“A Woman Killed With Kindness”: Its Problems Page 1 of 6

“A Woman Killed With Kindness”: Its Problems

By Dr. M. V. RAMA SARMA, M.A., Ph. D. (Wales)

Heywood’s masterpiece ‘A Woman Killed With Kindness’ is the best of its genre, the
domestic drama. Yet it has not received the attention it deserves. Even sympathetic critics find some
difficulty in reconciling themselves to some of the blemishes in its plot construction. Especially, the
seduction scene has come in for a good deal of criticism. The general feeling is that not much skill is
exhibited by Heywood in uniting the main plot and the sub-plot. “It is, we must frankly admit,
regrettable that in A Woman, of all his dramas, Heywood should have used two plots, for both have
suffered.” l

No doubt this is one side of the picture. A close study however will convince us that there is a
definite plan governing the plots. The plot construction is not irregular; it is quite systematic. In
Othello the gulling of Roderigo by Iago is closely interwoven with the undoing of Desdemona.
Shakespeare exploits this Iago-Roderigo tangle to a success. The sub-plot is inter-linked with the
main plot. Such an integration of the two plots may not be found in A Woman. But surely Heywood
has taken every care to introduce a reasonably well-knit plot.

In the opening scene we have almost all the important characters of the two plots. The hero of
the play Frankford is the brother-in-law of Sir Francis of the sub-plot. Sir Francis comes with his
friends Sir Charles, Wendoll, Cranwell and others. And even when they are busy congratulating the
newly married couple, they set their hearts on hawking. Thus the sub-plot arises out of the main plot
and later (in Act. 2, Sc. i) Wendoll (of the sub-plot) comes to Frankford’s house in order to inform
him of the strange differences that have come between Sir Francis and Sir Charles. In the last scene
we again find all the major characters coming together, this time to see the tragic end of Mrs.
Frankford. They were all present at the time of her marriage to congratulate her; now they are again
assembled to condole her and her afflicted husband. Heywood has brought the two plots together. It is
not like the subtle manoeuvring of Shakespeare; yet this workmanship of Heywood has its own
significance.

For one thing Heywood must be praised. He is true to his subject–presentation of domestic
life. He never wavers or falters. In Othello Shakespeare is no doubt attempting the domestic drama;
yet he cannot forget his preference for the aristocratic tradition. So his Othello is a great general first,
and only secondarily a lover and the husband of Desdemona. Domestic life here is mixed up with
politics and state affairs; but the latter half of Othello develops into a typical domestic tragedy, with
the dropping of the hand-kerchief. The moment Othello plays the part of the jealous husband, we are
confronted with a seemingly cuckolded person trying to redeem his honour. So Shakespeare has
divided loyalties–his preference for aristocratic tradition and his desire for trying the new genre, the
domestic drama. Heywood experiences no such difficulty. He is essentially middle class. In A Woman
the two plots centre round the domestic problems. There is unity and singleness of purpose; hence the
total effect is centralised round the hearth.

In the main plot, Frankford’s hospitality is misused by his own friend Wendoll. The latter
seduces the former’s wife. The domestic bliss is ruined and the problem is how to punish the erring
woman. What type of punishment should be given to persons violating marital ties? Middle class life
with its sense of honour and contempt for illicit love is here portrayed. The sub-plot is not for relief. It
takes up another problem, middle class respectability. Heywood is extremely realistic and through Sir

https://trivenijournal.org/CD%20&%20WEB/awomankilledwithkindnessitsproblemsoct5... 23-07-2022
“A Woman Killed With Kindness”: Its Problems Page 2 of 6

Charles and Susan his sister, he succeeds in focussing our attention on this aspect of life. The Middle
class is noted for its pretensions. Of course Heywood does not expose them to ridicule or sarcasm. He
is sympathetically interested in studying them. Carried away by his warmth for such respectable, but
broken, middle class families, he does tend to sentimentalise. Sir Charles tries to prostitute his sister
Susan to redeem his honour and to keep up the respectability of the house. Apparently this is
suggestive of Heywood’s tender charity and even sentimentalism. This may be ‘too grotesque even to
horrify.’ But such practices should have been tolerated at least on the stage at that time. We have
Volpone where Mosca, the parasite, contrives to get Corvino prostitute his wife Celia for curing
Volpone of a strange disease. Here Corvino’s attraction is for Volpone’s wealth. Whereas Ben Jonson
is satirical, Heywood is pointing out the logical limits to which a middle class person can go in order
to keep up his honour and respectability. A Woman is thus an authentic picture of middle class life.

Peculiarly enough the situations and the incidents are almost the same in the main plot as well
as the sub-plot. Temptation is offered to Mrs. Frankford; Susan is tempted with gold. Mrs. Frankford
yields; Susan resists the temptation. The idea of taking revenge is repeated in both the plots.
Frankford has to avenge the shame inflicted on him by his wife and Wendoll. Sir Francis is keen on
taking revenge on Sir Charles. Heywood has his eye on his audience. “Love, particularly passionate
love and illicit love, has come to dominate the minds of the playwrights and the audience; and all
means are taken to provide each drama with thrilling episodes, however artificial and unnatural they
may be.” 2 This then is the state and Heywood manipulates to give the usual stories of love, illicit love
and also the sensational theme of revenge. In A Woman there is the popular Elizabethan theme of
Revenge mingled with the common Jacobean theme of Lust. The ends in both the plots are strikingly
novel and typically Heywoodian. Novelty, another demand of that age, is successfully conceded to.
Yet Heywood maintains his unshaken faith in morality. Even while giving concessions to popular
taste, he does not sacrifice his innate belief in ‘Order’. He is ethical in his attitude towards life. This is
reflected in Frankford’s forgiveness of his wife’s moral lapses and in the transformation of Sir Francis
from a lustful Villain to a sober husband. Mrs. Frankford’s weakness for Wendoll and Sir Francis’s
momentary thoughts of lust for Susan put us in the typical Seventeenth Century theatrical world.
Normally the first should have ended in revenge, taken in the Elizabethan dramatic fashion, and the
second should have ended with lust and sensuality as we may find in any other Jacobean play.
Heywood is indeed original in avoiding the two commonplace practices and taking up an altogether
independent attitude, based on his own convictions. So Mrs. Frankford atones for her sin and dies
nobly and Sir Francis gets married to Susan.

The title is suggested in both the plots. Sir Francis realises that Susan hates him. So a novel
idea comes to him,

“Well, I will fasten such a kindness on her

As shall overcome her hate and conquer it” (Act. 4, Sc.i)

Here the suggestion is one of conquering even one’s own foe through kindness, not through
fighting or hating. Frankford thinks of banishing his adulterous wife, but prefers another alternative.

“…..but with usage

Of more humility torment thy soul
And kill thee even with kindness.” (Act. 4, Sc. iv)

Frankford wishes to punish his wife through kindness; Sir Francis wants to get Susan as his
mistress through kindness. The emphasis is upon kindness; there is thus a peculiar blending of the two

https://trivenijournal.org/CD%20&%20WEB/awomankilledwithkindnessitsproblemsoct5... 23-07-2022
“A Woman Killed With Kindness”: Its Problems Page 3 of 6

plots. Ten scenes are given for the main plot and six for the sub-plot. If Heywood has been careless or
shabby, as he is generally supposed to be, he could not have closely followed this technique of uniting
the two plots with the same emphasis on the domestic problems. References to the title in the main as
well as the sub-plot cannot be accidental. They should have been pre-planned and on the whole there
is structural unity.

The moment we talk of structural unity we have to take into consideration some of the
problems connected with the plot construction. While presenting the seduction of Mrs. Frankford
‘Heywood has bungled this, the crucial scene of the play.’ And she seems to be yielding to her lover
‘with hardly a struggle.’ It is also felt that Heywood should have given some hints of the seduction
even in the first scene itself He should have shown Wendoll having some fascination for Mrs.
Frankford in the opening part of the play itself. On the whole, the consensus of opinion is that
Heywood has miserably failed in presenting this scene of seduction. An Almost patronising attitude is
indicated here, “The scene that he (Heywood) has given was, no doubt, all that his audience required;
and to have given more would have been a work of supererogation, a piece of lavish extravagance for
a journeyman-playwright.”3 Surely the scene is not so inartistic as it is painted to be, and it will be
extremely unfair to insinuate that a second rate dramatist is capable of doing only such a type of work.

In fact the seduction is hinted at even earlier. The moment Wendoll is taken into the service of
Frankford, Nick, the trusted servant of the house, comments, ‘The devil and he are all one in my eye.’
This is by no means a compliment to Wendoll and it is definitely a poor introduction for him. Another
suggestion is given to us in the seduction scene itself, this time with a subtle play on words. Wendoll
is consumed by thoughts of lust and remorse. Mrs. Frankford approaches him and naively tells him,

“For you must keep his table, use his servants,

And be a present Frankford in his absence.”(Act.2,Sc.iii)

Her naivety is unfortunately an encouragement for Wendoll, for he will take the meaning
suited to his lustful thoughts. At the same time the audience is kept informed of the seduction.
Punning upon words is in fact one of the tricks of his writing for he uses the same device in the
symbolic game of cards also, Act. 3, Sc ii, where Wendoll is referred to as ‘knave out of doors’ and
Mrs. Frankford is described as a ‘quean.’

As contrasted with the unalloyed bliss of the Frankfords in the first scene, this degeneracy in
Mr. Frankford is pathetic. But as Wendoll remarks, ‘O God! O God! with what a violence! I am
hurried to my own destruction; (Act. 2, Sc. iii) there seems to be some Supreme Force drawing the
pair, Wendoll and Mrs. Frankford, to lust and ruin. She sees sedition in Wendoll’s countenance, yet
his speech,

“O speak no more,
Beggary, shame, death, scandal and reproach,
For you, I’ll hazard all; why, what care I?
For you I’ll live, and in your love I’ll die.” (Act.2, Sc.iii)

with all its passionate longings and diabolical urges moves her to passion and pity. Illicit love,
passionate love, (the common material for the Jacobean playwrights) is here indicated through this
Satanic speech of Wendoll. The popular theological theme of the Seventeenth Century–the conflict
between good and evil–is well presented here. This speech even smacks of Restoration Tragedy. But
despite all these protestations of love, Mrs. Frankford is not happy; for her ‘soul is wandering and

https://trivenijournal.org/CD%20&%20WEB/awomankilledwithkindnessitsproblemsoct5... 23-07-2022
“A Woman Killed With Kindness”: Its Problems Page 4 of 6

hath lost her way.’ In desperation she sighs ‘Oh! Master Wendoll! Oh!’ and does not show the usual
abandon, for her scruples are not over. Much against her will she yields, ‘enchanted’ by his ‘tongue’.

So the ordinary theme of illicit love, the spicy material for almost all the dramatists of that age
is handled by Heywood with sensitiveness, understanding and even sympathy. Mrs. Frankfood is as
helpless as Tess, even though the latter at the time of seduction is a fresh, virginal maiden, whereas
the former is a married woman with two children. But in both the situations there is some suggestion
that something is amiss. There is some other Will greater than man’s will. Some of these inexplicable
problems vex the dramatists of the age, and they feel that they are to the gods like ‘flies to wanton
boys’ to be killed for their sport. The seduction scene bears the essential Jacobean background and
theological content. Or else it should have been difficult for us to sympathise with Wendoll or Mrs.
Frankford in this scene. In Othello we have the scene of temptation (Act. 3 Sc. iii) when Iago works
out the spell methodically and puts Othello to a close, microscopic examination to see if his medicine
is working on him effectively. We are no doubt amused by the subtle intellect of lago; the hard-boiled
villain with his unscrupulous behaviour amazes us. The situation is extremely psychological. With a
cool, calculated precision, Iago poisons Othello; and the jealous moor reacts favourably. Iago is a
cynical intellectual. Othello is jealous and credulous–jealous to madness and credulous to a fault. We
cannot possibly sympathise with Iago, the cynic; nor can we be disposed favourably towards Othello.
But in A Woman the presentation of the conflict is essentially human. There we have two ordinary
individuals with weak wills and pious resolutions; with physical longings and moral scruples; with
devilish urges and godly fears. Wendoll and Mrs. Frankford, with their frailties and moral
compunctions, appeal to our human emotions. In Othello the temptation scene is quite intriguing; but
in A Woman we are moved and bound to say ‘How frail is man!’

Another peculiar feature of this play is the appearance of the children on the stage almost too
suddenly. An element of surprise is thereby created among the audience. But this is a convention
followed by the dramatists, and demanded by the audience, of that age. Not one but many surprises
should be given. Here again Heywood is working on the beaten track, the conventional pattern of that
writing in that age. But this has also served a good purpose. The conversion of Mrs. Frankford is
made possible only through this device. Even if we do not credit Heywood with the psychological
interpretation of human nature, we should at least concede to him sound common-sense and basic
wisdom in understanding the softer element in the woman. That is her love for her children. Nothing
is comparable to this love of the mother to the children. Frankford, with his gentleness and generosity,
is nevertheless clever and subtle. Or perhaps his creator is well versed in human nature, even though
he is modest enough to be content if the reader finds ‘some mirth, some matter and perhaps some
wit’ (Prologue to The English Traveller) in his plays. On seeing the little, innocent children, Mrs.
Frankford melts and bursts into tears. Struck by remorse, she hates herself and feels as though she is
having ‘ten thousand deaths’ in this one life. She is ashamed of herself and courts banishment.

The punishment itself is by no means objectionable. In a way it looks like a stage convention.
Desdemona appeals to her husband. ‘O banish me, my lord, but kill me not.’ We have a similar
situation in Massinger’s The Emperor of the East. Paulinus, a kinsman to the Emperor is a warm
friend of the Princess before her promotion to that rank. She presents the apple given to her by the
Emperor to her friend Paulinus. The Emperor understands that she is adulterous and hence banishes
her,

“The sting of conscience ever gnawing on thee,

A long life be thy punishment.”

https://trivenijournal.org/CD%20&%20WEB/awomankilledwithkindnessitsproblemsoct5... 23-07-2022
“A Woman Killed With Kindness”: Its Problems Page 5 of 6

Frankford’s attitude is exactly the same. So banishment is more or less the general punishment
given to adulterous women.

Mrs. Frankford’s penitence and death are considered to be instances of sensation mongering,
so common a trick of the Jacobean playwrights. It is felt that ‘her decline and death are a tribute to
popular sentiment; not certainly a vindication of inexorable moral law.’ 4 Her conversion therefore is
not based on any deep understanding of ethical values. This is not quite true, for even when she
commits adultery, thoughts of sin always oppress her. She sighs and yields to Wendoll (Act. 2, Sc. iii)
but the latter cajoles her, ‘Sigh not, sweet saint.’ Her immediate comment

“Women that fall, not quite bereft of grace,

Have their offences noted in their face
I blush and am ashamed” (Act 2, Sc. iii)

leaves us in no doubt as regards her sense of shame. She has attraction as well as repulsion for
Wendoll, a curious emotional experience indeed. Heywood gives another scene for the description of
this illicit love, Act. 4, Sc. iii. Let us examine it. Wendoll makes approaches to Mrs. Frankford, but
her reply, ‘Oh what a clog unto the soul is sin!’ is bound to damp the ardour of any but this bold lover.
So Wendoll rebukes her, ‘Fie, fie, you talk too like a puritan.’ Then we have Mrs. Frankford’s reply,

“You have tempted me to mischief, Master Wendoll:

I have done I know what. Well, you plead custom;
That which for want of wit I granted erst,
I now must yield through fear. Come, come let’s in,
Once over shoes, we are straight over head in sin.”

This indicates that she has yielded to Wendoll in a weak moment and she must now yield through fear
of being exposed. She is helpless. Her sense of respectability, at the same time her awareness of her
sinful life with Wendoll, her regret for having done something foolish in a mood of intoxication–all
these make her a fit subject for pity and not a sweet, lustful mistress in an adulterous union. A
conscience-stricken woman, as she is, she does not seem to be enjoying the stolen pleasures of love.
All through these scenes (Act. 2, School. iii and Act. 4, Sc. iii), we find Mrs. Frankford critical and
self-reproachful of her own actions.

With this make-up and frame of mind she is bound to come to the right path, the moment the
temptation is removed from her. For she is essentially weak but not immortal. In her abject state of
misery and wretchedness she resolves that she will ‘nor eat, nor drink’; ‘nor smile, nor rest’ and prays
‘Sweet Saviour, to thy hands I yield my sprite’ thereby atoning for her past sin. When Wendoll
appears on the scene and addresses her, ‘Mistress Frankford’ only to console her, she is scared of him
and she utters a piteous cry, ‘O! for God’s sake fly! The devil doth come to tempt me ere I die.’ She is
terribly afraid of him and she even spurns him, for in her ‘repentant eyes’ his face is ‘ugly black.’
Towards the close, the erring wife is reunited to her noble husband through her ‘repentant tears.’ The
repeated references to the word ‘repentant’ in the concluding scene is a clear indication of Heywood’s
own moral sensitiveness. A repentant wife ought to get the blessing of her husband. In this conversion
or in this death by starvation we do not really find anything abnormal. Nothing is here for popular
applause. It is not the grand finale of a tragic hero; it is the moving story of a woman who has erred
and punished herself. Heywood has tried a daring innovation in giving a tame ending, ‘a bloodless
catastrophe’–as contrasted with the ending in Shakespearean tragedies–to his play, for he modestly
admits that his ‘Muse is bent upon a barren subject, a bare scene.’ The suggestion therefore of Mrs.

https://trivenijournal.org/CD%20&%20WEB/awomankilledwithkindnessitsproblemsoct5... 23-07-2022
“A Woman Killed With Kindness”: Its Problems Page 6 of 6

Frankford’s death as a concession to popular taste is not justifiable. On the other hand it must be
definitely said that he has struck a deviation, bold and emphatic, with his religious approach towards a
domestic problem.

l A. M. Clark. Heywood. P, 230

2 Allardyce Nicoll. The British Drama. P. 113
3 A. M. Clark. Heywood. P. 234
4 T. S. Eliot. Selected Essays. On Heywood

Back

https://trivenijournal.org/CD%20&%20WEB/awomankilledwithkindnessitsproblemsoct5... 23-07-2022