1) One aspect
of the play that deserves attention is its extended treatment of foreigners vs.
the English. Choose a moment in the play where you think that there’s either
chauvinism, or national pride, or some combination going on. Who comes off
well? Who is made fun of? Or are the relationships portrayed differently?
or
2) What do you make of the public dimension of this play? One good
spot is Hellena’s, “Let most voices carry it, for Heaven or the captain?”
(5.1.576-77) What’s going on here, and why does the play move toward a
resolution (at least of Hellena’s plot) by making reference to a larger group
of people?
or
3) Make a
brief comparison of the ends of the plots of Florinda, Hellena, and Angellica
Bianca. Is there any rhyme or reason in all this?
or
4) Discuss
another part of today’s reading that seems to be in need of exploration,
elucidation, or comment.
The character of Willmore seems to echo Horner in his strange place as a central positive character with roguish tendencies. On one hand, Willmore is supposedly a good natured, swaggering fellow who doesn’t take societal stringencies too seriously. He is portrayed in a positive light, as an essentially good but trouble-making fellow. Yet his actions, analyzed away from his charming demeanor, could easily be that of a villain. He breaks hearts, leading Angellica almost to murder and despair. He bullies women into being with him, most strikingly in the case of Florinda. And he causes his friend Belvile untold harm through his thoughtless actions. In some of these cases (excluding the scene with Florinda – that one is very hard to swallow), one can see how a good actor or director can make these happenings somewhat comical, or overblown. Even the scene where Willmore’s life is threatened can be made overdramatically funny, if the actor playing Angellica makes her heartbreak ludicrous rather than wrenching. Yet objectively, his actions could easily label him villainous. This strange combination of protagonist and villain is starting to seem like a theme in Restoration Comedy, where the position normally filled by a “good guy” is instead filled with a rogue, whose dastardly deeds may get a slight rebuke but no real comeuppance, and despite it all, he secures his happily ever-after.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of compelling female characters in this play. Most of them seem to have some degree of agency. However, despite this thrilling “freedom” the ladies of this play are still at the hands of the men. In this play, it is physical dominance, rather than any sort of mental dominance that makes the women rely on their men. Florinda is at the whims of Blunt, and she is trapped until a strong man can set her free. Hellena only escapes a life of confinement through marriage. Angelica is thwarted in her attempts to avenge herself on Wilmore by Antonio not so dramatically taking away her gun. Again and again, women were completed by physically dominant men. I did appreciate that in terms of the actual scheming, the women were allowed to take control.
What seems fascinating to me is the characters the ending for both Belvile and Wilmore seems to be the same. The both get the woman and a happy future. The way they both achieved this end are entirely different. Wilmore was carefree, impulsive, cheeky, and unrestricted. Belvile, on the other hand, adheres to a code of chivalry and is more reserved in his advances. If the outcome is the same, it almost seems as if the strict lifestyle is really for naught, because Wilmore got the same future and had more fun along the way! If this could be thought of as a pitting of two lifestyles, conservative and liberal, against each other, then it seems as if liberal wins the day.
*A continuing rant from last post:
ReplyDeleteBelvile to Willmore: "A plague of your ignorance! If it had not been Florinda, must you be a beast? a brute? a senseless swine?" This is so satisfying, it was what I'm desperate to hear from men in plays and poems that usually show the male circle reveling in their group and individual sexual conquests -- and they are, so often, forceful and forced conquests. Belvile's reaction is altogether irregular, turning on his gendered and national ally in favor of protecting the foreign. However, this reaction does not last, and in the comedy structure, it is the unknotting at the end that is ostensibly the appropriate, awaited, correct response. Belvile embraces Willmore as a brother; Florinda submits to the paternalistic guidance of the men in her life and forgives her (almost?) rapists, plural. So, everything is better and as it should be: the English are united, they do not fight one another; the woman is married -- and, importantly it is the woman's marriage that ought to be emphasized given that it is they whose virtue can only ever be maintained through union, while men live in the gray area. Barring an infuriated twenty-first century reaction at Willmore not being killed -- or, come on, at least jailed -- there still remains the questions of structure and genre. What is the place in the comedy drama tradition and in the Restoration in particular of the sexual violence-based unrest between expected allies? What about the resolution of those, to put it lightly, tensions?
I would so want to be satisfied with this play with the promise of something greatly different and exciting achieved by its end, but, ultimately, what are we left with? Women cut down, again. Men get off scot free, again.
The three women in this play remind me of the three sisters in “Fiddler on the Roof” – their endings range from bad to worse. Florinda’s ending (like the eldest daughter in Fiddler) is quite good, though not ideal – she marries a good man, they have mutual love, though of course he is not her father’s chosen suitor and is not of high class. She and Belvile are a seemingly good match – they are the best and most pious of their respective groups. Hellena, on the other hand, (like the second daughter in Fiddler) is the rebel – she marries passionately, though to someone who is far from ideal and who breaks from society. Technically, her ending is still supposedly happy. She marries for love, she escapes her nunnery, and it seems as though she and Wilmore are on equal footing – she is as witty, clever, and free spirited as he is. Yet her partner is a rogue, who will likely not be faithful. One can hardly feel secure in their love after having seen Wilmore’s actions throughout the play. Angellica, finally, is the saddest – or, from a liberal perspective, the happiest – ending (much like the lost third daughter in Fiddler – I’m not sure how relevant this comparison is, I just find it interesting). In the end, she is rejected and heartbroken. But she is also the most proactive – she takes Wilmore to task for his deeds - the most independent – she doesn’t, as usually expect for women, need a man in the end – and the most noble – she lets Wilmore live despite her own anguish. In fact, from a modern or feminist perspective, the ranking of best to worst endings would go from Angelica, to Hellena to Florinda – from most proactive to least. But likely, from the contemporary audience’s perspective, the ranking would be in the opposite order. Based on their propriety and chastity, these women get their endings. Florinda, as the most modest and pure, gets the best husband, ranking down to Angelica, who as a prostitute is condemned to live sad and alone.
ReplyDeleteOkay, Restoration England lets talk.
ReplyDeleteRape is not funny. Now I understand that comedy itself doesn’t solely refer to humor. However, its placement in the play begs the question, was it meant to be funny or romantic? To have a woman struggle to retain her virtue, and against all odds she does? I know that I shouldn’t read it and attach modern feelings to a drama popular in the late 17th century…but was the attitude that different? Was the perception of womanly virtue that fundamental that the conservation of it was a thing to be depicted in such an insensitive manner? Is Florinda the image of most women or is Helena? The woman who fights for her virtue or the woman is looking for some fun? In reality, the three women Angelica, Helena, and Florinda depict the three options open to the majority of women, prostitute, nun, or wife. And not matter which they chose, they were still in danger because they are defined only by their virtue.
The one who had, in my opinion, the most potential for freedom from these constraints was Angelica, who tried to move between two options from prostitute to wife. But society can’t let her. It needs to conserve the proper roles for women, rigid and inflexible (oh conserve…hi comedy). Sadly, all the courtesan power and wealth can’t liberate Angelica, who just as susceptible to submissive passion everyone else is.
Sorry, my thoughts are a bit all over the place for this play but one final thought. The Rover himself may not be Wilmore. I think a better candidate for the title of the rover is Helena. She wanders more than he does, by wandering to places she hasn’t previously been and doing things outside of what is expected from her (let's face it nothing Wilmore did was really shocking). Helena had more at stake as well. Willmore had nothing to lose in anything he did, not much of an adventurer in my opinion.
I think that Willmore's relationship with Hellena serves as a direct contrast to that of Belville and Florinda. Florida and Belville represent the classic male female dynamic of the time. They observe the traditional gender roles; Florida is the quiet obedient woman who frequently finds herself in need of rescue and Belville is the manly love interest who saves her REPEATEDLY. Hellena, on the other hand, does not conform to gender expectations at any point in this play. Aphra Behn is clearly trying to make a statement about gender roles. The fact that Hellena refuses to abide by the social norms prescribed to females enables her to escape a miserable life in a monastery. Willmore, who can only be described as a chauvinist pig, eventually comes to admire her strong willed nature and admits this to her in Act 5 when he says:
ReplyDelete"By Heaven thou art brave, and I admire thee strangely.
I wish I were that dull, that constant thing,
Which thou woud’st have, and Nature never meant me:
I must, like chearful Birds, sing in all Groves,
And perch on every Bough,
Billing the next kind She that flies to meet me;
Yet after all cou’d build my Nest with thee,
Thither repairing when I’d lov’d my round,
And still reserve a tributary Flame".
This is a major twist in the plot. I think Willmore is expressing a revelation about gender roles and love versus lust. The same chauvinist pig who objectifies women and uses them merely as playthings to satisfy his lusts, finally comes to recognize and appreciate the strength of Hellena who has proven herself to be his equal. Florida is ever the fairytale princess in contrast to Hellena's wild nature. As Miri mentioned, both are able to get what they want in the end despite the fact that they go about achieving their respective goals in very different ways. I'm not entirely sure what to make of this - Its almost as though the writer has made a powerful point and at the last minute decides to retract it.