By
Dr. M. V. RAMA SARMA, M.A., Ph. D. (Wales)
Heywood’s
masterpiece ‘A Woman Killed With Kindness’ is the best of its genre, the
domestic drama. Yet it has not received the attention it deserves. Even
sympathetic critics find some difficulty in reconciling themselves to some of
the blemishes in its plot construction. Especially, the seduction scene has
come in for a good deal of criticism. The general feeling is that not much
skill is exhibited by Heywood in uniting the main plot and the sub-plot. “It
is, we must frankly admit, regrettable that in A Woman, of all his
dramas, Heywood should have used two plots, for both have suffered.” l
No
doubt this is one side of the picture. A close study however will convince us
that there is a definite plan governing the plots. The plot construction is not
irregular; it is quite systematic. In Othello the gulling of Roderigo by
Iago is closely interwoven with the undoing of Desdemona. Shakespeare exploits
this Iago-Roderigo tangle to a success. The sub-plot is inter-linked with the
main plot. Such an integration of the two plots may not be found in A Woman.
But surely Heywood has taken every care to introduce a reasonably well-knit
plot.
In
the opening scene we have almost all the important characters of the two plots.
The hero of the play Frankford is the brother-in-law of Sir Francis of the
sub-plot. Sir Francis comes with his friends Sir Charles, Wendoll, Cranwell and
others. And even when they are busy congratulating the newly married couple,
they set their hearts on hawking. Thus the sub-plot arises out of the main plot
and later (in Act. 2, Sc. i) Wendoll (of the sub-plot) comes to Frankford’s
house in order to inform him of the strange differences that have come between
Sir Francis and Sir Charles. In the last scene we again find all the major
characters coming together, this time to see the tragic end of Mrs. Frankford.
They were all present at the time of her marriage to congratulate her; now they
are again assembled to condole her and her afflicted husband. Heywood has
brought the two plots together. It is not like the subtle manoeuvring of
Shakespeare; yet this workmanship of Heywood has its own significance.
For
one thing Heywood must be praised. He is true to his subject–presentation of
domestic life. He never wavers or falters. In Othello Shakespeare is no
doubt attempting the domestic drama; yet he cannot forget his preference for
the aristocratic tradition. So his Othello is a great general first, and only
secondarily a lover and the husband of Desdemona. Domestic life here is mixed
up with politics and state affairs; but the latter half of Othello develops
into a typical domestic tragedy, with the dropping of the hand-kerchief. The
moment Othello plays the part of the jealous husband, we are confronted with a
seemingly cuckolded person trying to redeem his honour. So Shakespeare has
divided loyalties–his preference for aristocratic tradition and his desire for
trying the new genre, the domestic drama. Heywood experiences no such
difficulty. He is essentially middle class. In A Woman the two plots
centre round the domestic problems. There is unity and singleness of purpose;
hence the total effect is centralised round the hearth.
In
the main plot, Frankford’s hospitality is misused by his own friend Wendoll.
The latter seduces the former’s wife. The domestic bliss is ruined and the
problem is how to punish the erring woman. What type of punishment should be
given to persons violating marital ties? Middle class life with its sense of
honour and contempt for illicit love is here portrayed. The sub-plot is not for
relief. It takes up another problem, middle class respectability. Heywood is
extremely realistic and through Sir Charles and Susan his sister, he succeeds in
focussing our attention on this aspect of life. The Middle class is noted for
its pretensions. Of course Heywood does not expose them to ridicule or sarcasm.
He is sympathetically interested in studying them. Carried away by his warmth
for such respectable, but broken, middle class families, he does tend to
sentimentalise. Sir Charles tries to prostitute his sister Susan to redeem his
honour and to keep up the respectability of the house. Apparently this is
suggestive of Heywood’s tender charity and even sentimentalism. This may be
‘too grotesque even to horrify.’ But such practices should have been tolerated
at least on the stage at that time. We have Volpone where Mosca, the
parasite, contrives to get Corvino prostitute his wife Celia for curing Volpone
of a strange disease. Here Corvino’s attraction is for Volpone’s wealth.
Whereas Ben Jonson is satirical, Heywood is pointing out the logical limits to
which a middle class person can go in order to keep up his honour and
respectability. A Woman is thus an authentic picture of middle class
life.
Peculiarly
enough the situations and the incidents are almost the same in the main plot as
well as the sub-plot. Temptation is offered to Mrs. Frankford; Susan is tempted
with gold. Mrs. Frankford yields; Susan resists the temptation. The idea of
taking revenge is repeated in both the plots. Frankford has to avenge the shame
inflicted on him by his wife and Wendoll. Sir Francis is keen on taking revenge
on Sir Charles. Heywood has his eye on his audience. “Love, particularly
passionate love and illicit love, has come to dominate the minds of the
playwrights and the audience; and all means are taken to provide each drama
with thrilling episodes, however artificial and unnatural they may be.” 2
This then is the state and Heywood manipulates to give the usual stories of
love, illicit love and also the sensational theme of revenge. In A Woman there
is the popular Elizabethan theme of Revenge mingled with the common Jacobean
theme of Lust. The ends in both the plots are strikingly novel and typically
Heywoodian. Novelty, another demand of that age, is successfully conceded to.
Yet Heywood maintains his unshaken faith in morality. Even while giving
concessions to popular taste, he does not sacrifice his innate belief in ‘Order’.
He is ethical in his attitude towards life. This is reflected in Frankford’s
forgiveness of his wife’s moral lapses and in the transformation of Sir Francis
from a lustful Villain to a sober husband. Mrs. Frankford’s weakness for
Wendoll and Sir Francis’s momentary thoughts of lust for Susan put us in the
typical Seventeenth Century theatrical world. Normally the first should have
ended in revenge, taken in the Elizabethan dramatic fashion, and the second
should have ended with lust and sensuality as we may find in any other Jacobean
play. Heywood is indeed original in avoiding the two commonplace practices and
taking up an altogether independent attitude, based on his own convictions. So
Mrs. Frankford atones for her sin and dies nobly and Sir Francis gets married
to Susan.
The
title is suggested in both the plots. Sir Francis realises that Susan hates
him. So a novel idea comes to him,
“Well,
I will fasten such a kindness on her
As
shall overcome her hate and conquer it” (Act. 4, Sc.i)
Here
the suggestion is one of conquering even one’s own foe through kindness, not
through fighting or hating. Frankford thinks of banishing his adulterous wife,
but prefers another alternative.
“…..but
with usage
Of
more humility torment thy soul
And
kill thee even with kindness.” (Act. 4, Sc. iv)
Frankford
wishes to punish his wife through kindness; Sir Francis wants to get
Susan as his mistress through kindness. The emphasis is upon kindness; there is
thus a peculiar blending of the two plots. Ten scenes are given for the main
plot and six for the sub-plot. If Heywood has been careless or shabby, as he is
generally supposed to be, he could not have closely followed this technique of
uniting the two plots with the same emphasis on the domestic problems.
References to the title in the main as well as the sub-plot cannot be
accidental. They should have been pre-planned and on the whole there is
structural unity.
The
moment we talk of structural unity we have to take into consideration some of
the problems connected with the plot construction. While presenting the
seduction of Mrs. Frankford ‘Heywood has bungled this, the crucial scene of the
play.’ And she seems to be yielding to her lover ‘with hardly a struggle.’ It
is also felt that Heywood should have given some hints of the seduction even in
the first scene itself He should have shown Wendoll having some fascination for
Mrs. Frankford in the opening part of the play itself. On the whole, the
consensus of opinion is that Heywood has miserably failed in presenting this scene
of seduction. An Almost patronising attitude is indicated here, “The scene that
he (Heywood) has given was, no doubt, all that his audience required; and to
have given more would have been a work of supererogation, a piece of lavish
extravagance for a journeyman-playwright.”3
Surely the scene is not so inartistic as it is painted to be, and it will be
extremely unfair to insinuate that a second rate dramatist is capable of doing
only such a type of work.
In
fact the seduction is hinted at even earlier. The moment Wendoll is taken into
the service of Frankford, Nick, the trusted servant of the house, comments,
‘The devil and he are all one in my eye.’ This is by no means a compliment to
Wendoll and it is definitely a poor introduction for him. Another suggestion is
given to us in the seduction scene itself, this time with a subtle play on
words. Wendoll is consumed by thoughts of lust and remorse. Mrs. Frankford
approaches him and naively tells him,
“For
you must keep his table, use his servants,
And
be a present Frankford in his absence.”(Act.2,Sc.iii)
Her naivety is unfortunately an encouragement for Wendoll, for he will take the meaning suited to his lustful thoughts. At the same time the audience is kept informed of the seduction. Punning upon words is in fact one of the tricks of his writing for he uses the same device in the symbolic game of cards also, Act. 3, Sc ii, where Wendoll is referred to as ‘knave out of doors’ and Mrs. Frankford is described as a ‘quean.’
As
contrasted with the unalloyed bliss of the Frankfords in the first scene, this
degeneracy in Mr. Frankford is pathetic. But as Wendoll remarks, ‘O God! O God!
with what a violence! I am hurried to my own destruction; (Act. 2, Sc. iii)
there seems to be some Supreme Force drawing the pair, Wendoll and Mrs.
Frankford, to lust and ruin. She sees sedition in Wendoll’s countenance, yet
his speech,
“O
speak no more,
Beggary,
shame, death, scandal and reproach,
For
you, I’ll hazard all; why, what care I?
For
you I’ll live, and in your love I’ll die.” (Act.2, Sc.iii)
with all its
passionate longings and diabolical urges moves her to passion and pity. Illicit
love, passionate love, (the common material for the Jacobean playwrights) is
here indicated through this Satanic speech of Wendoll. The popular theological
theme of the Seventeenth Century–the conflict between good and evil–is well
presented here. This speech even smacks of Restoration Tragedy. But despite all
these protestations of love, Mrs. Frankford is not happy; for her ‘soul is wandering
and hath lost her way.’ In desperation she sighs ‘Oh! Master Wendoll! Oh!’ and
does not show the usual abandon, for her scruples are not over. Much against
her will she yields, ‘enchanted’ by his ‘tongue’.
So
the ordinary theme of illicit love, the spicy material for almost all the
dramatists of that age is handled by Heywood with sensitiveness, understanding
and even sympathy. Mrs. Frankfood is as helpless as Tess, even though the
latter at the time of seduction is a fresh, virginal maiden, whereas the former
is a married woman with two children. But in both the situations there is some
suggestion that something is amiss. There is some other Will greater than man’s
will. Some of these inexplicable problems vex the dramatists of the age, and
they feel that they are to the gods like ‘flies to wanton boys’ to be killed
for their sport. The seduction scene bears the essential Jacobean background
and theological content. Or else it should have been difficult for us to
sympathise with Wendoll or Mrs. Frankford in this scene. In Othello we
have the scene of temptation (Act. 3 Sc. iii) when Iago
works out the spell methodically and puts Othello to a close, microscopic
examination to see if his medicine is working on him effectively. We are no
doubt amused by the subtle intellect of lago; the hard-boiled villain with his
unscrupulous behaviour amazes us. The situation is extremely psychological.
With a cool, calculated precision, Iago poisons Othello; and the jealous moor
reacts favourably. Iago is a cynical intellectual. Othello is jealous and
credulous–jealous to madness and credulous to a fault. We cannot possibly
sympathise with Iago, the cynic; nor can we be disposed favourably towards
Othello. But in A Woman the presentation of the conflict is essentially
human. There we have two ordinary individuals with weak wills and pious
resolutions; with physical longings and moral scruples; with devilish urges and
godly fears. Wendoll and Mrs. Frankford, with their frailties and moral
compunctions, appeal to our human emotions. In Othello the temptation
scene is quite intriguing; but in A Woman we are moved and bound to say
‘How frail is man!’
Another
peculiar feature of this play is the appearance of the children on the stage
almost too suddenly. An element of surprise is thereby created among the
audience. But this is a convention followed by the dramatists, and demanded by
the audience, of that age. Not one but many surprises should be given. Here
again Heywood is working on the beaten track, the conventional pattern of that
writing in that age. But this has also served a good purpose. The conversion of
Mrs. Frankford is made possible only through this device. Even if we do not
credit Heywood with the psychological interpretation of human nature, we should
at least concede to him sound common-sense and basic wisdom in understanding
the softer element in the woman. That is her love for her children. Nothing is
comparable to this love of the mother to the children. Frankford, with his
gentleness and generosity, is nevertheless clever and subtle. Or perhaps his
creator is well versed in human nature, even though he is modest enough to be
content if the reader finds ‘some mirth, some matter and perhaps some wit’
(Prologue to The English Traveller) in his plays. On seeing the little,
innocent children, Mrs. Frankford melts and bursts into tears. Struck by
remorse, she hates herself and feels as though she is having ‘ten thousand
deaths’ in this one life. She is ashamed of herself and courts banishment.
The
punishment itself is by no means objectionable. In a way it looks like a stage
convention. Desdemona appeals to her husband. ‘O banish me, my lord, but kill
me not.’ We have a similar situation in Massinger’s The Emperor of the East.
Paulinus, a kinsman to the Emperor is a warm friend of the Princess before
her promotion to that rank. She presents the apple given to her by the Emperor
to her friend Paulinus. The Emperor understands that she is adulterous and
hence banishes her,
“The
sting of conscience ever gnawing on thee,
A
long life be thy punishment.”
Frankford’s
attitude is exactly the same. So banishment is more or less the general
punishment given to adulterous women.
Mrs.
Frankford’s penitence and death are considered to be instances of sensation
mongering, so common a trick of the Jacobean playwrights. It is felt that ‘her
decline and death are a tribute to popular sentiment; not certainly a
vindication of inexorable moral law.’ 4 Her conversion
therefore is not based on any deep understanding of ethical values. This is not
quite true, for even when she commits adultery, thoughts of sin
always oppress her. She sighs and yields to Wendoll (Act. 2, Sc. iii) but the
latter cajoles her, ‘Sigh not, sweet saint.’ Her immediate
comment
“Women
that fall, not quite bereft of grace,
Have
their offences noted in their face
I
blush and am ashamed” (Act 2, Sc. iii)
leaves us in no doubt
as regards her sense of shame. She has attraction as well as repulsion for
Wendoll, a curious emotional experience indeed. Heywood gives another scene for
the description of this illicit love, Act. 4, Sc. iii. Let us examine it.
Wendoll makes approaches to Mrs. Frankford, but her reply, ‘Oh what a clog unto
the soul is sin!’ is bound to damp the ardour of any but this bold lover. So
Wendoll rebukes her, ‘Fie, fie, you talk too like a puritan.’ Then we have Mrs.
Frankford’s reply,
“You
have tempted me to mischief, Master Wendoll:
I
have done I know what. Well, you plead custom;
That
which for want of wit I granted erst,
I
now must yield through fear. Come, come let’s in,
Once
over shoes, we are straight over head in sin.”
This indicates that
she has yielded to Wendoll in a weak moment and she must now yield through fear
of being exposed. She is helpless. Her sense of respectability, at the same
time her awareness of her sinful life with Wendoll, her regret for having done
something foolish in a mood of intoxication–all these make her a fit subject
for pity and not a sweet, lustful mistress in an adulterous
union. A conscience-stricken woman, as she is, she does not seem to be enjoying
the stolen pleasures of love. All through these scenes (Act. 2,
School. iii and Act. 4, Sc. iii), we find Mrs. Frankford critical and
self-reproachful of her own actions.
With
this make-up and frame of mind she is bound to come to the right path, the
moment the temptation is removed from her. For she is essentially weak
but not immortal. In her abject state of misery and wretchedness she resolves
that she will ‘nor eat, nor drink’; ‘nor smile, nor rest’ and prays ‘Sweet
Saviour, to thy hands I yield my sprite’ thereby atoning for her past sin. When
Wendoll appears on the scene and addresses her, ‘Mistress Frankford’ only to
console her, she is scared of him and she utters a piteous cry, ‘O! for God’s
sake fly! The devil doth come to tempt me ere I die.’ She is terribly afraid of
him and she even spurns him, for in her ‘repentant eyes’ his face is ‘ugly
black.’ Towards the close, the erring wife is reunited to her noble husband
through her ‘repentant tears.’ The repeated references to the word ‘repentant’
in the concluding scene is a clear indication of Heywood’s own moral
sensitiveness. A repentant wife ought to get the blessing of her husband. In
this conversion or in this death by starvation we do not really find anything
abnormal. Nothing is here for popular applause. It is not the grand finale of a
tragic hero; it is the moving story of a woman who has erred and punished
herself. Heywood has tried a daring innovation in giving a tame ending, ‘a
bloodless catastrophe’–as contrasted with the ending in Shakespearean
tragedies–to his play, for he modestly admits that his ‘Muse is bent upon a
barren subject, a bare scene.’ The suggestion therefore of Mrs. Frankford’s
death as a concession to popular taste is not justifiable. On the other hand it
must be definitely said that he has struck a deviation, bold and emphatic, with
his religious approach towards a domestic problem.
l
A. M. Clark. Heywood. P, 230
2
Allardyce Nicoll. The British Drama. P. 113
3 A.
M. Clark. Heywood. P. 234
4 T.
S. Eliot. Selected Essays. On Heywood