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.