Wealth

Wealth is the material force around which the play’s relationships and moral crises turn. It separates Nisida, the only daughter of a very rich father, from Cléante, a poor cavalry captain who fears that any declaration of love will be attributed to her fortune. Yet wealth also creates the possibility of restitution: when Cléante is revealed as the son of the comte de Valcourt, Arlequin recognizes that the property he possesses came from Cléante’s father and resolves to return it, even though doing so will reduce him and Nisida from affluence to poverty.

Wealth as Social Rank and Marital Obstacle

At the beginning of the conflict, wealth appears as an external measure of suitability. Nisida is young, beautiful, amiable, and the only daughter of a very rich father, whereas Cléante describes himself as an obscure soldier without fortune and almost without a name. His uncertain paternal identity prevents him from openly using his father’s name, while his military future seems to offer only prolonged service or death in war. Because he expects eventually to possess nothing but his love, he fears that Nisida could believe he loves her money rather than herself.

Nérine challenges this self-assessment by distinguishing actual merit from contractual value. She argues that Cléante’s qualities and attractions make him resemble Nisida, that he is a twenty-year-old cavalry captain who is loved and respected, and that his reputation has never been damaged by misconduct. In the marriage contract, however, such personal virtues count for almost nothing. Arlequin himself admits that he is only a simple bourgeois from a small Italian town and that his riches came through an extraordinary accident. Wealth therefore functions as a social shorthand that can erase character, while poverty forces Cléante to live with restraint and suspicion.

Arlequin’s Inheritance and the Transformation of Fortune

Arlequin’s wealth begins in friendship rather than ambition. When he was poor and living with Nisida’s mother in Bergame, the comte de Valcourt settled in the town, bought the house where they rented an apartment, and allowed them to remain there. The comte befriended Arlequin, and their intimacy lasted twelve years. After the comte died, he left Arlequin all the property he had brought to Italie, making a personal bond the channel through which a substantial fortune changed hands.

The inheritance does not bring Arlequin uncomplicated happiness. He recalls that poverty had made him happy, whereas riches were followed by grief: he lost Nisida’s mother and their two sons. He came to dislike his country, realized his assets, and moved to Paris with Nisida when she was no more than six years old. There he invested the money successfully; after ten years his funds had approximately doubled, producing an income of sixty thousand livres. The fortune thus grows through prudent management, but its increase is accompanied by bereavement, migration, and an intensified fear of what will happen to Nisida if he dies.

Arlequin’s concern is not simply that Nisida might lose money. He imagines her alone, foreign, without family or support, in Paris, at an age when even a slight imprudence could ruin the remainder of her life. He therefore seeks a marriage with an estimable and respected man such as the marquis d’Yrville, believing that such a husband could protect her after his death. Wealth gives him the power to arrange her future, but it also makes him feel responsible for arranging it before his own death.

Legal Ownership and Moral Ownership

The revelation of Cléante’s identity changes the meaning of Arlequin’s fortune. Cléante explains that an old friend of his father had been ready to help him obtain permission to visit his father, but news arrived that the comte de Valcourt had died in Italie and left his entire fortune to a stranger. When Arlequin asks the father’s name, Cléante identifies him as the comte de Valcourt and says that he possesses proof.

Arlequin immediately recognizes Cléante as the son of his benefactor. He states that he owes everything to the comte, whom he loved for fifteen years, and that he has all of Cléante’s property. His conclusion is moral rather than merely genealogical: the comte could not rightfully have given the son’s wealth to Arlequin, so Arlequin must return it. The inheritance is legally complicated because the comte’s marriage was never declared. Cléante himself argues that he has no claim under the law. Arlequin nevertheless rejects legal entitlement as the final measure, insisting that his heart tells him the wealth is not his.

This distinction between law and justice gives the fortune its deepest ethical significance. Arlequin refuses to remain rich while the son of his benefactor is poor. His decision is especially costly because he understands its immediate consequence: he tells Nisida that they were rich that morning and will now become poor. Yet he treats the loss not as generosity beyond obligation but as the minimum required to remain honest people. Wealth becomes legitimate only when its possession can withstand the judgment of gratitude and conscience.

Wealth, Love, and Restitution

The return of the fortune does not end the conflict by itself. Arlequin asks Cléante to ensure that Nisida has enough to live on, because he could not bear to leave his daughter in indigence. The request preserves the father’s duty even as he gives up his own property: restitution must not simply reverse one injustice by creating another vulnerability for Nisida.

Cléante accepts the fortune only on the condition that it be placed at Nisida’s feet. His response transforms inheritance into a marital offering. He does not reclaim wealth as a private triumph over Arlequin; he takes it back in order to secure Nisida’s future and to ask for her hand. The final exchange therefore links three forms of value that had earlier been opposed: the property inherited from the comte, the love Cléante has concealed, and the paternal protection Arlequin seeks for Nisida.

The contrast with the earlier marriage negotiations is decisive. Arlequin had wanted Nisida to marry the marquis d’Yrville because wealth required a socially approved protector. Cléante, initially disqualified by poverty and uncertain name, becomes both the rightful heir and the man who offers to place that restored fortune at Nisida’s service. Money changes his social position, but the emotional logic of the conclusion depends on his refusal to treat money as the purpose of love.

Narrative and Thematic Significance

Wealth repeatedly exposes the gap between social appearance and human worth. Cléante possesses education, military rank, good conduct, and the esteem of those who know him, but poverty makes these qualities seem negligible in a marriage contract. Arlequin is wealthy because of a fortunate inheritance, yet he understands that riches alone do not make a person honorable. The play consequently contrasts inherited economic power with earned moral credit.

The fortune also carries the memory of absent family members and broken legal arrangements. It originates in the comte de Valcourt’s household, passes to Arlequin through friendship, supports Nisida after the deaths of her mother and brothers, and later returns when Cléante’s parentage is disclosed. Each transfer alters relationships: inheritance creates Arlequin’s prosperity, prosperity shapes his paternal anxiety, concealed inheritance intensifies Cléante’s poverty, and restitution makes a future union possible.

Most importantly, wealth is tested by what its possessor is willing to surrender. Arlequin is prepared to abandon everything rather than keep property he believes belongs to Cléante. Cléante, once restored to his fortune, is prepared to direct it toward Nisida rather than use it merely to establish his own independence. The play’s moral resolution does not deny the importance of money; it places money under the authority of gratitude, family responsibility, and love. Wealth can secure happiness only when possession is joined to justice.