Philadelphia’s Freedom ~ or ~ That ‘Nun’ From the Naughty House

Well, like most of the class, as I could gather, I appreciated “The Unfortunate Happy Lady: A True History” for its brevity before all things, but the more that I looked at it, the more interested I became. First off, as far as the title goes, my first thought was how much this was like, in both name and headlines, an issue of True Confessions. As far as the epithet ‘The Unfortunate Happy Lady’ is concerned, however, I must say that I am kind of at a loss. It seems to me at first glance, reading this in our own century here, that it is pretty unfortunate for her that this kind of life makes her happy, but I suppose that really, as Behn might have meant it, her unfortunate trials are necessary for her eventual power over her world and resulting happiness.

Anyway, this story made me think about issues of lineage and inheritance and, similarly, what exactly defines a person’s character. At the outset, Behn establishes William’s character as a man with a benevolent father and yet who inherited “all that belonged to him, except his virtues,” which suggests immediately an emphasis on the need to cultivate virtue rather than the possibility of inherent goodness. Unfortunately it takes Philadelphia (who, I will admit, seems to have acquired virtue like falling off a log – some girls get all the luck) some time to grasp this idea, because, while on her way to the brothel and its mistress, she “was very desirous to be planted in the same House with her, hoping she might grow to as great a Perfection in such excellent Qualifications, as she imagined ‘em.” Thankfully, Philadelphia does not allow the seeds of Lady Beldam’s nature to germinate in herself and comes into her own as a soldier for feminine virtue. However, Lady Bedlam, referred to both as Eve and Satan, this serpent-tongued temptress, in keeping with the role of Eve, does pass on worldly knowledge to the naive Phil. that allows her to eventually gain her position of power in the world. Also, on the topic of Philly’s stay at the house of ill repute, I can suspend my disbelief in many, many situations throughout this story, but I certainly let out a giggle at the thought that anyone could mistake a house filled with frilly-clad women and chocolate for a nunnery.

Now, as far as identity goes, it is Behn’s characterization of Gracelovethat interests me the very most. I wonder if I am supposed to trust Behn’s narrator, when she says “To say Truth, Gracelovewas a very honest, modest, worthy and handsome Person [...] a Man of just Principles, and of inviolable Friendship”? I can grant that he is true to his word once he gives it, but are my code of morals just too far removed from this world to see how a man out to purchase some maidenhead can be termed “modest” and of “just Principles?” Also, when Philly convinces him, through tales of her inheritance, to leave incomplete his deflowerment (I say it’s a word…) transaction, she says “‘I love you dearly now, because I see you are going to be good again; that is, you are going to be your self again.’” On what grounds can she judge who he really is? How could she possibly know? Unless Philadelphia, like the female mind behind her creation, not only knows, but has a role in the creation of, who Gracelove really is. She controls him through his sense of pity, and use of flattery, to the point that he is who she says he is, simply because she says it.

The idea of Philadelphia creating identities for the men around her seems clearest to me when looking at the similarities between this story and the prodigal son parable. Behn even refers to William as a prodigal, making the similarities overt, but it is key that, unlike the story of the biblical son, there is no father to tell (even if he had the gonads to do so…) that he has sinned; this world is decidedly matriarchal. When Philadelphia calls William and Gracelove back to the fold, as it were, she goes one step further than the biblical father example, who can only restore the son’s former position, and actually raises both men to new identities – and potentials – as husbands. I am also intrigued by the detail that she not only prepares new wardrobes for these men (therefore endowing them with new public identities) but gets them new swords as well. Even without delving into the phallic vibe one gets from that, weapons certainly are a symbol of these characters’ manliness, and so Philly also seems to be restoring their manhood after their periods of shame and degredation. Go Philadelphia! With her crazily awesome maternal powers, she almost plays a role of Virgin Mary to Lady Beldam’s evil Eve…or maybe I am ready waaaaaaay too much into a short romance story…

October 4, 2007. Uncategorized.