A Short View of the Immorality, and Profaneness of the English Stage Together with the Sense of Antiquity on this Argument — A Closer Reading

Collier’s Rhetorical Strategy

Collier’s argumentative voice is distinctive: he combines the authority of a moralist with the precision of a textual critic. In the preface, he declares that “to have no good Principles, is to have no Reason to be Good,” a maxim that frames his entire case. He frequently uses metaphors of violence and theft, calling the playwrights “Foot-Pads” who “Rob, but Murther.” This language is not incidental; it reflects his view that the stage is an active agent of corruption. Collier also employs irony, as when he notes that the poets’ “Measures are Politickly taken” to destroy conscience. His sentences are often long and periodic, building a rhythm of accusation before delivering a punchy verdict. The effect is a prose that feels both learned and combative, designed to persuade through reason and indignation.

Close Reading of Ben Jonson

Collier’s method relies heavily on close reading of specific plays, particularly those of Ben Jonson. He disputes Dryden’s claim that Jonson’s The Alchemist leaves vice unpunished, arguing that Face’s apology and confession show the poet’s care to “prevent the Ill Impressions of his Play.” Collier quotes the play’s ending, noting that Face “sets himself at the Bar, arraign his own Practise, and cast the Cause upon the Clemency of the Company.” This attention to dramatic structure—how a character’s final speech shapes moral meaning—is central to Collier’s critique. He similarly defends Jonson’s The Silent Woman, arguing that Dauphine is not as “naughty” as Dryden claims, because he appears “tired, and willing to disengage” from the collegiate ladies. These readings show Collier as a careful, if partisan, interpreter of dramatic texts.

The Role of Classical Authority

Collier grounds his argument in the “Sence of Antiquity,” citing Aristotle, Horace, and the Church Fathers. He argues that Horace’s advice to follow “the Precepts of Socrates and Plato” obliges poets to “Sobriety of Conduct, and a just distribution of Rewards, and Punishments.” This appeal to classical precedent is not merely decorative; it provides a standard against which modern plays are measured. Collier also engages with the history of comedy, noting that the chorus was present in Aristophanes and that Moliere revived it. His use of marginal notes and footnotes (here converted to endnotes) shows a scholarly apparatus intended to bolster his credibility. However, his classical learning is always in service of a contemporary polemic: the ancients are invoked to condemn the Restoration stage.

Collier’s Short View is best read as a work of moral criticism that repays attention to its rhetorical texture and its specific engagements with plays. Readers interested in the history of literary criticism will find here a model of how close reading can serve ideological ends. The excerpts suggest that Collier’s arguments are more nuanced than a simple condemnation: he is willing to defend Jonson against Dryden, and he uses classical sources with care. The full text likely extends these techniques across a wider range of plays and authors, offering a sustained case for the stage’s reform.

Reading Collier’s quiet fury—how he lingers on a single profane word until it feels heavy—made me think of how some arguments echo past their moment. The Group: A Farce — Context and Discussion held that same strange weight for me, a small piece of stage history still humming with unanswered questions. It stayed long after I closed it.