1) Is there
any of what is traditionally called “character development” in the latter half
of The Country Wife? That is,
tragedies often are said to have “dynamic characters,” who undergo changes or
revelations, while comedies often are said to have “static characters,” who are
little more than stereotypes or single character traits. Is this true in The Country Wife?
Or
2) The last
scene is a whirlwind of revelations, concealments, and last-minute decisions.
Do you have any questions as to what exactly happens in this scene? For
example,
- Why are the ladies upset, and what do they decide to do?
- What does Horner decide to do vis-à-vis Alithea?
- What does Mrs. Pinchwife ultimately decide to do?
Discuss one or more of these moments in your response … especially if it seems unclear to you.
- Why are the ladies upset, and what do they decide to do?
- What does Horner decide to do vis-à-vis Alithea?
- What does Mrs. Pinchwife ultimately decide to do?
Discuss one or more of these moments in your response … especially if it seems unclear to you.
Or
3) Feel free also to answer #1 or #2 by taking
a look at the latter half of the play in the BBC adaptation (1975, starring
Helen Mirren and Anthony Andrews as Horner --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnqwh344eT8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnqwh344eT8)
Or
4) Discuss another part of the final action that seems to be in need of exploration, elucidation, or comment.
Is the end of this play supposed to be considered a happy one? After going through all the trouble of showing just how terrible, violent and even murderous Pinchwife can be, is the audience supposed to be happy that he ends up back together with his wife? And what’s the deal with Horner? Does he really fall out of love with Margery so easily in the end? And it’s all very nice for him to protect her honor, but he doesn’t seem as concerned about her life, letting her go back to a man who drew a sword on her in his presence. The wives seem to have gotten off easily – they have their cake and eat it too. But the ending is of the title character is so terrible that for her sake, this play would be more appropriately called a tragedy. I understand that “comedy” just means that it should uphold the status quo, and I suppose that in that sense the play fulfills its mission. The wives go back to their husbands and the maiden is saved from a bad match and is married to the right man. But given all the terrible actions of Mr. Pinchwife, Margery’s ending can hardly be called comedic in the colloquial sense of the word.
ReplyDeleteAs for the matter of character development, Margery is an interesting question. On one hand, she does seem to change over the course of the play. The guileless country girl becomes a clever townswoman, and the innocent wife turns around and cheats on her husband. But then again, perhaps she is the same woman all along. After all, she can’t keep a secret longer than a second from beginning to end, she is open to another man’s affections from beginning to end, and she acts as her husband predicts from the beginning, leading one to think that she is as one dimensional as he thinks she is.
The last scene seems to be a little unrealistic. The ladies get drunk sing and begin to confess. What is compelling is that these seem to be very traditional male actions. The ladies speak in bawdy double entendres and discuss their husbands…preferences. They each in turn reveal that they have had “conversations” with Horner. To my mind, this drunken confessional scene seems a little unrealistic, very much like a Bond villain detailing his wrongdoings. One resolution is that, perhaps, this is meant to be unrealistic and shows that if it weren’t for Horner these women would not catalog their “sins” in public. This last scene is a way to encapsulate the way Horner has ruined all those he came into contact with, by making the women bawdy and irreverent and the men stupid and cuckolds.
ReplyDeleteI did really enjoy the way the women seem to speak about Horner (and other men) like he is just another one of their playthings (lines 50-55 in act 4 were particularly thrilling). It is almost as if by Horner effeminizing himself (by pretending to be impotent) he took on other feminine qualities and the women began to see him as just an object for their desire.
I do have a lot of questions as to what this play could possibly have meant to the audience in terms of morality: the ladies don’t seem to get punished and can continue to use Horner in this fashion until his cover is blown or they find another plaything. Pinchwife who HITS AND THREATENS HIS WIFE WITH DEATH gets to keep his “baggage” proving that men can get away with murder but a woman is only as good as her pure image. Then Margery herself, I want to wrap her up and give her a hot cup of tea (or something stronger), she is so absurd and naïve in the last scene, fixated on Horner despite the fact that is it obvious that he will never marry her.
I understand that comedy conserves societal norms, but why does this have to be the one norm Wycherly decides to conserve?
The scene most troublesome to me is 4.2, when Margaret writes the letter to Horner. As a modern person, that exchange between the Pinchwifes best describes what is intrinsically wrong with the relationship, a marriage that is, at its core, one of domestic abuse. It is impossible, as a 21st century person, to read their interactions in any other way. And that is what makes the play a story that can be played in modern times. Margaret is of a particularly low IQ and extraordinarily naive, but the issues here are ones of emotional and psychological abuse. And she does not have to be treated as a deeply anachronistic character precisely because of that abuse. She is not like every other marginalized, repressed, constricted woman in a reality that simply must be expected. Her husband is of an especially down right messed up, abusive character. Unfortunately, that story remains entirely relevant.
ReplyDelete*Don't know why the rest of my comment didn't get posted:
ReplyDeleteAll the other women, as twisted, perverted, or wrong, their relationships -- legal and recreational -- may be, they are all situated in distinct positions of power. Alithea is a thinking woman and though Harcourt attempts to objectify her, or control her, she refuses to be manipulated. Similarly, her full awareness of the utter idiocy of her unfortunate fiance, even as she continues to submit to the engagement given the previous agreements, place her in a position of knowledge and strength the likes of which Margaret cannot even begin to hope to acquire. Pinchwife often uses the line "She will know herself," a line with obvious sexual tones, but also the perhaps more meaningful element of this abusive man's fear that his wife will come to recognize her own value, not only sexually, but as a basic human being. She will know herself, and so she will leave him.
Shoshana raised an interesting question, how could Horner so easily fall out of love with Margery? I think the reality all along was that he wasn't in love with her, he was just experiencing lust. It occurred to me that the play actually draws an interesting parallel between men and women with regard to love, specifically the fact that Margery falls head over heels for a single man whilst Horner "dallies" with multiple women simultaneously, he clearly doesn't mean that he "loves Margery in the same way that she claims to "love" him. Perhaps this is a statement pertaining to the differing natures of the sexes.
ReplyDeleteI was slightly disappointed that we didn't discuss Horner more in depth when to me, he was the most crucial character and the play is centered around his rouse. Horner seems to be significantly more intelligent and in touch with reality than any other character in the story.
Ultimately everything works out according to his plan and in his favor because of his cunning strategy and his preying on the vulnerabilities of the other characters. Horner is a selfish character who stands isolated and emotionally disengaged from everyone around him. He objectifies women and uses them for physical pleasure, having no interest in them beyond this "game". What was absolutely fascinating to me about Horner was that in a cast of characters so exceptionally shallow and simplistic, he stands out as extremely complex, not just in that his intelligence is far superior but also in that he is intuitive, he understands the nature of men and women and the jealousy that exists between them and he perfectly orchestrates a plan to earn the trust of men in order to get what he wants from their wives. His words that end the play illustrate that in the end wit overcomes morality, and yes, that is not exactly the "happy" ending we had hoped for but it is an entertaining twist that I thought made for a satisfying, unexpected and amusing conclusion and this play is intended to be a comedy after all...
It seems as though most characters remain static in the Country Wife, especially Horner. I think his character remains very consistent throughout the play and what he sets out to accomplish- seducing women and conflicting with their husbands- is what exactly ends up happening throughout the whole play. Margery Pinchwife also seems to stay static for most of the play- her character is immature, not especially wise, and somewhat whiney. She acts more as a child than as a wife, especially when expecting her husband to let her go see a play just to meet other men.
ReplyDeleteThe whole idea of marriage in the play isn't very well respected. Horner is the reason every "city wife" behaves the way she does- letting loose and not keeping their husbands their main focus- and he is precisely the reason Mr. Pinchwife tries to keep Margery a "country wife"- a wife who is home and doesn't mingle. Still, he does it in a jealous, unrealistic way that would only encourage a wife to want to get out even more. Even Margery, who doesn't seem to be the smartest, finds her way to Horner. As for the other women, they very much uphold their status as "city wives", especially with regard to Horner.