To love or not to love; that is not the question?

Victorian English are famous for being hypocritical. England at the time is now regarded as having too many regulations for ladies and gentlemen. Therefore, it is reasonable enough to infer that people at the time would find some ways to escape from the superficial reality. In “The Importance of Being Earnest”, Oscar Wilde delightfully uses many satires, motifs and paradoxes to explore the contradiction between the appearance and nature of marriage, while concerning social status and morality, during the Victorian Era. At the same time, the tendency of hypocrisy is also revealed in this farce.

Intentionally or not, Oscar Wilde uses various motifs, namely recurring structures and contrasts, to show readers the appearance of marriage versus its nature. The most obvious repeating structure might be the pairs of Jack-Gwendolen and Algernon-Cecily. In Act I, Jack Worthing proposes to Gwendolen Fairfax, who later on confesses that it is only the name Ernest which makes her desperate to marry, as Wilde writes, “There is something in that name that inspires absolute confidence. The moment Algernon first mentioned to me that he had a friend called Ernest, I knew I was destined to love you. (p. 23)” And then in order to marry Gwendolen successfully, Jack determines immediately to be christened again, not even concerning the seriousness of religion. To be more ridiculous, Cecily Cardew also admits “there is something in that name that seems to inspire absolute confidence (p. 47)”, and Algernon Moncrieff, like Jack, also hurries on to be christened again. There is a recurring structure in the courtships between Jack and Gwendolen, and Algernon and Cecily. Marriage, in this sense, appears to be agonizingly mischievous and disrespectful, totally different from the traditional nature of marriage, which is about pure love, respect and understanding each other. However, Wilde successfully satirizes real superficiality of marriage of the upper class during the Victorian Era.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Likewise, using contrasts among various characters, Wilde can also show readers the contradiction between the appearance and nature of marriage in the Victorian times. For instance, Cecily tells Algernon that “we have been engaged for the last three months (p. 45)”, which is actually only an imaginary engagement between the “wicked Ernest” and Cecily. However, in the point of view of Lady Bracknell, she believes that, “I am not in favour of long engagements. They give people the opportunity of finding out each other’s character before marriage, which I think is never advisable. (p. 64)” Contrasting the two views of engagement, it can be figured out that Cecily has overly trivialized the serious nature of marriage, while Lady Bracknell has overly solemnized the romantic nature of marriage, concerning only the social appearance of the marriages. Readers may see them as nonsensical; but simultaneously, they show the Victorian restrictive and utilitarian philosophies of marriage.

In addition, using humorous paradoxes, the theme of social status and morality affecting marriage is revealed in the farce of “The Importance of Being Earnest”. It seems to readers that with respect to a Victorian marriage, social status and ethics are inextricably involved. The inconsistency of Lady Bracknell is a good example. For instance, she sententiously mentions, “Few girls of the present day have any really solid qualities, any of the qualities that last, and improve with time. We live, I regret to say, in an age of surfaces. (p. 63)” It seems that she is such a gentle lady, thinking that a marriage should be natural; however, early in the play when she has a “questionnaire” with Jack, she consistently asks about his “income”, “investments”, “land” (p. 26) and other aristocratic relations. It is definitely bizarre that while Lady Bracknell is so concerned about wealth and social status, she praises Cecily for her “solid qualities” in such a sincere way. In the point of view of readers, she is portrayed as absolutely hypocritical and sycophantic in these scenes; concerning, as a matter of fact, the “surfaces” only – money and relations – while praising those who are in favour of herself, and neglecting the possibility of authentic happiness between the couple. These kinds of behaviour are definitely immoral, but in the Victorian times, it is very popular indeed. Furthermore, the paradox of Jack is also a good example. Jack Worthing, described as having “a strong upright nature…the very soul of honor and truth (p. 49)” by Gwendolen is actually a master “Bunburyist”. His manner of maintaining a dual identities, being “Ernest in town and Jack in the country (p. 17)”, is undoubtedly a dishonest and immoral behaviour. However, he can still gain “absolute confidence (p. 23)” from Gwendolen, even after he is found to have been lying, as Gwendolen later agrees to marry him and says, “I never change, except in my affections (p. 70).” Jack is not moral at all; but he is seen as moral. He has done the wrong; but he is regarded as right. He should not be a reliable man to marry; but his name Ernest Worthing makes him reliable. In this sense, the morality of marriage in this mock Victorian society is not only controlled by one’s origin and social status, but is also inconsistent and superficial conclusively.

In the end, the entire play is presented as a farce which satirizes the Victorian aristocrats’ views of marriage and morality. Ironically, Jack is even presented the name “Ernest” at the end of the play, which is absolutely a big twist. Marriage is also regarded as a sincere promise; however, the idea is totally trivialized in the play – to love or not to love, that is not the question to marry. As Wilde states, “It [The play] has its philosophy… that we should treat all the trivial things of life seriously, and all the serious things of life with sincere and studied triviality.” From the insincere manners of Jack and Algernon, to the hypocritical behaviours of Lady Bracknell, Wilde’s idea of marriage is definitely true, with regards to the Victorian aristocracy.