The motive of courtship of Mrs. Levi and Cornelius as seen in thorton wilder`s the matchmaker.

(1)

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.

(2)

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

(3)

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.

(4)

THORNTON WILDER’S

THE MATCHMAKER

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra

in English Letters

NICHOLAS MAYNARD Student Number: 024214089

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS

FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA 2008

(5)

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

NICHOLAS MAYNARD Student Number: 024214089

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS

FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA 2008

(6)

(7)

(8)

MOTTO PAGE

For everyone who asks receives;

he who seeks finds;

and to him who knocks,

the door will be opened.

(Luke 11: 10)

(9)

I dedicate this thesis to:

My beloved family

My beloved P.R.U.E

friends

My special someone

-Nicholas Maynard-

(10)

(11)

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.

(12)

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

(13)

TITLE PAGE ……….. i

APPROVAL PAGE ………... ii

ACCEPTANCE PAGE ……….. iii

MOTTO PAGE ………... iv

DEDICATION PAGE ………... v

PUBLICATION PAGE ……… vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………... vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ……….. ix

ABSTRACT ………... xi

ABSTRAK ………. xii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ………. 1

A. Background of the Study ………. 1

B. Problem Formulation ………. 5

C. Objectives of the Study ……… 6

D. Definition of Terms …..……… 6

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL REVIEW ………... 8

A. Review of Related Studies ………. 8

B. Theoretical Review ………... 9

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

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ………. 19

A. Object of the Study ………... 19

B. Approach of the Study ………... 20

C. Method of the Study ………. 22

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS ……… 23

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

(14)

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

(15)

ABSTRACT

(16)

ABSTRAK

(17)

(18)

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)

(19)

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 the only thing that distinguish them is basically money. The story itself tells us

(20)

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 to cover the truth, or in order to gain something. It means that there is a motive in

(21)

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 different from men. Women act and react based on their feeling and intuition,

(22)

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 Wilder’s The Matchmaker?

(23)

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 states is called motive, and the corresponding process is called motivation (1983:

(24)

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, 2002: 266).

(25)

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

(26)

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: 87-89) mentions that they may be divided into major and minor or secondary

(27)

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 the eyes and opinion of another.”

(28)

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 which may also tell us something about his character.’ (1972: 173)

(29)

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 most extensively studied by McClelland. He defines the motive of achievement as

(30)

‘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 the social structure (such as widespread rioting). They are felt more

(31)

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 observation. Patterns of behavior are learned by observing the other people’s

(32)

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 means different things to different people and within different relationships.

(33)

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 companionate love. (1995: 342, 433)

(34)

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 motive is organized, the persistence of behavior is an important aspect of motive.

(35)

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 employed in analyzing Mrs. Levi and Cornelius’ motives in doing courtship.

(36)

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.

(37)

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.

The writer uses Wilfred L. Guerin theory stated in his book A Handbook of Critical Approaches, which explains that psychological approach is

(38)

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 of Mrs. Levi’s and Cornelius’ motives for doing courtship can be done effectively.

(39)

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 story of Thornton Wilder’s The Matchmaker. Finally, the conclusion would be drawn based on the analysis.

(40)

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

(41)

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 Mrs. Levi has been trusted for searching a suitable bride for Mr. Vandergelder,

(42)

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.

MRS. LEVI : I am taking Ermengarde to New York on the next train. I shall not take her to Miss Van Huysen’s, as it planned; I shall

(43)

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)

According to Murphy in Understanding Unseen’s, we can know the characters deeper through nine methods; two of them is through their speech and

(44)

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 easily make Ambrose Kemper and Mr. Vandergelder believe to what she had said.

(45)

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.

(46)

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 money, she feels afraid that they cannot achieve happiness when they elope

(47)

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.

Money, I’ve always felt, money – pardon my expression – is like manure; it’s not worth a thing unless it’s spread about encouraging young things to grow. (Wilder, 1964: 277-278)

(48)

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 directly the author can describe him through the eyes and opinion of another. One

(49)

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.

(50)

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.

(51)

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. Vandergelder. He does not dare to ask an evening free from Mr. Vandergelder,

(52)

and only share it with his comrade, Barnaby. Even when he escaping to New York and almost be found out by Mr. Vandergelder, he chooses to hide in the cupboard rather than facing Mr. Vandergelder. He feels that being nearly caught by Mr. Vandergelder is an adventure. That is why Barnaby asks whether it is an adventure or not, he shouts “pudding!” which indicates that they are in the middle of an adventure, the adventure of nearly being caught.

BARNABY : look out!!!

[he takes a flying leap over the rails and flings himself under the table]

CORNELIUS : begging your pardon, Mrs. Molloy. [he jumps into the cupboard]

MRS. MOLLOY : gentlemen! Mr. Hackl! Come right out there this minute!

CORNELIUS [stiking his hear out of the wardrobe door] : help us just this once, Mrs. Molloy! We’ll explain later!

MRS. MOLLOY : Mr. Hackl!

BARNABY : we’re as innocent as can be, Mrs. Molloy.

MRS. MOLLOY : but really! Gentlemen! I can’t have this! What are you doing?

BARNABY : Cornelius ! Cornelius! Pudding?

CORNELIUS [shouting] : pudding! (Wilder, 1964: 221)

Although he is afraid of Mr. Vandergelder, he has no respect to his employer. He and Barnaby often call Mr. Vandergelder as ‘wolf-trap’ behind Mr. Vandergelder’s back. In front of Mr. Vandergelder, he often acts like mock-deferential. In front of Mrs. Molloy, he describes Mr. Vandergelder as hard as nail.

Cornelius Hackl is the most spontaneous person in the play. He often decides something without considering what the consequence is. The basic reason

(53)

why he does that is because he wants to get adventure while he still alive. Unfortunately, his decisions always make him get into trouble. The most spontaneous decision that Cornelius has made is when he decides to go to New York to have an adventure, even when he has to close the store and abandon Mr. Vandergelder’s order.

CORNELIUS [rising, with sudden resolution] : Barnaby, how much money have you got – where you can get at it?

BARNABY : oh – three dollars. Why, Cornelius? CORNELIUS : you and I are going to New York.

BARNABY : Cornelius!! We can’t! Close the store? (Wilder, 1964: 208)

One example of his spontaneous decision is also seen when he is willing to take the ladies, Mrs. Molloy and Minnie, to have dinner at an expensive and luxury restaurant, Harmonia Gardens Restaurant even that he knows he does not bring enough money to have dinner there. Although he has known the consequences that he might go in jail, he still takes them out to have dinner there just because he does not want Mrs. Molloy thinks badly of him.

[MRS. MOLLOY exits to workroom]

BARNABY : she’s angry at us, Cornelius. Maybe we’d better run away now.

CORNELIUS : no, I’m going to go through with this even if it’s kills me. Barnaby, for a woman like that a man could consent to go back to Yonkers and be success.

BARNABY : all I know is no woman’s going to make a success out of me.

CORNELIUS : jail or no jail, we’re going to take those ladies out to dinner. So grit your teeth. (Wilder, 1964: 234)

(54)

It seems that his spontaneous decision makes himself at the position of breaking the rules. His adventure of going to New York has made him break the rules by abandoning Mr. Vandergelder’s order, and also his willingness to bring Mrs. Molloy to have dinner at Harmonia Gardens Restaurant might make him go to jail. But he still does it because he has extra confidence, and have no worried about his future. He always thinks that he can join the army whenever he is discharged from Mr. Vandergelder’s store. Lucky for him that he has a bunch of luck that always keeps him safe. One of the biggest luck that he has is when Malachi gives him a purse which is, the fact, belongs to Mr. Vandergelder.

MALACHI : Stack, sir. Malachi Stack. If the ladies will excuse you, I’d like to speak to you for a minute.

[draws Cornelius down to front of stage]

Listen, boy, have you lost….! Come here…..

[leads him farther down, out of Mr. Vandergelder’s hearing] Have you lost something?

CORNELIUS : Mr. Stack, in this one day I’ve lost everything I own. MALACHI : there it is

[gives him purse] Don’t mention it

CORNELIUS : why, Mr. Stack…. You know what it is? It’s a miracle [looks towards ceiling]

MALACHI : don’t mention it. (Wilder, 1964: 253)

One more characteristic of Cornelius is that he does not like to be underestimated. He does not like someone think badly of him, and always wants for somebody thinks highly of him. When he is in Mrs. Molloy’s hat shop, he organizes his style and practices his speech just to make a good impression of him.

(1)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrams, M. H. Glossary of Literary Terms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc.,1981.

Goble, Frank. G. Mahzab Ketiga: Psikologi Humanistik Abraham Maslow. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Kanisius, 1987

Goble, Frank. G. The Third Force: The Psychology of Abraham Maslow. New York: Grossman Publishers, Inc., 1970

Guerin, Wilfred L., Earle Labor, Lee Morgan, and R. Willingham. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. New York: Harper and Row, Inc., 1979.

Hauck, Paul. How to Love and be Loved. London: Sheldon Press London, 1983. Henkle, Roger B.. Reading the Novel: An Introduction to the Techniques of

Interpreting Fiction. New York: Harper and Row, Inc., 1977.

Holman, Hugh and William Harmon. A Handbook to Literature: Fifth Edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1986.

Hornby, A. S. Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Kagan and Havemann. Psychology: an Introduction. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovic., 1972.

Kasschau, Richard. A. Understanding Psychology. New York: Glencoe, 1995. Kernan, Alvin B.. The Modern American Theater: Collection of Critical Essays.

New Jersey: Prentice Hall., 1967.

Murphy M. J.. Understanding Unseens: An Introduction to English Poetry and the English Novel for Overseas Students. London: Goerge Allan and Unwin Ltd, 1972.

Murray, Edward J. Motivation and Emotion. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1964.

Perrine, Laurence. Literature: Structure, Sound, and Sense. New York: Harcourt Brace Javanovic, Inc., 1974.

(2)

Reaske, Christoper Russel, the College Guide to the Study of Literarture. New York: Random House., 1970.

Atkinson, Rita Elizabeth, Richard C. Atkinson, and E. Robert Hilgard. Introduction to Psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovic, Inc., 1983.

Wilder, Thornton. Three Plays: Our Town, The Skins of Our Teeth, and The Matchmaker. Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1964.

Wellek, Rene and Austin Warren. Theory of Literature. New York: Harcourt Brace Javanovic, Inc., 1956.

Internet Sources:

Boratko, Amy. Featured Work: The Matchmaker. http://www.tcnj.edu/~wilder/works/frame.html, (accessed on 29 December 2007)

Galens, David. Drama for Students: The Matchmaker. http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-matchmaker/, (accessed on 20 December 2007)

Sommer, Elyse. A CurtainUp Berkshire Review: The Matchmaker. http://www.curtainup.com/b-matchm.html, (accessed on 20 December 2007)

(3)

APPENDIX

(The Summary of The Matchmaker)

Act 1 takes place in the home of Horace Vandergelder, which is situated over his feed store in Yonkers, New York. A barber is shaving Horace, a 60-year-old miser, as Horace argues with Ambrose Kemper. Ambrose is an artist who wants to marry Horace's niece, Ermengarde. Horace intends to send Ermengarde away to a secret place, but his deaf housekeeper has given away the location of the secret place, telling exactly where it is. Ermengarde is going to visit a family friend, Flora Van Huysen, in New York. Ambrose leaves, gratefully kissing the housekeeper.

Horace dresses for a parade in the morning and for courting in the afternoon. He confides to the audience that, although he believes marriage is for fools, he intends to marry. He has enlisted the help one of his deceased wife's friends, Dolly Levi, to find a new wife.

When Dolly arrives to meet with Horace, she overhears Ambrose trying to convince Ermengarde to elope with him right away. However, Ermengarde wants a "proper" wedding, complete with her uncle's blessing. Dolly sends Ermengarde back to her room to get ready as she assures Ambrose that she will arrange things so that the young couple will have a proper wedding. Dolly is not concerned with propriety, but she wants to make sure Ermengarde receives her inheritance from her miserly uncle.

Dolly explains to Ambrose that she is interfering in their lives not only for her own benefit, but also for the pleasure of seeing Horace's money circulate. Dolly has a plan to take Ermengarde to her own home in New York, rather than to Flora's home, and she instructs Ambrose to meet them for dinner at the Harmonia Gardens Restaurant in New York this evening.

Ambrose leaves, and Dolly waits for Horace, who returns to the living room dressed for the parade. He announces that he will propose to Irene Molloy. The audience can see that Dolly is flustered by this news, and she fabricates a "Miss Simple" for Horace to meet first. Dolly confides to the audience that she plans to replace the wallpaper in the living room, helping to confirm the suspicion that she wants to marry Horace her self. For now, Horace pays her $25 for her matchmaking services. Dolly and Horace plan to meet, at Irene's hat shop in New York in the afternoon, and later for dinner with Miss Simple at the Harmonia Gardens Restaurant.

Meanwhile, Horace has "promoted" Cornelius Hackl to the position of chief clerk, and he leaves him in charge of the shop while he goes to New York. However,

(4)

Cornelius resents this pretend promotion and he is fed up with working long hours for very little reward. He and the younger clerk, Barnaby, decide to go to New York for a night on the town. They do not know that Horace hired a third clerk, Malachi, and sent him ahead to New York to make arrangements.

Act 2 takes place in Irene Molloy's hat shop in New York, where she works with her assistant, Minnie. Irene calls people "fools," just as Horace does. However, Irene plans to marry Horace, because she is tired of working and being lonely. Like Cornelius, however, she longs for adventure.

Barnaby and Cornelius enter Irene's shop in an attempt to hide from "Wolf-trap," as they call Horace, who is exiting a cab outside. Cornelius and Irene seem attracted to each other, and Cornelius leads her to believe he is a wealthy man. When Dolly and Horace walk toward the hat shop, Barnaby hides underneath a table, as Cornelius hides in the wardrobe.

Irene takes Dolly and Horace to her workroom, allowing the two clerks the time they need to get out of her shop. However, Cornelius has fallen for Irene, and he is in no hurry to leave. Dolly returns to the room, discovering the men, but she says nothing about it as Irene and Horace join her.

Irene asks Horace about Cornelius, thinking that surely they know each other from Yonkers. When Horace says that Cornelius is his clerk, she does not believe it is the same man whom she has met. Dolly advances the idea that Cornelius is leading a double life, as a quiet clerk by day and a wealthy man-about-town by night. She suggests to Horace that he should make Cornelius a partner in his business.

Then, the two clerks start sneezing from the dust and perfume in their hiding places. Horace is shocked and insulted to realize that there are two men hiding in the room, though he still does not know who they are. Dolly escorts Horace out for his dinner with "Miss Simple," pretending to be as shocked as he is by Irene's "impropriety." Secretly, though, she encourages Irene to take advantage of this opportunity for a little fun. Irene, who still thinks Cornelius is wealthy, insists that he and Barnaby take her and Minnie out to dinner. The act closes as the four leave for the Harmonia Gardens Restaurant, even though Cornelius barely has enough money to get himself back to Yonkers.

Act 3 takes place in the late afternoon on the veranda of the Harmonia Gardens Restaurant in New York. Horace and his new clerk, Malachi, are at the restaurant arranging for Horace's dinner with Miss Simple.

Ambrose and Ermengarde arrive at the restaurant in a cab chaperoned by Dolly. Malachi pulls Horace behind a folding screen, so that they can hear the other three

(5)

characters as they insult Horace. Dolly, however, becomes aware of Horace's presence and quickly changes her tone from insult to praise and sympathy. She then leads the young people upstairs for their dinner.

Horace bribes Malachi and the cabman, who is still outside, giving instructions that, when the young couple comes out of the restaurant, the cabman is to take them to Flora Van Huysen's address and keep them there until Horace arrives. Meanwhile, Horace leaves to prepare for dinner and instructs Malachi to make sure no one else uses the veranda. Malachi and the cabman have a humorous exchange about employers, retiring finally to the kitchen to find whiskey to brace their selves for the kidnapping.

Irene, Minnie, Cornelius and Barnaby arrive and seat themselves on the veranda. They order an extravagant meal, including champagne. The women dance, and Barnaby even scores a kiss from Irene. There is conflict, however, when Malachi returns and tries to clear the room for his employer. A waiter resolves the issue by unfolding the screen between the two tables, so that when Horace arrives, he grumbles about having other people in the room, but he does not know who they are. He sits down to read a newspaper and waits for Dolly to arrive with "Miss Simple," dropping his purse on the floor.

Malachi finds the purse and "returns" it to Cornelius, who is thereby spared the humiliation of not being able to pay for the extravagant meal. Cornelius learns that Malachi's employer is Horace and that Horace is on the other side of the screen. He then sits down to tell Irene everything.

Dolly arrives and claims that Miss Simple ran off to marry someone else. She then pretends that Horace has suggested he marry Dolly, but she says that she would not marry him. Cornelius and Barnaby try to get past Horace, by disguising themselves as women as they leave the restaurant, but Horace discovers Cornelius and fires them both.

As the curtain closes, Horace has fired his clerks and lost his purse. His niece has fainted, and Ambrose has carried her out. Noting all that Horace has lost, Dolly chases him out of the restaurant saying, "Will you marry me now?"

The final act of The Matchmaker takes place at the home of Miss Flora Van

Huysen.

Flora is upset and worried about Ermengarde, who has not arrived as scheduled. Flora is also angry with Horace and "everyone else who tries to separate young lovers." Someone interfered with her and her fiancée's relationship years ago, and she has never been married. She wants to help Ermengarde escape her uncle and in order to marry Ambrose.

(6)

The cabman and Malachi arrive with their two prisoners, the man and "woman" who came back to the cab after dinner. However, these two are not Ermengarde and Ambrose, but Cornelius and Barnaby. Barnaby is still dressed as a woman. Flora mistakes him for Ermengarde, kisses his cheeks and assures him she will not interfere with the marriage. The arrival of Ermengarde and Ambrose in another cab completely confuses Flora.

Horace, Dolly, Irene and Minnie arrive now, all in the same cab. Flora tells Horace to "behave" in her house and to forgive Cornelius and Ambrose, though she is still confused about who is who. Dolly also encourages Horace to forgive them, telling him, "You've had a hard day…you can start quarreling with them tomorrow." This is one way of saying that, sometimes, we are being kinder to ourselves by not insisting that life be exactly as we want it to be.

Then Flora, at Dolly's suggestion, takes everyone else into the kitchen for coffee. This gives Dolly time to "talk" with her deceased husband, asking his blessing to marry Horace. Dolly then addresses the audience and tells her story. Two years after the death of her husband left her alone, Dolly realized that the only way to be truly alive is to be involved in the lives of other human beings. She also realizes that in order to be happy, it is necessary to have money, but not too much. She intends to help herself be happier by enjoying some of Horace's money, and to make him happier by helping him to let go of his surplus.

Horace comes in from the kitchen, with a cup of coffee for Dolly, and says a lot of "foolishness" has been going on in the kitchen. He has forgiven his niece and her fiancée. He has made Cornelius his partner and now he wants Dolly to marry him. Dolly pretends to struggle with the decision, until he assures her that she can do with his money as she pleases.

Barnaby bursts in to tell the two that Cornelius and Irene will marry. Horace sends him back into the kitchen to tell everyone that he and Dolly will also be married. Everyone who was in the kitchen comes out to offer congratulations. The play closes as Barnaby is pushed forward to tell the moral of the play: everyone needs the right balance of security and adventure.

The motive of courtship of Mrs. Levi and Cornelius as seen in thorton wilder`s the matchmaker.

ABSTRACT

ABSTRAK

THORNTON WILDER’S

THE MATCHMAKER

THE MOTIVE OF COURTSHIP

OF MRS. LEVI AND CORNELIUS AS SEEN IN

THORNTON WILDER’S

THE MATCHMAKER

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

ABSTRAK

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL REVIEW

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX

(The Summary of The Matchmaker)

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

Love and belongingness as Mrs. Lovett`s motive to hide Lucy`s identity seen in Hugh Wheeler`S Sweeney Todd, The Demon barber of Fleet Street.

Children desire and adults knowledge in children`s literature as seen through the characterization of children and adults in Wilder`s Little House in the Big Woods.

The influence of the absence of love on someone`s behavior as seen in Dona Maria`s behavior in thornton wilder`s the bridge of san luis rey.

The ideas of American dreams as the main characters` motive of life as seen in Lorraine Hansberry`s a raisin in the sun...

The influence of fear on Denis` avoidance motive as seen in Huxley`s Crome Yellow.

Children desire and adults knowledge in children`s literature as seen through the characterization of children and adults in Wilder`s Little House in the Big Woods

Love and belongingness as Mrs. Lovett`s motive to hide Lucy`s identity seen in Hugh Wheeler`S Sweeney Todd, The Demon barber of Fleet Street

The ideas of American dreams as the main characters` motive of life as seen in Lorraine Hansberry`s a raisin in the sun... - USD Repository

The motive of courtship of Mrs. Levi and Cornelius as seen in thorton wilder`s the matchmaker - USD Repository

The American values of work ethics as revealed by Mr. Vandergelder`s characterization in Thornton Wilder`s The Matchmaker - USD Repository

Dokumen yang Anda mencari sudah siap untuk unduhkan