Language in Wycherley's Plays by James Thompson (review)

Book Reviews115 phy of Russian literature. There is also an article on émigré literature, and in general it should be noted that the Handbook is to be commended for giving much more attention to émigré writers than they often receive. The overall impression made by the Handbook of Russian Literature is extremely positive. While specialists will undoubtedly find much with which to disagree in the content of specific entries, the book unquestionably deserves a place on the bookshelf of anyone with a serious interest in Russian literature. MARGARET ZIOLKOWSKI University of Texas at El Paso JAMES THOMPSON. Language in Wycherley's Plays. University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1984. 151 p. Students of Wycherley and of Restoration comedy will welcome Thompson's book because it draws much-needed attention to this most perplexing and problematic of the Restoration playwrights. Yet it disappoints because, in spite of its title and two extensive chapters on seventeenth-century language theory, the study does not significantly extend the work of previous scholars of Wycherley. The strengths of Thompson's work are twofold. First, the initial two chapters, "Restoration Philosophies of Language" and "Restoration Ethics of Language," provide a thorough and useful, if sometimes esoteric, summary of Restoration theories of language. Thompson reflects contemporary scholarly interest in the nature of language itself and the impact of that nature on literature. By his own definition, language is explored in its semantic sense; Thompson is interested in "the verbal generation of meanings" (2). Further, Thompson attempts to extend semantic inquiry into the area of ethics and morality because, he contends, this was the progression of Restoration language theorists from John Wilkins to Thomas Hobbes. In essence, Thompson argues that for Restoration theorists, language and value were synonymous and absolute. However, in spite of the theories about semantics, linguistics, and philosophy advanced in the two introductory chapters, Thompson's exploration of Wycherley's four plays concentrates primarily on measuring the "right" use of words. Put succinctly, Thompson demonstrates that those characters who use words correctly, both in their semantic and moral sense, succeed and are held up for audience approval; those characters who misuse words semantically and misunderstand the ethical implications of words either fail, are held up to ridicule for their mistakes, or are disapproved for their deliberate misuse of words. Thompson cites, among others, Dapperwit in Love in a Wood, Monsieur de Paris and Don Diego in Gentleman Dancing-Master as examples of characters whose perspicacity is inadequate to the task of sophisticated language use and who are hence the targets of ridicule. Horner and Lady Fidget in Country Wife and Vernish and Olivia in Plain Dealer provide examples of those who deliberately misuse or ignore the ethical implications of words and thus invite moral disapprobation , while Fidelia, Alithea, and Harcourt represent the "right" use of language both ethically and semantically. Few students of Wycherley would quarrel with these conclusions, and therein lies the weakness of Thompson's work. Despite his description of Restoration language theories, his treatment of the plays is rather standard and does not significantly extend the work of earlier scholars. 116Rocky Mountain Review For all his apparent attention to language in Wycherley's plays, Thompson's real concern is with the behavior of characters and the assignment of praise and blame within some kind of ethical framework. Finally, Thompson's discussion of the ill or proper use of language does not differ significantly from Norman Holland's concept of right way/wrong way behavior articulated in The First Modern Comedies (1967), and Thomas Fujimura's concept of True Wit/ False Wit advanced in the Restoration Comedy of Wit (1952). Further, Thompson makes no reference to Fujimura's work at all — a surprising oversight given Thompson's thesis. Part of Thompson's failure results from what I believe to be his fundamental misapprehension of the nature of language. What Thompson wants to explore is the ethical basis of the plays. He asks, as must all readers of Wycherley, by what standard can readersjudge such disparate characters as Dapperwit, Monsieur de Paris, Horner, Fidelia, and Manly? Because these characters use words differently — all using the word honor, for example, but implying quite different modes...