Emulating Rich, Drury Lane then followed with “Mars and Venus,” of which Colley Cibber says:  Was formed into something more than motion without meaning into a connected presentation of dances in character, wherein the passions were so happily expressed, and the whole story so intelligibly told by a mute narration of gesture only, that even thinking spectators allowed it to be both a pleasing and a rational entertainment; though, at the same time, from our distrust of its reception we durst not venture to decorate it with any extraordinary expense of scenes or habits; but upon the success of this attempt it was rightly concluded that if a visible expense in both were added to something of the same nature, it could not fail of drawing the town proportionately after it.

From this original hint there (but every way unequal to it) sprang forth that succession of monstrous medlies, that have so long infested the stage, and which arose upon one another alternately, at both houses, outvying in expense, like contending bribes on both sides at an election, to secure a majority of the multitude.

If I am asked (after condemning these fooleries myself) how I came to assent or continue my share of expense to them?  I have no better excuse for my error, than confessing it.  I did it against my conscience, and had not virtue enough to starve by opposing a multitude that would have been too hard for me.

("The Drama’s laws the Drama’s patrons give,” has always been an axiom of the stage; and worthy Colley Cibber, notwithstanding his antagonism, and the rivalry of Rich, had too good a knowledge of this truism not to do otherwise but follow the popular voice.)

Notwithstanding then (Cibber continues) this, our compliance with the vulgar taste, we generally made use of these Pantomimes, but as crutches to our weakest plays.  Nor were we so lost to all sense of what was valuable, as to dishonor our best authors in such bad company.  We still had a due respect to several select plays, that were able to be their own support; and in which we found constant account, without painting and patching them out....  It is a reproach to a sensible people to let folly so quickly govern their pleasures.

Henry Fielding, the novelist, was one of Harlequin’s assailants.  “The comic part of the English Pantomimes,” he says, “being duller than anything before shown on the stage could only be set off by the superlative dulness of the serious portion, in which the gods and goddesses were so insufferably tedious, that Harlequin was always a relief from still worse company.”  Eager for theatrical reform, the “Weekly Miscellany” of 1732, said that plays were not intended for tradesmen, and denounced Pantomimes as infamous.

Another competitor, who entered the lists against Rich, was Thormond, a dancing-master, and at Drury Lane Theatre he produced “Dr. Faustus,” in 1733.  Speaking of this Pantomime, Pasquin mentions that “An account is very honestly published, to save people the trouble of going to see it.”