One of the best examples of Restoration comedy, known alternatively as “comedy of manners”, is William Congreve’s “The Way of the World,” which was originally presented in 1700. The play, which was written during the Restoration era (1660–1710), captures the focus of the time on class relations, social mores, and the literary and dramatic effects of the restoration of the monarchy. The Puritanical constraints of the Interregnum gave rise to the Restoration comedy genre, which embraced themes of hedonism, wit, and subtle social satire.

Restoration comedies frequently parody the manners and morals of modern society, especially that of the upper classes. “The Way of the World” examines the social morals and actions of the era, focussing on the hypocrisy and conceit of the affluent. The drama highlights the ridiculousness of relationships and social norms with a keen sense of wit and comedy. Play’s stock characters include the clever and resourceful hero (Mirabell), the endearing and self-reliant heroine (Millamant), the silly and meddling elderly guardians (Fainall and Mrs. Fainall), and the humorous servants (like Waitwell) that are typical of Restoration comedy. For comedic effect, these characters frequently represent and exaggerate society stereotypes. 

Central to “The Way of the World” is the theme of courtship and marriage, which is a common focus in Restoration comedy. The courtship of the main characters, Mirabell and Millamant, is at the core of “The Way of the World”‘s intricate story, which is layered with misdirection, misunderstanding, and intrigue. The play explores the intricacies of romantic relationships, including the social and financial considerations that influence marriage. The resolution involves the successful courtship of Mirabell and Millamant, highlighting the comedic conventions surrounding marriage and matchmaking.

The Way of the World” is a prime example of Restoration comedy because of its witty dialogue, complex plot and subplots, satirical portrayal of modern society, use of stock characters, and examination of courtship and marriage against the backdrop of the social and cultural context of the Restoration era.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, published in 1818, and Bram Stoker’s Dracula, published in 1897, are both considered staple works in the realm of Gothic fiction. While much of the literary discussions concern the themes most commonly found in Gothic literature, for instance that of the supernatural and the monstrous, particularly in the case of the latter, both novels incorporate themes which reflect contemporary interest in science. 

Often credited as being the first of its kind, Frankenstein paved the way for the literary genre of science fiction, and the themes commonly found in such tales — the spirit of scientific inquiry, the ethical and moral considerations thereof, as well as the prototypical mad scientist character — are prominent. While the methods involved in bringing Frankenstein’s creature to life are left relatively vague, the notion of a reanimated corpse was inspired in part by the theory of Galvanism, that is, the convulsion of biological muscle tissue upon contact with electrical current. Later adaptations built upon this, and the 1931 film adaptation of the story, in particular, popularized the explicit use of electricity in the process of reanimation.

In contrast, Dracula focuses primarily on the supernatural. That being said, attempts at using rational methods in a battle against the unknown are a recurring theme throughout the novel. Bram Stoker had an interest in contemporary medical science, as is evident from his inclusion of his brother Sir William Thornley Stoker’s lectures on brain surgery in the early notes of Dracula. Of particular interest is the point of blood transfusions, proposed by Professor Abraham Van Helsing following Lucy Westenra’s encounter with Count Dracula. Van Helsing, Arthur Holmwood, and Dr. John Seward donate their blood to liven her up. As the novel predates blood typing, whether Lucy’s blood is compatible with that of the men is not a concern. Similarly, when Lucy falls ill after sleepwalking outside, Dr. Seward and Van Helsing attempt to pinpoint the medical cause of her neck wound and blood loss through a process of elimination, a scene reminiscent of many modern medical dramas. 

While both novels doubtlessly provide insight into Victorian interest in scientific accomplishments, it is crucial to note that they function, too, as cautionary tales. In Frankenstein, originally subtitled The Modern Prometheus, as a reference to both the titan in Greek mythology who stole fire from Zeus to give it to humans, and was sentenced to eternal punishment, as well as Immanuel Kant’s description of Benjamin Franklin as “the Prometheus of modern times” in reference to his experiments with electricity, Victor Frankenstein’s obsessive experiment and his flight of terror from his creature, and therefore his own responsibility in its creation, are the precursors of his eventual downfall and all the tragedies he encounters throughout the novel. 

Dracula, on the other hand, does indeed explore rational explanations when faced with the supernatural. However, the usage of scientific methods alone is often proven futile. This is prominent in the case of Jonathan Harker, the English solicitor meant to help Count Dracula purchase a house near London, who is quick to dismiss the warnings of his fellow passengers as backward superstitions, and is subsequently confined to the Count’s castle. Likewise, Mrs. Westenra’s removal of the garlic flowers placed around Lucy’s room to ward off vampires leads to the death of both women. Furthermore, it is the inefficacy of modern science against the vampire that builds suspense as the novel transitions between the realms of the known and the unknown. Dracula, as a whole, despite its focus on various scientific methods, indicates that the failure to incorporate alternative sources of knowledge and the rigidity of certain approaches might make one ignorant of potential solutions.

Interestingly, whereas Dracula warns against the supposed inflexibility of known methods, Frankenstein rather criticizes the concept of unrestrained science, thus representing two aspects of the unifying theme of scientific pursuits.