In Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest, we’re introduced to themes that highlight the Victorian lifestyle, primarily the issues of being “earnest” (typically sincerity and honesty, a sense of duty and honor) and the importance of marriage (though the motivations for marrying are quite varied in the play). Wilde keeps the play light, with witty dialogue and an overlying motif of vapid aristocratic folly.
“Jack”, or Ernest’s aspirations represent all that was seen as valued in Victorian life among the elite of society, but the important thing to note is that while he aims for duty and responsibility in his life, more than anything he wants others to see these qualities in him. It’s not that Jack truly feels he should possess these qualities, no that’s besides the point. Rather, the goal is to be perceived as such, regardless of his true nature below the surface. This allows for Jack’s hypocrisy in maintaining his alter ego of “Ernest” in the city—it allows him to escape the country life of raising his ward to go adventuring in the city.
Comically, Jack has to become Ernest in order to fully embody the esteem of a respected position in society, and indeed his lie is what brings him closer to the realization of marriage to Gwendolyn. In a sense, Jack must be more of a hypocrite to become more respected.
Jack’s stuck to his web of lies and conceits, and is almost swallowed up by the play’s climax, yet (and perhaps this is more to do with the play’s lighthearted genre than anything else) he never has to face the worst consequences of what could have become of him.
Algernon, on the other hand, lives only for himself, a “dandy” that takes all the pleasure he can. While he commit most of the same hypocrisies that Jack does, Algernon always struck me as someone doing it just for kicks, rather than Jack, who despite his own double life aspires to a life of respectability. Algernon wants to enjoy his life, but he also seems to genuinely enjoy weaving truth and lies together to do it.
It’s relevant to mention also that all the characters in this play would have likely been considered the economic elite. Jack mentions to Lady Bracknell that he makes between “7,000 and 8,000” annually. To put this into perspective, in 1894 when the story was written, the American dollar equated to 0.2050 of a British pound. That means that Jack was taking in around $34,000 a year. Adjust for inflation, nowadays that would be around $888,000.
I mention this, because I think to fully appreciate the actions of the characters in the story you have to take into account the kind of impenetrable safety net that was built up around them. There was no worry of paying bills, of providing for a family. Instead, importance shifted from monetary survival to more elaborate and abstract notions—like being earnest. The routes the characters take are based on those notions, where an almost alien lifestyle (to me, anyway) of societal reputations and perceptions superseded all else.
However, while these rich elite families strived to be seen as embodying all these respected qualities, they perhaps broke the rules more than any other (I certainly can’t afford to keep up an alter ego), so that they might act out their whims as they pleased. Algernon especially reminds me of a child with little restriction, and while he aims to live beautifully in all he does he is really just a shallow, selfish human being. Jack has more edge to him (or perhaps more delusions), but still follows the same paths, escaping into the city whenever he can.
In the end, I couldn’t help being slightly angered by the story, more because of the emptiness of the characters. This is my bias, though. I grew up poor, and the values that Jack tries to fake were ones that were steeled in me at a young age. Dishonesty and gluttony have always been incredibly immoral behaviors to me, since I believe a person’s word is really all they have. In the play, a person’s word is almost never what it appears to be, and so the whole cast is a cadre of morally ambiguous charlatans.
Where does the line begin to blur? Which actions that the characters take are “right” and “wrong”? I’ve offered that I disagree with many of the routes taken, but I also recognize that regardless of their position in life these are people searching for happiness or contentment, so how do we begin to judge their actions if that is their overall goal?
I found Algernon’s friend Bunbury to be a bit more harmless than Jack’s invented brother. Algernon uses his as an excuse for escape and no more. Jack embodies both characters, thus deceiving everyone he knows. He has his reasons for presenting himself the way he does, but it is done to increase his position, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I had a hard time believing that he was reformed just because his life comes full circle. I have never felt the pressures of the rich though, so it’s hard to judge him too harshly.
I don’t think anyone gets reformed in this story. The ending almost could have read as “Tune in next week to find out what wacky adventures Ernest & Algernon will get up to next!”. I saw them as life-long hypocrites. I agree about Jack deceiving everyone he knows, though it seemed like he really believed in his reasoning for doing so, where Algernon was blatantly aware that he was going against type and expectation.
As a satirical comedy (down to the genre-compliant triple engagement at the end), reform would be inappropriate. Reform is for tragedies, of course. And morality plays.
It’s great that you thought to calculate his income because I wondered about that when I read it. The whole idea of aristocracy is so odd. It reminds me of when Algernon says a gentlemen never carries money, as if like money is so useless to him because he’s never had to even think about it.
I couldn’t believe the number when I researched it! At that point, with that much wealth, money would literally buy all that you needed, and so it transcends from a worrisome product of work to something of a status symbol. It’s a little off topic, but I’m reminded of a Cosby Show episode where it’s clarified to Vanessa what exactly being “rich” means (notice that the definition is also largely what the characters in the play are missing):
Love The Cosby Show, and love this episode!
Haha!
I really like how you tied your personal experience to this story. The wealthy seemed to try to live morals which were not natural to them. I mentioned this hotel earlier, but it really stuck out to me in terms of classism when Algernon states, “if the lower orders don’t set us a good example, what on earth is the use of them.” (257) It’s odd that the upper class was looking to the lower class for their examples. Your statement really rings true for me, “However, while these rich elite families strived to be seen as embodying all these respected qualities, they perhaps broke the rules more than any other (I certainly can’t afford to keep up an alter ego), so that they might act out their whims as they pleased.
“‘If the lower orders don’t set us a good example, what on earth is the use of them?’ (257) It’s odd that the upper class was looking to the lower class for their examples.”
What I think Algernon is saying here is that the poor should be looking to *them* for moral guidance, since the elite would have had a very high opinion of themselves, especially in contrast to the historically “lesser” lower classes. He’s saying that, if the lower class can’t straighten up and act like their “masters”, then they have no purpose at all. More specifically, he’s referring directly to Lane, who is in actuality only agreeing with everything Algernon says–which is what he must do to maintain his livelihood in his employment. This adds to the comical and hypocritical nature of the play, since Lane echoes Algernon’s own opinions, and therefore Algernon disapproves of his *own* morality, albeit hidden from himself.
Comical and hypocritical is exactly right — but gently hypocritical. Wilde was poking fun at the class into which he had been born by exaggerating the most ridiculous aspects of the London elite.
“I’ve offered that I disagree with many of the routes taken, but I also recognize that regardless of their position in life these are people searching for happiness or contentment, so how do we begin to judge their actions if that is their overall goal?” Great question! I base it on how much harm was done in their path of hypocrisy and manipulation to get that contentment – even though I too, don’t necessarily agree with their approach. I don’t think Jack or Algernon significantly harmed anyone, partially because everyone seems to perpetuate hypocrisy – and partially because of the satirical nature of the play. After all, everyone was happy in the end, meaning the harm wasn’t too severe.