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

In Short

This book is a rigorous, aggressive moral indictment of the Restoration-era English theater. The author systematically examines popular plays of his day, accusing them of rampant profanity, blasphemy, and the intentional degradation of women and the clergy. By contrasting these contemporary works with the "sense of antiquity"—the standards of Greek and Roman classical tradition—he argues that the stage has abandoned its duty to educate and instead serves only to debauch the public mind. It has lasted as a definitive record of the intense cultural clash between religious morality and the theatrical libertinism of the time.

The Story

The argument begins with a direct challenge to the playwrights of the age. The author asserts that these writers are not merely creating fiction, but are actively engaged in a project to destroy the principles of virtue. He contends that by making goodness seem unattractive and vice seem clever, they ensure that the audience loses the reason to be good. The narrative of his critique follows a logical progression: he first establishes the nature of the offense, then provides an inventory of specific violations, and finally invokes the judgment of history and law to demand a total reformation of the stage.

As the argument unfolds, the author moves from general accusations of "lewdness without atheism" to detailed dissections of specific plays. He scrutinizes the dialogue, the portrayal of female characters, and the treatment of sacred figures. He points to how playwrights often force their characters into behaviors that defy nature and morality, such as women speaking with coarse, ribald tongues that contradict their station, or clergy being turned into figures of ridicule and mockery. He is particularly offended by the inclusion of prologues and epilogues, which he views as the moment the actor steps out of the safety of fiction and directly insults the decency of the audience, particularly the ladies, by regaling them with filth.

The author does not rely solely on his own indignation. He builds his case by constructing an extensive, comparative history of drama. He reaches back to the ancient Greeks and Romans, citing philosophers like Aristotle and Quintilian, as well as classical tragedians, to show that these societies understood the dangers of an unchecked stage. He argues that even the ancients, who were pagans, maintained a higher standard of decorum than the Christians of his era. He draws a stark line between the "just writer" of the past and the contemporary poet who, in his view, has reduced the art of drama to a "dung-cart" of vulgarity.

The arc of the argument concludes with a call for the state to intervene. He reviews the legal history of England, citing statutes that categorize players as "rogues, vagabonds, and sturdy beggars." He suggests that the theater’s current state is an affront not only to the clergy, who hold a sacred relation to the Deity, but to the very fabric of social order. He ends by urging his readers to turn away from the "chair of pestilence" that is the playhouse, suggesting that true delight is found not in the fleeting, corrupt pleasures of the stage, but in the clarity of a clean conscience and the pursuit of truth.

How It Unfolds

The indictment of the poets The author sets the stage by characterizing playwrights as deliberate saboteurs of human morality. He argues that they strip away the prospect of virtue, making conscience seem like a "bugbear" and leaving the public without any rational motive to behave well.

The anatomy of the offense Moving to specifics, he catalogues how the stage violates decency, noting that plays are often filled with ribaldry that has no "double meaning" to excuse it. He highlights the misuse of women, the mockery of religious offices, and the scandalous nature of prologues that address the audience directly.

The appeal to antiquity To prove that his standards are not merely personal, he invokes the "sense of antiquity." He analyzes how the Greeks and Romans viewed drama and shows that they enforced a level of respect for law, religion, and modesty that modern English theater has utterly abandoned.

The legal and social stakes The argument widens to include the legal status of actors and the importance of the clergy to the health of the state. He contends that when a society allows its sacred institutions to be burlesqued, it invites social collapse and demonstrates a profound lack of respect for divine authority.

The final judgment The book concludes by contrasting the transient, dangerous pleasures of the theater with the noble, enduring rewards of a Christian life. He calls for a total rejection of the "lewd, ungodly diversions" of the stage, urging that the theater be either reformed or discarded entirely.

The People

The author, Jeremy Collier, acts as the stern, uncompromising prosecutor. He views himself as a defender of the public soul, standing against a tide of corruption. His primary adversaries are the Stage Poets of the late 17th century, whom he treats as a collective entity of moral negligence. He holds these writers responsible for the degradation of the audience’s character.

Among the specific writers targeted is John Dryden, whom the author frequently cites for his "fustian" language and instances of what he calls "downright defiance of the living God." He also critiques the work of Thomas D’Urfey and the creators of The Relapse, particularly for their portrayal of characters like Miss Hoyden, whom he feels is a gross misrepresentation of quality and breeding.

The author also contrasts these modern figures with the Ancient Poets and Philosophers—including Sophocles, Plautus, and Aristotle—who he believes maintained a proper understanding of the theater’s purpose. He holds up these figures as the standard-bearers of a "just" way of writing. Finally, the Audience, specifically the "ladies" and the "quality," are treated as victims of the poets. The author views them as people of potential refinement who are being systematically degraded by the "nauseous" entertainment they are forced to endure.

In Its Own Voice

The author establishes the central thesis that theater-goers are being systematically desensitized to vice by clever but morally bankrupt poets.

"To make sure work on't, there's nothing like Destroying of Principles; Practise must follow of Course."

The author critiques the specific way playwrights force their female characters to speak with a vulgarity that ruins their dramatic consistency.

"They have oftentimes not so much as the poor refuge of a Double Meaning to fly to."

Reflecting on the role of the theater in society, the author notes how the stage's music and performance style are calculated to bypass the audience's moral defenses.

"A Lewd Play with good Musick is like a Loadstone Arm'd, it draws much stronger than before."

What It's Really About

This book is fundamentally about the power of fiction to shape or shatter the moral framework of a civilization. The author’s argument is that drama is not a neutral medium; by its very nature, it occupies the imagination and influences the appetites. The central question is whether a society can survive when its most popular entertainment treats religion, marriage, and personal virtue with open contempt. The book explores the tension between artistic freedom and social responsibility, arguing that there is no "propriety" in wit when it destroys the manners of the people. It is a work concerned with the maintenance of an invisible, yet essential, social contract where modesty and religious reverence serve as the bedrock of a stable and respectable state.

Why Read It Today

Readers today will find this book to be a sharp, often startlingly intense look at the "culture wars" of the 17th century. It is an essential primary source for anyone interested in how the theater of the Restoration was perceived by its contemporaries. The prose is robust, filled with the fire of a man who feels the moral stakes are absolute, and it provides a rare, unfiltered look at the arguments used to suppress and shame the theater of the time.

However, the modern reader should be prepared for the author's relentless, sermonizing tone and his period-specific attitudes, which can feel stifling to a modern sensibility. The language, while precise and powerful, carries the heavy weight of 17th-century theological and rhetorical norms, which may require patience to navigate. The frequent, detailed references to plays that are no longer common knowledge might also present a barrier to those unfamiliar with the era’s dramatic landscape. Yet, the book remains a fascinating study in the psychology of moral outrage. It stays with you as a testament to the enduring human impulse to police the boundaries of art and to demand that entertainment serve, rather than undermine, the values of the community.