The Public Sphere vs the Private Sphere in William Congreve’s The Way of the World

In order to depict the conflict between the public and private sphere in Congreve’s The Way of the World, I will simply post my thoughts on this theme in relation to the confrontation between Lady Wishfort and Waitwell (mainly, my section in my oral presentation). Well, here it is:

During Lady Wishfort’s subsequent encounter with Waitwell, the conflict between the two social spheres would again be stressed through staging. According to J.L Styan, the staging of this scene should expose “the situation and its setting, together with both of the principals,” (Styan 167) as “a sham” (Styan 167). For instance, after the drunken Sir Wilfull leaves through a side door, Lady Wishfort should shield it in an attempt to preserve the “decorum” of the public space that Sir Rowland enters (Congreve IV. 487). After this futile act, Lady Wishfort would quickly cross over to Waitwell and perform a “curtsy that shivers the image of grace” before delivering her apology (Styan 168). In order to complement her exaggerated pose as a “fair shrine of virtue” (Congreve IV. 543), Lady Wishfort should appear overdressed in a tightly-bound costume. By visually contrasting this image with her true character revealed in Act III, the audience will regard it as a forced performance. Although “altering lights could not be subtly handled” (Avery and Scouten xcv) on a Restoration stage with “wax candles” (Avery and Scouten xciv), due to modern lighting techniques, Wishfort’s room would be full of light and decorations, so it can both act as an extension of her public mask for Sir Rowland and contrast with her dimly light private space in Act III. Aside from the setting, the dancers, who entertain Waitwell, would dance a “formal minuet” (Styan 172) in order to emphasize Wishfort’s obsession with decorum and to contrast it, at the play’s end, with the “less formal, gigue (jig)” (Styan 172) often found in Restoration comedies.

By visually underlining Wishfort’s social performance, the audience can then detect the parallel between her mask and that of Waitwell who, as Sir Rowland, should be similarly “overdressed” and speaks in a more elegant manner (Styan 167). Reacting to Wishfort’s excess of decorum, Waitwell would convey an “excess of gallantry” (Congreve IV. 493), so that he can feign the roles of a suffering lover and an “errant knight” (Congreve IV. 651) and thus hide his true identity as an “arrant knave” (Congreve IV. 650). However, after Lady Wishfort momentarily leaves Waitwell, he asks Foible for a cordial of “spirits” (Congreve IV. 557).  By handing him a cordial, Waitwell would parallel Lady Wishfort’s private drinking and reinforce the theme of social performance. By then contrasting these staged characterizations to Mirabell and Millamant, it can be seen how they have achieved “private happiness within the confines of a […] demanding social context” during the proviso scene (Brown 133). This compromise between the two spheres is attained when Mirabell forbids social “masks” (Congreve IV. 252) due to their dishonesty and drinks like “orange-brandy” (Congreve IV. 278) because they cause an excessive display of the private self as with Sir Wilfull.

Regarding Catherine Trotter’s Love at a Loss, I will be posting comments on it later this week. Although, having read it, I believe that Trotter’s play appears to simultaneously criticize the rakish behaviour of Beaumine while also revealing how marriage does not always have a positive result that is in conformance with the desires of its participants (the marriage is also voted by the public sphere and circumvents the private desires of Lesbia). In contrast to other comedies which end with a conventional marriage union, this union appears tragic for Lesbia (“tragic” may be too strong a word for some, but, let’s just say, incredibly unfortunate) and stands in direct opposition to other Restoration comedies due to its implicit pessimism.

I will post more of my thoughts on Trotter’s play later.