Congreve's Use of Wit and Humour. SH C

Congreve’s use of Wit and Humor in The Way of the World
In raising his own comedy of manners, Congreve has “imitated the earlier
mode of writings in The Way of the World”. We notice a great influence of earlier
drama on the play. The influence of Shakespeare is discernible; so is Ben Jonson’s. By
distinguishing the authentic variety of wit from the destructive, idle one Congreve
has not only enhanced the dramatic appeal of the play, he reminds us of
Shakespeare and comes out unscathed from the charge of immorality and obscenity.
He has written The Way of the World, in keeping with the conventions of the
Restoration comedy of manners with a perfect use of satire, irony, wit and humor.
In his essay, Concerning Humour in Comedy, Congreve shows a clear

understanding of the importance of the humours tradition in English comic writing
and offers a definition of what is meant by the term 'humour' that is obviously
inspired by both Ben Jonson and John Dryden:
“I take it to be, A singular and unavoidable manner of doing, or saying anything,
Peculiar and Natural to one Man only; by which his Speech and Actions are
distinguished from those of other Men.”
In the same essay, he takes great pains to distinguish humour both from wit
and from affectation. As he explains, wit is often mistaken for humour (as is its
opposite, folly). But wit is something quite different. It is a manner of response that
may be used by a character rather than a determining feature affecting the whole
behaviour of the character. As Congreve expresses it:
”Every person in a comedy may be allowed to speak them [pleasant things]. From a
witty man they are expected and even a fool may be permitted to stumble. . . . I do
not think that humorous characters exclude wit; no, but the manner of wit should be
adapted to the humour . . . ; a character of a splenetic and peevish humour should
have a satirical wit. A jolly and sanguine humour should have a facetious wit.”
He clearly distinguishes between true wit and false wit. In providing an

explanation of the term the era of Congreve‟s society has to be considered as well
because the meaning of the word shifted throughout the history. Gelber mentions
that while in the sixteenth century wit stood for genius or wisdom, in the seventeenth
century its meaning narrowed to a “capacity for ingenuity, an ability to make
unexpected unions or contrast of generally diverse ideas” (Gelber). For both Pope
and Addison “wit involved good taste, morality and it was essentially interchangeable
with the idea of literary genius.”
Wit is indeed closely connected to language, but is not expressed solely in

words and speeches. It is also reflected through action. The central characters of the
play Mirabell and Fainall are both very good rhetoricians; therefore it is the deeds
rather that discourse that distinguish the true wit that is Mirabell from Fainall, who
only feigns it, however masterfully at times, using the language of a gentleman to
mask his real spiteful and vicious nature. The way they both plot against Lady
Wishfort brilliantly highlights the differences that demark the two characters. Fainall
is unscrupulously pursuing his ambition to obtain his mother-in-law’s fortune and he
is willing to destroy his wife’s reputation, to let her turn “adrift like a leaky hulk to
sink or swim”, thus fully uncovering his absolute lack of morality and false wit. His
instincts are not accurate enough and he gets lost in his schemes. In his final scene,
when he is faced with the evidence of the parchment that allocates his wife’s estate
“in trust to Edward Mirabell” , he cannot control his rage or find words to fight or
defend himself, but flees after a failed attempt to assault his wife, which proves his
ultimate defeat on the rhetorical battlefield as well.
The world of Congreve‟s play is full of false wits, but there still can be
found true wit between Mirabell and his love interest Millamant show superiority of
wit among others. However, just as would-be wits have their moments of brightness,
those two also struggle, but even when they are “laughable at times, in the main they
are sympathetic and by the awareness of the way of the world (and a certain degree
of luck) they are able to escape its ever-present dangers” (Kaufman 412). They learnt
to conduct themselves in the society with sense of propriety and sufficient level of
self-discipline. Mirabell does not pursue his scheme unscrupulously as Fainall does,
but ensures that it does not pose real danger to Lady Wishfort, when he links her
with a suitor that is already married. He pleads that it was an innocent device even
though “it had a face of guiltiness” and that he has never intended to cause lasting
distress to Lady Wishfort. Indeed, through his action he distances himself from Fainall
and professes his moral superiority.
Congreve’s creative art of characterization for satirizing the people of his age can
be seen even through the portrayal of his humourous pair, Witwoud and Petulant that works
out the two kinds of inept imposture and nonsense ‘which are powerful in their ability to
annoy the rest of the community without even realizing it’. We also have Sir Wilfull, who is
rustic and being a misfit in hierarchy society is not a simple object for satiric comedy. Sir
Wilfull is mildly satirized, but his honest and unassuming character is a sitting contrast with
the affectations of the artifices of the town. Through him Congreve criticizes the mannered
world of sundry fashions.
In conclusion, Congreve‟s play The Way of the World offers a complex

representation of wit and humor in great forms. He uses typical wit-woulds from the
Restoration comedies, but he operates with them in such a way that they do not
remain only rigid and laughable characters. The barrier between them and true wits
is sometimes so thin that they are almost indistinguishable from each other.
However, in comparison to Mirabell or Millamant their affected wit (as Congreve
called it in his dedication) proves to be false. The discourse of such characters does
not possess sufficient subtlety or propriety and their actions lack sense of morality.
As a result their schemes eventually succumb to those flaws, leaving them defeated
in the game of society.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:-
1. Congreve’s The Way of the world, Sengupta Kajal.

2. ‘William Congreve’, David Thomas, Macmillan.
3. Congreve’s “Concerning Humour in Comedy”.
4. Anthony Kaufman’s “Language and character in Congreve’s the way of the
world.”

Congreve's Use of Wit and Humour. SH C

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Congreve's Use of Wit and Humour. SH C

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Congreve’s use of Wit and Humor in The Way of the World

In his essay, Concerning Humour in Comedy, Congreve shows a clear

He clearly distinguishes between true wit and false wit. In providing an

Wit is indeed closely connected to language, but is not expressed solely in

In conclusion, Congreve‟s play The Way of the World offers a complex

1. Congreve’s The Way of the world, Sengupta Kajal.

You might also like