In The Merry Wives of Windsor Shakespeare presents a domestic comedy focusing on the marriages of two couples and the wooing of Anne Page by several suitors. He also presents the possibility of extra-marital affairs as Falstaff attempts to woo both Alice Ford and Meg Page. Consequently, love, desire, sexuality, and relationships are a primary concern in the play. The two older women appear to be good wives, faithful and fulfilled in their marriages and, thus, unreceptive to a lover’s suit. The only marital problem is Frank Ford’s jealousy, but that seems resolved by the play’s end when he realizes he was mistaken to mistrust his spouse and ultimately expresses his appreciation for her fidelity and virtues. As a result, Shakespeare seems to be endorsing middle-class marriage and the honesty of wives. But a closer look at the relationships shows the domestic life of Windsor is

not so cozy and satisfying and characters are not as virtuous as they might first appear. During the brief moments the Pages are together, such as in 2.1.133-42, there is very little communication: Meg Page asks her husband two mundane questions, neither of which he answers.1 When informed “Falstaff loves [his] wife” (2.1.122), he is unaffected, not so much because of a belief in his wife’s constancy but, rather, a lack of caring. In fact, he claims Falstaff is welcome to her: “If he should intend this voyage toward my wife, I would turn her loose to him, and what he gets more of her than sharp words, let it lie on my head” (2.1.164-67). If there ever was a romantic component to the union, it seems to have long expired, and the marriage may now be sexless. Ironically, Mistress Quickly says “never a wife in Windsor leads a better life than [Meg] does: do what she will, say what she will, take all, pay all, go to bed when she list, rise when she list, all is as she will” (2.2.110-13). The lack of reference to emotional or sexual intimacy with her husband suggests it is not a part of the marital life of Mistress Page and women in general. Sexual fulfillment does not seem to be considered a component of marriage. Alice Ford concurs with Mistress Quickly, claiming her friend is “the happier woman” (2.1.95). The Ford marriage is more obviously troubled, as Frank Ford’s jealousy reaches almost hysterical proportions throughout the play. But perhaps it signifies that, unlike Mr Page, he at least still has feelings for his wife, hostile though they might be. Mistress Quickly, the women’s confidante,

tells Falstaff “she leads an ill life with [her husband] … a very frampold life” (2.2.85-86), suggesting why she might seek a man’s affections outside of the marriage, a line of reasoning that may hold some truth. As a result, all may not be “merry” and pleasing in Windsor – not the

marriages, not the spouses’ feelings for each other, not the wives’ reputed fidelity to their husbands – and Shakespeare, instead, is exploring marital unfaithfulness and unwholesome desires. He deconstructs the romantic and blissful view of marriage, unveiling its underside characterized by dissatisfaction, unfulfillment, and infidelity. I propose that the wives project their own lechery onto Falstaff, mislabeling him the lustful one as a way to deny their sexuality, which is more than mere lust: it has a sadistic dimension. Furthermore, the Fords’ relationship is based on pain, for Mr Ford’s sexuality is sadomasochistic and, thus, complementary to that of his wife. The Fords and Pages, then, are far more sexually charged and “tainted” (5.5.90) than the old knight, who becomes a scapegoat for their secret desires. Upon receiving the love letter from Falstaff, Meg immediately wants

revenge. When Alice realizes Falstaff has written the same letter to her, she too is outraged and wants him to suffer. They label him duplicitous and licentious and claim to be justified in punishing him for these faults, but Shakespeare allows us to question the validity of their allegations. Since Falstaff’s letter is a fairly transparent and feeble attempt at seduction and his advanced age and obesity render him non-threatening, he is a more pathetic than sexually threatening figure. Deluding himself about his body image, he tries to be a lover but realizes he is going to need divine intervention and a battery of aphrodisiacs to undertake such a herculean feat, an indication he could not be a lustful suitor even if he wanted to be one. His duplicity is just as feeble as his waning sexual prowess. His deception of professing love and delivering the same love letter to both women certainly pales in comparison to the more sophisticated and ubiquitous instances of deceit in the play. His swindle, which never materializes, is fairly harmless, yet he is punished while the more egregious offenders walk away unscathed. Shakespeare has Falstaff clarify his real motives: “almost out at heels” (1.3.28), he has to come up with some way to earn some money. It is not sexual desire that motivates him, as the women contend, but, rather, financial hardship. Thus, even Falstaff’s professed reason for his actions is relatively innocuous. The wives’ motives, then, are erroneous. Clearly the wives overreact to Falstaff’s proposition, with Meg threatening

to introduce a “bill in the parliament for the putting down of men” (2.1.24) or their extermination. The women’s extreme reaction far exceeds what is warranted, suggesting a more personal and psychological reason. Meg acknowledges “the holiday time of [her] beauty” (2.1.2) is past, but the knight directly confronts her with the truth about her age, stating she is “not young” (2.1.6) any more than he is, and, thus, they share a “sympathy” (2.1.9). She resents being told this reality and is insulted at the implication that at this stage of the wives’ lives, they can only attract the attention of men who are complementary to them – old, undesirable, and desperate. She is offended

such a poor example of a man would think they would deign to entertain his advances. But what seems to bother her even more is his ability to perceive a sexual looseness behind their well-guarded façade of virtue. Although selfdeluded, he claims he “can construe the action of [Alice’s] familiar style” and her “leer of invitation” (1.3.42-43), contending she “gave [him] good eyes too, examined [his] parts with most judicious oeillades” (56-58). While the claim is ludicrous in reference to himself, his seasoned understanding of the bawdy element in others may help him recognize the wives have wandering eyes and are sexually available – one of the reasons he propositions them. Shakespeare’s designation of them as “merry” allows for some ambiguity, since the word denotes not just wittiness and humorousness, both of which accurately describe them, but also sexual wantonness (Rubinstein 1984: 159-60), which may also apply. Their overreaction to the knight indicates there must be truth to his view of them as both past their prime and lascivious. His ability to detect their real natures threatens them, and, thus, they deflect their flaws onto him, making themselves look better in comparison. Their reactions to Falstaff’s letter call their virtue into question and validate

his perception of them as sexual agents. When Alice receives the “love” letter, she first seeks Meg for “counsel” (2.1.36) or advice about what she should do. Speaking obliquely, she proclaims “if it were not for one trifling respect, [she] could come to such honour!” (38-39), trivializing the infidelity as a mere “trifle” or a little cheat and expressing no moral repugnance.2 She speaks of “honour” not in the sense of ennobling her character (OED n 2a) but enhancing her stature through association with someone of the aristocracy (OED n 5a). With her next statement, she becomes more precise about the indiscretion: “If I would but go to hell for an eternal moment or so, I could be knighted” (42-43). Her statements suggest she is giving the proposition some thought, that she would be amenable to sexual antics with a “knight” if it could enhance her socially and financially. She seems almost flattered that a man of high title would be interested in her, especially at her age. Meg’s response reveals her lack of moral scruples as well – “Hang the trifle, woman, take the honour!” (40-41) – indicating the gains take precedence over the means. But once she hears the suitor is a knight, she changes her tune, claiming “these knights will hack, and so [she] shouldst not alter the article of [her] gentry” (45-46), and advising her friend to avoid the sexual advances of knights, known for their promiscuity, since their intentions are not genuine and, therefore, not advantageous for them. They speak not as women of high morality but as shrewd, savvy schemers, who know about men’s sexual proclivities and would do almost anything for some kind of social and financial distinction, just as Meg plans to deceive her husband in order to marry her daughter to a wealthy and influential doctor. Trusting her friend’s superior knowledge of men, Alice expresses disappointment that Falstaff is not genuine in his “love” interest in her, that there is no “truth [in] his words” (53), and immediately wants “revenge” by “entertain[ing] him with hope” (59), just as she feels he has done with her. She is upset he was planning to play her at her

own game and use her for his advantage. She laments he is not what he appears to be – an insight that could more aptly apply to the wives. Shakespeare’s having Mistress Quickly use a malapropism to refer to Meg’s

supposedly virtuous life as “fartuous” (2.2.92) can be his way of debunking the wife’s public persona. Moreover, having the morally questionable Quickly defend the women allows him to actually undermine them, for she dissembles and lies throughout the play, and, thus, her defense incriminates more than it exonerates. Since she is deceiving Falstaff when she attests to Alice’s unassailable chastity, Shakespeare allows for her tribute to be as false as her claim the wife is interested in Falstaff:

The best courtier of them all, when the court lay at Windsor, could never have brought her to such a canary – yet there has been knights, and lords, and gentlemen, with their coaches, I warrant you – coach after coach, letter after letter, gift after gift … and I warrant you, they could never get an eye-wink of her. I had myself twenty angels given me this morning, but I defy all angels in any such sort, as they say, but in the way of honesty.