Madison
Natt
Dr.
Morillo
Eng 579
Sept. 18,
2008
The Man of Mode
and the Absence of Sir Fopling Flutter
George Etherege’s The Man of Mode; or, Sir Fopling Flutter has an interesting anomaly in its title, namely that the character referenced therein makes very few appearances. His brief and scattered presence, moreover, is constructed of rather superficial dialogue, mostly pertaining to his views on style of dress and the superiority of French culture. These themes bear no relation to the overall plot. It is interesting, then, to consider why Etherege would call the work after this apparently insignificant personality. The answer can be found in the pivotal conversations of Act V scene I. It is at this point in the action when the play’s many deceptions come to a climax. The three principle characters in the main love triangle are present, and it seems Mrs Loveit will discover Bellinda is Dorimant’s other woman. Even Loveit’s insignificant attendant Pert is there, making the audience all the more aware that Fopling, who is now courting Loveit, is very noticeably absent from the pivotal moment. The scene begins with Pert trying to convince Loveit of Fopling’s worth, then shifts to Loveit defending Fopling to Dorimant as Bellinda listens. The content delves into what should be valued and attractive in a man versus what is, and calls into question the nature of genuine virtue and its worth.
Before Dorimant arrives, it is clear that Loveit has no interest in Fopling. Pert is responding to something Loveit has said when she remarks, “Well! In my eyes, Sir Fopling is no such despicable/ person” (V.i. 1-2). Pert has never been fond of Dorimant and the way he treated her employer, and she wants better for Loveit. Loveit, however, is not interested in such sound advice. She is quickly distracted by the arrival of Bellinda in a chair that always stands near Dorimant’s house and her suspicions are aroused. She can not be bothered to think of Fopling at all until her mind has been settled on the matter of from whence Bellinda came. She knows Dorimant is cheating on her, that he does not love her, and that he has been trying to make a fool of her in public with Fopling, and yet her only concern still lies with him. Bellinda, for her part, must come up with a quick excuse. The first thing that comes to mind is a lie about entertaining “country gentlewomen/…They have the oddest diversions!/...They complain of the stinks of the Town” (V.i 30-1, 36). Loveit is satisfied by the explanation, one of many offhand examples in the play pitting country and town in opposition to one another, with the latter clearly implied as superior. Town women bond over their particular breed of superiority instead of actually bettering themselves, much as town men bond over their advanced wit at the expense of men like Fopling. That matter settled, Dorimant arrives to renew the action again.
He had lost interest in Loveit a while ago, and to try to get rid of her practically forced her to Fopling, whom he viewed as insignificant and unthreatening, a mere “counterplot” (III.III 276). Seeing them together, though, incensed him and he can not resist coming to her again to insult Fopling in the hopes that she will end things with him. Dorimant does not want Loveit, but he does not want anyone else to have her, either. Though mere moments before Loveit had seen no redeeming characteristics in Fopling, Dorimant’s attack impels her to defend the man who actually cares about her against the one who has only been using her. She does so, however, only to deepen Dorimant’s jealousy because he is still the one she wants.
“Those noisy fools, however you despise
‘em, have
good
qualities which weigh more (or ought, at
least) with
us women than all the pernicious wit
you have
to boast of” (V.i.114-117).
The parenthetical
note she makes is not actually a subservient idea, but the main one. She
recognizes that Fopling has qualities that should be valued higher than
Dorimant’s intelligence and humor but also knows that they are not. Or, in
terms of the play itself, that Fopling perhaps deserves a bigger role but will
never get one. She is only able to see the good in Fopling when it can be used
against Dorimant. So, even though she notes that Fopling actually admires her,
instead of just using pretty words of false flattery; that he is consistent and
attentive instead of unreliable; and that he has faith in her instead of being
jealous, these truths do not actually give Fopling worth to her, Dorimant, or
the play’s action. Dorimant offers a rebuttal of Loveit’s compliments.
“You
owe that to their excessive idleness. They know
not how to
entertain themselves at home, and find
so little
welcome abroad, they are fain to fly to you”(V.i 128-30).
The
audience, certainly, is meant to laugh at Fopling when in his brief interludes
he speaks such ridiculous and pretentious prose. However, viewers are also
meant to see themselves in him: well-meaning but sometimes foolish and mocked.
He is a character who it is hard to like, but hard to defend not liking. His
good characteristics should not be so easily dismissed or overlooked as
consequences of his inadequacy in wit. He is a fool, yes, but a kind one.
Dorimant suggests Fopling is as such useful only as property, but Loveit
counters that just old fools must accept that fate; “young and handsome fools/
have met with kinder fortunes” (V.i 167-8).
Like the division of town and country, the
juxtaposition of old and young has been present throughout the entire play. In
order to win Harriet’s affection, Dorimant is willing to pretend to be an older
gentleman named Courtage and woo Lady Woodvill with lamentations about how lewd
young men have become. Also, Old and Young Bellair are in competition for
Emilia’s heart. Old Bellair attempts to adopt a vigilant, youthful tactic, but
his ideas are out of date. And Harriet and Young Bellair are able to put on a
performance of love that they think Old Bellair and Lady Woodvill will be
fooled by, thus showing what they know their elders want and expect to see
instead of offering actual respect and compliance. The similarity between the
feigned respect for age and the faked appreciation of genuine affection in
courtship is hard to miss. Actual virtue is less importance than its
appearance, and in the case of Fopling, valuable characteristics are worth
nothing.
Mrs Loveit recognizes Dorimant’s visit for
what it is, another attempt to control her actions “that the/ town may know the
power you have over me” and laugh (V.i 181-2). Dorimant
counters that being seen with Fopling makes her look even sillier. She
tells him, in what may be the best vocalization of the play’s entire theme that
“Were
it sillier than you can make it, you must
allow ‘tis
pleasanter to laugh at others than to be
laughed at
ourselves, though never so wittily” (V.i 138-9).
In other
words, wit has its time, place, and limits. While an intelligent and humorous
man is certainly entertaining and valuable, his treatment of a woman can make
her the butt of jokes that no longer seem so funny. Dorimant recognizes this
universal truth himself when he tells Loveit that he could never forget her
being seen with Fopling, as the town would then laugh at Dorimant for taking
her back. It is ironic but fitting to his character that he is only able to
realize the cruelty of his behavior when he thinks of how it might affect
himself.
At this
point, Bellinda reveals herself and Dorimant realizes that he’s in a very bad
situation. He has no way of getting himself out at present without revealing
too much, so he quickly takes off, leaving Bellinda to reflect.
“I knew him false and helped to make him
so. Was
Not her ruin enough to fright me from the
danger?
It should have been, but love can take no
warning” (V.i 330-2).
Pert had
observed that every woman must hate Dorimant knowing what he had done to
Loveit, and in this passage, Bellinda wishes that she could and knows that she
should. However, her knowledge of his vice, which she had from beginning to end
more than any other character, was not enough to deter her from pursuing him
and letting him make her into another Mrs Loveit. It is hard not to conclude,
then, that George Etherege’s The Man of
Mode; or, Sir Fopling Flutter is not meant just to critique Flutter or even
men like him, but the society that refuses to appreciate what kind fools have
to offer that conniving wits simply do not. Flutter is not often present in
this play, because he is not often present in general
society. He is, however, still extremely important to the ensuing action.
Without him, much of the drama could not have taken place. Genuine virtue is
necessary to the world, but is not respected and appreciated. It is not what
helps a man to get a woman, and if it were, perhaps all the characters might
have ended up a lot happier.
Works Cited
Etherege, George. “The Man of Mode;
or, Sir Fopling Flutter.” The Broadview
Anthology of Restoration & Early Eighteenth-Century Drama.
Ed. J. Douglas Canfield.