him.

Whoever the author was, he spotted the weaknesses in Collier's
arguments, at the same time pointing out the essential usefulness of
the _Short View_ as a corrective. He was not particularly original,
for many of the points he made were considered public property by
writers in the controversy. Thus, along with Dennis and others, the
writer admitted the necessity for reform, but opposed Collier's
apparent desire to abolish the stage. He pointed out the fallacy of
Collier's argument from the authority of the church fathers and the
absurdity of his contentions about the ridicule of the clergy. And
using ancient doctrine, he defended the stage as an instrument of
instruction in manners and morals. Of particular interest is his
belief that the stage had contributed to the improvement of the
language, especially in dissuading the clergy from a fantastic,
conceited rhetoric.

The fury of Collier's attack seemed to dull the wits of the defenders
of the stage. Too often they allowed themselves to be drawn into
quibbling over trivialities. None of them distinguished himself with a
brilliant answer. With the exception of Dennis's _The Usefulness of
the Stage_, the _Letter to A.H. Esq._ is as suave and sensible as any
of the answers, and considerably better then many.

Among the pamphlets taking the part of Collier was _The Occasional
Paper: Number IX_, attributed to Richard Willia, Chaplain to William
III and later Bishop of Winchester. In this paper the approach of
literary criticism is abandoned completely, the author feeling that
the controversy over the stage has already been obscured by wit and
learning. He concerns himself with religion and morality, and argues