The Way of the World as a Comedy of Manners

The Comedy of Manners is a form of comedy that satirizes the manners, affectations, and fashionable life of the upper classes. It thrives on witty dialogue and social intrigue. Unlike farce or slapstick, its humor lies in clever speech, polished manners, and subtle exposure of vanity, hypocrisy, and moral shallowness.

Characteristics

Focus on Aristocratic Society – The plays depict the lives of the wealthy, fashionable classes, with their salons, drawing rooms and social games.

Satire of Social Pretensions – Vanity, hypocrisy, adultery, and mercenary marriages are ridiculed.

 Intrigues and Schemes – The plot is driven by love affairs, disguises, trickery, and blackmail.

Stock Characters 

The witty hero (e.g., Mirabell).

The witty heroine (e.g., Millamant).

The fop or affected gentleman (e.g., Witwoud, Petulant).

The pretentious elderly lady (e.g., Lady Wishfort).

The scheming villains (e.g., Fainall, Mrs. Marwood).

 Marriage as a Central Theme – Marriage is presented not only as a romantic union but as a social and economic contract, often ridiculed for its mercenary motives.

Urban Setting – Unlike romantic comedies set in forests or rural spaces, the Comedy of Manners is rooted in the city and drawing-room life of London.

Historical Context

The Comedy of Manners flourished in the Restoration period (1660–1700) after the reopening of theatres following the Puritan ban. Influenced by French drama, especially Molière, it reflects the taste of Charles II’s court, which was cosmopolitan, witty, and morally lax. Its spirit is cynical, mocking the gap between appearance and reality.

Major Playwrights and Examples

William Wycherley – The Country Wife, The Plain Dealer.

George Etherege – The Man of Mode.

William Congreve – The Way of the World, Love for Love.

Richard Brinsley Sheridan (later 18th century revival) – The School for Scandal.

Oscar Wilde (Victorian revival) – The Importance of Being Earnest.

William Congreve’s The Way of the World (1700) is universally acclaimed as the finest example of the Comedy of Manners in English literature. It encapsulates the wit, elegance, and satirical spirit of Restoration society while also refining the genre with psychological depth and moral intelligence.

At the heart of the play lies a satirical portrait of the aristocratic class in London. Characters such as Lady Wishfort, Witwoud, and Petulant embody vanity, affectation and artificiality. Lady Wishfort’s obsession with appearing young and desirable, despite her age, exposes the ridiculous pretensions of fashion. Witwoud and Petulant the quintessential Restoration fops(concerned with external appearance), parody the emptiness of men who imitate wit but lack substance. Congreve, in this way, satirizes the very manners, affectations, and follies that give the genre its name.

The play sparkles with brilliant dialogue and repartee. The exchanges between Millamant and Mirabell, especially in the famous “Proviso Scene” (Act IV), display a verbal duel that defines the comedy. Instead of sentimental declarations, their courtship becomes a negotiation of independence and companionship within marriage.

This wit is not mere ornament; it represents the intelligence and identity of characters, distinguishing the truly witty (Mirabell, Millamant) from the shallow imitators (Witwoud, Petulant).

Love and Marriage are the central theme of the play. Unlike Shakespeare’s romantic comedies where marriage is the joyous conclusion, here it is treated with cynicism and irony. Characters treat marriage as a financial bargain or a matter of convenience.

Fainall seeks control over his wife’s fortune. Lady Wishfort wants to protect her wealth and reputation. Millamant and Mirabell, however, redefine marriage as a union of love and wit, balancing freedom with companionship.

Thus, the play critiques the mercenary motives behind marriages while offering a progressive vision of marriage based on mutual respect.

The plot is brimming with deception, disguise and blackmail. Mirabell devises elaborate schemes to secure Lady Wishfort’s approval; Foible and Waitwell disguise themselves in the Sir Rowland subplot; Fainall and Mrs. Marwood plan blackmail. Such intrigues create the comic complications and satirical exposure that define the genre.

Congreve uses the typical stock characters of Comedy of Manners, but with sophistication:

The witty couple – Mirabell and Millamant.

The fop – Witwoud, with his shallow attempts at wit.

The jealous guardian/elderly lady – Lady Wishfort, protecting her fortune and vanity.

The rake/villain – Fainall, driven by greed and lust.

The servants – Foible and Waitwell, who add intrigue and comic relief.

Each character embodies a social type, making the play a microcosm of Restoration society.

The play exposes the hypocrisy beneath refined manners. Lady Wishfort’s polished exterior hides desperation; Fainall pretends to be a husband of honor but seeks his wife’s wealth; even courtly manners mask selfish desires. Congreve uses satire, irony, and parody to highlight the gap between appearance and reality, a hallmark of the Comedy of Manners.

The final act demonstrates Congreve’s craftsmanship Fainall’s blackmail collapses, Lady Wishfort relents, and Mirabell and Millamant are united. Order is restored, but not in a sentimental way—rather, through the victory of wit over folly. This resolution reflects the genre’s emphasis on cleverness, intelligence, and social harmony rather than emotional catharsis.

Congreve elevates the Comedy of Manners beyond mere satire. His play is not only witty but also morally intelligent. The “Proviso Scene” gives Millamant a sharp identity, showing a rare Restoration vision of gender equality in marriage. Critics see in Congreve’s art a balance of wit, satire, and social criticism unmatched in his contemporaries.

The Way of the World by William Congreve Short summary

Act 1

The play opens in a London chocolate house. Mirabell and Fainall are playing cards, and Mirabell is losing. Fainall asks why he is distracted, and Mirabell confesses that he loves Ms. Millamant but was rejected by her the night before. She was with her aunt, Lady Wishfort, her friends, and two foolish men—Witwoud and Petulant.

We learn that half of Millamant’s fortune depends on her aunt’s approval. But Lady Wishfort hates Mirabell because he once pretended to court her in order to get close to Millamant. Mrs. Marwood, secretly jealous and unkind, exposed his trick. This sets up the main conflict: Mirabell’s love is threatened by Lady Wishfort’s hostility.

Meanwhile, Mirabell has arranged for his servant Waitwell to marry Foible, Lady Wishfort’s maid, as part of a secret plan. When Mirabell speaks of Millamant, he admits he loves her with all her faults, even cherishing them because he knows them so well.

Later, Witwoud and Petulant enter, showing off their foolishness. Petulant even pays women to pretend to visit him so he looks popular. Through them, Mirabell discovers that Lady Wishfort plans to marry Millamant to Mirabell’s uncle, who has come to London recently. If that happens, Mirabell will lose his fortune and his love. 

Act 2

In St. James’s Park, Mrs. Fainall and Mrs. Marwood talk about the wickedness of men, though both are attracted to Mirabell. When the men join them, it is revealed that Fainall is having an affair with Mrs. Marwood, while Mrs. Fainall was once in love with Mirabell before marrying Fainall to protect her reputation.

Mirabell now shares his plot with Mrs. Fainall: his servant Waitwell will disguise himself as “Sir Rowland,” Mirabell’s fictional uncle, and pretend to court Lady Wishfort. If Lady Wishfort accepts, Mirabell will then use her embarrassment to win her consent to marry Millamant. Since Waitwell has just married Foible, both are united in the scheme.

Soon, Millamant enters with her maid Mincing and Witwoud. She flirts and jokes, mocking the conventions of love letters, but also hints that she knows something of Mirabell’s plan. Alone with Mirabell, she accuses him of being tiresome, yet her words reveal her mixed feelings. Their love is passionate but clouded by wit, pride, and uncertainty.

The act ends with Waitwell and Foible, newly married and in high spirits, preparing for the deception. Waitwell jokes that he has been “married and knighted in one day” and now must pretend to be another man entirely.

Act 3

At Lady Wishfort’s house, she fusses over her appearance while waiting for “Sir Rowland.” Mrs. Marwood warns her against Mirabell, but Foible cleverly convinces her mistress that Mirabell is cruel and insulting. Lady Wishfort, desperate to marry, is quickly won over to the idea of Sir Rowland.

Meanwhile, Foible tells Mrs. Fainall more of the plan, unaware that Mrs. Marwood is hiding and overhearing everything. Enraged, Marwood vows to destroy Mirabell’s scheme. She suggests instead that Lady Wishfort marry Millamant to Sir Wilfull, Witwoud’s country-bred half-brother.

Millamant then arrives and exchanges sharp words with Mrs. Marwood, showing her wit and independence. Soon, Sir Wilfull himself enters. Though rough and rustic, he proves more honest than the affected Witwoud and Petulant.

At the end of the act, Mrs. Marwood reveals Mirabell’s plan to Fainall. The two decide to ruin him by exposing Mrs. Fainall’s past love for Mirabell and demanding Lady Wishfort’s fortune. 

Act 4

Back at Lady Wishfort’s house, preparations are made for Sir Rowland’s visit. Meanwhile, Millamant and Mirabell finally have a private moment. In one of the play’s most famous scenes, they negotiate their “marriage contract.” Millamant insists on her independence—freedom to write letters, visit friends, and avoid being forced into dull domesticity. Mirabell agrees but sets his own conditions, asking her not to be scandalous or fashion-obsessed. Their witty bargaining reveals deep love and respect beneath the comedy.

Afterward, Sir Wilfull, very drunk, makes a clumsy attempt to court Millamant, but she easily dismisses him. Petulant also drunkenly declares his love, in his usual absurd manner.

Finally, Lady Wishfort meets “Sir Rowland” (really Waitwell in disguise). He showers her with flattery and insults Mirabell, which pleases her greatly. But just as things progress, a letter from Mrs. Marwood arrives exposing the trick. Lady Wishfort nearly faints, but Waitwell quickly pretends the letter is a forgery by Mirabell and promises to prove his sincerity with legal documents. 

Act 5 

The act opens with Lady Wishfort in a state of agitation. She has discovered the supposed betrayal involving “Sir Rowland” (Foible’s plot with Mirabell). She is furious at the trick played upon her vanity.

She declares she will never forgive Mirabell and even threatens to ruin Millamant’s chances of marrying him. This heightens the conflict, since the lovers’ happiness seems endangered.

Lady Wishfort embodies the restoration comedy’s ridicule of the older generation’s vanity and obsession with control in marriage arrangements.

Sir Wilfull Witwoud, who was earlier proposed as Millamant’s husband, now generously withdraws from the marriage contract.

He says he does not want to stand in the way of Millamant’s love for Mirabell, showing a rare moment of honesty and goodness amid general deceit.

 Sir Wilfull, despite being a country bumpkin, appears more honorable than the fashionable wits. His role underscores the contrast between rustic honesty and urban artificiality.

The central tension of this act revolves around Mrs. Marwood’s and Fainall’s scheme. Fainall tries to manipulate Lady Wishfort into giving him control over her fortune.

He claims that unless she surrenders power, he will expose Mrs. Fainall’s past love affair with Mirabell, thus destroying her reputation.

This moment threatens total scandal and disgrace for Lady Wishfort’s family.

At the height of tension, Mirabell reveals that he had earlier secured a legal deed from Mrs. Fainall, assigning all her fortune to him before her marriage to Fainall.

This deed prevents Fainall from taking control of his wife’s wealth and destroys his entire plan.

By producing this legal safeguard, Mirabell not only rescues Lady Wishfort but also secures her gratitude.

Grateful to Mirabell for saving her from Fainall’s blackmail, Lady Wishfort relents. She agrees to Millamant’s marriage with Mirabell, giving her blessing at last.Her vanity and earlier opposition dissolve when she realizes Mirabell is her only protector against ruin.

Lady Wishfort’s change of heart finalizes the main romantic plot. She remains comically vain, but her role shifts from antagonist to reconciled elder.

Fainall and Mrs. Marwood’s schemes collapse. They are exposed and disgraced, losing both social standing and financial gain.

The play closes with the union of Millamant and Mirabell, symbolizing the triumph of wit, love, and mutual understanding over greed, hypocrisy, and vanity.

The last act demonstrates Congreve’s genius: he transforms a comedy of manners into a sharp commentary on money, power, and gender dynamics in marriage. Order is restored, but not without exposing the corruption and self-interest beneath polite society.

New Historicism

Origin:

New Historicism emerged in the 1980s in the United States as a reaction against New Criticism (which focused only on the text). Instead of treating literature as an isolated work of art, New Historicism studies a text alongside its historical, cultural, and social context.

Main Thinkers:

Stephen Greenblatt – often seen as the founder. He preferred the term cultural poetics and focused on Renaissance literature, especially Shakespeare.

Louis Montrose – known for the phrase “the textuality of history and the historicity of texts.”

Influenced by the ideas of Michel Foucault (power and discourse), Louis Althusser (ideology), and Nietzsche (power as dynamic and everywhere).

Key Ideas of New Historicism

1. Literature and history are interconnected.

Literature is shaped by the cultural and political conditions of its time. A literary text is studied alongside non-literary texts (such as religious, legal, or political documents).

2. No “timeless” literature.

Literature does not exist outside history. Like any other text, it reflects the concerns, struggles, and ideologies of its age.

3. History is not continuous.

Following Foucault, New Historicists believe history is full of breaks and contradictions. Each period constructs its own narrative of history through dominant discourses (systems of knowledge and power).

Example of New Historicist Reading

Earlier critics saw Shakespeare’s plays as timeless genius. New Historicists, however, read them alongside other writings of the time—such as legal or colonial records. For example:

Othello → Iago’s betrayal can be seen as a colonial metaphor: the denial of identity to colonized subjects.

Shakespeare’s plays also reflect issues like Puritan attacks on festivals, the rise of patriarchy, slavery, and imprisonment in the “Age of Confinement.”

Theoretical Foundations

Foucault on Power: Power is everywhere, not just in governments. It exists in families, schools, workplaces—through networks of social relations. Where there is power, there is resistance.

Discourse: The way knowledge and truth are organized in a society. Discourses shape both history and literature.

Panopticon: A prison model (by Bentham) used by Foucault to show how modern societies control people invisibly. New Historicists see literature as part of these systems of power.

Major Critics and Works

Stephen Greenblatt

Shakespearean Negotiations (1987) – “speaking with the dead”

Hamlet in Purgatory (2001) – Shakespeare and ghosts

Will in the World (2004) – Shakespeare’s life and times

Later works include The Rise and Fall of Adam and Eve (2017) and Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics (2018).

Louis Montrose

The Purpose of Playing (1996)

The Subject of Elizabeth (2006)

Other New Historicists: Richard Wilson, Richard Dutton, Arthur Marotti, Jane Tompkins.

Marxist literary Theory

 

Marxism refers to the philosophical, economic, and political principles of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. In literary theory, it means reading and interpreting literature through Marxist philosophical and historical perspectives. Marxist literary theory studies literature in relation to history, society, class, and economy. It argues that literature is not timeless, but a product of the material and social conditions of its age.

Both Marxism and Marxist criticism are complex fields that go beyond academic study. As Terry Eagleton warns, Marxism is not simply a theory of ideas but a science of human societies, rooted in struggles against exploitation and oppression. These struggles are real and historical, not just intellectual debates.

Although Marx and Engels did not create a separate literary theory, they extended their ideas to literature, art, and culture. From their perspective, literature must be understood in relation to the social and cultural conditions in which it is produced. Marxist aesthetics thus grew out of applying their theories to culture and art.

Marxist criticism became an evolving school of thought. Thinkers like Lenin, Trotsky, Plekhanov, Lukács, Brecht, Gramsci, Althusser, Raymond Williams, Aime Césaire, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, Aijaz Ahmad, Fredric Jameson, Eagleton, and the Frankfurt School philosophers all contributed to its development. Interestingly, some of them never identified strictly as Marxists, but their work is often read within Marxist traditions.

For Eagleton, Marxist criticism is an analysis of literature in relation to the historical conditions that produced it. It studies literature in its social, political, economic, and cultural context. Marx defined history as the history of class struggle between the working class (proletariat) and the ruling capitalist class (bourgeoisie).

Marx explained this through the concepts of base and superstructure. The base (or economic structure) consists of the forces and relations of production. Base refers to the material foundation of society, encompassing the forces of production (like labor and technology) and the relations of production (the social and economic relationships, such as ownership of factories and the employer-employee dynamic) that people enter into to create goods and services. The base determines how wealth is created and distributed, and from it emerges the superstructure, which includes society's legal, political, cultural, and ideological systems, such as religion, media, art and education. The base ultimately shapes and influences the superstructure

Literature, therefore, is not timeless or universal, but a product of its social and historical moment. Later thinkers like Raymond Williams emphasized that the relationship between base and superstructure is dialectical—each influences the other.

The philosophical foundation of Marxism is dialectical materialism, which holds that matter, not ideas, is the foundation of reality. Ideas arise from material conditions, not the other way around. Dialectics stresses totality, contradiction, and change—everything is in motion, and history itself is driven by conflicts between opposing material forces. Engels described dialectics as the “science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, society, and thought.” Thus, the essence of Marxism lies in historical and dialectical materialism.[Change in society comes from contradictions]

Raymond Williams outlined three main directions of Marxist literary criticism:

1. Studying literature as part of ideology.

2. Giving importance to popular or neglected forms of literature.

3. Relating literature to the social and economic history in which it was created.

ideology simply means a system of ideas that's the basis for political thinking. Ideologies are the ideas in a society that serve as the foundation for people's opinions and which contribute to political activity. The dominant ideology is that held by those in power, or by the majority in society. For Marxists, ideology is a set of ideas held by the elite, which they use power to maintain. This in turn keeps them in a position of economic dominance. Ideology is presented by the state as natural.

The idea of ideology was developed by the French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser (1918-90) in his 1970 essay 'Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses '. In this work, Althusser extends the Marxist idea of ideology to consider in more detail precisely how ideologies are reproduced. He suggests that this takes place through the work of two separate forces. First, what he calls the repressive state apparatuses are those government structures, such as the police, law courts and military, which enforce rule either through violence or coercion (the threat of violence). These can be distinguished from the ideological state apparatuses, which exist outside of official government structures in schools, religious institutions and family. Here, there is no threat of violence, but rather a fear of being socially rejected or ridiculed. 

The Frankfurt School, founded in the 1920s, is a school of social theory and philosophy associated with thinkers who blended Marxist theory with other philosophical and sociological frameworks to critique modern capitalist societies. Among its most notable members were Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, and later Jürgen Habermas. Although not exclusively a literary theory school, its ideas profoundly influenced Marxist literary criticism and cultural studies by examining how culture, ideology, and mass media impact society and individual consciousness.

 

What he said by Avvaiyar summary and analysis

 

This poem expresses the deep longing of a speaker who is constantly thinking about his beloved, even when the demands of the world keep him busy.

In the first part, the speaker says he thought again and again about his ladylove, but felt baffled or disturbed because of daily responsibilities pulled them away.

In the second part, the speaker shows how strong his passion is. He wishes his beloved were near to satisfy his intense desire. The image of a flood of desire compares love to water overflowing from a tree, which eventually settles so that one can drink peacefully with cupped hands.

The poem is about a lover’s restless thoughts, the tension between worldly duties and personal passion, and the longing for love to move from overwhelming desire to a calmer, fulfilling closeness.

The poem portrays the powerful presence of love in the speaker’s life. Even while he was busy with the worldly duties, thoughts of his beloved overflow like a flood. Yet the speaker hopes that this passion will eventually settle into something calmer, more tender, and more sustaining—like drinking water with one’s hands.

Two or Three Sentence Answers

1. Explain the meaning of the name Avvaiyar.

The name Avvaiyar means “respected old woman” or “venerable lady.” It is not a single poet’s name but a title given to several distinguished women poets of Tamil Sangam literature.

2. What is Kurunthokai?

Kurunthokai is an anthology of 400 short love poems from Sangam literature. It belongs to the Ettuthokai (Eight Anthologies) and deals mainly with the akam (interior, love based) themes.

3. Identify the speaker of the poem “What He Said: Male Lover.”

The speaker is the male lover who expresses his longing for his beloved. His words reveal the intensity of his passion while he struggles with the demands of work and other duties imposed by society.

4. Elaborate what the speaker means by “the world’s demands.”

“The world’s demands” refers to the responsibilities, duties, and practical obligations of life that distract the speaker from thinking only of his beloved. 

5. Outline the significance of the image “this flood of desire.”

The image of a “flood of desire” conveys the uncontrollable nature of passion and emotion. Just like a flood, the lover’s emotions are powerful, excessive and difficult to manage until that settle into calm and quite satisfaction.

Short Paragraph Answers

1. Differentiate between an Akam poem and a Puram poem.

Akam poems deal with the inner world of love, emotions, and personal relationships, usually expressed through nature and symbolic landscapes. Puram poems, on the other hand, focus on the outer world of war, heroism, kingship, and public life. While akam represents private feelings, puram represents collective social values.

2. Write a note on Tamil Sangam poetry.

Tamil Sangam poetry (c. 300 BCE–300 CE) is one of the oldest traditions of classical literature in the world. Compiled in anthologies like Ettuthokai and Pattuppattu, it covers themes of love (akam), war and public life (puram), and also philosophical reflections. Sangam poetry is known for its use of natural imagery, symbolic landscapes, emotional depth, and refined poetic techniques.

3. Evaluate the poetic techniques employed in “What He Said.”

The poem uses repetition, rhetorical questions, and rich natural imagery to convey intense longing. The metaphor of a “flood of desire” shows his emotional intensity. Symbolism took from nature (tree, water) adds more charm and effect to the emotional experience of the poem and makes it more relatable to common people.

Essay

What is an Akam Poem? Discuss “What He Said” as an Example of an Akam Poem.

An akam poem is a type of Sangam poetry that deals with the inner, emotional aspects of human life, especially love and personal relationships. Unlike puram poems, which focus on war, public deeds, and social events, akam poems explore private experiences such as desire, separation, longing, or fulfillment. These poems do not describe love directly but express it symbolically through landscapes and natural imagery.

The poem “What He Said” is a perfect example of an akam poem. The speaker is the male lover, who expresses his longing for his beloved while also struggling with worldly duties. The repeated questioning—“Did I not think of you?”—shows the obsessive nature of his thoughts. The image of the “flood of desire” conveys the intensity of his passion, while the final image of scooping water with hands suggests a hope for calmer, more satisfying intimacy. These natural images serve as metaphors for human emotions, which is characteristic of akam poetry.

Thus, “What He Said” captures the essence of an akam poem: it is personal, emotional, symbolic, and rooted in the natural world. It reflects the richness of Sangam poetry, where inner feelings are given universal expre

ssion through artistic techniques and imagery.