age, he gives Constance away which does him no real benefit aside from ending the nagging of his mother for him to marry Constance. Like everyone else said, he is that guy that everyone loves to hate that no one expects anything out of and yet he is the reason for everyone's happy endings. If anything, he is the understated hero of this story who makes all the romance and courtship actually work, and he is in fact the only person in this play who is not a fool in some way even though everyone perceives him as a fool. See, that's funny and I think Goldsmith intended for it to happen that the guy that everyone thinks is a fool is actually smarter and wittier than everyone else in the play.1203120608

Tony is the character who, while initially seeming just to be the stupid, bumbling, comic villain of the play, is eventually shown to have a heart of gold. His last name just sums it all up: Lumpkin. Before I even read the book, when I heard the name "Lumpkin," I immediately pictured a lovable fool who just with a heart of gold. Tony may not be that lovable, but one cannot argue that he does not have positive characters, even if they are few and far between. Lumpkin, like brtom said, is the catalyst that brings the characters in this book together in the plot that Goldsmith envisioned. He is essential for the development of the play. 1203154483

Without Tony there would be no real reason to read the book, even though he isn't well liked. Who wants to read a story about a bunch of people that follow the rules, it would be really boring. He's like Dr. Smith from lost in space, everybody hates his guts, but if he wasn't there people would probably not watch the show. Like other people have mentioned, Tony helps for everyones happy ending to work out, in the end of the book. He really can't be all bad he's just a little off but nobody, including the reader, can hold it against him because everything works out so well in the end. 1203166121