A Woman Killed With Kindness

As Act II progresses, certain details imply that a significant period of time has passed. Scene 1 shows Wendoll reporting the events of the hunting match between Francis and Charles, noting that Charles has been arrested, but Scene 2 opens on “the sessions-day,” when Charles is “cleared of all” charges after spending almost his entire fortune in legal fees (153). This skip from arrest to trial implies the passage of time. Likewise, Scene 3 opens with Wendoll’s debate regarding his attraction to Anne, during which Wendoll comments: 

[Frankford] cannot eat without me,

Nor laugh without me; I am to his body

As necessary as his digestion

And equally do make him whole or sick (156-57). 

The intensity of Wendoll and Frankford’s friendship implies the passage of time—though Wendoll was present for the wedding festivities, Frankford only knows him by name as of Scene 1 of Act II—and yet Frankford is now comfortable leaving Wendoll in charge of his home. Key events later in the play also depend on the assumed passing of time, such as the reveal that Frankford and Anne have children by Act V. Such compression is relatively common in English theater of the era, as plays often had to depict months’ or years’ worth of events within the span of a few hours. Notably, this deviated from Aristotle’s advice in Poetics, which stressed unity of place, action, and time (that is, a play should unfold within a single day); Aristotle’s theory of tragedy was influential in England, but less so than in many European countries.

The most significant plot development in Act II is the beginning of Wendoll’s relationship with Anne, which continues to elaborate on the theme of Marriage and Gender Roles in a Patriarchal Society. Both Wendoll’s inner conflict and Anne’s resistance center on Frankford rather than the well-being or desires of Anne herself. For example, Anne chastises Wendoll for disloyalty to his friend but says nothing of the threat to her own reputation that Wendoll’s actions pose. Wendoll, for his part, does not listen to her initial refusals, whatever their motivation. For an audience of the era, the effect would in part be to soften the impact of Anne’s adultery, rendering her character more sympathetic; she retains her love for her husband but is “seduced” by Wendoll against her better judgment.

Meanwhile, Wendoll’s private debate exposes another critical issue for the characters, in which the urge to do something is balanced against an understanding of society’s rules. Developing a theme of Social Judgment, Legal Consequences, and Moral Regulation, Wendoll acknowledges how much Frankford has done for him, asking himself, “And shall I wrong this man? Base man! Ingrate!” (157). Wendoll knows that Frankford’s generosity indebts Wendoll to him; however, this does not temper Wendoll’s desire to sleep with Anne, as he adds, “And yet I must. Then Wendoll, be content! / Thus villains, when they would, cannot repent” (157). Wendoll feels he cannot stop himself, implying that the strength of social mores pales in comparison to the urges individuals feel. Nevertheless, as Charles’s ongoing legal troubles reveal, individuals are held accountable for acts they undertake in states of heightened emotion.

At the same time, Charles’s storyline adds nuance to the depiction of social and legal repercussions, as characters continue to speak on Charles’s behalf. Of course, Susan supports Charles as her brother, but Francis’s sister Anne expresses sympathy for Charles as well, telling her husband, “[V]alorous Sir Charles slew, in his spleen, / Two of your brother’s men” (151). Calling Charles “valorous” frames him as the hero of the scenario. Her choice to call Francis “your brother” instead of “my brother” is also notable. On the one hand, it reflects Anne’s deference to Frankford and, more broadly, the gender hierarchy; what matters socially is not the fact that Francis is Anne’s brother but the fact that he is Frankford’s brother-in-law. At the same time, it distances Anne from Francis’s side of the conflict. Meanwhile, Malby and Cranwell both attend Charles’s release from jail, with Malby exclaiming, “I am glad to see you abroad, Sir Charles” (154). Everyone appears to feel that Charles’s actions in the brawl were justified, yet Francis retains the legal right to pursue a suit against Charles, creating a conflict between social judgment, which sides with Charles, and legality, which is on Francis’s side. A similar development occurs later in the play, when the two plots resolve in Act V. In the meantime, Shafton’s plot to dispossess Charles reveals further limitations of legality as a measure of justice; he is perfectly within his rights to act as he does, yet the play characterizes his behavior as villainous.