History
Consider the Treatment of Defeat in Ben Jonson’s Volpone
(1559 words)
The treatment of defeat in Ben Jonson’s Volpone can be observed most clearly in the play’s final act, where Volpone’s elaborate scheme of deception ultimately comes full circle. Having spent the play manipulating others through his feigned illness and supposed death, Volpone finally recognises that the charade has become uncontrollable. At the close of Act V, Scene ix, Voltore, the lawyer who has successfully defended Volpone during the rape trial, appears as frustrated and defeated as Volpone could wish when he exclaims, “A strange, officious, / Troublesome knave! Thou dost torment me.” Voltore’s description reflects the extraordinary audacity with which Volpone has manipulated those around him. Yet, as the play progresses towards its conclusion, this apparent mastery of deception is transformed into self-defeat.
The moral structure of Volpone resembles that of a morality play in its combination of immorality and moral commentary. Jonson uses Volpone and the other characters to dramatise the destructive nature of greed, presenting a world in which excessive desire ultimately produces its own punishment. Volpone occupies the role of the trickster whose confidence and ingenuity initially appear to place him beyond the reach of consequence. Significantly, however, when defeat finally arrives, he does not lament his fate or seek sympathy from others. Instead, he is largely deflated by the consequences of his own actions. His downfall is therefore not simply imposed upon him by external forces; it is generated by the very impulses that have defined his character throughout the play.
At the end of Scene ix, Volpone’s sadistic game reaches its climax. Jonson must consequently move from catastasis, the height or culmination of dramatic action, towards catastrophe, the final collapse of the protagonist’s scheme. Volpone’s plot to torment Voltore and the other characters for the sake of his own “violent laughter” has exhausted itself. In the brief tenth scene, back in the Scrutineo, Voltore begins to confess to his perjury during the earlier trial. Volpone, still disguised as the commendatore, overhears the confession and immediately recognises the danger to himself:
“I’m caught / I’ my own noose.”
With these words, Jonson begins the transition towards catastrophe. The image of the “noose” is particularly significant because Volpone has become trapped by a scheme that he himself created. His deception, initially a source of power and pleasure, has become the instrument of his downfall.
Volpone subsequently attempts to understand what motivated him to take the deception so far in the first place. His self-examination at this crucial point in the play is particularly revealing because it forces him, however briefly and incoherently, to confront the relationship between character and action:
“To make a snare of mine own neck! And run
My head into it wilfully, with laughter!
When I had newly ’scaped, was free and clear!
Out of mere wantonness! O, the dull devil
Was in this brain of mine when I devised it.”
Volpone’s language suggests that he recognises the irrationality of his own behaviour. The “dull devil” can be understood as a metaphor for the impulses that have governed him throughout the play. His admission that he acted “out of mere wantonness” is especially important. Volpone was not compelled to continue his deception after escaping the immediate dangers of his scheme; instead, he deliberately extended it because he derived pleasure from manipulating and humiliating others. His defeat therefore emerges from an internal flaw rather than from simple bad fortune.
The reference to the “devil” also connects Volpone’s downfall to the play’s recurring imagery of possession and obsession. His desire to witness Mosca’s manipulation of the “birds of prey” develops into a broader desire to control the actions and emotions of everyone around him. Volpone’s “savage, satiric streak” reaches its climax in Act V, where his desire to direct events increasingly resembles that of a playwright or director controlling his own performance. The imagery of acting, directing and theatrical performance that runs throughout the play consequently becomes inseparable from Volpone’s moral corruption. He attempts to control reality as though it were a theatrical production, but ultimately discovers that he cannot control the consequences of his own performance.
It is therefore appropriate that Volpone becomes trapped in a “noose of [his] own devising.” The noose represents both his physical punishment and the psychological impulses that have produced it. His “wantonness” is simultaneously destructive and self-destructive: the pleasure he derives from deceiving others eventually turns against him. Jonson consequently presents defeat not as an arbitrary reversal of fortune but as the logical consequence of excessive desire.
Volpone’s opening soliloquy of Act V further develops this idea through its language of obsession and possession. The dramatic irony of the scene becomes particularly significant because Volpone’s words reveal more about his own psychological state than he intends. His desire to be “possessed” by “violent laughter” reflects the extent to which his pleasure in deception has become compulsive. This connects directly with the earlier exchange between Mosca and Volpone in Act V, Scene ii, when Mosca explains why the suitors have failed to recognise the deception:
“Each of ’em
Is so possessed and stuffed with his own hopes
That anything unto the contrary,
Never so true, or never so apparent,
Never so palpable, they will resist it—”
Volpone responds:
“Like a temptation of the devil.”
Ironically, this observation applies directly to Volpone himself. The characters are so dominated by their desires that they are incapable of recognising reality. Volpone is possessed by his desire for amusement and control just as the other characters are possessed by their greed. Each character becomes trapped within his own expectations, refusing to acknowledge evidence that contradicts his desires. The recurring motifs of possession, obsession, torture and “violent laughter” therefore become increasingly intertwined as the play approaches its conclusion.
Volpone’s defeat becomes particularly evident when he begins to recognise that his worst fears are becoming reality. He understands that Mosca now possesses both the opportunity and the motivation to take control of his wealth and potentially leave him buried alive. Volpone responds to this threat with the desperate cry, “Ay, quick, and cozen me of all.” When Mosca offers to accept half of the inheritance, Volpone initially responds, “First, I’ll be hanged!” This reaction is characteristically visceral and self-destructive. Although he eventually concedes, “Thou shalt have half,” he immediately attempts to reassert his superiority by declaring, “I cannot now / Afford it you so cheap.”
The power relationship between Volpone and Mosca has therefore been completely reversed. Earlier, Volpone enjoyed watching Mosca manipulate the other characters; now Mosca uses the same methods of psychological domination against Volpone. The pupil has effectively become the master. Mosca’s enjoyment of his newfound power mirrors Volpone’s earlier enjoyment of tormenting Voltore and the other suitors. In this sense, Jonson creates a cycle of exploitation in which characters repeatedly turn the vices of others against them. Volpone’s response is ultimately to destroy Mosca along with himself, refusing to allow his servant to retain the wealth even though exposing Mosca will also reveal Volpone’s own disguise.
This final act of resistance is important to the treatment of defeat. Volpone does not become morally reformed when he is defeated. Instead, he continues to behave according to the same selfish and destructive principles that have governed him throughout the play. His refusal to allow Mosca to inherit the money demonstrates that even at the point of his downfall he remains motivated by pride, possessiveness and spite. His defeat is therefore not a moment of moral redemption but the culmination of his character.
Jonson’s moral perspective is reinforced at the end of the play when the first Avocatore declares:
“Mischiefs feed
Like beasts, till they be fat, and then they bleed.”
The image of animals being fed until they are ready to be slaughtered encapsulates the central moral logic of Volpone. Greed, deception and corruption are allowed to grow until they ultimately consume those who practise them. The characters feed their own destructive desires, only to become victims of those same desires. Volpone’s punishment consequently fulfils the moral structure of the play: the trickster is defeated by the very mechanisms of deception that initially gave him power.
The epilogue is also significant because it distinguishes Jonson’s comic entertainment from Volpone’s sadistic pleasure. The actor playing Volpone comes forward to encourage the audience’s applause and laughter, but the audience is not invited to participate in Volpone’s “violent laughter.” Instead, the punishment has been administered “by the laws.” Jonson therefore separates theatrical pleasure from the destructive pleasure represented by Volpone. The audience may enjoy the “feast” of the drama without sharing the moral corruption of the characters.
Ultimately, Volpone can be understood as a figure of defeat who nevertheless remains combative until the very end. His defeat does not transform him into a repentant or sympathetic figure. Instead, he continues to resist Mosca and refuses to surrender the wealth that has motivated so much of his behaviour. His downfall is therefore both comic and moral: he loses his freedom and wealth, but more importantly, he is defeated by his own character. Jonson presents a world in which greed and deception inevitably become self-destructive. Volpone is not simply defeated by the law; he is defeated by the excesses of his own imagination, his desire for control, and his pleasure in manipulating others. His “noose” is, in the most literal and figurative sense, one of his own making.
Ben Jonson’s Volpone: Satire, Morality, and the Beast Fable
(1314 Words)
Ben Jonson’s Volpone occupies a distinctive position within early modern comedy because it combines the conventions of satire with the moral structure of the morality play and the symbolic framework of the beast fable. By adopting characteristics of the morality tradition, Jonson sought to “imitate justice” and “instruct to life” (Volpone, lines 112–113), combining moral instruction with satiric comedy. The severity of the punishments imposed at the end of the play aligns more closely with the morality tradition than with conventional comic satire. As Watson argues, “The surprisingly blunt exposure and punishment in Volpone pits the indulgent conventions of satiric comedy, in which wit is the sole criterion for success, against the forces of conventional moralism” (83). Thus, although Volpone contains the wit, deception, and comic intrigue characteristic of satire, Jonson ultimately subordinates these elements to a broader moral purpose. Through the use of animal symbolism, exaggerated characters, and a deliberately punitive conclusion, Jonson transforms the traditional beast-fable structure into a vehicle for social criticism, exposing the destructive effects of greed, materialism, hypocrisy, and moral corruption.
In a conventional satiric comedy, Volpone might have escaped punishment, particularly after successfully deceiving the other characters at the end of Act IV. Jonson, however, deliberately rejects such an ending. Instead, he uses the final act to establish moral consequences for the characters’ greed, deception, and corruption. Throughout the play, he satirises both contemporary social conventions and the growing materialism of London society. In doing so, Jonson develops a distinctive form of comedy that draws not only on contemporary satire but also on the moral structure of the ancient beast fable, particularly the tradition associated with Aesop.
The classification of Volpone as a beast fable is largely based on its use of animal names and its moral conclusion. Volpone, Voltore, Corbaccio, and Corvino are all associated with particular animals, and their behaviour reflects characteristics traditionally attributed to those creatures. Nevertheless, Volpone does not reproduce the traditional fable exactly. In many beast fables, the clever protagonist succeeds through intelligence and deception. In Jonson’s play, however, the fox’s wit ultimately fails. This departure from the conventional fable structure allows Jonson to combine comic ingenuity with moral judgment, transforming the familiar figure of the cunning fox into a character whose intelligence becomes a source of his downfall.
The beast-fable framework therefore provides Jonson with an effective method of presenting his social criticism. By transforming his characters into symbolic animals, he can expose human greed and corruption while maintaining a degree of comic distance. The dedication of the play indicates Jonson’s intention to provide entertainment that also offers moral instruction. The fable form supports this purpose by allowing the audience to recognise human weaknesses through exaggerated animal characteristics. The characters’ animal identities consequently function not merely as comic devices but also as moral indicators, revealing the vices that dominate their behaviour.
The central plot particularly resembles the traditional fox fable. In many fables, the fox represents intelligence and cunning and defeats stronger or more predatory creatures through deception. Volpone similarly uses his intelligence to manipulate the “birds of prey” who compete to become his heir. As Watson observes, the fox “outwits ‘the birds of prey and finally entraps them by feigning death’” (85). Volpone therefore initially appears to fulfil the traditional role of the clever fox who triumphs through wit. His success, however, is only temporary, and Jonson ultimately reverses the expectations of the conventional fable by ensuring that the fox himself is caught.
The principal characters form a carefully constructed animal hierarchy. Volpone is the fox, while Mosca functions as a parasitic fly who benefits from the fox’s schemes. Voltore, Corbaccio, and Corvino represent predatory birds: the vulture, raven, and crow. These associations reinforce the characters’ moral identities. Their pursuit of Volpone’s wealth transforms them into predators competing for material gain. Volpone’s deception is therefore satirical because it exposes the greed of those who are willing to sacrifice morality, family, and dignity for the possibility of inheriting his fortune. The animal imagery intensifies this criticism by suggesting that their desire for wealth reduces them to instinctive predators.
Corbaccio’s treatment of his son provides a particularly strong example of this corruption. He is willing to disinherit his own child in the hope of becoming Volpone’s heir. His behaviour contradicts the natural responsibilities associated with parenthood. White notes that Jonson uses Corbaccio’s character to emphasise this unnatural rejection of paternal duty (141–142). Similarly, Corvino violates the expected role of a husband by treating his wife, Celia, as a means of acquiring wealth. Through these characters, Jonson uses the beast-fable structure to represent a society in which natural and moral values have been inverted. Greed becomes stronger than familial loyalty, marital responsibility, or social morality.
However, Jonson deliberately disrupts the traditional fable by allowing the fox’s schemes to fail. Volpone’s punishment demonstrates that intelligence and deception cannot ultimately guarantee success. Watson argues that the ethical conclusion of Jonsonian comedy adopts a “conventional and comfortable form” only to reject the unrealistic expectation that the world should conform to a pleasant literary formula (96–97). Jonson’s ending is therefore significant because it prioritises moral realism over the conventional triumph of comic wit. The punishment of Volpone and his associates establishes that cleverness without morality is ultimately destructive.
This combination of satire and morality is particularly evident in the subplot involving Sir and Lady Would-be. The subplot provides a parallel to the corruption of the main plot while introducing a different form of social criticism. As Barish argues, “It is on the thematic level that the presence of the Would-be’s can be justified and their antics related to the major motifs of the play” (93). The Would-be couple imitate aspects of the social and cultural behaviour associated with the main characters, but they are not morally equivalent to them.
Sir Would-be can be understood as “a comic distortion of Volpone” (Barish 94), while Lady Would-be represents an exaggerated imitation of Venetian sophistication. Their behaviour reflects folly rather than the serious vice displayed by Volpone and his associates. Jonson therefore distinguishes between genuine moral corruption and the foolish imitation of corruption. Through the Would-be’s, he suggests that English society may still avoid the fate of the characters in the main plot if it recognises and rejects such behaviour. Their comic treatment also prevents the play from becoming entirely severe, allowing Jonson to maintain the entertaining qualities of comedy while continuing to develop his moral argument.
The contrast between the two plots is essential to Jonson’s moral purpose. Those who are genuinely committed to vice are ultimately punished, whereas those whose faults are primarily foolishness are allowed to escape. The structure suggests that society faces serious consequences if it allows greed and moral corruption to dominate. At the same time, Jonson does not necessarily present England as irredeemably corrupt. Instead, the play functions as a warning: audiences can recognise the dangers represented by the characters and change their behaviour before those dangers become fully established. Comedy therefore becomes a means of moral education, encouraging audiences to laugh at vice while also recognising its potentially destructive consequences.
Ultimately, Volpone presents a distinctive form of comedy by combining satire, morality, and the beast-fable tradition. Jonson uses humour and deception to entertain his audience while simultaneously exposing the dangers of greed, materialism, hypocrisy, and moral corruption. Issues such as the elevation of gold above religious and moral values, as well as Corvino’s treatment of Celia, demonstrate that the play’s concerns extend beyond individual characters to wider questions of social and ethical behaviour. The beast-fable framework allows Jonson to distance his audience from these problems sufficiently to laugh at them, while the moral ending forces them to consider their consequences. In this way, Volpone successfully merges comic entertainment with moral instruction, creating a form of satire that challenges its audience not merely to laugh at human vice but also to recognise and resist it.
The Setting of “Volpone” and “Much Ado About Nothing”
(906 Words)
The settings of Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing and Jonson’s Volpone are both situated within Italian contexts, a significant choice given the reputation of Italy, and particularly Venice, within the English cultural imagination. For early modern English audiences, Italy represented “the very acme of beauty and culture, of licence and corruption.” Venice, in particular, was imagined as one of the most fabulous and wealthy Italian cities, associated simultaneously with commercial prosperity, cultural sophistication, sexual licence, political intrigue, and moral corruption. Its reputation for licentiousness was accompanied by an equally prominent reputation for severe justice. The catastrophe of Volpone, therefore, reflects not only Jonson’s strenuous moral concerns but also contemporary English perceptions of Venetian justice and punishment. Similarly, Shakespeare incorporates aspects of contemporary Venetian society into his imaginative construction of Messina, particularly its social structures, values, and patterns of behaviour.
Venice was a leading commercial power in Shakespeare’s period and, like the Messina represented in Much Ado About Nothing, was understood as a materially prosperous city in which participation in elaborate social entertainments, including masquerades, formed part of elite culture. The association of Venice with wealth, vice, jealousy, intrigue, and cruelty consequently made it an appropriate setting for Jonson’s comedy. Jonson’s careful construction of the Venetian setting in Volpone anticipates the precision with which he would later establish the urban environments of his London comedies. Venice was widely represented in Elizabethan culture as a centre of intrigue and deception, a place in which outsiders were particularly vulnerable to exploitation by its supposedly sophisticated inhabitants. Messina similarly functions as a society characterised by plots, schemes, and competing forms of deception. While some of these manoeuvres are benign or comic in intention, others are motivated by malice and self-interest. Beneath the apparent harmony of Messina, therefore, there remains a persistent sense that something is fundamentally unstable within the social order.
The deliberate construction of the setting in Volpone functions simultaneously as symbol, theme, and principle of dramatic unity and tension. Setting is consequently structural rather than merely ornamental in Jonson’s play. The severity of the play’s conclusion expresses Jonson’s moral response to the values associated with Venice and to the corrupt social world that the city represents. A comparable concern with political and social order can be identified in Much Ado About Nothing. Don Pedro explains that, despite Don John’s attempt to overthrow his authority, the two brothers have been reconciled. Such a resolution is striking when considered against the political assumptions of Elizabethan society, in which threats to legitimate political authority by usurpers were conventionally understood to demand severe punishment. The presence of a defeated enemy of the state moving freely among the citizens of Messina might otherwise have suggested weakness within the political body. Shakespeare’s decision to minimise the political consequences of Don John’s rebellion is therefore significant: rather than treating rebellion as an enduring political crisis, the play ultimately absorbs it into the comic restoration of social harmony.
The action of both plays is also geographically restricted, and this spatial limitation contributes significantly to their dramatic structures. In Volpone, Jonson establishes a technique that he would develop throughout his career: concentrating his comedies within a sharply defined and carefully conceived section of an urban environment. The care with which the majority of the scenes in Volpone are situated around the centre of Venice suggests that Jonson conceived the action within a deliberately narrow geographical framework. This concentration creates a sense of enclosure that intensifies the characters’ interactions and allows the city itself to become an active component of the drama.
Messina functions similarly as a contained social and political environment. It is a comparatively weak patriarchy, vulnerable to intrigue, disorder, and the disruption of established hierarchies, while figures such as Dogberry are entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining public order. The inadequacy of this authority contributes to the play’s comic treatment of disorder. Significantly, once Don Pedro has explained his “reconciliation” with Don John, the play offers little further discussion of the rebellion that Don John has presumably initiated. Instead, war, including the possibility of civil conflict, is treated by the victors and their hosts as a largely gentlemanly pursuit: a form of competition through which individuals can demonstrate their courage and social distinction rather than a sustained political crisis. This treatment reinforces the play’s broader tendency to transform potentially serious threats to social order into comic mechanisms through which harmony can ultimately be restored.
In both Volpone and Much Ado About Nothing, therefore, setting provides more than a backdrop for the action. Jonson’s carefully constructed Venice supplies a framework through which corruption, deception, justice, and moral disorder can be explored, while Shakespeare’s Messina provides a similarly contained social environment in which deception, gender relations, political authority, and communal order are negotiated. In Volpone, the specificity of the Venetian setting creates the tensions, atmosphere, and structural unity associated with Jonson’s mature comedy. Beyond creating a sense of geographical immediacy for the audience, Jonson’s deliberate use of setting unifies and intensifies the action, reinforces the symbolic significance of spatial relationships, and contributes directly to the play’s meaning. Shakespeare’s Messina operates in a comparable manner: its restricted social world enables the play to contain political and interpersonal disorder within a comic framework and ultimately to restore communal harmony. In both plays, therefore, setting is fundamentally structural, shaping not only where the action occurs but also the thematic tensions, social relationships, and moral meanings through which the dramas unfold.
History of Power and How it Shapes the World
(1126 Words)
So long as people have power, so long as people under no circumstances change their attitude, history will be the same and repeat itself over and over. War will always be seen as a venture for peace, be it started through the power of religion, power of kings, or by the powers of countries. In this essay, I would like to make a comment on aspects involved in three movies I have recently seen. These are King Henry VIII, set in the 16th century, Les Miserable, set around the time of the French Revolution, and Good Morning Vietnam which was set during the Vietnam War in 1965. They all depict forces attacking each other. We identify that everyone has a motive, but only in their eyes are they right but for what good? All three films show power can work in many ways. The will of governments, royalty, and religion can not be stopped and those who try to stop them can get hurt.
Continuing our theme of power, the third film ‘Les Miserables’ although set after the French Revolution, for the purposes of this essay we can define a period around and after the revolution as the insurrection in France. We are still drawn into a time of change that had the power of the people and the power of the kings and nobles. We recognise a time when new ideas about the power of the people start to take hold. The influence of the Enlightenment which celebrated science and reason over faith and religion can not be overestimated. We know that political power in France was concentrated in very few hands. Sovereignty was no longer to rest with the monarch as a Divine Right, an appointment from God but rather with the people. Popular sovereignty now rested with the people and the idea of a Nation-State was conceived. In the movie, we are moved by the general destitution of people. France had the largest population in Europe and could not feed itself adequately. The French Revolution spawned the idea that everyone should be entitled to some principal rights. The French people were oppressed. The power of the French people has been shown throughout the world where support to revolutions that assert the right to self-determination.
To conclude, we see in all the films and aspects from them as history in the making. Why does the ‘French cause’ matter now? There are still some governments that lack the support of a majority of their people and still use the power of terrorism to control their citizens. Places like Myanmar and North Korea live under a cloud or tyranny. Burma is a poor country, but the military regime is rich enough to expand its armed forces while news from impoverished North Korea tells you about their new weapon technologies. These countries ignore the past and seem to not learn from the experience of others. It is true that the past causes the present, and so the future. Henry VIII’s break from Rome had enormous consequences on English history not only in making it possible for the transformation of England into a powerful nation but also in the seizing of economic and political power from the Church. England now enjoys a secular state. America too has changed. The Vietnam War ended American innocence. It is recognized that no foreign war can succeed without that large domestic support. America’s democratic economy is the strongest in the world. It is a light that has seen many countries push towards democracy. Communism is finished. So, history helps us understand change and how the society we live in came to be. Many people have suffered because of change. Hopefully, from this, the world will learn.
.
English Business Etiquette
(770 words)
In this essay, I am going to talk about how to understand English business etiquette better, so as not to be embarrassed when you visit England and have a business meeting. This is why it is wise to learn about and show an understanding of the rich business culture that England has. It could help you out of a problem.
England has a rich history and heritage that is world-renowned. English people are very proud of their heritage.
One of the first things you will notice is that English people say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ a lot. Even when they are not wrong they may still say ‘sorry’ just to make the situation calmer. English people are known to be kinder to you if you behave politely. One important factor to remember though is a visitor may upset an English person by the things they say and do in your own culture which is not frowned upon.
Westerners are known in Asia for being a bit extravagant and flamboyant. Here in Asia, they might seem to have looser morals but the United Kingdom has a strong culture of how to behave properly not just in a business setting but in life. This culture although still ingrained in many people has changed since World War II in England after seeing an influx of immigrants. England is actually very multi-cultural nowadays.
Any business person should understand where England is. This may be hard for some because it is actually an island away from central Europe. It is in Europe but English people still do not think of themselves as Europeans although they are part of Europe. If a visitor is doing business in any other part of the United Kingdom or meets a British person they do not refer to those people as English they will be rather offended. For example, if the business person is from Scotland, Ireland or Wales they are Scottish, Irish or Welsh not English.
Appearance at a business meeting, although English people are generally conservative, is generally relaxed although a person should be polished and well-groomed. English weather always prevails not to be bright and sunny so this is generally shown in business attire. Dark suits, black or grey are usually accepted. Men wearing shirts should not have pockets in them. If they have pockets they should be kept empty. Ties are worn but be careful what pattern and colour you choose. Ties are used to show many clubs or groups in England usually with stripes. These should be avoided as they might look like copies of well-known member’s club ties. A solid or patterned this is a better choice. Men should wear laced up shoes and not loafers. Women are not so limited to colours but should still keep to a conservative dress.
So, the business visitor is ready for the meeting, it is now the case of how to behave when meeting. First of all English people are very punctual. If a person says the meeting is at 9am the visitor should be there on time. The usual view is to plan to get to the place 15 minutes before but if for a major reason the person should call and say they will be late. A visitor must also remember that English people can be very reserved and not friendly but with more meetings can form deep and lasting friendships. Visitors often get the wrong idea because in their cultures people smile more and ask more questions than an English person would. A business visitor must be careful not to mix their culture with English.
Remember the English are rather formal. When the visitor first meets an English business person, a simple handshake is enough. Eye contact should be kept while initiating handshakes. This is the same for men and women. It is also better to use Mr, Miss, Mrs plus surname when meeting. Business cards can be given but there is no formal ceremony. There is also no need for a present to be given. English people do not stand on ceremony. Any gift should be small if any.
With first conversations, any visitor must remember that privacy is important in England so informal talk should not include talk about salaries or marriage. English people also value their personal space so try not to come too close while conversing. It is also not normal to touch people in public. If the visitor is invited out for lunch it will normally be in a pub with light food and a pint of lager. It is not wise to talk about work in the pub.
Remember in a business meeting if everyone is of the same level the meeting can flow while if there is someone of superior ranking they will do most of the talking. Usually, a meeting will have an agenda so the meeting will have been planned beforehand. English people like to be told information through facts and figures rather than through emotion. This makes it easier for them to make a decision. If straight questions are asked an English business person may give an indirect or evasive answer. A visitor must not be aggressive or too persuasive actually English people like a bit of humour but not lewd or unfitting language. The final decision will be taken by the senior executives and may take some time.
Essay Corner Blog 