id="FNanchor_6_6"/>[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