s emphasis,
as his title makes clear, from infidelity to fidelity; but he rewrote
the dialogue almost completely, and the new dialogue is remarkable good.
The reader will notice that it is, except for the last half of the first
act, printed as prose. The quarto of _A Cure for a Cuckold_, from which
Harris worked, is also largely printed as prose, but has correct verse
lineation in the same portion of the first act. It is the more
remarkable that Harris, following thus closely the apparent form of his
original, could vary from it so successfully. Most notable, probably,
are the passages in which he intensified the expression of his source.
They may indicate no more than the eternal "ham" in our author; but I
think they probably indicate as well a new style of acting, more
rhetorical in one way, more natural in another. A good example, in which
the new rhetoric is not oppressive, is the account of the sea fight at
the end of Act III. Even when Harris followed his original most closely,
we seem to hear the actor, speaking in a new tongue, in a more relaxed
and colloquial rhythm. The reader will find it both amusing and
instructive to compare the two versions of Act II, scene ii. The new
cadences do more than merely prove that Harris had no ear for blank
verse.

_The City Bride_ does not conform to the dominant type of Restoration
comedy, but it belongs to a thriving tradition. Domestic comedy, in
adaptations from the Elizabethans, had been staged at intervals for
twenty years before _The City Bride_ appeared, and the type was of
course destined to supplant gay comedy in the near future. Harris was
not, therefore, going against the taste of the town; on the contrary he
was regularly guided by contemporary taste and practice. His stage is
less crowded: he amalgamated the four gallants of _A Cure for a Cuckold_
in the person of Mr. Spruce, at the expense of a dramatic scene (I, ii,
31-125); and he ended the sub-plot with the fourth act instead of
bringing its persons into the final scene, with some loss of liveliness
and a concomitant gain in unity of effect. He modernized his dialogue
entirely, bringing up to date the usage and allusions of his original,
and restraining the richness of its metaphor by removing the figures
altogether or by substituting others more familiar. He omitted a good
deal of bawdry, especially in Act II, scene ii. All these changes have
parallels in other Restoration adaptations. Again, the songs and