The perception of men and women and the aspect of misogyny in William Wycherley’s “The Country Wife”

I Structure

II Introduction – Restoration Comedy and “The Country Wife”

III Perception of men and women from a man’s perspective – Douglas M. Young

IV Misogyny in “The Country Wife”

V Bibliography

II Introduction – Restoration Comedy and “The Country Wife”

The re-opening of the theatres in 1660 after 18 years of banishment announced a rebirth for English drama. The following period was called Restoration and was quite popular primarily for the sexual explicitness, which was highly encouraged by Charles II. Socially diverse audiences watched the crowded and bustling plays. “Variety and dizzying changes are typical of Restoration comedy”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_comedy).

The era of Restoration comedy culminated twice: in the mid-1670s with aristocratic comedies and in the mid-1690s with the acceptance of a wider audience. The comedies of these two times are extremely different from each other.

William Wycherley’s works are an example of the gold 1670s era and are quite ‘hard’ representing ceaseless machinations and conquest in an aristocratic macho lifestyle. The play that is going to be examined was written in 1675 and mirrors an aristocratic and anti-Puritan ideology. It is based on different plays by Molière with some added features like colloquial prose dialogue, a complicated, bustling plot gallimaufry, and many sex jokes. It contains two insensitive plot devices: a libertine pretending being impotent in order to have secret affairs with married women and a young country wife discovering the pleasures of city life, especially the spellbinding men. The play itself was a subject to elaborate praise and moral outrage. A lot of critics appreciated the linguistic energy and wit. Nowadays the original play is a stage favorite again, especially due to the linguistic finesse, the incisive social satire, and the openness to different interpretations.

III Perception of men and women from a woman’s perspective – Susan J. Owen

“The Country Wife” was played till 1753 and reissued in 1924 and therewith endured the test of time. It belongs to the sub-genre of ‘sex comedy’, which had its popularity in the 1670s. There is no clear break with previous dramas of the Restoration era; elements of heroic plays persist in these comedies (Owen, 2004: 42).

The parallels with the heroic plays follow two aspects: at first that of the virtuous characters, e.g. Alithea and Harcourt, and second that of the protagonist being a rake with some of the fancy qualities of the disgruntled heroes (excess of words and deeds). The rake is not as idealistic as the heroic hero but has also an unnatural high ego and a strong claim for personal and social independence (ibid: 43).

The central question is how is ‘sex comedy’? The issue is quite complicated due to several factors. At first, the “libertinism itself is not simply a philosophy of ‘anything goes’, sexually speaking, but propounds freedoms for the aristocratic rake which are not extended to women or to men outside the charmed circle” (ibid: 43). Second, these “comedies may appear to condemn while actually titillating in the same way that violence against women may be ostensibly condemned but actually relished or fostered in Hollywood movies today” (ibid: 43).

The issue of “new sexiness” gets more important. The sex comedies relate to Renaissance plays, e.g. elements of Jonson’s humor comedy or Fletcher’s love and wit are presented. Sentimental and moral elements, which are also to be found in cavalier drama gain more influence, e.g. in humorous elements concerning Pinchwife. The humor in the play, as suggested by different critics, is at women’s expense and males gain the control. Other critics see more sexual freedom for women. However, they all agree on marriage as the central theme, which is skeptically treated by Wycherley (ibid: 44).

Horner represents the manly image of the dramatist as a street ruffian huffing back at the critics. Wycherley uses metaphors that transform the actor playing Horner into a prostitute at the prologue. At the end of this prologue the actor makes a reference to the way in which the theatre is ‘open’ to the audience (penetrating even backstage). The actor playing Horner changes to an effeminized quasi-cuckold, devoted to women and putting a brave face on it. The images of a ruffian and cuckold are both powerless and ridiculous therefore it is time for another type of man – the manipulator Horner (ibid: 45).

But what type of man is Horner? The opinions of the critics range from master of sexual freedom to monster and in terms of sexual politics from a successful user of phallic power to a feminized object of woman’s desire and manipulation. The name itself can be interpreted differently: as a suggestion of making a cuckold (the symbol of the horn), a kind of wild beast with animalistic sexuality and, of course, the horned devil. The standard of normal male behavior and identity also includes the bragging of sexual mastery on which the pride depends. These ‘normal’ men are derided and Horner is seen as more truly a man because he does not care about outer appearance. Appearances are extremely important in this society, which raises the questions if Horner can be manly although he lost his reputation of manhood. A significant marker of being a ‘real’ man is true wit and Horner is “the trickster whose ploys both exploit and expose the vices and follies of others” (ibid: 46). With the pretence of being impotent, Horner wants to get rid of creditors of all sorts, including women. He pursues a futile and ever-vanishing goal: “once won, women become a burden to be shed, an obligation to be evaded” (ibid: 47). In Act I he concludes with a cynical reference to jealousy and the pox as diseases bred by love and wenching.

However, there are various types of ‘false men’ for Horner: city husbands, fumbling keepers (the potential cuckolds, e.g. Sir Jaspar). Dorilant goes a step further and extends this to old men in general because they lost their sexual potency. Pinchwife is a different type: he is a potential cuckold and an ex-rake, but most of all a tormented figure.

Sparkish is metaphorically linked to the cuckold, a jerk, disdained by all the others for his foolishness and self-deceiving pride. All men in the play are targets of wit and trickery of the rakes and obtain their own sexual betrayal (ibid: 47).

There is also some kind of comic provisional aspect found concerning the exchanges about true and false men in the play, for two reasons.

1. The false men are not different from the others. For example Sparkish is much more a cavalier than his companions. He trusts his friends with his wife’s honor and keeps heroic and chivalric codes. In society this aspect differs a lot: the “heroic values of friendship, trust and freedom from jealousy and suspicion become foolish” (ibid: 48).
2. It is also equivocal whether there are any ‘true men’. They are all to some extent derided, also Horner. Besides, there is nearly no difference between Pinchwife who wants to be sure of his wife to be faithful to him by marrying a simple or naïve wife and Horner who keeps close touch to wives by pretending to be impotent.

Horner is animalistic and is referred to as ‘beast’ and ‘toad’. Pinchwife is a cuckold and compares himself to a ‘kind of wild beast’. Harcourt is the only one who is in some way close to a heroic standard, e.g. in the end when standing by his woman although her reputation is endangered. He is also ingenious showed by the pretence of being his brother in holy orders to carry out an invalid marriage, a really funny aspect. However, Harcourt is not all different from the other men. He helps Horner in tormenting Pinchwife (III.ii.) and physically represses Margery’s would-be protectors as Horner leads her off. Harcourt seems to have a rake reputation shown by non-cavalier attitudes towards women (ibid: 48). Nevertheless, he is grown emotionally at the end of the play, in contrast to Horner (ibid: 49).

The next aspect in Owen’s paper is Wycherley’s view on love and friendship. Harcourt describes heterosexual pleasures as unmanly which was quite common for this era overfocussing on women but the following behavior shows a more noble attitude to love. Horner reduces the homosocial perspective to the impossible by declaring “Good fellowship and friendship are lasting, rational, and manly pleasures” (I.i. 209-10) and that “it is as hard to be a good fellow, a good friend, and a lover of women, as ‘tis to be a good fellow, a good friend, and a lover of money” (I.i. 222-4). This utterance can be seen as quite disingenuous. He does not value male friendship because love will exclude friendship. Horner avoids former acquaintances due to the pursuit of women which is most important and even lets his best friend Harcourt believe his pretence. Love and friendship are treated ironically during the whole play. The men enjoy their power, even if they are on the receiving end because it shows that they are part of the gang. Relations between men in this play-world are power relations (ibid: 48).

[...]