Produced by Chris Curnow, Hazel Batey, Joseph Cooper and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net
THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY
SIR ROGER L'ESTRANGE
CITT AND BUMPKIN
(1680)
_INTRODUCTION_
BY
B. J. RAHN
[Illustration]
PUBLICATION NUMBER 117
WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
1965
GENERAL EDITORS
Earl Miner, _University of California, Angeles_
Maximillian E. Novak, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Lawrence Clark Powell, _Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
ADVISORY EDITORS
Richard C. Boys, _University of Michigan_
John Butt, _University of Edinburgh_
James L. Clifford, _Columbia University_
Ralph Cohen, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Vinton A. Dearing, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Arthur Friedman, _University of Chicago_
Louis A. Landa, _Princeton University_
Samuel H. Monk, _University of Minnesota_
Everett T. Moore, _University of California, Los Angeles_
James Sutherland, _University College, London_
H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., _University of California, Los Angeles_
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY
Edna C. Davis, _Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
INTRODUCTION
According to discoveries made by Titus Oates in the autumn of 1678,
England was threatened by a Roman Catholic conspiracy headed by the Pope
and the King of France, whose objectives were: 1) to murder the King, 2)
to overthrow the government, and 3) to destroy the Protestant religion.
Although Oates was subsequently exposed as a charlatan, in 1678-81 a
panic held the nation in an iron grip, and belief in the Plot fostered
irrational and reprehensible excesses. The Popish Plot was not so much a
religious fraud as a political _cause celebre_, the significance of
which can be assessed only in the context of the republican movement of
the seventeenth century to redistribute power within the state. The
conflict which developed between Charles II and the Parliament during
the 1670's reflects the struggle for ascendance of two opposing theories
of government: absolute versus limited monarchy. Charles, supported by
the Tories and the Anglican clergy, was determined to maintain all the
hereditary privileges and powers of an English monarch, while the Whig
coalition in Parliament, led by the Earl of Shaftesbury, was intent upon
subordinating the power of the Crown to the will of Parliament. The
Opposition realized almost immediately that in the Popish Plot lay means
for furthering their schemes of political reform. Under the guise of
counteracting the Plot, they hoped to enact legislation to: 1) increase
parliamentary power, 2) limit the prerogatives of the King, 3) control
the succession, and 4) curtail the influence of the prelacy. Published
in 1680 when the Plot crisis was at its peak, _Citt and Bumpkin_ is one
of a series of pamphlets by Sir Roger L'Estrange written to support the
policies of Charles II and to defend the government from attacks by the
Whig Opposition.
Since James, Duke of York, had given the Whigs every reason to believe
that he would oppose their policies vehemently after he came to the
throne, they decided to take advantage of the public resentment against
him as a Roman Catholic to try to pass a bill in Parliament to exclude
him from the succession. James had already been accused of conspiring
with the French King to overthrow Protestantism in England and institute
Roman Catholicism as the state religion. In addition to reiterating this
charge, the Whigs enlarged upon the awkwardness and danger bound to
arise in a Protestant nation with a Roman Catholic ruler. The question
of a Popish successor soon came to be the principal concern of
Parliament, and the battle over the Exclusion Bill dominated the
political scene in 1679-81. While the Exclusion crisis was at its
height, Charles II circumvented this plan to deprive the Duke of York of
his hereditary title by repeatedly proroguing and dissolving Parliament
so that the bill could not be brought to a final vote. This series of
adjournments began when Charles dissolved the Parliament soon after the
Exclusion Bill was first introduced in the spring of 1679. After a
bitterly fought election contest during the summer of 1679, the newly
constituted Parliament assembled in October only to be prorogued once
again until 26 January 1680. The Whigs were furious and began to fear
that the King had no intention of permitting the Parliament to meet even
in January. Powerless to act legally out of Parliament, the Whigs
realized that a long series of postponements would lead to the defeat of
all their carefully drafted legislative plans. To combat Charles'
delaying tactics, the Opposition hit upon the expedient of petitioning
him to allow Parliament to sit. By a strong demonstration of popular
will, they hoped to force the King to comply with their demands.
Under the leadership of Shaftesbury and his followers in the Green
Ribbon Club, the Whigs achieved a degree of party organization and
efficiency in the autumn and winter of 1679-80 which remained unrivalled
during the seventeenth century.[1] While petitions were being printed in
London, the country was divided into districts; then petitions were
distributed to party agents everywhere who systematically canvassed for
signatures. In London, blank petitions were conveniently placed in
coffee houses and taverns; pens and inkstands appeared in the Strand and
at the Royal Exchange. Since these petitions were designed as
instruments to convey the will of the masses, emphasis was placed on
collecting large numbers of signatures with scant concern for the
political, economic, or social status of the subscribers. According to
the Tory historian Roger North, the people were warned by the promoters
of the petitions that, if the King were allowed to govern without a
Parliament, despotism would inevitably ensue, followed by a resurgence
of Popery.[2] Frightened, and in some cases confused by these formidable
predictions and threats, many people (especially in the country)
subscribed. After the canvassing had been completed, the petitions were
sent to London for presentation to the King.
The petitions themselves were phrased inoffensively enough, stressing
the fact that the Popish Plot had created a state of national emergency
and requesting that Parliament be called to deal with this danger. The
first petition, _The Humble Address and Advice of several of the Peeres
of this Realm For the Sitting of the Parliament_, was presented to the
King at Whitehall on 7 December by ten Whig peers. Charles accepted the
petition and dismissed them. But he could not dismiss the rumors of
countless other petitions in preparation and the unavoidable disturbance
such an onslaught would produce. Since the petitions were not promoted
through official channels, and since there was evidence that they were
designed to create tumult for seditious ends, Charles denounced them as
illegal. Moreover, on 11 December the King issued a Royal Proclamation
forbidding seditious and tumultuous petitioning. The effects of the
Proclamation were twofold. The Tories, who objected to petitioning as a
popular movement carried on by men without substance or position,
received the Proclamation everywhere as an expression of the King's
disapproval, and cited it as an authority to discourage others from
promoting and subscribing to petitions. The Whigs, on the other hand,
protested that petitioning was the legal right of the subject and
resumed their petitioning activities with added vigor.
In order to demonstrate his firm resolve not to be intimidated in the
exercise of his prerogative to call and dismiss Parliament, and in order
to rob the petitioning movement of its impetus by destroying its
immediate objective, Charles issued a second Proclamation on 11 December
proroguing Parliament from 26 January to 11 November 1680. Spurred on by
the realization that so long a recess would utterly ruin their hopes,
the Whigs directed considerable effort toward promoting an official
petition from the City of London.[3] Because of the power and prestige
of the City, the Whigs felt that such a petition would lend
encouragement to those being prepared in the country. Accordingly, they
arranged to present a petition from the City of London for a vote in the
Common Council on 20 January. The King deliberately attempted to
frustrate the London petition by purging the City Council of disaffected
members through enforcement of the Act for Regulating Corporations. This
Act disqualified all Dissenters, who usually held Whig principles.
Consequently, by the time the petition was brought to a vote, the Tories
had gained enough support to defeat the referendum by a small margin.
Although this ballot was won in effect only by the votes of the Court of
Aldermen, it was accounted a great victory for the Court Party and left
the Whigs sorely disappointed.
The peak of petitioning activity occurred during the month of January,
and the atmosphere became increasingly more tense as the day approached
upon which Parliament was supposed to meet. The week following the
Common Council's rejection of the London petition was the most strained.
Petitions continued to appear daily, though the King received them with
marked disfavor and sharply rebuked the delegates who delivered them.
When Monday, 26 January, finally arrived, the air was charged with
excitement; everyone crowded to Westminster to see what would happen.
But Charles had no intention of capitulating. As soon as the Lords and
Commons were assembled, the King addressed them, reaffirming his
determination to prorogue them and implying that the recent petitions
had served only to strengthen his resolve. The Whigs complained bitterly
but offered no open resistance. Charles had won the day and emerged with
his prerogative untarnished but not unchallenged. Shortly after this
_coup_, a counter reaction to petitioning set in, and a wave of loyalty
gained momentum and found expression in the form of abhorrence addresses
which poured in from all over the kingdom condemning the practice of
petitioning and professing loyalty to King and Court.
A fortnight after the prorogation of Parliament, just before the tide of
abhorrence addresses began to inundate the capital, on 10 February,
Narcissus Luttrell (indefatigable collector of Popish Plot ephemera)
recorded possession of the most important pamphlet written about
petitioning--Sir Roger L'Estrange's _Citt and Bumpkin_. Whether the date
which Luttrell gives represents the day of publication as well as the
day of purchase is a matter of conjecture, but his note does establish
the fact that the pamphlet was available to the public and in Luttrell's
hands by 10 February. Corroboration that the pamphlet was in circulation
before the end of February comes also from L'Estrange's bookseller Henry
Brome, who first advertised _Citt and Bumpkin_ for sale as already
published in a list of pamphlets dated 27 February. On 5 March in the
_Popish Courant_, a companion sheet to _The Weekly Pacquet of Advice
from Rome_, a violently anti-Papist newspaper in which L'Estrange was
frequently traduced, Henry Care condemned _Citt and Bumpkin_ in a list
of Catholic libels, "All publisht within little more than this
fortnight." Although less precise than Luttrell's note, the references
by Brome and Care help confirm the hypothesis that _Citt and Bumpkin_
was published by mid-February. Further evidence which helps to define
the date of publication occurs within the text of the pamphlet itself.
On page 24, L'Estrange mentions Henry Care's _History of the Damnable
Popish Plot_ and says it appeared on 26 January. This date in turn is
verified by two advertisements for the work in Care's own journal--one
on 23 January announcing its impending release, and another on 30
January commenting on its recent publication. Since _Citt and Bumpkin_
obviously appeared after Care's tract was released and before Luttrell's
entry was made, it must have been published during the fortnight between
26 January and 10 February.
_Citt and Bumpkin_ was not only the best written pamphlet on
petitioning, it was also the most ambitious in scope. Arranging his
material artfully, L'Estrange presented it with the wit and skill that
demonstrate unequivocably his mastery of the polemic medium. Unlike most
other party writers who confined their efforts to a few folio pages,
L'Estrange sustained his performance through 38 quarto leaves of
readable, entertaining prose. Moreover, his objectives and arguments
were much more comprehensive and sophisticated than those of the other
pamphleteers engaged in the controversy over petitioning. Most Tory
writers treated petitioning as an isolated issue and directed their
attack accordingly, failing to relate any of their arguments to each
other or to a larger scheme. Many authors attempted to defeat
petitioning by identifying the petitions of 1680 with those of the
1640's leading up to the Civil War. In addition, some insisted that
petitioning was illegal and defended the Proclamation against it, while
others tried to discredit the organizers and promoters of petitions as
disaffected persons motivated by hopes of preferment and profit. At the
same time, they launched a collateral attack upon those members of
Parliament who actively encouraged petitioning. There was even a general
indictment of Parliament as a whole, suggesting that it intended to
usurp the King's prerogatives and take sovereignty upon itself. But
there was no definite, direct statement that a plot led by the petition
managers was actually underway to subvert the government. In _Citt and
Bumpkin_ L'Estrange accused the republicans and Dissenters of actively
promoting a Protestant Plot more insidious than the Popish Plot but with
identical goals: 1) to kill the King, 2) to undermine the government,
and 3) to destroy the established Church of England. Throughout the
pamphlet, which is an _expose_ of this alleged conspiracy, L'Estrange
supplied a great deal of specific factual detail upholding his claims.
His objective was not merely to discredit petitioning, but to lessen
belief in the Popish Plot and to launch a counterattack against the
enemies of the Court. By indicating that petitioning was not an end in
itself but an integral part of a larger plan, L'Estrange managed to
censure petitioning _per se_, to increase its odium by linking it with
the greater disaster of rebellion and civil war, and yet to preserve a
sense of proportion by directing the brunt of his attack against the
Protestant Plot as a whole.
Although it is cast in the form of an ironic dialogue, _Citt and
Bumpkin_ has much in common with a dramatic skit. L'Estrange sketches
the setting, develops the characterization, provides realistic
conversation, and builds dramatic tension to a climax (or turning point
in the action), which is followed by a falling off of tension or
_denouement_. As if to make the reading of parts easier, the speeches of
the characters are set in different type faces. L'Estrange even provides
stage directions and indicates action in the speeches of the characters.
Like many dramas, _Citt and Bumpkin_ begins _in medias res_ and draws
the reader immediately into the action. In a very natural fashion, the
subject of the conversation is defined and the scene is set within the
first four lines. The sense of setting is never destroyed, for
L'Estrange unobtrusively sustains it by occasional specific but natural
references to it in the course of the conversation.
The dialogue between Citt and Bumpkin takes place during a casual
encounter in a tavern, where the two fall to discussing religion and
politics over a cup of ale. As their names suggest, Citt and Bumpkin
represent a sophisticated London citizen and a naive country bumpkin.
While they are not fully realized dramatic characters, neither are they
mere bloodless stick figures. During the course of their conversation,
they reveal information about their personalities, their social and
economic status, their political affiliations, their religious
sympathies, their moral values, and their occupations. One learns from
Citt that he is an ex-felon who is employed as a party agent by a
political organization plotting to overthrow the government and
undermine the Church of England. Motivated only by ambition and avarice,
Citt is a completely immoral man who openly endorses a policy of
expediency, and who condones any act--no matter how evil--because he
believes that the end always justifies the means. As befits a partner in
crime, Bumpkin is Citt's _Doppelgaenger_ in many ways. The essential
differences are those of experience and intelligence. Bumpkin is only
slightly less immoral and unscrupulous than Citt, but he is just as
hypocritical, lawless, and untruthful. As the two discuss how they
promoted petitions in the city and the country, Citt and Bumpkin admit
to all sorts of treacherous and Fraudulent practices. In addition, they
reveal the goals, the methods, the leaders, the strength, and the
immorality of the Protestant Plot. Ironically, they unintentionally
expose themselves and the Plot to the reader's censure; for, although
the characters seem to be oblivious to the immorality of their behavior,
the reader is not so insensitive. The reader contrasts their ethics and
conduct with ideal values, rejects their code as immoral, and carries
his judgment of the characters over into the real world to condemn the
petitioners as republican plotters.
To reinforce this ironic self-indictment by Citt and Bumpkin, L'Estrange
introduces a third character, Trueman, who enters like a _deus ex
machina_ to represent the abstract forces of truth, justice, and
morality--albeit with a Tory bias. Because he functions as an abstract
symbol in contrast with Citt and Bumpkin, who are very much of this
world, Trueman has a personality uncomplicated by any psychological
subtleties or idiosyncrasies which would emphasize his humanity. The
entrance of Trueman may well be regarded as the climax of this little
drama, for the plot unfolds gradually and dramatic tension builds to the
point of his intrusion, when the course of action is interrupted and
diverted in another direction by his arguments. Taking up the topics
previously discussed by Citt and Bumpkin while he was concealed in a
nearby closet, Trueman confronts them with their confessed treachery,
denounces their chicanery and folly, and refutes their political views
with Tory arguments. The fact that Trueman symbolizes extrahuman moral
forces lends authority to his defense of absolute monarchy and the
established Church.
Couched in an authentic colloquial style, the dialogue between Citt and
Bumpkin progresses in an entirely natural, credible manner. Their
conversation is animated, colorful, humorous, informative, and
purposeful. The direction of the conversation is logically dictated by
its substance; there is nothing artificial, contrived, or foreordained
about it. The interaction of personality is reflected in the verbal
exchange. As in a play, the development of the action depends upon each
character's immediate and genuine response to the statements made by the
other _dramatis personae_. Again, as in the theater, dramatic tension is
created as the plot unfolds and the reader waits to see what will happen
next. Except for one passage of extended quotation (pp. 32-33), the
dramatic realism is sustained effortlessly.
Although _Citt and Bumpkin_ was the first of L'Estrange's Popish Plot
pamphlets written in dialogue, he was thoroughly familiar with the form
and had often employed it in his polemic skirmishes during the Civil
War. In fact, L'Estrange found the genre so congenial that he chose to
write his famous newspaper _The Observator_ (1681-87) in dialogue. This
literary device, employed by hack writers, controversialists, and
eminent _litterateurs_, was extremely popular in England between 1660
and 1700 and was used to conspicuous advantage for discussing issues of
momentary importance as well as serious philosophical questions.
According to Eugene R. Purpus in his study of the "Dialogue in English
Literature, 1660-1725," few other literary forms had such universal and
continual appeal.[4] In an age when the drama was the reigning literary
fashion, the dialogue naturally enough had a concomitant vogue. Its
popularity is attested to by the large number of dialoguists as well as
by the bulk of their writing. As Purpus notes, party writers quickly
discovered that this genre was an excellent vehicle for presenting
highly controversial ideas and forceful arguments.
During the Restoration, there were no rigid conventions governing the
genre, and any work passed as a dialogue which represented a
conversation between two or more persons or which was organized in a
question-and-answer manner.[5] Frequently, dialogues resembled an
interrogation or a catechism rather than natural discourse between real
human beings. Often writers of such artificial dialogues abandoned any
attempt at characterization or conversational verisimilitude, merely
substituting "Q." and "A." to indicate a series of queries and
responses. Sometimes authors identified the speakers with proper names
but made no effort at actual characterization. Concern for dramatic
realism varied from writer to writer; and all too often, improbable
puppet-like creatures were represented in illogical, unbelievable, and
contrived conversations. The artistic integrity of a successful
dialogue, however, lies in the dramatic exchange of differing points of
view or the interplay of opposing arguments in realistic conversation
between credible characters with clearly differentiated personalities.
The stilted, artificial quality of some dialogues is in part
attributable to the fact that many writers turned to the genre as a
facile means of expressing a particular point of view.[6] As Purpus
observes, the inherent dramatic quality of the form is lost if: 1) the
writer substitutes invective, prejudice, and railing for realistic
conversation, and/or 2) the author obviously contrives the dialogue
merely to reflect his particular bias on a given question. On the other
hand, although some writers used the form as a convenient frame on which
to display their opinions, other writers erred by including too much
dramatic machinery. Dialogues of this sort almost became short dramas.
No matter what the content or objective purpose of dialogues, however,
they were uniformly written in what became known after the Restoration
as the "plain, easy, and familiar" style.[7] Sentences were more
conveniently broken up than heretofore, and there was increased
lightness of tone. Though there was still a great deal of invective,
Hugh Macdonald notes in "Banter in English Controversial Prose after the
Restoration," that banter became prominent in the literature of
disputation after 1660. On the other hand, "No one would expect to find
a clear-cut division between banter, satire, sarcasm, burlesque, and
abuse in every passage of a book written in the seventeenth century."[8]
As Mr. Macdonald states, it is largely a question of emphasis. Employing
a great deal of banter, Marvell reintroduced a tradition forgotten since
the Marprelate tracts--that of treating a grave subject lightly yet with
serious intention of reinforcing the argument. Restoration polemicists,
with L'Estrange in the vanguard, quickly realized the advantages of this
technique and claimed it as their own.
_Citt and Bumpkin_ survives close scrutiny according to the critical
criteria for evaluating dialogues suggested by Purpus and Macdonald.
Although L'Estrange does use the genre for a specific controversial end,
he does not lapse into a barren question-and-answer type of organization
nor into that of an artificial didactic catechism. While he sketches a
setting, develops characterization, and creates believable conversation,
L'Estrange does not err in the direction of over-dramatization either.
He provides all the requisite machinery to support the dramatic realism
necessary in a successful dialogue, but he goes no further. Throughout
_Citt and Bumpkin_, L'Estrange maintains the appropriate "plain, easy
and familiar" style. The sentence structure is simple, and clauses are
well punctuated. Abounding with colloquial expressions, contractions,
and slang, the vocabulary is common and especially suited to the low
characters. A bantering tone predominates, accompanied by passages
employing irony, satire, and invective. There is not enough invective,
however, to destroy the mood. If L'Estrange's Tory bias is perfectly
evident, it is not aggressive enough to prevent the accomplishment of
his polemic objectives. Although the republican political theories of
the Whigs are attacked satirically in the first part of _Citt and
Bumpkin_, they are stated and refuted in proper controversial style in
the final pages of the pamphlet. On the whole, _Citt and Bumpkin_
conforms to the conventions of a successful dialogue; where it does
not, the infringements are not great enough to destroy its artistic
integrity.
_Citt and Bumpkin's_ popularity was indisputable. Of all the pamphlets
about petitioning, it was by far the most widely read. It went into four
editions by June 1680 and a fifth in 1681. Although there were no
substantive changes in the various editions, the type was reset each
time, so implying a continuing demand for the pamphlet. Indeed, the
contemporary response was so overwhelming that within six weeks
L'Estrange wrote a sequel entitled, _Citt and Bumpkin, The Second Part;
Or, A Learned Discourse upon Swearing and Lying_. In addition, there
were many references in the Whig press denigrating L'Estrange and his
pamphlet; derogatory remarks appeared in newspapers, ballads, and poems.
In particular, three pamphlets were issued, replying directly to _Citt
and Bumpkin_ and attacking L'Estrange personally. The first and most
considerable of these rejoinders appeared on 16 March, a month after the
publication of _Citt and Bumpkin_, when its effect was being fully
realized and the need felt to combat it.
_A Dialogue Between Tom and Dick Over a Dish of Coffee Concerning
Matters of Religion and Government_, issued also as _Crack-fart and
Tony; Or, Knave and Fool_,[9] is a parody following closely the format
and arguments of _Citt and Bumpkin_. Having appropriated the framework
employed by L'Estrange, the author of _Tom and Dick_ adjusted it by a
series of simple substitutions from an attack on the Protestant Plot,
Dissenters, Schism, and republicans, to an assault on the Popish Plot,
Papists, Roman Catholicism, and loyalists. The parallels in setting and
characterization are established immediately, when Tom and Dick meet in
a coffee house and agree to hold a conversation in which Tom will speak,
write, invent, and hold forth as Citt had done, while Dick will hear,
believe, and speak in his turn (but to little purpose) like Bumpkin. The
parody breaks down, however, when one compares Trueman with Goodman, who
endorses Trueman's arguments rather than misrepresenting or opposing
them. Nor does Goodman observe Trueman's scrupulous care in replying to
all the issues raised by the other two characters. Throughout the
dialogue, the author manages to maintain dramatic realism and to sustain
a mock-serious tone in the absurd-but-credible verbal exchange between
his two buffoons.
The second rebuttal was released three months later on 14 June. Signed
E. P. (possibly Edward Phillips), _The Dialogue Betwixt Cit and Bumpkin
Answered_ replies not only to _Citt and Bumpkin_, but reflects upon
several other polemic tracts by L'Estrange, and attacks him _ad hominem_
from beginning to end. A long prefatory letter discussing the powers and
privileges of city corporations and the faults of L'Estrange's _Popery
in Masquerade_ precedes the dialogue, which preserves the same general
format and style of its target. The roles of the characters are only
roughly analogous, however, and the development of the argument is
retarded and obscured by the abuse of L'Estrange. All too often, the
argument is neither pertinent nor incisive. Unfortunately, E. P. lacks
all the vitality, wit, and imagination of his polemic adversary.
Incensed by E. P.'s scurrility, L'Estrange replied within three days to
all of his charges in _A Short Answer to a Whole Litter of Libels_.
Although it does not appear in Luttrell's _Popish Plot Catalogues_, the
third reply to _Citt and Bumpkin_, _Crack upon Crack: Or, Crack-Fart
Whipt with his own Rod, by Citt and Bumpkin_, can be dated approximately
upon the basis of internal evidence. References to L'Estrange's flight
to escape a sham plot against him in October, 1680, imply a late autumn
publication date. Purporting to answer both parts of _Citt and Bumpkin_,
this pamphlet does not deal with any of the arguments raised in either
work. The author abandons any attempt at parody, and instead borrows
details of setting from the popular _Letter from Legorn_ pamphlets which
appeared that year. The characters pursue the absconded Trueman (_i.e._,
L'Estrange) aboard a Mahometan (_i.e._, Papist) ship and lure him ashore
in order to seek revenge for their recent humiliation at his hands. The
dialogue contains four pages of unimaginative abuse of Trueman which
culminates in his drubbing by Citt and Bumpkin. Largely scatological,
this uninspired attack upon L'Estrange does not strike a single telling
blow against _Citt and Bumpkin_.
In fact, _Citt and Bumpkin_ enjoyed unqualified success despite the best
efforts of its various detractors. And its popularity was well deserved.
Appearing just when the unrest over petitioning was at its height, _Citt
and Bumpkin_ captured the interest and imagination of the public with
its cogent argument and witty satire.
NOTES
1: J. R. Jones, _The First Whigs_ (London, 1961), p. 117; Roger North,
_Examen, or an Enquiry into the Credit and Veracity of a Pretended
Complete History_ (London, 1740), p. 542.
2: North, p. 542.
3: Jones, pp. 119-20.
4: Eugene R. Purpus, "The Dialogue in English Literature, 1660-1725,"
_ELH_, XVII (1950), II. 58.
5: The information on the dialogue in this paragraph is taken from
Purpus, pp. 48-49.
6: Purpus, pp. 50-52.
7: Purpus, p. 48; Hugh Macdonald, "Banter in English Controversial Prose
after the Restoration," _Essays and Studies by Members of the English
Association_, XXXII (1946), 21-22.
8: Macdonald, p. 23.
9: One of L'Estrange's opponents nicknamed him the "Crack-fart of the
Nation" and the epithet stuck to him for years.
=Text=
The text of _Citt and Bumpkin_
here reprinted is the copy in
the William Andrews Clark
Memorial Library.
CITT
AND
BUMPKIN.
IN A
DIALOGUE
OVER
A Pot of Ale,
CONCERNING
MATTERS
OF
RELIGION
AND
GOVERNMENT.
_LONDON_,
Printed for _Henry Brome_ at the Gun in S. _Pauls_
Church-yard, 1680.
_Citt_ and _Bumkin_,
In a DIALOGUE, _&c._
_Citt._ So that you would know, _First_, how we _manag'd_ the
_Petition_; and _Secondly_, how it came to _miscarry_.
Bum. _Those are the two Points_, Citt, _but first take off your_ Pot,
_and then tell your_ Story; _you shall have mine afterward_.
Committees to promote the Petitions.
_Citt._ There was no way, you must know, to carry the business clear,
without getting a _Vote_ of _Common-Council_ for the _Petition_; and so
making it an Act of the _City_: And in order to this End, we planted our
_Committees_ every where up and down, from _Algate_ to _Temple-barr_, at
convenient distances; some few of them in _Taverns_ but most at
_Coffee-houses_; as less liable to suspition. Now we did not call these
_Meetings_, _Committees_, but _Clubs_; and _there_ we had all Freedom
both for _Privacy_ and _Debate_: while the _Borough_ of _Southwark_,
_Westminster_, and the _Suburbs_, proceeded according to our Method.
Bum. _And what were these_ Committees _now to do_?
Their Powers and Instructions.
_Citt._ Their _Commission_ was to procure _Subscriptions_, to justify
the Right of _Petitioning_, and to gain _Intelligence_: And then every
_Committee_ had one man at least in it that wrote _short-hand_.
Bum. _Well, and what was he to do?_
_Citt._ It was his part to go smoking up and down from One Company to
another, to see who was _for_ us, and who _against_ us: and to take
Notes of what people said of the _Plot_, or of the _Kings Witnesses_, or
against this way of _Petitioning_.
Bum. _But how came those Committees (as ye call 'um) by their_
Commissions?
Two Grand Committees.
_Citt._ For that, let me tell you, we had _two Grand Committees_, that
adjourn'd from place to place, as they saw occasion: But they met most
commonly at _Two Coffee-houses_; the _One_ near _Guild-Hall_, the
_Other_ in the _Strand_; for you must take notice that we went on, hand
in hand with our _Neighbours_ in the _Main Design_.
Bum. _But you do not tell me yet who set up the_ Other Committees.
The Office of the Grand Committees.
_Citt._ These two _Grand Committees_, I tell you, nominated and
appointed the _Sub-Committees_, gave them their _Orders_, and received
their _Reports_: It was their Office moreover to digest _Discoveries_,
and _Informations_; to instruct _Articles_, improve _Accusations_,
manage _Controversies_, defray the charge of _Intelligencers_, and
_Gatherers of hands_, to dispose of _Collections_; to influence the
_Anglicus_'s and _Domesticks_, and fortify those that were weak in the
Faith; to furnish matter sometimes for _Narratives_.----
Bum. _What dost thou mean by_ Narratives, Citt?
_Citt._ They are only _Strange Storys_; as that of the _Dragon_ in
_Essex_; _Earth-quakes_, _Sights in the Air_, _Prodigies_, and the like.
Bum. _One would think it should not be worth their while, to busy their
heads about such Fooleries as these._
Stories of Prodigies startle the Common People.
_Citt._ Now this is thy simplicity _Bumpkin_, for there is not any thing
that moves the hearts of the People so effectually toward _the Work of
the Lord_, especially when the _Narrative_ carries some _Historical
Remarque_ in the Tayl of it: As for the purpose, _this or that happen'd
in such a Kings Reign, and soon after such and such troubles befell the
Church and State_: such a _Civil War_, such or such a _Persecution_, or
_Invasion_ follow'd upon it. When the People perceive once that the Lord
hath declared himself against the Nation, in these tokens of his
Displeasure, the Multitude seldom fail of helping the Judgment forward.
Bum. _I don't know what ye call your_ Committees, _but Our Gentry had
their_ Meetings _too; and there was a great Lord or two among 'um that
shall be Nameless_.
_Citt._ We could shew you _othergates Lords_ among _Us_, I'le assure
you, then any you have; but let that passe.
Bum. _You told me that your_ Committees _were to procure_ Subscriptions;
_we were hard put to't, I'm sure, in the_ Country _to get_ Hands.
The way of getting hands in and about _London_.
_Citt._ And so were we in the City _Bumpkin_; and if it had not been to
advance the _Protestant Interest_, I'de have been torn to pieces by wild
Horses, before I'de have done what I did. But _extraordinary Cases_ must
have _extraordinary allowances_. There was hardly a _Register_ about the
Town that scap'd us for _Names_: _Bedlam_, _Bridewell_, all the
_Parish-books_, nay the very _Goals_, and _Hospitalls_; we had our
_Agents_ at all _Publick Meetings_, _Court_, _Church_, _Change_, all the
_Schools_ up and down; _Masters_ underwrit for their _Children_, and
_Servants_, _Women_ for their _Husbands_ in the _West-Indies_, nay we
prevail'd upon some _Parsons_, to engage for their whole
_Congregations_; we took in _Jack Straw_, _Wat Tyler_, and the whole
Legend of _Poor Robins Saints_ into our List of _Petitioners_; and the
_same Names_ serv'd us in four or five _several places_. And where's the
hurt of all this now? So long as the Cause it self is Righteous.
Several ways of getting Hands in the Country.
Bum. _Nay, the thing was well enough_ Citt, _if we could but have gone
through with it: And you shall see now that we were put to our shifts in
the_ Country, _as well as you in the_ City. _I was employ'd you must
know, to get_ Names _at_ four shillings a Hundred, _and I had all my_
Real Subscriptions _written at such a distance, one from another, that I
could easily clap in a Name or two betwixt 'um; and then I got as many_
School-boys _as I could, to underwrite after the same manner, and after
this, fill'd up all those spaces with_ Names _that I either_ Remember'd,
_or_ Invented _my self, or could get out of two or three_
Christning-books. _There are a World (ye know) of_ Smiths, Browns,
Clarks, Walkers, Woods, _so that I furnish'd my Catalogue with a matter
of Fifty a piece of these_ Sir-names_, which I_ Christen'd _my self. And
besides, we had all the_ Non-conformist Ministers _in the_ Country _for
us, and they brought in a power of hands_.
The Protestant Dissenters great Promoters of the Petition.
_Citt._ What do you talk of _your Non-conformists_? They do but work
_Journey-work_ to _Ours_. We have the _Heads_ of all the _Protestant
Dissenters_ in the _Nation_ here in this Town, why, we have more
_Religions_, _Bumpkin_, in _this City_, then you have _People_ in your
whole _Country_.
Bum. _Ay, and 'tis a great blessing too, that when_ Professors _are at
so mighty Variance among_ themselves_, there should be so wonderfull an_
Agreement _in the_ Common Cause.
_Citt._ And that's notably observ'd, _Bumkin_; for so we found it here.
The _Presbyterian_ got hands of _His Party_; the _Independent_ of _His_;
the _Baptist_ of _His_; the _Fifth-Monarchy_ man of _His_; and so
throughout all our Divisions: and we had still the most zealous man in
His way, to gather the _Subscriptions_: And when they had completed
their _Roll_, they discharg'd themselves as Naturally into the _Grand
Committee_, as _Rivers_ into the _Sea_. And then we were sure of all the
_Republicans_.
Bum. _But after all this_ Care _and_ Industry_, how was it possible for
the business to_ Miscarry?
_Citt._ Why I know 'tis laid in our dish, that when we had set the whole
Kingdome agogg upon _Petitioning_, our hearts would not serve us to go
through stitch, and so we drew our own necks out of the Collar, and left
the Countries in the Lurch.
Bum. _Nay that's the Truth on't,_ Citt_; We stood all gaping for_ London
_to lead the way_.
_Citt._ The great work that we look't upon was the gaining of a
_well-affected Common-Council_; which we secur'd upon the _Election_,
with all the skill, and watchfullness imaginable.
Bum. _And that was a huge point_ Citt; _but how were ye able to compasse
it_?
Tricks to defeat Elections.
_Citt._ Why we had no more to do, then to mark those that we knew were
not for our turns, either as _Courtiers_, or _Loose-livers_, or
_half-Protestants_, and their business was done.
Bum. _We went the same way to work too in the_ Country_, at all our_
Elections; _for it is a Lawfull Policy, you know, to lessen the
Reputation of an Enemy_.
_Citt._ Nay we went further still; and set a _Report_ a foot upon the
_Exchange_, and all the _Coffee-houses_ and _Publique Houses_
thereabouts, which held from _Change-time_, till the very _Rising_ of
the _Common-Councill_, when the _Petition_ was _laid aside_; that past
so currant, that no mortall doubted the Truth on't.
Bum. _But you ha' not told me what that_ Report _was yet_.
_Citt._ It was this, _that the King had sent a Message to the City to
let them understand that he took notice how much they stood affected to
the_ Petition; _that he expected they would proceed upon it; and that
his Majesty was ready to give them_ a gracious Answer.
Bum. _But was this fair dealing, Brother?_
_Citt._ Did not _Abraham_ say of _Sarah, She's my Sister_?
Bum. _Well thou'rt a heavenly man_, Citt! _but come to the Miscarriage
it self_.
The Petition laid aside in the _Common-Council_.
_Citt._ After as Hopefull a _Choice_ as ever was made, we procur'd a
_Common-Councill_: where the _Petition_ was put to the _Vote_, and it
was carry'd in the _Commons_ by _two Voyces_, for the presenting it, and
by _Fourteen_, or _Fifteen Votes_ in the _Court of Aldermen_, on the
_Negative_.
Bum. _So that_ your Damn'd Aldermen_, and_ our Damn'd Justices, _have
ruin'd us both in_ City _and_ Country.
_Citt._ Hang'um, they are most of them _Church-Papists_; but we should
have dealt well enough with _them_, if it had not been for that
confounded _Act_ for _Regulating Corporations_.
Bum. _Prethee let me understand that, for I know nothing on't._
The Act for Corporations brake the neck on't.
_Citt._ Take notice then that this Devillish Statute has provided, that
_no man shall serve as a_ Common-Councell man, _but upon condition of
taking three_ Oaths, _and subscribing_ one Declaration, _therein
mention'd; and having taken the_ Sacrament _of the_ Lords Supper,
_according to the Rites of the Church of_ England, _within one year next
before his Election_. Now it so fell out, that what with this _Act_, and
a _Court-Letter_ for putting it in _Execution_, a matter of _thirty_ of
our _Friends_ were put _by_, as not duly qualify'd; And upon this Pinch
we lost it. Nay let me tell ye as a friend, there were at least _twenty_
or _thirty_ of the rest too, that would hardly have past Muster.
Bum. _But is this certain?_
_Citt._ Why I am now in my Element, _Bumkin_; for thou know'st my
Education has been toward the Law.
Bum. _This was a Plaguy jobb_, Citt, _but we must look better to our
Hitts next bout_.
_Citt._ Nay my life for thine we'll have another touch for't yet. But
tell me in short; how came you off with your _Petition_ in the
_Country_?
Bum. _It went on for a good while prettily well at the_
Quarter-Sessions; _till at last one_ Cross-grain'd Curr _there upon the_
Bench _claw'd us all away to the Devill, and got an Order of Court
against it, while you would say what's this_.
_Citt._ But what did he say?
The Petition baffled in the Country.
Bum. _Oh there was a great deal of stuff on't; the_ King, _and the_
Judges _(he said) had declared it to be_ Seditious, _and so they were to
take it. That they sat there to_ keep _the_ Kings Peace, _not to
countenance the_ Breaking _of it; and then (says he) these fellows don't
know what they would have_. One _Petitions for_ Chalk, _and_ Another
_for_ Cheese; _the Petition was at first_ for the meeting of the
Parliament; _and then they came to Twit the King with his_
Coronation-Oath, _and then_, Delinquents _must be brought to_
Punishment; _and then the_ Parliament _was to Sit as_ long _as_ they
pleas'd, _and at_ last, _every man must be_ mark'd _for a_ Common Enemy
_that would not_ Subscribe _it. So that first they would have the_
Parliament Sit; _and then they'd cut 'um out their work; and in fine, it
was little other then a_ Petition _against_ those _that would_ not
Petition. _He said there were Ill practices in the getting of hands, and
so they threw out the_ Petition, _and order'd an_ Enquiry _into the_
Abuses.
_Citt._ Well, there's no remedy but Patience.
Bum. _I had need of Patience I'm sure, for they're Examining the Hands
allready, as hard as they can drive; You'l see me in the_ Gazette next
Thursday, _as sure as a Gun_.
_Citt._ Why then we must play the _Domestique_ against _him, next
Fryday_.
Bum. _Nay, I'm sure to be trounc'd for't to some tune, if I be_ taken.
_Citt._ Pre'thee what art affraid of? There's no _Treason_ in getting
hands to a _Petition_ man.
Bum. _No, that's true; but I have put in such a Lurry of_ Dog-Rogues;
_they cry_ they're defam'd, _with a Pox_, they'le have their remedy;
_and they make such a Bawling_.
_Citt._ Come, come, set thy heart at rest: and know that in this City
th'art in the very Sanctuary of the _Well-affected_. But 'tis good
however to prepare for the _worst_, and the _best_ (as they say) _will
help its self_. But art thou really afraid of being _taken_?
Bum. _And so would you be too, if you were in my condition, without a_
penny, _or a_ friend _in the world to help ye_.
The blessing of having neither friends nor Mony.
_Citt._ Thou art two great Owls, _Bumkin_, in a very few words. _First_,
thou hast _great friends_ and do'st not _know on't_, and _Secondly_ thou
do'st not understand the _Blessing_, of having neither _Friends_, nor
_Money_. In one word, I'll see thee provided for; and in the mean time,
give me thy answer to a few questions.
I make no doubt but they that put thee into this _Trust_, and
_Employment_ of helping on the _Petition_, are men of _Estate_, and men
_well-inclin'd_ to the _Publique Cause_.
Methods of _Popularity._
Bum. _O, their_ Landlords _and_ Masters _are men of huge Estates; but
'tis the_ Tenants, _and the_ Stewards _that I have to do withall. But
then (do you mark me) those people are all in all with their Masters._
_Citt._ I suppose you may be known to the _Landlords_ and _Masters
themselves_ too. Do they ever take any notice of you?
Bum. _Yes, yes; I go often to their Houses man, and they speak mighty
kindly to me; and there's nothing but_ Honest Obadiah, _and_ Good
Obadiah _at every turn; and then the Men take me into the Kitchin, or
into the Cellar, or so. And let me tell you_ Citt, _if it had not been
for them once, I had been plaguyly paid off in the_ Spirituall Court
_upon a certain Occasion_.
_Citt._ That's a very good sign of _Affection_ to the _Cause_, as I told
thee: and it would be never the worse if they were under a Cloud at
_Court_; for _an Honest Revenge_, ye know _goes a great way with a
tender Conscience_.
Bum. _I have hear'd some Inkling that way, but we'le scatter no words._
_Citt._ They never speak any thing to you in private, do they? As of
_Grievances_, (I mean) _Religion, the Liberty of the Subject_, and such
like?
Bum. _No, no, but they talk as other people do, of the_ Plot, _and the_
Jesuits, _and_ Popery, _and the_ French King, _and so_.
_Citt._ And what is the reason now, do ye think, that you are not
receiv'd into their _Bed-Chambers_, their _Closets_, into their _Arms_,
and into their very _Hearts_, as well as some other people as we know?
Bum. _Alas! what should they do with me? I'm not a man fit to keep them
Company._
A Golden Sentence.
_Citt._ Why then _Honest Bumpkin_, here's a Golden Sentence for thee;
_Be Taken, Sifted, Imprison'd, Pillory'd_, and stand true to thy
_Principles_, and th'art company for the best _Lord_ in _Christendom_.
They'l never dare to trust thee till th' art _Jayl_ and _Pillory-proof_;
and the bringing of _thee into_ a Jayl would be a greater kindness, then
the fetching of _Another man Out_.
Bum. _Prethee Cit, tell me one thing by the way, hast thou ever made
Tryal of this Experiment thy self?_
A Jayl is the High-way to Preferment.
_Citt._ To tell thee as a friend, I have try'd it, and I'm the best part
of a thousand pound the better for't. 'Tis certainly the high way to
preferment.
Bum. _And yet for all this_, Citt, _I have no minde in the World to be_
taken.
_Citt._ And that's because th' art an arrant buzzard; the Lord deliver
me from a fellow that has neither _Mony_, nor _Friends_, and yet's
afraid of being _Taken_. Why 'tis the very making of many a mans Fortune
to be _Taken_. How many men are there that give mony to be Taken, and
make a _Trade_ on't; _Nay_ happy is the man that can but get any body to
_Take_ him. Why I tell ye, there are people that will _quarrel_ for't,
and make _Friends_ to be _Taken_. 'Tis a common thing in _Paris_, for a
man in _One six Months_, to start out of a _Friendless_, and _Monyless_
condition, into an Equipage of _Lacquays_ and _Coaches_; and all this by
nicking the blessed Opportunities of being _discreetly Taken_.
Bum. _I have heard indeed of a man that set fire to_ one Old House, _and
got as much Mony by a_ Brief _for't, as built him_ two New ones.