Thomas Hobbes, in his seminal work Leviathan (1651), posited a bleak vision of humanity’s natural state, famously describing it as a “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes). In this “state of nature,” life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” driven by self-preservation and fear, with no overarching authority to enforce laws or morality. Thomas Hobbes’s radical solution to this existential power struggle was the formation of a social contract, wherein individuals cede some of their natural liberties to an absolute sovereign – the Leviathan – whose power is necessary to maintain peace, order, and collective security. This sovereign, whether a monarch or an assembly, holds ultimate authority to prevent society from lapsing back into chaos, making law and justice possible by compelling obedience.

William Congreve’s “The Way of the World” (1700), a Restoration comedy of manners, operates within a vastly different philosophical and social landscape from Hobbes’s political treatise. Yet, a perceptive reading reveals that the play, while not overtly philosophical, dramatizes a “Hobbesian power struggle” not on a grand political scale, but within the intricate and often ruthless confines of late 17th-century London society. The “state of nature” in Congreve’s world is a perpetual social combat, where wit, reputation, wealth, and status are the currency of power, and individuals are constantly vying for advantage in a cynical, self-serving environment. Trust is scarce, appearances are deceptive, and the pursuit of material gain, especially through advantageous marriage, often overshadows genuine affection. Within this seemingly chaotic social battlefield, the play subtly presents its own pragmatic “solution” – one not reliant on an absolute sovereign, but on sophisticated negotiation, mutual understanding, and the strategic deployment of intelligence and artifice to forge a limited, yet viable, form of order and happiness.

The Hobbesian State of Nature in Congreve's Social World

Congreve’s “The Way of the World” paints a vivid picture of a society where self-interest reigns supreme, echoing Hobbes’s fundamental premise about human nature. The polite veneer of Restoration society barely conceals a cutthroat competition for wealth, status, and sexual gratification. Characters are largely motivated by financial gain (particularly inheritance), the preservation or enhancement of reputation, and the manipulation of others to achieve their ends. This creates a social “state of nature” where:

  • Lack of Trust and Pervasive Deception: Few characters genuinely trust one another. Relationships are predicated on schemes, dissimulation, and the strategic withholding or manipulation of information. Fainall openly despises his wife and plots to secure her fortune; Marwood is driven by vengeful passion and deceit; Lady Wishfort is self-deluded and easily manipulated. The very air of the play is thick with plotting, eavesdropping, and the fabrication of falsehoods. This mirrors Hobbes’s “diffidence” where, in the absence of common power, no one can trust another to honor agreements, leading to a constant state of suspicion and pre-emptive attack.
  • Competition for Resources and Status: The primary “resource” in this world is money, especially inherited wealth, and the means to acquire it is often marriage. The desperate pursuit of Lady Wishfort’s fortune by Fainall, Marwood, Witwoud, Petulant, and even Mirabell (though for different reasons), exemplifies this intense competition. Beyond wealth, social standing and reputation are fiercely guarded commodities. Scandal is a weapon, and its potential exposure can ruin a person’s standing, akin to a physical injury in Hobbes’s state of nature.
  • The War of Wit and Language: Unlike Hobbes’s state of nature where physical force is the primary weapon, in Congreve’s drawing rooms, wit, repartee, and mastery of language are the tools of engagement and defense. Characters engage in verbal duels, using sharp insights, clever euphemisms, and veiled insults to assert dominance, expose weaknesses, and navigate complex social situations. Mirabell and Millamant, in particular, engage in a sophisticated “war” of wit, testing each other’s intellectual acuity and emotional resilience. This intellectual combat is a refined sublimation of the raw struggle for power.
  • Absence of a Moral Sovereign: There is no moral authority or external “Leviathan” dictating right from wrong in this world. The characters largely operate based on self-interest and social convenience rather than ethical principles. Laws are only significant insofar as they protect property (like inheritance settlements), not necessarily to enforce justice or morality. Reputation is a social construct, not a moral one, and can be ruined by gossip as much as by genuine misdeeds. This absence of a higher moral authority forces individuals to rely on their own cunning and ability to navigate the treacherous social waters.

Negotiation and Artifice as the Social Contract

Given this Hobbesian social landscape, Congreve’s “solution” is not a grand political one, but a series of pragmatic, often cynical, strategies for individuals to establish a precarious peace and achieve their desires. The play suggests that order can be found not through submission to an absolute sovereign, but through sophisticated negotiation, mutual understanding, and the establishment of specific, often contractual, agreements.

Wit and Language as the Architects of Order

In the absence of a sovereign to enforce universal laws, wit and linguistic prowess become the primary means by which individuals assert control, defend themselves, and construct their own terms of engagement. Mirabell, the play’s protagonist, exemplifies this. His intelligence allows him to orchestrate complex schemes, expose the deceits of others, and ultimately secure his desired marriage. His wit is not merely for entertainment; it is a strategic tool for survival and success in this competitive environment. Millamant, his female counterpart, uses her wit to maintain her independence, guard her reputation, and control her own narrative amidst pervasive social pressures. Their verbal sparring is a form of pre-contractual negotiation, where they test each other’s intellectual acuity and emotional resilience.

Marriage as a Calculated Treaty

Marriage, far from being a romantic ideal, is presented as the quintessential social contract in “The Way of the World.” It is a transaction, a strategic alliance for financial security and social standing, rather than an emotional bond. Lady Wishfort’s desperation for a husband, Fainall’s cynical marriage to Mrs. Fainall for her fortune, and the various schemes surrounding Lady Wishfort’s inheritance all underscore this point. In this context, the “solution” to the inherent struggle for wealth and status lies in the meticulous crafting of marriage settlements and contracts. These legal documents act as a mini-Leviathan, enforcing the terms of agreement between parties and attempting to mitigate future conflict over property and personal autonomy. However, the play demonstrates that these contracts are often merely frameworks for further deception and maneuvering, unless accompanied by genuine understanding.

The "Proviso Scene": A Microcosm of Social Contract Theory

The most direct and celebrated “solution” to the Hobbesian power struggle within the play is the “proviso scene” between Mirabell and Millamant. This scene is a brilliant articulation of a personal social contract, explicitly designed to establish terms for co-existence and prevent the “war of all against all” within their own marriage. Recognizing the societal pitfalls of marriage – the loss of individuality, the demands of social conformity, and the potential for domestic tyranny – Mirabell and Millamant propose a series of conditions for their union.

Their “provisos” include:

  • Preservation of Individual Liberty: Millamant insists on retaining her personal space, her social circle, and her freedom from constant surveillance or marital possessiveness. Mirabell, in turn, requests certain liberties for himself, such as not being expected to act like an overly doting husband in public. This directly parallels Hobbes’s idea of individuals ceding only some liberties for the sake of peace, but attempting to retain as much as possible.
  • Mutual Respect and Understanding: They agree on specific behaviors, such as avoiding overly familiar terms of endearment in public, maintaining decorum, and allowing each other a degree of independent social life. This is an attempt to create a shared code of conduct that reduces friction and misunderstandings, fostering a more harmonious partnership.
  • Rejection of Societal Norms: They explicitly reject the conventional, often stifling, expectations of marriage. Their agreement is a deliberate rebellion against the hypocrisy and constraints of their society, demonstrating a desire to forge their own path based on rational agreement rather than blind adherence to tradition.
  • The Power of Language and Agreement: The very act of verbally articulating and negotiating these terms underscores the play’s emphasis on language as a tool for establishing order. They are not merely expressing desires; they are constructing a binding agreement, a verbal “contract” that, while not legally enforceable in every clause, carries significant moral weight between them. Their wit allows them to craft these terms with precision and humor, making the negotiation itself a display of their suitability for each other.

This “proviso scene” functions as Congreve’s unique take on the social contract. It’s a microcosm where two rational individuals, fully aware of the treacherous social landscape and the inherent self-interest of human nature (including their own), consciously choose to construct a framework for their future interaction. They seek to establish a mutually agreeable “sovereignty” over their relationship, founded on intelligence, foresight, and a shared understanding of the need for boundaries and respect. Their “solution” is not to eliminate self-interest, but to manage it through explicit agreement, ensuring that their union does not devolve into a private “war of all against all.”

The Role of External Constraints (Law and Wealth)

While the Mirabell-Millamant agreement represents an internal, character-driven solution, the broader social order in the play is also constrained by external factors. The intricacies of wills, inheritance laws, and marriage settlements, though often manipulated, provide a foundational legal structure. Mirabell’s complex scheme to secure Millamant’s fortune – involving Lady Wishfort’s trust and the prevention of Fainall’s designs – highlights the pervasive influence of legal and financial frameworks. Money, in this world, is a powerful determinant of freedom and leverage. Characters without independent means, like Mrs. Fainall, are trapped in unhappy unions, their options severely limited. Thus, the pursuit and securement of wealth become a pragmatic necessity for individual survival and autonomy, providing a form of stability in a volatile social system, much like how resources shape interactions in a Hobbesian environment.

Limitations and Pragmatism of Congreve's "Solution"

It is crucial to recognize that Congreve’s “solution” is far from idealistic. It does not propose a transformation of human nature or a utopian society. Instead, it offers a pragmatic, often cynical, blueprint for navigating a world where self-interest and social maneuvering are endemic.

  • Not Universal: The “proviso scene” represents a unique solution tailored for two highly intelligent and articulate individuals. It is not a blueprint for all relationships in the play. The Fainall-Mrs. Fainall marriage, for instance, remains a Hobbesian battleground, lacking any basis of mutual respect or contractual negotiation, leading to perpetual conflict and misery. Lady Wishfort’s attempts at finding a partner are doomed by her self-deception and the predatory nature of those around her.
  • Reliance on Wit and Intelligence: The success of Mirabell and Millamant’s “contract” is predicated on their exceptional wit, their capacity for self-awareness, and their willingness to engage in rational negotiation. Not everyone in Congreve’s world possesses these qualities, meaning not everyone can forge such a refined peace.
  • The “Leviathan” is Decentralized: Unlike Hobbes’s singular, absolute sovereign, Congreve’s “Leviathan” is fragmented. It is comprised of social conventions, the force of reputation, the legal framework of inheritance and marriage, and, most importantly, the individual’s capacity for intelligent self-governance and strategic negotiation. Order emerges not from top-down imposition, but from bottom-up, individual and relational agreements.
  • Continuous Maintenance Required: The “peace” achieved by Mirabell and Millamant is not absolute or permanent. It requires continuous effort, understanding, and the ongoing application of wit to maintain the delicate balance established in their contract. The very nature of their agreement acknowledges that human imperfections and societal pressures will persist, requiring vigilance.

Congreve’s “The Way of the World” subtly explores the dynamics of power and conflict, not through political theory but through the intricate social tapestry of the English Restoration. In a world where self-interest and deceit are rampant, mirroring Hobbes’s “state of nature,” the play offers a distinctive, albeit pragmatic, “solution.” This solution is not the imposition of an absolute sovereign, but rather the strategic application of wit, intelligence, and mutual understanding to forge carefully negotiated agreements.

The centerpiece of this approach is the “proviso scene” between Mirabell and Millamant. Their detailed and witty articulation of the terms for their marriage serves as a profound microcosm of a social contract. They consciously choose to establish boundaries, preserve individual liberties, and define their shared existence, thereby escaping the potential “war of all against all” within their personal union. This bespoke agreement, built on rational foresight and a clear-eyed view of human nature, allows them to navigate the cynical world while retaining a measure of autonomy and shared happiness.

Ultimately, “The Way of the World” suggests that a semblance of order and peace can be achieved in a Hobbesian social landscape, not through grand political structures, but through the judicious and intelligent application of personal agency. It is a testament to the power of language, negotiation, and cultivated understanding as tools for survival and flourishing amidst constant social competition. The play provides a sophisticated commentary on how individuals can forge their own terms of engagement and create pockets of stability and genuine connection, even in a world largely devoid of trust and moral authority.