Ghent University Faculty of Arts and Philosophy

Reading the Material Culture and the Poetics of Superfluity in The Man of Mode

Paper submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

degree of “Master in de Taal- en Letterkunde: Engels-Spaans”

Arnaud Thaler

August 2013

Prof. Dr. Sandro Jung

Content

1 Literature Review ...... 3

What is Restoration Comedy? ...... 4

Historical Contextualisation ...... 9

Who is the Man of Mode? ...... 12

“The man at Westminster” ...... 14

"The world’s a stage” ...... 17

2 Extensive Characterisation ...... 21

Wits and Non-Wits ...... 23

The Fop and the Rake ...... 28

3. Textuality, Materiality and Performativity ...... 37

4. A Life of Luxury: Reading the Material Objects in The Man of Mode ...... 46

The Mirror ...... 49

The Fan ...... 56

The Periwig ...... 63

The Cravat ...... 71

5. Works Cited ...... 80

2

1 Literature Review

3 The Man of Mode or Sir Fopling Flutter is a comedy written by George Etherege in 1676 and is widely regarded to be a prime example of a Restoration comedy. The playwright utilised his understanding of Restoration society to convincingly portray and criticise some members of the court while simultaneously creating a play filled with wit and eloquence. This thesis aims to provide some insight into the methods employed by Etherege and the influence of the culture of excess on The Man of Mode. To achieve this goal, the thesis will be divided into four chapters. The first of these will consist of a literature review, encompassing contrasting academic views on the nature of Restoration comedy, the importance of events leading up to the Restoration, the identity of the titular “Man of Mode”, the influence of religion and the relation between life and the theatre. The second chapter will discuss the oppositions between, firstly, the wit characters and the non-wit characters and, secondly, the character of the fop versus that of the rake, while still contrasting academic opinions on the matter. A relatively short penultimate chapter will focus on the changing views on textuality, performativity and materiality, while a concluding chapter will apply all previously discussed matters to The Man of Mode. This final chapter will utilise case-studies of material objects employed in the play to provide the necessary contextualisation. In general terms, this thesis aims to provide some introductory research into the importance of material culture and luxury as part of aristocratic and Middling Class self-fashioning in the Restoration period.

What is Restoration Comedy?

Prior to discussing the material culture, a sound theoretical framework must be established.

This will be achieved, firstly, by comparing a selection of scholarly texts on Restoration comedy, and Etherege in specific. After introducing this first section by defining and delimiting the term Restoration comedy, a historical overview of the social environment in which the play was written will be provided. Following this, a selection of ideas which are

4 frequently discussed in Restoration scholarship will be compared and assessed. The ideas which featured most prominently in scholarship and were, therefore, selected for discussion are the identification of the titular “Man of Mode”, the religious language and criticism expressed in the play, and the cross-pollination of theatre and everyday life. The second part of the theoretical chapter will oppose some terms and characters of the play. This will involve the extensive characterisation of the rake and fop, with the aim of creating a set of characteristics and attributes which will enable the connection of certain characters to their respective metaphorical readings. The oppositions that shall be scrutinised are, firstly, the wits in contrast to the non-wits, and secondly, in relation to the first opposition, the stock character of the fop as opposed to the rake. One point that will become blatantly obvious is the inherent lack of research on the actual material culture in the Restoration period.

Before one can discuss research on Restoration comedy, some introduction on the nature and content of this dramatic sub-genre must be provided. In other words, what is

Restoration comedy, how can one differentiate it from other forms of drama in the same period and why has relatively little research been done on the subject? While many scholars discuss some aspect of Restoration comedy, either as predecessor to modern drama or as a field of study as such, few take the time to define the characteristics of the genre. Robert D.

Hume admits that the categorisation of Restoration comedies poses some difficulties and, in his article “Theory of Comedy in the Restoration”, he concludes that “[n]ot the most capacious of pigeonholes will accommodate more than a limited selection of ‘Restoration comedies’” (318). This difficulty of defining and characterising Restoration comedy was also encountered by numerous other scholars (amongst others Powell, Nicoll and Wilkinson) and finds its origin in the relative diversity between the plays. Paradoxically, some authors such as

Michelle Blaser argue that once authors had found dramatic devices that appeared to be popular, they reused these plot devices. This custom resulted in “formulaic” plays where the

5 audience rejoiced, not as a consequence of the originality of the story, but for “the wit and sexual antics involved” (8). A comparison to modern Hollywood blockbusters is hardly necessary to emphasise further. Hume provides an extensive identification of sub-categories of Restoration comedy, borrowed from Allardyce Nicoll, but also points out the “incongruous bases” and “awkwardly” identified plays (304). According to Nicoll, all comedy of the period can be divided into 6 categories: Jonsonian, intrigue, Dryden, manners, farce, and sentiment.

Hume emphasises that the bases for some of these categories appear somewhat arbitrary and the distinctions between each category are less straightforward than they are being represented. In Hume’s words: “Dryden was neither sui generis nor consistent; many

Jonsonian plays have ‘intrigue’ plots [and] so do farces” (304).

The problematic nature of Nicoll’s categorisation becomes more apparent in the light of Powell’s, seemingly, equally valid division. Throughout her article “George Etherege and the Form of a Comedy”, Powell utilises such terms as comedy of judgement, comedy of criticism, comedy of manners and comedy of experience without clarifying or differentiating between each individual concept. Does this signify that, according to her, there are clearly visible and generally known differences between each category? I would argue that this is not the case and that Powell classifies plays according to a set of characteristics relating to the plot or plot devices. This distinguishes her from Nicoll in the sense that the latter takes into account properties, not only of plot, but of style, ideology and ancestry.

In the article “Etherege and a Restoration Pattern of Wit”, David R.M. Wilkinson suggests another collection of categories, all of which, according to his vision, are “clearly- defined categories” (497). He provides a, “by no means exhaustive”, list including the comedy of intrigue, of humours, of manners, of Spanish romance, the festive comedy, social, political and anti-puritan comedy. Some of these categories correspond with divisions proposed by

Nicoll, but additional, politically based characteristics for classifying and differentiating

6 Restoration comedies have been added such as the comedy of Spanish romance and anti- puritan comedy.

This leads back to the earlier questions regarding the definition of Restoration comedy. As exemplified above, various divisions of Restoration comedy have been provided, each as valuable in its respect. It suffices to remark that the general tendency in scholarly research is to utilise both Restoration comedy and comedy of manners as synonyms, although

Powell’s division emphasises a considerable inaccuracy in doing so. In broad terms, the comedy of manners is a theatrical performance written, and ideally performed, during the

Restoration period, depicting the actions of a, primarily, upper class social group, including, but not solely restricted to, the sexual escapades of certain characters collectively named libertines. According to Powell, “[its quality] is achieved not through a superficial, but through an actual realism” (66). This “actual realism” entails a high degree of social criticism, satire, and, ideally, the recognisability of the characters as part of everyday life, hence the importance of the play being performed during the Restoration. Wit and humour are generally seen as evident parts of Restoration comedy and luxurious costumes worn by some stock characters were indispensable. Both wit and the stock characters employing luxury as part of their persona will be discussed hereafter.

For this definition to be complete, two points must still be added. First of all, according to James M. Ware’s introduction to his article entitled “Algernon’s Appetite: Oscar

Wilde’s Hero as Restoration Dandy”, “[a] ‘pure’ comedy of manners is not fretted with romantic idealism; nor is it burdened with a great deal of earnestness” (17). As Ware points out, on the surface the comedy of manners is not concerned with high-flown ideals and political commentary. It both embraces and rejects the superfluity of luxury as displayed by

Restoration society. Secondly, according to Laura J. Rosenthal, the comedy of manners frequently contained the struggle of young lovers to escape parental authority, generally for

7 amorous ends. She adds that the focus of these plays is on the individualistic, the urban and the erotic, hence her term Restoration sex comedy. Rather than assuming, as Hume does, that the comedy of manners represented the spirit of the age, Rosenthal underlines that these plays were always surrounded by certain controversy (8). One would be correct to enquire why

Restoration comedy was allowed to be performed, considering its highly immoral and antisocial content. The primary reason for permitting the controversial plays was that the ruling class, the aristocracy and gentry, provided the theatres with the subject matter for their plays and that they themselves were often the playwrights. The importance of this fact will become more apparent in the discussion of the historical context which follows.

Prior to a historical contextualisation, one significant question remains unanswered: why has relatively little research been done on Restoration comedy in all its forms? Robert

Markley provides a relevant answer when he postulates that “drama remains a sideshow for many critics [...] who continue to revisit and recast the [...] project of examining the history of the novel” (2). As a consequence of the rise of the novel at the end of the seventeenth century, a literary form which has been extremely popular during the last centuries, drama has been considered as an acquired taste and, to some extent, elitist form of literature. Additionally, in comparison to the heroic drama which coexisted in the Restoration, the subject matter of comedy was perceived as trivial. The comedy of manners did not convey grand ideas and values and is, therefore, subject to a certain degree of oblivion, although it provided many of the ideas which would eventually lead to the immensely popular comedies written by Oscar

Wilde at the end of the nineteenth century.

8 Historical Contextualisation

The historical context which helped shape The Man of Mode, and, by extension, the genre now considered Restoration comedy, was influenced by political, social and cultural factors, some of which will be discussed here. Several authors, with whom I will now join ranks, reiterate the historical occurrences prior and during the long eighteenth century, ranging from

1660, the beginning of the Restoration, to 1837, the coronation of Queen Victoria. After years of political difficulties during the reign of Charles I, the social unrest culminated in 1642 when the Civil War broke out which eventually led to the decapitation of Charles I in 1649 and, consequently, the beginning of the Interregnum. During this period, the monarchy was abolished and the Commonwealth was established under the rule of a, primarily puritan,

Parliament and, from 1653 onwards, a Lord Protector. In 1660, after years of religious austerity, Charles II was coronated and the monarchy was reinstated, ending the Interregnum and marking the beginning of the Restoration.

A historical overview of the theatre is provided by Sarah G. Marsh who has made a series of valuable observations in relation to microscopy and magnification in her article

“’Not Made Monstrous by a Magnifying Glass’: Microscopes, Vision and Sir George

Etherege’s The Man of Mode, or Sir Fopling Flutter”. She investigates the play as a microscope, enlarging the faults of society and also enumerates some of the vices commonly found at court. Marsh states that, during the Interregnum, public theatre had been forbidden as consequence of the puritan philosophy, and that, when it reappeared for “public consumption”, its form had radically changed from its Elizabethan and Jacobean predecessors

(38). The reasons for this shift in form will be elucidated here as they have been a matter of some research. Firstly, Marsh, Nicoll and Blaser suggest that, in the beginning of the

Restoration, only two companies were allowed rights to perform within the bounds of

Westminster. Charles II granted patents to Killigrew and Davenant in 1662, providing them

9 with a theatrical monopoly with respect to “serious drama”, confining “coarser entertainments” such as farce to non-patent venues.

The royal patent gradually brought about the vision that theatre was an elitist and aristocratic past-time. Harold C. Brown goes even further by postulating that “[t]he theatres were clubhouses for aristocrats and their hangers-on. Some dramatists were also aristocrats, or at least cavalier gentlemen” (677), reflecting the second important reason for the theatrical shift of the 1660s. The royal patronage and friendship between the monarch and the playwrights introduced previously unseen association of the court with dramatic productions.

This fact is also clearly reflected in the subject matter and characterisation of aristocrats in the play. The plays were no longer concerned with the lives of the lower classes or the dramatic exaggeration of the aristocracy, arising from poor playwrights who had no knowledge of the lives of the wealthy. Instead, members of the court itself were responsible for producing some of the best known plays of the period. An example of a playwright who had close affiliations with the court and the King himself is George Etherege, who, in Powell’s words was “a playwright by instinct: he wrote for the pleasure of writing, not to gain a living” (43). This contrasts Etherege with many of his earlier colleagues. Writing was a way to pass time, to affiliate oneself with other libertines and to exhibit one’s knowledge of the libertine ideology of excess. Instead of hiding the excess of their lifestyle, the libertine playwrights displayed it for the world to see.

In his books Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche characterises the sort of people that surround Charles II at court, the same people who wrote and were characterised in the

Restoration comedies. Brown summarises Nietzsche when he portrays these gentlemen as

“urbane, upper-class people who pursue pleasure relentlessly, preying on weaker people”

(678). Related to this, David S. Berkeley states that “Restoration comic poets [depicted] a cynical and sophisticated world presided over by the somewhat bacchic genius of Charles II”

10 (109). Both these characterisations provide some view on the dramatists of Restoration theatre, or at least of comedy: upper-class epicureans, coming to terms with a new way of life after the Commonwealth, taking advantage of the excess of luxury and pleasure recently permitted. The contrast with the strict puritan rule of the Interregnum could hardly be greater.

As a form of rebellion against puritan and lower class ideals, every pleasure was embraced as a long lost friend, and, paradoxically, excess became the standard for many of the rich. It must be pointed out, however, that some scholars, Brown being the most notable, oppose the idea of libertines who reject puritan values and adopt the pleasure of excess as part of an intricate expression of social critique. He proposes that “simple misbehavior” might be at the heart of their actions instead of “Machiavellian skepticism” or “Hobbesian aggressiveness” (675). In other words, Brown strips the court of its apparent idealism, and replaces it with a profound form of opportunism, rebelling because the possibility presented itself while being under the protection of an equally extravagant king.

A final historical event which profoundly influenced the Restoration theatre was the admittance of women to the stage. Not only did this development create numerous theatrical opportunities for playwrights, but it admitted the exploitation of female sexuality in theatres.

Blaser states that “blatant sexual humor [was] becoming standard fare for drama” (2), which was remarkably more difficult to achieve prior to women actors and virtually impossible during the Interregnum. It also provided the possibility for women to assert themselves as sentient beings, able or willing to make their own choices in life and love. Playwrights took advantage of this opportunity to portray some strong, witty women (Harriet in The Man of

Mode being one such an example).

In the article “’The Queen was not schav’d yet’: Edward Kynaston and the

Regendering of the Restoration Stage”, George E. Haggerty explores the difficulties that arose between 1660 and 1700, during which time the former boy actors who played women roles

11 had to accommodate to playing male roles. His main focus is on Edward Kynaston, who, after a successful career as “woman” on stage, eventually succeeded in acquiring considerable fame playing male roles. Haggerty also addresses the difficulty of misplaced heteroerotic desire directed to the boy actor Kynaston in his female roles. According to Haggerty, many of the audience thought the actor was “a Compleat Female Stage Beauty” (312), further rendering his conversion to male roles remarkable. Haggerty provides an accurate description of the problems faced by Kynaston and other former boy actors and he is, as far as I am aware, the only scholar to address this topic. He does, however, fail to adequately describe the emotional and, more importantly, social implications of Kynaston’s “gender-change”. Did the actor receive wider acknowledgement for being able to play both a convincing man and woman? Did he succeed in being taken seriously as an actor following his introduction to theatre as an “actress”, or was his later success a consequence of his earlier fame? These questions are left largely unanswered.

Who is the Man of Mode?

I would now like to move from research on Restoration comedy in general and turn to scholars’ ideas on George Etherege’s The Man of Mode or Sir Fopling Flutter. One might assume that the identity of the titular “Man of Mode” is straightforward, but as will become apparent, this is hardly the case. The title follows the familiar format employed by playwrights and novelists throughout English history, but the dilemma arises when one tries to interpret the connector “or”. It either reveals that there are two possible denominations for

Sir Fopling Flutter, one being his name, the other being the epithet “Man of Mode”. A second interpretation is that the two titles each carry their own focus and that two characters are referred to: Sir Fopling Flutter and a different “Man of Mode”, most commonly assumed to be

12 Dorimant. The latter reading might be reinforced by pointing out similar titular structures such as Richardson’s Pamela or Virtue Rewarded. Along the same line, several scholars

(amongst whom Brown and Zimbardo) assume that Dorimant is the “Man of Mode”, but there are several arguments which would dissuade such a reading.

Firstly, it must be observed that both Dorimant and Sir Fopling think they are the

“Man of Mode”. Each believes himself to be dressed at the height of fashion. The rake follows the slightly more reserved English fashion with strong French influences, while the fop obtained his idea of fashion from the upper-class heart of Paris. Along a similar line,

Robert B. Heilman remarks that both Dorimant and Sir Fopling carry around a set of attributes, ranging from a cane and gloves to powder and a snuffbox. According to Heilman, these accessories are quintessential to a “Man of Mode”. Furthermore, Andrew P. Williams postulates that “an equally persuasive argument can be made as to whether Dorimant or

Fopling Flutter is the ‘hero’ of [the play]” (“Men of Mode” 4), further affirming the difficulty of attributing the title of “Man of Mode” to either. I agree full-heartedly with the opinion of

Heilman and Williams. It is theoretically possible that the “Man of Mode” is either Dorimant or Sir Fopling and assumptions such as Brown’s and Zimbardo’s should be avoided. Lastly, it is worthwhile to remark that there are some inconsistencies in Zimbardo’s logic when she states that “Sir Fopling is the doppelganger of Dorimant- a Man of Mode, of empty forms”

(386) only pages after claiming, seemingly without reserve or reflection, that Dorimant is the

“Man of Mode” (381).

In addition, Zimbardo professes that the most important characters appear at the beginning of the play, meaning Act I and Act II, but, while being present on the title page and being the conversational topic in several scenes, Sir Fopling Flutter does not make a physical appearance until Act III, Scene II. This renders possibility that Dorimant is indeed the “Man of Mode” slightly more plausible, if only in the light of the economics of the theatre. Why

13 would a playwright refer to a character such as Sir Fopling twice in the title of the play if the latter only partakes in half of the action onstage? Would this not leave the audience disgruntled and disappointed? In answer to this question, it is interesting to assess Andrew P.

Williams’ claim that “[the] distancing between announcing [Sir Fopling Flutter’s] existence and the arrival of the fop anticipates the fop’s comic presence” (“Centre of Attention” 7). In other words, mentioning the fop in the title would have heightened the suspense and the outburst of comic reactions. It would not have hindered the economics of the play as proposed earlier. I am, therefore, obliged to disagree with Zimbardo’s and Brown’s earlier point that the titular “Man of Mode” is Dorimant. While it is theoretically possible that the epithet refers to

Dorimant, the mechanics of the theatre forbid it.

“The man at Westminster”

A further area of research is the influence of religion on The Man of Mode, a play not fixated on morals, but on luxury, excess and high-culture. After years of puritan repression, it hardly comes as a surprise that Etherege incorporated considerable religious criticism in his plays,

The Man of Mode being no exception. Similarly to previous discussions, there are some contrasting opinions which must be elucidated.

It is important to emphasise that Canfield and, to a lesser extent, Berglund are the only scholars who directly and primarily discuss religious language in The Man of Mode.

Additional opinions on religion in Etherege can be found in Hughes, Berkeley and Zimbardo, but only as side notes to their main research topic. In his article “Religious Language and

Religious Meaning in Restoration Comedy”, J. Douglas Canfield investigates the religious language and symbols in a collection of Restoration plays. By investigating the language and actions with regard to Loveit, Dorimant’s discarded mistress, Canfield connects Dorimant to

14 the Devil, arguing that the libertine seduces women to a “second fall” (393). In the same light,

Canfield assesses The Man of Mode in relation to the utile et dulce definition of comedy. He points out that, by representing Dorimant as a devil, but with “something of the Angel yet undefac'd in him” (Etherege 69), the rake serves as a negative example, thereby providing the utile requirement of the definition. Additionally, Dorimant represents the possibility of salvation for all human beings – even the devils amongst them – as each carries some goodness or “something of the Angel” in them. In her aforementioned article, Zimbardo argues that “Etherege mocks the pretensions of all men of mode” and does not “[heighten] them into ‘devils’” (380). While only a minor note in relation to her whole article, Zimbardo’s vision diametrically opposes Canfield’s, but her apparent lack of textual or contextual evidence renders her argument less convincing.

A distinct approach is opted for by Lisa Berglund when she puts forth that Etherege utilised religious language to reflect the characters’ rebellion against institutions such as love and marriage. Even the quickest reading of The Man of Mode provides one with ample evidence of religious language being used to criticise what it normally praises (58, 61).

Berglund’s view differs from Zimbardo’s and Canfield’s since the former finds opposing meanings in the religious language, rather than direct proof of divinity or profanity. Berglund does not trust words uttered by the characters as correctly reflecting their emotions or religious stance, but instead believes that some degree of inversion must be applied. In portraying themselves as devoutly religious, the characters are propagating their profanity.

Berglund phrases it eloquently when she states that “their disdain for honest love is voiced as disdain for the church and ‘devotions’” (371).

The extensive relationship between love and religion was not only investigated by

Zimbardo, Canfield and Berglund, but also by David S. Berkeley in the article “’Préciosité’ and the Restoration Comedy of Manners”. In order to accentuate influence of the Précieuse

15 literature, “a seemingly little-known vogue in Restoration society […] against which patterns of courtship in manners comedy had meaning” (110), Berkeley discusses the historical lineage of several types of characters and investigates the characteristics and influences of the

Présieuse beauty. Most importantly in this context is that Berkeley cites Crowne’s dedicatory epistle of The Destruction of Jerusalem claiming that “Men are exalted to love beauty by the same faculty which lifts ‘em to adore Heaven; and there is a kind if divinity in beauty, which makes love to be a kind of religion” (115). Instead of Berglund, who opposes love and divinity, Berkeley and Crowne connect them and even argue that one is the necessary consequence of the other. Although both visions provide ample food for thought, it is my opinion that much room has been left for further research. The specific religious meaning and criticism of The Man of Mode remains largely unexplored and one cannot help but imagine how much scholarship would benefit from further investigation on this subject.

A last vision which must be mentioned is eloquently expressed by Derek Hughes in his article “Play and Passion in The Man of Mode” when he goes against the grain of all previously discussed research by stating that “the context flatly forbids a serious religious interpretation” (251). Hughes bases his judgment on the libertine nature of Etherege as a member of the court of James II and on the abundance of game metaphors in the play, rendering any religious meaning void by association. I value Hughes’ vision and sympathise with his postulate that no religious utterance by Etherege should be taken seriously, but that is not to say that they serve no end at all. As proposed by Zimbardo, Canfield, Berglund and

Berkeley, religious interpretation might, by metaphorical, analogical of heterological means, carry some serious message.

No scholar that I am aware of has discussed the direct religious commentary expressed by the characters in The Man of Mode. The reason for this apparent hiatus in research or why the passages which will now be discussed were not scrutinised in the context of broader social

16 criticism still remains to be found. In Act II, Scene II Belinda makes up an elaborate story for her absence from the presence of Mrs Loveit. She claims she has been occupied entertaining

“two or three country gentlewomen” (70), while she was, in reality, with Dorimant. Belinda states that she went to the theatre where she “was fain to shew ‘em the living, as the man at

Westminster does the dead” (71). Although the statement is intended as a humorous interjection to heighten the verisimilitude of her invented story, it is not as innocuous as might seem at first sight. A footnote to the joke explains that the “man at Westminster” is a guide of the famous Westminster Abbey. This could be seen as a direct criticism of the church as an institution in two ways.

Firstly, the Abbey is no longer a place of devout worshipping, but has been debased to a tourist attraction for the upper classes, the same classes that were presented as libertines in

Etherege’s plays. Secondly, both the dead and the Abbey have become marketable goods.

Similar to the current situation, visitors would have had to pay a certain fee for the tour, demeaning the burial place of kings and poets to an attraction, much like the Bethlem mental hospital. Clearly, this passage differs from other instances of religious criticism since it illustrates the opinion of Belinda, an upper class character who is neither a fool nor an especially witty individual. No extensive collection of intricate religious metaphors is necessary to understand Belinda’s critique. What is striking is that Belinda criticises the church for the same reasons she admires Dorimant: knowledge of the economies of life and the value of the everyday.

“The world’s a stage”

Another popular topic for academic research in the context of Restoration comedy is the relationship between life and the theatre or, more specifically applied to The Man of Mode,

17 the connection between the characters in the play and the metatheatrical vision expressed by

Etherege. While few scholars dedicate entire papers or articles to the relation between these factors, many discuss the general connection. In her previously discussed article, Lisa

Berglund quotes Harriett Hawkins claiming that “[the] primary purpose of this comedy seems to be neither immoral nor moral, but rather spectacular- to exhibit, rather than to censure”

(369, my italics). Apart from shedding some light on the contrast between the puritan rule of censure and Restoration mores, Hawkins fixes our gaze on the philosophy of both life and theatre in the Restoration: seeing and being seen. Robert Marley raises a similar point when he discusses the audience of Restoration drama and claims that, “for some members of the audience, being seen was as important as seeing the play” (5). The desire to be the centre of attention and to be noticed might seem trivial, but it should be considered in the light of the culture of excess. For the upper classes, much of everyday life was centred around obtaining and flaunting items of luxury in order to distinguish themselves from other individuals and classes, and to assert their economical dominance in society. This becomes evident when one considers places such as Hyde Park, The Mall and The Strand which were fashionable places of gathering for the rich.

The desire to be noticed can be considered as one of the essential traits of any fop, Sir

Fopling Flutter being no exception. Everything the fop does stems from his desire to be the centre or subject of every conversation. This becomes blatantly obvious when one considers

Sir Fopling’s habit to leave theatrical performances half-way through, seemingly for urgent business, solely for the pleasure of having the complete audience of the play pay attention to his leaving. In his article “The Centre of Attention: Theatricality and the Restoration Fop”,

Andrew P. Williams characterises the fop in Crowne’s Sir Courtly Nice as being “the self- styled embodiment of the theatre itself; he is a creature born of dramatic excess, possessing equal parts critic, audience, and player” (“Centre of Attention” 8). One cannot help but notice

18 that this characterisation is equally valid for Sir Fopling, taking advantage of every opportunity to criticise other “performers” through gossip, enjoying the performance of other fashionable characters such as Dorimant, thereby fulfilling the role of “audience”, and playing his eternal role of fop.

Several scholars (Williams, Hughes and Brown) put forth that every action undertaken by Sir Fopling is “an elaborate staged performance” ( “Men of Mode” 8). Since Sir Fopling has an extensive knowledge of histrionics, he has incorporated performative acts in everything he does. He is the actor in everyday life, using his “fashionable” costumes and elaborate, Frenchified language to accentuate his social otherness. Hughes and Williams

(1993) state that the fop consists solely of external demonstrations, lacking any interior merits. Fopling’s sincerity has been replaced with rehearsed and constructed actions.

Williams has focused on the connections between Sir Fopling and the search for social attention and, by investigating through a sociological point of view. He concludes that “the fop ‘delights’ in the social attention that comes from being the focal point of dramatic speech or action” (“Centre of Attention” 1) and compares the fop’s conversations with Dorimant to battles for attention. Moreover, Sir Fopling’s exuberant appearance enables him to usurp the focus of any particular scene, monopolising the attention. According to Williams, while

Dorimant and Fopling both intend to attract as much conversational attention as they possibly can, only the fop’s attempts are understood as ridiculous and anti-social. This is mainly a consequence of the fact that, “where the behavior [is] under observation [Sir Fopling] takes on a greater degree of performance than is socially required” (“Centre of Attention” 3), thereby transforming himself to a laughingstock instead of the intended master of social conventions.

19 In the same light, Hughes proposes that Lady Townley’s house, yet another fashionable meeting-place for the wealthy, doubles as a theatre. It does not assume this function directly, as this would lower its status considerably, but it is used as such by

“[trapping] a dupe in a theatrically contrived situation which he alone mistakes for reality”

(233). Ironically, this “dupe” is frequently Sir Fopling Flutter, one who needs no “theatrically contrived situation” to perform his part. Furthermore, Williams claims that “the fop [is] acting as a one man metatheatre within the larger context of the Restoration stage” (“Centre of

Attention” 3). In arguing that only the fop acts as a metatheatre, Williams grossly undervalues

Dorimant’s metatheatrical turns. The rake plays several parts throughout the play: the rejected lover, the friendly acquaintance to Young Bellair, and, most importantly, the part of Courtage.

This last part, as Hughes eloquently points out, is the only role “designed for [Dorimant] by another” (242).

Moreover, Dorimant frequently recites verses written by Edmund Waller, rehearsing his “lines” before using them in conversation. Like Sir Fopling, Dorimant stages many of his encounters, acting graciously towards people who he has admitted to dislike or by performing false acts of love. An example of this last performative act can be seen in his courtship of

Belinda, when he acts as if he will never see Loveit again. Berglund also reveals that, in pretending to be Courtage, Dorimant echoes Sir Fopling’s attempt to be “the more acceptable” (382). However, the essential difference between Dorimant and Sir Fopling is, as

Brown points out, that “Dorimant is self-assured and perfectly aware of playing roles” (689), while Sir Fopling naively considers his behaviour to be natural. In addition, Dorimant sometimes takes upon himself the role of director of performances. An example of these instances is when he stages Fopling Flutter’s courting of Loveit. Interestingly, according to

Hughes, Dorimant not only directs some of the action, but “his dramaturgic control of life seems to extend to mastery of those forces of chance that are to be so important in the play”

20 (240), attributing him with the mystical qualities of Shakespeare’s Prospero, an all-powerful conductor of actions.

The staged performances are not, however, restricted to Dorimant and Fopling Flutter.

When, in Act III, Scene I, Young Bellair and Harriet intend to persuade their parent, respectively Old Bellair and Lady Woodvill, that they will complacently undergo the proposed marriage, they too play certain parts. Hughes terms their interaction as a “fake, histrionic courtship, presenting their parents with the appearance of affectionate discourse while simply swapping stage directions” (235). Resembling directors of a play, both Bellair and Harriet in their turn tell the other what movement or gesture will appear most pleasing.

Although a rare instance of metatheatricality in the absence of Dorimant or Sir Fopling, it shows that Etherege envisioned theatre to be linked with the life of all his characters, and perhaps with every individual member of the audience.

Finally, an interesting view is put forth by Ronald Berman in his article “The Comic

Passions of The Man of Mode”. He claims that the reason for the instances of metatheatre is

“to assure the audience that they have reached a stage of civilisation beyond that alluded to in the scenario of the lyric” (463). Berman believes that society had evolved beyond the pining lover or a Hercules who dies for love. This is also evident from the play, since Dorimant would not die for love and has failed to keep his promise to Belinda of refraining from seeing

Loveit again. When, in Act V, Scene II, he promises Harriet to “renounce all the joys I have in friendship and in wine [and] sacrifice to you all the interest I have in other women”, she forbids him to swear it or have him “turn fanatic” (136). This proves that Harriet understands the mores of the age and that, far from letting Dorimant die for love, she would not even have him renounce Loveit and Belinda for her sake.

21

2 Extensive Characterisation

22

The second chapter of this dissertation will consist of addressing some oppositions which are profoundly imbedded in the play. As mentioned in the introduction, it concerns the oppositions of wits/ non-wits and fop/ rake. Each member of the opposition will be defined and contrasting definitions will be compared. The relevance of the following chapter is that it aims to clearly delineate some theoretical terminology which will be applied during the rest of the dissertation and, by adequately defining this vocabulary here, faults in interpreting further chapters will be avoided.

Wits and Non-Wits

The first opposition that is subject to investigation is the difference between the so-called wit character and those characters without wit, here called non-wits. This distinction was mentioned by several scholars (Hughes, Engel, Berglund and Williams) but none attempted to define “wit” as a concept. Wilkinson is the only scholar who attempts to define the term, but concludes that “a definition […] of Restoration comic wit in its general application is unthinkable, except in the most superficial and sweeping terms” (497). No ready-made definition seems available, but, by combining several views, a pattern can be discerned.

Berglund proposes that a witty conversation is one composed of extended metaphors.

She calls this the “libertine language” (371) and constructs a convincing argument in claiming that wit was an essential building block of a language which provided membership in the group of wit characters. Understanding the extended metaphorical language provided the members of the group with the possibility to criticise others and the authority reform their wit society. As an example, Berglund proposes that Harriet and Young Bellair use the libertine language to “articulate their disagreement with the ideology of the rakes” (377). The elite wit

23 language also gives rise to rival languages, which the wit characters ridicule, since, according to Berglund, their “shallowness betrays the dullness of the speakers” (374).

Additionally, the wits recognise each other through a conversational equality. When only wit characters converse, each receives an equal amount of attention and time to exhibit their knowledge of the libertine language. However, Williams points out, “Fopling’s entrance signals his domination of the group’s discussion” and “[his] ’formal’ apologies act as theatrical clues” (“Centre of Attention” 5). Moreover, Williams mentions that, by directing the conversation to his extravagant attire, Sir Fopling unrightfully seizes control over the situation and his conversational partners. Interestingly, Dorimant also seizes control whenever he is present and Hughes proposes that “Dorimant’s control over people […] is partly exercised through money” (240). If Dorimant, one of the leading wit characters, uses economic resources, which Sir Fopling’s clothes imply he also possesses, to gain control over people, why must this seizing of control be considered negative for Sir Fopling only? A logical explanation which is not addressed by Hughes is that Dorimant’s wit and, by implication, his membership of the wit group, prevents him from being perceived in a negative light by other members. Sir Fopling’s usurpation of attention in combination with his inherent lack of wit prove to the wits that he is not a member of their linguistic minority, but an outsider possessing his own linguistic variety and disrespectful of their conversational conventions. It is remarkable that the wits comply with Sir Fopling’s strategy and provide him with all necessary attention. Hereby, they provide reinforcement for the fop that his mode of socialising is acceptable and create a laughingstock for their own amusement. Rather than a parasitic relation where Fopling Flutter requires attention with a disadvantage for others, both the fop and the group of wits benefit by his presence.

Wilkinson defines three basic forms of wit: railing, dissembling, and plain dealing.

Railing includes “all verbal attempts to establish superiority”, dissembling consists mainly of

24 “deceiving others to one’s own advantage”, and plain dealing, or confession, is a “kind of verbal shock tactic” (498-499), using shocking but actual confession to unbalance the conversational partner. Wilkinson also separates “false wit” from “true wit” (504) and explains that false wit is exposed after some time, while true wit succeeds in deceiving others, thereby protecting the wit character. In addition, Wilkinson proposes that Medley, one of

Dorimant’s closest acquaintances, is the “Ideal True Wit” (507). Hughes proposes a similar distinction in putting forth that the difference between the wit and the fool, or non-wit, is “that the former calculatingly creates diversion out of others, whereas the latter unknowingly provides diversion” (233). This echoes the previously discussed vision that Sir Fopling provides some kind of metatheatre, acting as a spectacle to the other characters.

Brown proposes that the wit used in the court of Charles II was “little more than a kind of sprezzatura” (677) and was a way to pardon outrageous behaviour. Although Brown intends to imply that sprezzatura is a negative quality, I would propose it is not. Additionally, the wits are composed of more than “just” sprezzatura. In order to compare wit to sprezzatura, the latter term must be defined. Sprezzatura, according to the OED, is the “[e]ase of manner, studied carelessness; the appearance of acting or being done without effort; spec. of literary style or performance”. In other words, appearing to be naturally acting or witty. In some respect, this definition and Brown’s claim are applicable to The Man of Mode, although

Brown provides little textual evidence to support his claim. When, for example, Dorimant quotes verses by Waller, this seemingly effortless show of intelligence and cultural knowledge is, in reality, a carefully rehearsed scene. The rake’s effort becomes clear when one considers the beginning of Act I, Scene I, where the stage directions reveal that Dorimant is “repeating verses” (49). Some scholars read the lines by Waller as judgement on the letter to Loveit which Dorimant holds in his hand. I would, however, suggest that, as the stage

25 direction clearly state “repeating” and not “reciting”, Dorimant is rehearsing lines which will aid his future endeavours to exhibit sprezzatura.

In addition, Brown states that “[w]ith sprezzatura, all in sexual conquest should be effortless and genteel” (686), but this also poses some difficulties. Should all sexual conquest be effortless, or appear effortless to others? The concept of sprezzatura is focussed around the attempt to be perceived by others as careless, no matter what the actual labour is. While

Brown claims that Dorimant possesses sprezzatura and that this means all his sexual conquests are effortless, there is clear textual evidence that this is not always the case. On the one hand, when Dorimant intends to embarrass Loveit by arranging Sir Fopling to court her in

The Mall, the outcome of their conversation is not to Dorimant’s liking. Since Dorimant had taken Medley with him to The Mall to witness his “triumph”, the latter is in a privileged situation to provide a concise summary of the outcome. Medley offers the ironical statement:

“Would you had brought some more of your friends, Dorimant, to have been witness of Sir

Fopling’s disgrace and your triumph” (101). This account shows that, although Dorimant intends to appear artful and in control, sometimes the veneer of effortless sexual conquest cracks and his human nature is exposed. On the other hand, when, in Act V, Scene II,

Belinda, Loveit and Harriet are in the same room with Dorimant, the former two chide him for his behaviour. This instance also provides an example of Dorimant’s effortlessness being undermined since it shows him at his weakest point, attempting to court Harriet while struggling to deal with his former mistresses.

Now that the different kinds of wit and wit as a general concepts have been discussed, the opposition between wits and non-wits can be examined. Engel, Berglund, Williams and

Wilkinson categorise the characters according to this dichotomy, but between them disagree which characters belong where and which terms should be used. As previously mentioned,

Wilkinson discerns between “true wit” and “false wit”, but extends this reasoning to the

26 categories of the True wits and False wits. Engel points out that the same categories are employed by Thomas H. Fujimura (23). Berglund and Williams both admit the existence of a group of wit or witty characters, but in assigning the characters to these categories, they differ greatly. Berglund proposes that there are six witty characters in The Man of Mode: Dorimant,

Medley, Lady Townley, Emilia, Young Bellair and Harriet.

This categorisation poses some problems. Can Young Bellair be considered to be a wit? Admittedly, he is able to comprehend and respond to the extended metaphors employed by Dorimant and Medley, but he is also, at least to some extent, the dupe of the conversation.

A prime example is visible in Act I, Scene I, when Young Bellair and Medley exchange some sentences on the subject of marriage cloaked in the extended metaphor of religion. Bellair responds to Medley’s question by saying that “You wish me in Heaven, but you believe me on my journey to hell” and “Because religion makes some run mad, must I live an atheist”

(58). Both statements proves his understanding of the metaphor and his ability to speak the libertine language. However, when Bellair leaves the company later in the scene, Dorimant admits that he is only interested in Bellair to seduce Emilia more effortlessly once she is married to the latter. Additionally, Dorimant uses Bellair to make women “judge more favourably of [the former’s] reputation” (61). Powell summarises Dorimant’s and Medley’s attitude in stating that “[t]hey look upon each other, as upon everyone else, as cogs to the wheel of pleasure” (61), indicating that, perhaps, wits as well as non-wits could be exploited.

A similar question must be raised with regard to Emilia. It is important to remark that

Emilia, when in conversation with Old Bellair, one of the gentlemen using a “rival language” to the libertine language, always maintains the upper hand. She is able to fend off the thinly veiled verbal assaults by using the extended metaphors which are an essential part of the libertine language. This ability would lead one to assume she is part of the wit group, but does the knowledge of the libertine language and the absence of libertine actions and ideology

27 make them a member of the wits or the non-wits? In answer to this question, Wilson F. Engel mentions an article by Thomas H. Fujimura on the same subject. Engel puts forth that he agrees with Fujimura’s suggestion that Emilia and Young Bellair are attractive, but not

Truewits (24).

Another vision is proposed by Andrew P. Williams, who admits that there are several wit characters, but suggests that this group is made up of Dorimant, Medley, Lady Townley,

Emilia and Belinda (“Centre of Attention” 4). The reasons proposed earlier explain why

Williams omitted Young Bellair from his selection, but there seems to be no apparent reason for interchanging Harriet for Belinda. Admittedly, Belinda shows some intelligence and even, at times, instances of wit, but not to the same extent as Harriet. While Belinda cannot see through Dorimant’s libertine advances, eventually resulting in her undoing, Harriet succeeds in turning the tables on Dorimant and using the libertine metaphors to her advantage.

The Fop and the Rake

The following opposition is the most essential to this dissertation as it contrasts the stock characters of the fop and the rake, both of whom, according to James M. Ware, are “artificers whose artifacts [sic] are their own lives” (17). Following the usual strategy, both the concept of fop and rake will be defined, after which the terms will be opposed to elucidate some differences and similarities between them. Much research has been done on the character of the fop and, therefore, many definitions have been proposed. The following section will be an amalgam of these definition, combining the conclusions of research on topics ranging from masculine values in the Restoration to modern performances of Wildean drama.

28 First of all, the rake is a rebel. He misbehaves, sets forth on sexual escapades with the objective of undoing women and lies to nearly everyone he meets. The rake is fashionable, but understands the subtle balance between fashion and excess and his primary function is to provide humorous conversation in the plays by means of wit. According to Harold Weber, the rebellion of the rake echoes the recent Civil War, since his revolt against authority and against the standards of common behaviour mirrors the country’s struggle to free itself from the puritan yolk and express its freedom through excess. Karen Horney, as paraphrased by

Brown, states that “the personality of the rake in drama [is] a kind of borderline schizophrenia” (679). He hides his true self through clothes, witty remarks and distances himself from others, but, as Brown points out, he also lacks plans for the future, resulting in

“pathological shallowness” (680).

While Brown and Horney underline the psychological characteristics of the rake,

Zimbardo and Ware take a different approach. Zimbardo claims that “[a]ll [the rake’s] actions are surface gilding” and that “none are outward manifestations of an inner vital spirit” (385).

Coincidentally, accusations of a lack of inner vital spirit are addressed to Sir Fopling by other scholars. For this reason, I would suggest that Zimbardo judges Dorimant too harshly. While the rake lacks some manifestation of interior substance, he is still far removed from the air- headed fop. Ware, for instance, elucidates this contradiction by proposing that Dorimant wears a “mask of manners” (23) which is only removed when he is alone with his servant, an opinion Ware shares with Horney. In the opening scene of the play, the audience is able to observe Dorimant’s “unaffected nature before he is enmeshed with other major characters”

(23). Since one is not provided with an opportunity to witness Sir Fopling alone with his servants, a comparison is hard to make, but, judging from his conduct towards his servants when others are around, Sir Fopling is blissfully ignorant of the ridicule he entices.

29 Before defining the fop, one last opinion on the rake must be addressed. In his article

“Libertine Gamblers in Late Stuart Comedy”, James E. Evans quotes a line from Aphra

Behn’s The Town fop. This play was written in the same year as The Man of Mode, but provides a completely different view of the rake. Behn’s rake Bellmour tells the fop character:

“I Whore, Drink, Game, Swear, Lye, Cheat, Rob, Pimp, Hector, All, All I do that’s vicious”

(54). For Behn, the rake is much more violent, stealing, pimping, etcetera. He is no longer principally humorous, but has become something of an outlaw, thereby rendering a definition or characterisation either inaccurate or impractically broad.

Relatively more has been written on the attributes and characteristics of the fop. Mark

D. Engsberg puts forth that “Fops are easier to describe than to define” (7) and suggests that this is due to their extensive collection of attributes. Not all fops are the same in character, but every fop is overly concerned with his attire. Heilman, in turn, emphasises two interesting points. Firstly, that, “since fop is a rather rare word in our day, we easily forget that its original meaning was ‘fool’” (364). Only in the 1670s did the word acquire the connotation of a fashionable butt of jokes. Secondly, Heilman postulates that the fop could be “virtually anybody” (364), depending on, what he terms, the “animus” of either the speaker or the playwright. In my opinion, this does not sufficiently keep into account the individuality and clear visual characteristics of the fop. The fop is a clearly defined entity within a play and, although other characters might temporarily be the butt of jokes, more elaborate ruses mainly focus around him. A notable exception to this rule is when Young Bellair, Harriet and Emilia mislead Old Bellair and Lady Woodvill. The latter two characters temporarily become unknowing fops in spirit, but not in appearance. Furthermore, Engsberg provides a list of nine words and three phrases from the OED which denote a “foppish person”: fop, coxcomb, beau, exquisite, puppy, macaroni, spark, fribble, dandy, fine gentleman, pretty gentleman and pretty fellow (10). It must be mentioned, however, that some of these words (e.g. coxcomb, spark)

30 carried alternative meanings which were unrelated to their secondary meaning of fop and that few of these terms are perfect synonyms.

Numerous scholars of Restoration comedy have attempted to define the fop (Pang,

Heilman, Powell, Blaser, Wilkinson, Engsberg) and most of them focus on the attributes of the fop and his general state of mind. For this definition, firstly, the visual aspects which shape the fop will be considered and, secondly, the psychology behind his actions and appearance will be discussed. Considering that fashionability is an essential element of the fop, an important question is in what ways this fashionability is expressed. Blaser proposes that “the most obvious characteristic of a fop is their penchant for excess” and she quotes

Rosenthal who characterises the fop as being in possession of “a giant wig, too much lace, exaggerated gestures [and] copious theatricality” (9). All these physical attributes, instead of increasing the fashionability of the fop, render him ridiculous. He is not considered to be the shining light of fashion, but rather sets an example of how not to dress. While the rake and other wits share some similarities in dress with the fop, they are able to find a point of balance between excess and the ridiculous.

With regard to the attitude of the fop, Engsberg quotes Samuel Johnson’s 1755 definition of the fop. Johnson claimed that the fop was “[a] pretender; a man fond of show, dress, and flutter, an impertinent” (8-9). In this definition, Johnson refers to Sir Fopling

Flutter by utilising Sir Fopling’s last name as a characteristic, a possible indication of the importance and popularity of The Man of Mode. Heilman employs a similar method when he states that the fop is not unlike “the butterfly, the dandy, the fashion plate, the affected man of taste, the social-vanguard exhibitionist, the embodiment of vanitas vanitatum” (363). In the same article, he provides a different summary of the fop’s character: “The hyper-fashionable man about town, […] more mannered than well-mannered, a coterie type, flourishing an ostentatious with-it-ness” (365). While Engsberg claims that the fop is notoriously hard to

31 define, yet easy to describe, both he and Heilman provide little visual attributes of the fop, but focus, rather, on his habits and tastes. In addition, Heilman attributes the fop with extensive

Francophilia, something that is worth mentioning here, but which will be discussed in detail in the rest of this thesis.

Contrary to Heilman and Engsberg is Cecilia J. Pang, who, when comparing the dandy to his “Restoration forerunner”, points out both are “superbly articulate, incredibly bright, insanely sharp, and nastily funny” (98). Assuming the Restoration forerunner is indeed the fop, as stated by the OED, and not the rake, Pang’s view differs greatly from other scholars.

The fop as defined by Heilman, Engsberg and Johnson is not “superbly articulate”, let alone

“incredibly bright” or “insanely sharp”. He is, however “nastily funny”, although not necessarily of his own accord. It seems that Pang has confused and fused the characters of the rake and the fop, resulting in a hybrid of the two which is closely related to the Wildean dandy.

Two further visions must still be mentioned. Firstly, Wilkinson states that fops are notoriously naïve or lacking the “discipline of suspicion” (501). They are seldom frustrated or angry since, most of the time, they hardly realise that they are the butt of a joke. This also contributes to the general conception that fops are friendly at heart, not as heartless as the rake and far removed from the hurtfulness of a character such as Medley. Secondly, Jocelyn

Powell argues that the fop’s “equipage” is an extension of himself and that his servants act as instruments of self-fashioning. This fact can clearly be observed in Act III, Scene III of The

Man of Mode when Sir Fopling renames a servant from Trott to Hampshire, fashioning him to better express the fop’s taste. Ironically, Hampshire is associated with the dullness of the countryside by every witty character, both confirming Sir Fopling’s status as a non-wit and turning him into the focal point of ridicule yet again. Combining these opinions results in a unilaterally negative view of the fop, similar to Susan Staves’ claim that “[t]he worst thing is

32 to be the fop, because he is entirely ridiculous” (499). One must, however, ask oneself whether this is the case. Is it not better to be entirely ridiculous, yet void of any malice? Sir

Fopling, although disliked by some and ridiculed by most, remains a better person than the vindictive Medley, who, like Dorimant, uses people to fulfil his desires and whose aim in life is to “undo” maidens.

Before comparing the fop to the rake, one should take into account Williams’ division of fops into two groups: the rejected fop whose eccentricities transform him into a “scapegoat figure” and the “tolerated fop” who is granted entry in fashionable society (“Men of Mode”

9). While clearly possessing characteristics of both groups, Williams categorises Sir Fopling as a tolerated fop on account of his presence in fashionable society and the parties at Lady

Townley’s house. The main difference between these two groups is that, according to

Williams, the tolerated fop is not just the object of ridicule, but “the conflicting images of social form and customs his presence generates” (“Men of Mode” 9) increases the overall cultural value of the play. The tolerated fop acts as a mirror to society. His exaggerated manners and out of the ordinary fashion provide a negative example for others.

Now that both the rake and fop have been properly characterised, I will investigate the differences and similarities between the two stock characters. Susan Staves claims that “some men will use clothes to try to establish themselves as men of superior attractiveness or taste or dash” (425), yet this statement signals no difference between the rake and the fop. Both are set on appearing fashionable and the distinction between them is not their goal, but the extent to which they succeed. Another similarity is that both, at least at one time during the play, are guided by others in their actions. Dorimant, who is expected to be the self-assured and independent libertine, only concerned with establishing his own dominance, is directed by others on two occasions. The first, when taking the advice of other wits and going to Lady

Townley’s house as Mr Courtage. The second instance can be found in Act I, Scene I, when

33 Dorimant confesses he uses Young Bellair to seduce Emilia. When, in Acts IV and V, Bellair and Emilia aid Dorimant to secure his betrothal to Harriet, they have turned the tables on the rake, taking control of his life and future. Sir Fopling undergoes a similar change, but differs from Dorimant as the former performs actions for the sake of others, not just his own. The fop’s theatricality of daily life proves that he is just as much a subject of external influence as

Dorimant. It should also be mentioned here that Marsh argues that Sir Fopling serves as a

“reflective device” for Dorimant and that both are essentially “engaged in virtually the same pursuits” (47). It is my opinion that the relation between Sir Fopling and Dorimant is more profound. The similarities that have already been discussed, in combination with the distinctions which follow prove that Sir Fopling not only serves as a mirror to Dorimant, but that they represent two alternative visions on life and on how to obtain their goals.

A first considerable difference between the fop and the rake is emphasised by

Heilman, who points out that “[t]he vanity regularly attributed to the fop is his conviction that he has made it; he is beyond competition. He is a relaxed man, a pleasant relief in a

Hobbesian world” (392). While Sir Fopling is confident and content about the image he projects to others, Dorimant hides a, sometimes crippling, urge to prove his superiority. It could, however, be said that Sir Fopling’s constant battle for attention is, in fact, a similar struggle to prove his value. The main difference between the two characters on this account is that Dorimant’s attempts to obtain dominance are much more forceful, as can be seen in his violent courting of Belinda by means of disgracing Loveit.

While Dorimant’s objective in life is to seduce and dishonour women, Berglund suggests that, for Sir Fopling, “sex itself is part of the garniture” (375). He appears almost asexual or hermaphrodite and never expresses any desire to marry a wealthy heir, but entertains women in salons and parlours. He is obviously aware of the sexual mores of the age, which is made clear when he fails to follow Dorimant’s extended health metaphor and

34 states that “[he] thought there was a wench” (118), but he does not to partake in the act of sex.

In this way, there is a discrepancy between his search for sexual affairs, as shown in Act III,

Scene II lines 216-217 and discussed above, and his apparent asexuality. Additionally, if Sir

Fopling is pursuing other women besides Loveit, he handles these affairs with the utmost discretion, something not altogether associated with the fop. Dorimant, in contradiction, tells

Medley, Bellair and Sir Fopling of his amorous conquests, although he employs the libertine language so no one is to say whether Sir Fopling actually takes notice of the metaphorical expressions of sexuality.

Two more considerable differences must still be emphasised. Firstly, while Dorimant recites verses of Waller and writes letters to Loveit, Sir Fopling devalues writing and, as Jon

L. Bacon remarks, literally says so in Act IV, Scene I. Sir Fopling states that he considers writing to be “a mechanic part of wit” (Etherege 109) and, in this instance, the two characters could not differ more from one another. Dorimant is constantly occupied with Waller’s poetry, while Sir Fopling mistakes one French author for another when tested on his knowledge. Contradictorily, when Sir Fopling renames his English servant Trott to

Hampshire, he does so, not only aesthetic grounds, but also on poetic grounds. The fop’s motivation becomes apparent when Loveit exclaims: “Oh that sound, the sound becomes the

Mouth of a man of Quality!”, a phrase which Dorimant later mimics in order to ridicule

Loveit and Sir Fopling.

Secondly, while Dorimant is considered to be a wit, if not the wit, Sir Fopling possesses nothing of the qualities usually associated with wit. The question one must ask oneself is, while both the fop and the rake assume that they possess some form of intelligence which they are able to exhibit, what is the function of the display? It must be emphasised that

Sir Fopling exhibits a false show of intelligence by utilising French words in his speech, while

Dorimant shows signs of actual intelligence through wit. When it was stated earlier that Sir

35 Fopling was a “reflective device” for Dorimant, in the light of this question, I would propose that the rake similarly acts as a reflection for Sir Fopling. The fop wants to resemble

Dorimant and this is made clear by his unsuccessful copying of the rake’s witty patterns of speech. While Sir Fopling employs what he perceives as wit in order to attain the same status and, to some extent, respect as Dorimant, the rake uses wit to justify his outrageous behaviour.

36

3. Textuality, Materiality and Performativity

37 The end of the Commonwealth not only influenced the cultural climate and secured theatrical liberties, but profoundly fortified the relationship between theatre and the culture of consumption. This is most apparent when considering the change in relation between the textual condition and the material culture. According to Jerome McGann in his influential book entitled The Textual Condition, the interpretations of a text and its social importance not only rely on its reception as a play, but on every aspect of the text, both its printed form and its performance. Every detail surrounding the text aids to establish a textual condition and the slightest change in, for example, publication or venue of performance can profoundly alter audience interpretations. According to Ian Small, McGann distinguishes between two factors which influence the interpretations of a text. On the one hand, the changing audience which gives rise to novel interpretations and appreciations of a play over an extended period of time.

On the other hand, the “embodied text” (318) which can be a rapidly changing, but determining factor.

Applied to The Man of Mode, McGann’s vision becomes apparent when one considers the influence of fashion and material culture on the reception of the play. Unlike in

Elizabethan theatre, expressions of material culture were no longer dependant on the text to acquire meaning or value, but, due to new concepts of fashion, value and theatricality, became a separate, but equally important, focus of performances. Due to the rapidly changing nature of fashion and its newly acquired importance in the text and during theatrical performances, each minor change in fashion led to new interpretations of the text, altering the textual condition. While a certain type of wig was popular for a limited amount of time, once fashion changed and other designs became fashionable, the audience was required to alter their perception of the characters. Similarly, if large gilded and leather-bound volumes of a play were no longer fashionable and were replaced by smaller pocket versions, this fundamentally altered the textual condition of the text the volumes contained. Similar to the luxury objects

38 utilised in the play, the text itself is granted a socially encoded meaning which could alter at any time.

A second concept that is often overlooked by scholars is the importance of performativity in relation to the characterisation of the rake and the fop in Restoration theatre.

In her essay “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and

Feminist Theory”, Judith Butler famously discussed the performativity of gender. In the next section, it will become apparent that performativity can be interpreted more broadly and can be applied to The Man of Mode on several levels. Firstly, the fop’s gender is a construct consisting of a combination of his clothes and actions, both of which reflect femininity and masculinity at the same time. Sir Fopling has certain feminine characteristics and identifies with the women in the play while attempting to impress the men, but at the same time seeks admittance to the group of witty males who pursue women. Similarly, he wears a perfumed wig and fringed gloves, attributes commonly associated with women, and, at the same time, takes care to point out his masculine cravat and sword-knot.

Secondly, both the rake and the fop are free men, but each is bound to certain expectations in dress and manner. Both perform the part that they have chosen to play and very little room is left for improvisation. This becomes apparent when one considers the instance in Act V, Scene II, when both Loveit and Belinda confront Dorimant, and the rake momentarily loses his composure. He is no longer the artificer and all-powerful director of the actions, but is forced to admit his weakness and assumes the role of the victim. Lastly, on a more general level, a particular performative situation can profoundly alter the meaning of actions and object. For example, when the fop takes Loveit’s fan in Act V, Scene I, the action of fanning is transformed from an innocent habit of women to an act of courting as a consequence of a change in performativity. Similarly, the exaggerated performance of the fop

39 with regard to his wig changes the meaning of that desirable luxury object to a ridiculous trinket.

In her discussion of performativity in Cavendish’s Convent of Pleasure, K. R. Kellett makes a point that can also be applied to The Man of Mode and Restoration comedy in general. Most interesting for this thesis is her definition of performativity as “that which comes into being only through contingent utterance” (423). Similar to expressions of material culture in Elizabethan drama, performativity depends on textual appearances and, for performativity as understood by Kellett, on the utterances during actual theatrical performance. Admittedly, the comparison is not accurate on all accounts, but it does underline the shift from Elizabethan to Restoration drama. The performativity of the material culture in the Restoration no longer depends solely on the utterances, or textual mentions of an object, but is required to be accompanied by a visual performance of the object. To use Kellett’s words, the material objects in Elizabethan drama “existed discursively rather than materially”

(427), while in Restoration theatre, the visual material was more important than the textually expressed material object. One exception to this novel vision on material objects is the use of brands or makers’ names in The Man of Mode discussed earlier. In these instances, the utterance, or performative act, of a maker in itself suffices to heighten the verisimilitude and value of material objects. To prove that there is indeed a fundamental link between performativity and the expression of material culture, it is valuable to consider Austin’s definition of a “performative” as quoted by Kellett. Austin suggests that “[a performative] indicates that the issuing of the utterance is the performing of an action ... to say something is to do something” (427). Along similar lines, in Elizabethan plays, to mention material objects was to see them. This attitude changed profoundly in the Restoration, as discussed above.

In the same article, Kellett comments on the character of Lady Happy and states that, as a consequence of her class privilege and though her performative utterances, the Lady is

40 able to “bring those at the cultural margins [...] to the cultural center” (425). It must be remarked that Kellett is referring to a different kind of social outcast, but as will become apparent, the statement also applies to “cultural marginals” such as the fop. Like Lady

Happy’s ability to influence cultural classifications, the fop’s power of conversational usurpation is not solely based on a class privilege, but also on an important economic superiority. Through economic means, Sir Fopling attempts to gain access to the cultural centre inhabited by the wits, an action which he is allowed to perform, at least in part, as a consequence of his class privilege. In this way, Restoration comedy has a different relationship to the text than its Elizabethan predecessor. Wit, or performative utterances of a witty character, determined the value of a theatrical character in plays before the Restoration.

A man was judged by his actions and speech, accurately indicating whether he had attained the ideal of a Homo Universalis.

In contrast, while speech was still considered the primary condition of being allowed into the group of wit characters, a new, economic factor came into play during the

Restoration. Wealth allowed people to acquire material objects indicating their worth without speech which led to attempts to acquire membership to the wit group via material attributes instead of wit. This shift required the exhibition of these material attributes on stage, as without the visual component, the partial admittance of Sir Fopling into the cultural centre of society seems effortless, downplaying the exclusivity of the group. One has to remember that it was exactly this group who wrote the plays and intended to distinguish themselves from other social classes. The apparent admittance of one without wit or wealth would devalue the group and the image of its members, and reveal to the audience that neither wit nor wealth was necessary to be accepted. To avoid the loss of prestige of the group, the fop was luxuriously dressed, thereby complying with one of the necessary characteristics.

41 The fop’s clothes set him apart from the audience and from the wit characters, but these two groups do not differ from the fop to the same degree. Some of the audience would be incapable of purchasing the superfluity of expensive material objects, while the wit characters are able, but have enough sense to understand the dangers of ridiculous excess.

Although he intended to denounce a different practice, it is interesting to mention Alexander

Pope’s Epistle IV in which he states that “Something there is more needful than expense, /

And something previous ev’n to taste- ‘tis sense:”. While written more than 50 years after The

Man of Mode, it indicates the flaws of the fop perfectly: although he has wealth and some concept of fashion, he lacks the sense to use either adequately.

Additionally, the relationship between material and text was profoundly altered due to significantly more modern views on luxury and theatre. In Restoration drama, expressions of material culture ceased to be restricted to text and, moreover, acquired a new value and status.

No longer was the material culture secondary to the text and the actors, but succeeded in surpassing both on some occasions. In the words of Sarah G. Marsh: [w]here the aural faculty had once been the primary means of interaction, now sight gained authority” (40). While correct on some accounts, it is my opinion that Marsh seriously undervalues the importance of wit in Restoration plays. The expression of material culture and luxury, or “sight” in Marsh’s words, existed in a delicate balance with the high concentration of imagery in the play. This is clearly visible in many ways, two of which I will now discuss.

Firstly, when a fabric or maker, such as Barroy and Le Gras, is mentioned in The Man of Mode, this carries significant cultural and economical value for the audience. The exact value will be discussed for each object later in this dissertation, but it suffices to say here that they provide an insight into both high fashion and the preoccupations of the wealthy. No longer was the mentioning of a fabric a hollow show of luxury in the text, but in the

Restoration it had to be translated into a visual spectacle for the audience who expected, not

42 just the knowledge, but the experience of luxury and fashion. In other words, mentioning expensive fabrics not only enriched the text, but inevitably led to a display of luxury on stage.

In this way, Restoration drama differs from Elizabethan theatre where, in K. R. Kellett’s words, “the luxurious items never achieve visibility with the audience or the reader, but instead remain suspended in [...] words” (428). Cultural changes led to the separation of text and material; both had their importance and function during a performance, but they were inherently separated.

A different concrete example of the changing views on materiality becomes obvious in the light of the costumes employed by Restoration playhouses. Stage props and attire have long been part of the dramatic tradition, but, while both Elizabethan and Restoration performances displayed a wide array of luxurious costumes and theatrical attributes, their function changed significantly after the Commonwealth. Firstly, the Elizabethan costumes were one of the playhouse’s prized possessions, their economic value being so high that losing them would be a considerable blow to the financial status of a company or playhouse.

In the Restoration period, the interest in theatre by the wealthy upper class and the court of

James II resulted in considerable financial stability, although through dependence on a

Maecenas. The fact that some knights and noblemen, Sir George Etherege and the Earl of

Rochester being notable examples, wrote for the theatre, not only secured ongoing financial support, but reveals the social and cultural importance of theatre in the Restoration. In the new culture of excess, the costumes displayed in performances served both to exhibit the importance and aesthetic value of excess, and as a model for fashion.

The costumes of the fashionable characters were lavishly decorated, much like their

Elizabethan counterparts, but there is a significant contrast between Elizabethan and

Restoration costumes since the former were luxurious, extremely valuable and irreplaceable, mainly due to the nature of popular plays at the time. The History plays and comedies were

43 mostly set in times long past or some undefined period of time and therefore required no change of costumes between plays. Restoration comedies, however, while seldom containing an exact date of occurrence, were implicitly considered to take place at the time of performance and, therefore, in the corresponding economical and cultural climate. As a consequence of this, when characters were portrayed as fashionable, they had to appear dressed according to the latest fashion.

Additionally, their function differed greatly from earlier costumes. Not only did they aid to convincingly portray characters and occasionally reveal a social function, as with the fool or characters in morality plays, but they provided an insight into the material culture and high fashion of the time. Since the plays written by James’ court mostly depicted aristocrats who had enjoyed extensive education, their physical appearance had to echo their success and wealth. This meant that actors had to wear fashionable costumes made out of expensive materials in order to heighten the theatrical experience of the audience, some of whom were also aristocrats and would, therefore, be aware of fashion and cost. Since both the members of the audience and the writers of some plays were knights and noblemen, and had spent the

Interregnum in France, they possessed knowledge of fashion and employed these images in their plays. Fashion, however, changed rapidly, as is apparent from Sir Fopling’s fashionable dress, “of the Most Famous hands in Paris” (p37), which is the height of fashion in France, but perceived as ridiculous and overly decorative in England. As a consequence of this changeable nature of fashion in combination with the audience’s awareness of fashion,

Restoration costumes needed to be changed or adjusted regularly in order to adequately represent fashionable characters.

While several playwrights and some members of the audience were aristocrats, the moneyed middle class became more important every day. These nouveau riche, to use an anachronistic term, employed the aristocrats as role models for behaviour and fashion. As is

44 still the case, the aristocrats providing the example intended to distance themselves from other classes by way of fashion. This action proved to be only partly successful as it led to the middle class attempting to copy their style to an even greater extent. As the intention was to express both luxury and uniqueness in opposition to the middle class, the aristocracy considered everything that was copied from them as void of any value or fashionability. In her discussion of the fop, Susan Staves makes exactly this point when she claims that “men who were rich and not aristocratic increasingly were able to purchase the elements of magnificence, thus devaluing them as a token of exclusivity” (426). Furthermore, she adds that laws were passed that penalised lower class people who imitated the aristocracy in dress and behaviour. This drastic action reveals the importance of both appearance and uniqueness for the aristocracy at a time when an increasing number of people gained access to the financial means to purchase luxurious items.

For the aristocracy, middle class copying resulted in the necessity to change the definition of “fashionable” regularly, something that agreed perfectly with the culture of excess which they had adopted. This sheds new light on the relevance of the theatre, not only as meeting place and pinnacle of culture, but as a bridge crossing classes and providing the middle class with information about fashion that they would otherwise have little access to.

With the introduction and popularisation of the fop and rake in Restoration comedy, the culture of excess in fashion became available to all. Generally, the fop lead by negative example, proving how superfluity, if such a term can apply to the Restoration culture, can make one ridiculous while attempting to be fashionable. The rake, however, is commonly fashionable and admirable in appearance by balancing between fashion and fop, or excess and superfluous excess.

45

4. A Life of Luxury: Reading the Material Objects in The Man of Mode

46 The final chapter of this thesis will focus on the expressions of materiality in the Restoration play in practice, which will be investigated via a case study of George Etherege’s The Man of

Mode or Sir Fopling Flutter. This chapter aims to examine the ways in which material culture plays a centre role in the performance. In order to emphasise the importance of such instances and to provide some contextualisation, the economic, social and cultural values of certain objects will be addressed. Moreover, their possible metaphorical interpretations will be explored.

For an investigation of the economic value of objects it is necessary to point out the differences in class and wealth that characterised Restoration society. Firstly, an important section of society which would now be called “lower class” had little or no access to the theatre due to its cost. This class was comprised of, amongst others, manual labourers and servants. A second section of society was a conglomerate of, what would now be called, the middle and lower upper classes. In the introduction to her book Luxury and Pleasure in

Eighteenth-century Britain, Berg collectively named this class “the middling class” or

“middling sort of people” (22). The middling class made up the bulk of the audience for theatrical performances, as they possessed the wealth to attend the theatre and were able to afford the objects promoted in the plays. In addition, some of the most prominent playwrights came from their ranks which inevitably meant that their culture of excess and vision on life was transmitted via the plays. The middling class consisted of shop owners, independent merchants and upcoming gentry. This section is important as some of its member, e.g. the tailors, fabric merchants and commodity salesmen, provided the fashionable and wealthy with the foreign wares that were popular at the time. Furthermore, the gentry became more prominent as a part of the ruling class. Not only did they influence government either directly or via personal connections to people of importance – one calls to mind Etherege’s friendship with Charles II – but they also decided which items were considered fashionable and,

47 therefore, valuable to society. The “upper class” was, at that time, comprised of the aristocracy.

While in Renaissance theatre expressions of material culture or luxury were empty shows of wealth in the text, in Restoration drama they inevitably entailed the visual presence of the object. An exuberant number of items and fabrics are mentioned in The Man of Mode1 and investigating all of these is not possible in the circumscribed scope of a thesis. Instead, I will focus on a selection of objects which were socially, economically or conversationally relevant to the play and the Restoration period, while bearing in mind the difference between the excess of the Restoration and the austerity prominent during the preceding period of the

Commonwealth. Moreover, with regard to the nature of objects, J.G. Harris suggests that “the object remains a thing whose very objecthood is registered in the present instant” (484), indicating that the semantic interpretations of meaning of certain objects differ for the early- modern spectator and the postmodern academic. This means that the object is only attributed with a certain value within the period in which it is viewed. The interpretations and connotations associated with certain material objects have evolved in correspondence with changes in society. Some examples which will be discussed are the mirror which used to require craftsmanship and a considerable amount of money to produce and to purchase, but which can be produced cheaply today, and the fan which was commonplace in the

Restoration, but is considered an antique today.

Along a similar line, Berg argues that fashion was different from luxury on two accounts. Firstly, the former varied in time, while the latter remained static. Nevertheless, both were utilised as class markers by the higher strata to differentiate themselves from the lower classes. Secondly, Berg insists that “the polemic against luxury blocked the analysis of fashion” (42), and that, while some luxury items were, at one time, fashionable, luxury does

1 An inventory is provided in appendix 1

48 not automatically imply fashion and vice versa. A further example illustrating this difference is that luxury was associated with Asia, while fashion was guided by European tastes due to its rapidly changing nature and the limited communication possibilities with the Orient.

Additionally, Berg reveals a difference between the older view of luxury as defined by status and depending on the rank of the possessor, and the more recent eighteenth-century view of luxury as determined by fashion. The former was regarded negatively by the majority of the population, as the rank requirement excluded many, even those who had sufficient funds to purchase a luxury object. The main reasons for this exclusion were the sumptuary laws which prohibited any person except those from the highest ranks to wear certain fabrics or attributes.

These laws were designed to ensure a clear division between those in power and those required to obey, a distinction that rapidly faded with the rise of the middling ranks. The latter view, by contrast, was more positively regarded, as it promised every person the possibility of luxury, no matter what rank or family.

Before discussing the actual examples from the play, it is important to emphasise that exceptionally little research has been done on the material culture. While the history and construction of certain object is widely documented, the social implications of their use on the stage, much less on the Restoration stage in specific, are generally forgotten by scholars. For this reason, the following part of this thesis will consist in a thorough examination and explanation of the importance of certain object without the aid of an extensive amount of secondary texts.

49 The Mirror

The first item which needs to be investigated, both due to its importance in the play and as a result of its intricate metaphorical meanings, is the mirror or glass. “A glass” is first mentioned in the prologue by Sir Car Scroope, Baronet when he states that “Since each is fond of his own ugly Face, / Why shou’d you, when we hold it, break the Glass” (48). This first mention of the glass demonstrates the importance of the mirror and mirror images in the play. In addition, as the prologue was not written by Etherege and is addressed directly at a heterogeneous audience, it shows that the metaphorical use was known, used and understood by a multitude of people, not just a single playwright. Sir Car Scroope claims that this play – the mirror which a playwright holds up to society – should yield kindness and is criticising what is wrong in society. While other contemporary playwrights – such as William

Wycherley in his The Gentleman Dancing Master – mocked the stupidities of other nations and twisted mores, The Man of Mode underlines some of the vices displayed in the society represented by the audience. Sir Car Scroope requests the audience to forgive the playwright, a member of high society, for denouncing the vices in Restoration society, “his own ugly

Face,” which they mock in foreign countries, and not to look upon the play unfavourably for doing so. His argument reflects the criticism Etherege attempts to convey, focusing on the foreign influences and vices brought from France by Charles II and his court. Both Etherege and Sir Car Scroope find many faults in their countrymen and question the need to ridicule other nations for their faults while their own people, the audience of the play, exhibit so many. The mirror serves to reflect what is wrong with society without proposing any solutions, a technique Hume calls “the claim for realism” (312), and, similarly, resembles the play that reflects without providing the characters or the audience with answers. In this way,

Restoration comedy differs from earlier plays which exhibited some form of guidance for the

50 audience. Furthermore, much like a mirror, the play provides the audience with guidelines to adjust their dress and sharpen their sense of fashion, using the play as an example.

A second mention of the mirror can be found in Act IV, Scene II where Sir Fopling asks Dorimant “why [he] hast not […] a glass hung up here”, adding that “a room is the dullest thing without one!” (118). This instance already reveals one of the primary functions the mirror fulfills in the eyes of the fop: entertainment. Although Sir Fopling is in the presence of two men he values highly, both for their sense of dress and wit, he is still inclined to search for diversion in a reflection of himself. The fop’s search for a mirror could be interpreted as his attempt to compare his own appearance to that to the other men, as an egocentric action enabling him to become the centre of attention once more or to affirm his self proclaimed aesthetic superiority. The implied sexual meaning of masturbation which is commonly associated with the mirror is also present in Sir Fopling’s question2. When

Dorimant replies to Sir Fopling’s question stating that there is no need for a mirror when there is company in the room, Sir Fopling proposes that it is convenient when one is alone, as “[in] a glass a man may entertain himself” (118). This statement is followed by a long pause, indicating that the playwright was aware of the sexual innuendo of the sentence. The reference to masturbation, the act of entertaining oneself while admiring one’s own beauty, and the importance of this passage cannot be underestimated since it reveals the untruthfulness of images and shallowness of the fop. The mirror provides what Dorimant calls

“a shadow of oneself” (118), a perfect reflection of a person’s exterior, but omitting the thoughts and feelings. This reflection is only a shadow of the complex combination of interior and exterior which comprise a human being. Much like the fop, the mirror foregrounds beauty and appearance while ignoring character and wit. Sarah Grace Marsh claims that Sir Fopling’s

“satisfaction in the ‘shadow’ surface reflection of things” (49) is what makes him a fop. In

2 See: Valeria Finucci and Regina Schwartz, Desire in the Renaissance: Psychoanalisis and Literature, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994) 146-166.

51 contrast, Dorimant, who looks through the superficiality of the mirror, denounces the

“indulgence of self-examination” (49).

The fop’s superficiality is also reflected by Medley’s interjection that “in your solitude you remember the saying of the wise man, and study yourself” (118). Medley’s remark caters to the needs of both the fop and the rake, since it can be interpreted as both a compliment and a sarcastic remark. To Sir Fopling, a man with limited knowledge of the “wise men”, the writers and philosophers of the age, Medley is congratulating his use of time. Sir Fopling would interpret the “wise men” as men with a sense of fashion, and his interpretation as such is confirmed when he provides the example of Merille, the valet to the Duc de Candale. It is more probable, however, that Medley utilises a sarcastic remark to express an insult and his meaning is, in fact, that, if Sir Fopling would study the philosophers of the age, he would realise the futility of a mirror and value internal over external reflection. Both Medley and

Dorimant understand that a mirror provides only a reflection, or shadow, of the exterior of a person, while solitude is best used for the moral examination and intellectual expansion of the self.

These interpretations reveal the close relation between the fop and the mirror. The fop utilises the mirror to reassure himself of his own beauty and to allow him to adjust his appearance at all times. This constant use of the mirror was seen as a prototypically and caricaturally female occupation during the Restoration. The relation between female beauty and the mirror is also useful in this context. On the one hand, the fop possesses various feminine characteristics, both in appearance and attitude. He is aware of fashion and gossip, refrains from fighting and spends most of his time in the company of women. On the other hand, his appearance resembles that of a woman so that the entertainment or masturbation acquires a new dimension. Since the fop’s clothes and movements lean towards the feminine, the object of his desire, they allow him to take pleasure in a shadow of the female beauty

52 instead of simply enjoying the beauty of the self as reflected in the mirror, a typical act of homoerotic desire. Linked to this is the obvious vanity of the fop. He believes himself to be perfection in every way, as a conversational partner, as a fashionable man, but also as a woman. He is aware of fashion, an area of interest typically reserved for women, and instead of actively pursuing women, he aims to be pursued and sets an example of beauty for women through his clothes. Additionally, the mirror represents a dream image to the fop and the rake.

To the former, the mirror represents his ultimate desire, a being consisting solely of an exterior; an empty, but ornate, shell. To the latter, the image is a nightmare, a reflection without any intellect, the very kind of person he mocks every day.

Along a similar line, Maxine Berg argues that there is some similarity between the mirror and fashion, as both imitate an example. She states that “eighteenth-century designers and consumers adopted ‘imitation’ as a principle of taste” (23), emphasising that foreign influence and national styles were combined in order to create fashion. Originally, luxury goods were imported to England, but would cost excessive amounts of money due to the risk and expense of travelling. Eventually, the local craftsmen would imitate the design of the object, altering the materials, but preserving the original desirable appearance. Berg also notes that “the arts of imitation were combined with the science of invention” (23), and provides the example of exotic woods which were replaced by veneers in order to produce objects more cost-efficiently. The mirror could also be considered in the same light. While initially expensive, through the invention of new alloys and methods of producing glass, the Venetian mirrors were gradually being replaced by mirrors produced in England.

In economic terms, the mirror was both expensive and a work of craftsmanship.

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, before the sixteenth century, mirrors consisted of a plate of metal, usually tin, bronze or silver, which would be polished to a high shine. Apart from the poor reflective quality and the effects of corrosion, it required a substantial amount

53 of metal and was, therefore, hugely expensive. During the sixteenth century a new method was devised which entailed “backing a plate of flat glass with a thin sheet of reflecting metal”

(Encyclopaedia Britannica Online). This method would allow the use of less metal for a greater number of mirrors combined with a clearer reflection. Unfortunately, it also made the mirrors more fragile, making them difficult to transport and, therefore, more expensive.

Adding to this cost was the production of large glass panes which required patience and delicacy for its construction. In the sixteenth century, Venice and Nuremberg became important centres for mirror production utilising an amalgam of tin and mercury, while a similar process using silver was only invented in 1835 by Justus von Liebig.

By the middle of the seventeenth century, Paris and London were also able to produce mirrors, but Venice maintained its reputation of producing high-quality mirrors. Since

Venetian mirrors were both economically and aesthetically valuable, they were extremely popular in Restoration society and, in addition to the mirror itself, frames became increasingly popular. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the frames of the seventeenth century were made of “ivory, silver, ebony or tortoiseshell or […] veneered with marquetry of walnut, olive, and laburnum. Needlework and bead frames were also to be found” (Encyclopaedia

Britannica Online). The use of these expensive materials for frames proves that, while the cost of a mirror itself was substantial, there was a market for expensive, luxuriously crafted frames to accompany it.

It is important to mention that the mirror in The Man of Mode is noted because of its absence. This could signify that Etherege believed Restoration society to be without internal reflection, without anybody to comment on and criticise the vices. According to Sir Car

Scroope’s prologue, this is exactly what the play aims to do, to act as a mirror to society. In

The Man of Mode, the absence of a mirror in Dorimant’s rooms –an object which represented wealth and fashionable status and would, therefore, be expected – could, on a metaphorical

54 level, represent Dorimant’s lack of reflection on his own actions and life. Contrary to Sir

Fopling, readers expect Dorimant to be self-reflective, as he often boasts about his mental faculties. However, the mirror, which would provide reflection in its most basic form, is absent from his home. The lack of reflection might explain Dorimant’s inconsiderate nature and his, at times, cruel actions towards women. Similarly, Sir Fopling’s question regarding the mirror might reveal a profound insecurity about his appearance. The fop describes the function of the mirror as enabling one to “Correct the errors of [one’s] motion and [one’s] dress” (118), emphasising that he finds it necessary to constantly adjust his attire and confirm that his clothes reflect the culture of excess. Moreover, in terms of performativity, one can imagine Sir Fopling striking various poses in front of the mirror, even though it is absent. The thought of a mirror would grant enough reason for the fop to parade across the stage, putting on a display of his clothes and his, overly feminine, movements.

There are several instances of different, more common uses of the word “glass” in the play. Firstly, since the culture of excess also entailed the consuming of alcoholic beverages, the glass is frequently used as the object containing a liquid. The importance of beverages such as wine, brandy, ale and sack becomes more apparent when one considers the fact that, in the first scene of the play, they are used as terms of praise or insult. Dorimant and Medley insult the Orange-woman, calling her “an insignificant brandy bottle” and “three quarts of canary” (51), terms which, as the notes state, are linked to prostitution. Later in the same scene, the two gentlemen mock and rebuke a shoemaker for drinking, while they themselves admit to being drunk on several occasions. Interestingly, there are many references to drinking and drunkenness, but there is no actual instance of drinking in the play. While luxury objects were being displayed on stage, alcohol was not, a strange occurrence considering the festive nature of some scenes.

55 A different meaning can be found in Act II, Scene I, when Lady Townley compares

Medley’s exaggerated gossip to placing a maggot or a flea under a magnifying glass. Similar to the mirror, this use of “glass” is situated in the realm of the optical. The magnifying glass enlarges and deforms the object placed underneath and is in this way linked to the fop and his exaggeration of excess. Like the magnifying glass, the fop distorts and attempts to highlight natural beauty. An interesting question is whether he succeeds in enhancing beauty or only deforming it to the point of ridicule. The fop and the magnifying glass share the same goal: both attempt to magnify life in one way or the other. In addition, they pertain to the same culture of luxury. The fop required a substantial amount of money to appear fashionable and to be able to change his clothes and accessories whenever fashion changed. He is at home in the world of luxury and has access to the funds needed to partake in the game of fashion. The magnifying glass was one of the luxury items at the fop’s disposal. It needed to be crafted with special care and skill in order to create a lens able to magnify evenly. Furthermore, Sarah

Grace Marsh suggests that the play itself could be seen as a microscope or magnifying glass.

Her argument is that the play exaggerates the faults of society and investigates the vices prevalent at court in order to ridicule them.

The Fan

A second object which features prominently in the play is the fan. There are 11 individual mentions of the material object of the fan and, since this figure does not include such references as “afanning” (83) and “Mr Wagfan” (70), it is clear that the fan was important in both Restoration society and the play. A selection of representative instances from the play reveals the textual and performative importance of the fan and a possible explanation for the popularity of the fan is provided by Maxine Berg in the introductory chapter to her book

Luxury and Pleasure in Eighteenth-century Britain. She proposes that the trade with Asian

56 markets and the consequential import of luxury items provided a stepping-stone for middling class luxuries. Objects such as the fan were “brought into Britain in quantities and at prices which made them available to a discerning middling class” (24). Since “[t]heir key attribute was their availability in a range of patterns, styles, qualities, and prices” (24), fans were available for a market ranging from the lower middling class to the richest aristocrats.

Firstly, in Act III, Scene II, Young Bellair and Harriet attempt to convince their parents that they are in love, while both intend to marry another. They do, however, recognise the movements and facial expressions lovers make and instruct each other to assume the correct positions, knowing what their respective parent would want to observe. Harriet is in possession of a fan and Young Bellair instructs her to use it profusely, having her “play”,

”spread”, “clap” and finally “snatch [her] fan” (82-83). This passage reveals the importance of the fan in seduction and courting. It fulfilled two functions since it could be used both as a weapon and a shield. On the one hand, the fan was used to point at things, to clap or spread and to fan oneself, actions with a considerable suddenness to them, which, therefore, seem aggressive. On the other hand, they were also used to shield one’s face or to play around with, actions which imply a degree of weakness and bashfulness. A prime example of this dual function can be found in Act III, Scene I, when Harriet tells Young Bellair she will “look bashfully down upon [her] fan, while [he], like an amorous spark, modishly entertains [her]”

(81). The opposition between shielding and attacking reflects the conflict women were confronted with in the Restoration period, at once having to appear coy and guard their honour while also partaking in the aggressive courting and the battle of wits which took place.

The attribute of the fan suited both occasions: it could be used either to deflect or to draw attention to its holder. As a result, it was seen as the female attribute par excellence. Similar to men wearing swords for decorative and symbolic reasons, women possessed the fan. The gender specific attributes could be seen as a metaphor for the acts of courting which took

57 place in the Restoration. The man aggressively “attacked” the woman with his “sword”, while she, in turn, shielded herself with her fan. It is clear that the sword could be a phallic symbol and the fan could represent either the women’s coyness which needed to be penetrated by the man, or even her maidenhead, penetrated by the man’s attacks. Similarly, the fan saves the woman from sexual desire, or heat, by fanning herself. By remaining cool, the woman would not succumb to the advances of the man, thereby shielding her.

Secondly, in Act II, Scene II, Medley reports to Lady Townley and Emilia that

Dorimant “has made [Mrs. Loveit] break a dozen or two fans already” (67). This can easily be linked to the culture of excess since the fan, a luxury object by any standard, was destroyed and thrown away on a whim. Furthermore, neither Medley nor the women seem to be extraordinarily distressed at this wastage. To them, the element of interest is in the emotional action, not the economic loss. The fan would have been constructed with craftsmanship out of luxury fabrics, but could be destroyed by the flick of the wrist, making it a prime example of a society where the wealthy would buy and destroy fashionable objects without considering the cost. Additionally, since the audience of a performance would follow the theatrical example, destroying a dozen or two fans would be regarded as acceptable, perhaps even degrading the fan to a disposable object instead of a luxury commodity.

Berg comments on the desirability of objects and claims that “[o]bjects frequently seen together became complimentary, and [...] the attraction of each was increased” (36). As a consequence of what she terms fashion, a displayed object was associated with wealth and given a certain value by the high ranking. When these people no longer carried the object as part of their apparel, the object lost all its grace. Similarly, when the fan was destroyed in the play, by actors depicting those of a higher rank, the item could lose some of its appeal. If it were to be associated with actors rather than the rich, it would fall into disregard. In this way,

Berg’s view also underlines the educational and fashion-constructing function of the theatre.

58 On a metaphorical level, the tearing of the fan can be interpreted to signify that the woman has either lost her honour, breaking her defence as she has no more need for it, or as a sign that she is willing to lose her honour, lowering her guard. In the latter interpretation, the destruction of the fan entails that the woman no longer needs to be cooled off, but rather will submit to the heat, or sexual desire, and, therefore, to the man.

Thirdly, in Act II, Scene II, the stage directions reveal that Loveit “Tears her Fan in pieces” (73). In essence, the action is the same as the destruction of fans Medley mentioned earlier, but it is also important because of its performativity. While the two dozen destroyed fans remained off-stage, the audience can witness Loveit rip her fan to pieces. More so than with the previous destruction, the ripping apart on stage underlines the disposability and disregard for value which Etherege attempts to denounce in the play. The fan is a trifle for the wealthy and they would not bat an eye at its destruction, while the lower end of the middle class, who were also present in the audience and would not be able to afford a fan, would react heavily to its destruction. In addition, the presence of a fan on stage added to the realism of the scene and proves that the theatre had sufficient funds to use an actual fan, as opposed to the absent mirror discussed before. Concerning the materiality of the fan, one might suggest that the fan used on stage was made of an inexpensive material such as velum or cheap paper and not, as would have been the case in a wealthy household as that of Loveit, of silk. Berg uses the term populuxe goods for “inexpensive versions of aristocratic luxuries” (25), and adds that, via new inventions and procedures of manufacturing, cheap paper could be produced. These innovations facilitated the sale of inexpensive stage props, but, nevertheless, the destruction of a fan, no matter how valuable, would elicit mixed reactions from the audience.

A distinction must be made between the voluntary destruction of a fan, as depicted in

Act II, Scene II, and the accidental tearing of the object. The former is an act of wastefulness

59 with a complete disregard for monetary value, while the latter is a natural consequence of frequent use. Moreover, while the willing destruction of a fan sets a negative example for the audience, the accidental damaging can be regarded as inevitable and, therefore, less shocking.

Nevertheless, when one considers that frequent use of the fan could indicate an increase in sexual desire or repeated instances of flirting, the tearing through use could have been used by

Etherege to shock his audience once again.

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, fans have been produced since the seventeenth century B.C. in India, where they were carried by men of authority. They were usually made of feathers mounted on wood, and, from the beginning of the Middle Ages, adorned with silver or silver gilt bells. The model of folding fans that is referred to in the play was designed in Japan and later exported to China. It was originally constructed out of bamboo and paper, and decorated with drawings or lines of poetry. By the fourteenth century, fans had been introduced to Europe through Italy and generally consisted of an ivory frame mounted with velum. As a consequence of their lasting popularity as a personal luxury object, a system originated whereby the fan would be utilised to convey signals to admirers or rivals.

An example of this use of the fan can be seen in the courtship between Young Bellair and

Harriet discussed above. During the seventeenth century, fans were mainly produced in Paris and exported to Spain, where they were decorated by native artists. Moreover, the

Encyclopaedia Britannica mentions that, in the eighteenth century, luxury fans were constructed out of carved ivory or mother-of-pearl, mounted with Taffeta, silk or fine parchment, and decorated with “little circles of glass” and “the finest point lace”(Encyclopaedia Britannica). The fans were painted in the fashion of the greatest artists of the time or, alternatively, so-called “fan-painters” were employed for a personalised decoration.

60 Berg underlines the novel part played by women in relation to luxury. She claims that historians of luxury have noted the increasing importance of the domestic setting in the display of luxury and, as a consequence, a more important role was fulfilled by women (39), for example, by means of displaying painted fans. By having scenes from classical mythology or lines of poetry by respected or popular authors painted on fans, women would have a rare opportunity to showcase their rank and education. Considering the culture of excess the characters were part of, and Loveit’s apparent wealth, one would expect her fan to be made of ivory and silk, decorated with lace and painted by artists. One could say that the destruction of the fan is, therefore, extraordinarily shocking and unexpected, but Maxine Berg points out that “[g]etting wealth was also about spending it”, adding that “new domestic possessions became consumer goods” (19). This novel view of wealth would signify that the destruction and acquisition of new fans were all part of the social norms of the wealthy. Before an object was no longer fashionable, it was destroyed in a fit, as a result of which the commodities purchased by the wealthy to replace their broken goods were the height of fashion.

Jocelyn Powell suggests that the fan and its destruction also serve a humorous purpose. She states that “we laugh at the impotence of the gesture to express the feeling, and her helplessness before [Dorimant]” (63). The fan has failed as a shield against the male attack and is, therefore, no longer useful. It loses all the powers it previously held and the fact that Dorimant is aware of this is apparent when he says “Spare your fan, madam, you are growing hot, and will want it to cool you down” (73). The most straightforward interpretation is that, through the destruction of her fan, Loveit can no longer cool herself and, as a consequence of her rage, is getting hotter. However, a more symbolic interpretation would be that, without her fan, Loveit is no longer able to resist Dorimant’s sexual advances, or even that she would need a fan to cool herself down after intercourse. On the one hand, there is evidence justifying a sexual interpretation of the fan and its destruction. In Act I, Scene I,

61 Dorimant informs Medley that he “[has not had] the pleasure of making a woman so much as break her fan […] these three days” (55). While this could be interpreted as general mischief or even spitefulness, in the light of Dorimant’s cruelty towards women combined with his sexually explicit nature, one might also interpret his remark as a sexual reference. He had formerly stated that it had been three days since he saw Loveit, and, therefore, three days without sexual intercourse of any kind. On the other hand, Powell suggests that pestering women might have been Dorimant’s idea of sport. She writes that “[t]he men are hunting after occupation” and “take up with people always on the same grounds: the possibility of temporary amusement” (56). This claim might be an indication that, while sexual pleasure is the rake’s objective in some cases, other instances of courting are centred around a sadistic pleasure in making others suffer.

Lastly, an interesting occurrence of a fan in the play can be found in Act V, Scene I where Dorimant reprimands Loveit for spending time with fops. Most importantly, he tells her that Sir Fopling had been “Playing with [her] fan” (126), indicating how improper it was for a man to handle a fan, except as an act of seduction. The action should not come as a surprise considering the fop’s effeminate manner, but does reveal the double meaning of the fan. While one could suggest that, by taking the fan from the woman, Sir Fopling robs her of her defence, the defensive properties of the fan are also projected on the fop and the woman is no longer in need of defence. The coyness which is characteristic of the women and embodied by the fan also applies to Sir Fopling who, as has been observed earlier, pursues women, but never engages in sexual contact of any kind.

62 The Periwig

A third object which perfectly reflects the importance of material culture is the periwig, which serves as a symbol of both luxury and status. Although the Egyptians, ancient Greeks and

Romans wore wigs, their function changed drastically in the Restoration. In the former historical periods, wigs were worn as a replacement for natural hair, which would generally be infested with lice and fleas, due to a lack of hygiene. According to R. Corson, after falling into disuse during the Middle Ages, wigs were made popular again at the court of the French

Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV who wore wigs to conceal their premature baldness. In order to show respect and to support their King, the other members of the court started wearing wigs themselves. As discussed in the historical contextualisation, Charles II and his entourage had fled to France during the Commonwealth, where they picked up the habit of wearing wigs and brought it back to England. Originally, the wigs had a natural colour, but they were soon powdered and perfumed after the French fashion.

The wearing of wigs was denounced by many on religious grounds and applauded by some on economical grounds. Firstly, Lynn Festa reports that the wig was “the artificial enhancement of appearance, with its attendant manipulation of God-given traits, and the deception of the unsuspecting observer” (47). The main religious objection to the wig is, therefore, that man would alter the perfection of God’s creation by wearing another person’s hair. One might propose that wearing clothes constitutes a similar action and is, therefore, equally problematic. However, as Festa states, while “[t]he wig is affiliated with clothing by virtue of its detachability, its ornamental nature, and its function as covering” (60), it differs from clothing since it blurs both class and gender differences and, therefore, attempts to alter

God’s creation. In addition, the commercialisation of wigs provided men with the opportunity to purchase the signs of nobility and rank, without possessing the right of birth which, supposedly, God granted them. Expensive wigs were made of human hair which was

63 collected from people of different genders, ranks, political affiliations and crafts, thereby not only effectively undermining the clear social hierarchy, but possibly altering the gender of the whole body. Festa bases her claim on puritan tracts which argued that, if sexually stable attributes such as a woman’s long hair could travel, what was to stop a person’s gender from changing. She even borrows the term hermaphrodites from Richardson to properly name the wearing of “a female head to a male face” (62). While Festa claims that the wig deceives the

“unsuspecting observer”, this statement does not apply to The Man of Mode. Sir Fopling wears a wig, but rather than deceiving anybody, he accentuates his presence and identity.

Secondly, the economic implications of the wig are twofold. On the one hand, they provided an additional income for those who supplied the hair and stimulated the economy as a consequence of the wig’s many designs and rapidly changing fashionability. Festa remarks that only the rich could afford to have such a tiresome and labour-intensive object, making the wig both exclusive and fashionable. The status of hair, formerly solely a by-product of human life, also changed significantly. In the eighteenth century, hair became a commodity and Festa compares it to the fleece of a sheep, part of the economic produce of a person. Secondly, the wig required up to two pound of powder for one pound of hair. This flour-based powder added to the cost of owning and maintaining a wig and contributed to the fact that, by 1800, the object had lost its fashionable status.

The wig provoked a problematic debate with regards to the individuality of a person, a characteristic highly regarded in Restoration society, as is apparent from the characters Sir

Fopling and Dorimant. Again, Festa provides several insights. Firstly, she claims that two forms of individuality surfaced in the eighteenth century: the “subject as individual” and the

“self as the possessor of detachable parts” (48). Similarly to the mirror, the main opposition is between a human being as internally or externally constructed. It has already been pointed out that Dorimant spends time on internal reflection while Sir Fopling lacks any form of internal

64 content, a characteristic emphasised by his wig. Furthermore, according to Festa “the paradox of the wig […] lies in the fact that the object meant to proclaim its wearer to be a freestanding individual is harvested from the bodies of other people” (48). While it is true that, in an attempt to express his individuality, Sir Fopling wears the hair of several other individuals, on a more profound level he shows himself to be a slave to the market and the whims of fashion.

Rather than being an independently minded individual, the wig proves that he follows the opinions and taste of a select group of people. In Festa’s words, “[t]he wig ceases to be the sign of masculine autonomy and becomes instead a declaration of one’s subjection to fashion and of one’s overvaluation of mere things” (49). This evolution is clearly visible in Sir

Fopling, who wears a wig because it is fashionable; unlike Dorimant who values his individuality more than his fashionability. Moreover, a distinction should be made between what Festa terms the inalienable person and his alienable possessions (68). The former contains everything that is inherently part of a person such as character and parts of the body whereas the latter is comprised of the worldly possessions of that person. In this division, the wig plays a conflicting role, since it is both part of a person and a product of the body, much like fingernails. Through its commodification, hair is also being utilised as an object with market value.

In a comparable manner, Festa points out that writers of the so-called wig tracts – texts written to denounce the wearing of wigs – doubted whether man was made up of body parts and attributes hiding the self, or whether there was nothing but emptiness underneath luxurious expressions of fashion such as the wig. Etherege once again questions the internal content of the fop by having Sir Fopling attempt to focus all conversational attention on his attire rather than on his personality. Perhaps, once every layer of clothing is peeled away from the fop, nothing of interest remains, a thought that would explain why Sir Fopling never

65 engages in any sexual acts or true commitment. These acts would require him to open up and allow people to see the person instead of the dressed-up character.

The Man of Mode contains various references to the periwig, all of which are connected to the character of the fop. The wit characters considered it to be one of the most despised attributes of Sir Fopling because of its superfluous extravagance. The first important mention can be found in Act I, Scene I, when Medley complains about Sir Fopling to

Dorimant. He states that Sir Fopling wore “a periwig more exactly curled than a lady’s head newly dressed for a ball”, to which Dorimant replies that “he affects in imitation of the people of quality in France” (59). It is important to remark that Sir Fopling is being compared to a woman, a comparison which he frequently elicits as a result of his appearance and character.

Although the fop is being mocked for his wig and its resemblance to that of a woman, one must remember that, through the mirror Etherege is holding up to society, the French fashion and Restoration court is equally being mocked. While a proportion of society was struggling to attain sufficient food for survival, the elite spent money on replacement hair that they kept perfectly groomed with flour at all time. Furthermore, while the wig could represent luxury and wealth, it could also be considered a sign of old age and baldness. In her discussion of Wycherley’s The Country Wife, Rosenthal suggests that Horner, one of the protagonists, “[exposes] the elite’s lack of inherent superiority” (20). I would suggest that by having Dorimant and Medley expose the absurdity of the wig, Etherege is scraping away the veneer of high society and exposing their weakness. Wealthy gentlemen, like all men, can go bald with age and Etherege confirms this fact by emphasising the wig as the object of ridicule.

Additionally, baldness was frequently associated with venereal diseases, some of which were treated with mercury and caused hair-loss. Ironically, Sir Fopling, the wearer of the wig, would seldom be linked to venereal diseases as he appears to be an asexual character.

66 Sir Fopling’s dubious sexual nature becomes more evident in the light of Berg’s remark that “[i]ndubitably the primary cause of the development of any kind of luxury is most often to be sought in consciously or unconsciously operative sex impulses” (38). On the one hand, Sir Fopling is the primary exhibitor of luxury, a trait he takes to heart, as he has very little interior characteristics. He is a driving force behind the introduction and popularisation of fashionable items and, as a result, aids its development. On the other hand, as mentioned before, Sir Fopling appears to be disinterested in sexual conquests of any kind, even to the point of asexuality. It is, therefore, imperative to discuss the ambiguity of the fop’s motivation. One possibility is that the fop’s ultimate enjoyment and goal in life is conversational attention, while sexual attraction is the instrument he employs to attain his goal. The fop utilises the instruments of seduction in order to become the conversational topic, while simultaneously educating those around him on the possibilities of fashion.

In addition, women were known to wear knots in their hair, false pieces of hair which made up their hairdo. It is interesting in this context to mention that, apart from tearing her fan, Loveit is also said to have destroyed “knots without number” (Etherege 67). The knots, as the notes state, are tight curls of supplement hair, added to the natural hair of a woman to make it appear fuller. According to Festa, these “purchased tresses” were “stiffened with pomade and brushed over wool, hemp, or wire pads” and “could attain heights of up to two feet, often embellished with ribbons, living flowers […], pearls, models of ships, coaches, and windmills” (54). All these additions, in combination with the fact that everything was pinned to the natural hair and could, therefore, not be removed, resulted in such inconveniences as insects, smells, rodents and even difficulty to get through doors.

A second interesting occurrence of the wig can be found in Act III, Scene II, where the wit characters sarcastically praise several items of Sir Fopling’s clothing. The enumeration provides a valuable insight into the luxury and foreign influence connected to the fop’s attire,

67 but it also underlines that the wit characters are aware of its significance. Like the fop, they recognise the quality and expenses that are inferred by the outfit. In contrast to Sir Fopling, they have enough sense of fashion not to combine all of the objects to avoid superfluous excess. Sir Fopling is not only the butt of jokes, but also an example of male and female fashionability, although in a superfluous and, therefore, ridiculous manner. His attire is an inventory of fashion and he displays his clothes as a salesman, claiming a relation to the people of quality in France. In relation to this, Berg argues that “traders in foreign goods clashed with local sumptuary structures” (29) and were, consequently, often seen as strangers or even hostile to local trade. Some interesting questions in the light of this statement are, firstly, whether the fop would be seen as a local or foreign influence, and, secondly, whether he would be judged to be friendly or hostile. It is fair to say that Sir Fopling’s position is situated in the middle of this diametric opposition. On the one hand, the fop’s clothes and manners are copied directly from the courtiers of the French court and it is obvious from his conversations that he values the French customs over the English. On the other hand, Sir

Fopling was originally English and is, therefore, a countryman of the wit characters. Another possible interpretation of Berg’s earlier statement is that the fop is perceived as hostile by men since, in theory, he is a competitor in the game of wit and the courting of women. These women would have nothing to fear from the asexual fop, a thought that is demonstrated by

Lady Townley’s acceptance of the fop while she fears Dorimant.

An additional problem is that, while the playwright criticises the French ways and foreign ideas of fashion expressed by Sir Fopling, both Charles II and Etherege were influenced by their stay in France during the Commonwealth, a factor made abundantly clear by the wigs they wore. This ambiguity is reflected in the fact that, while Sir Fopling is not necessarily perceived as hostile, few people are actually friendly towards him. This could mean that the other characters sense that their traditions and values are being threatened by

68 the fop and his continental thoughts. Again, one must question Etherege’s motives in writing the play in this way as he himself was profoundly influenced by foreign values.

During the description of the fop, the wit characters each mention one item of clothing in turn, ending in the climactic exclamation “The Gloves!” by both Lady Townley and Emilia.

I have opted to work with the original 1676 version of the play on this occasion, as I believe the punctuation reflects the action more adequately:

EMILIA: He wears nothing but what are Originals of the Most Famous hands in Paris. SIR FOPLING: You are in the right, Madam. LADY TOWNLEY: The Suit. SIR FOPLING: Barroy. EMILIA: The Garniture. SIR FOPLING: Le Gras --- MEDLEY: The Shooes! SIR FOPLING: Piccar! DORIMANT: The Perirwig! SIR FOPLING: Chedreux. LADY TOWNLEY and EMILIA: The Gloves! SIR FOPLING: Orangerii! You know the smell, Ladies! (37) The naming of specialised designers adds reality to the performance, but, additionally, it provides an insight into what was considered fashionable, thereby instructing the audience. It also grants Sir Fopling the opportunity to parade around the stage once more, making him the centre of attention and allowing him to exhibit his clothes. The name given to the wig,

Chedreux, is of particular importance since it allows one to envision what Sir Fopling would look like, without any stage-directions. The notes to this section in the Chaucer Press edition state that Chedreux was a “fashionable wig-maker; also a wig invented by him” (90) and the term perruques à la Chedreux is also used in Shadwell’s Bury Fair and Oldham’s Poems and

Translations. There are, however, no images or descriptions that clearly depict or mention

Chedreux, but the name itself and period of the references provide one with some information. It is probable that the wigs were styled after the French fashion of the late 1650s, after which they became popular amongst the English aristocracy in the earliest part of the eighteenth century. It remains difficult to pinpoint the exact model since Oldham mentioned

69 Chedreux in 1683, decades before the wig became an object of luxury in England. Keeping in mind Sir Fopling’s extravagant nature, the Full Bottom type of wig seems most likely. This type was at the height of its popularity in England in 1715 and its purpose was to attract attention with its huge volume and the custom to powder and perfume it. From 1720 onwards, wigs became smaller and more natural and eventually disappeared, partly as a consequence of a famine which led to Pitt’s guinea tax on hair powder, which was derived from wheat (Festa

79).

The last mention of a periwig that needs to be addressed can be found in Act IV, Scene

II. The scene contains a passage where Dorimant and Medley compliment Sir Fopling on his

Brandenburgh morning gown, but they remark that they sometimes see him wearing it while keeping his periwig on. Sir Fopling responds that “[w]e should not always be in a set dress,

‘tis more en cavalier to appear now and then in a dissabilleé” (119). This occurrence of the wig is important for several reasons. Firstly, it provides evidence that Sir Fopling does not consider his wig to be part of his dress, since he can wear a wig and appear in a dissabilleé.

Secondly, it shows that the fop is ready at all times to receive guests, wearing an expensive morning gown which nobody would see under normal circumstances. Thirdly, Sir Fopling admits that his objective is to appear en cavalier, probably meaning that he intends to appear as a member of the French court, his examples in fashion and bearing. This statement means that the French cavaliers took the effort to appear effortless, an attitude Sir Fopling attempts, but fails to imitate, since he insists on wearing his wig at all times, unlike the French. The wig serves the same purpose as the band of fiddles that nearly always accompanies Sir Fopling since it brings an air of performance to his life. With regard to the fiddles, Powell even claims that, “moving at his pleasure, […] they become extensions of their master, and spread his vigorous personality all over the stage” (48). Similarly, the wig always draws attention to Sir

Fopling when he walks on stage, and makes his usurpation of the conversational attention

70 more realistic. Powell also states that “[t]he dressing provides the narrative framework of action” (59), which becomes abundantly clear when one considers the numerous instances in the play where dress, rather that action, is the focus. All elements considered, Sir Fopling performs very few actions, except when being prompted to do so by Dorimant. His merit as a character lies in his performative appearance and indirect influence on other characters, who mock his style and absurdity, but, eventually, adjust their actions to either aid or thwart the fop.

The Cravat

The final important item that is mentioned on numerous occasions in the play is the cravat. A useful primary source to illustrate the importance and influence of the cravat over time is The

Art of Tying the Cravat, a pocket manual written in 1828 by Henry Le Blanc. It provides a history of the cravat and, in addition, some thoughts on the cravat’s influence on society.

Although Le Blanc’s book was written more than 150 years after the publication of The Man of Mode, his claim that “it is a criterion by which the rank of the wearer may be at once distinguished, and is of itself ‘a letter of introduction’”(iv) proves its continuing importance as an indicator of social standing. It is important to observe that, unlike the wig and fan which became unfashionable relatively quickly, the cravat was still popular in Le Blanc’s time and, if one considers that the present-day necktie originated from the cravat, its popularity continues today.

In order to adequately assess the importance of a cravat as an indispensable object of luxury and indicator or fashionability, it is necessary to observe Le Blanc’s statement that

“[t]he greatest insult that can be offered to a man, comme il faut, is to seize him by the

Cravat; in this case, blood only can wash out the stain upon the honour of either party” (62).

71 While one would expect the wig or sword to be the object representing the honour of a gentleman, Le Blanc’s opinion sheds new light on the cravat. It is possible that, as the cravat was nearer to the throat than any other object, seizing one by the cravat equalled seizing one’s throat, an act of immense aggression and in itself probable cause for a duel.

The first mention of a cravat in Etherege’s play can be found in Act II, Scene II during a fight between Dorimant and Loveit. The rake accuses the lady of being overly familiar with the fop in order to make her angry. In his feigned jealousy he informs Loveit “that ever I should love a woman that can dote on a senseless caper, a tawdry French riband and a formal cravat” (76), implying that he has been a fool for having done so. This passage is of particular interest as it reveals a difference in acceptability between a formal cravat and an informal cravat. Le Blanc states that the cravat originated from military dress which might reveal that, by wearing a formal cravat, the fop associates himself with the military. Any person with respect for the military, especially after an armed conflict such as the Civil War, would consider Sir Fopling wearing part of a military uniform as an insult to the valour of those lost in battle. As mentioned before, the fop aims to be pursued rather than to hunt, an additional difference to the men of arms he attempts to associate himself with. Similar to many other occasions where Dorimant discusses the fop and his appearance, the comment is accompanied with disgust and disrespect towards the fop. The rake employs the fop’s physical attributes and his general appearance to vent his disagreement with Sir Fopling’s ways and Loveit’s association with him. At the same time, Dorimant criticises both the foreign values the fop embodies and his general playfulness and lack of internal content.

A second important instance of the cravat is mentioned in conversation in Act III,

Scene III, when Sir Fopling and Loveit comment on the appearance and stench of some ruffians in the park. While generally one to draw attention to his own dress instead of directly criticising the apparel of others, Sir Fopling inquires whether Loveit has observed “how their

72 cravats hung loose an inch from their neck, and what a frightful air it gave ‘em” (99). Sir

Fopling’s remark reveals at least three things. Firstly, he expresses his dislike for those who do not respect the rules of fashion by knotting their cravat as tightly as possible. The inch of space between cravat and neck could reveal that either the cravat was too big and, therefore, an imitation of the luxury object, or that the wearer was not aware of the strict rules associated with the wearing of a cravat. Secondly, the looseness of the cravat could be a necessity for manual labourers who attempted to remain fashionable while at the same time performing their trade. Since physical exercise was of no concern to the fop, he could tie the cravat tightly, all but severing his blood and oxygen supply. By contrast, labourers would have needed some additional looseness of clothing which allowed them to move freely for work purposes. In this light, the fop’s comment on the ruffians could be interpreted as a criticism of the labouring classes. Considering the earlier criticism of the shoemaker and the orange- woman who, together with the ruffians, make up all members of the lower classes mentioned in the play, it is likely that the fop meant to criticise. Thirdly, Sir Fopling’s commentary reflects his desire to be liked by Loveit. He is aware of the fact that the lady is disgusted by the stinking and ill-dressed men and, by denouncing them, he shows himself to be in line with her point of view.

The final use of the word cravat that I would like to investigate is located in Act IV,

Scene II, when Sir Fopling assures Dorimant that he is “a pretty fellow and wear’st thy clothes well, but I never saw thee have a handsome cravat”, adding that “[w]ere it made up like mine, they’d give another air to thy face” (118). The fop reveals that Dorimant, a man he admires for his wit and sense of fashion, lacks a fashionable item of clothing in his dress. It is a remarkable instance since it is the only time in the play that Sir Fopling criticises Dorimant for not being dressed appropriately. While Dorimant is generally more sensibly dressed than the fop, the latter never but once addresses an apparent shortcoming in the rake’s apparel.

73 Interestingly, this criticising of Dorimant takes place only a few lines after the fop confronted the rake with the lack of a mirror in his rooms. Possibly, Sir Fopling has observed that, after his earlier comment concerning the absence of the mirror, Dorimant can handle criticism in an appropriate manner and the fop allows himself to express some long withheld criticism on the rake’s appearance. A second possible reason for the fop’s straightforwardness is that he is slightly inebriated, coming to Dorimant’s house after a party at Lady Townley’s estate where he repeatedly asked for the glasses to be filled again.

The importance of the cravat to Sir Fopling is echoed by Le Blanc, who suggests that, when a man enters into “a circle distinguished for taste and elegance”, his coat will attract only a limited amount of attention, while his cravat will be subjected to “the most critical and scrutinising examination” (65). This point of view explains that, while Sir Fopling admires

Dorimant for his taste and fashionability, he insists on teaching the latter how to perfectly tie a cravat since this would increase the rake’s fashionability. Moreover, by having the fop wear a cravat, the playwright would have created the opportunity to display various forms of tying the cravat, as well as showcasing various kinds of fashionable cravats to the audience. In this way, Etherege resembles Sir Fopling, since both attempt to prove that they are aware of fashion and attempt to educate those around them.

According to Le Blanc, cravats were already used by the Romans, Greeks, Persians and Egyptians who would tie a piece of linen around their necks or, alternatively, use wool or silk to protect their throats from the cold. In addition, Le Blanc states, the constant wearing of a scarf-like tie would result in a white neck comparable to “the beauty of a tower of ivory”

(11). With the introduction of new types of clothing the cravat ceased to be a necessity and a fine starched linen cloth was loosely tied around the neck as a display of luxury and fashion.

Afterwards, the ruff, “stiffened and curled in single or double rows” (12), became popular until the reign of Louis XIII, when it was replaced by “raised collars, plaited neck-cloths, and

74 bands” (12). With the introduction of wigs in France, solemn white or black neckwear was replaced by colourful cloths drawing attention to the neck. The cravat worn by Sir Fopling and his French contemporaries was derived from the uniform of a Croat regiment of mercenaries stationed in France and would have been made from materials ranging from lace to muslin and silk and tied with a variety of knots.

The word cravat itself comes from the French cravate which, in its turn, is a corruption of the French word Croate. Le Blanc puts forward that the cravat was cumbersome on most occasions, but known to have prevented serious injury or even death in battle as its extravagant size and thickness were able to stop the cut of a sabre or path of a bullet.

Furthermore, the author argues that the cravat was frequently worn by singers in order to protect their throat from the cold, thereby protecting their voice. Whereas Sir Fopling would wear a cravat to distinguish himself from those classes containing singers and other performers, ironically, his actions are nearer to those of a performer than those of a soldier.

The cravat could technically be worn by people from every class, but its distinguishing feature lay in both the material and decoration of the object. Shopkeepers and farmers would be able to afford plain wool cloth which they could then, although with little knowledge of the principles of fashion, tie into a cravat. The wealthy would purchase elaborately decorated cravats of silk or muslin, tied by their valets de chambre according to every novel whim of fashion.

75 In conclusion, due to the rapidly changing social circumstances of the Restoration period, the public perception of luxury changed drastically. While visual expressions of material culture were a rare occurrence in the Renaissance and before, their importance cannot be underestimated in the Restoration. This evolution is evident to observe from the numerous moments in The Man of Mode where material objects play a pivotal role. After providing an extensive contextualisation and characterisation of the rake and the fop, I have investigated the textual occurrences of four luxury objects in the play, namely the mirror, the fan, the wig and the cravat. In doing so, I have paid particular attention to their importance in the play, in society and the social implications of their use on the stage.

Firstly, the mirror is important as it underlines the presence or lack of reflection. On the one hand, although the fop praises mirrors because they provide a gentleman with the opportunity to reflect on his exterior, the rake justifies the lack of a mirror in his lodgings by claiming that an excess of external reflection prevents a thorough internal reflection. On the other hand, there are several similarities between the fop and the mirror, a possible explanation for his defending its presence. Like the mirror, the fop provides a reflection of the beholder, demonstrating the pitfalls of a culture of superfluity. Additionally, similar to the mirror, the fop is only capable of a superficial external reflection, incapable of any internal reflection of the self. Moreover, in one exemplary instance, the mirror is noted for its absence and this could be seen as a criticism on Restoration society. While inequality was an important social problem, the rich did not reflect on their privileged state. While some struggled to survive, others revelled in excess and luxury and, by highlighting the absence of a mirror, a fashionable item which would be expected in the lodgings of a fashionable character such as Dorimant, Etherege denounces the lack of reflection in society.

The second object under consideration is the fan which is frequently used by the playwright as it symbolises luxury and has an established metaphorical meaning. Silk fans,

76 which were richly decorated, enabled women to display both their wealth and education, making it the perfect attribute during the aggressive courting of the Restoration. In addition, the fan could function as a woman’s defence against the sexual attacks of a man, shielding her from the heat of passion in the same way it shields her from the sun. It also provides coolness through the act of fanning; a method the woman might utilise to keep herself cool or free of any sexual desire. The destruction of the fan is an image used frequently by Etherege and can be interpreted as a woman’s surrender to sexual desire, followed by the loss of her honour. In

The Man of Mode, only Loveit, Dorimant’s betrayed and abandoned mistress, tears her fan.

The destruction indicates her desperation, but also underlines the futility of the gesture as her honour is already lost. On a material level, the tearing of a fan on stage would have illustrated the disposability of luxury objects and the ideology of excess that accompanies it. To those able to afford a luxurious fan, the visualised destruction would do little more than to affirm their views, while to the people to whom simply attending the theatre was a rare indulgence, a destroyed fan could signify the loss of a year’s wages. One can clearly see the different possible reactions a seemingly simple theatrical action would entice.

The third fashionable item that was discussed is the periwig. The wig was an object of exquisite luxury and is only explicitly worn by Sir Fopling in The Man of Mode. It is the attribute that defines and characterises him most since it both disguises and draws attention.

Even though the wig was incredibly expensive in acquisition and maintenance, the fop owning a wig is not perceived as popular or fashionable, but rather it enables other characters to ridicule the extravagant hairdo. In addition, the wig raised a debate over individuality in the eighteenth century. It was possessed by the wearer, but the hair collected to construct the wig originally belonged to others. Some puritans argued that, by wearing a wig, man altered

God’s perfect creation and that he corrupted the rigid social hierarchy. In a similar manner, gender became more fluid since hair that formerly belonged to a woman would now be

77 utilised for the wig of an aristocratic gentleman. Some puritans even believed that the gender of a body could shift with the transference of hair. Furthermore, the wig transformed a part of the human body into a marketable commodity, effectively blurring the lines between the individual and his clothing. The ambiguous nature of the wig can easily be extended to the fop, who is comprised of exterior only. Sir Fopling aims to appear en cavalier by being dissabilleé, following the practice of the cavaliers of the French court, in an effort to appear effortless. The French influence on Sir Fopling is also visible when one considers the fact that he wears a Chedreux wig and attempts to interject French words in conversation.

The final object that was discussed was the cravat, a piece of cloth tied tightly around the neck with a variety of knots. The importance of the cravat is paramount to the wig in completing the fop’s attire. The cravat could be tied in various possible ways and only a few of the knots were fashionable at any one time. Adding to its fashionability was the fact that it was preferably made in an expensive fabric and could be exquisitely decorated. In The Man of

Mode, the cravat is referred to in conversation by both the rake and the fop, although the former uses it to imply lack of mental capacities and a slavery to fashion, while the latter bases his judgment of the worth of others on their method of wearing the cravat. Additionally, it provides a rare occasion in the play of Sir Fopling criticising Dorimant. Whereas the rake generally insults the fop – either overtly or covertly – to establish his male dominance and superiority in fashionability, in this case, the fop criticises Dorimant and his lack of a properly tied cravat.

An final point of discussion which was addressed concerns the relation between life and theatre. Even though it was previously concluded that Etherege had conceived of the play as a way to reflect the vices and detrimental foreign influences on society, it is surprising that the playwright does not target any individuals, but rather criticises society as a whole by caricaturing certain groups. None of the characters in The Man of Mode are completely

78 without vices, much like actual people, and by depicting them as such, Etherege heightens the verisimilitude of the play while at the same time criticising without offending anybody in particular. To illustrate that this was a technique deliberately employed by Etherege, I would like to repeat the final lines of the epilogue, written by John Dryden: “Yet every man is safe from what he feared,/ For no one fool is hunted from the herd” (146).

79

5. Works Cited

80 Bacon, Jon Lance. “Wives, Widows, and Writings in Restoration Comedy.” Studies in

English Literature, 1500-1900, 31.3 (Summer, 1991): 427-443. Print.

Behn, Aphra. The Works of Aphra Behn: Town-fop. False count. Lucky chance.

Forc’d marriage. Emperor of the moon. London: Phaeton Press, 1967. Google Book Search.

Online. 7 August 2013.

Berg, Maxine. Luxury & Pleasure in Eighteenth-century Britain. London: Oxford

University Press, 2005. Print.

Berg, Maxine, and Hellen Clifford. Consumers and Luxury: Consumer Culture in

Europe 1650-1850. London: Manchester University Press, 1999. Print.

Berglund, Lisa. “The Language of the Libertines: Subversive Morality in The Man of

Mode.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, 30.3 (Summer, 1990): 369-386. Print.

Berkeley, David S. “‘Préciosité’ and the Restoration Comedy of Manners.”

Huntington Library Quarterly, 18.2 (February, 1955): 109-128. Print.

Berman, Ronald. “The Comic Passions of The Man of Mode.” Studies in English

Literature, 1500-1900, 10.3 (Summer, 1970): 459-468. Print.

Blaser, Michelle. The Restoration of Comedy: The Formation of Sexual Identity in the

Early Development of Romantic Comedy. Kirksville: Truman State University Press, (n.d.).

Print.

Bouldin, Wood. “Renaissance Libraries, Publications, and the ‘Textual Condition.’”

The Sixteenth Century Journal, 26.2 (Summer, 1995): 379-384. Print.

Boswell, Eleanore. “Sir George Etherege.” The Review of English Studies, 7.26 (April,

1931): 207-209. Print.

81 Brown, Harold Clifford Jr. “Etherege and Comic Shallowness.” Texas Studies in

Literature and Language, 16.4 (Winter, 1975): 675-690. Print.

Butler, Judith. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in

Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” Theatre Journal, 40.4 (December, 1988): 519-531.

Print.

Canfield, Douglas J. “Religious Language and Religious Meaning in Restoration

Comedy.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, 20.3 (Summer, 1980): 385-406. Print.

Casey, Moira E. “The fop: 'Apes and Echoes of Men': Gentlemanly Ideals and the

Restoration.” Fools and Jesters in Literature, Art, and History, (1998): 207- 214. Print.

Corson, Richard. Fashions in Hair: The First Five Thousand Years. London: Peter

Owen Limited, 1965. Print.

Dharwadker, Aparna. “Authorship, Metatheatre, and Antitheatre in the Restoration.”

Theatre Research International, 27.2 (2002): 125-135. Print.

Engel, Wilson F., III. “Etherege's THE MAN OF MODE.” Explicator, 40.4 (Summer,

1982): 23-24. Print.

Engsberg, Mark David. Fashioning Men of Fashion: The fop and the Transformation of Eighteenth-century Masculinity. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, 1999. Print.

Etherege, George. The Man of Mode or Sir Fopling Flutter. London: J. Macock, 1676.

Google Book Search. Online. 02 April 2013.

Evans, James E. “Libertine Gamblers in Late Stuart Comedy.” Restoration and 18th

Century Theatre Research, 18.1 (Summer, 2003): 17-30. Print.

82 Festa, Lynn M. “Personal Effects: Wigs and Possessive Individualism in the Long

Eighteenth Century.” Eighteenth-Century Life, 29.2 (Spring, 2005): 47-90. Print.

Haggerty, George E. “’The Queen was not shav’d yet’: Edward Kynaston and the

Regendering of the Restoration Stage.” The Eighteenth Century, 50.4 (Winter, 2009): 309-

326. Print.

Harris, Jonathan Gil. “Shakespeare's Hair: Staging the Object of Material Culture.”

Shakespeare Quarterly, 52.4 (Winter, 2001): 479- 491. Print.

Heilman, Robert B. “Some Fops and Some Versions of Foppery.” ELH, 49.2

(Summer, 1982): 363-395. Print.

Hughes, Derek. “Play and Passion in The Man of Mode.” Comparative Drama, 15.3

(1981): 231-256. Print.

Hume, Robert D. “Theory of Comedy in the Restoration.” Modern Philology, 70.4

(May, 1973): 302-318. Print.

King, Thomas A. “The fop, The Canting Queen, and the Deferral of Gender.”

Presenting Gender: Changing Sex in Early-Modern Culture, (2001): 94-135. Print.

Le Blanc, H. The Art of Tying the Cravat. London: H Randall, 1828. Google Book

Search. Online. 16 July 2013.

Markley, Robert. “Introduction: Rethinking Restoration and Eighteenth-Century

Drama.” Comparative Drama, 42.1 (Spring, 2008): 1-6. Print.

Martin, Leslie H. “Past and Parody in The Man of Mode.” Studies in English

Literature, 1500-1900, 16.3 (Summer, 1976): 363-376. Print.

83 Marsh, Sarah Grace. “’Not Made Monstrous by a Magnifying Glass’: Microscopes,

Vision and Sir George Etherege’s The Man of Mode, or Sir Fopling Flutter.” New England

Theatre Journal, 19.2 (2008): 33-52. Print.

Nicoll, Allardyce. History of Restoration Drama, 1600-1700. Cambridge: The UP,

1928. Print.

Nietzsche, Frederich. Beyond Good and Evil, Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future.

Trans. Helen Zimmern. New York: Russell and Russell, 1964. Print.

O'Malley, Lurana Donnels. “From Fat Falstaff to Francophile fop: Russian

Nationalism in Catherine the Great's Merry Wives.” Comparative Drama, 33.3 (Fall, 1999):

365-388. Print.

Pang, Cecilia J. “Reviews: ‘Restoration Comedy’: A Dialogue with a Dandy.”

Restoration and 18th Century Theatre Research, 21.2 (Winter, 2006): 98-100. Print.

Rogers, Katharine M. “Masculine and Feminine Values in Restoration Drama: The

Distinctive Power of Venice Preserved.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language, 27.4

(Winter, 1985): 390-404. Print.

Rosenthal, Laura J. “’All injury’s forgot’: Restoration Sex comedy and National

Amnesia.” Comparative Drama, 42.1 (Spring, 2008): 7-28. Print.

S.n.”Mirror.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Britannica Online. Online. 07 April

2013.

S.n. “Fan.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Britannica Online. Online. 12 April 2013.

Salgado, Gamini, ed. Three Restoration Comedies. Bungay: Chaucer Press, 1968.

Print.

84 Sherbo, Arthur. “A Note on The Man of Mode.” Modern Language Notes, 64.5 (May,

1949): 343-344. Print.

Small, Ian. “Victorian Authors and Their Works: Revision, Motivation and Modes by

Judith Kennedy; The Textual Condition by Jerome McGann.” Victorian Studies, 37.2

(Winter, 1994): 317-320. Print.

“sprezzatura, n.” OED Online. 1986. Oxford University Press. 4 August 2013. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/187693?redirectedFrom=sprezzatura#eid.

Staves, Susan. “A Few Kind Words for the fop.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-

1900, 22.3 (Summer, 1982): 413-428. Print.

Ware, James M. “Algernon's Appetite: Oscar Wilde's Hero as Restoration Dandy.”

English Literature in Transition, 1880-1920, 13.1 (1970): 17-26. Print.

Webster, Jeremy W. “In and Out of the Bed-chamber: Staging Libertine Desire in

Restoration Comedy.” Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies, 12.2 (Spring, 2012): 77-

96. Print.

Wilkinson, David R.M. “Etherege and a Restoration Pattern of Wit.” English Studies,

6 (1987): 497-510. Print.

Williams, Andrew Paul. Men of mode: Social comedy and the Restoration fop. (s.l.):

Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 1993. Print.

Williams, Andrew Paul. "The Centre of Attention: Theatricality and the Restoration fop." Early Modern Literary Studies, 4.3 (January, 1999): 1-22

Zimbardo, Rose A. “Of Women, Comic Imitation of Nature, and Etherege's The Man of Mode." Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, 21.3 (1981, Summer): 373-387. Print.

85

86 Appendix 13

Prologue p48: Glass

Act One

Scene One p49: Table, Toilet, Clothes, Gown, Slippers, Notes, Letter. p50: Flasket, Fruits, Peach, Fruz. p51: Mask, Brandy bottle, Canary. p53: Provence rose, Long robe. p54: Vizard. p55: Fan. p56: Bottle of sack. p57: Ale, Shoe, Paring knife. p58: Coach, Suit, Gloves, Periwig. p59: Essence, Orange-flower, Water, Ribbon, Cravat, Gloves, Periwig. p62: Goloshoes. p63: Chair, Hackney coach.

3 All page numbers correspond to the 1968 Penguin Books edition of The Man of Mode.

87 Act Two

Scene One p66: Breeches. p67: Magnifying glass, Tour cards, Fans, Points, Hoods, Knots. p68: Kettle drums, Trumpets, Flute doux, French oboes.

Scene Two p70: Country fiddle. p71: Gowns. p73: Fiddle, Point, Knot, Fan, Fan. p74: Fruit. p75: Gold, Brass. p76: French riband, Formal cravat.

Act Three

Scene One p78: Knot, Curl, Pin, Hood, Mask. p81: Hangings, Fan. p82: Fan, Fan, Gown, Sticks. p83: Fan.

Scene Two p88: Point d’espaigne, Point de Venice. p89: Equipage, Suit, Pantaloon, Tassels, Coat, Breech, Gloves, Fringe, Gallesh. p90 : Suit, Garniture, Shoes, Periwig, Gloves.

88 Scene Three p98: Periwig, Tobacco, Pulvilio. p99: Cordivant gloves, Cravat, Ribbon, Boxes, Flat-cap. p102: Fiddle.

Act Four

Scene One p103: Fiddle, Periwig, Cravats, Handkercher. p104: Fiddles. p105: Gorget. p108: Fiddle, Fiddle, Habit, Vizard, Vizard, Masks, Masks. p109: Novel, Billet. p110: Tallow candle, Tallow candle. p111: Wax lights, Flutes deux. p112: Basqué, Gown. p113: Fiddle. p114: Bottle, Bottle of wine, Glasses, Wine. p115: Champagne, Glass, Wine, Fiddles.

Scene Two p115: Table, Candle, Toilet, Linen, Gown. p117: Fiddle, Fiddle. p118: Glass, Glass, Cravat, Ribbon, Toilet. p119: Brandenburgh, Periwig. p120: Glass, Linen.

89

Act Five

Scene One p124: Fruit, Nosegays, Nosegays, Essence, Sweet water, Perfume, Nectarines, Carnations,

Gilly-flowers, Orange-flowers, Tuberose. p126: Fan, Gloves. p130: Water, Mirabils.

Scene Two p132: Closet p135: Paint, Patches. p136: Wine. p137: Closet, Closet. p141: Periwig. p143: Chair. p144: Fiddle.

Epilogue p145: Sword-knot, Cravat, Snake, Periwig, Hat.

90