“Might, could, would—they are contemptible auxiliaries”

“Might, could, would—they are contemptible auxiliaries” is Mary Garth’s sharp verdict on Fred Vincy’s claim that he could become a better man if he were sure of being loved. The phrase turns three words of possibility into a moral rebuke: hypothetical improvement cannot serve as evidence of present worth, and affection cannot be made responsible for producing the goodness it ought to meet.

The Exchange with Fred

Mary and Fred are discussing whether people can fall in love with someone they have only recently met. Mary tests the idea against examples from literature, weighing lovers who knew each other from childhood against those attracted to strangers, and concludes that her experience is mixed. Her playful manner does not make the discussion unserious; it gives her room to examine a romantic convention rather than simply accept it. Fred’s response shifts the question from romantic familiarity to moral transformation. He says that if a man is not loved, it is no use for him to say he could be a better fellow or could do anything, if he were sure of being loved in return. Mary answers that such possibilities are “not of the least use in the world,” then names “Might, could, would” as “contemptible auxiliaries.” Her criticism is directed not at improvement itself, but at improvement offered conditionally—as a promise that depends on receiving a woman’s love first.

Grammar and Moral Responsibility

The expression draws its force from grammar. “Might,” “could,” and “would” are auxiliary verbs, words that qualify an action rather than accomplish it. Mary makes their grammatical dependence carry an ethical meaning: Fred’s imagined goodness remains subordinate to an unrealized condition. The sequence sounds like a compact catalogue of evasions, replacing proof of character with a claim about what might happen under more favorable circumstances. The surrounding dialogue sharpens the distinction. Fred says that a man needs a woman to love him dearly in order to be good for much; Mary replies that goodness should come before he expects that. The difference is one of responsibility and order. Fred imagines love as a necessary cause of moral improvement, whereas Mary insists that a man cannot make his worth contingent on being loved.

Character and Narrative Significance

The exchange belongs to the developing relationship between Fred and Mary, old playmates whose intimacy has grown over time. Fred is affectionate and deeply attached to her, but his earlier ideas about rank and income have also shaped his hopes. Mary’s answer therefore tests more than a general theory of love: it refuses to let his affection, or his promise of possible change, settle the question of whether he is ready to be loved in return. The phrase’s wit gives a lasting form to a serious standard. Mary does not reject the possibility that Fred could change; she rejects possibility as a substitute for action. In the novel’s treatment of their relationship, the distinction anticipates the importance of Fred becoming capable of independent, responsible work before he can plausibly expect Mary’s commitment. The line consequently works both as a memorable verbal judgment and as a compact statement of the moral terms on which their future must develop.