debater's points. But the public, even "the town", was less interested
in mere sally and rejoinder than it was in the serious question of the
relation of comedy to morality, and hence Collier was allowed to win the
victory almost by default.

Collier's own argument was either confused or deliberately disingenuous,
since he shifts his ground several times. On occasion he argues merely
in the role of a moderate man who is shocked by the extravagances of the
playwrights, and on other occasions as an ascetic to whom all worldly
diversion, however innocent of any obvious offence, is wicked. At one
time, moreover, he accuses the playwrights of recommending the vices
which they should satirize and at other times denies that even the most
sincere satiric intention can justify the lively representation of
wickedness. But none of his opponents actually seized the opportunity
to completely clarify the issues. Vanbrugh, it is true, makes some real
points in his "A Short Vindication of The Relapse and The Provok'd
Wife", and John Dennis, in his heavy handed way, showed some realization
of what the issues were both in "The Usefulness of the Stage to the
Happiness of Mankind, to Government and to Religion" (1698) and, much
later, In "The Stage Defended" (1726). But, Vanbrugh is casual, Dennis
is slow witted, and it is only by comparison with the triviality of
D'Urfey or the contemptuous disingenuity of Congreve's "Amendments of
Mr. Collier's False and Imperfect Citations" (1698) that they seem
effective.

At least forty books and pamphlets published between 1698 and 1725 are
definitely part of the Collier controversy, but the fact that none of
them really discusses adequately fundamental premises concerning the
nature, method, and function of comedy had serious consequences for the
English stage. The situation was further complicated by the rise of