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 cÉlÈbre, 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 exposÉ 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 dÉnouement. 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 DoppelgÄnger 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 littÉrateurs, 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.