In the first scene, Pinchwife says, "Good wives and private soldiers should be ignorant" (I.i. p.13). A few lines later, Horner echoes this comparison of women to soldiers. I was intrigued by this comparison, but a little disappointed that it does not occur again explicitly in the play. Does the two characters' likening of women to (potentially) aggressive male figures point to a link between their own aggressive natures and the sexual violence alluded to in the play? In context, Horner and Pinchwife use this comparison derisively, but I get the feeling that they are hinting at some deeper truth. If women really are like soldiers of fortune, isn't this a potent critique of marriage, since oaths mean little and money (or gifts) means everything? Why isn't this comparison drawn out beyond the first act?
Like Tim, I was surprised at how many times Pinchwife says that he knows the city, "But I think I know the town" (III.ii. p.31), yet he does not make use of his knowledge for his own gain. Spurred on by his recounting of what city life is like, Mrs. Pinchwife develops a yearning for plays and other things that living in the city entails. If Pinchwife does know the city, he is a different type of wit than those of Jonson's Epicoene. Is he just less successful at navigating the social landscape? Or are there important changes in the social life of London that demand more than just wit? This play seems to imply that things like cuckoldry are inevitable; if it is not by one person, a man will be cuckolded by another. Wit enables a character like Horner to manipulate the senes, yet he still must sacrifice some power, both to the men and the women. I wonder does Pinchwife really know the town? Does anyone?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment