ABSTRACT
NICHOLAS MAYNARD (2008). The Motive of Courtship of Mrs. Levi and Cornelius as seen in Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University.
This study discusses the play by Thornton Wilder entitled The Matchmaker, which was written in 1955. Thornton Wilder's play The Matchmaker is a farce in the old-fashioned sense. It tells about Horace Vandergelder, who refuses to let his niece marry the poor artist she loves, although he himself plans to remarry. Dolly Levi, the matchmaker of the title, pretends that she is helping Vandergelder find a suitable bride, but she actually schemes to marry him herself, and she works to help the young lovers gain his approval. Cornelius, Vandergelder's beleaguered clerk, who is longing for excitement, also meets the woman of his dreams, although she happens to be the one Vandergelder intends to marry. In the end, everyone is happy.
To achieve the answer of the real motive of Mrs. Levi and Cornelius in doing courtship, three questions are formulated to guide the analysis. They are (1) How are Mrs. Levi and Cornelius characterized in Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker? (2) How do Mrs. Levi and Cornelius behave in their courtship as seen in Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker? And (3) What are Mrs. Levi and Cornelius’ motives of courtship as seen in Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker?
The method employed in this study is library research. The approach used is psychological approach. The sources that are needed to support this study are taken from The Matchmaker and sources that contain the theories of literature and theory of psychology in terms of books and internet.
Based on the analysis, the results of the study are as follows. Firstly, it can be concluded that Mrs. Levi is one of the play's central characters. She is a manipulator and schemer who does not mind making up stories to get the results she wants. Her business cards claims as "a woman who arranges things”. She is also a good liar and a good story maker. She has a lot of charm and with her charm she makes everyone believe her. The other character, Cornelius is a clerk that not rich, and not too old. In his age of thirty-three, he wants to enjoy his life once of a lifetime, because his daily life is boring. He is also a spontaneous person, who decides everything without considering the consequences. Although he is careless, he is a responsible man who does not want to be considered as thoughtless person. They are doing courtship with different behavior, although both of them are doing that with whatever it takes. When they are doing courtship, Mrs. Levi tries to run her plan to make Mr. Vandergelder as her own, while Cornelius tries hard to make Mrs. Molloy sees him even if he must pretending to be someone else. In the end, it is clear that the motive of Mrs. Levi are money, power to control, and feeling that she doesn’t want to be alone, while Cornelius’ motive are protection, success and love.
ABSTRAK
NICHOLAS MAYNARD (2008). The Motive of Courtship of Mrs. Levi and Cornelius as seen in Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker. Yogyakarta: Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Studi ini membahas sebuah drama karya Thornton Wilder yang berjudul The Matchmaker, yang ditulis pada tahun 1955. Drama karya Thornton Wilder yang berjudul The Matchmaker ini adalah sebuah drama komedi dalam pengertian jaman dahulu. Drama ini bercerita tentang Horace Vandergelder, yang menolak menikahkan keponakannya dengan artis miskin yang dicintai keponakannya, walaupun dirinya sendiri berniat menikah lagi. Dolly Levi, sang mak comblang dalam cerita ini, berpura-pura membantu Vandergelder mencari jodoh yang sesuai, tetapi sebenarnya dia berencana untuk menjadikan Vandergelder suaminya sendiri, dan dia berusaha membantu keponakan Vandergelder untuk mendapatkan restu. Cornelius, salah seorang pelayan Vandergelder, yang mengharapkan suatu petualangan, bertemu dengan wanita impiannya, walaupun dia sebenarnya adalah calon dari Vandergelder. Pada akhirnya, semua berakhir bahagia.
Untuk mengetahui motivasi sebenarnya dari Levi dan Cornelius dalam melakukan pendekatan, diformulasikanlah tiga pertanyaan untuk memandu penganalisaan, yaitu: (1) Bagaimana pengkarakteran Levi dan Cornelius dalam The Matchmaker karya Thornton Wilder? (2) Bagaimana Levi dan Cornelius bersikap dalam pendekatan mereka? Dan (3) Apa motivasi Levi dan Cornelius dalam melakukan pendekatan?
Metode yang digunakan dalam studi ini adalah studi pustaka. Pendekatan yang digunakan adalh pendekatan psikologi. Data-data yang diperlukan untuk mendukung studi ini diambil dari drama The Matchmaker dan sumber-sumber yang memuat teori sastra dan teori psikologi dalam bentuk buku-buku maupun internet.
Berdasarkan analisis yang dilakukan, hasil temuan studi ini adalah sebagai berikut. Pertama, bisa disimpulkan bahwa Levi adalah salah satu pemeran sentral. Dia adalah seorang manipulator dan perencana skema yang rela berbohong untuk mendapatkan apa yang diinginkan. Kartu bisnisnya menandakan bahwa dia adalah “wanita yang mengatur segalanya”. Dia pandai berbohong dan mengarang cerita. Dia mempunyai banyak pesona dan dengan pesonanya itu dia membuat orang lain mempercayainya. Cornelius, karakter lainnya, adalah seorang kepala pelayan yang tidak terlalu kaya dan tidak terlalu tua. Di usianya yang ke
tigapuluh tiga, dia ingin menikamati hidupnya, karena kesehariannya membosankan. Dia adalah serang yang sangat spontan yang melakukan sesuatu tanpa memikiran akibatnya. Walaupun dia ceroboh, dia merupakan orang yang bertanggung jawab dan tidak mau orang memandang rendah dirinya. Mereka melakukan pendekatan dengan cara yang berbeda, walaupun mereka menempuh segala cara agar berhasil. Dalam melakukan pendekatan, Levi menyusun siasat-siasat untuk menjadikan Vandergelder miliknya, sementara Cornelius berusaha keras agar Molloy memperhatikan dirinya walaupun dia harus berpura-pura menjadi orang lain. Pada akhirnya, terlihat jelas bahwa motivasi Levi dalam melakukan pendekatan adalah kekayaan, kekuasaan untuk mengatur, dan perasaan tidak ingin sendiri, sementara motivasi Cornelius adalah perlindungan, kesuksesan, dan cinta.
THORNTON WILDER’S
THE MATCHMAKER
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESISPresented as Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By
NICHOLAS MAYNARD Student Number: 024214089
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
THE MOTIVE OF COURTSHIP
OF MRS. LEVI AND CORNELIUS AS SEEN IN
THORNTON WILDER’S
THE MATCHMAKER
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By
NICHOLAS MAYNARD Student Number: 024214089
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA 2008
MOTTO PAGE
For everyone who asks receives;
he who seeks finds;
and to him who knocks,
the door will be opened.
(Luke 11: 10)
I dedicate this thesis to:
My beloved family
My beloved P.R.U.E
friends
My special someone
-Nicholas Maynard-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all I want to express my greatest gratitude to my dearest Lord,
Jesus Christ, for making everything possible in this life. Particularly, I thank Him
for His amazing love, strength, and forgiveness during the bad and good times in
my life. I realize that I would never be able to accomplish my thesis without His
blessing.
I also express my biggest gratitude to my advisor Drs. Hirmawan
Wijanarka M.Hum, for his guidance and corrections in finishing my thesis. I also
address my gratitude to my co-advisor, Maria Ananta Tri S., S. S. M. Ed. for her
time and willingness to improve my thesis. I am really grateful for their time to
read, and give many valuable suggestions as well correcting my thesis until I
finish this thesis.
I thank my family who give their support until now. For my father,
Bp. Soegeng Sudjana, who always supports me to finish my thesis as soon as
possible, and for all that he gives. I really thank for it. And for my little brother
who always gives me strength when I am feeling down.
My special thanks go to Dhina Maya Sari. I thank her for her
kindness. I will miss her threatening to finish my thesis. Thanks for her time that
she shared with me. She has shared marvelous moments. I am really grateful she
is there by my side.
My biggest appreciation goes to my ‘nakama’ in English Letters,
especially class C, for the unquestionably friendship. In particular, I thank also to
my P.R.U.E comrades (Gatot Hendy Febiyanto, Yeremias Nardi Cahyanto,
Marchelynow Alfa Christian, Gerardus Ferdinand, Jeff Reinhard, Fitra Sony
Kurniawan, Rudy Prasojo, Sri Harjanto, Faida Indana, Debora Wienda Rosary,
Patricia Dian Virnandi, Kartika Kusumaningsih, and last member Suryo
Pramono). Thanks for the love and support from the first time I came to
Yogyakarta until now. Our friendship will last forever.
I would like to thank also my ‘team mates’ at UKM Sanata Dharma. I
could not forget some of them, Daru (PBI; Graduated), Hasto (BK), Yoga (Psi),
Jimmy (FTI), Bayu (Pendidikan Sejarah), and Diaz (Graduated). Thanks for being
my team mates so I can improve my skill.
Last but not least, I would like to thank people who I can not mention
one by one here for their beneficial support.
Nicholas Maynard
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Theory of Character and Characterization ……….. 9
2. Theory of Motive ………..………. 12
a . Homeostasis Theory ………. 13
b . Social Learning Theory ………... 14
3. Theory of Love ………... 15
4. Psychology and Literature ……… 17
C. Theoretical Framework ……… 17
A. The Description of Mrs. Levi and Cornelius Character in Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker………... 23
1. The Description of Mrs. Levi ………... 24
2. The Description of Cornelius ………... 32
B. The Behavior of Mrs. Levi and Cornelius in their Courtship …..…. 39
1. Mrs. Levi’s Behavior in her Courtship ………. 39
2. Cornelius’ Behavior in his Courtship ………... 45 C. Mrs. Levi and Cornelius’ Motives in their Courtship …….…… 53
1. Mrs. Levi’s Motives of Doing Courtship towards
Mr. Vandergelder ………. 53 2. Cornelius’ Motives of Doing Courtship towards Mrs. Molloy ... 58
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ……… 64
BIBLIOGRAPHY ……….. 71
APPENDIX: The Summary of The Matchmaker ………. 73
ABSTRACT
NICHOLAS MAYNARD (2008). The Motive of Courtship of Mrs. Levi and Cornelius as seen in Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University.
This study discusses the play by Thornton Wilder entitled The Matchmaker, which was written in 1955. Thornton Wilder's play The Matchmaker is a farce in the old-fashioned sense. It tells about Horace Vandergelder, who refuses to let his niece marry the poor artist she loves, although he himself plans to remarry. Dolly Levi, the matchmaker of the title, pretends that she is helping Vandergelder find a suitable bride, but she actually schemes to marry him herself, and she works to help the young lovers gain his approval. Cornelius, Vandergelder's beleaguered clerk, who is longing for excitement, also meets the woman of his dreams, although she happens to be the one Vandergelder intends to marry. In the end, everyone is happy.
To achieve the answer of the real motive of Mrs. Levi and Cornelius in doing courtship, three questions are formulated to guide the analysis. They are (1) How are Mrs. Levi and Cornelius characterized in Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker? (2) How do Mrs. Levi and Cornelius behave in their courtship as seen in Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker? And (3) What are Mrs. Levi and Cornelius’ motives of courtship as seen in Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker?
The method employed in this study is library research. The approach used is psychological approach. The sources that are needed to support this study are taken from The Matchmaker and sources that contain the theories of literature and theory of psychology in terms of books and internet.
Based on the analysis, the results of the study are as follows. Firstly, it can be concluded that Mrs. Levi is one of the play's central characters. She is a manipulator and schemer who does not mind making up stories to get the results she wants. Her business cards claims as "a woman who arranges things”. She is also a good liar and a good story maker. She has a lot of charm and with her charm she makes everyone believe her. The other character, Cornelius is a clerk that not rich, and not too old. In his age of thirty-three, he wants to enjoy his life once of a lifetime, because his daily life is boring. He is also a spontaneous person, who decides everything without considering the consequences. Although he is careless, he is a responsible man who does not want to be considered as thoughtless person. They are doing courtship with different behavior, although both of them are doing that with whatever it takes. When they are doing courtship, Mrs. Levi tries to run her plan to make Mr. Vandergelder as her own, while Cornelius tries hard to make Mrs. Molloy sees him even if he must pretending to be someone else. In the end, it is clear that the motive of Mrs. Levi are money, power to control, and feeling that she doesn’t want to be alone, while Cornelius’ motive are protection, success and love.
ABSTRAK
NICHOLAS MAYNARD (2008). The Motive of Courtship of Mrs. Levi and Cornelius as seen in Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker. Yogyakarta: Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Studi ini membahas sebuah drama karya Thornton Wilder yang berjudul The Matchmaker, yang ditulis pada tahun 1955. Drama karya Thornton Wilder yang berjudul The Matchmaker ini adalah sebuah drama komedi dalam pengertian jaman dahulu. Drama ini bercerita tentang Horace Vandergelder, yang menolak menikahkan keponakannya dengan artis miskin yang dicintai keponakannya, walaupun dirinya sendiri berniat menikah lagi. Dolly Levi, sang mak comblang dalam cerita ini, berpura-pura membantu Vandergelder mencari jodoh yang sesuai, tetapi sebenarnya dia berencana untuk menjadikan Vandergelder suaminya sendiri, dan dia berusaha membantu keponakan Vandergelder untuk mendapatkan restu. Cornelius, salah seorang pelayan Vandergelder, yang mengharapkan suatu petualangan, bertemu dengan wanita impiannya, walaupun dia sebenarnya adalah calon dari Vandergelder. Pada akhirnya, semua berakhir bahagia.
Untuk mengetahui motivasi sebenarnya dari Levi dan Cornelius dalam melakukan pendekatan, diformulasikanlah tiga pertanyaan untuk memandu penganalisaan, yaitu: (1) Bagaimana pengkarakteran Levi dan Cornelius dalam The Matchmaker karya Thornton Wilder? (2) Bagaimana Levi dan Cornelius bersikap dalam pendekatan mereka? Dan (3) Apa motivasi Levi dan Cornelius dalam melakukan pendekatan?
Metode yang digunakan dalam studi ini adalah studi pustaka. Pendekatan yang digunakan adalh pendekatan psikologi. Data-data yang diperlukan untuk mendukung studi ini diambil dari drama The Matchmaker dan sumber-sumber yang memuat teori sastra dan teori psikologi dalam bentuk buku-buku maupun internet.
Berdasarkan analisis yang dilakukan, hasil temuan studi ini adalah sebagai berikut. Pertama, bisa disimpulkan bahwa Levi adalah salah satu pemeran sentral. Dia adalah seorang manipulator dan perencana skema yang rela berbohong untuk mendapatkan apa yang diinginkan. Kartu bisnisnya menandakan bahwa dia adalah “wanita yang mengatur segalanya”. Dia pandai berbohong dan mengarang cerita. Dia mempunyai banyak pesona dan dengan pesonanya itu dia membuat orang lain mempercayainya. Cornelius, karakter lainnya, adalah seorang kepala pelayan yang tidak terlalu kaya dan tidak terlalu tua. Di usianya yang ke
tigapuluh tiga, dia ingin menikamati hidupnya, karena kesehariannya membosankan. Dia adalah serang yang sangat spontan yang melakukan sesuatu tanpa memikiran akibatnya. Walaupun dia ceroboh, dia merupakan orang yang bertanggung jawab dan tidak mau orang memandang rendah dirinya. Mereka melakukan pendekatan dengan cara yang berbeda, walaupun mereka menempuh segala cara agar berhasil. Dalam melakukan pendekatan, Levi menyusun siasat-siasat untuk menjadikan Vandergelder miliknya, sementara Cornelius berusaha keras agar Molloy memperhatikan dirinya walaupun dia harus berpura-pura menjadi orang lain. Pada akhirnya, terlihat jelas bahwa motivasi Levi dalam melakukan pendekatan adalah kekayaan, kekuasaan untuk mengatur, dan perasaan tidak ingin sendiri, sementara motivasi Cornelius adalah perlindungan, kesuksesan, dan cinta.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
In this paper, the writer is interested in analyzing a drama/play for
two reasons. Firstly drama is kind of a representation or a mirror of life trough
action or dialogues. Secondly is that drama is written to perform. Reaske says, “A
drama is a work of literature or composition which delineates life and human
activity by means of presenting various actions and dialogues between groups of
characters” (1970: 5).
The writer chooses The Matchmaker, a farce written by Thornton Wilder in 1954 and published as the revised edition from The Merchant of Yonkers (1938), as the play that would be analyzed. The Matchmaker is based upon a comedy by Johann Nestroy, Einen Jux will es sich Machen (Vienna, 1842), which was in turn in based upon an English original, A Day Well Spent (London, 1835) by John Oxenford. Travis Bogard in a book entitled The Modern American Theatre says that the revision are very slight, amounting in effect only to the kind of judicious pruning and tightening which any play may expect to undergo in
production (Kernan, ed, 1967: 65). However, both original play version and the
revised edition have farce basic concern, folly, money, and love; developing its
story with its complex and improbable plotting: filled with screen scenes
involving sudden discoveries and disguise (Kernan, ed, 1967: 62)
The Matchmaker is written as a farce. As it is criticized by many literary critics, farce is not more worthy than making laugh. Abrams categorizes
farce as low comedy which makes little or no intellectual appeal, but arouses
laughter by jokes, humors, or physical activities (Abrams, 1981: 25). Although
The Matchmaker is categorized as a low art, which according to Nietzsche that it is the decadence art form, Thornton Wilder still puts values in his works. Wilder,
who is also the playwright of Our Town and The Skin of Our Teeth, explicitly tells that he has certain aims in writing The Matchmaker. One of his aims is that to shake off the 19th century staging and to show the aspiration of the young for
participation in life. In this case, Wilder has lift farce from its emptiness or its
meaningless.
Kernan thinks that 19th century staging was nothing but like
entertainer who only conveys the beauty but not the use (Kernan, ed, 1967: 50).
The middle class people had gained control over the theatre since the early of 19th
century; they wanted the theatre to be soothing. The middle class people were
very influenced by money, and they use theatre to be something that only can
entertain them. The fact still remained until the time of Wilder. The abnormality
of course bothered Wilder, and wanted to change the perception by writing his
farce The Matchmaker.
The Matchmaker itself tells a lot about the relationship among the characters. Wilder writes The Matchmaker to show that the relation between people, especially in 1950’s, that it is more about lower class and upper class, and
about love, which is based on money. In the story, we can see someone adores
someone else because they want to have the money.
The writer’s reason of writing the paper is to see the behavior of the
character in doing courtship as seen in Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker. From the play, the writer sees that there are three points that become the center of doing
courtship which is done by the characters of The Matchmaker. First is that the character tries to be someone else in order to attract someone they like. Second,
they dare to lie between one and another in order to have someone’s trust. And the
third, the effect of the love makes everything better compared from the beginning.
When someone is falling in love, they tries to ‘escape’ from which
they really are, and trying to become someone else so they can be considered
different. This thing also happens in the play, where Cornelius tries to be someone
else in order to attract a beautiful woman, Mrs. Molloy. He pretends that he is as
rich as Mr. Vandergelder, although he is only Mr. Vandelgelder’s clerk. The
reason why people try to be someone else is because they feel that the ‘someone
else’ is usually better than themselves and the motive why they do that is to be
likeable. It is very difficult to be ‘yourself’ rather than someone else because we
never know whether it is acceptable or not, especially from someone that we like
most.
The characters also dare to lie between one and another. For example,
Mrs. Levi lies to Mr. Vandergelder about the existence of Miss Simple, who
makes Mr. Vandergelder turn from Mrs. Molloy for a moment. Lie is usually done
doing the lie. In this story, each character has their own motive when they tell lie,
but we can see that they did their lie in order to get the love from someone they
like.
In the play The Matchmaker, it is lovely to see the happy ending that how loves finally makes everything better than before. The play shows that the
way in searching love is not easy, but in the end it will change the previous life to
be better. It seems that love has the power to change life to be more colorful and
meaningful.
The interesting part of the play is how Wilder characterized the
characters become one unity. Each character has different characteristic, and those
differences lead the story becomes more and more interesting. Wilder shows to
the audience how those characters with different characteristics do their own way
in searching love.
The writer chooses the issues of courtship between a man and a
woman to know the basic motive of what really they seek in loving each other as
seen in Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker. The focuses of the issue of courtship are Mrs. Levi and also Cornelius. Mrs. Levi did courtship towards Vandergelder
and Cornelius did courtship towards Mrs. Molloy. The writer tries to understand
the basic motives of the courtship that is done by Mrs. Levi and also Cornelius.
The motive is known by looking how the characters do their courtship.
Basically, the courtship that is done by women is different from the
courtship that is done by men. This is because the feeling that women had is
while men act and react based on their thought, whether it is rational or not. Those
are what makes the courtship that had been done by Mrs. Levi were different from
the courtship that had been done by Cornelius.
By knowing that fact, which becomes the most interesting reason of
choosing the subject, the writer tries to find out and describe the main character
characteristics and also to find out how the courtship influence them so much in
their life, especially in the way those characters ‘escape’ from who they really was
and trying to become someone else, lie between one and another in order to have
someone trust, and also the effect of the courtship, or may called also as love,
which can make something become much better than before as seen in the
character of Mrs. Dolly Levi and also Cornelius Hackl in Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker.
B. Problem Formulation
In this thesis the writer tries to analyze the play based on the
following three questions.
1. How are Mrs. Levi and Cornelius characterized in Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker?
2. How do Mrs. Levi and Cornelius behave in their courtship as seen in Thornton
Wilder’s The Matchmaker?
3. What are Mrs. Levi and Cornelius’ motives of courtship as seen in Thornton
C. Objectives of the Study
The objective of the study is to answer the three formulated question
in the Problem Formulation. The first section is to know better about the main
characters by characterize them, especially Mrs. Levi and Cornelius. By knowing
their character, it would be easier to define them and understand what they had
done in the play. The second section is seeking of the behavior that Mrs. Levi and
Cornelius had done when they did courtship toward someone they like. In this
section the writer also tries to show the changing identity of the character who is
affected by the spell of love. Doing courtship makes them become someone else
and different from their truly character. The last section of the study is to find the
real motive of courtship that was done by Mrs. Levi and Cornelius.
D. Definition of Terms
In doing the paper, the writer finds several words that need further
explanation. The list of several difficult words with their explanation of word is
taken from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition. The writer tries to explain the definition of motivation, motive and courtship to help the
reader understand the thesis easily.
There are differences between motivation and motive. To help the
reader to understand the definition, the writer uses the definition that is stated by
Richard, Elizabeth, and Robert in Introduction to Psychology “The dynamic property of behavior that give it organization over time and that defines its end
367). It means that motive is a main goal of our behavior, while motivation is a
way to achieve the motive. For example, when a person works so hard to achieve
a lot of money so that he can buy a car, we may say that the car is his motive,
money is his motivation and his act of working hard is his behavior. Behavior is
influenced by a need for something.
The definition of motive is the act or process of motivating or the
condition of being motivated. According to Bruno, motive is a term employed
generally for the phenomena involved in the operation of incentives, drives and
motivations (1986: 7). However, the term motive is defined as a desire or a wish.
Murray defines motivation as a desire that has certain goals to be obtained (1964:
5-7).
Courtship, according to the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Tenth Edition is the act, process, or period of courting. Courting here means to seek the affection of; especially to seek to win a pledge of marriage. In
other word, courtship is a process where someone doing affection towards
someone else in order to get their attention to win a pledge of marriage (Webster,
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW
A. Review of Related Studies
In a book edited by Alvin B. Kernan The Modern American Theatre, Tyrone Guthrie writes that The Matchmaker is a farce in the most traditional style, identified by: mistaken identity, hiding under tables and in cupboards, men
dressed up like women, lost purse. In The Matchmaker, the stage is gaily dressed and lighted up in the style which was familiar to our grandparents. Unlike Our Town and The Skin of Our Teeth, The Matchmaker makes absolutely no attempt new theatrical territory (Kernan, ed, 1967: 50).
Just as in Our Town and The Skin of Our Teeth, so the audience of The Matchmaker not asked to believe itself anywhere but at the theatre. The author uses the mechanism of the theatre not to create illusion but as a constant reminder
that the theatre is a symbol of life. The stage is the world. The characters are not
merely themselves, but representative of humanity. The elaborate and the
preposterous ‘plot’ derives not from life, which it but faintly resembles, it derives
from the theatre (Kernan, 1967: 50)
In the book written by Kernan, Travis Bogard calls the play as the
complete farce, centering on farce’s basic concerns: folly, money and love;
developing its story with complex and improbable plotting, filled with ‘screen
scenes’ involving sudden discoveries and disguises. However, Bogard catches
Wilder’s creed, and perhaps provide a partial explanation of his insistence that
man is better off not knowing the nature of his destiny in the soliloquy Mrs. Levi,
one of its main characters. The soliloquy itself has been altered by Wilder from its
origin under the title The Merchant of Yonkers to its modification under the title The Matchmaker (Kernan, 1967: 66).
According to Bogard, the difference is partly in the tone, the use of the
concrete rather than the general, but mostly in the quality of the imagery. In its
stress on growth and on the value of life, the imagery of this one speech is almost
sufficient on itself to lift the farce from its emptiness (Kernan, 1967: 66)
In this thesis the writer uses the result of their observations which
report the application of traditional farce techniques. Their observations support
the finding of why Wilder uses the traditional of style in writing The Matchmaker. The thesis will not argue the information conveying by many critics concerning
the play. It takes the information as the references.
B. Theoretical Review
1. Theory of Character and Characterization
In his book entitled A Glossary of Literary Term, there is a definition of character. Abrams clarifies that characters are the people in a dramatic or
narrative work, interpreted by the readers as being endowed with moral and
dispositional qualities that expressed in what they say (the dialogue) and what
they do (the action) (Abrams, 1981: 20)
According to the role the character serve in the story, Henkle (1977:
character. A major character can be the center of the story. Usually, the acts of the
story are focused on this character from the beginning to the ending part.
Meanwhile, minor or secondary character appears in a certain setting, just
necessarily to become the background for the major character.
In his book Literature: Structure, Sound and Sense, Perrine says that in proportion to the fullness of the character’s development, characters in a story
are relatively flat or round (1974: 69) Flat character is the same sort of person at
the end of the story as he or she is at the beginning. This character tends to stay
the same throughout the story. A round character often changes. A round
character tends to react differently toward different situation and or person
encountered. They tend to grow, develop, and change.
In his book Understanding Unseen’s, Murphy points several ways in which the writer attempts to make the characters understandable and come life
like to the readers. The ways come from the personal description, the way a
character is seen by others, by character’s speech, his or her past life, from the
conversation of others, the figure reactions, direct comment stated by author, the
character’s thought, and mannerism (1972: 161-173). The explanation is as
follow:
a. Personal description
“The author can describe a person’s appearance and clothes.”
b. Characters as seen by another
“Instead of describing a character directly the author can describe him through
c. Speech
“The author can give us an insight into the character of one of the persons in a
book through what that person says.”
d. Past life
“By letting the readers learn something about a person’s past life the authors
can give us clue to events that have helped to shape a person’s character.”
(1972: 166).
e. Conversations of others
“The author can also give us clues to a person’s character through the
conversation of other people and things they say about him.’ (1972: 167).
Therefore, the reader can study the character by analyzing ‘the direct
comment by the author, through the person’s, through his conversations or
through the medium of another person.
f. Reaction
‘The author can also give us a clue to a person’s character directly’
g. Direct comment
‘The author can describe a comment on a person’s character directly.’
h. Thoughts
‘The author can give us direct knowledge of what a person is thinking about.’
i. Mannerism
‘The author can describe a person’s mannerism, habits or idiosyncrasies
2. Theory of Motive
Anyone who observes others in doing something perhaps will question
on why they do such thing. He seeks the motive which stimulates their action. For
instance, when one watches television program in which a young man kills his
girlfriend, normally one will question why he kills his girlfriend and what motive
that supports him to do that. Maslow (1976: 23) says that all seek explanations for
behavior in people’s motive, but discovering motives is impossible unless the
motive is organized. It means that the persistence of behavior is an important
aspect of motive because the study of persistence reveals the condition under
which one goal is abandoned.
What is the meaning of motive itself? Many psychologists have
formulated the definition of motive. Murray, for example, defines motive as ‘the
dynamic property of behavior that gives it organization over time and defines its
end states’ (1964: 367). It is similar to Kagan and Havemann’s definition of
motive that says ‘motive is a desire of goal that has acquired value for the
individual’ (1972: 44). All normal people usually have certain motive when they
do something because motive is the foundation of every action human beings do.
For instance, a young man who studies hard in facing his final exam, of course,
have certain motives, perhaps, to be success, or wants to please his parents, or he
wants to prove that he can get better mark towards his friends.
One of human motives is the motive of achievement and it has been
‘performing in terms of standard of excellence or, simply, as desire to be
successful’ (Murray, 1964: 99).
Richard, Elizabeth, and Robert in Introduction to Psychology, state that:
To understand the way a person’s behavior is organized, we must infer that behavior is guided by some purpose and that it leads to some end state, which may be a goal or the satisfaction of some need. This dynamic property of behavior that give it organization over time and that defines its end states is called motive, and the corresponding process is called motivation (1983: 367).
There are two theories that related to my studies, there are homeostasis
theory and social learning theory.
a. Homeostasis Theory
This theory states that human’s behavior happens because of
disequilibrium (unbalance) within human. This theory is based on the needs,
which occur within human. Abraham Maslow in Goble’s The Third Force sets up a hierarchical theory of needs that can determine human’s motive (1970: 38-43).
They are:
1) Physiological Need
They are biological needs such as oxygen, food water, warmth/coolness,
and protection from storms and so fort. These needs are the strongest
because if deprived, the person could or would die.
2) Safety Need
They are felt by adults during emergencies, periods of disorganization in
frequently by children who often display signs of insecurity and their need
to be safe.
3) Love, Affections and belongings Need
The needs to escape from loneliness and alienation and give (and receive)
love, affection, and the sense of belonging.
4) Esteem Need
They are the need for a stable, firmly based, high level of self respect, and
respect from others in order to feel satisfied, self self-confidence, and
valuable. If these need are not met, the persons feels inferior, weak,
helpless, and worthless.
5) Self-actualization Need
Maslow describes this need as an ongoing process. Self-actualizing people
are involved in a cause outside their own skin. They are devoted; work at
something, something very precious to them-some calling or vocation, in
the old sense, the priestly sense.
b. Social Learning Theory
Atkinson and Hilgard, in Introduction to Psychology state that ‘our behavior is learned through interaction with and observation of the environment.
The important part that influences our behavior is environment or circumstances
that we live rather than instinct” (1983: 320).
Furthermore, they also say, “vicarious learning is learning by
behavior and also by learning the reinforcement” (1983: 320). We can learn
emotion by observing other’s emotion. For example, a child will be afraid to go to
a doctor because he or she once watched a person suffering from pain after being
injected by the doctor. It is clear that social learning emphasizes the role of
‘models’ in transmitting the behavior.
3. Theory of Love
Love can be interpreted as different meaning to different people.
Expressing the feeling of love can also be different for each person, which is
actually would be the same goal at the end that is to get good responses from the
person they love. By loving others, people will start to build relationship;
sometimes they want the special one, in order to share, to take and give, and to
realize that they can complete one and another. In order to know what love is
revealed in the story of the play The Matchmaker, there are theories of love to be considered.
Rubin in Kasschau’s Understanding Psychology writes that there are probably as many reasons for loving as there are people who love. In each case,
there is a different constellation of needs to be gratified, a different set of
characteristics that are found to be rewarding, a different ideal to be fulfilled.
(1995: 342)
While most people say that they love their parents, their friends, and
maybe their brothers and sisters, they attach a different meaning to love when
referring to a boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse. As the writer have stated, love
Rubin distinguishes between “liking” and “loving”. According to
Rubin, “liking” usually involves respect or high regard for another person. It is
based primarily on respect for another person and the feeling that he or she is
similar to you. On the other hand, love usually involves liking plus three other
elements: great attachment to and dependency on the person; a caring for or to
help the person; and the desire to have an exclusive, intimate relationship with the
person. (Kasschau, 1994: 342, 433)
The other expert, Hatfield, distinguish between two types of love:
“passionate love” and “companionate love”. “Passionate love” is very intense,
sensual, and all-consuming. It has a feeling of great excitement, of intense
sexuality, yet there is almost an element of danger that it may go away at any
moment. Passionate love is an intensely emotional and sexual fascination with a
mate and a strong desire of exclusiveness. Feeling of excitement, anxiety,
tenderness, and jealousy are all common in passionate love. Passionate love is
what is commonly referred to as “romantic love” in which lovers’ long for their
partners and seek to capture their affection. (1995: 342, 433)
In contrast to the relativity short-life passionate love, “companionate
love” is defined as the affection we feel for those with whom our lives are deeply
intertwined. Companionate love is more stable love. People who share a mutual
concern and care for each other and who have strong, frequent, and long-term
interactions are likely experienced companionate love. Friendship, understanding,
and the willingness to make sacrifices for each other are the characteristics of
4. Psychology and Literature
There is a close relation between psychology and literature. Rene
Wellek and Austin Waren in their book entitled Theory of Literature stated that “psychology and literature has a close relation in which some works of literature
talks about psychological cases”. They write “people can learn psychology that
may be revealed in works of literature by analyzing the works” (Wellek, 1956:
81). Further more, “the important part is the application of psychological laws
within works of literature” (1956: 81). If the writer can prove that Mrs. Levi and
Cornelius’ behavior in the play proper to what do we know about human
motivation, thus the writer is successful using psychological approach to interpret
the Thornton Wilder’s play The Matchmaker.
C. Theoretical Framework
The first analysis aims to describe the characterization of Mrs. Levi
and Cornelius. I use theory of characterization by Stanton, Rohrberger and
Woods, and Murphy to describe the characterization of Mrs. Levi and Cornelius. I
also use it to describe the characterization of Mr. Vandergelder and also Mrs.
Molloy, who become the target of the courtship. Murphy states that an author has
various ways to make the characters understandable. I use them to find out the
description of Mrs. Levi, Cornelius, Mr. Vandergelder, and Mrs. Molloy.
The second analysis aims to find out the behavior of Mrs. Levi and
Cornelius in their courtship. Because discovering motives is impossible unless the
Using Social learning theory and also theory of love, I aim to find out their
behavior in courtship. Social learning theory by Atkinson and Hilgard is used to
describe the behavior through environment. It is also used to describe behavior
through others behavior. Theory of love by Rubin and Hatfield is used to describe
their behavior while they are in love. Rubin distinguishes between “liking” and
“loving”, while Hatfield distinguishes between “passionate love” and
“companionate love”.
The third analysis aims to find out Mrs. Levi and Cornelius’ motive in
doing courtship. In order to analyze this part I use some theories of psychology. I
use the theory of motive by Hall, McClelland, and mostly Abraham Maslow to
find the real motives of Mrs. Levi and Cornelius’ courtship. Maslow states the
hierarchy of needs; psychological needs, safety needs, belonging and love needs,
esteem needs, and self-actualization needs. In this study, those factors become
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
A. Object of the Study
The object of the study is a farce written by Thornton Wilder, The Matchmaker. This play is a rewritten version of The Merchant of Yonkers, which was directed in 1938 by Max Reinhardt and is again dedicated to Max Reinhardt
with deep admiration and indebtedness. The new product was not a complete
overhaul, but a careful and thorough revision of the original text. Because the
talented Ruth Gordon was cast as Dolly Levi, Wilder retooled and expanded the
matchmaker's role to fit the talent of his lead actress.
The Matchmaker was produced for the Edinburg Festival by Tennent Productions. It was directed by Tyrone Guthrie and the production was designed
by Tanya Moiseiwitsch. The first performance was at the Royal Lyccum Theater,
Edinburg, on 23 August 1954. The new collaboration was a success at the
Edinburgh Festival in Scotland. And more praise followed a run at the Theatre
Royal in London. The Matchmaker hoped to strike up a similar relationship on the American stage, but the Philadelphia premiere brought back haunting memories
of the now-forgotten Merchant of Yonkers. The lukewarm reception was short-lived, and The Matchmaker found an audience in Boston and gained enough steam to propel it to a Broadway debut.
Thornton Wilder’s play The Matchmaker is a farce in the old-fashioned sense. It uses such time-honored conventions as characters hidden
under tables and in closets, men disguised as women, a complex conspiracy to
bring young lovers together, and a happy ending in which three couples are united
with plans to marry. The traditional aspects of the play should come as no
surprise: Wilder was the first to acknowledge the sources that it was based upon.
In all of these permutations, the basic plot has been the same as it is in
The Matchmaker. In Wilder’s version, an irascible, penny-pinching store owner, Horace Vandergelder, refuses to let his niece marry the poor artist she loves,
although he himself plans to remarry. Dolly Levi, the matchmaker of the title,
pretends that she is helping Vandergelder find a suitable bride, but she actually
schemes to marry him herself, and she works to help the young lovers gain his
approval. Vandergelder’s beleaguered clerk, who is longing for excitement, also
meets the woman of his dreams, although she happens to be the one Vandergelder
intends to marry. In the end, everyone is happy and just a little smarter.
B. Approach of the Study
The focus of my study is on the motive of Mrs. Levi for doing
courtship towards Mr. Vandergelder and also Cornelius Hackl for doing courtship
towards Mrs. Molloy.
an approach in which the writer can be found more explanation about characters.
The use of psychological approach is an excellent tool for reading beneath the
lines.
In turn, the crucial limitation of the psychological approaches is its aesthetic inadequacy: psychological interpretation can afford many profound clues toward solving a work’s thematic and symbolic mysteries, but it can seldom account for the beautiful symmetry of a well wrought poem or of a fictional masterpiece. The psychological approach concerns with the motives that underlying human behavior. It is close to biological science (Guerin, 1979: 126)
In this study, the writer uses the theory of psychology that is proposed
Abraham Maslow in Goble’s The Third Force (1970) as the major approach with the considerations that this approach could apply certain psychological theories in
analyzing the content of the story in a work of literature. The writer uses this
approach because it explains human motives, personality, and behavior patterns
written in literary objects. Through the psychological approach we could see a
deeper understanding of both Mrs. Levi’s and Cornelius’ actions in the play. This
approach was to analyze Mrs. Levi’s and Cornelius’ motives for doing courtship
towards someone that they love.
By applying the psychological theory, we can see the human motive in
showing their love to other. The psychological theory is chosen to see how the
character’s behavior and way of thinking is influenced also by the environment
and the situation at their surround. By using psychological approach, the analysis
C. Method of the Study
The writer employed the library research and internet research as
the method of study. The primary source was used in this paper mostly
gained from the information from the people who had studied about Thornton
Wilder’s The Matchmaker. The secondary sources were mostly taken from The Modern American Theatre edited by Alvin B. Kernan. Others data taken from the internet, and encyclopaedia which contained related information
needed in this thesis.
The research took some steps to answer the problem. The first step
was reading and studying some theories on character and characterization,
theme and plot, motive, and some information about their other works.
The second step was reading and rereading deeper the works,
Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker as the primary data of the research until the writer understand about the character and what motives are based while
the character doing courtship.
Next, the writer answered the first problem by analyzing the
characterization of the main character by understanding the works’ plot that
is in the works and also the writer was looking for other information from the
internet. Then, the writer related the motives with the character’s act in the
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS
This chapter aims to find the answer of the question in the problem
formulation stated in Chapter I. This chapter is divided into three parts. The first is
going to discuss about the characterization of Mrs. Levi and also Cornelius. This
section also discusses the characterization of Mr. Vandergelder and also Mrs.
Molloy, who are being the target of courtship. The second part is the analysis of
how Mrs. Levi and Cornelius behave when they are doing courtship towards the
one they love. The third part is the analysis of Mrs. Levi and Cornelius’ motives
of doing courtship as seen in Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker.
A. The Description of Mrs. Levi and Cornelius Character in Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker
In the play The Matchmaker, Mrs. Levi and Cornelius are the characters who do the courtship. Mrs. Levi is chasing Mr. Vandergelder and
Cornelius is chasing Mrs. Molloy. Those characters play their parts of being the
main characters of the play. As stated by Henkle (1977: 87), as major characters,
they serve as the center of the story. Their actions become the focus of the story
from beginning until the end of the play.
As stated by Murphy (1972: 161-173), there are several ways in order
to find out the description of certain character in a story. Those could be from the
personal description of a character, from a character as seen by others, by
character’s speech, from his or her past life, the figure’s reaction, direct comment
stated by the author, the character’s thought, and mannerism. In this discussion,
those way are supporting each other to find out the description of Mrs. Levi and
Cornelius.
1. The Description of Mrs. Levi
Murphy stated that one of the ways so that we can understand the
characters in a story is by their personal description (1972: 161). As we can see
from the play, Thornton Wilder describes Mrs. Levi as a woman who is in her
uncertain age. She is a widow, an old friend of Mr. Vandergelder’s late wife. As
an old friend, she knows all about the situation in Mr. Vandergelder’s house. She
knows Mr. Vandergelder is planning to get married again. She tells the news to
Mr. Kemper, the one who hates Mr. Vandergelder for separates him and someone
he loves, who is Mr. Vandergelder’s niece.
MRS. LEVI : Believe me, Mr. Vandergelder wishes to get rid of Ermengarde, and if you follow my suggestions he will even permit her to marry you. You see, Mr. Vandergelder is planning to get married himself.
AMBROSE : What? That monster! MRS. LEVI : Mr. Kemper!
AMBROSE : Married! To you, Mrs. Levi?
MRS. LEVI : [taken aback] Oh, no, no… NO! I am merely arranging it. I am helping him find a suitable bride. (Wider, 1964: 197)
The author can give us an insight into the character of one of the
persons in a book through what that person says (Murphy, 1972: 163). From what
Mrs. Levi says above, it is clear that she is an old friend of Mr. Vandergelder’s
family. It is proven when Mr. Vandergelder trusts her to find him a suitable bride.
To search for a suitable bride, someone must know the character of the groom. As
she must have known the character of Mr. Vandergelder as the groom. It indicates
that both Mrs. Levi and Mr. Vandergeler have known each other for a long time.
Mr. Vandergelder has chosen his own future bride, who is Mrs.
Molloy, but Mrs. Levi says that she has found a perfect future bride for Mr.
Vandergelder. But the fact is that Mrs. Levi herself is planning to marry Mr.
Vandergelder. This can be seen in the beginning of the play when she is talking to
the audience about the color of the wallpaper in one of the rooms of Mr.
Vandergelder’s house. She decides to change the color into blue. The way she
talks seems to indicate that she is the owner of the house, or she will become the
owner of the house. It is clear that she has planned to become the next Mrs.
Vandergelder.
MRS. LEVI : You know, I think I’m going to have this room with blue wallpaper – yes in blue! (Wilder, 1964: 210)
By letting the readers learn something about a person’s past life the
authors can give us clue to events that have helped to shape a person’s character
(Murphy, 1972: 166). Mrs. Levi is a poor widow who lives from hand to mouth.
Her late husband, Ephraim Levi, leaves her with nothing and she has to work by
herself to support her life. It is seen when Ambrose accidently knows that Mrs.
Levi doing several jobs at once. She does that to support her life. Her several jobs
can make enough profit to her rather than she is just doing one job only. And it is
clear that she certainly needs money to support her life.
take her to my house. I wish you to call for her at my house at five-thirty. Here is my card.
AMBROSE : ‘Mrs. Dolly Gallagher Levi. Varicose veins reduced.’ MRS. LEVI [trying to take back card] : I beg your pardon…… AMBROSE [holding card] : I beg your pardon. ‘Consultation free.’ MRS. LEVI : I meant to give you my other card. Here.
AMBROSE : ‘Mrs. Dolly Gallagher Levi. Aurora Hosiery. Instruction in the guitar and mandolin.’ You do all these things, Mrs. Levi?
MRS. LEVI : Two and two make four, Mr. Kemper – always did. …. (Wilder, 1964: 198)
It is obvious that she is tired living in poverty. She wants to change, to
be as happy as when she still with her late husband, Ephraim Levi. She needs to
secure her life, have fun and enjoys her time. Before, her life was full of despair.
She has to do several jobs at once. One way to make her life better is by marrying
Mr. Vandergelder, the one who has a lot of money and power in Yonkers.
Although she feels guilty with her late husband, she has decided to marry Mr.
Vandergelder, though she knows that her second marriage would never be the
same as her first. When she asks permission from her late husband, she states that
she has tired and she wants the change.
MRS. LEVI : Ephraim Levi, I’m going to get married again. Ephraim, I’m marrying Horace Vandergelder for his money. I’m going to send his money out doing all the things you thought me. Oh, it won’t be marriage in the sense that we had one – but I shall certainly make him happy, and Ephraim – I’m tired. I’m tired of living from hand to mouth, and I’m asking your permission, Ephraim – will you give me away? (Wilder, 1964: 277)
mannerism. The author can also describe a person’s mannerism, habits or
idiosyncrasies which may also tell us something about his character (Murphy,
1972: 173). As we can see from Mrs. Levi’s speech, we can make a conclusion
that she is a coquettish person. She praises someone often, and with her speech
ability people seems to believe her. It is stated when she meets Mr. Vandergelder
at his house. She makes Mr. Vandergelder up to the moon with her sentence. She
is doing that in order to make Mr. Vandergelder makes a good judgment toward
her and of course to make Mr. Vandergelder likes her.
MRS. LEVI : Oh, Mr. Vandergelder, how handsome you look! You take my breath away.
Oh, Mr. Vandergelder, I wish Irene Molloy could see you now. But then! I don’t know what come over you lately. You seem to be younger everyday.
VANDERGELDER : Allowing for exaggeration, Mrs. Levi. If man eats careful there is no reason why he should look old. (Wilder, 1964: 200)
Her coquettish manner is also seen when she leaves Mrs. Molloy’s hat
shop. She raps the cupboard and the table as if her rap is meaning something
(Wilder, 1955: 232). Her coquettish manner is seems become the powerful charm
of Mrs. Levi to make other people believe her, trust her, and also put themselves
in control of her hand. Only with her manner and her words, she can make people
surround her believe her because she has a lot of charm in saying the word and
without doubtful. Although the word she says is unfaithful words, she can
convince them with the help of her coquettish manner. It is proved when she can
Her statements are also supported with the situation that happens
around her. She is a type of person that knows how to use situation to support her
self interest. As her nature that she does not want to lose from anyone and keeps
competing, she keeps struggling to achieve what she wants. Even when she is in
the middle of displeasing situation, she can turn it to become profitable to her. It
can be seen when she is at Mrs. Molloy’s hat shop. They were having
conversation about Cornelius Hackl, Mr. Vandergelder’s head clerk.
MRS. LEVI [having found her idea, with decision] : Well, the truth might as well come out now as later. Mr. Vandergelder, Irene is quite right. Your head clerk is often in New York. Goes everywhere; has an army of friends. Everybody knows Cornelius Hackl.
VANDERGELDER [laughing blandly and sitting in chair at left of table] : he never comes to New York. He works all day in my store and at nine o’clock at night he goes to sleep in the brand room.
MRS. LEVI : so you think so, but it’s not true.
VANDERGELDER : Dolly Gallagher, you’re crazy. (Wilder, 1964: 228)
Or when even she is dinning at Harmonia Garden Restaurant on the
Battery, New York, a place where she should bring Ernestina Simple, her fiction
person that should be introduced to Mr. Vandergelder. She knows that she cannot
bring Miss Simple with her because Miss Simple does not exist. For that she tells
lies to Mr. Vandergelder, and of course she adds something for her profit.
MRS. LEVI : Good morning, Mr. Vandergelder. VANDERGELDER : where – where’s Miss Simple?
MRS. LEVI : Mr. Vandergelder, I’ll never trust a woman again as long as I live.
MRS. LEVI : she ran away this afternoon and gets married! VANDERGELDER : she did?
MRS. LEVI : Married, Mr. Vandergelder, to a young boy of fifty. VANDERGELDER : she did? (Wilder, 1964: 255)
The basic thing that makes Mrs. Levi becomes someone who always
takes benefits from everything is because she has a nature to be glamour. Her will
to get out from poverty has made her become materialistic. She judges that
happiness can only be achieved with money, and without money, the happiness
cannot be achieve. That is why she becomes money oriented. She mentions that
when she asks permission to Ephraim Levi to let her married with Mr.
Vandergelder (Wilder, 1964: 277).
Her point of view about money, that it should be spread over the
places, indicates her as a glamour woman. It is shown when she told Ambrose
about how money should be used. She says that money should be circulated like
rain water, not just lying over in the bank.
MRS. LEVI : …….. I don’t like the thought of it lying in great piles, useless, motionless, in the bank, Mr. Kemper. Money should circulate like rain water. It should be flowing down among the people, through dressmaker and restaurant and cabmen, setting up a little business here, and furnishing a good time there. Do you see what I mean? (Wilder, 1964: 199)
She has an opinion about future that future without money in it would
be disaster. When Ambrose tries to challenge Mr. Vandergelder’s niece,
Ermengarde, to elope, Mrs. Levi tries to prohibit him by saying that future needs
more consideration. Because she thought that happiness can only be achieved with
without any secure and without any money. She thinks that only love cannot be
enough to make brighter future.
AMBROSE : but I’m not interested in Mr. Vandergelder’s money. I have enough to support my wife and family.
MRS. LEVI : Enough? How much is enough when someone is thinking about children and the future? The future is the most expensive luxury in the world, Mr. Kemper. (Wilder, 1964: 197)
Her money oriented is stated when she has a monologue that indicates
her point of view about money. She feels that money is the only things that can
bring pleasure to life. She mentions that the difference between a little money and
no money is enormous, means that with a little money someone still can achieve
happiness while with no money at all they cannot achieve any happiness. She also
mentions that the difference between a little money and a lot amount of money is
very slight, means that it both can make someone happy but the difference just on
how much happiness they can achieve.
MRS. LEVI : ……
Money! Money! – it’s like the sun we walk under; it can kill or cure – Mr. Vandergelder’s money.
………
Yes, we’re all fools and we’re in danger of destroying the world with our fooly. But the surest way to keep us out of harm is to give us the four or five human pleasures that are our right in the world – and that takes a little money!
The difference between a little money and no money at all is enormous – and can shatter the world. And the difference between a little money and an enormous amount of money is very slight – and that, also, can shatter the world.
Behind her personality, her spirit for never give up for anything
becomes her strength to face all the obstacles that she had in her past life. When
she wants something, she stiffs with what she wants and chase it until she gets it.
It can be seen when she knows that Mr. Vandergelder has planned to marry Mrs.
Molloy. She pretends that she feels happy with him but also feel pity that her plan
would mess up. So she tells lies that she finds more suitable bride for Mr.
Vandergelder, her fiction character, Miss Ernestina Simple.
MRS. LEVI : oh, you have! Well, I guess that’s just about the best news I ever heard. So there’s nothing more for me to do but wish you every happiness under the sun and say good-bye. [crosses as if to leave]
VANDERGELDER [stopping her] : well – Mrs. Levi – surely I thought –
MRS. LEVI : well, I did have a little suggestion to make – but I won’t. You’re going to marry Irene Molloy, and that closes the matter.
VANDERGELDER : what suggestion was that, Mrs. Levi? MRS. LEVI : well – I had found another girl for you. VANDERGELDER : another?
MRS. LEVI : the most wonderful girl, the ideal wife. VANDERGELDER : another, eh? What’s her name? MRS. LEVI : her name?
VANDERGELDER : yes!
MRS. LEVI [groping for it] : Err… er… her name? – Ernestina – Simple. Miss Ernestina Simple. But now of course all that’s too late. After all, you’re engaged – you’re practically engaged to marry Irene Molloy.
VANDERGELDER : oh, I ain’t engaged to Mrs. Molloy! (Wilder, 1964: 201)
Murphy (1972: 163) stated that instead of describing a character
thing that what is good about Mrs. Levi is that she has a lot of friend. Mrs.
Molloy, Miss Van Huysen, Ermengarde, and Mr. Vandergelder are people who
have close relationship with her. It seems that everybody surround her are
attracted by her charm. The reason why she becomes friendly is because she often
helps people. It is stated when she tries to help Ermengarde and Mr. Kemper to
get married, by helping them achieve the permission from Ermengarde’s uncle,
Mr. Vandergelder (page 197), or when she helps Cornelius Hackl for not to tell
Mr. Vandergelder that he is hiding in the cupboard in Mrs. Molloy’s hat shop.
MRS. LEVI : well, I think she must notice that you’re alive in that cupboard, Mr. Hackl. Well, if I were you, I’d get back into it right away. Somebody could be coming in any minute. (Wilder, 1964: 226)
From the explanation above, it is obvious that Mrs. Levi is one of the
play's central characters and the one after whom it is named. She is a manipulator
and schemer who does not mind making up stories to get the results she wants.
Her business cards claims skills in reducing varicose veins and in giving
instruction on guitar and mandolin, but she states her principal occupation as "a
woman who arranges things." Although she plans to marry Vandergelder for his
money, her intentions are good; as she says to the audience in the last act, she
plans to spread his money around to make the world a better place. She is also a
good liar and a good story maker. She has a lot of charm and with her charm she
makes everyone believe her.
Through the ‘personal description’ stated by Murphy (1972: 161),
Cornelius is described as a clerk that is working at Mr. Vandergelder’s store. He is
thirty-three years old and spends almost all his life every day to work. Early in the
play, Vandergelder announces to him that, after much consideration, he has
decided to promote Cornelius to the position of chief clerk. His question of an
evening free, which never he gets, indicates that he has bored with his daily life.
VANDERGELDER : I was thinking of promoting you to chief clerk. CORNELIUS : what I am now, Mr. Vandergelder?
VANDERGELDER : you’re an impertinent fool, that’s what you are. Now, if you behave yourself, I’ll promote you from impertinent fool to chief clerk, with a raise in your wages. And Barnaby may be promoted from idiot apprentice to incompetent clerk. (Wilder, 1955: 188)
……….
CORNELIUS : Mr. Vandergelder – er – Mr. Vandergelder, does the chief clerk get one evening off every week?
VANDERGELDER : so that’s the way you begin being chief clerk, is it? ... An evening free! Do you suppose that I had evenings free?
If I’d had evenings free I wouldn’t be what I am now! (Wilder, 1964: 207)
Although he is working all day in the store, he is not rich. But his
concern is not about the money, he just wants to enjoy his life, he just wants to
begin to live. With no adventure he feels jaded with his life. It is stated when he
grumble to Barnaby, his partner in Mr. Vandergelder’s store.
CORNELIUS [sitting in dejected thought] : Chief clerk! Promoted from chief clerk to chief clerk.
CORNELIUS : chief clerk! – and if I’m good, in ten years I’ll be promoted to chief clerk again. Thirty-three years old and still don’t get an evening free? When I am going to begin to live? BARNABY : well – ah…. You can begin to live on Sunday,
Cornelius.
CORNELIUS : that’s not living. Twice to church, and old Wolf-trap’s eyes on the back of my head the whole time. And as for holidays! What did we do last Christmas? All those canned tomatoes went bad and exploded. We had to clean up the mess all afternoon. Was that living? (Wilder, 1964: 208)
Cornelius also has a spirit of a leader. When he is in New York,
escaping from his work in Yonkers, he leads Barnaby who come with him. He
never leaves Barnaby behind, and always takes care of him while they are in New
York. He acts like a leader and bossy that keeps order to their workers. And
Barnaby has fully trusted Cornelius, although Cornelius’ decision is sometime
foolish and irrational. It is stated at the time when he tells to Barnaby to keep his
eyes on the street just to see if Mr. Vandergelder walks towards them or not while
he is talking to Mrs. Molloy.
MRS. MOLLOY : you’re from out of town, Mr. Hackl?
CORNELIUS [coming back] : yes, ma’am – Barnaby, just keep your eye on the street, will you? You won’t see that in Yonkers everyday.
………
MRS. MOLLOY : Your friend is acting very strangely, Mr. Hackl. CORNELIUS : Barnaby, stop acting strangely. When the streets quite
and empty, come back and talk to us. What was I saying? Oh yes, Mrs. Molloy, you should know Yonkers. (Wilder, 1964: 218-219)
As an employee of Mr. Vandergelder, he is afraid of Mr.
