A Bold Stroke for a Wife

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title page of first printing, 1718

A Bold Stroke for a Wife is Susanna Centlivre's 18th-century satirical English play developed in 1717. The plot expresses the author's unabashed support of the British Whig Party: she criticizes the Tories, religious hypocrisy, and the greed of capitalism.

1 Synopsis
2 Analysis
3 History
4 Contribution to language
- 4.1 Simon Pure
5 References

[edit] Synopsis

Set in 18th-century England, the play tells the story of a military officer who wants to marry a young woman. His obstacles are the four guardians who watch over Anne Lovely. Each of the four has his own idea of the ideal husband. The catch is that each is disagreeable in his own way, and they can't possibly see eye to eye on a man for Anne.

To gain Lovely's hand in marriage, soldier Colonel Fainwell must convince the four guardians that he will make an ideal husband. Fainwell takes the bold stroke of wearing elaborate disguises, four of which mimic the personalities and occupations of each of the guardians in turn: an antiquarian, an old beau, a Quaker, and an exchange broker. In all, Fainwell dons the guise of a preening fop, a mysterious world traveler, a shuffling country steward, a dimwitted Dutchman and a fire-and-brimstone preacher in turn. The fire-and-brimstone Quaker character impersonated by Fainwell is Simon Pure, and one point of the plot is to discover the "real" Simon Pure. Fainwell gets her guardian's permission to wed Lovely but before the marriage can take place, the real Simon Pure shows up at the end to prove his identity.

[edit] Analysis

Centlivre made fun of all the stereotypes of her time, fearlessly sending up the marriage mart, fashion, commerce, academia and even religion.^[1] The plot expresses the author's unabashed support of the British Whig Party: she criticizes the Tories, religious hypocrisy, and the greed of capitalism.

[edit] History

A Bold Stroke for a Wife was first performed at Lincoln's Inn Fields theatre, on February 3, 1718, where it ran six nights, which was considered a substantial success. As an ironic look at "the marriage game" written by an 18th-century male impersonator, the play subsequently was set in the androgynous cabaret world of the 1920s by Double Edge^[2] to underscore its cross-gender casting and the wry implications such an approach has in contemporary society. ^[3]

Cast list from first printing, 1718

[edit] Contribution to language

[edit] Simon Pure

Like the character of Mrs. Malaprop in Sheridan's play The Rivals, the name Simon Pure soon became a noun for a quality in a person. In Mrs. Malaprop's case, that quality was incorrect usage of a word by substituting a similar-sounding word with different meaning, usually with comic effect. In Simon's case, that quality was authenticity and in Simon's impersonator's case, that quality was hypocrisy. ^[4]

In its adjective form, the quickly compound gained a hyphen and lost its capitals when, in 1894, William Dean Howells wrote glowingly of "American individuality, the real, simon-pure article." As in boycott from Captain Boycott and bloomer from Amelia Bloomer, names turn into words and lose their capital letters in eponymy. As a noun, Simon Pure is two words; as an adjective, it is lowercase and still holds the hyphen. That keeps the adjectival form untainted. ^[5]

The fact that there were two Simon Pures on stage is probably the reason the term became a confusing one. Depending on how it's used, it can mean either an honest man or a hypocrite who makes a great show of virtue.^[6]

Modernly, Simon Pure has become the source of two expressions: the phrase "The real Simon Pure", meaning "the real man"; and the adjective "simon-pure", meaning either

of genuine, untainted purity or integrity; or
pretentiously, superficially or hypocritically virtuous.

In 1984, the term "simon-pure" received some publicity when Ambassador Robert Morris at the United States State Department conceded that the United States had taken some steps toward economic protectionism, but insisted, "If we are not simon-pure, we remain fairly credible."^[7] As reported by then-New York Times columnist William Safire, the phrase simon-pure means "untainted." In this context, delegates to conventions who are unencumbered by charges of being the creatures of ill-gotten funds^[8] are simon-pure delegates.

[edit] References

^ Kistler, Julie. (April 15, 2005) Pantagraph (Bloomington, IL). Illinois Wesleyan theater takes a 'Bold' step forward. Pg. D.
^ Double Edge Theatre of Boston, MA, was founded in 1982, and tries to incorporate 'living culture' into all of its productions. In some ways this can be compared to the concept of 'third theatre.' See Miller, David. (June 1995). TDR (Cambridge, Mass.), MIT Press. Songs at the well: Double Edge Theatre. (Boston, Massachusetts). Pg. 115.
^ McLaughlin , Jeff. Boston Globe. N.E. Life to Sponsor Performance Series. Section: Arts and Film. Pg. 58.
^ Safire, William. (June 3, 1984). New York Times. [On Language; Taint So.]] Section 6; Pg. 614.
^ Safire, William. (June 3, 1984). New York Times. [On Language; Taint So.]] Section 6; Pg. 614.
^ Miami Herald. (July 12, 1985). Front Section. Pg. 25D.
^ Safire, William. (June 3, 1984). The New York Times. [On Language; Taint So.]] Section 6; Pg. 614.
^ That is to say, their presence at the convention is not the direct or indirect result of bribes