In _The Careless Husband_ Cibber lays claim to deliberate and serious moral purpose and deals, as he did in his first play, with the reclaiming of a licentious husband by a virtuous wife. Dibdin extravagantly says of it that “it was a school for elegant manners, and an example for honorable actions.” Cibber expresses himself in regard to his purpose, in the dedication, as follows: “The best criticks have long and justly complain’d, that the coarseness of most characters in our late Comedies, have been unfit entertainments for People of Quality, especially the ladies: and therfore I was long in hopes that some able pen (whose expectation did not hang upon the profits of success) wou’d generously attempt to reform the Town into a better taste than the World generally allows ’em: but nothing of that kind having lately appear’d, that would give me the opportunity of being wise at another’s expence, I found it impossible any longer to resist the secret temptation of my vanity, and so e’en struck the first blow myself: and the event has now convinc’d me, that whoever sticks closely to Nature, can’t easily write above the understandings of the Galleries, tho’ at the same time he may possibly deserve applause of the Boxes.” But in _The Careless Husband_, in contrast with what he had previously written in this field, the tone of the entire play is moral, not merely that of the fifth act, the play is worked out consistently, and the offensive effect of an incongruous mixture of standards is lacking. It belongs distinctly to the sentimental type, and is the best of the early school. In the prologue Cibber gives a summary of the kind of characters that should illustrate the moral the comedy writer has as his theme: “Of all the various Vices of the Age, And shoals of fools expos’d upon the Stage, How few are lasht that call for Satire’s rage! What can you think to see our Plays so full Of Madmen, Coxcombs, and the drivelling Fool? Of Cits, of Sharpers, Rakes, and roaring Bullies, Of Cheats, of Cuckolds, Aldermen and Cullies? Wou’d not one swear, ’twere taken for a rule, That Satire’s rod in the Dramatick School, Was only meant for the incorrigible Fool? As if too Vice and Folly were confined To the vile scum alone of human kind, Creatures a Muse should scorn; such abject trash Deserves not Satire’s but the Hangman’s lash. * * * * * We rather think the persons fit for Plays, Are those whose birth and education says They’ve every help that shou’d improve mankind, Yet still live slaves to a vile tainted mind.”