Originally Posted by Karen 1st November 2005

We find the story opening with 2 of the "wits" Etherege and Sackville in a coffeehouse with Jane, a whore, trying to come up with "good bits and bad bits" from Dryden's play to parody.
They are moaning about missing Rochester........their "mentor."

Once Rochester enters all eyes are on him and he knows it.

Let's look at the "Wits".... and why Rochester needed them. What did they do for or to Rochester? What did Rochester do for them? What do the 3 of them bring to the table, as it were?

Of the Wits, Rochester says:

"We are the merry wits after all, ain't we? We are the froth and fizz of the reign. Once people tumble to the fact that we're not happy they'll start to question the purpose of the enterprise won't they? "

Why did they exist and flourish in the court of King Charles II...what service/s did they perform?

Lufirel

Interesting questions, allow me to start the ball rolling. The other wits served quite a few purposes in my way of thinking. First off they provided Rochester with followers. Johnny is indisputably the leader of the merry gang, and the fact that these people respected him and were amused by him allowed him to continue in his self-destructiveness and his devil-may-care attitude. In other words they fuel some of Rochester's worse traits. They also provide the audience with examples of typical restoration gentlemen. They are bored and arrogant men whose main job in life seems to be amusing themselves and the king. Rochester himself is one of them, but unlike Ethredge and Sackville he hates it. Rochester seems to consider the wits existences both useless and full of affectations, and he demonstrates this opinion by the disdain he shows for the pair of them. Thus Ethredge and Sackville both show us what typical restoration gentlemen are also give us a standard of comparison for Rochester's opinions and behavior.

Finally, I think Ethredge in particular is there to be contrasted with Rochester. He is willing to compromise and he knows when to stop both of which are traits foreign to Rochester (I'm thinking of the scene in which Downs is killed, or where they destroy the sundial). Ethredge is also a successful with his play, whereas Rochester's Sodom earned him only a banishment. Ethredge is in the same boat as Rochester since both of them are restoration gents and friends of the King, but Ethredge is able to make the lifestyle work whereas Rochester is unwilling of unable to conform. Just my two cents.

JDFan

Lufirel brings up some interesting points. Rochester has traits from both men, probably why he kept them around him, but had a nihilistic self-destructive compulsion that didn't let him compromise an inch. It was, by the way, these men who conspired to keep him drunk for 5 years straight because they found him more amusing that way. He was their walking stage-show, their way of feeling what they did wasn't so bad because he was worse. He deflected unfavorable attention away from them.

Rochester needed to be admired, be the center of attention. He demanded it. Despite his intense insecurity, he also felt himself superior to others which is why he's thrown for a bit of a loop when Etherege announces that he has completed his new play. He didn't expect anyone to function well outside of his own influence.

As for what they did for the court of KCII, they embodied the creativity, intelligence and contrast to the repressive puritan regime that Charles fancied. They allowed the king an escape from his own difficult realities. In some ways he lived like them, in others he lived vicariously through them.

Deppraved

I agree that Rochester needed to be the center of attention, and I also agree that Sackville and Etheredge needed to have the reassurance of Rochester's lifestyle to condone their own.

It was the King who had set the tone at court, no? He was pretty randy there himself for quite some time, then he changed, matured---and Rochester was not able to accept this change.

It is sad that Downs held these gents in awe and sought them out to be his role models.

JDFan and Lufirel have pretty much covered it.

I don't recall any allusions to the fact that they conspired to keep him drunk. I'm sure it's in there-can you point it out to me? I'm a bit dense sometimes.

I think it's helpful in understanding the play if one is familiar with British Restoration history. The play itself does nothing to teach this history, (or did I miss something?) but also one does not need to know anything about said history to understand or enjoy it.

Ellen

After reading all of the above, all I can say is "wow....You guys are smart!"

Karen

The need to play off each other was pretty much what I wanted us to discuss and see about them. They were spoiled and arrogant and used others for their amusement. And they knew it. BUT...as is the theme of the play, Rochester doesn't much seem to want them to like him either. I think in some ways he used them to amuse himself at times and to see himself be important in their eyes.

These wits play off each other and other people in the cast so I thought that if we try and sort out their relationship early on, we would have a better basis to work from as we go thru the play.

There's always room for more thoughts and opinions.....

JDFan

Sorry, I should have specified that I learned about the merry gang encouraging his drunkeness in one of the bios I read on Wilmot. It doesn't come from the play. I'll see if I can find it.

Hibblette

Okay here's a thought in regards to the merry gang and this I think is something that applies to most clicks (remember High School) or groups. Validity.

Validity in the sense that goes back to something primitive-our tribal days-strength in numbers.

Validity for Wilmot in the sense that with his admirers he can feel comfortable with his ribalds.

I know we are not up to it yet but something that's made clear in the play-he is a man that lives a double life. The Gentleman at home with the wife and kids and then the scoundrel that rakes havoc with his scandalous behavior when away from the wife.

So when he's with his merry gang and the wife is not present (not sure if that ever happens) then he can be this scoundrel.

Actually I think this applies to any mans poker night or bowling league night or remember Ralph Kramden and the moose lodge or whatever it was he went to.

Validity.

Karen

Good thoughts everyone...it's hard not to get ahead of ourselves but I think we will move pretty quickly...this stuff is too good to skip over. Thanks everyone.

MantLMaris

Sorry I'm late, I worked late hours yesterday. Every "gang" needs its leader and the leader needs his followers. Rochester had the stronger personality which made him the leader. The other two reveled in his company making them the followers. Together they were the merry wits.

Ellen

This time around has been a new learning experience for me. I'm sure enjoying reading everyones ideas and opinions!

MerryK

I havent done very good this time around.. I just have not had the time to read the book again.. at least I do have it in my hands this time. I forgot it the other day at work to read on my lunch hour.. one of the few times I do have the time.. I'll get more into it tomorrow during my lunch break.. that is if I remember to put it in my bag..but for now.. I'm just reading what y'all are having to say .. which is to say.. its been very interesting

Karen

LOL It is such a quick read....I know you'll be jumping in here soon!

Because the play has so much going on and laid out in such a way that the action builds off what we see layered together we have to get the exposition stuff done first so we can get into the rest of the story....so there's plenty of time for everyone to still add in.

And remember there are no right or wrong posts, we are just sharing thoughts and everyone's thoughts are valid!

Mairimaih

of the Wits.. I do feel Etherege does also turn on Rochester when he is sick in the theatre, and in real life, he did have a 6 year affair with Elizabeth Barry, she had a daughter with him too, after Rochester's death, maybe what we see in the film is a hint, at this almost jealousy on Ethereges part?.. does anyone else see that, this way?

Hibblette

Wow didn't know that.

Hmmm.

Man people talk about the late 20th century being naughty-nothing compared to these bed hoppers.

Mairimaih


Oh Etherege was nothing.. not to what the rest of them were up to, King Charles had several Royal Mistresses at once, but was very free thinking, in that he didn't expect them to remain faithful to him either. In Graeme Green's book on Rochester, he says that Rochester had an affair with one of Charle's Mistresses, a Mrs Roberts, who Sackville wrote to Rochester about years later, saying she was taking the cure at the same time as him, she died a year or so before Rochester, after being converted by the same Minister, Burnet, . Mrs Roberts was Charles II Mistress, but she ran off with Rochester, and after Rochester lost interest in her, she returned to Charles, to become his Mistress again..

Karen

There have been many writings that tell of them all passing mistresses around, so to speak. And that Rochester, for lack of a better word, was known to "audition" women for Charles. But again, it's the play that we are really discussing here.