If the awarding of the 'better half of the garland' in the final scene marks Dauphine as the most successfully witty of the three wits by the apparent labourlessness of his scheme, would this play-garland actually hold the social credit or power in London that it does within the play? Dauphine's more reticent wit-style is opposed most drastically to Truewit's more visible and verbose wittiness. Although Truewit acknowledges Dauphine as the greater victor in the contest of wits and Dauphine has successfully won the inheritance by such wit, I wonder whether the privateness of his methods would gain him such social power in reality as it has in the play. Would a London so conscious of appearances give such credit to the privately witty man over the publicly witty one? Would they even get the chance? Similarly, how do such standards of publicity apply to the lady in her dressing chamber? Is there a double-standard of public exposure? Does the social credit gained by the witty man rely on the eventual public exposure of his methods, while on the other hand the social credit gained by the well-fashioned lady rely on her methods remaining hidden?