Restoration drama in English literature

Restoration Drama: the Rake as a Symbol of Social Disorder

One of the distinctive features of Restoration comedy is the figure of the rake as romantic hero. The image of the rake-hero is of a witty, cynical, calculating, and self-serving man who pursues his own pleasure above all other considerations. Antagonistic to established rules and mores, the rake rejects conventional ideas of virtue, integrity, fidelity, restraint; above all he adopts a rhetorical position of opposition to the institution of marriage. However, it is significant that in most plays which feature a rake-hero in a prominent role, he becomes reconciled to the concept of marriage and ends up either actually married or firmly committed to marriage. It is the contention of this paper that first, it is overly simplistic to see the rake as irredeemably opposed to marriage, and that the relationship between such figures and the institution of wedlock is more ambiguous than has often been perceived, and that second, this reflects the particular context of the Restoration period in England. The violence and discord of the Civil War (1642-9), the repressive moral climate of the Interregnum (1649-60), and the tumultuous return of the Monarchy in the Restoration (1660) had constructed a social and moral context in which a rejection of narrow 'puritan' morality, the re-establishment of potentially licentious entertainments such as the theater, and the welcoming of a degree of license in matters of personal conduct and morality, combined with a concern to re-establish social and political conservatism and ensure no such breakdown in social structure as the Civil War and consequent events had represented would be allowed to occur again. In short, the rake-hero simultaneously celebrates the new moral freedom of permissiveness and asserts the importance of limits on that freedom; he marks out the acceptable rules of conduct for the revived 'court bourgeoisie' of Restoration England while reflecting the new climate which they had created.

In this paper the significance of the rake-hero as a symbol of social disorder will be examined against this wider context. Three plays will be considered in detail: 'The Careless Lovers' (1673) by Edward Ravenscroft; 'The Man of Mode' (1676) by George Etherege; and 'Love's Last Shift' (1696) by Colley Cibber. In 'The Careless Lovers' the seemingly incorrigible rake Careless is reconciled to marriage by his love for the seemingly equally libertine Hillaria; in 'The Man of Mode' Dorimant proposes to Harriet Woodvil and agrees to follow her into the country to receive her answer; in 'Love's Last Shift' Loveless returns to his virtuous and faithful Amanda after a conversion from his rakish ways. The first two plays come from the period sometimes seen as the apogee of Restoration comedy, in which the libertine quality of the earliest Restoration plays begins to reflect more of a concern with morality and humanity; the latter play marks the beginnings of the 'sentimental' drama in which the reform of character through appeal to his or her noble qualities (and, by extension, to the same qualities in the audience) is the central concern of the drama. Throughout this period, the rake remains central to the modes of engagement of stage comedy with the social concerns of its time.

II. THE RAKE AND HIS TIMES

The rake-hero is almost an over-familiar figure in Restoration stage comedy; he has become such a cliche of the age that it has hard to look at him afresh and understand in depth what he is all about. In particular, both scholarship and popular estimate has tended to lump all rake characters together and regard them in a rather simplistic manner. As Robert D. Hume has remarked:

Reading modern scholarship, one might deduce that 'Restoration comedy' is full of unrepentant rakes; that the plays expounded a 'libertine' philosophy; and that they are essentially hostile to marriage. Sensible critics have realized that the third proposition is ridiculous and that the other two require significant qualification. (Hume (1983), 138)

Hume goes on to distinguish between the three categories of the 'extravagant rake', the 'vicious rake', and the 'judicious rake' or 'philosophical libertine' (Hume (1983), 159) and points out that these characters are very different in their outlooks and motivations, and in the ultimate consequences of their actions. In particular, the quality and significance of any 'reform' these different characters display are very variable: '"Reform" may be anything from a pro forma convenience to an occasion for moral preachment' (Hume (1983), 139). There is no simple model of libertinage giving way to reform, but nor is it a matter of the rake acting as a rebel against conventional morality and (within the confines of comic form) triumphing over it by the end of the play, as the critic Virginia Birdsall suggested in 1970:

They [the rakes] create their own morality, which has little to do with conventional morals and which may be termed a morality of honesty or of integrity in the most basic meaning of the word... Confronted with a world which lacks any sense of comic orderliness and abstract moral certainty and which has committed itself to civilized forms largely derivative and hollow, they make their spirit prevail. (Birdsall (1970), 8)

Such a point-of-view depends on our understanding of rakish attitudes as being rooted in a genuine opposition to restrictive social norms; 'social and moral repression... give[s] rise to that rebellion'(Birdsall (1970), 7). If such characters as Careless, Dorimant and Loveless are in rebellion against conventional morality, particularly in the form of marriage, they seem signally not to triumph and make their spirit prevail, as they all end up one way or another within the confines of conventional marriage. Why this should be the case surely touches on some fundamental issues concerning the nature of Restoration drama and its relationship with the world it depicted.

Marriage was a fundamental institution in seventeenth-century society, and it was an institution whose forms were clearly defined and were difficult to challenge or change. As the social historian Lawrence Stone has described the situation, marriage lay at the center of the interlocking structures of birth and death, ownership and inheritance, legal and social status, patterns of moral conduct and systems of outward respectability. Furthermore it was a one-way process; you could enter the state of marriage, but except in very specific and uncommon circumstances only death could get you out again: 'England in the early modern period was neither a separating nor a divorcing society: death was virtually the sole agent for dissolving marriage' (Stone, (1990), 2). This was the fundamental point underlying the Restoration genre of the 'marriage play' (Cordner and Clayton (1998), xx). It was an institution that had to be taken seriously, and the Restoration rake does take it seriously. Initially, he protests his irreconcilability to the married state, in terms expressive of its restrictive qualities. Often the rhetorical demands of the rakish character require that such protests are framed in terms of the ending of libertinage and irresponsible pleasure entailed in marriage, but this relatively light-hearted critique is formed by an awareness, shared by character and audience, of marriage's very real demands for the social class depicted. As one literary scholar has recently written, with reference to the Restoration dramatic world in general,

From the 1660s to the 1680s authors like Dryden, Shadwell, Robert Howard, George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, and Aphra Behn regard the genres of tragedy, heroic drama, romance, wit comedy, humours comedy, and farce not merely as pleasing and useful (or offensive and useless) verbal constructs, but as cultural indices with overt class associations. (Dharwadker (1997), 461) recognition of the role of such 'cultural indices' serves to weaken the argument that the world of the Restoration rake is essentially comic and distinct from the concerns of real life; on the contrary, as critics have increasingly noted, the social and cultural context constantly shapes both the work of art and its reception. The rake-hero does not reflect that context simply to subvert it, as an act of rebellion against stifling convention, as Birdsall has suggested:

The Restoration comic hero does not turn the world of inherited rules upside down merely for the smutty or destructive fun of it. If he is self-consciously wicked, it is because the prevailing system has proved repressive of his elan vital and hence prompts him to demand more flexible and expressive forms. For him the only true morality is living well and fully. (Birdsall (1970), 20)

It seems far more credible to argue that it is the rebellion that is neutered by reason of its location in the realms of comic exaggeration and dramatic rhetoric, and the affirmation of social mores expressed in the characters' ultimate acceptance of marriage that is the true cultural index of the plays. The paradigm of marriage thus represented is a challenge to a certain type of conventional morality: the morality that accepted loveless and essentially hollow unions to fulfil economic and social functions and then criticized those within such marriages - perhaps particularly women - who did not then act in accordance with an illusory social form of idealized union. In that sense, there can be said to be a subversive honesty at the heart of the rakes' acceptance of the married state, but that subversive intent is not directed against the institution of marriage per se; on the contrary, it tends to assert an idealized concept of marriage freely chosen between two free individuals who will continue to express that freedom within their marriage.

III. CARELESS IN 'THE CARELESS LOVERS'

Edward Ravenscroft's 'The Careless Lovers' has been described as 'an engaging trifle' (Hume (1976), 296) and as a 'farcical intrigue of a very boisterous sort' expressing a 'genuine appreciation of the Restoration comic spirit.' (Lynch (1965), 160-1). It is little-known today, as is the case with all Ravenscroft's work, and is perhaps chiefly notable for the appearance of Careless, the 'Town Gallant', an almost paradigmatic representation of the Restoration rake-hero. His character is established from the opening scene: 'Wilt thou never leave this lewd wild Humour?' asks his friend Lovell, to which Careless replies:

Not upon the score of Matrimony; Why, Jack Lovell, I'le tell thee I am now like a Colt in the Fenns, that stragles every where, and feed where I like best; But shou'd I Marry, I shou'd be tether'd to my Spot of ground; at best, confin'd to an Inclosure. (CL, I.i, 9-14)

Careless's declarations of his addiction to wenching and his antipathy to matrimony are exaggerated and almost amount to caricature - as Robert Hume has observed, the author is consciously making fun of the cliches of Restoration comedy (Hume (1976), 296). This in itself suggests that in these statements we are witnessing, not a subversive attack on matrimony itself, but a rhetorical device intended to establish the character and the author's purpose in creating him in the audience's minds. At the end of the first act, by which time Careless has met and been smitten by a (masked) Hillaria, Ravenscroft takes care to emphasize the existence of a 'way out' for Careless, outlining the circumstances under which his creed that 'Love is an excellent Meat, but Marriage is an ill Sauce' (CL, I, I, 19-20) will be challenged and willingly overturned in spite of himself as a result of the dramatic effect that Hillaria has upon him:

Careless. Nay, if you have a mind to't you do't; let me think what I will. And if you won't pull off your Masque, I'le e'en begone and leave you. Fare you well.

Hillaria. And fare you well.

Careless. Nay, if you look o're Shoulder after me, I'le turn again, for you [Turn from each others, and looks back o're their Shoulders.] have no mind I should be gone I am sure.

Hillaria. Why did you look back at me?

Careless. To see - (CL, I, I, 234-41)

The play thus revolves around a confirmation of the value of transcendent love, as the basis for Careless's reformation and his acceptance of matrimony. He cannot turn away from Hillaria, and that inability undermines the whole basis of his libertinage: 'If for a Wife my Liberty I'de Loose, / One of these Two [i.e. Hillaria and Jacinta, who have both appeared before him masked] shou'd catch me in a Noose' (CL, I, ii, 470-100 are the closing words of Act I, spoken by Careless.

It can thus be argued that it is love, not social convention, that draws Careless and Hillaria together, and produces the somewhat unconventional character of their marriage. Careless does not turn his back on his rakish ways when he promises to marry Hillaria, and tells his mistresses 'you must not think you have quite lost me because I am Married' (CL, V, ii, 350-2); and the latter, for her part, similarly declines to accept conventional narrow standards of behaviour, declaring that 'I will be your Wife, and since I can't have a Gallant before Marriage, I'le do like other Wives, and have one after' (CL, V, ii, 297-8). This marriage is contrasted with the more conventional pairing of Lovell and Jacinta and, it is suggested, will prove more satisfactory, because more genuine and sincere; as Careless declares to Lovell:

You shall see our Marriage (which you think is slapt up out of a frolick) go on more cheerfully than yours, made out of stark Love and desperate Affection; we, like two Birds (though we Roost together at Night) will have our freedom all Day, and flie Chiripping about, whil'st you like two Domestick Animals, ti'de too close together in a string, shall still be snarling and biting one another. (CL, V, ii, 340-6)

This is not a rejection of matrimony but an affirmation of a new form of marriage, based on honest and a recognition by each party of the freedom of the other. It is, perhaps, a balancing of the need for social conformity with a recognition of new pressures of individualism in society: 'What is important to both of them is their freedom... although they are contracted at the end of the play, Ravenscroft indicates that in this relationship they are to be distinguished from Jacinta and Lovell whose strict union is accomplished within the normal dictates of convention' (Henry (1987), xliii).

IV. DORIMANT IN 'THE MAN OF MODE'

The character of Dorimant can be regarded with a similar ambivalence as that of Careless. If he is intended to act as a warning against libertine behaviour and to fit into the character of the 'penitent rake' he does not do so very successfully, for as Robert Hume has observed, he is 'too glamorous and successful... Dorimant is undeniably glamorous... he has wit, spirit, an amorous temper, charm for women' and he provokes 'a combination of fascination and disapproval' (Hume (1976), 93, 95). His conduct is hardly estimable; he rids himself of one mistress, Mrs. Loveit, by exploiting Bellinda, whom he seduces in the process, before apparently falling in love with the heiress Harriet Woodvil. It is perhaps only because he meets his effective match in Harriet that he can be viewed with indulgence. It is she who seemingly brings about his reformation. That reformation is only skin-deep, however, as he admits when Bellinda taxes him on his unfaithfulness to her: 'Do not think of clearing your self with me, it is Impossible -Do all men break their words thus?' To which Dorimant replies, 'Th' extravagant words they speak in love; 'Tis as unreasonable to expect we should perform all we Promise then, as do all we threaten when we are angry' (MM, V, ii, 333-8). His final words to her in this exchange are the even more shameless 'We must meet again' (MM, V, ii, 344). Just as Careless promises he will maintain his relationships with his mistresses, so Dorimant tries to keep open his connection with Bellinda (who is having none of it).

Dorimant's decision to pursue and propose to Harriet is motivated by love - 'The first time I saw you, You left me with the pangs of Love upon me, and this Day my soul has quite given up her liberty' (MM, V, ii, 476-8) - and the play, respecting the conventional view of the age, demands that such love requires a matrimonial resolution. But the satirical and comic character of the work is such as constantly to break through, reminding the audience of the exaggerated nature of both the rakish dissolution displayed by Dorimant and the degree of the reformation required of him, at which both Harriet and the audience may well look askance:

Dorimant. I will renounce all the joys I have in friendship and in wine, sacrifice to you all the interest I have in other women

Harriet. Hold - though I wish you devout, I would not have you turn fanatic. (MM, V, ii, 156-60)

The use of the terms 'devout' and 'fanatic' here is revealing. They are terms with a specifically religious meaning; 'devout' was held to be an admirable position, reflecting sincerity and a socially acceptable degree of religious observance. To be 'fanatical' was to behave in a manner reminiscent of non-conformists and others beyond the pale of decent society. In his new-found devotion to the creed of marriage, it is enough for Dorimant to be devout; fanaticism is both unnecessary and undesirable.

Critics have commonly recognised the importance of love in Dorimant's reformation, and the degree to which this might be seen as confounding our expectations of him, given our knowledge of his character. In these characteristics lies the genius of the play. As Derek Hughes puts it, 'The Man of Mode' creates 'a dramatic revolution out of surprisingly formulaic elements' as 'the rakish Dormant is tamed - perhaps - by the witty Harriet' (Hughes (1996), 150). That word 'perhaps' is very important; 'The Man of Mode' is an open-ended play. Dorimant's pledges to Harriet are sincere and unambiguous, thus fulfilling the need to establish social order through an emphasis on the importance of the idea resolution through matrimony, but the actual resolution literally takes place outside the play, out of sight of the audience, and they are always left to wonder whether it actually occurs, and how far Dorimant does change his ways. In many ways Harriet still seems to require some convincing. What she, and the audience, need no convincing of, however, is that marriage is the only viable and acceptable solution to their situation if they are to have any social and economic future in their society.

V. LOVELESS IN 'LOVE'S LAST SHIFT'

Colley Cibber's 'Love's Last Shift' is a late Restoration play (1696) which has a central plot device worthy of Shakespeare: the rake Loveless, returning to England after years of dissipation, falls in love again with the faithful wife he abandoned, Amanda, when she comes to him in disguise and plays the part of a mistress. His realization that it is Amanda triggers a thoroughgoing reformation of Loveless's character, in which he rejects his libertine past and commits to virtuous monogamy with Amanda. Of the three rakes discussed in this paper, Loveless's reformation is the least ambiguous, the most whole-hearted, and the least convincing.

Cibber, like Ravenscroft and Etherege, plays with the audience's expectation of a Restoration rake, promising them that the hero is 'Lewd for above four Acts' despite his change in character afterwards. He also puts all the required colorful denigration of marriage into Loveless's mouth:

No, Sirrah! The World to me is as a Garden stockt with all sorts of Fruit, where the greatest Pleasure we can take, is in the Variety of Taste: But a Wife is an Eternal Apple-tree; after a pull or two, you are sure to set your Teeth on Edge. (LLS, I, I, 42-5)

Below the surface, however, a distinctive dynamic of social instability is present in Loveless's character that Careless and Dorimant do not share. He has been away, a wanderer; he abandoned wife and home, indulged himself abroad, and is now returned penniless and - although he will not openly say so - seeking redemption. That redemption duly comes in the form of Amanda, and addresses all these issues:

Loveless is redeemed by his abandoned wife, Amanda, whom he believes to be dead, and who presents herself to him as a new, voluptuous mistress, revealing her true identity only after treating him incognita to a night of ecstatic sensuality. Since she has inherited an estate in his absence, she redeems him economically as well as morally. Loveless is certainly reformed by the crude discovery that even wives can be fun in bed, but Cibber also purveys loftier morals, emphasizing the home-coming and renewed fixity of the erstwhile wanderer. (Hughes (1996), 388)

The change in Loveless's character is dramatic; it is worth remembering that this is the man who had earlier declared that the ideal time to seduce a woman is when she has just finished praying (LLS, IV, iii, 9-10). Yet the use of the language of religious conversion is entirely appropriate if it is understood in terms of the need to reassert the absolutes and moral structures that libertinage rejects. When Loveless hears the words of rebuke from Amanda - 'Conscience! Did you never, ne'er feel the Checks of it? Did it never, never tell you of your broken vows?' (LLS, V, ii, 139-40) - he stands motionless and declares that her words 'have awakened my Soul' (LLS, V, ii, 142-3). This dramatic volte-face seems less plausible than the perhaps rather superficial conversions of Careless and Dorimant, but it arises from the same root: the need to affirm the centrality of the institution of marriage. Unlike Ravenscroft and Etherege, Cibber does not seem to be arguing for new models of consent and freedom within that institution, but to be proposing a more conservative model in which vows are absolute. Loveless's closing words make this point: 'By my Example taught, let every Man, whose Fate has bound him to a marry'd life, beware of letting loose his wild Desires' (LLS, V, iv, 65-6). Cibber's imagery is of fate and binding, not of free choice and the flight of birds. Only an absolute transformation in character could accommodate this degree of social conservatism on the matter of matrimony; Cibber exploited the character of the rake but, unlike Ravenscroft and Etherege, made no concessions over the manner of his reformation. As Hume has argued, Loveless is the '"apparently wicked" rake introduced specifically for the purpose of engineering his reform... Cibber is unconcerned with psychological probability' but it motivated primarily by his 'penchant for too facile reform' (Hume (1983), 169).

This is partly a reflection of the changing times in which Cibber is writing. Robert Hume has argued that by the later 1690s comedy is changing to reflect more moralistic times, when the licentiousness of the earlier Restoration period is being challenged and new, serious-minded, often evangelical moralism is increasingly influential: 'we can see an effort to please an audience which did not care for the libertine ethic of Carolean sex comedy' in plays such as 'Love's Last Shift', which 'mingles elements of the old and the new comedy' (Hume (1976), 381, 411) in the form of the old rake meeting, rather unconvincingly, the new morality.