Dark Humour and its Subversive Undertones in Oscar Wilde's "An Ideal Husband"

Leow 1

Leow Shu Hui

Ms Caroline Gordon

EN5106: Tragedy and Comedy

24 April 2015

A study of dark humour and its subversive undertones in Oscar Wilde’s An Ideal Husband

Introduction

Haley Wareham posits that Oscar Wilde’s comedies have survived through the ages

due to the “apparent modernity of their themes”. Indeed, Wilde is perhaps a pioneer of the

homosexual movement, regarded as a “martyr” in the queer community for increasing

awareness about sexuality and gender roles almost a century before these issues were

acknowledged in the public sphere. (Lavender, 2011) In his comedies, Wilde navigates

Victorian Society, a world far less tolerant than the 21st Century.

Victorian ideals were founded on a binary system. People were either moral or immoral,

straight or deviant, and either one of a multitude of other antithetical label pairs where one was

considered good and acceptable, while the other was bad and not tolerated. Morality was

absolute; to be accepted and considered ‘good’ by society, a person had to embody all values

and behaviours on the moral side of the binary. Even minor blunders would result in one being

cast out and labelled as ‘fallen’. (Aalto, 2010; Meijers, 2009) Despite the repression clearly

portrayed in Victorian literature, there is evidence that institutions catering to deviant behaviour

such as opium dens, male and female brothels, and prostitution, flourished during this era.

(Wade, 2012) In addition, the dignified upper class were wildly decadent and “did not give a

damn about conventional morality” (Pearsall, 1969: xi). The inconsistencies between societal

values and practices among nobility is explored in many of Wilde’s works.

Wilde’s plays enjoy unwavering popularity for two reasons: the witty humour he

employed, and the continued relevance of the themes explored; gender identity, morality, social

Leow 2

convention and judgement. Wilde himself was at the heart of the opposition to strict morality

and rigid social conventions in his time, embodied by his trials for homosexual behaviour. It is

highly likely that Wilde wrote An Ideal Husband in the same time period that Lord Queensbury

and his other critics harassed him for having unorthodox relationships and behaviours,

(Lavender, 2011) as it was published in 1895, soon after Wilde was convicted of “gross

indecency”. The themes explored in An Ideal Husband are hence highly reflective of his

predicament and explorative of the conventions that his critics employed to denounce him.

It is also precisely because Wilde’s philosophies and reputation were that of a

nonconformist that he could not be explicit with his social commentary in his plays, to avoid

the risk of further condemnation. It was also important that he ceded to the demands of

consumerism, to secure a good reception of his plays, so that he might further his career in

playwriting. (Wareham, 2010) In light of this, paradoxes, epigrams, verbal wit, aphorisms, and

repartees frequently feature in his plays, serving dual purposes. First, it may be considered a

populist measure as they sustain the audience’s amusement and enjoyment of the play. In

addition, they mask his commentary with frivolity and light-heartedness. Although the

audience subconsciously acknowledges the issues explored in the play, they are too

preoccupied by the humour to consciously process them, and hence do not take them to heart.

The glamourous spectacle of the decadent upper-class that the play depicts lend it another feel-

good factor. These factors lead the audience to perceive the play positively, cushioning Wilde’s

commentary.

However, when the initial perceived hilarity is deconstructed, Wilde’s observations and

analysis of Victorian society is revealed. The play’s humour largely stems from making a

mockery of social conventions and moral values, exposing the pitfalls of treating them as

absolutes. While the ideas presented in the play oppose social expectations, they are in fact an

accurate representation of reality. The audience is really laughing at is the irony of society

Leow 3

presented in the play, but they do not realise this, as the play makes light of the situation. To

further secure the audience’s acceptance of the play, the plot is largely politically correct; it

emphasizes conventional gender roles, ends with a betrothal and the defeat of the amoral, fallen

women, to cite some of the plot devices typical of the era that Wilde utilized. Hence, Wilde’s

social commentary is concealed as a joke, as if it were an irrelevant and insignificant

component of his play, and the audience treats it as such, comforted by the familiar plot. Wilde

therefore effectively utilizes dark humour to thread a thin line, preventing his contemporaries

from conclusively picking up on the subverted parodying of Victorian morals. His discretion

also allowed his plays to enjoyed continued success after his trials, despite the public’s hatred

and disgust towards him. (Lavender, 2011) Once detached from his sullied name, the public

did not detect any other signs of perversity in his plays.

The plot of An Ideal Husband plot deals with political corruption and marriage,

presenting a sweet, humorous tale about the triumph of friendship and love over evil, through

the experience of Sir Robert Chiltern, who almost loses everything in the span of 24 hours; his

spotless political career, sound marriage and reputation of strong principles, all as a

consequence of a single act of dishonesty in his youth. Yet, in his play Wilde also satirizes

Victorian society’s absolute morality, commenting on society’s hypocrisy and the absurdity of

gender and marriage convention.

The hypocrisy of absolute ideals of morality is showcased by parodying the frivolity of

nobility

The first act of An Ideal Husband fantastically reveals the frivolity of nobility through

the intricate detailing of the interactions between Mrs Marchmont, Lady Basildon, Lord

Caversham, Mabel Chiltern and Lord Goring, among other respected. The scene is that of a

‘political party’, with many important, high ranking officials present. However, despite the

party consisting of supposedly intelligent, righteous people who bear the weight of developing

Leow 4

and leading society on their shoulders, they turn out to be concerned mainly about trivial

matters revolving around their appearances.

For instance, Lady Markby’s retort regarding Mrs Cheveley’s marital status reveals that

her speech is geared to garner favour from others:

LADY MARKBY: Ah, nowadays people marry as often as they

can, don’t they? It is most fashionable. (Wilde, 3)

This statement would generally be regarded as wit, as it is entirely contrary to Victorian

values that marriage is sacred. However, Lady Markby is portrayed as a sensible, conservative

old woman, who frequently “scolds” Mabel Chiltern’s eccentricities. It would be unlike her

character to partake in verbal wit. It is also improbable that she would declare, against moral

conventions, that disregarding the sanctity of marriage is an increasing trend as a reflection of

her true opinion and behaviour. The most plausible reason behind her statement is that she

wishes to protect the reputation of Mrs Cheveley, whom she thinks to be a “charming woman”,

and her own by association. Her illogical conclusions are explained later in the play:

LADY MARKBY: … I think anything is better than high

intellectual pressure. That is the most unbecoming thing there is.

It makes the noses of the young girls so particularly large. And

there is nothing so difficult to marry as a large nose; men don’t

like them. (Wilde, 35)

Lady Markby asserts that a woman is valued for marriage, and intellect reduces the

value of a woman as it hinders conventional marriage. Her statement that girls with big noses

Leow 5

were disliked for marriage was probably meant as an aphorism that reflects the role of physical

beauty in love and marriage. Girls with good looks, with smaller noses a desirable feature,

would have more suitors and marry more easily, hence increasing her value in Victorian times.

It is also wordplay on ‘nose’, where a “large nose” implies that the person is ‘nosy’. If a woman

were educated, she would have the knowledge and capability to serve in both the domestic and

public domain, the latter of which is regarded as belonging to men. Hence, ‘nosy’ girls who

interfere with their husbands’ public business would have infringed on Victorian moral

conventions, and would be regarded as less valuable for marriage. Yet, she is accepting of Mrs

Cheveley, a woman who concerns herself with politics and the public domain, a fact known to

Lady Markby who remarks “she (Mrs Cheveley) goes everywhere”. She likely judged Mrs

Cheveley based on her looking “like an orchird”, with “extremely graceful” movements, rather

than on any level of personality or character, demonstrating her preoccupation with external

appearances.

Lord Caversham is another ideal representation of a frivolous but important noble. He

is described as “an old gentlemen of seventy, wearing the ribbon and star of the Garter”, which

refers to the highest order of chivalry that is awarded in recognition of service and achievement,

to only a select elite. Yet, he is presented as extremely shallow:

LORD CAVERSHAM: Never go anywhere now. Sick of London Society.

Shouldn’t mind being introduced to my own tailor; he always votes on the

right side. But object strongly to being sent down to dinner with my wife’s

milliner. Never could stand Lady Caversham’s bonnets. (Wilde, 3)

By analysing the language Lord Caversham uses, and picturing him in conjunction with

the description provided, he is portrayed as the stereotypical senile, old man whose heyday has

Leow 6

long past, and now only sprouts quirky slices of ‘wisdom’ and anecdotes to those he encounters.

He occasionally contradicts himself as well, adding to the humour. It is quite impossible to be

“introduced to my own tailor”, whom he ought to be acquainted with already, but he says it in

a matter-of-fact manner, as if it were perfectly normal and possible. His speech often compose

of clipped sentences, giving the impression that he proclaims his opinions as if they were the

gospel truth. Furthermore, Lord Caversham serves no essential purpose to the main plot. The

entire double blackmail by and on Mrs Cheveley, and Sir Robert Chiltern’s almost-plunge from

favour could have played out without his involvement at all. On first impression, Lord

Caversham might seem like comic relief.

However, towards the end of the play, it is hinted that Lord Caversham is an agent

representing conservative standards of social behaviour and appearance. In the play, he takes

on the role of messenger for the Prime Minister, bringing the letter of appointment to Sir Robert

Chiltern.

LORD CAVERSHAM: … I have just left the Prime Minister, and you

are to have the vacant seat in the Cabinet. (Wilde, 62)

In delivering this message, it is implied that Lord Caversham is a representative for the

highest ranking elites, the powers that dictate the norm of social behaviour and appearance.

Yet, this man of apparent importance concerns himself with rather petty matters. He is

unaccepting of his wife’s “milliner” (a manufacturer of headwear), because he dislikes the

“bonnets” she chooses to wear. On the other hand, he favours his tailor based purely on the fact

that they vote for the same political party. While his speech sounds conclusive, typically a

reflection of strong character, he is actually quite superficial: he calls Lord Goring, his own

son, “heartless”, although Lord Goring proves his sincere love and concern for his friends when

Leow 7

he puts in much effort to save the Chilterns’ marriage. Lord Chaversham is oblivious of his

son’s caring nature, instead judging Lord Goring for always contradicting him. These opinions

are formed based on appearances and impressions, with no detailed analysis and thought. They

are also in agreement with absolute morality; the slightest deviation from ideal behaviour, such

as making unappealing headwear, will not be tolerated by society.

Conversely, it is the supposedly idle, amoral characters who deliver the most cutting

lines which reflect the grim reality. This is illustrated in Lord Goring and Mabel Chiltern’s

speeches:

MABEL CHILTERN: I love London Society! I think it has immensely

improved. It is entirely composed now of beautiful idiots and

brilliant lunatics. Just what Society should be. (Wilde, 3)

LORD GORING: And falsehoods the truths of other people. (Wilde, 36)

At first, Mabel Chiltern seems to be making a tongue-in-cheek comment mocking

society. Upon further thought, it is a rather accurate reflection of the people around her. Those

who put forth a pleasing appearance of morality and righteousness such as Lord Caversham

and Lady Markby, do not truly say anything sensible, making them “beautiful idiots”. That

Mabel Chiltern is able to pick up on this, despite their high regard in society, shows that she is

quite sharp. Lord Goring too, speaks in paradoxes, contrasting two contrary concepts,

“falsehoods” and “truths”, within the same sentence. Yet, he manages to express his

understanding of people’s perspectives concisely. Mabel Chiltern and Lord Goring’s verbal

wit is not empty and unintentional, unlike Lord Caversham and Mrs Markby’s. Regrettably,

society is unable to understand and appreciate their brilliance. Mrs Markby calls Mabel

Leow 8

Chiltern “modern”, not as a compliment, but rather as a diplomatic way of saying she is insane.

In this play, “modern” is used by morally upright characters to describe everything they do not

agree with. For Lord Caversham, “political finance” is one such concept, and for Lady Markby,

the “modern woman” deviates from the Victorian ideal as they “understand everything”.

Conventional society is unable to understand the sharp wit of dandies like Mabel Chiltern and

Lord Goring, tolerating them as if they were verging on insanity and “dangerous”, hence the

term “brilliant lunatics”.

Trivial behaviour is used to convey serious messages, while serious dialogue consists

of trivial issues. The binary of triviality and seriousness is subverted, and Wilde’s message is

clear; people and morality are neither binary not absolute. People who behave in a frivolous

manner do not necessarily have a superficial character, while people who are often serious and

righteous may not actually be so. Instead of producing a prudish society, morality was probably

only largely enforced within the public domain, and transgressions were common, as long as

they remained in private knowledge. Members of society, especially those of the respectable

nobility, would then be concerned primarily with maintaining appearances to avoid public

scandal and disgrace. Rather than eradicating immoral desires and acts, stringent morality bred

shame and guilt, resulting in an “insincere society that refuses to acknowledge its reliance on

secrecy and public masks” (Neal, 2008), driving people to perform amoral acts to conceal their

dirty secrets. As Mrs Cheveley put it, “Nowadays, with our modern mania for morality,

everyone has to pose as a paragon of purity, incorruptibility, and all the other seven deadly

virtues.” Where the supposedly moral and upright characters like Lady Markby and Lord

Chaversham put on a ‘pose’ of being serious and righteous all the time, the dandified characters

such as Mabel Chiltern and Lord Goring do not pretend as if they were moral and upright, but

present themselves as they truly are; speaking trivially of matters that are not accepted by

society, with their self-portrayal a reflection of the amorality of their thoughts. Condemnation

Leow 9

is a two-way street here: the dandies criticise the conventional for being pretentious, and the

conventional criticise the dandies for being amoral. However, while the dandies do not attempt

to hide their deviance, the conventional are unable to accept that they too, are flawed and trivial.

The inability to accept any flaws, even one’s own, seems to be Wilde’s criticism of

society. The large number of male and female brothels and opium dens would need patrons, a

number of whom would have to be of noble background to enable their flourish. Wilde was

probably only one of many who partook in activities that would be labelled ‘grossly indecent’.

These people probably condemn him publicly while partaking in similar activities privately, a

hypocritical attitude also seen in the conventional characters in An Ideal Husband.

The idealized notions of gender as a foil to show the double standards to women

An Ideal Husband also deals with gender ideals, and they are revealed in soliloquys by

various characters through the course of the play. First, the play posits that women are inferior

to men, in the value of their lives and intellectual capacity, as a reflection of Victorian gender

notions. (Buzwell)

LORD GORING: [Pulling himself together for a great effort, and

Showing the philosopher that underlies the dandy] … A man’s

life is of more value than a woman’s. It has larger issues, wider

scope, greater ambitions. A woman’s life revolves in curves of

emotions. It is upon lines of intellect that a man’s life progresses. (Wilde, 64)

The soliloquy in itself is hardly funny, but the melodramatic delivery arouses

amusement in the audience. With the stage directions, one can imagine the typically carefree

Lord Goring physically “Pulling himself together” onstage, making for a theatrical effect. This

Leow 10

action reminds the audience that Lord Goring is not supposed to be serious, such that when he

is serious, it is quite the event. When he proposes to Mabel Chiltern, he has to plead with her,

“Mabel, do be serious. Please be serious.” Lord Goring’s seriousness is exaggerated and

dramatized, hence rendering it only half-serious, although humour has been stripped from the

lines alone.

Due to the perceived inferiority of the female gender, they are “not taught to understand

anything”, according to Lady Markby. Women’s lack of exposure and knowledge gave rise to

the angel-wife, who knew only their husbands that would become their entire world. (Aalto,

2010) Lady Chiltern explains how this manifests in practice; “We women worship when

we/Love”, effectively summarizing Victorian women’s tendency to put their husbands on a

pedestal. Since Lady Chiltern “is a woman/of the very highest principles”, at least according

to Mrs Markby, she should embody these ideals perfectly. This means she would therefore

expect nothing but the best from her husband, Sir Robert Chiltern. We see this in her dialogue

with Robert Chiltern:

LADY CHILTERN: … All your life you have

stood apart from others. You have never let the world soil you. To

the world, as to myself, you have been an ideal always. Oh! Be that

ideal still … Oh! Don’t kill my love for you, don’t kill that! (Wilde, 35)

In this speech, Lady Chiltern proclaims her love for and dependence on, her ideal

husband. She expresses her distress with several exclamations, reflecting the feminine ideal of

being emotionally ruled. While her response is rather melodramatic, exaggerating her

emotional response to an event that has yet to occur. The audience also sees the dramatic irony

in the situation: Sir Robert Chiltern has already “killed” Lady Chiltern’s love for him, as he

Leow 11

has not been ‘an ideal’ since he succumbed to corruption in his youth, a fact that Lady Chiltern

is thoroughly unaware of. One might only imagine the dread Robert Chiltern must be feeling.

The expectations of an ideal husband, or an ideal man, is the premise on which the

entire play is founded. Lord Caversham details this later in the play:

LORD CAVERSHAM: … Brilliant orator … Unblemished career … Well-

known integrity of character … Represents what is best in English

public life … Nobel contrast to the lax morality so common among

foreign politicians.’ They will never say that of you, sir. (Wilde, 54)

The last segment of his praise is addressed to Lord Goring as a reprimand, inserted

unexpectedly, as if it were an afterthought. The stark contrast in Lord Caversham’s attitudes to

the two men, adoring towards Robert Chiltern and stern towards Lord Goring causes the last

line to stand out, making it more epigamic than reprimanding. Ironically, it is not Robert

Chiltern, but Lord Goring’s “integrity of character” that stands out in the play when he goes to

great lengths to save the Chilterns’ marriage.

In essence, the masculine ideal is a good reputation of complete incorruptibility, which

Robert Chiltern is publicly known for. Although men are superior to women, it is ironically the

men in this play who fall short of expectations. Instead, the perfect wife is pressured to lower

her standards. When Lady Chiltern discovers that Robert Chiltern is not perfectly moral, Lord

Goring beseeches Lady Chiltern and the audience to forgive him, criticizing Lady Chiltern for

being too moral, too harsh and judgemental:

Leow 12

LORD GORING: Women are not meant to judge us, but to

forgive us when we need forgiveness. Pardon, not punishment, is

their mission … A woman who can keep a man’s love, and love

in return, has done all the world wants of woman, or should want

of them. (Wilde, 65)

He effectively tells Lady Chiltern that she is wrong to judge her husband using the

values she had been brought up with: to idealize her husband and remain ignorant of all worldly

affairs, secure in the knowledge that her ideal husband would be the epitome of incorruptibility.

The Chilterns were a couple whose marriage was built on ideals: Lady Chiltern’s

idolization of her husband, and Robert Chiltern’s worship of Lady Chiltern’s incorruptibility.

He says of her, “She stands apart as good women do – pitiless in her perfection – cold and

stern/and without mercy. But I love her”. Although the Chilterns seemed to be a loving,

unbreakable couple, their marriage was almost destroyed by this incident. It only goes to show

that marriage on a moral basis is rigid and fragile, as the parties in the union are easily

disillusioned.

In the end, the Chilterns’ marriage and reputation are safe, their love triumphing over

the evil of black mail and satisfying the requirements of a conventional, joyous ending, but at

what cost? Lady Chiltern disregarded her “highest principles” to forgive her husband, gaining

Lord Goring’s approval, which he gave despite being fully aware of Robert Chiltern’s guilt. It

is the woman who has paid for her ‘sins’ rather than the man, although he was the one who had

actually sinned. It is a paradox that the women are expected to adhere to morals strictly and not

interfere with superior males, but are the ones who ultimately abandon their ideals to forgive

the man who sins. If morality is binary, the women’s deviation, Mrs Chiltern’s change, could

Leow 13

hardly be moral, although the ending is politically correct. Through this, Wilde raises the

question of whether social acceptance is necessarily moral, while satisfying the demands of

consumerism. Although the title An Ideal Husband suggests the play speaks of how men may

be ‘ideal’ in society, it ironically places a strong emphasis on the qualities wives must have to

be better or ‘ideal’. In this play, the woman is disciplined for her husband’s wrongs, while the

fallen man is allowed full self-justification.

Masculine Gender Convention Subverted by Contrasting the Effeminate Dandy and the

Manly Man

In An Ideal Husband, the clashing concepts of effeminacy and masculinity are brought

together through the friendship between Lord Goring and Sir Robert Chiltern. This results in

visual comedy when the two men are onstage together; effeminate Lord Goring ridiculously,

flamboyantly, dressed, and masculine Sir Robert all prim and proper. Wilde sets this up with

his character descriptions:

SIR ROBERT CHILTERN enters … clean-shaven, with finely-cut

features, dark-haired and dark-eyed. A personality of mark. … The

note of his manners is that of perfect distinction, with a slight touch of

pride. (Wilde, 3)

Enter LORD GORING in evening dress with a buttonhole. He is wearing

a silk hat and Inverness cape. White-gloved, he carries a Louis

Seize cane. His are all the delicate fopperies of Fashion. (Wilde, 36)

Leow 14

Robert Chiltern is portrayed to have a sombre, conservative style, while Wilde leaves

no room for the audience to doubt Lord Goring’s showy dress sense. He even has Lord

Goring wear three different “buttonholes” in 24 hours; one to the Chilterns’ party, one he

changes at home, and another one after he proposes to Mabel Chiltern. When translated onto

the visual stage, it makes for a hilarious contrast.

Despite how society perceives their appearances and labels Lord Goring and Robert

Chiltern effeminate and masculine respectively, their characters are inverse. Robert Chiltern

speaks melodramatically, playing up the severity of the situation, the irrationality

characteristic of femininity. Lord Goring, on the other hand, is straightforward and concise,

as would be expected of masculinity.

LORD GORING: It is always worthwhile asking a question, though it

it is not always worthwhile answering one. (Wilde, 26)

SIR ROBERT CHILTERN: … Arthur, I feel that public disgrace is in

store for me. I feel certain of it. I never knew what terror was before. I

know it now. It is as if a hand of ice were upon one’s heart. It is as if

one’s heart were beating itself to death in some empty hollow. (Wilde, 25)

Here, Lord Goring is dispensing more of his dandical philosophies in yet another

epigram, while Robert Chiltern has surrendered to Mrs Cheveley’s threats, and utilizes several

hyperboles that exaggerate his despair. He wallows in misery and self-pity before the

catastrophe has befallen him, quite an overreaction to a threat that has yet come to fruition.

Leow 15

This satirizes the overtly harsh judgement passed by society on all moral transgressions. Even

events that transpired years ago, that were immoral but did not do any harm, receive judgement

as severely as recent, more momentous infringements. The practice of this ideal is exemplified

in Lady Chiltern’s aphorism, “One’s past is what one is. It is the only way by which people

should be judged.” Although people may change, their pasts do not. The Victorian practice of

morality does not take into account the learning, changing nature of humans, passing judgement

on unchangeable facts rather than opinions and character, revealing the fallibility of absolute,

binary morality.

As a result, the masculine man is incapacitated by Mrs Cheveley’s threats, displaying

vulnerability, a feminine trait, while the effeminate dandy takes charge of the situation in a

crisis, acting as the superior male; it is after all Lord Goring, the effeminate man, who

eventually seizes the upper hand and blackmails Mrs Cheveley in return, demonstrating his

intellect and resourcefulness. It is also him who successfully, fiercely scolds Mrs Cheveley:

(Chung)

LORD GORING: With you? No. Your transaction with Robert Chiltern

may pass as a loathsome commercial transaction of a loathsome

commercial age; but you seem to have forgotten that you came here to-

night to talk of love, you whose lips desecrated the word love, you

to whom the thing is a book closely sealed, went this afternoon to

the house of one of the most noble and gentle women in the world to

degrade her husband in her eyes, to try and kill her love for him, to

put poison in her heart, and bitterness in her life, to break her

Leow 16

idol, and, it may be, spoil her soul. That I cannot forgive you.

That was horrible. For that there can be no forgiveness. (Wilde, 49)

Although Lord Goring also utilizes several hyperboles, they concisely summarize the

events that transpired and bring across his condemnation without harping on the same few

issues. With a gentle tone, he delivers a more impactful, cutting speech than anything Robert

Chiltern says in the entire play. While Robert Chiltern speaks more passionately, often using

exclamations like “Never!” and “No!”, he fails to convey any substantial insight or wisdom,

perhaps reflective of an irrational, emotionally-ruled nature.

The expectations of effeminate dandy and masculine man are inverted, showing that

the hierarchy glorifying masculinity is not natural; both the personifications of masculine and

effeminate inherently contain some subverted tendencies of the other. There may be alternative

ways of thinking besides the dominant patriarchal mode. The conventional understanding of

dandies is a misinterpretation of their appearance and behaviour, similar to how Robert Chiltern

misunderstands Lord Goring:

SIR ROBERT CHILTERN: You are mad … Let her remain your mistress!

You are well-suited to each other. She, corrupt and shameful – you, false as a

friend, treacherous as an enemy even – (Wilde, 45)

Robert Chiltern jumped to conclusions upon discovering Mrs Cheveley in Lord

Goring’s house at night, demonstrating his little understanding of his purportedly close friend.

He wrongly accuses Lord Goring of being “false as a friend”, although Lord Goring has done

Leow 17

nothing but help during the crisis. Indeed, society misunderstands dandies and those who live

life as an art form, regarding it as immoral and a “danger” to society. (Bose, 1999) Wilde, an

effeminate dandy himself, (Aalto, 2010) also feels misunderstood. Using Lord Goring as a

voice, (Hornychová, 2010) he calls for society to give him a chance to explain himself:

LORD GORING: It is not true, Robert. Before heaven, it is not true.

In her presence and in yours I will explain all. (Wilde, 45)

This shows judgement passed on superficial observations do not accurately reflect

reality, a fact that one would find out upon pausing for a moment to consider other perspectives.

Conclusion

Using comedy to both enhance and mask his social commentary, Wilde deconstructs

Victorian conventions regarding gender and morality, demonstrating that culturally constructed

ideals are hollow. Therefore, there can be little trust in prevailing norms of men, women and

noble superiority based on these ideals. Wilde uses the dandies in the play, Mrs Cheveley,

Mabel Chiltern and Lord Goring to voice his philosophies, which manifest as the truthful

witticisms they sprout. In spreading his voice across three characters, Wilde tells his audience

that he is not one-dimensional as the media makes him out to be, (Lavender, 2011) or as

Victorian convention tends to be. He is multifaceted, with some views that are in accordance

with social norms and others that are not, but that does not make his opinions any less true.

The play depicts a society that imposes unrealistic expectations on real men with flaws,

threatening to ruin their entire careers and lives, apparently unfairly, based on public perception

of singular transgressions. Wilde’s career, equivocally, was ruined due to the public’s

Leow 18

perception of his “gross indecency”. (Lavender, 2011) Having violated ideals, Wilde conceals

his criticisms behind humour, utilizing ‘amoral’, dandical characters as a medium to deliver

his commentary so that the public and nobility would not take it too seriously, ensuring his

safety. Wilde effectively plays the role of a witty fool, utilizing dark humour to satirize society

without losing their favour.

Works Cited

Aalto, A. Queer Representations of Gender, Sexuality, Marriage and Family in Oscar

Wilde’s Comedies. University of Tampere. May 2010. Web. 23 Apr 2015.

Bose, S. P. Women as Figures of Disorder in the Plays of Oscar Wilde. The University of

Birmingham. March 1999. Web. 23 Apr 2015.

Buzwell, G. “Daughters of Decadence: The New Woman in the Victorian fin de siècle.” British

Library. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr 2015.

Chung, S. Male Bonding as a Theme in Oscar Wilde’s An Ideal Husband. National Cheng

Kung University. Web. 23 Apr 2015.

Hornychová, L. Social Criticism in Oscar Wilde’s Comedies (An Ideal Husband, The

Importance of Being Earnest). Tomas Bata University in Zlín. 2010. Web. 23 Apr 2015.

Kaneda, Masahide. “An Equivocal World: Oscar Wilde’s An Ideal Husband.” Osaka Literary

Review 37 (1998): 115-132. Web. 23 Apr 2015.

Lavender, Sarah. “A Legacy Restored: A study of Oscar Wilde’s public perception over time.”

Student Interdisciplinary Research Panels – National Collegiate Honors Council

Conference. np. nd, 2011. Web. 23 Apr 2015.

Leow 19

McWade, C. Revaluing the Transgressive Victorian: A Nietzschean study of power and

morality in three late-Victorian texts. University of Johannesburg. September 2012.

Web. 23 Apr 2015.

Meijers, L. Conventional or Confrontational? Oscar Wilde’s View on Traditional Victorian

Gender Roles in Lady Windermere’s Fan, An Ideal Husband and The Importance of

Being Earnest. Utrecht University. June 2009. Web. 23 Apr 2015.

Neal, K. “Oscar Wilde.” Innervate: Leading Undergraduate Work in English Studies (2008-

2009): vol. 1, 224-229. Web. 23 Apr 2015.

"The LitCharts Study Guide to An Ideal Husband." LitCharts. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr 2015.

Wareham, H. “A common explanation for the enduring popularity of Wilde’s works is the

apparent modernity of their themes. An essay examining Wilde’s interrogation of

gender identity.” Innervate: Leading Undergraduate Work in English Studies (2010-

2011): vol. 3, 291-297. Web. 23 Apr 2015.

Wilde, Oscar. An Ideal Husband. 1985. Web. 23 Apr 2015.