Way of the World

by William Congreve

"LADY. With Mirabell? You call my blood into my face with mentioning that traitor. She durst not have the confidence. I sent her to negotiate an affair, in which if I'm detected I'm undone. If that wheedling villain has wrought upon Foible to detect me, I'm ruined. O my dear friend, I'm a wretch of wretches if I'm detected."

In 1700, when The Way of the World was performed on the English stage at Lincoln’s Inn Fields (a new theatre that William Congreve managed), it was not a popular success. This was the last play Congreve was to write, perhaps for that reason. Since that time, however, this play has come to be regarded not only as Congreve’s masterpiece, but as a classic example of the Comedy of Manners. The play is aptly named for two reasons. First, its action takes place in the “present,” which means it reflects the same social period during which the play was originally performed. Second, as a comedy of manners, its purpose is to expose to public scrutiny and laughter the often absurd yet very human passions and follies that characterize social behavior. It therefore transcends its time by holding a mirror to the fashionable world in all of its frivolity and confusion while posing something more precious and sensible as an antidote.

As with all comedies of this type, the principle comic material consists of sexual relations and confrontations. Marriages are made for the sake of convenience and tolerated within precise social limits. Affairs are conventional, jealousies abound, lovers are coy, and gallantry is contrived. Dowries are the coin of the marriage realm and therefore they are of central concern in all contracts and adulterous intrigues. Congreve makes clear that the general way of the world may be funny but it is not particularly nice. In the way of all romantic comedies the “marriage of true minds” is finally achieved, but humiliation, cruelty, and villainy are the means by which the action goes forward. His comedy is not intended to remedy the world, of course, but to offer an insightful and amusing view of both its seedy and sympathetic aspects.

encyclopedia dot com

Genres: Plays, Classics, Drama, Fiction, Theatre, School, 18th Century

Paperback

First published January 1, 1700

About the author

"William Congreve was an English playwright and poet.... William Congreve wrote some of the most popular English plays of the Restoration period of the late 17th century. By the age of thirty, he had written four comedies, including Love for Love (premiered 30 April 1695) and The Way of the World (premiered 1700), and one tragedy, The Mourning Bride (1697).

Unfortunately, his career ended almost as soon as it began. After writing five plays from his first in 1693 until 1700, he produced no more as public tastes turned against the sort of high-brow sexual comedy of manners in which he specialized. He reportedly was particularly stung by a critique written by Jeremy Collier (A Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage), to the point that he wrote a long reply, "Amendments of Mr. Collier's False and Imperfect Citations."

A member of the Whig Kit-Kat Club, Congreve's career shifted to the political sector, where he held various minor political positions despite his stance as a Whig among Tories."

Reviews

[Sawsan · Rating 3 out of 5]

مسرحية للكاتب المسرحي الانجليزي وليم كونجريف وهو من أهم كُتاب عصر العودة
والعودة هنا إشارة إلى عصر عودة الملكية في انجلترا عام 1660
المسرحية كوميدية تنقد سلوكيات وعادات المجتمع
والعلاقات الاجتماعية القائمة على الخداع والزيف
وخاصة علاقات الحب والزواج التي يبحث طرفاها عن المصلحة

[Buck · Rating 5 out of 5]

William Congreve wrote this unspeakably brilliant play at the age of twenty-nine. Then he frittered away the rest of his life on politics, mistresses and gout. At least Orson Welles kept at it and got Touch of Evil made before drifting onto the talk-show circuit and into Carslberg commercials.

For sheer verbal exuberance, no playwright in English even comes close to Congreve (well, okay, there’s that one guy from Stratford ). Just listen to this:

Out of my house, out of my house, thou viper, thou serpent that I have fostered, thou bosom traitress that I raised from nothing! Begone, begone, begone, go, go; that I took from washing of old gauze and weaving of dead hair, with a bleak blue nose, over a chafing-dish of starved embers, and dining behind a traverse rag, in a shop no bigger than a bird-cage. Go, go, starve again, do, do!

This is Lady Wishfort, a randy widow who’s supposed to be the villain of the piece, but whose invective is so splendidly bitchy that you can't help but love the nasty old broad:

No damage? What, to betray me, to marry me to a cast serving-man; to make me a receptacle, an hospital for a decayed pimp? No damage? O thou frontless impudence, more than a big-bellied actress!

Well, it’s a good thing the holidays are finally over, because if it were up to me, I'd go on stuffing myself with Ferrero Rochers, reading clever comedies and pretending I’m a foppish rake (but, you know, without the syphilis).

[Manny · Rating 3 out of 5]

An extract from the recently discovered Carry on Congreve (1969), soon to be released on DVD and Blu-ray:

SIR WILLFULL (Kenneth Connor)
S’heart, aunt, I have no mind to marry. My cousin’s a fine lady, and the gentleman loves her, and she loves him, and they deserve one another; my resolution is to see foreign parts- I have set on’t- and when I’m set on’t I must do’t. And if these two gentlemen would travel too, I think they may be spared.

PETULANT (Charles Hawtrey)
For my part, I say little- I think things are best off or on.

WITWOUD (Sid James)
I’gad, I understand nothing of the matter; I’m in a maze yet, like a dog in a dancing-school.

LADY WISHFORT (Hattie Jacques)
Well, sir, take her, and with her all the joy I can give you.

MRS. MILLAMANT (Barbara Windsor)
Why does not the man take me? would you have me give myself to you over again?

MIRABELL (Kenneth Williams)
Ay, and over and over again; I would have you as often as possibly I can.

MRS. MILLAMANT
Oooh, you are awful!

MIRABELL [aside]
’Tis the way of the world.

MRS. MILLAMANT
... but I like you.

[Rakhi Dalal · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a piece of writing!!Comedy at best! Reminded me of Importance of Being Earnest , but definitely better than that.

Highly recommended for a light reading! Couldn't keep myself from smiling all the time :)

[Andreea · Rating 2 out of 5]

Tedious posh people being tedious and posh.

[Janice · Rating 2 out of 5]

Confusing and poisonously cynical. I laughed only a once or twice. This is probably something that one must see staged in order to appreciate.

[David Sarkies · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Shadow of Shakespeare
24 June 2017

Here I am sitting in the beer garden of a pub that may not be around for much longer due to the construction of a subway station, and having seen a wonderful production of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead on the big screen (and it starred none other than Daniel Radcliffe of the Harry Potter fame who seems to be doing his best to distance himself from that fame, and I have to admit that he is doing a rather good job at that). You may wonder why I am bringing this up on a review of a Restoration Comedy, and I could probably say no reason, but there is a reason. I say that because, at least in my mind, I simply do not seem to be familiar with the plays, or the playwrights, between Shakespeare and the modern era (beginning with Bernard Shaw and Oscar Wilde).

Okay, Congreve wrote sometime after the Restoration Period, which began in around 1660, however his works are still considered to be Restoration Comedies. The Restoration Period is a period that came immediately after the restoration of the monarchy after England's rather disastrous experiment with being a republic. It also came after a period of time when all of the theatres were closed down thanks to the Puritans considering theatres to be little more than dens of iniquity from which nothing good, or pure, ever came out of. In a way it seems to be quite similar to the anti-Dungeons and Dragons sentiment that arose during the Eighties from the Religious Right (and I still remember getting the cane in High School for consorting with the devil simply because a friend and I were caught playing the game during lunchtime).

However, Way of the World is pretty standard for the restoration period as it tends to be farcical and also deals with romantic relationships, but not in a way with which we would be familiar. The thing is that the modern romantic comedy that we know (and somewhat despise) is nothing like the farcical performances of this period. The play deals with quite a few things common with the time, including people wanting to get married due to the fact that they will get money in the bargain, adulterous affairs, and the inappropriateness of marrying outside of one's class. Mind you, I can't really go into too much detail because, as with most plays, I end up getting lost because they can be really hard to follow, particularly if I haven't seen the performance. The other thing is that the plots are so complex that, unless you actually see them being performed, they can, once again, be difficult to follow.

As such I can't really recommend reading some of these releases because the editors simply do not do all that much work to help us understand what is going on. If only they would put a reasonable introduction at the beginning of the play, and each of the acts, it would be much better. Also, the lack of stage directions also hinders me a lot, and further, plays from this period seem to change scenes whenever a character enters or leaves, which further adds to the confusion. The thing is that these technically aren't changes in scenes because the only thing that is changing is who happens to be on stage. The action should flow. However, by breaking it up like that disrupts the action of the play. Further, the characters aren't fully explained – they are simply names, and names don't necessarily tell us anything about the character. Sure, we are probably supposed to work this out through their dialogue, but that simply doesn't work either. At least the person who owned the book I read did put some notes indicating who was in love with whom (though it wasn't many).

However, I'm going to have to admit that I am not a huge fan of these comedies, namely because I never really find such comedies funny. Okay, I have been a fan of those high school and college comedy movies (such as Animal House and Revenge of the Nerds), but while these plays seem to be similar, they are certainly not the same. These high school comedies, just like these plays, are generally targeted towards a middle class audience, and this is the type of audience that was starting to appear at the time. The other problem is that a lot of plays from this period seem to be caught up in the shadow of Shakespeare, and Shakespeare has cast an incredibly long shadow across the theatre. In a way it wasn't until Shaw and Wilde that we finally managed to escape his shadow. However, maybe it is because many of these plays were still written in living memory (though Wilde and Shaw are becoming ever more distance), where as the Restoration period is far enough back that the giant that Shakespeare happens to simply swallow them up.

Oh, I also got to see my football team win.

[Paras2 · Rating 2 out of 5]

DROPPED IT LIKE A HOT POTATO.
EW!

[Roy Lotz · Rating 4 out of 5]

What, Tony, i’faith! What, dost thou not know me? By’r lady, nor I thee, thou art so becravated and so beperiwigged.

Aside from the conspicuous distinction of containing the most English of English words I’ve ever read (beperiwigged!), this Restoration comedy is also an excellent piece of work. I don’t think I’ve ever read a play with such an intricate story. We go from plot to counter plot, to counter-counter plot, as the rather grasping and cunning cast of characters scheme to marry, to elope, to divorce, and most of all, to ruin every else’s schemes. Indeed, on the several train rides it took me to read this play, I was often left with a headache from following along. There is so much wrangling and negotiating and intrigue, it’s as if it was written by a lawyer rather than a dramatist. The most tender scene is the drafting of a prenuptial agreement!

Also notable is the absence of any sympathetic character. They are, all of them, a bit wicked and corrupt. Not a single character is motivated by kindness or generosity; selfishness is instead the ruling passion. It is easy to write this off as an intentional satire on Congreve’s times, but it didn’t strike me that way. Rather, I thought Congreve was attempting to give an honest portrayal of human nature, unadorned with any romantic embellishments. And is he so far from the mark? As Congreve says, “Even so, sir: ’tis the way of the world, sir".

I’m sure this play would be doubly interesting to anyone more familiar with this period of English history. Sad to say, this was mostly lost on me. But Congreve is such a master of the craft that I still had a marvelous good time. He is at times as witty as Wilde, and his humor is occasionally as black as Vonnegut’s, though a great deal more subtle. The line between comedy and tragedy is after all more tenuous than we’d normally like to think. As the philosopher Santayana said: "Between the laughing and the weeping philosopher there is no opposition: the same facts that make one laugh make one weep."

[notgettingenough · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was hard not to have at the back of my mind whilst watching this, the National Theatre's performance of The Beaux' Strategem by George Farquar. But how unfair. That vast auditorium at Southbank, the huge budget, a set that was enormous in all directions - how could a play reading with $20 of props and a notional idea of costume in a 200 seat theatre compare?

Being a reading, this production of The Way of the World at the Little Theatre at Adelaide Uni, was far more uncertain than a fullblown production would have been. The cast ranged from what felt like highly professional to young and inexperienced, with the unsurprising result that the roles of the latter did not engage as they presumably should have. Then there is the language, which is a challenge to the audience not because it is particularly difficult, but because we are used to Shakespearean language, whereas Restoration plays are rarely performed. We wondered if we enjoyed the second half more than the first because we were in the zone by then, we'd slipped into the idiom.

Rest here:

https://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpre...

[Czarny Pies · Rating 3 out of 5]

First performed 15 years after the death of Charles II, this play still is nonetheless considered to be one of the Restoration Comedies. It will meet the approval of any reader who feels that depravity is to be enjoyed and cultivated.

This vile little comedy represents well enough a low period in English literature. I agree however with the professor of an undergraduate course that I took 45 years ago who chose Sheridan's "School for Scandal" to represent the Restoration.

[Trish · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Restoration comedy that's a) still funny, and b) shows that not a lot has changed since 1700 with respect to the love of money and being willing to do almost anything to get it.

And also, some of the satire - especially when Lady Wishfort is talking about how she trained her daughter in "virtue", as well as various other things - links to some of the opinions in Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, which I was reading around the same time

[Resa · Rating 1 out of 5]

Very confusing plot and not at all reader friendly = a common Restoration comedy. The characters have names that start with the same sounds and it makes for a very unpleasant experience. For the first two acts you have no idea what is going on but then the last act ties everything together. If you have time to re-read it is worth it, but I would not experience torture over.

[Reza · Rating 1 out of 5]

Life's too short to damage your mental health reading bs for a uni course. dnf.

[Perry Whitford · Rating 4 out of 5]

Beneath all the perriwigs and face paint they were rather a wicked rabble, those Restoration period aristocrats.

At least if this popular play from the period - still occasionally performed today - is anything to go by. Pretty much all the characters are either deceiving or being deceived, or both. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Mirabel loves Mrs. Millamant ("Her follies are so natural, or so artful, that they become her") and would quite like to get his hands on her dowry too, but her aunt, the comic foil Lady Wishfort, doesn't approve.

Similarly, the adulterer Fainall is after the money of his mistress, Mrs. Marwood. So the men are bad, but the women scarcely better. The play opens with them enjoying one of their regular "cabal-nights ... where they come together like the coroner’s inquest, to sit upon the murdered reputations of the week."

As you might expect, the wit is as wicked as the behaviour, and as refined as the costumes:
Fainall: No matter for that; ’tis for the honour of England that all Europe should know we have blockheads of all ages.
Mirabell: I wonder there is not an act of parliament to save the credit of the nation and prohibit the exportation of fools.
Fainall: By no means, ’tis better as ’tis; ’tis better to trade with a little loss, than to be quite eaten up with being overstocked.

It can also be bawdy, though always powdered with the veneer of sophistication, like the faces:
Millamant: Ah, I’ll never marry, unless I am first made sure of my will and pleasure.
Mirabell: Would you have ’em both before marriage? Or will you be contented with the first now, and stay for the other till after grace?

I guess there is a shred of morality after all, in so much as the bad eventually triumph over the really bad. The plot is fairly intricate, even if the dénouement is something of a cheap trick.

Wicked fun, enough to lead any Puritan to pray for the second coming of Cromwell.

[Ananya Ghosh · Rating 3 out of 5]

I just finished the book and thought it'd be best to write down my thoughts on it. This isn't going to be much of a review, I'm sorry!

So, I have this habit of reading goodreads reviews of other readers of books that I finish reading and in this book's reviews, I saw people call it as 'light comedy'. Well, truth be told, it is NOT a light comedy! The book is filled with heavy dialogues that are mostly fillers and have no real purpose of being there, except to demonstrate the wit or false wit, in a few cases, of the characters. The drama is a restoration comedy and so puts forth a stark naked picture of the immoral, licentious and conceited upper-class people of the 17th century, with every man and woman either being utterly stupid, or engaging in multiple relationships.

The play, though now considered to be the epitome of Restoration Comedy, wasn't received well upon it's dramatisation back then, owing to the complex plot structure of the story that has excessively bulky dialogues and almost no action. Besides, characters are introduced with such force, and yet, many a scenes are not well provided with details, like the scene where Lady Wishfort, upon coming to realise the treachery of Sir Rowland, still pretends that nothing has happened on his face, but in the next scene, without any deliberation, begins shouting at her maid Foible, blaming her for the treachery.

Being a comedy, of course it made me laugh a few laughs, and appreciate a good too many witty dialogues, but overall, reading this was a tedious job and I did it only for class. I do not recommend it for anyone other than Literature students, because A. it is quite lengthy and boring in the most parts B. it isn't the kind of story that must be told and read, life can go on well without this.
But other than that, if anyone wants to get a taste of the 17th century upper-class British society, then this is the work you should pick up.

[Stephen Kelly · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is probably very good on the stage, but on the page it is a chore. Did Congreve really need to give every character a name beginning with an M or a W? The character's love affairs are already crisscrossed in bizarre overlaps; trying to distinguish the names only makes a difficult puzzle impossible. As far as I could tell, the conclusion seemed improbable, the character relationships unnatural, and the humor not exactly funny (with the exception of Petulant, who hires empty coaches to call for him at hotels so he can make a show being too busy to deal with them, and the boisterous Lady Willful, who scolds her maid while applying excessive amounts of cosmetic). Don't read this, at least not first--find a way to see it performed.

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have to admit, this was a tough one for me. I think I generally got the gist of everything, but I could probably use the cliffs notes for act 5. I did laugh out loud (literally, on the quiet floor too) while reading this play. The sarcasm, backhanded compliments, and wittiness are pervasive in every snippet of dialogue. The character relationships are complex (you should see my attempt at a chart) and a lot of the names look similar so it's hard to differentiate. Overall I really enjoyed the play, and even though it was written during the restoration the messages about the extent to which people will go to protect their reputation rings especially true in modern times.

[Alice · Rating 1 out of 5]

??..

[Abigail Franklin · Rating 4 out of 5]

what just happened. Sontag cites Congreve as one of the originators of Camp & lemme tell ya, I 👁️see👁️ it

[Emma M.]

Reminded me of Midsummer Night's Dream with the way that all the characters were in love and trying to deceive one another. I enjoyed the meta-theatrical references to Shakespeare, and the fact that Lady Wishfort openly despised plays.

[ursu :p · Rating 1 out of 5]

no me costaba tanto acabar un libro desde k leí wuthering heigths. encima no me enteré de nada 😍

[Muhammad Moneib · Rating 3 out of 5]

Light Comedy of Good Old Taste

In a pretentiously conservative society, satire may be the most dangerous form of writing. For once, there's plenty of hypocrisy to pinpoint and make fun of, but as soon as one does this, the satirized will put on their priesthood disguise, hold their weapons, and attack collectively. That's why, perhaps, subtleness is usually the satirical's companion in such a case, one which allows him to convey his message of attacking hypocrisy without explicitly exposing the hypocrites.

In The Way of the World, William Congreve follows this guideline very well, yet he's aware of the backlash that his strong message could cause. After all, he's discussing the intimate inner lives of the British aristocracy of his era, with all its pretension, vanity, and infidelity. That was a theme not so often approached by a play writer back then, that in his dedication of the play to the Earl of Montague, Congreve recommends the comedy to the latter's protection, hoping for it "to be distinguished; for the prostituted name of poet promiscuously levels all that bear it." He recognizes that his play, despite its theatrical success, has "little of it prepared for the general taste," and informs his correspondent that his characters "should appear ridiculous, not so much through a natural folly as through an affected wit; a wit, which at the same time that is affected, is also false."

While the characters of the play are not that many, the relationships between them are a little complex. Mirabell and Fainall, the two male leading characters, are close friends. Fainall is married to Mrs. Fainall, but they hate each other. Mrs. Fainall likes Mirabell, as does almost all the other leading young ladies in the play: Marwood amd Millament. Another pivotal character is Lady Wishfort, an old lady who's looking for a husband. She's Mrs. Fainall's mother, and Millament's aunt. She hates Mirabell because he pretended to love her once.

The complex relationships arise from the infidelity of the character. For example, Mrs. Fainall tries to approach Mirabell, while Mr. Fainall is in love with Marwood, who likes Mirabell too. Mirabell and Millament are in love, but to marry, they need Lady Wishfort's consent, because she holds all Millament's fortune. Of course, Lady Wishfort can't accept the marriage because she hates Mirabell. Other notable characters of the play are Millament's followers: Witwoud and Petulant. They are the representation of the affected and false wit mentioned by Congreve. Of his characters, Congreve says that they "are meant to be ridiculed," are "fools so gross," and that they "should rather disturb than divert the well-natured and reflecting part of an audience; they are rather objects of charity than contempt; and instead of moving our mirth, they ought very often to excite our compassion."

Amid all this falsehood arises some truthfulness in the relation between Mirabell and Millament. A scene between them explores the gender expectations of marriage, exchanging vows of respecting each other's personal space, providing what could be considered as a serious, if superficial, advice to successful relationships that can still ring true in our modern times. Yet, despite their truthfulness, and in order to succeed in their romantic endeavor, both Mirabell and Millament decide to trick Lady Wishfort into conceding Millament's fortune through getting her to love a fictional Sir Rowland, who is really Waitwell, Mirabell's servant, in disguise.

It is through this plot to trick the lady with the money that things begin to unfold towards the play's conclusion. A counter plot would be established in run for the reward, as the competition for the money would expose the characters and transform their relationships. There are plenty of smiles along the way as one feels the ridiculous situations, imagines the comedic scenery, or reads the clever use of poetry.

The Way of the World's main focus is the English society of the Seventeenth century, with all its pretentious conservatism. Some aspects may not be relevant to some of the modern societies, but they will not hinder the appreciation of the play's qualities. Nonetheless, the old English may be bothersome to some, myself included. Also, while some conversations are funny, there's nothing deep about the overall experience. It is just a light comedy discussing a serious issue.

William Congreve's treatment of the pretended culture is enjoyable and memorable, if not substantial. To his credit, he was ready to touch sensitive issues, knowing that he might offend some, including many critics. The following lines in the prologue read to the play's audience say it all:

To please, this time, has been his sole pretence,
He'll not instruct, lest it should give offence.
Should he by chance a knave or fool expose,
That hurts none her, sure here are none of those.

[Ainhoa Verdú · Rating 3 out of 5]

Uni reading: English Lit. XVIII century.
A bit boring 1700s play. Meh.

[Oliwia]

Not to quote Witwoud but, God, I understand nothing of the matter—I'm in a maze yet; like a dog in a dancing school

[Mutmainna · Rating 3 out of 5]

*You can read this review at my website too.*

Let me be honest. When I had started reading the book, it seemed so DAAAMN confusing! I mean all the characters seem to have the same kind of surname! I mean, how am I not supposed to get confused between Mirabell and Millamant? But once I had started to blend in with the storyline I found it to be quite interesting. The title is kind of a complete summary of the play itself. The play shows the 'way' of thought of the people of that society, the 'way' of behavior through the characters presented in it and ultimately portrays a picture of the 'way of the world' of the Restoration Period. What seemed to me quite interesting is that all the character names somehow or the other represents more than just names. To me, the chain of affairs and/or extra marital affairs gives the play a touch of modern day television shows that the audience or the readers would find pretty much arresting. From my point of view, I would say if you're an avid reader and able to go on with the first few pages, this William Congreve creation won't disappoint you.
2 little points from the rating because of the not-so-interesting starting and sounding so confusing at times:P

[Aaron Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this play just sparkles. Every single time I assign it to a group of students, they find it difficult – the characters are unlikable, the morality is suspect. So much for them. I think it's a delight. Congreve was writing as something of a throwback to the outrageous Restoration comedies of the 1670s and so this play is self-consciously referential and nostalgic, but it's also laugh-out-loud funny, it's filled with plenty of farcical business in addition to its comedy-of-manners style, and Mrs. Millimant must certainly be the most delightful character of the Restoration stage. Alas, this is really the last Restoration comedy, but it may also be the best.

[livros.da.sofia · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one witty, funny comedy I didn't actually expect to like, with characters that would best live in our times than theirs, and demands far more reasonable now than when they were demanded.
It is a shame that the play wasn't well received at the time, but it makes it all the more enjoyable for us to read now. The fierce criticism to puritanism through the mocking of characters in particular is fitting to the post-democracy mood of when it was written, and the romance of course, it's particular of a much needed change of public - the forthcoming burgoisie.

[Leslie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This Restoration comedy didn't tickle my funny bone as much as either Sheridan or Goldsmith. Perhaps if I saw it performed, I would like it more... That said, it did have some funny moments and I liked the satire about Mr. and Mrs. Fainall both being unfaithful.

I read my print copy (included in "Four Great Comedies of the Restoration and 18th century") as I listened to this full cast recording by LibriVox. Mil Nicholson was marvelous as Lady Wishfort but not all of the cast were of comparable quality. Overall, I would say this recording is good but not excellent.

[Teresa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perhaps my favorite Restoration comedy because of the strange way Millamant can take nothing seriously and be so sad at the same time.