This paper examines Oscar Wilde's drama "The Importance of Being Earnest" regarding his representation of morality and manners in the context of Victorian society in the late nineteen hundreds. It turns out that his drama has at least a twofold "message".
On the one hand he portrays his own aesthetic convictions which stood contrary to Victorian society, on the other hand Wilde criticizes Victorian customs and manners and reveals the hypocrisy of the upper class in his days. This paper not only summarizes Wilde's aesthetic philosophy and convictions but also shows how they are presented in his drama.
Table of contents
I. Introduction
II. Wilde’s View on Morality and Manners in the Context of His Aesthetic Convictions
III. Application of Wilde’s Aesthetic View on morality and manners inThe Importance of Being Earnest
IV. Conclusion
V. Works Cited
I. Introduction
When first performed,The Importance of Being Earnestby Oscar Wilde “was mostly considered as a light comedy and classified as entertainment for Victorian society” (Bastiat 2). To a certain extent, this is rather surprising. For one could reasonably assume that Wilde’s drama would have caused great controversy. The reason for this is that the philosophy of the book was actually completely opposed to the moral and ethical ideas of Victorian society. In an interview in 1895 published inSt. James’s GazetteWilde summarized the philosophy of his drama as follows: “That we should treat all the trivial things of life very seriously, and all the serious things of life with sincere and studied triviality” (5). The philosophical concept on which this statement was based is called aestheticism and was condemned by most of the Victorian aristocrats out of multiple reasons, which will be discussed later (Beckson 2). Only by this short statement one can tell that Wilde’s philosophy opposed the Victorian convictions of morality and mores profoundly. Victorian aristocrats had clear moral concepts and followed strict traditional mores. So, these topics were of extraordinary importance to them. With his statement and thus also with his drama, Wilde now proposes to treat these important things trivially. The surprise therefore lies in the fact that Wilde brilliantly manages “to challenge the social norms [of Victorian society] while pleasing aristocratic London socialites” (Bastiat 2). The second part he achieved by creating a hilarious story with unique wit, epigrams and characters. The first part he achieved through portraying an upper class which on the surface seems to be flawless but in depth is immoral, maybe even amoral. Through that, he not only accuses the Victorian upper class of hypocrisy but also endorses his own aesthetic convictions. This term paper’s central interest therefore is to analyze how morality and manners are depicted in Wilde’sThe Importance of Being Earnestand how this depiction supports Wilde’s aesthetic ideas and declines Victorian ideas about morality and manners. First, a few key ideas of Wilde’s aestheticism will be presented. Then, a few passages of the drama, which deal with relevant topics such as morality, marriage and hospitality, will be examined.
II. Wilde’s View on Morality and Manners in the Context of His Aesthetic Convictions
As we have seen in the introduction Wilde implemented his aesthetic ideas into the philosophy of his drama. In fact, he did not merely implement them into the drama. They actually are the foundation of his drama. That is why it is so important for us to take a look at the basic claims of aestheticism and its impact on the view of morality and manners. At first, let us contemplate a central idea of aestheticism, which Beckson formulates as follows: “Aestheticism contended that art should avoid social, political, or moral instruction, for art was autonomous with its own internal laws; hence, the artist’s principal concern was with the perfection of his work” (2). The roots of this idea can be found in the reflections of earlier philosophers and writers, such as Kant or Moritz with his aesthetics of autonomy. InThe Critic as ArtistWilde himself suggests that already the ancient Greeks followed the idea of being wholly independent as an artist: “In those days the artist was free” (132). The artist could only focus on the perfection of work. That goes along with the idea, also outlined inThe Critic as Artist, that art is completely detached from ethics and morality. Art belongs to a different sphere (Corrêa 57). With such a premise, it is not surprising when authors like Wilde have immoral characters appear, who do not really suffer from any consequences but instead happily continue to enjoy the benefits of their immoral lifestyle. It is also not surprising that the underlying message of their stories does not help to morally admonish or build up the reader. Just to give an example: At the end of the play Jack says: “I’ve now realized for the first time in my life the vital Importance of Being Earnest” (Wilde, The Importance 95). This indicates that his whole life Jack just lived a frivolous life. Now, in a realistic drama in the Victorian era the story of Jack probably would have ended worse. But aesthetics do not condemn such a behaviour. They support it. Wilde is not interested in a moral message. One of the doctrines about new aesthetics Wilde formulated at the end ofThe Decay of Lyingstates that “[a]rt expresses anything but itself” (102). Or as the typical aesthetic slogan states: Art for art’s sake.
Wilde does not stop at “art for art’s sake” but goes even further by suggesting that art is also for our sake. InThe Decay of Lyinghe argues that “Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life” (102). This shows that for Wilde Art represents the highest sphere possible. Everything is subordinate to it. But what happens here is not merely subordination to art. Wilde is convinced that art should also actively shape the life of a person. Life “should imitate and become a beautiful work of art, even if this beauty is a lie” (DeOrnellis 66). Wilde stresses the last part of this statement by arguing that both, lying and poetry, are art (“The Decay of Lying” 76). If someone would make this philosophy to his own lifestyle it would probably have a massive influence on his life and also on his relationships to other people. That is detectable in Wilde’s own life but also inThe Importance of Being Earnest. The question of the right way to live is no longer determined by moral values or manners but solely by art and beauty. This is pure hedonism dressed in an aesthetic robe. InThe Importance of Being Earnestthe prime example for that would be the Bunburying of Algernon and Jack. They fancy a fictional figure, Bunbury and Ernest, and then they actually live out this conceived character. Only by doing so they can live “a ‘beautiful’ life that the realities of life cannot deliver” (DeOrnellis 68).
What role do manners play in such a “beautiful” life? From an aesthetic point of view, a very low, probably none at all. Manners would be vulgar and simplistic superficialities which would rather restrict than inspire the artistic life. Restriction would work counterproductive in the artistic life. The vital things are independency and freedom. Wilde himself lived such an artistic life and of course also often his characters. That is why, for example, Peltason seeks to identify Wilde himself inThe Importance of Being Earnest. In his articleOscar in Earnesthe states that Wilde’s drama is a “nodal achievement” because through it he managed to install his own progressive ideas in the “collective mind of the audience” (117). In other words: Wilde’sThe Importance of Being Earnestquietly caused a cultural shift with the society not even noticing it. How did he achieve this? By wittily confusing Victorian standards of morality and manners and at the same time setting up his own ideas of how to live life.
III. Application of Wilde’s Aesthetic View on morality and manners in The Importance of Being Earnest
In hisPhrases and Philosophies for the Use of the YoungWilde concludes: “The first duty in life is to be as artificial as possible. What the second duty is no one has as yet discovered.” InThe Importance of Being Earnesthe depicts this idea perfectly. Wilde has not only created characters who behave artificially but also who become artistic themselves. Jack and Algernon create a fictional brother; Gwendolen and Cecily create their ideal husband called Ernest. In this chapter we want to look at how this twofold artificiality of the characters constructs confusion of morality and manners. First, we will have a look on morality in general. Then, we will examine two different areas of Victorian mores or institutions which contain mores: marriage and hospitality.
Morality
In his articleWhen Life Imitates Art: Aestheticism in The Importance of Being EarnestDeOrnellis asserts that “[t]hrough their creation and interpretation of fictional identities, Jack, Algernon, Gwendolen, and Cecily become Wildean aesthetic artists and critics” (67). This would mean, as we have seen, that they do not care about morality at all but about beauty and turning their life into a beautiful work of art. We now turn to some passages which show that this, in fact, is the case.
First of all, one must admit that the figures of the play differ in their practice of morality. The two main characters, Jack and Algernon, are the ideal example. Both of them seek their benefits in leading a double life. For Jack these benefits are amusement in town. For Algernon the benefits are convenient excuses for appointments which he does not want to attend. But there is a crucial difference which we encounter when Jack and Algernon discuss marriage. Jack’s view on marriage is rather ‘conservative’. He says: “If Gwendolen accepts me, I am going to kill my brother” (Wilde, The Importance 15). Thereby he admits that marriage has a greater value than a second life only lived for amusement. Furthermore, his immoral double life would harm his marriage. Algernon, on the other hand, is far more progressive; one could say far more Wildean. At one point, Cecily calls Algernon “my wicked cousin Ernest” (Wilde, The Importance 42). And that is quite accurate. In response to Jacks announcement of getting rid of Ernest he states: “Nothing will induce me to part with Bunbury, and if you ever get married, which seems to me extremely problematic, you will be very glad to know Bunbury. A man who marries without knowing Bunbury has a very tedious time of it” (Wilde, The Importance 16). After Jack denies this inference Algernon says that if Jack will not know Bunbury than his wife will. In other words, he says: Your wife will lead a double life anyway. Why not you then? Thereby, Algernon not only lives out immorality himself but he also encourages other people to do so and imposes it on other people.
Especially the character of Algernon indicates that the drama presents us a new form of morality. Corrêa goes even further by seeing Algernon not only as an immoral but as an amoral character: “[H]is notion of morality does not even exist; he has completely replaced ethics with aesthetics” (66). This is clearly a situation where Wilde’s principle “life being a work of art” finds its application. Algernon’s thoughts and beliefs are not based on ethical principles and by no means influenced by Victorian moral standards (Corrêa 66). He is simply not interested in such standards. And yet, Algernon is probably the character who says the most about morality and topics related to it.
In the first act, for example, Algernon makes a statement about truth: “The truth is rarely pure and never simple” (Wilde, The Importance14). Now, truth is closely connected to morality. Because saying the truth would be morally upright, lying would be immoral. But Algernon does not think in such terms. For him, truth is not something one should necessarily pursue. Again, one can see how Algernon’s convictions are infused by Wilde’s aesthetic ideas. But Algernon not merely presents an aesthetic idea. He also substantiates this idea. At first, he asserts that truth is rarely pure. “Pure” has at least two different meanings. It can be meant in a moral sense but also in an ‘exclusive’ sense. There is good reason to take both meanings into account. Algernon reproaches people for rarely speaking exclusively the truth. Most of the time there will be an addition or omission which then makes the truth not purely true. In that case the truth is also not pure in a moral sense. However, this is unproblematic for Algernon because, as said before, he does not think in such terms. Secondly, he says that truth is never simple. The reason for that lies in the first part of his statement. Because additions and omissions obfuscate the truth, it is impossible to keep it simple. In this statement there is a critique of Victorian society. On the surface saying the truth was a matter of course. But in depth the really important thing was merely to sound truthful. So, when Jack says: “[I]t is very painful for me to be forced to speak the truth. It is the first time in my life that I have ever been reduced to such a painful position, and I am really quite inexperienced in doing anything of the kind” (Wilde, The Importance 70), he “transcends his own character” (Laws) and speaks for the rest of Victorian society.
[...]
- Citar trabajo
- Clemens Depner (Autor), 2022, The Confusion of Morality and Manners in Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest", Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1369151
-
-
-
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X.