During the interregnum, Oliver Cromwell closed the English playhouses, for they incited immorality.  Charles II’s return to the throne in 1660, however, marked a shift towards a more court-oriented culture, a society of spectacle in which the king himself had an imperial role to play.  Reopening the theaters reinstated a creative freedom, which playwrights profoundly embraced.  Thus, Restoration theater arose as a backlash against Oliver Cromwell’s Puritan restraint and an enhanced, unrestrained form of diversion.  As the theater provided a main source of entertainment in England, the plays both emulated and critiqued contemporary society.  The stage consequently became an exaggerated model of both the public arena, the streets surrounding the play-houses, and the private domain, behind the closed doors of English households.  Consequently, playwrights, free to explore the inner workings of English life and striving to stimulate the audience, unveiled the complexity of love and sexual relationships between men and women.  An examination of these male/female interactions, from courting practices to surprisingly sexual moments, reveals scenes of “love making” that echo yet ultimately parody the typical amorous conventions of the day.  Paradoxically, private scenes and conversations between men and women were exposed in full view to an audience on the Restoration stage, which was otherwise naked of elaborate props or furniture.  Obviously this controversy signifies the fact that sexuality in these performances existed not only to mimic and mock the traditional dealings between the sexes but also to provide moments of titillation and spectacle for the audience.  Consequently, as he distorts the contemporary rules of amorous conduct, the Restoration playwright presents a tension between two probable intents—satire or purely bawdy romp. As the staged dramatization of the love relationship became increasingly erotic, this tension spurred an acidic verbal dispute between critics and playwrights.  The increasing criticism of explicit sexuality tightened the confines upon the Restoration stage, forcing playwrights to reform the exhibition of love making and specifically the visual representation of sexual interest in order to conceal flagrant eroticism from the spectator’s view.

In conjunction with the reopening of the theaters in 1660,  Charles I instituted two innovative techniques of visual titillation, technologically advanced scenery and female actresses.  As audience members delighted in the new colorful and mobile stage mechanisms, directors increasingly emphasized the elements of spectacle on the Restoration stage.  Thus, the stage became an extravagant production with an increased emphasis on the visual.  As the actress accompanied enhanced stage scenery in its premiere on the English stage, she also became associated with the growing theme of spectacle.  As the new scenery awed Restoration spectators, actresses excited the audience in a different way—the female body became an object of visual titillation.  Before this time, women, visiting from France, had performed on the stage, though Elizabeth Howe describes “the violence of the reaction, suggest[ing] that for many theatre-goers the sight of women acting and speaking on the public stage represented and outrageous rupture of social as well as theatrical convention” (Howe 545).  As the seventeenth century progressed, however, audiences socially and theatrically matured, accepting an increasingly liberal model of sexuality.  Joseph Roach describes the initial reaction to the female performer as a permanent fixture as, “a mixture or astonishment, awe, and mimetic desire” (Roach 25).  The presence of the female player was deemed stimulating as a form of exhibitionism.  As Deborah Payne contemplates the female actress as both a reified object and emergent professional,” she notes that “objectification…can be seen as an effect of the late seventeenth-century shift toward the primacy of the visual” (Payne 16).  It was this “pronounced sense of the visual” which “simultaneously amplifie[s] actresses” (16).  As she performs, the  English actress is completely exposed to the audience and, placed at the center of the drama, becomes an erotic spectacle.  Therefore, the advent of women on Restoration stage created a new spectatorial dynamic, introducing an original form of both visual and sexualized performance.

These innovative techniques inspired playwrights to take chances, and as they gambled for the approval of spectators, an emphasis on games of love bolstered the success of a play—especially due to the presence of the female actress.  The emphasis on spectacle continued as Restoration playwrights exposed intimate courting rituals and sexual relationships in full-view upon the stage.  As contemporary plays typified interactions between lovers, the boundary of privacy no longer protected the intrigue of lovemaking, and “the separation between the public and private spheres in the long eighteenth century [was] dead” (Benedict 619).  Thus, playwrights discovered that the comic appeal of a male lover, his mistress (represented by a female player) and their love-making itself heightened the allure of the theater.  For this reason, Barbara Benedict deems the eighteenth century a period of “heightened sexual identity,” in which new forms of sexual self-expression arose (623).  As playwrights strove to identify with members of the audience through the actions of the characters upon the stage, the staged verbal and physical interactions accompanying scenes of lovemaking mirrored contemporary life. The plays’ mimicry became evident in the repetitive simulation within these early Restoration plays of what J. L. Styan deems the “everlasting battle […] the chase through all its stages, the indignation and hesitation, the protest and pretense, [and] the tension and final Gratification” (Styan 143).  This procession heightened the audiences’ anticipation for the “final gratification” or coupling of the frustrated lovers.

Playwrights further intensified the titillation of love scenes by crossing conventional boundaries and skewing patterns of gender interaction.  As plays dramatized these previously private love relationships, the stage amplified the eroticism; an explicit focus on distorting the reality of proper English conduct between men and women and magnifying a titillating element of the interaction arose.  The height of a comic moment occurs as the innocent and prudish country girl interacts with the fop or half-witted character; both actors obviously parodying identifiable Restoration personality types. The dramatic humor remains “center[ed] on the encounter between a sexually aggressive male and the innocent…female” (LeGates 27). Styan describes the interactions as “pantomime of what the audience would recognize as a familiar social situation” (143).  For example, the rules of propriety during this century allowed kissing on the hand in salutation, and, if on the face, only as far as a brushing of the cheek.  In fact, a conduct manual from the day, The Rules of Civility by Antoine de Courtin, advises, “In the company of ladies, ‘tis too juvenile and light to play with them, to toss or tumble them, to kiss them by surprise” (43).  Many plays from this period, however, exhibit kissing on the face or lips in front of an audience as an actions of parody.   In Vanburgh’s The Relapse, Worthy takes Amanda’s hand and not only kisses it “eagerly,” by surprise, but also proceeds to “toss” and “tumble” her by “forcing her to sit down on a couch,” saying “Never, whilst I have strength to hold you here” (V.iv.136-137).  In this same scene, as the character also “Seiz[es]” the woman and “hold[s] her by her clothes,” Vanburgh, strives to both disarm and excite the spectator by violating these contemporary rules of societal conduct.  Styan describes this scene as “a compendium of sexual interaction on the comic stage” (158), designating this controversial scene as typical of Restoration drama.  Such a scene undeniably excites an audience due to the physicality of the interactions.

Interestingly, the most provocative conveyance of sexuality on the Restoration stage arose literally from the visual, the scandalous act of “gazing” inexorably linked to female sexuality.  The Oxford English Dictionary has a number of definitions for the word “gaze,” including, “A way of regarding people of things which is considered to embody certain aspects of the relationship between the observer and the observed; esp. as expressed in art, literature, film, etc. by how an author chooses (consciously or not) to direct his of her (and hence the audience’s ) attention.”   This definition also specifies “the male gaze,” as “a characteristically male perspective, esp. one though to reveal chauvinistic, misogynistic, or voyeuristic attitudes.”  As the mockery of love-making on the Restoration Stage, exposed in play after play, “exhibits the niceties of behavior, especially sexual behavior…it is the commonplace work of those writers who have a strong visual sense of performance.  For the actors it involves an extra dimension of posturing and projection” (Styan 164).  As Stylan notices, all of the visible actions between lovers became important in the Restoration performance in revealing to the common spectator the sexual or relationships between the men and women within the play.  Roach points out that “Visual evidence showing performers actually at work together onstage.…Images that survive show the actors and actresses ‘opened out’; that is, mainly facing the audience, even when they are addressing each other, for which purpose they turned their heads to the side” (Roach 23).  This concept artificializes interaction between players, and, consequently, any extended “gazes” would have been visually dramatic moves.  The gaze, during this period, arises as one of the main techniques in attracting or enticing a lover.  This becomes increasingly apparent as Conduct Manuals of the time emphasize the importance of “the eyes” in obtaining a lover.  The Art of Making Love: or the Rules for the Conduct of Ladies and Gallants in Their Amours instruct the man to “show a little melancholy in his eyes and visage; not too much, for fear to alarm her too much” (116), while suggesting that for a woman, “nothing so much manifests the state of a heart, as the languish of the eyes” (150).  Thus, the act of “gazing” becomes a highly stylized interaction based on commonalities of everyday life.

This convention becomes an explicit focus within many famous Restoration plays.  A notably scandalous work from this period, William Wycherley’s  The Country Wife, explicitly focuses on the importance of “eyes and sight.”  Even in the first scene of the play, Pinchwife, a characterization of the jealous husband, strives to hide his young country wife from the sight, or “gaze,” of other wits.  As Horner, the key gallant in the play, says, “I saw you yesterday […] with a pretty country wench” (I.i.501-503), Pinchwife exclaims in an aside to the audience, “How the devil! Did he see my wife then? I sat there that she might not be seen, but she shall never go to a play again” (I.i.504-506).  Wycherley’s jealous husband fears the power that the gaze possesses over physical attraction.  He intentionally strives to hide his wife from being “seen,” and as Dorilant, Horner’s sidekick, points out, “No faith, I warrant ‘twas his wife, which he seated there out of sight for he’s a cunning rouge and understands the Town” (I.i.509-511).  In this line, Dorilant not only nods to Pinchwife’s acknowledgment of the inexorable link between sight and sexuality, as he sits “out of sight,” but also the awareness throughout the entire Town.  Wycherley proves the power of the gaze later in the play as Horner says to Margery, in disguise, “he is very like her I saw…at the play… whom I told you I was in love with” (III.ii.451-452), and Pinchwife rages, “How she gazes on him the devil” (III.ii.462-463).  The lines prove the two characters, the sexually aggressive male and the innocent female, have, in fact, established a desirous relationship based purely on gaze.  The gaze here not only denotes the power of female beauty but also an act initiated between lovers.  Even Alithea, the single morally redemptive character within the play, avoids the gaze as a form of flirtation with her suitor.  She refuses to see Harcourt, saying, “To look upon’em, when I cannot help’em were cruelty, not pity; therefore, I will never see you more” (III.ii.562-564).  Other plays from the period also explicitly acknowledge the sexually attractive power of the gaze.  In Aphra Behn’s The Rover, the act of “gazing” draws in a lover, when Blunt falls for Lucetta, as she says: “This is a stranger, I know by his gazing; if he is brisk he’ll venture to follow me, and then, if I understand my trade, he’s mine” (I.ii.236-238).  This line is followed by Behn’s stage direction, “She often passes by Blunt and gazes on him; he struts and cocks, and walks and gazes on her.”  As Lucetta is deemed a “jilting wench” in the Dramatis Personae of this play, she plays a character inherently skilled in the art of attracting male characters.  This line, as well as the following stage directions, unveils the gaze as one of her tools of inciting male eroticism.  A comparative character, Angelica, denoted “a famous courtesan” in the Dramatis Personae, also utilizes the powerful link between the gaze and her beauty to sexually excite men, as she posts a portrait outside of her house to tempt possible customers.  Willmore, the play’s central gallant, “having gazed all this while on the picture,” comments that, “The sight on’t would beget a warm desire” (II.i.248), and later accuses Angelica: “how durst you set it up, to tempt poor amorous mortals” (II.ii.2-3).  As these female characters utilize the “gaze” as a business tool, the act takes on a heightened eroticism.  It is the abundance of such visual sexuality within Restoration plays which spurs such harsh criticism of the stage.  

As the audience watched these performances the male and female players erotically “gaze” upon each other, the duality of the term spurred an increased condemnation of the immorality of the Restoration drama.  The introduction of the actress to the Restoration stage and the female body as a new tool of dramatic titillation initially spurred this criticism, as “stagecraft ‘seems to have created a spectator-fetishist[…] nowhere are these meanings of fetishism more relevant than in discourse generated by that other ornament of the stage, the Restoration actress” (Payne 18). As theatrical relationships also became increasingly sexual/erotic, however, the tension between critics and defenders of the theater ultimately matured into a verbal battle.  Critiques argued that sexuality on stage corrupted an audience and that spectators imaginatively crossed the liminal barrier of the stage to mentally participate in the physical interactions between the players.  Jean Marsden points out that: “They detail a system of voyeurism, involving an image, an audience which watches that image, and a reflexive gaze which excites desire” (877).  These commentators believed that spectators participated in the sexual actions or dialogue as they watched a Restoration play, as the eye incites physical wanting.  Jeremy Collier arose as one of the fiercest critics of the sexual elements within contemporary plays with the publication of his essay A Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage.  Collier asks, “what can be the meaning of such Representation, unless it be to tincture the Audience, to extinguish Shame, and make Lewdness a Diversion?” (Collier 3). He felt that the author cannot conceive of any purpose for the witty banter and sexual innuendos of the seventeenth century stage aside from the corruption of the spectator.  Collier also asserts that witnessing staged eroticism, “rais[es] those Passions which can neither be discharged without Trouble, nor satisfied without Crime” (Collier 7).  This view disapproves of the scandalous activity on the stage, and its effect on society, as critics thought that attending a play could incite an urge to imitate the drama in everyday life.  Collier condemns the stage for as the players “speak Smuttily,” they unveil a deeper, more scandalous state of sexual freedom, encouraging a spectator’s imitation.  Ultimately, critics of the Restoration stage go as far as to accuse spectators of the same promiscuity they view upon the stage.   

Defenders of eighteenth-century comic theater, playwrights such as Congreve, Dryden, and Vanbrugh, as well as avid attendees of the playhouses, directly refuted Jeremy Collier and other censurers with the argument that plays combined wit and sexuality to critique human follies.  Attackers classified rakes and sexually-free women as societal threats, as the players’ actions possess the dangerous potential for imitation, but defenders point to the characters’ constant hardships and failures as lessons for spectators. Jean Marsden summarizes the controversy, stating, “Where the opponents of the stage detail an economy of gaze and desire, most of the defenses assume a link between gaze and reason, so that watching a play becomes an ongoing process of analysis which prevents the onset of desire” (883).  According to Marsden, the relationship between the effusive libertine and the flirty country girl is not a panegyric, as critics like Collier may assume, but instead satiric reflection of societal routines designed as a moral corrective.

Proponents of staged sexuality, even so, could not deny the power of the gaze.  As J. L. Styan says, “in comedy, the mirror held up to nature is still, and will ever be, a distorting one” (867).  As stylized patterns of movements determined the dynamism of social encounters on the naked stage of the eighteenth century, the origins of staged social situations arose from real life and plays from this period mock the formality of discourse and interaction between the sexes.  Thus, the Restoration comic stage became, in a way, a classroom or pulpit for the contemporary audience, demonstrating the games lovers play in a dramatized context to instruct and warn against false impressions and intentional deception.  In a historical period emphasizing the importance of the visual, all performance on stage was in some way stylized as it mimicked a particular social code as it is followed by the spectator.  Thus, as playwrights constructed a false nature on the stage, it was “openly understood, acknowledged, and even celebrated” (Roach 23).  Avid playgoers claimed that any objection to the comic portrayal of love and sexuality upon the stage signifies the critic’s own refusal to accept the satiric commentary embedded within the work. 

Though defenders of social promiscuity, such as Congreve and Vanbrugh, denied both the immorality of the players’ actions and the possibility of their plays inciting moral corruption, there was an inexorable connection between the spectator and the actions on stage.  The caustic debate concerning possible voyeurism caused an increasingly strict constraint upon the contents of these plays, despite the popular demand for aspects of comedy and titillation.  Though Collier criticizes the playwrights’ refusal to reform, the shrinking confines on the stage forced authors to palliate the critics and reduce, or at least disguise, the explicitly sexual scenes.  As drama communicates ideas, attitudes, moods through visual action, a greater focus on stage directions and patterns of movement ensued to proffer particular “ways of seeing” to the audience (Milhous 619).  Therefore, playwrights relied on producible interpretation as they explicitly revealed certain aspects of sexual interaction in these plays, yet manipulated stylized dramatic techniques to convey implicitly titillating moments. Milhous and Hume claim that “plays [are] written with very specific staging possibilities in mind, and to ignore the effect of his stage on what [the playwright] chooses to do can make the critic look very foolish indeed” (Milhous and Hume 6).  As sexuality becomes an increasingly self-conscious element within these plays, Restoration directors often present an intentional controversy between the explicit actions and their implied meanings, defining a critical communicated to an audience only through performance.  As every visual action or dramatic performance pattern within a play is subject to the spectator’s interpretation, every movement or character placement is part of an interpretive system in which truly nothing can be taken as it is.  Thus, playwrights manipulate this system to convey his explicit material and impart a chosen “truth” onto his audience.

Due to the harsh controversy involving the immorality of the stage, the constraints upon the visual performance tightened, the concept of “gazing” lovers became increasingly condemned, and playwrights were forced to adopted a more reformed way to inform the audience of a sexual attraction.  The visual aspects of performance could not be erased, however, for the Restoration audience still yearned for these moments of specularity and titillation.  Thus, the concept of “peeping,” from behind doors, curtains, or other stage scenery, arose as a modified version of the erotic “gaze.”   The OED defines the verb “to peep” as “to emerge of protrude (one’s head, nose, etc.) a very short distance into view; (hence) to look quickly or furtively from a vantage point; to steal a glance.”  This definition inherently juxtaposes this action with the “gaze,” which means “to look fixedly, intently, or deliberately at something.”  In a play with unfaithful lovers, a “comedy of sex,” eavesdropping often occurred with “no apparent need for it other than to add zest to a marital mismatch” (Styan 151) or love relationship. Playwrights strove to produce a titillating interpretation within their performances as lovers “gazed” upon their erotic desire from behind a piece of scenery.  Architecturally, the Restoration playhouse lended itself well to “specialized scenes of concealment, discovery, or enclosure,” as most of the action took place on the forestage, which was “flanked on either side by practical entrances and exits known as ‘promiscenium doors’” (Roach 26).  As entrances and exits remained the most dramatic movements on the Restoration stage, a “partial” exit or presence unnoticed by the other characters became, in a way, a visual form of aside, as the audience possessed a more informed interpretation of events or interactions.  “There was no scenic feature other than a door of ‘the hangings’ behind which an actor could conceal himself, and the term ‘at a distance’ is found when it is necessary to separate a character on the same stage.  The convention implies that the actor is motionless in an upstage corner of the apron, lurking in the unlit shadows” (Styan 151).  Thus, when a sexual scene is exposed, an observer emphasizes titillating moments in his “looming presence.”  Regardless of the exact placement on the stage, a concealed admirer or eavesdropper assuages critics sensitive to the provocative “gaze” directly between two lovers and continues to provide titillating moments for the audience. 

This reformed version of the erotic gaze became an important convention in many plays from the Restoration period, as stage directions often explicitly instructed characters to “peep” on a conversation from behind doors or curtains. Within the plays, a gaze would be consciously exchanged between characters, the act of peeping becomes much more secretive, ironically heightening the titillation and excitement of these moments.  In Wycherley’s The Country Wife, Margery and Alithea are initially introduced in conversation with jealous Pinchwife “peeping behind at the door.”  This initial scene of “peeping” not only characterizes Pinchwife as the overly protective husband, but also reveals his need to censure Margery, his own wife.  His spying in this scene portends her unfaithfulness, ultimately leading to the husband’s cuckoldry, as she discusses the players: “I liked hugeously the actors; they are like the goodliest, properest men” (I.i.22-24).  Also, this initial “peeping” of Pinchwife contrasts the later “gazing” between his own wife and Horner, a more sexually explicit moment within the play. 

In Centlivre’s The Busie Body “nosy” characters often “peep” upon others conversations. This association between “peeping” and the “nose” can be explained again by part the definition, “to emerge of protrude (one’s head, nose, etc.) a very short distance into view.”  As the nose inevitably juts forward as the furthest protruding facial feature, it implicitly parallels the human penis and becomes a phallic symbol and consequently emphasizes the sexuality involved in peeping.  Marplot, an essential fop that continually “mars” the “plot” of the play, is often found “peeping,” spying, or questioning to discover the secrets of other men.  In the play’s “Monkey Scene,” for instance, the character begs Miranda to look into the chimney where Sir George is hiding, saying, “For Heaven’s sake, dear, Madam, let me but peep” (55). As Marplot’s sticks his “nose,” which stands out as it is covered by a patch, into the secrets of other men, the character is emasculated.  In the third act of this same play, the “dumb” scene, Sir Francis becomes a “looming presence” as he observes an interaction between Sir George and Miranda.  “Retir[ing] to the bottom of the stage” he becomes a spectator to the amorous action upstage, creating a three layers of visual interaction: the audience watching the play, Sir Francis observing the lovers, and the couple “gazing upon” each other.  Constantly “Running up” Sir Francis becomes like Marplot, sticking his “nose” into the lover’s business, the phallic symbol unveiling his sexual desires for Miranda.

As the action of “peeping” inexorably empowers the eavesdropper, and as they obtain forbidden information, women gain power by spying upon male conversation as well.  In The Busie Body, as characters like Marplot are emasculated by their “nosy” ways, Miranda and Patch, two key female players, are de-feminized as they “peep” to gain an insight over the men they watch.  In the first scene,  Miranda stands “Peeping” at Sir Francis and Sir George from behind a mask and also initially concealed from their sight (10).  Thus, she gains the intuitive power to manipulate her suitor. In fact, in the next moment, as she arises to confront Sir George from behind a mask, the character is able to both assuage the man’s anger and maintain her disguise.  As Centlivre intentionally utilizes the act of “peeping” to empower these female characters and effeminize male characters, like Marplot, The Busie Body, quashes the gender asymmetry typical within many Restoration plays.  Thus, the playwright effectively reforms the gaze to not only signify sexual desire, but also imply an increasing equality between the sexes.

Due to the harsh criticism centering around the “danger of the spectator’s gaze,” playwrights created a guise to block the most provocative eroticism that appeared on the eighteenth century stage.  The most sexual scenes took place behind closed doors, wall hangings, or other fixture, and directors relied completely on the audience’s interpretation to convey the “final gratification” of a flirtation or chase.  In  The Busie Body’s “Monkey Scene,” just as the lovers discuss their future and Miranda reveals her less “prudish” side, they are interrupted, forcing Sir George to hide in the chimney.  Where an earlier play may have focused more on the physical aspects of flirtation, here the action accelerates as the lover’s must be concealed.  The specularity of this moments arise, instead, from the possibility of the man’s discovery within the chimney.  The thrill of possible discovery also arises in The Country Wife, which contains the most poignant example of a sexual scene blocked from the “gaze” of the spectator, the famous “The China Scene.”  Just as a flirtation between Lady Fidget and Horner culminates in an “Embrace,” with Lady Fidget saying, “As secret is better kept, I hope, by a single person than a multitude, pray do not trust anybody else with it, dear, dear, Mr. Horner” (IV.iii.79-81), her husband enters and she exclaims “Oh my husband—prevented” (IV.iii.84).  Thus, the erotic moment is introduced, yet interrupted, but Lady Fidget “will find it out and have what [she] came for yet” (IV.iii.121-122).  As the lady “Exit[s] and locks the door,” she is “followed by Horner,” who “Exit at t’ other door.”  Thus, the sexual act “occurs” backstage in Horner’s imagined chamber, left for the audience to envision as the other characters comment, Sir Jasper saying, “He’s within his chamber with my wife; she’s playing the wag with him” (IV.iii.161-162).  As the playwright conceals the actual sexual act, no critic can argue that spectators visually participate in this erotic moment.  The scene becomes increasingly comical and titillating, however, as the husband waits onstage unaware of his own cuckoldry. 

The evolution of the “gaze” as a method of sexual titillation within the Restoration play certainly denotes the tightening confines upon the visual eroticism displayed on the contemporary stage.  Originally, playwrights celebrated the introduction of the female actress and the unrestrained atmosphere of post-interregnum England with an embrace of sexuality as an aspect of visual titillation.  Inevitably, however, as scenes of lovemaking mirrored a distorted image of society, the theatrical world suffered a societal backlash.  As critics castigated the concept of “gazing” between lovers as a dangerously voyeuristic behavior, the action was initially partially concealed in the form of “peeping,” and eventually eliminated completely from these plays.  Despite the spectators’ call for titillating moments, the performance remained a product to be sold that could not conquer such acidic moral rebukes.  Therefore, a dichotomy eternally exists between the playwrights necessity to emotionally excite the spectator while, at the same time, appease the inevitable critic.