This document introduces the challenges of studying Restoration drama from a historical perspective. It discusses how critics have often trivialized or moralized Restoration plays rather than analyzing them contextually. Recent scholarship has provided historical information about the theater but lacks a theoretical understanding of the complex relationship between drama and ideology. The introduction argues for a conception of history as interconnected ideological structures rather than a chronology, and suggests this perspective could change how literary works are interpreted.
This document introduces the challenges of studying Restoration drama from a historical perspective. It discusses how critics have often trivialized or moralized Restoration plays rather than analyzing them contextually. Recent scholarship has provided historical information about the theater but lacks a theoretical understanding of the complex relationship between drama and ideology. The introduction argues for a conception of history as interconnected ideological structures rather than a chronology, and suggests this perspective could change how literary works are interpreted.
Original Description:
An essay speaking about the history of Restoration Drama
This document introduces the challenges of studying Restoration drama from a historical perspective. It discusses how critics have often trivialized or moralized Restoration plays rather than analyzing them contextually. Recent scholarship has provided historical information about the theater but lacks a theoretical understanding of the complex relationship between drama and ideology. The introduction argues for a conception of history as interconnected ideological structures rather than a chronology, and suggests this perspective could change how literary works are interpreted.
This document introduces the challenges of studying Restoration drama from a historical perspective. It discusses how critics have often trivialized or moralized Restoration plays rather than analyzing them contextually. Recent scholarship has provided historical information about the theater but lacks a theoretical understanding of the complex relationship between drama and ideology. The introduction argues for a conception of history as interconnected ideological structures rather than a chronology, and suggests this perspective could change how literary works are interpreted.
INTRODUCTION: HISTORY, IDEOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF RESTORATION DRAMA
Author(s): Robert Markley
Source: The Eighteenth Century, Vol. 24, No. 2, A Special Issue on Restoration Drama: Theories, Myths, and Histories (Spring 1983), pp. 91-102 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41467286 . Accessed: 06/04/2014 18:15 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Eighteenth Century. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 193.227.1.43 on Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:15:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Eighteenth Century, vol. 24, no. 2, 1983 INTRODUCTION: HISTORY, IDEOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF RESTORATION DRAMA Robert Markley The Restoration has always had something of a bad press among literary historians and critics. The tendency to devalue the period and its literary products stems in part from the moral controversies that have swirled around - and often threatened to engulf - much of its drama and a fair portion of its verse. Many of the erstwhile defenders of Restoration comedy have tried to sanitize it by echo- ing Lamb's comment that the plays of Dryden, Etherege, Wycher- ley, and Congreve are ahistorical retreats into a "Utopia of gallan- try," a fragile, circumscribed world of wit and diluted Jonsonian satire.1 The difference between seeing later seventeenth-century drama as frivolous and amoral or, as Jeremy Collier contends, frivolous and immoral is finally not much of a difference; both views trivialize the drama and distort the period in which it was produced. More recently, some critics have argued that Restora- tion drama is packed with religious significance; what Collier finds blasphemous Aubrey Williams finds providential.2 In short, no true consensus exists about either the drama or the critical reactions it has engendered. The Restoration theater remains a kind of Rorschach test for its students. The obsession of many critics with the morality or immorality of the stage has tended to obscure the contextual problems that sur- round Restoration drama. As the essays in this special issue of The Eighteenth Century suggest, the essential challenge to critics of the period is historical. From the efforts of recent scholars, among them A. H. Scouten, Robert Hume, Judith Milhous, and Harold Love,3 we have learned a good deal about the history of the late seventeenth-century theater - its management, repertories, finan- ces, and audiences. But as James Thompson suggests below in his analysis of three recent works on the theater, we do not have any theoretical grasp of "history" itself, any true understanding of the 1. The Works of Charles Lamb, ed. Thomas Hutchinson (London, 1924), 1:650. 2. See Williams, An Approach to Congreve (New Haven: Yale, 1979). 3. Scouten and Hume, "Restoration Comedy and its Audiences, 1660-1776," Yearbook of English Studies 10(1980):45-69; Hume, The Development of English Drama in the Late Seventeenth Century (Oxford: Claren- don, 1976); Hume, ed., The London Theatre World, 1660-1800 Carbondale: Southern Illinois, 1980); Milhous, Thomas Betterton and the Management of Lincoln's Inn Fields (Carbondale: Southern Illinois, 1979); and Love, "Who Were the Restoration Audience?" Yearbook of English Studies 10(l980):20-44. 91 This content downloaded from 193.227.1.43 on Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:15:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 92 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY complex relationships between Restoration drama and its ideologi- cal substructure, assumptions, and values. History, for most literary critics, becomes whatever they want it to become: a collection of intellectual postures, an aggregation of biographical facts, a series of dates, statistical data that are necessarily incomplete, or, most numbing of all, an arbitrary selection of ideas that turns the past into sets of arthritic caricatures. The problem of defining history, though, is hardly restricted to critics of Restoration drama; it is symptomatic of some of the difficulties that currently characterize the academic study of Anglo-American literature. 1 Literary history as a discipline is in the throes of an identity cri- sis. Contemporary historians and philosophers of history - following the examples of Michel Foucault and Hayden White4 - have increasingly turned away from attempts to describe history objectively, concentrating instead on describing the ideological relationships that exist among social institutions, psychology, eco- nomics, politics, philosophy, and - significantly - the languages in which they are constituted. The new historiography, in this regard, spends less time analyzing particular incidents, trends, or personal- ities than it does studying the structures of perception that pro- duce, and are in turn produced by, language, thought, and history. In this regard, White's or Foucauls conception of history differs fundamentally from what Richard Levin criticizes as the "ideas of the time approach" to literature, the supposition that individual works can be interpreted by invoking unitary contexts or back- grounds to explicate their meanings.5 For many of its more radical theorists, history becomes a dialectical process, a complex of changing ideological attitudes and perceptions rather than a simple chronological unfolding of events. This perception of history, though often difficult to articulate fully, is gradually changing the ways in which we think and write about literature, forcing us, in effect, to question the assumptions and values that characterize traditional approaches to texts, authors, and periods. Increasingly, the postmodern revolution in criticism is challenging formalist notions about how we, as scholars and readers, perceive literary texts. This movement may at times 4. See particularly Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New York: Pantheon, 1971) and White, Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth Century Europe (Balti- more: Johns Hopkins, 1973). 5. New Readings vs. Old Plays: Recent Trends in the Reinterpretation of English Renaissance Drama (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979). This content downloaded from 193.227.1.43 on Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:15:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MARKLEY- HISTORY AND IDEOLOGY 93 seem either glacially slow or precipitously rapid, but most scholars versed in contemporary theory would probably acknowledge that New Criticism has fallen on hard times and that its formalist successors - structuralism and poststructuralism pressed into the service of reading and interpretation - have been attacked for either their inherent or presumed antihistorical biases.6 No consen- sus, however, has developed about what criticism is now supposed to do. Few critics have openly questioned their own ideological positions or analyzed the necessary fictions they employ to sustain their roles as interpreters - and guardians - of a collective literary heritage. This generalization holds true for most critics of Restora- tion drama. Many of the recent studies of the period's theater are concerned with either interpreting historical data (Hume's Devel- opment of English Drama in the Late Seventeenth Century and Susan Staves's Players' Scepters: Fictions of Authority in the Resto- ration1) or attempting to chart the thematic mainlines of individual plays (Williams's An Approach to Congreve). As Thompson sug- gests below, these works remain aloof from contemporary theoret- ical debates about the natures of literature and criticism. This is not to suggest that Restoration scholarship is in any sense outdated; it is not behind the times but caught up in them. Like the disci- pline as a whole, Restoration drama criticism occasionally seems to be treading air somewhere between theory and interpretation. By explicitly challenging the value of interpretation as a critical activity, the new historiography is led to ask fundamental ques- tions about how and why literary works are produced. It suggests, as Michael McKeon does in his essay, that literary texts do not pas- sively reflect dominant systems of belief, modes of thought, or codes of ethics and behavior; literature itself becomes a significant part of the historical process, bearing witness to the dialectical interplay of tradition and innovation, convention and individual perception. The text, in other words, becomes contextually as well as intrinsically significant. To consider seriously this expanded, dia- lectical perception of history, one soon realizes, is to recognize the theoretical, even imaginative, significance of much recent Marxist criticism. Yet such a recognition does not imply a surrender to ster- ile, programmatic responses to particular texts or periods. On the contrary, the new historiography attempts to examine the forma- tion of social institutions and ideologies, to explore what Frederic 6. See particularly Frank Lentricchia, After the New Criticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980). 7. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979). This content downloaded from 193.227.1.43 on Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:15:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 94 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY Jameson calls the "political unconscious."8 More specifically, it may redirect our attention to the Restoration as a crucial period in the transition of England from a feudal and aristocratic society to a bourgeois, mercantile nation. The literary products of the period, then, reflect, participate in, and help create the radical, often paradoxical, tensions that characterize later seventeenth-century history. In brief, our responses to Restoration drama and literature are formed, to some extent, by how we perceive the era itself, define its often contradictory tendencies, and deal with its deep-seated ambivalence to traditional notions of morality and authority. For many recent critics, the historical significance of Restoration drama lies precisely in its transitional nature - its attempts to articulate aristocratic values (and reaffirm the Christian culture in which they are rooted), even as individual plays become more and more concerned with the social, moral, and economic values of a nascent capitalist society. The title of Norman Holland's sem- inal study of Restoration comedy- The First Modern Comedies- is instructive, suggesting a good deal about recent perceptions of seventeenth-century theater; it implies that the roots of our con- temporary notions of comedy lie in Etherege's, Wycherley's, and Congreve's concerns with the natural and artificial in human behavior. Yet, as John T. Harwood points out, this view of the Restoration's modernity, whether Holland's or his followers', is an essentially intuitive rather than historical reaction to the plays.9 Used in this manner, "modern" becomes an evaluative term linked implicitly to attempts to argue for the aesthetic quality and moral seriousness of Restoration comedy. It describes a notion of modernity divorced from history. "Modern," in this sense, does not define a transition between two distinct eras or ideologies but, as Holland himself seems to realize, a fundamental aspect of psy- chology. Restoration drama is the product of a confused and often con- fusing era. Its history, as Michael Neill suggests, cannot be divorced from the histories of its playwrights, actors, audiences, patrons, and detractors. One of the first critics to explore some of the ideological implications of Restoration literary history is Samuel Johnson, whose perceptive comments in The Lives of the English Poets on the social conditions that fashion both the writer and his work often go unremarked. Johnson, of course, is hardly 8. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981). 9. Critics, Values, and Restoration Drama (Carbondale: Southern Illinois, 1982), pp. 15-18. This content downloaded from 193.227.1.43 on Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:15:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MARKLEY- HISTORY AND IDEOLOGY 95 Foucault, White, or, for that matter, any of the contributors to this special issue. Yet what he has to say, often in passing, about the relationships of poetry and drama to Restoration history, to "the times" themselves, helps to define many of the underlying assumptions that have historically shaped debates about the mor- ality of the period and its theater. In the Lives Dryden, Congreve, and Otway become embodi- ments of their age. Johnson seems to subvert deliberately the dis- tinctions between the individual and the circumstances - usually money or "applause" - that enticed him to write for the stage. Though Johnson's biases are explicitly moral, his comments on the ways in which these men comported themselves socially, artisti- cally, morally, and religiously reflect his abiding concern with the politicization - and with what a Marxist critic might call the commodification - of art during the period. For Johnson, moral laxity, time-serving, flattery, "the corruption of the times,"10 and the degeneration of literature to the status of commercial object are integrally related. He is acutely sensitive to the financial aspects of writing and their potentially corrupting effects on the writer: "it is impossible not to detest the age which could impose on [Dryden] the necessity of such solicitations [for money], or not to despise the man who could submit to such solicitations without necessity" (p. 404). The relationship between the man and "the age" is symbiotic. Johnson's attitudes towards the Restoration are rooted in his disgust at the prospect of its literary products becoming commodified, objects to be sold or bartered for money, status, or influence. His ambivalence about Dryden lies in his view of his predecessor's willingness to unite "politicks with poetry," to become "profitably employed in controversy and flat- tery" (pp. 373, 384). If Dryden is given to "profaneness" and "meanness and servility in hyperbolical adulation" of his aristo- cratic patrons, he is guilty of simply "accomodating himself to the corruption of the times" (pp. 399, 404). Johnson thus sees the age corrupting the writer as writer: "Dryden has never been charged with any personal agency unworthy of a good character: he abet- ted vice and vanity only with his pen" (p. 398). 11 Johnson's comments on Restoration authors are especially valu- able because they suggest some of the ways in which viewing literary artifacts as products of a particular culture as well as of a 10. Lives of the English Poets, ed. G. Birkbeck Hill (Oxford: Clarendon, 1905), 1:404. All future references to this edition will be cited parenthetically in the text. 11. For a slightly different interpretation of Johnson's Life of Dryden , see K. J. H. Berland, Johnsons Lite- Writing and the Life of Dryden," The Eighteenth Century: Theory and Interpretation 23: (1982): 197-218. This content downloaded from 193.227.1.43 on Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:15:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 96 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY particular individual may complicate both our aesthetic and moral responses to them. His reaction against Dryden's era is, at once, moral and ideological. Johnson is concerned not merely with the "vice and vanity" of Dryden's plays and poems but with what he perceives as the broad range of cultural conditions under which they are produced. In his biographies of Restoration figures, "the times" themselves become part of criticism proper. In this respect, one of Johnson's important contributions in the Lives is his subtle yet insistent recognition that poetry, politics, economics, and history interpenetrate, shaping and being shaped by each other. Ideology, though, however one defines it, is not an invention of the Restoration or a by-product of a well-defined rise of bour- geois culture during the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. That the structures of language, perception, and thought are polit- ical forms of power is a truism of much recent social and literary theory; yet applying this insight to literary criticism can often be a disorienting experience for both critics and their readers. The recent special issue of Genre edited by Stephen Greenblatt, The Forms of Power and the Power of Forms in the Renaissance , cap- tures some of the revealing potential of postmodern approaches to literary history. By seeking to reintegrate plays and poems into history, Franco Moretti, Harry Berger, Stephen Orgel, and Jona- than Goldberg, among others, explore the self-conscious mythos of the Elizabethan era, its will to power and attempts to celebrate aristocratic authority. Restoration drama is similarly a promising area for theoretical and dialectical inquiry, as Neill and McKeon suggest in their essays, precisely because of its sensitivity to its political and ideological substructures. Many of the basic dramatic conventions of the era - the double plot, the incessant warfare between the generations and between the sexes, the flouting of traditional morality, and the often obtrusive attempts to restore order at the play's conclusion - verge on the openly ideological: aristocratic artiface set in conflict with emerging bourgeois atti- tudes about politics and society. Yet one seldom sees on the Res- toration stage a consistent, deliberate working out of a political or ideological position; instead, as McKeon argues, one observes the essentially dialectical processes by which ideology takes shape, dissolves, and manifests itself in its always diluted forms. From this perspective one might argue that many of the theater's more astute critics are responding to the muted, and occasionally open, warfare that exists in an aristocratic society trying both to reassert This content downloaded from 193.227.1.43 on Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:15:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MARKLEY- HISTORY AND IDEOLOGY 97 and restructure the premises on which its privilege and authority rest. Notions of the Restoration's modernity, then, are finally not so much anachronistic as inherently problematic. Every era under- goes its particular crises of modernity, its attempts both to deny and to accomodate the processes of historical and technological change; and every modern era eventually becomes the mytholo- gized past from which - or to which - its successors are trying to escape. In this respect, modernity cannot be defined chronologi- cally. Inevitably, conceptions of modernity become part of the dialectical process: the present and past struggling to envision and shape the future. As Marshall Berman points out in his brilliant study of our own post-Enlightenment modernity, All That is Solid Melts into Air , the experience of modernity is almost by definition disorienting: assumptions about and perceptions of the world dis- integrate, reform, and transform themselves and their world; values change; hope and despair define antithetical responses to the historical process itself.12 In Berman's sense, the Restoration's crises of modernity may seem imaginatively accessible to modern critics precisely because the trauma of historical change is an important constituent of human perceptions of culture and self. The Restoration seems modern to some not because it is existen- tial or its experiences mirror our own but because its responses to change and to the traditional aristocratic values it simultaneously asserts and travesties are necessarily ambivalent. As Neill suggests, Restoration writers' perceptions of their era's precarious stability and their own ideological fictions describe the dialectic Rochester details in his letter to his wife: heroic heads resting on humble tails. The crises of the late seventeenth century, then, are those of both faith and experience, belief and history. It is significant, in this regard, that one of the dominant modes of discourse in the 1660s and 1670s is the assertion of patriarchal infallibility - cutting off argument, in other words, by appeals to what Staves describes as the "fictions of authority." This invoking of absolute authority is grounded firmly in traditional Christian perceptions of the uni- verse (Milton's God, for example, as well as the more problematic assertions of divine perfection by Newton and Boyle), yet it often shades into the secular realm; witness Collier's- appeals to critical tradition as well as to religious authority and the overt absolutism of much of the Restoration's heroic tragedy. But these assertions 12. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982). This content downloaded from 193.227.1.43 on Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:15:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 98 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY of authority are often qualified or undermined by the writer's nagging skepticism.13 Dryden's heroic tragedy, for example, at times verges on farce: the more hysterically his characters assert their absolute love, honor,, and power, the closer they come to self-parody. The Restoration, the age of "failed epic" as Staves calls it, lacks the equivalent of Sidney's Arcadia or Spenser's Faerie Queene - elaborate poetic attempts to mythologize the existing political and moral order. Celebration tends to give way to satire; the great age of failed epic is also one of the great ages of literary vandalism. Rochester's licentious "Satyr on Charles II" would have been inconceivable in the 1570s; it uses the King's phi- landering to undermine the authority of his position as well as his person. The poem's closing couplet - "All monarchs I hate, and the thrones they sit on, /From the hector of France to the cully of Britain"14 - underscores Rochester's implicit connection of libertin- ism with a radical disregard for the political and moral mecha- nisms that structure Restoration society. Shadwell's The Libertine similarly dismantles its fictions of authority. The play's flouting of conventional morality is part of its larger ideological rejection of the very forms of the drama that help ensure such stability. The play's true fictions, its best jokes, in effect, are its plot and struc- ture. Its morality is desecration. Don John acknowledges what is sacred in Restoration society, the order and authority represented by the patriarchal figures (ghostly and otherwise) who inhabit the play, precisely so he can violate everything they represent, from religious scruples to aristocratic honor. As Neill argues in his dis- cussion of the play, The Libertine is in many ways characteristic of its time. It rejects both political and aesthetic order and glori- fies the radical energy of satire and mock epic, themselves generic diminutions of their culture's heroic aspirations. 2 The essays in this issue of The Eighteenth Century are united less by a specific outlook or approach than by the kinds of prob- lems that they choose to explore. They deal in various ways with history, authority, morality, power, and contemporary critical interpretations of Restoration drama as problems to be examined rather than as assumptions to take for granted. Building on the foundations of previous scholarship, these essays deal with both 13. See, for one example, J. R. Jacob, Robert Boyle and the English Revolution (New York: Burt Franklin, 1977) on Boyle's crises of faith. 14. The Complete Poems of John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, ed. David Vieth (New Haven: Yale, 1968), p. 61. This content downloaded from 193.227.1.43 on Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:15:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MARKLEY- HISTORY AND IDEOLOGY 99 specific plays and the reactions they have engendered. As Levin suggests, carefully evaluating the contributions and failures of past criticism has become an increasingly significant undertaking; and as Harriett Hawkins and Thompson demonstrate below, meta- criticism - sorting through and analyzing what has already been done - is beginning to restructure our thinking about the purposes of Restoration scholarship. Recent approaches to late seventeenth-century theater have, on the whole, tended to complicate our perceptions of, and re- sponses to, the drama. Rose Zimbardo has recently argued for seeing the years between 1660 and 1700 less as a "vestibule" to the eighteenth century than as a "culmination" of the crises and con- flicts that dominated the seventeenth.15 Her suggestion opens up some intriguing possibilities for scholars of the period by implic- itly asking us to examine the relationships between the Restoration and its literary past. To take only one example, most students of Restoration drama are aware of the extravagant praise accorded John Fletcher by Dryden, Langbaine, Denham, Congreve, Drake, and other contemporary writers on the theater. Yet what exactly late seventeenth-century drama owes to his example remains, at best, obscure. That Fletcher's plays, as Dryden notes, were revived twice as often as Shakespeare's and Jonson's seems less an historical aberration than a crucial means of identifying early Res- toration theatrical tastes. An analysis of why Fletcher was so pop- ular with critics and audiences might reveal much about how Dryden and his contemporaries perceived their theatrical heritage. Also, one has to wonder why certain plays in the Beaumont and Fletcher canon were revived and others, seemingly closer in form to the comedy of manners (The Scornful Lady , for example), were seldom performed during the 1660s. Such a study would necessitate investigating the perceptions and unwritten assump- tions of Restoration critics as well as the formal rules that, say, Dryden and Rymer are adept at setting forth. The underlying notion of history that this project entails seems closer to Hay den White's or James Thompson's than Allardyce Nicoll's. It underscores disjunction and dialectic rather than linear progression; it calls, too, for an attempt to understand criticism as Dryden and his contemporaries perceived and practiced it - an often ambivalent attempt to justify their own heroic presumptions 15. "Dramatic Imitation of Nature in the Restoration's Seventeenth Century Predecessors," in From Renais- sance to Restoration: Metamorphoses of the Drama, ed. Robert Markley and Laurie Finke (Cleveland: Bell- flower Press, 1983), forthcoming. This content downloaded from 193.227.1.43 on Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:15:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 100 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY by emphasizing their efforts to assimilate and surpass their literary past. In this endeavor, many Restoration critics and preface- writers seem to recognize that they are the inheritors of something more than a pristine, pre-Commonwealth utopia of letters cut loose from its social and political moorings. Dry den's image of his Elizabethan predecessors as "the Gyant Race, before the Flood"16 is extremely suggestive; its overlay of biblical allusion and literary judgment evokes the author's heroic frame of reference, calling attention to his attempts to obliterate the memory of the Interreg- num, glorify English theatrical tradition, and resurrect what he perceives as his generation's claims to a nearly mythic lineage. In this respect, Dryden's invoking of the "Gyant Race" of Fletcher, Shakespeare, and Jonson impinges on both myth and history. Implicitly, it raises questions about how "the Flood" affects his and his era's responses to earlier seventeenth-century history - theatrical and otherwise. There are, I believe, historical events rooted in the conscious- ness of virtually all Restoration writers which shape their reactions to their literary past and to the ideological function of art. The beheading of Charles I, the fate of individual family fortunes and family members during the civil war, the wide currency of mille- narianism, skepticism, enthusiasm, radicalism, and conservative reactions against them during the 1650s and early 1660s, and the return of the monarchy all underlie Restoration literature. The overt reactions to these events and conditions are political, reli- gious, social, moral, and economic; so too are the imaginative and psychological responses manifested in the drama. As Neill sug- gests, history itself - the imaginative recreation of ideological conflict - becomes one of the Restoration stage's most durable subjects. History, however, in this sense implies more than simply drawing or perceiving parallels between individual characters or plays and actual people or events. The nightmare of civil war - seized lands, exiled relatives, slain kinfolk, and a dead king - become the dark underside of the Restoration myth as well as fodder for anti-Puritan satires like The Mulberry Garden or Cutter of Coleman Street . The tumultuous history of the mid-seventeenth century is ulti- mately the source of the moral ambiguities that underlie and inform Restoration drama. Since the advent of the Collier con- troversy, critics have argued about the morality, immorality, and 16. "To my Dear Friend Mr. Congreve," in The Complete Plays of William Congreve, ed. Herbert Davis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), p. 123. This content downloaded from 193.227.1.43 on Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:15:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MARKLEY- HISTORY AND IDEOLOGY 101 amorality of individual plays and the drama as a whole. It is fairly easy to see that Macaulay, for example, imposes his own stand- ards of morality on Restoration drama anachronistically to attack everything he dislikes about it. It is more difficult to acknowl- edge, as Harwood argues, that many modern critics have done the same sort of thing to justify their own reactions to the plays. Hawkins suggests in her critique of providentialist criticism that the values of Restoration audiences - like those of any audience - are likely to be too complex, too ambiguous, to pigeonhole neatly. Collier and Congreve, for example, have vastly different notions of what constitutes morality and what constitutes sacrilege. They also have different ideas about the affective power of drama: does it inculcate virtue or gild vice? These antithetical reactions are not the exclusive domain of Restoration drama critics but, as Hawkins notes, inhere in age-old debates about the stage and its power to question or challenge moral orthodoxies.17 Exactly how the Restoration's particular visions of history, its reactions to its Stuart and Commonwealth pasts, influence its notions of morality and immorality may be an area worth exploring. To study the relationships between history and morality one must move beyond collecting data or analyzing texts to explore the social, economic, and political conditions of theatrical produc- tion during the Restoration and their effects on individual play- wrights. Such influences are often extremely difficult to pin down. Few critics, for example, have done more than note in passing that Etherege, Wycherley, and Congreve retired from the stage in their thirties and never returned to it, although all three later found themselves in financial straits. (Wycherley actually spent several years in debtors' prison.) Although our biographical information on these dramatists is sketchy, none of it suggests a compelling reason that prevented any of them from writing for the theater again. In contrast, Dryden returned to composing plays after 1688 despite his deteriorating health. The early retire- ments of Etherege, Wycherley, and Congreve point up the fact that, besides our lack of hard biographical facts, we know little about the collective psychology of the Restoration playwrights, their fascination with youthful heroes rebelling against the kind of patriarchal authority - moral, familial, and political - that the Res- toration supposedly had restored. The lives of Etherege and Wycherley in particular seem to spill over into myth, ironic fic- tion, or, for the Colliers of the world, moral exempla: the drama- 17. Likenesses of Truth in Elizabethan and Restoration Drama (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972). This content downloaded from 193.227.1.43 on Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:15:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 102 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY tist retires from the theater and suffers the fate of his fools and hypocrites, falling prey to circumstances rather than controlling them. The near legendary existences of "loose, wandring, Ethe - rege , in wild Pleasures tost"18 and "Manly Witcherly '19 after their exits from the world of the theater suggest something of the ambivalence of Restoration society towards both its myths and writers. History, literature, and biography, as Johnson insists, are mutually revealing. In The Debt to Pleasure John Adlard introduces a brief analysis of Rochester's character with Wilhelm Reich's observation that "what is called the cultured human" is "a living structure com- posed of three layers:" On the surface he carries the artificial mask of self-control, of compulsive, insincere politeness and of artificial sociality. With this layer, he covers up the second one, the Freudian "unconscious," in which sadism, greediness, lasci- viousness, envy, perversions of all kinds . . . are kept in check, without how- ever, having in the least lost any of their power. This second layer is an arti- fact of a sex-negating culture; consciously, it is mostly experienced only as a gaping inner emptiness. Behind it, in the depths, live and work natural social- ity and sexuality, spontaneous enjoyment of work, capacity for love.20 The "natural sociality" of human beings may be either a discovery or creation of the Freudian Left, but the "artificial sociality" of the Restoration is clearly an historical product. To write history, in one sense, is to explore Reich's first and second layers, the ways in which society tries to deploy its mechanisms of repression to keep human nature "in check." How it tries to fill the "gaping inner emptiness" that these mechanisms create is both an historical and artistic question. Restoration drama, as Holland and others recognize, offers its share of opportunities to investigate "artificial sociality" and the Hobbesian "unconscious" it conceals. But it also goes beyond textbook formulations of the individual's conflict with society or the opposition of nature and art. Shadwell, Wycherley, and Etherege often seem as skeptical about the thea- ter's claims to authority as they are about their society's self- righteous pretensions. Their sensitivity to the dilemma of "the cul- tured human" stranded upon a particular bank and shoal of time is what gives their plays their peculiar and disturbing richness. 18. Thomas Southerne, "To Mr. Congreve," in Davis, Plays of Congreve, p. 31. 19. Dryden, "To my Dear Friend Mr. Congreve," p. 123. Dryden of course is playing on the name of Wycherley's hero in The Plain Dealer. That Wycherley took to signing himself "The Plain-Dealer" (see the 1704 edition of his poems) suggests a kind of self-mythologizing, his assuming a persona that his audience abstracted from his play. See also Katherine Rogers, William Wycherley (New York: Twayne, 1972). 20. Reich, The Function of the Orgasm (New York, 1961), p. 204; quoted in Adlard, The Debt to Pleasure (Manchester: Carcanet, 1974), pp. 7-8. This content downloaded from 193.227.1.43 on Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:15:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions