In The Man of Mode, Harriet exists within the confines and conventions of Restoration society, yet also challenges them. Unlike many female characters in the play, she is not defined by her susceptibility to Dorimant’s charm. She has the capacity to engage him on equal intellectual terms. 



From her first appearance, Harriet asserts a distinct identity grounded in wit and autonomy. She resists the passive role often assigned to women, instead adopting a posture of ironic detachment that mirrors and challenges Dorimant’s own. Challenging Dorimant’s idea of a good time, for example, she claims to appreciate “a little conversation now and then” (3.3.42), rather than the incessant flirting in the form of fan-waving that is expected from many women. Such conversations encapsulate her dual perspective. She participates in the culture of wit, while maintaining a critical distance from it, adopting an almost male position in her refusal to cave to gendered expectations of how she should behave.

Harriet’s autonomy depends upon her refusal to be easily categorized. She wrestles with the various expectations imposed on her by her mother, Lady Woodvill, while quietly subverting them. Her performance of obedience conceals a strategic independence that allows her to negotiate her own desires. When she first meets Bellair, for example, she and Bellair feign romance for the sake of fooling their parents, while ironically commenting on the reality that they are both more interested in other people. Rather than bow to the pressure of an arranged marriage, they perform the role of young lovers while plotting how to defy convention. 

This duality aligns her with the broader theatricality of the play, yet her awareness of that theatricality distinguishes her from characters who remain trapped within it. Harriet recognizes the performative nature of social interaction and uses that recognition to maintain her agency. Her exchanges with Dorimant illustrate this awareness, as she matches his wit without replicating his cynicism, maintaining a moral perspective that complicates the libertine ethos he represents.

The dynamic between Harriet and Dorimant is presented as a series of contests in which language becomes a weapon of attraction and resistance. Harriet refuses to yield to Dorimant’s manipulations, often anticipating and deflecting his strategies in a marked contrast to the predictable, conventional behavior of Mrs. Loveit. This resistance forces Dorimant into a position he rarely occupies, making him feel vulnerable. For once, he is not in control of a conversation, yet alone a romantic engagement. Harriet’s ability to unsettle him suggests that her power lies in mastering the social game more completely than even Dorimant, but she masters this game by refusing to play on the expected terms, making mutual recognition rather than conquest the basis of their interaction.

Harriet’s eventual union with Dorimant raises questions over whether her independence can be sustained within the framework of a traditional marriage. While the conclusion suggests a harmonious resolution, Harriet’s earlier skepticism toward romantic idealization makes their happiness less certain. She enters the relationship on her own terms, having resisted the pressures that compromise other characters, and she has even forced Dorimant to pledge to leave behind his beloved London and its chaotic social scene. At the same time, however, she has come to appreciate London and now looks at the country as “that sad place” (5.2.399). This suggests that her autonomy may persist, even within the constraints of a changing social order. The play thus presents Harriet as a figure who negotiates rather than escapes the structures that surround her. Her characterization offers a subtle critique of those structures by demonstrating that intelligence and self-awareness can create spaces of resistance within them, but these spaces also change Harriet herself.

Sir Fopling Flutter is a satirical embodiment of fashionable excess in The Man of Mode, yet his characterization is more than a simple caricature. The play presents Fopling as a figure whose exaggerated concern with appearance and manners illustrates the artificiality underlying Restoration social life. 

From the moment of his entrance, Sir Fopling’s identity is defined by display. His meticulous attention to dress, gesture, and language transforms him into a living spectacle. The other characters foreshadow his appearance, referring to him as “the pattern of modern gallantry” (1.1.340), for better and for worse. His time in Paris has given him notions of superiority in terms of everything from behavior to dress, so much so that he deplores any room which is not fitted with a mirror he can use to examine himself. Fopling uses his Parisian experience as evidence of his superior tastes compared to the less-fashionable London scene. This self-presentation exposes the extent to which social status is performed, rather than inherent.

Sir Fopling’s interactions with other characters highlight the tension between appearance and substance. Dorimant and Medley treat him as an object of ridicule, yet their mockery also acknowledges his success within the social system they share. They are, to an extent, prototypical versions of Fopling, with their behavior seemingly more muted and reserved in comparison to his outlandish appearance, even if their attitude to romance and dress is essentially the same. Sir Fopling’s affectation is excessive, but it is not entirely distinct from the cultivated manners of the other characters. His difference lies in degree, rather than kind. This complicates his role within the play. He is both an outsider and (ironically) a mirror, reflecting the tendencies that define the fashionable world. His obsession with being seen and admired underscores the importance of visibility in that world, where reputation depends upon performance.

While Dorimant manipulates appearances for strategic purposes, Sir Fopling inhabits his constructed identity without apparent awareness of its artificiality. Whereas Dorimant tricks Mrs. Loveit for his own amusement, Sir Fopling’s romantic overtures seem much more sincere and respectful toward her as a person. In this sense, Sir Fopling represents a form of authenticity within inauthenticity. His commitment to his persona—however absurd—grants him a stability that others lack. The ridicule he attracts does not entirely undermine his position, as he continues to function within the social world without significant consequence. The play thus uses Sir Fopling to explore the boundaries of social satire. He exposes the absurdities of fashionable behavior, while acknowledging its pervasive influence. Sir Fopling’s character suggests that the distinction between genuine and artificial identity is itself unstable and shaped by the very performances it seeks to define.

Mrs. Loveit represents the emotional costs of libertine culture and The Fragility of Women’s Social Standing. Unlike Dorimant, who approaches relationships with calculated detachment, Mrs. Loveit is unable to experience love as anything other than an overwhelming force that resists control. Her attachment to Dorimant exposes her vulnerability in a social system that privileges wit over sincerity. She recognizes he is manipulating her, yet she feels unable to do anything other than respond to his provocations exactly as he wants. At the same time, her emotional transparency contrasts with Dorimant’s composure, highlighting the imbalance that defines their relationship.

The play posits Mrs. Loveit as both sympathetic and flawed. Her passion lends her a depth that many characters lack in the insincere society, yet it also renders her susceptible to manipulation. Dorimant exploits her feelings by provoking jealousy and staging encounters designed to unsettle her. Mrs. Loveit’s responses, often marked by volatility, reinforce the perception that she lacks the self-control valued in Restoration society. This perception, however, is itself part of the play’s satire. Her inability to conform to the norms of wit and detachment reveals the limitations of those norms, suggesting that they exclude forms of emotional experience that cannot be easily regulated.

Mrs. Loveit’s interactions with Belinda further complicate her characterization. Belinda’s duplicity intensifies Mrs. Loveit’s distress, creating a network of betrayal that underscores the instability of social bonds. Mrs. Loveit becomes increasingly isolated as the play progresses, her emotional intensity alienating her from the community around her, as even her friends are apt to betray her. Eventually, however, this isolation grants her a form of moral clarity. She recognizes the cruelty of Dorimant’s behavior, even if she cannot fully disengage from it. Her critiques of him, though often dismissed, form a perspective that challenges the values he represents.

By the end of the play, Mrs. Loveit’s position remains unresolved. She does not achieve the reconciliation that concludes Dorimant’s storyline, nor does she undergo a transformation that restores her agency. This lack of closure reinforces the sense that her experience cannot be easily assimilated into the comic structure. She storms from the stage, denouncing the mockery from the “legions of fools” (5.2.372). Her characterization serves as a counterpoint to the wit and charm that dominate the play, reminding the audience of the human cost underlying the pursuit of pleasure and social success.

Young Bellair represents a more moderate and pragmatic approach to love and social etiquette, rejecting Desire as a Social Game in favor of genuine feeling for Emilia. In contrast to Dorimant’s libertinism and Sir Fopling’s affectation, Bellair works within the conventions of society while subtly adapting them to his own purposes. His relationship with Emilia shows how he values sincere affection over the rigors and demands of social etiquette or the romantic games played by people like Dorimant. 

When he first discovers that his father has arranged for him to marry another woman, he claims to feel as though he is “on the rack” (1.1.447), comparing his situation to torture because he feels the risk to his relationship so intensely. He does not blame his father, however. He blames himself for keeping his true feelings a secret, which shows a degree of emotional maturity and responsibility that is lacking in the more foppish characters.

Old Bellair’s insistence on arranging his son’s future places Bellair in a position that requires both obedience and resistance. Rather than openly defy his father, Bellair prefers a strategy of negotiation. This approach aligns with the broader emphasis on performance in the play, as Bellair must present himself in ways that satisfy his father while preserving his relationship with Emilia. When he is presented to Harriet, he and Harriet both put on a performance of love for the sake of their elders. At the same time, Young Bellair is not seduced into a new love or distracted by a fleeting passion. Instead, his focus remains on how he can be with Emilia. This minor deception for the sake of his father masks a deeper desire to affirm the truth about his feelings. His success depends upon his ability to navigate these competing demands without resorting to deception on the scale practiced by Dorimant.

The partnership between Bellair and Emilia highlights his distinctiveness. Their relationship is characterized by mutual trust and shared purpose, contrasting with the instability that defines other pairings. Emilia’s willingness to collaborate with Bellair reinforces the sense that their union is based on reciprocity, rather than dominance. They are not trying to trick or deceive one another, as Dorimant and his various partners seem to favor. This dynamic introduces an alternative model of romantic interaction within the play, suggesting that the values of wit and autonomy need not be incompatible with sincerity. Bellair’s conduct demonstrates that it is possible to engage with the social world without fully embracing its more corrosive aspects. Bellair’s role in the comic resolution thus underscores his function as a stabilizing figure.