Hannah Cowley’s The Belle’s Stratagem and My Uninteresting Thoughts

 After having read Hannah Cowley’s The Belle Stratagem, I have come to the conclusion that this play, while not abysmal, leaves me uninterested. There comes a moment where the never-ending re-appearance of masquerade scenes in Restoration and seventeenth century plays begins to annoy me (and this is one of those moments). Anyway, regardless of my dislike for this play, I will try to address its themes and formulate some ideas concerning it (don’t expect anything insightful).

Like the other various Restoration and seventeenth century plays that we have encountered throughout the course, Cowley’s play opposes ”the fundamental affront to human dignity inherent in the marriage of convenience”(Vernon 381) that is similarly rejected in Restoration plays according to P.F. Vernon. Letitia Hardy reveals her opposition to a marriage of convenience to Doricourt in passages such as “never to be his wife will afflict/ me less than to be his wife and not be beloved” (Cowley III. 18-19) and “The woman that has/not touched the heart of a man before he leads her/ to the altar has scarcely a chance to charm it when/ possession and security turn their powerful arms/ against her” (Cowley III. 23-27). However, unlike the past plays, in order to avoid a marriage of convenience, Letitia resolves to convert her marriage to Doricourt into one of love rather than convenience. Traditionally, in plays like The Rover, Florinda would seek to reject Don Vincentio and his fortune in order to achieve a marriage of love with Belvile. Anyway, Cowley’s play provides an interesting deviation from the traditional means of opposing marriages of convenience.

Another interesting aspect of the play is its overt hatred or disliked of the “foreign” and the habits of other nations.For instance, the play’s final call for “British ladies” (Cowley V.v. 322) to keep the grace of modesty and avoid “foreign graces” (Cowley V.v. 323) reinforces the supposed superiority of Britain over other countries. Earlier in the play, Doricourt even proclaims that Englismen “make the/ best soldiers, citizens, artisans, and philosophers/ in the world” (Cowley I. iii. 17-19) and claims that he uses a French footman like a Roman slave because they are ”naturally” humble and obedient. Despite this defense, Saville still opposes this custom and, in my opinion, I think that Cowley meant for a seventeenth century audience to do so as well. In fact, Doricourt rejects Letitia’s “English beauty” (Cowley I.iii. 82) because it lacks the spirit found in “the resistless charmers of Italy and France” (Cowley I. iii. 75-76). Thus, his ignorance of Letitia’s true worth is attributed to the corrupting influence of foreign practices, which must be corrected before he can realize Letitia’s superiority to Italian and French women and happily marry her. In the introduction to the play, Linda R. Payne claims that these “nationalistic themes” (978) are the result of “the revolt of the American colonies and tensions with France” (973). Thus, Cowley’s play reinforces an inflexible form of intolerance towards other nations and races that is typical of the seventeenth century.

Tied to this reinforcement of national divides, Cowley also denigrates active women with “spirit” which she associates with Italy and France while glorifying the trait of humility and modesty in women (in other words, passivity and submission to men). Both Letitia and Lady Frances are re-cast into submissive roles at the play’s end. In the final act, after she reveals her true identity to Doricourt, Letitia tells him “You see I can be anything. Choose then/ my character. Your taste shall fix it. Shall I be an/ English wife? Or, [...] step forth to the world in all the captivating glare of foreign manners?” (Cowley V.v. 278-282). Here, Letitia submits to her husband, Doricourt, and gives him the power to determine her character. Of course, he chooses to have her be a modest and passive “English” woman rather than be active like the women of Italy and France.
Despite Sir George’s misogynisitc rant against Town women and their deviation from his passive ideal, Lady Frances’s entry into Town life does, in fact, almost ends in tragedy as Courtall tries to dishonour her and she consequently rejects this lifestyle. For instance, after she has averted this danger, she declares “The danger I was /in has overset a new system of conduct that/, perhaps, I was too much inclined to adopt. But henceforward, my dear Sir George, you shall be my constant companion and protector. And when they ridicule the unfashionable monsters, the felicity of our hearts shall make their satire pointless” (Cowley. V. iii. 16-22). At this moment, Lady Frances rejects the active lifestyle of Mrs. Racket and embraces a submissive role to her husband, Sir George. Thus, both Letitia and Lady Frances choose submission to their husbands and confine themselves within a patriarchal framework.

If there is one female character that is not entirely submissive to men, it is Mrs. Racket, who is independent in this patriarchal society because she is a widow. However, she is characterized as merely a side character to the actions of Letitia and Lady Frances, the play’s representatives of feminine virtue (in the eyes of Cowley). However, Mrs. Racket remains consistently independent throughout the play (I think), although no other female characters follow her example.

As in most Restoration plays, the role of the fool is present and given to Flutter. Another convention that I am tired of seeing. Likewise, the play’s final revelation to Doricourt is well developed, but, again, how I have seen too many revelation scenes in the fifth act of past plays to care anymore.

Well, this is my final post unless I decide to post some comments on Oroonoko, which I have not yet commented on. If I did, I have no idea what I would write about and calling on a Restoration play for its racism seems pointless (and too self-evident). Oh well, I’ll figure something out.