Critique of The Victorian Society by study "The importance of being Earnest

Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest: A Critique of The Victorian Society

• The plot of the play is overwhelmingly funny: Algernon Mon￾crieff creates a fictitious sick friend named “Bunbury” whose name and condition he uses to leave London when he finds his aunt, Lady Bracknell, too domineering. On the other hand, Algernon’s friend, John (Jack) Worthing, also invents an equally fictitious brother, Ernest, a reprobate who always goes into some scrapes. Jack poses as Ernest to win the hand of Algernon’s cousin, Miss Gwendolen Fairfax. Later, in the country house of Jack, Algernon impersonates the non￾existent Ernest, in order to woo Cecily Cardew, Jack’s ward. Thus the lynchpin of the plot is Bunburyism—an ingenious technique for impersonating false identities.

• The sub-title of the play, “A Trivial Comedy for Serious Peo￾ple”, captures the essence of the play is a nutshell. Here Wilde plays with the words, “trivial” and “serious” which be￾come complimentary to each other in the play. Truly, it is the trivialization of earnestness that Wilde actually celebrates in this play. 

• LANE: I believe it is a very pleasant state, Sir. I have had very little experience of it myself up to the present. I have only been married once. That was in consequence of a misunder￾standing between myself and a young person. (pp.1-2)

• The concept of marriage as an ideal institution is mocked in good humour in the above conversation between Algernon and his manservant Lane. Marriage is conceived as a mis￾understanding between the young couple and the first mar￾riage cannot provide any experience! When Jack arrives, Al￾gernon comments that women never marry the men they flirt with. Like all other issues, marriage too is treated paradoxi￾cally in this play. Algernon’s remark that divorces are made in heaven, directly contradicts the divine saying, “Marriages are made in heaven.” All these comments hint at the moral laxity of the time. 

• Next, the class issue. Victorian period saw the rise of the mid￾dle class which often posed a threat to the aristocrats. The exploitation of the poor in this age of industrialization became a serious concern for the social reformers and some legal ac￾tions were taken to protect the lower class. This lower class often features is the contemporary literary works. Wilde’s dra￾mas are no exceptions. After discussing with Lane the views on marriage, Algernon comments:

• ALGERNON: Lane’s views on marriage seem somewhat lax. 

Really, if the lower orders don’t set us a good example, what
on earth is the use of them? They seem, as a class, to have
absolutely no sense of moral responsibility. (p.2)

• Without any harsh satire, by using the device of paradox, Wilde pinpoints the irresponsibility and lasciviousness of the upper class.

• Both the young ladies, Gwendolen and Cecily are interested in the name “Ernest” which Wilde uses as a pun on “earnest”. Gwendolen reveals that her “ideal has always been to love someone of the name of Ernest” (p.13). To love a person named Ernest is the “girlish dream” of Cecily too. They are not interested in the quality of earnestness but the name Ernest. This highlights their reliance on superficiality and artificiality. They are guided by “first impressions”. They fall in love, make engagements, break off form that relation and again fall in love with the same person. Their “first impressions” change in no time.

• Wilde also captures the contemporary vogue of sentimental novels in this play. The young ladies of the time were ob￾sessed with the three-volume novels. Miss Prism, the prude lady, was so engrossed in composing such a novel in her younger days that she had forgotten the baby (later Jack) which was in her charge and put the manuscript of the novel in the perambulator and the baby in a large hand bag and left it (the baby) in the cloak-room of a station! Gwendolen and Cecily are also interested in the tear-jerking novels full of excessive emotion. Regarding this, we may quote Algernon’s words: “More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn’t read” (p.5).

Work Citation

1].    Worth, K. (1983). ‘The Importance of Being Earnest.’ Oscar Wilde, 152–182. doi: 10.1007/978-1-349-17157-6_8

Criticism on Important of being Ernest

Criticism Concerning the Title:

The satire starts with the title of the Drama. The title of Oscar Wilde's most successful
play “The Importance of Being Earnest” features a salient pun in the form of the word "earnest", which means "honest" and "truthful" and the name "Ernest" which is the name of the alter ego that main character Jack Worthing uses to slide away from responsibilities and do as he pleases.
The reality is, however, that nobody in the play seems to be very earnest.


Dualism:

In The Importance of Being Earnest, there are two principal male characters, Jack and
Algy, who have invented aliases that enable them to lead a double life. The dualistic
theme is not only displayed in the characters use of double identities but in the language of the play and the play as a whole.John Worthing, called Jack, is the protagonist of the play. Jack has a country estate in Hertfordshire where he is the Justice of Peace. He is a serious, responsible guardian to his adoptive father’s granddaughter Cecily and he stands for all the Victorian values of morality: duty, honor and respectability; “When one is placed in the position of guardian, one has to adopt a very high moral tone on all subjects. It’s one’s duty to do so” (Wilde 301).Wilde used the concepts of double identity as well as a dualistic theme in the play, revealed in the language and in the lying, in order to exploit the hypocrisy of the society, i.e. the ruling class, and in doing so he deconstructed Englishness. There is a
deconstruction of gender roles, the church, the family, the education and the legal
system in the play and these are exposed through the characters and their lying.
Wilde depicts a society 16 with manners and morals used as a façade, a society where people try to conceal their secret lives with the use of language itself as a mask.



Wilde’s Main Criticism in the Play Is with the Institution of Marriage:



The Importance of being Earnest by Oscar Wilde uses satire to ridicule the cultural
norms of marriage love and mind-set which were very rigid during the Victorian Age.
Because it uses satire to ridicule these institutions, it shows the deviance from the social order by making ridiculous the ideas of standards, morals and manners. By trying to correct the flaws of the characters in this play, this piece also serves as a great form of criticism."The play really owes something to the restoration comic tradition."Again, Wilde is satirizing the institution of marriage, as it is not based on love, but on more vain superficial criteria. Although in this case there is exaggeration used to satirize the vanity of the aristocrats, Wilde still brings across the point that both Gwendolen and Cecily may have refused to marry the 'men of their dreams' if their names weren't 'Ernest.'Furthermore, Algernon’s negative views on marriage in the opening scene, where he refers to it as 'demoralizing' seem to suddenly change when he meets Cecily.Gwendolen and Cecily both appear as ladies when they first meet, calling each other sisters, "My first impressions of people are never wrong." Yet when they believe that they're engaged to the same "Ernest”, there is immediate coldness between them. Gwendolen satirically says to Cecily, "I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different." (Wilde, 559) .This is called 'dissembling' as the characters aren't literally wearing masks, but metaphorically they are all pretending to be someone they aren't. There is the division between truth and identity and it shows that sometimes certain laws in society force people to lead double lives.Lady Bracknell is the driving force behind the plot of The Importance of Being Earnest.
She represents women of the Victorian upper class society and believes that those
of high class should be the ones in power. She has very little opinion of those with no
title, or money and views the upper class society as being a 'closed club'. In other words, most people don't deserve to be in it unless they were born into it. She appears
as a guardian of society in that she forcefully dictates who should marry who in the play. In the first scene, Gwendolen is unable to defend herself from wanting to marry Jack when he proposes to her. Lady Bracknell firmly steps in saying, "Pardon me, you are not engaged to anyone. When you do become engaged to someone, I, or your father, will inform you." Lady Bracknell is portrayed as a forceful character who leaves no room for opposition. Even though Gwendolen wants to oppose her, she hasn't the strength to do so. Wilde uses Lady Bracknell to show a typical aristocrat who bends no
rules of the upper class society. One example where he shows how values are inverted and emphasis is placed on more trivial matters is the scene where Lady Bracknell meets with Jack to discuss Gwendolen. In this scene we see that instead of asking Jack
if he loves Gwendolen (which would seem to be the most important question); Lady
Bracknell focuses on the materialistic side of it. She questions Jack about his money,
land, house and the area in which he lives. She makes it clear that it's important for
Jack to have a house in the town because Gwendolen cannot live in a country house. It is also seen here that Lady Bracknell treats the trivial things seriously, even though she's supposed to be an upholder of the values of society. However, little attention is paid to moral values. Instead, Lady Bracknell is displeased with the side of which Jack's town house is located- the unfashionable side. She thinks that
everyone's interest will be similar to hers and subtly tells him, "The unfashionable side. I thought there was something. However that could easily be altered." The entire way in which Lady Bracknell meets with Jack as though she is of a superior being than him. She takes down his answers to her questions in a notepad, as though it's an interview rather than a personal meeting with her daughter's love. The setting of the meeting reflects how Lady Bracknell views marriage. It's more like interviewing someone for the job of being Gwendolen's husband rather than getting to know the man her daughter is
interested in. Upon the shock that Jack was found and he doesn't know who his real
parents are, Lady Bracknell immediately dismisses him, especially when she finds out that he was found in a handbag. The farce continues when she tells Jack,
“I would strongly advise you, Mr. Worthing, to try and acquire some relations as
soon as possible, and make a definite effort to produce at any rate one parent, of
either sex, before the season is quite over.”
This is an extremely impossible request of Lady Bracknell, as it is obvious that Jack has no knowledge about his real parents. Although he knows that he desperately wants to marry Gwendolen, he doesn't hide his amazement upon Lady Bracknell's request, "Well I don't see how I could possibly manage to do that. I can produce the hand-bag at any moment." This simply highlights how trivial the important things are to Lady Bracknell and how important the trivial things are to her. This is a major point Oscar Wilde focuses on, in this comedy of manners, values are totally reversed.Another example of Lady Bracknell's ignorance of the non-aristocrats is seen where she is ready to turn a blind eye to Cecily, when she hears that Algernon is engaged to her.

She immediately judges Cecily based on the fact that Jack is her guardian. However,
her views instantly change when Jack tells her that Cecily has a hundred and thirty
thousand pounds in funds, "A hundred and thirty thousand pounds! Miss.Cardew
seems to me a most attractive young lady, now that I look at her." Once again
emphasis is placed on a person's wealth rather than their personality, sincerity, or
compassion for the other. Marriage is viewed as an economic factor, whereby people marry for wealth or to conserve wealth in their families, especially Lady Bracknell who represents the guardian of an upper class society. She is however a hypocrite and uses social morals to her convenience. For example, she refuses to let Jack marry Gwendolen because of his social background, yet she tries to justify a broke Algernon marrying the wealthy Cecily. Her social hypocrisy is highlighted when she also confesses that she was not rich when she married her husband. "Never speak
disrespectfully of society, Algernon. Only people who can't get into it do that.
When I married to Lord Bracknell I had no fortune of any kind." She furthermore thinks that her status gives her the right to approve of the marriage between Cecily and Algernon without asking Jack what he thinks. Eventually, both sides come to an
agreement and Jack's name turns out to really be Ernest and he's really Lady
Bracknell's nephew. Wilde gives the typical happy ending where everyone lives happily ever after and the stern mask that Lady Bracknell wears slowly turns into a smile.

Work Citation


1].     Ahmed, M. (n.d.). " Criticism in Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest ". Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/34774153/_Criticism_in_Oscar_Wildes_The_Importance_of_Being_Earnest_

Thanking activity on " Thomas Hardy's Jude the obscure"

1]  Hardy and Marriage .
This period reflected Christian values such as moral responsibility and proper sexual behaviour.There were double standards regarding sex. The Victorian view of sexuality was based on two types of women, the Madonna and the whore (Morgan xii), where one is fit for sex and the other for life.Any sexual relationship outside wedlock was forbidden and women had to remain pure for their future husbands-to-be because,their reputation was dependent on their sexual status and virginity.Many women entered matrimony at a young age either to ascend the social class system or to seek financial security in a wealthy husband. Generally, the Victorian concept of marriage was a means of financial union between families or a “financial transaction”  In Jude the Obscure, women are not more secure or protected in marriage than outside of wedlock. Both Sue and Arabella are representatives of the growing intellectual and sexual freedom, which several reformers like Mill tried to advance through literature of that time. Their modern views on love and ironical statements about traditional marriage are symbolic of their rejection of the cruelty of this institution against women in particular.

2]       Hardy’s View on Divorce and
                             Cohabitation
Jude the Obscure shows Hardy’s distinct view of the social institutions, particularly regarding “cohabiting/Free union” and divorce. Due to the strictness of the English divorce law,which recognized only adultery as grounds for divorce (Frost 16, 96), many couples cohabited or parted to seek happiness outside of wedlock because they could not end their union legally and thus lived apart (Frost 7, 40, 72). The only way to obtain a divorce other than by ecclesiastical annulment was through a private Act of Parliament, a process that was complex and expensive for the poor classes , Eventually, people were desperate and searched for alternative ways to join their lovers and leave unhappy marriages, such as cohabiting. In general, the term “cohabiting” is as old as marriage itself but was becoming more common as large numbers of people were joining this “liberated” group. The definition means couples living “as husband and wife” and having a sexual relation. Cohabitees presented themselves as married to society and shared domestic duties, the same last name and reared children  The notion of “cohabiting” also problematized the values of “family”, “marriage” and the state’s role in these institutions (Frost 1). This free union threatened and undermined the whole concept of marriage because it provided an alternative solution for couples to be together, replaced the “sacred” institution of marriage and weakened the state’s authority over people (Frost 1, 3, 9). This union (cohabiting) challenged the Victorian marital expectations .When Hardy wrote Jude the Obscure in 1895, British marriage laws had recently been liberalized and there was a continuous debate about women’s rights to divorce for reasons other than adultery. In his novel, Hardy brings the notion of cohabiting into the social discussion. He draws his characters into disastrous unions to show the failure of this institution in adopting new ideologies and progressing change into the lives
of unhappy couples. Hardy tried to address the complexity of marriage and divorce in Jude the Obscure in order to reflect the difficulties in the legal laws.

3] Hardy and the New Woman
They are representatives of the model of the “New Woman”. The term “The New Woman” was “a generalized phrase describing an economically independent woman who stood socially, politically, and educationally equal among men. It was a topic of much concern and debate in both England and the United States in the late nineteenth century.Her “newness” is clear in the way she views the social institutions. After entering marriage, Sue shows her disappointment in the institution of marriage that deprives women of their sovereignty. She expresses her disappointment in the social institution of marriage, which attracts people to marry. She says: “how hopelessly vulgar an institution legal marriage is – a sort of a trap to catch a man- I can’t to think of it”
 Sue cannot bear to think of is her legal state to be bounded to her man and not having an individual entity. In this, Sue becomes the spokeswoman against the suppression of the institution of marriage. In the preface to his novel, Hardy realized the new prospects of the decade’s “new sensation” . Sue Bridehead “the woman of the feminist movement-the slight, pale ‘bachelor’ girl-the intellectualised, emancipated bundle of nerves that modern conditions were producing”.If Sue is equal to men in education, Arabella is equal to men in her “certain maleness that allows the reader to see the way in which she breaks social expectations” (Young4). She does the work that men do. She slaughters an animal and works in a bar. Arabella’s ironical view of marriage and traditions is characteristic of the New Woman. She does not consider traditions like marriage seriously (Young 5). Marriage matters only for the financial security it provides.

4] The Case Against Marriage
         4.1. Hardy’s cynicism about marriage and his advocacy of the Free Union (Jude and Sue)
There were no options such as not to marry because society regarded marriage the only means for women to survive through reliance on men.Moreover, marriage acknowledged no legal rights for women in contrast to men and only emphasized women’s devotional wifehood. As soon as a woman entered matrimony, she lost her property and entity to her husband. Hardy reminds his readers of women’s insecurity in marriage and the complexity of their situation in this institution. After entering marriage with Phillotson, Sue expresses her disappointment in the institution of marriage. An institution that suppressed, subordinated and enslaved women to men. She expresses her distaste at performing the marital rituals and tells Jude: “How should I like to go in and see what the spot is like where I am so soon to kneel and do it”Sue has to kneel to this institution, which betrayed her and her race. The once independent, active, free-thinking Sue who
 not afraid to mix with men, is uncomfortable in her new position in marriage. Later, while planning for her wedding ceremony with Phillotson, Sue is confronted with the unequal terms in the marriage ceremony. The marital terms deprive women of their individual rights as human beings equal to men and they put them under the suppression and control of men. In fact, the Victorian marriage had one obvious feature in common with slavery; in marriage, as in slavery the bounded party was required to take the master’s name upon bondage, making the wife a slave of her society, husband and conventions. (Morgan 120). This is evident when Sue is obliged to take Phillotson’s name. Sue feels that she is not the same liberated person she was before her marriage with Phillotson. When Sue meets Jude after her marriage with Phillotson, Jude realizesher loss of identity. After marriage she became “labelled ‘Phillotson’” (162). In taking up Phillotson’s name, Sue becomes enslaved to her husband, conventions and society. She loses her entity to her husband and becomes his personal possession When Sue obtains divorce, she refuses to enter matrimony because she fears that marriage kills love as she questions the meaning of marriage. Sue feels afraid of  traditional marriage and the oppression it imposes on women. She would rather continue living in sin than remarry. She tells Jude that she dreads that, Her distinctive views of the social institutions such as marriage and divorce reflect the growing intellect and awareness of women’s role in social and private lives at the end of the nineteenth century. Sue has modern ideas about the ideal relationship between two people.Her divorce gives her the individuality and independence she enjoyed before her marriage. She says: “Are we￾you and I – just as free now as if we had never married at all?” (225). Later, Sue tells Jude that the next generations will pursue their path and will refuse the traditional and cruel terms of this institution and couples will live as they like However, being unmarried and living in sin is only part of the problem because children born to these cohabiting couples were illegitimate and had no legal rights. Little Father Time is aware of the economic and social burden children have on their parents. He feels the shame and society’s rejection of illegitimate births when his family is denied a lodging in Christminister. In an attempt to stop the suffering of his parents, he kills himself with the other children. It is not only parents who suffer the cruel terms of social institutions. This cruelty extends to their children and damages them. Little Father Time is a symbolic character who draws the reader’s attention that the law and the cruel terms of the institution of marriage have mistreated children as much as women Sue argues that the mutual harmony between them is lost after the death of their children. Sue says: “O my comrade, our perfect union-our two-in-oneness is now stained with blood!” (300). Sue, once independent and fearless, breaks down, but not due to her weakness, but she falls under the weight of her calamity and tragedy.Sue feels guilty and responsible for the death of her children and considers her tragedy as a kind of punishment for her illegal relationship with Jude.Marriage is only a means to control the lives of people. Though Jude and Sue are victims of the cruel terms of marital laws, marriage was much more unfair to Sue than Jude. Hardy chooses this tragic end to show the cruelty of the social institution of marriage against any declaration of love and sexuality outside of wedlock.

4.2]  Legal Union (Sue & Phillotson / Jude & Arabella)
            Sue & Phillotson
She thinks that she is going to be happy in her new role in marriage, but when she discovers the cruel terms and marital obligations she becomes reluctant to perform her duties. Her view of Phillotson changes after her marriage. He is not only old enough to be her father, but he is also sexually repulsive to her and a traditional man in his view of life and matrimony. It seems that Phillotson is the problem because his age and intellect does not match with Sue’s. This contradiction brings their downfall. Jude realizes that Sue is uncapable of playing the role of the virtuous wife with a man she dislikes physically and emotionally. He tells her For Phillotson, the wife is morally obliged to perform her sexual duties towards him in marriage because he has the right to exercise his conjugal rights over her. He does not realize the sexual incompatibility in his marriage with Sue. For Sue, sexuality is not the ultimate goal of marriage, while for Phillotson it is the ultimate reason for marriage. For Phillotson, marriage is all about sexual obligation. He is blind to the fact that this obligation harms Sue. He says: “What then was the meaning of marrying at all?” (192). He reminds Sue that it is a serious crime if she denies him his sexual right and he says: “But you are committing  a sin in not liking me.” (193). However, Sue realizes that there is no legal way to free herself from this obligation. She pledges to Phillotson to let her go. He is totally conscious of the consequences of his action that would dissatisfy his society. Because of his sympathy with Sue, Phillotson loses his job at the school where he was teaching, his money and his social standing.

Jude & Arabella
However, Arabella acts the way she has to because she is a powerless person. She is aware that a woman cannot survive on her own because she needs a husband to take that responsibility Arabella is Hardy’s critique against the traditions of the institution of marriage and the wedding ceremonies. Hardy is ironical in the way he describes the exchange of the marital oath between Jude and Arabella. Both promise to continue their lives on the basis of a temporary sexual attraction. Hardy questions the validity and trustworthiness of marital vows, which are based on temporary affections and not mutual love and understanding. During their wedding On the other hand, Arabella, who is unmarried and pregnant, cannot survive society’s ruthless conviction. She becomes also a victim of her time because she has no other option. Even Jude is aware that his marriage and Arabella’s is a“mistake” (50). He protests against the legal terms that destroy the life of men and women. He says to Arabella that marriage is like “to be caught in a gin which would cripple him, if not her  also, for the rest of a life time” (50) Though Sue and Arabella contradict each other in their conception of marriage, both are victims of the same rigid marital laws. While Arabella cares for marriage only for the social and financial advantages it provides, Sue enters matrimony and discovers the difficult situation of women in marriage. Both women feel the suppression of this institution on women and the weak legal state of women in marriage. Sue becomes reluctant to perform her sexual obligations. She loses her carrier of becoming a teacher, her children are killed due to the weight of society’s convictions on illegitimate children. She returns to her first husband to punish herself and converts her conventions and changes her mind. Arabella, on the other hand, survives, but not due to her respect for marriage but because she knows how things are done in society and she succeeds in finding a husband after the death of the previous.