Guilt In The Play Trifles

To Be or Not to Be (Guilty)

In the play Trifles, written by Susan Glaspell, we observe like flies on the wall as two women discover the crimes of a peer and weigh her guilt against their own. Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale find similarities within themselves and their experiences that mirror the feelings of Mrs. Wright prior to her alleged offense. Not only are we witness to this in their words, but in the stage business that takes place as well, denoted by descriptive stage direction. In their hearts, we see them struggle throughout the play with the social constructs of gender roles, guilt, and culpability.

In this time period (presumably the early 1900’s), women were silenced in the presence of men; they had to keep their mouths closed or risk

being poked fun at or chastised. They are conflicted by what they feel should be said and what they are expected to say (ore more often not say). This is evidenced when the County Attorney criticizes the cleanliness of the house and, more specifically, the kitchen towel, berating Mrs. Wright by scoffing, “not much of a housekeeper, would you say, ladies?” (375). Mrs. Hale calmly jumps to her defense, stating, “There’s a great deal of work to be done on a farm” (375), where it is written in the stage directions to be said stiffly. Her stiff statement suggests that she would have said more in defense, for her acquaintance and for woman-kind, but settled fore a mere passive comment. Mrs. Hale has to wait patiently for the men to exit up the stairs before she can speak her mind. We can see this inner conflict in her actions; while she has her self control, she recognizes the discrimination being afforded to her. She acknowledges the fact that she must remain mostly silent, but allows herself an open comment when she feels she must defend herself or another whilst determining where to draw the line on her remarks. We can also observe multiple instances in the beginning where the women start questioning what they see and start their own thoughts on the investigation, but quickly revert back to, “familiar things” () as stated in the stage directions. This suggests the “familiar things” are the stereotypical womanly household chores they are so often tasked with. These women clearly have intelligent thoughts and a helpful female perspective to offer the search, but they hold themselves back from forming any kind of full hypothesis by changing the subject and returning to their “trifles” as expected of them. As the plot progresses though, we see these women become more comfortable with each other. Even with their newfound friendship, their comments are still stated with hesitation and met with reluctance, evidenced when Mrs. Hale suggests that Mr. Wright killed the bird, and Mrs. Peters replies uneasily, “we don’t know who killed the bird”. Even with the overwhelming evidence, she refuses to fully admit or accept that he may have killed the bird because it has been ingrained in her that it is not her place to speculate or have such thoughts.
At the beginning of this play, Mrs.

Hale and Mrs. Peters are strangers, and neither are terribly well acquainted with the accused, but by the end, these women become connected under a shared feeling of empathy for Mrs. Wright. This empathy becomes so strong that they view her in themselves, and the lines of guilt and innocence become blurred. Mrs. Peters comes to this realization after they find the bird and she recalls a cruel childhood memory; “(in a whisper) When I was a girl—my kitten—there was a boy took a hatchet, and before my eyes—and before I could get there— (covers her face an instant) If they hadn't held me back I would have— (catches herself, looks upstairs where steps are heard, falters weakly)—hurt him” (). She is frightened by her feelings, not because they are violent, but because they are eerily similar to the feelings of Mrs. Wright, who is supposed to be some kind of deranged killer, which she herself is not. After piecing together the details of Mrs. Wright’s gloomy home life, Mrs. Hale comments, “it would be awful—still, after the bird was still” (). This declaration resonates with Mrs. Peters; she replies, “I know what stillness is. When we homesteaded in Dakota, and my first baby died—after he was two years old, and me with no other then—. . . I know what stillness is. (pulling herself back) The law has got to punish crime, Mrs. Hale” (). Knowing stillness herself, she would have known how that bird must have livened up Mrs. Wright’s life, but she is

grappling with what the law says is wrong and what she feels. This choice is heightened by the fact that her husband is the sheriff, and they most likely live by the letter of the law. These women become Mrs. Wright’s very own judge and jury of (actual) peers instead of the several older men who would have resulted from a trial. In the end, they have the option to reveal their findings to the men, since they really did solve the case, but opt to hide the evidence instead. This secures the fate of Mrs. Wright. While they found her guilty of the crime, they found her innocent of any wrongdoing. This was not a decision easily made though; as the men are walking towards the women and their discovery, Mrs. Peters, despite her reservations, makes the first move to conceal the bird, but is quickly overcome by her inner struggle. She stands unable to make a decision for either side, surrendering totally to the conflict in her heart.
The idea of culpability comes up frequently, especially in Mrs.

Hale’s case. She feels responsible for her neighbor’s decline into isolation. Her conflict is within herself and the choices she made, or rather didn’t make. Mrs. Hale laments, “I wish I had come over sometimes when she was here. I— (looking around the room)—wish I had. . . I could've come. I stayed away because it weren't cheerful—and that's why I ought to have come. . . it's a lonesome place and always was. I wish I had come over to see Minnie Foster sometimes. I can see now— (shakes her head)” (). We can hear the shame and regret in her words. While she herself did not commit the crime, she feels equally culpable, seeing as she did absolutely nothing to keep Minnie Foster, the singing, cheerful woman, from deteriorating into the broken spirited Mrs. John Wright that killed her creator. She feels that Mrs. Wright was justified in her actions, which Mrs. Hale highlights as she regales, “She used to sing. He killed that, too” (). She is not culpable for killing her husband, because everything about herself had been killed by him, like the bird. Mrs. Hale resolves to hide the bird, exonerating Mrs. Wright of her offense. She does this in part because, in some way, it absolves her of her negligence and makes up for all the years of neglected friendship. Like Mrs. Peters, she too takes a moment to decide what she wants to do, only grabbing the bird at the last possible second before it could be

discovered.
In order for a heart to be in conflict, it must be torn in more than one direction. The strict gender roles, blurred lines of guilt, and objectiveness of culpability make this an easy task to accomplish. While they may have conflicted hearts, they handle this situation with impeccable logic and weigh their choices with great responsibly. Not bad for women who are supposedly so accustomed to, “worrying over trifles” ().