William Wycherley and the Comedy of Fear by John A. Vance

Abstract

80 major upheavals of domestic politics, specifically the Restoration, topical assassination plots, the Exclusion Crisis , and the Glorious Revolution. Mr. Hughes, despite a characteristicelisionof thesis statement, rightly argues that ‘‘a principal subject of Restoration drama wastheRestorationitself.’’Intragedyand comedy, he traces the initial celebration of the restored monarchy and then, after Charles II had generated widespread disappointment and skepticism, the public’s admonitory response to his example. Ms. Munns sees a period of profound change that spurred intellectual inquiry capable of fostering a drama that reflected national unease and social instability. She posits political and cultural skepticism as the philosophical force behind the changing institutions of patriarchy, nature, and society and their reflection in contemporary drama. Ms. Owen’s point of departure is the Exclusion Crisis, which she considers a positive force in the change in comedy, the development of tragedy, and the rise of the sentimental. The cultural institutions represented in this volume are restricted to marriage, religion , and dramatic criticism. Pat Gill claims that the plots of Restorationdrama invariably ‘‘begin, develop, and end in concerns about gender, sexuality and marriage.’’Correlating the disorder of the family with the disorder of the state, she pinpoints the emergence of a new, egalitarian , and elegant model of marriage in the popular comedy of manners. Discussing religious controversy in theatrical representation, Michael Cordner juxtaposes Vanbrugh’s comic impiety and Collier’s anti-theatrical campaign to examine England’s rising obsession with public rather than private vice. In a fine coda, Robert Markley provides a synopsis of 300 years of Restoration dramatic criticism, but he hesitates to propose any final catalogue of the Restoration canon or to limit its ideological underpinnings. Ms. Fisk’s volume encourages readers to take up the ideological challenges of our time, to rethink assumptions, and to enlarge the scope of these plays, many of them egregiously undervalued in the academy and theatrical marketplace. Included are a chronology of historical and theatrical events, brief authorial biographies , a select Bibliography, and an index. Susan B. Iwanisziw Independent Scholar JOHN A. VANCE. William Wycherley and the Comedy of Fear. Newark: Delaware, 2000. Pp. 259. $43.50. Taking issue with the widely held belief that Wycherley is an ‘‘attacking’’ playwright, condemning people’s behavior and the larger society, Mr. Vance argues that Wycherley is a ‘‘thinking’’one. His plays do not expose, warn, or teach, but depict what he found exhilaratingand disturbing. Consequently, Wycherley is not a pessimist, but one with an attitude of ‘‘exuberant penetration.’’ Wycherley sees frustration, helplessness,impotence, and above all, fear, as the most profound of human desires and frailties; Wycherley ’s four plays, each getting one chapter, explore how fear acts as the primary motivating factor behind allhumanbehavior. The biggest problem with this study is the use of ‘‘Comedy of Fear.’’ The title suggests that Wycherley is writing in a particular (albeit arbitrary) subgenre of comedy, but Mr. Vance does not follow through with it. Prominent in the title, ‘‘fear’’ gets buried in the Introduction, and no firm definition of ‘‘comedy of fear’’is offered. Mr. Vance states that fear 81 motivates Wycherley’s plays. Fine, but does that statement alone denote a subgenre ? Perhaps fear and the conflicts that arise from it are at the heart of most Restoration comedies. How, then, is Wycherley different? Mr. Vance essentially makes two arguments : Wycherley’s ultimate goal is simply to depict what he sees happening around him, and all the action in his plays centers on the fears inherent in the characters . Mr. Vance does a better job discussing the first. His close readings are thorough—no nuance is too small for Mr. Vance, no piece of dialogue too minor— but the concept of fear often gets pushed aside in his analysis. At times, the connection is clear (Pinchwife is deathly afraid of being made a cuckold by his wife); at other times, we must draw our own conclusions. The fear as motivator argument lacks a forward thrust in the text, and often become buried in his detailed plot analyses. Disregarding the performances, Mr. Vance relies solely upon the printed text. Although many playwrights (Wycherley included) wrote for particular actors, as he knows, he nevertheless assesses the play as...