While modern apologists for humane studies pro-
claim the benefits derived from literary consumption,
Platonic objectors survive; and in truth the effects of
literature on the individual and on the collectivity are
not well understood even after two and a half millenia
of claims and counterclaims. ¹

The analysis of the moralisé tradition discloses the variety of
critical assumptions and approaches that define the criticism of
Restoration comedy. The substantial differences among critics
who agree that Restoration comedy is moral reflect quite dif-
ferent ideas on two major questions: in what way or ways can
literature be considered moral, and how does literature achieve
its moral effects? By examining closely these two contestable
concepts, I refine our understanding of the checkered criticism
of Restoration comedy and establish the major premises for my
criticism of four "problem" comedies in the final two chapters.

Despite their other differences, the critics in the moralisé tradi-
tion concur that Restoration comedy is moral. But how is it
moral, or, more broadly, what does moral mean when it de-
scribes a work of literature? Sidney Zink, a philosopher, analyzes
the critics' silence on these questions in a way that suggests the
need for workable definitions of key terms prior to other aes-
thetic considerations. "Most critics seem agreed not to ask what
the good is. This suggests that, whatever the good may be, the

-50-