The Overthrow of Stage Plays, Rejoinder (1 of 4)

The Overthrow of Stage Plays · Rejoinder (1 of 4)

p. 29VntoUnto this maister D. Gager replying and desiring Maister Rainoldes to forbeare, Maister Rainoldes did reioine as followeth.

YOVR request, Maister D. Gager, that I should forbeare farther reply in writing, and by word of mouth in priuate cōference informe you, if you hauehave greatlie erred in any part of your answer; brought into my minde aaDiog. Laer▪ in Diogene.the Philosophers censuring and checking of such as offered sacrifice for health, and at their very sacrifizing did banket riotouslie against health. For that which I wrote concerning things, the stage-playes, you draw vntounto the persons, who played on the stage at Christchurch, as if I went about to make thē and your house most vilanouslie infamous: and partlie by concealing, partly by perverting the drift & substance of my speeches, you seeke to smoother vp and suppresse the trueth. Which being done in writing by you with care and diligence, not to be imparted vntounto me alone, but to others also, as your selfe doe signifie: if I should note the fault thereof by worde of mouth, my plaister would be lesse a great deale then the wound, and therefore neuer reach to heale it: for woordes hauehave wings, and flie away, mens writings doe remaine. But as farre as possiblie I may without neglect of the duetie I owe to GOD and to his Church, I yeelde to your request: that is, I will endeuour to make plaine vntounto you the iniuries and wrongs that your aunswer doth me, as brieflie as the necessarie clearing of the truth, and scattering of the mistes whereby you goe about to darken it, will permit.

The point that is in question betweene vsus touching stageplayes, p. 30was generallie mooued: to weet, whether such as play them doe offende, or such as reprooue the playing of them. You vndertooke to shewe that the reproouers are faultie: I, that the Players. And least the dissension of opinions heerein should breed exulceration of mindes betwene vsus, if that, which either of vsus said touching the matter, should be taken odiously as meant against the persons whom it might concerne: you, with protestation of your good will to mee-ward, desired mee not to thinke that you meant to note me by the name of Momus; I prayed you the like with like protestation in respect of your players; & that with greater reason why you should hauehave yeelded to it in my opinion, sith neither one of their names, Phemius for example sake, doeth signifie a lewd player, as Momus doeth an vniust reproouer; neither did I know who played that part and others, as you knew my mislike of playes. Now, I condescended to your desire most gladlie: your selfe acknowledge it, and hartilie thanke me for it. I would to God I might hauehave likewise thanked you: whereof you hauehave giuen me so litle cause, so great cause to the contrarie, that I must needes cō plaine you hauehave forgotten the lesson which a bbAlexander Seuerus, apud Lampridium.heathen Emperour had learned of Iewes or Christians, and marueilouslie loued it, Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris. For whereas you had said that stage-players were not counted infamous by the civill lawe, but onelyonly such as played for game; and I, to refute this, declared that the Romans, whose iudgement and custome doeth best interpret their owne law, counted Nero infamous for playing, though freelie; which, least you perhaps through ambiguitie of a 11The worde cantavit, used by Iuvenal. sat. 8.worde, should except against, that it was not stage-playing of Mens and Womens partes, I opened it by the examples of your Hippodamia, Eurymachus, and Phemius: you replie hereon, that this is my arguing; Many noble men, and Nero him selfe were infamous for playing, though freelie, mens and womens partes, and specially Nero for singing like a fidler on the stage; Ergo, scholers and the students of Christ-church are to be noted with a marke of infamie, for playing, though gratis, such partes as they did in Ulysse reduce; and namely the Master of our Choristers for playing Phemius; notwithstanding for his p. 31honestie, modestie, and good voice, he is as worthie to be deliuered from infamie, as Phemius him selfe is fained to bee saved from death, for his excellent skill in Musicke, to say nothing of the rest. And not content to wrest mine argument from my drift, and racke it to my sentence from the Ciuill lawe, to Christ-church players from the Roman, you shutt vp your tale with this morall: I dare not denie this argument, because it is yours; I referre it to the charitable iudgement of my betters. ccAct. 25. …2.Acts 25:2Hast thou appealed to Caesar? to Caesar shalt thou goe, quoth Fest…s, Euen so am I contented, good Syr, that our betters doe iudge of mine argument, and your charitable vsage of it. To the which intent I beseech you hartilie, that, with the next play you publish, you will set foorth my letters, and your answere to them. In the meane season, I thinke, that when omitting the force of mine argument against your distinction of playing for gaine, & freelie, you drew in the mention of the Maister of your Choristers, his honestie, his modestie, his good voice, his Musicke, and of the rest of the Scholers & students of Christ-church: your purpose was to shewe a peece of that art, that Servius Galba did. Who, being endited of a ddValer. Max. lib. 9. cap. 6. Sueto. in Gal. cap. 3. Oros. lib 4. cap. 21Gal 3great offence, whereof he could not cleere him selfe, and therefore eeCic in Bruto Livi. lib. 49. epitome Valer. Max. lib. 8. cap. 1.slipping from it, cōmended to the iudges both his owne children, and the child of his kinsman, a most woorthie citizen, that being lately dead, had left him gardian to his childe: so to save him selfe by the peoples merciemercy and commiseration of the boyes, which he could not hauehave done by the desert of the cause and his owne innocencie. For if the good qualities of the Maister of your Choristers, or of your Scholers and Students, doe prooue that the Romans coū ted it no infamie for such to be stage-players, howe soeuer they counted it for Nero: then ffOrat. pro P. Quintio.Tullie spake absurdly, when he said that Roscius both for his skill in playing seemed alone worthie to come vponupon the stage, and for his 22Vir eiusmodi est. The sense of whiche words he openeth in his oration pro Q. Roscio comoedo, saying thus of Roscius: Quem populus Romanus meliorem virū quàm Histrionem esse arbitratur; qui ita dignissimus est scena propter a…i. …cium, ut dignissimus sit curia propter abstinedamvertue and honestie, seemed alone worthie not to come vponupon it. And how can the charitable iudgement of your betters; nay, howe can your owne, charge me as offending for setting downe that of the Romans, which by consequent toucheth the Maister of your Choristers credit, and others of Christchurch: where your self acknowledge, that p. 32your invectiue against Momus, doeth consequently fal on me, on the Preacher, on whosoever else reproove playes, and yet you may hauehave written it without offence, you trust?

But in this matter your fault is the lesse, because you had some colour thereof by mine exemplifying in three of your players: nor did the Romans alwayes count them so infamous but that the best of them were sometime well esteemed of, as ggMacrob. Saturn. lib. 3. cap. 14.Tullies great acquaintance with Roscius and Aesopus argueth. In the next you doe me so much the greater iniurie, by how much both the turpitude and vilanie is greater wherwith you beare your Students in hande that I charge them: and I was farder off from giuing cause to be so dealt with, hauing refrained purposelie from naming any of yours in opening of the point. For being to proove that the prohibition of men to put on womens raiment (in Deuteronomie) belongeth to the morall law, and therevpon declaring how it is referred by learned Divines, to the commaundement, Thou shalt not commit adulterie: I said that they had reason to referre it so, because, among the kindes of adulterous lewdenes, mens naturall corruption and vitiousnes is prone to monstrous sinne against nature, as the Scripture witnesseth in Cananites, Iewes, Corinthians, other in other nations, one with speciall caution Nimium est quod intelligitur; and the putting of womens attire vponupon men, may kindle great sparkles of lust thervnto in vncleane affections, as Nero shewed in Sporus, Heliogabalus in him self; yea certaine, who grew not to such excesse of impudencie, yet arguing the same in causing their boyes to weare long heare like women. This, in your examining the sense of Moses wordes, wherevnto I vsed it, you passe ouer wholly; without mention of the iudgement of the learned Diuines, or of my reason giuen for it. But in the point following, where I handled other inconueniences and discommodities of playes, with speciall applyinge thereof vntounto yours: We pray you Syr (say you) to make a great difference betweene vsus and Nero with his Sporus, or Heliogabalus with him selfe, or the Cananites, Iewes, Corinthians, or them that cause their Pages to weare long heare like women, or any such dogges: we hartilie abhorre them. You say out of Quintilian, p. 33Nimium est quod intelligitur: and I may say, Nimium est quod dicitur. Wee thanke God, our youth doe not practise such things, they thinke not of thē, they know them not: neither cā any mā liuing the rather for our playes charge any one of vsus with the least suspicion of any such abomination. I hauehave bene often mooved by our playes to laughter, and sometime to teares: but I can not accuse either my selfe, or any other, of any such beastlie thought stirred vp by them. And therefore we should most vncharitablie be wronged, if our putting on of Womanly rayment, should either directlie or indirectlie be referred to the commandement, Thou shalt not commit adulterie. All these are your owne wordes. In which that you may see, what your dealing is, beholde a paterne of it. There was a certaine Preacher, who catechizing his hearers in the principles of faith, and deliuering to them hhMat. 5. ….Matt 5Christes exposition of the law, Thou shalt not committ adulterie; tolde them that the verie looking vppon women, whereby men are occasioned to thinke or lust vnchastlie, is a breach thereof. He prooved it by the examples of iiGen. 39. 7.Gen 39:7Putiphars wife, who cast her eyes on Ioseph, and fell in love with him; of kkIob. 31. 1.Job 31:1Iob, who therefore made a couenant with his eyes, least hee should thinke vponupon a maide; of ll2. Sam. 11. …2 Sam 11Dauid, who looking on Bethsabe from his house toppe, did lust incontinentlie after her. And because the parties, whom he taught, were schollers, well read in forein writers, he added howe the learned Heathens had declared that mmPlato in Cra tylo. Xenophon de dict. & fact. Socr. lib. 1.love doeth enter in by the eyes; nnTheo. foreign. 2. Musaeus in Her. & Lean. Virg. ecl. 8.faire persons seene, hauehave made men madd; and in them also is that verified, ooVirg. Geor. lib. 3.Urit que videndo Foemina; as ppforeign. lib. 5.Xenophon recordeth Cyrus to hauehave noted; and qqLib. 3. eleg. 19.Propertius found by triall in him selfe. Now, among the companie to which the Preacher spake, one, not evill minded, yet loving good felowship, and a more remisse, or welnigh loose kinde of living, fearing least by the credit & force of this doctrine, certaine of his friendes whom he had made acquainted with beautifull wiues, or handsome maides, should growe into suspition of wantonnes and lightnes, rose vp and said vntounto the Preacher; We pray you, Syr, to make a great difference betweene vsus, and them whom Cyrus speaketh of, or Propertius him selfe; or Putiphras Wife, Iob, Dauid, or such as let their eyes bee p. 34porters vntounto louelove, and dote by seeing faire persoons: wee hartilie mislike them. You say out of Uirgill, Urit que videndo Foemina; and I may say, Urit que loquendo Masculus. We thanke God, our youth doe not practise such thinges, they thinke not of them, they know them not: neither can anie man liuing, the rather for our looking on handsome maides, or beautifull Wiues, charge any one of vsus with the least suspicion of any such vncleannes. I hauehave bene delited often with their sight, and sometime mooved to pitie: but I can not accuse either my selfe, or any other of any such wicked thought stirred vp thereby. And therefore we should most vncharitably be wronged, if the casting of our eyes on wives, or on maides, should either directlie or indirectlie be referred to the cō maundement, Thou shalt not commit adulterie. What thinke you of this man, Maister D. Gager? Did hee not the Preacher wrong? Certainlie, if you hauehave the spirit wherwith rr2. Sam. 12. 52 Sam 12:5David answered Nathans parable, you will confesse, he did. And what ensueth, you see: I neede not adde, You are the man. But this I must adde, that the wrong you doe me is so much more palpable, then was this carpers of the Preacher, because I saide, that the putting of Womens attire vponupon men, may kindle sparkes of lust in vncleane affections: I saide not, in all mens affections, but in some; not in sanctified, but in vncleane. What? And doe you graunt, that you, and your youth, hauehave vncleane affections, to the intent you may blame my speech? If not, why tell you me, that the putting of womanlie raiment vponupon men, hath not stirred any such beastlie thought in any of you; whē I spake expreslie of vncleane affections? Besides, can you accuse your selfe, or anie other, of anie wanton thought stirred vp in you by looking on a beautifull Woman? If you can; then ought you beware of beautifull boyes transformed into womē by putting on their raiment, their feature, lookes and facions. For men may be ravished with louelove of stones, of dead stuffe, framed by cunning grauers to beautifull womens likenes; as, in ssOvid. Metamorp. lib. 10Poets fables appeareth by Pygmalion, by ttPlin. hist. na. lib. …. ca. 38. & li. 36. ca. 5Venus Gnidia in stories: and vvTerent. Eun. act. 3. scen. 2.Chaerea, araied like an Eunuch onelyonly, did moove the beastlie lust of him who was lasciviouslie giuen in the Comedie. If you can not: then doe you both me, your selfe and others, iniurie in p. 35cōcluding, that therefore you should most vncharitably be wronged, if your putting on of Womanly raiment, should either directlie or indirectlie be referred to the commaundement, Thou shalt not cōmit adulterie. For my speech was generall, that the cladding of youthes in such attire is an occasion of drawing & provoking corruptlie minded men to most heinous wickednes, & therefore should be wiselie cutt off by the faithfull: as if, in a Sermon to the vniversitie, expounding that of Iob, xxIob. 31. 1.Job 31:1I made a covenant with mine eyes, I should tell the Students, that though he name a maide, wee must extende the lesson farder; by yySophoc. Cic. de offi. lib. 1. Valer. Max. lib. 4. cap. 3.the mans example, whom a worthie governour, in 33Praetori non solùm manus à pecuuiae lucro, sed etiam oculos à libidinoso aspectu continentes esse debere. Val. Max.other wordes to like effect, admonished of making a covenant with his eyes, for saying; O puerum pulchrum Pericle. Wherevppon if anie should tell his acquaintance of this, or that College, Tutour, or other, accustomed to cast his eyes on such children as God had adorned with comelines of body, that I went about to make them suspected of most horrible lewdenes, he should doe both them and me notorious iniurie. Albeit, as our Sauiour, saying to his Disciples, zzMar. 4. 24.Mark 4:24Take heede what you heare, did purpose to stirre them vp to marke diligentlie that which he delivered, & faithfullie to performe it; yet cōdemned them not as retchlesse or vnfruitfull hearers of his worde: so I would acknowledge that in saying likewise, Take heede what you see, my meaning were to stirre vp both Tutours, and all other, to carie them selues chastlie, euen in their lookes also, least death come in by their windowes, though I meane no more to make them suspected by this admonition, then I doe my selfe. Which if you, who touch me so bitterlie, and often, for doeing you or yours vncharitable wrong, had charitably marked: I should hauehave lesse cause of wishing you to play the 44foreign. Gregor. Nazian. apolog. fugae suae.Physician better, & first to heale your selfe.

This I say not onelie of my generall speeches sett vponupon the racke to make me odious to your Studentes: but of the particular too, that may be thought to concerne them specially. As namelie that I mentioned Eurymachus kissing of Melantho: a thing which I gathered to hauehave bin done by her own words: 5 Furtiva nullus oscula Eurymachus dabit. Act. 5.Acts 5sith they were both intēded to be alone secretlie, when he had p. 3666Pulcherrima Melātho, quid effari q…eam? Nemo severā juuenibus legem ferat, &c Act. 3.Acts 3fowle vnmodest lascivious talke with her; and the musicke & daunsing, 77Ad strepitū lyrae Non laeta salies. Act. 5.Acts 5whereof she speakes withal, was represented on the stage. But I named them onelie for example sake; my drift being generall against such playes as expresse such actions: whether sett foorth presentlie by you; as your Rivales, in which some of the wooers perhaps kissed Phoedra; or heretofore, as aaPlauti curculio.that of Plautus, in which **Act. 1.Acts 1Phaedromus kissed Planesium without perhaps. Wherefore sith you defende your former playes as well as these, and in that respect commende by name Plautus, as you hauehave great reason, comparing any Comedie of his with your Rivales: what aymed you at in saying, that, for the daunger of kissing beautiful boyes you know not howe the suspicion should reach vntounto you, because it is vntrue that Eurymachus kissed Melantho; vnlesse your meaning were to practise that malice (so bbAristot. li. 1. rhet. cap. 1. Vives de tradend. disci…plin. lib. 4.learned men doo iustlie terme it) of rhetorike, I meane, by restraining my generall intent vntounto your present players, to draw me into their hatred? Else, when you enquired of the parties them selves, whether any such action were used by them, and they (you say) denyed it constantly: why did you not enquire also of Plautus, whether it were vsed by Phaedromus, & Planesiū, and of the ancients of your house, whether Phoedromus and Planesium came euer on your stage? Sure you should hauehave takē this course by the equitie of that which semeth reasonable to you in your own cause. For, spying by mine answer, that your example of Achilles wearing womans raiment, did not serue your turne: you replie, that we may imagine such a one as will serue it, with change of a circumstance. And this in your defense must goe for sufficient. But the case is altered, when it toucheth me: yea, although my purpose may be prooved by true, not by imagined, examples. So indulgent commonly are men vntounto them selues: so rigorous vntounto others.

Howbeit, I should not complaine of this rigour, but for the taile of it, and the sting of breeding euill will among brethren, which doeth lurke therein. The venome and poyson whereof goeth about to spred it selfe abroad through more partes of your body, then Phemius, Eurymachus, & the players of women; by meanes that you likewise instill the same humour, at p. 37least seeke to instill it as much as in you lieth, into the rest of all your players, their teachers and instructors, and in conclusion your whole house. For whereas the third branch of our reasons, set downe by you in Momus his name against playes, had avouched not onelie their time to be misspent who were employed therein, but some of their persons, their mindes, corrupted also; and I, to shewe how cunninglie you, encountring this proposed the losse of time alone and not of men, did declare that Cyprian writing of a stage-player, who made boyes effeminate by instructing them howe to play the women, and to expresse and counterfeit vnhonest wanton gestures, saith, he was a maister not of teaching but spilling children; and thereof did inferre, that the losse of time should not hauehave bene obiected so much against your playes, seeing some of the players (if they were like the youthes whom Cyprian speaketh of) might replie as Phaedria, when Parmeno did tell him that his gift bestowed on Thais would be lost, Ego quoque unà pereo, quod mihi est carius; ne istuc tam iniquo patiare animo: beholde, with how charitable applying of my wordes you come in thus vponupon me, The saying of Saint Cyprian against a stage-player, or of Phaedria of him selfe to Parmeno, can not be iustlie used against vsus. For he should doe vsus great contumelie, that should thinke, or say, that either we are maisters not of teaching, but spilling children; or that both time and our young men were cast away altogether by those exercises. And to make a deeper impression in your young men that I doe them this contumelie, with an other also brought for proofe hereof: you goe forward thus: But it is no marveile that you imply so ill a coceite of them, if you doubt that, as I answered Momus, our actors can shew greater fruit of their time well spent, then any that is bredde vp by Mo…usses discipline can. For you pray God that they may: as doubting it is not so. Wherein, first and formost, if your conscience tell you, that your selfe (for whom else you associate to you by we are maisters, I know not) are touched in Saint Cyprians reproofe of the stage-player: I can no way helpe it, saue with that of Scripture, cc1 Ioh. 3. 2…1 John 3:2If your heart condemne you, God is greater then your heart, and knoweth all thinges. But whether I might not p. 38alleadge Saint Cyprians wordes, to shewe that somewhat more then time is cast away and spilt by such stage-playes as make boyes effeminate: let our betters iudge. Who, I trust, will not condemne the poore swalowes for chattering and vsing their voice, agreeably to nature, because ddPlutarch. de lenta numinis vindicta.Bessus surmised they cried against him that he had killed his father. Next, in that you charge me with insinuating of your young men, that both time and them selues are cast away altogether by those exercises, and adde, it is no marveile that I imply so ill a conceyte of them: truelie, it is marveile, that you, professing so much good will to mee as you doe, should in so fewe wordes vse so manie trickes of calumniation to breed a misliking of me in your yong men. One, by making me to speake of them at large, and indefinitlie: whereas I noted onelie such as played the Women, and of them such onelie, as were taught to counterfeit vnhonest wanton gestures, that is, as played vnchast women. An other, by adioyning the particle 88Cast away altogether.Altogether, as if I had iudged them dead, dead, past all recouerie: whereas the 99Spilling, in… S. Cyprians wordes; & Pereo, in Phaedrias, Ego quoque unà pereo.termes I used imported that they were in spilling, not spilt, much lesse spilt altogether, but like eeReuel. 3. 2.Rev 3:2the thinges in Sardis which were redy to dye. A third, by suppressing the meanes of their spilling, to weet, the making of them effeminate, which I specified; and by setting downe a woord of more honest and common signification in steed thereof, to weet, 11By those exercises.exercises: as who say that peremptorie sentence had bene giuen of all, euen them who played mens partes, yea the best mens; where I censured onelie the filth of playing wanton queanes so with Cyprian. A fourth, by rehearsing it as absolutelie pronounced: where I with a 22If they were like y^e youths whom Cyprian speaketh of.cōdition restraining the sentence, did manifestlie shewe that I affirmed it not, except they tooke like harme with those whom Cyprian speaketh of; and therefore drew my speach from your speciall players, to the generall question. A fifth, by making proofe thereof, as good and sound, as the thing proved; in saying, It is no marveile that I imply so ill a conceit of them, if I doubt that your actors can shew greater fruit of their time well spent then anie that is bredde vp by Momusses discipline can: and yeelding this reason to perswade the young men that I doubt it is not so, p. 39because I pray God that they may. Which reason if it holde: then our Oxford Preachers hauehave a badd opinion of the Uicechancelour, the Doctours, the Proctors, the Heades of houses: for they are wont to pray that we may be good; and therefore by your inference they doubt we are not so. And will not your Christ. church Preachers be discredited hereby with your Studentes, as much as I am: seeing they pray commōlie as well for the Studentes, as for the Deane and Prebendaries? Questionlesse your selfe would thinke, hee did you iniurie who should say you beleeue not an article of your faith, the forgiuenesse of sinnes. Yet you are accustomed to pray, ffLuke 11. 4.Luke 11:4Forgiue vsus our sinnes, when notwithstanding ggMat. 14. 3… Iam. 1. 6.Matt 14:3Jas 1:6hee that doubteth, faileth in beleefe. And for mine owne part, if to one cōmending the French most Christian King, that he can looke wiselie inough to his owne safetie against both open force, & secret fraude of the Leaguers, I should aunswere (in like sorte as I did to you) I pray God hee may; sure he shall the better if hee neuer trust them, nor anie of that brood of the whore of Babylon: I would be vnderstoode, both hartilie to wish, and reasonablie to hope, that hee shall meetelie well be able to doe it; although the more able, if hee vse this caution. Or, if some presumptions moved you to dowt whether I meant thus, or worse: you should hauehave remembred the hhL. 56. l. 19…. § fin. D. de regulis juris.rules of your law for 33Sēper in dubiis benigniora praeferē da sunt: et, In re dubia benigniorē interpretationē sequi, nō minus iustius est quàm tutius.gentle construying of things doubtfull. But suppose that I had even denied also, not onelyonly doubted, that your actors can shewe greater fruit of their time well spent then anie that is bredde vp by Momusses discipline can: is it therfore likelie that I imply so ill a conceit of them as that they are altogether cast away? Yea, you say. And why? Because they could doe little, if they could not doe so much, and a great deale more, and better, when soever they shall be tryed. For what is the discipline of Momus, but the schoole of carping, nipping, depraving, and reprehending of everie good thing? Wherevpon you adde, to amplifie the straunge iniquitie of my dealing, that of all other things you thought I would not, or could not hauehave taken anie exception to that speech of yours. In deed if I had taken the discipline of Momus in that sense you give it; your so ill collection of my so ill conceit should hauehave some probabilitie. But I p. 40had declared that by the name of Momus you noted all reproovers of playes. And howsoever that be, wherof more hereafter: dowtlesse I meant scholers trained vp by such in godlinesse and good learning, when I prayed that your actors might shew greater fruit of their time well spent, then any that is bredde vp by Momusses discipline can. Which is plaine and evident by the words following, in that I affirmed, that this which you terme the discipline of Momus, is not his but Cyprians, or rather the holy Ghosts. For God forbid that you should proceede from evill to worse in such excesse of sclandering, as to tell your actors, that I say, the discipline of the holy Ghost is the schoole of carping, nipping, depraving, & reprehending of every good thing. Now, though my cōceit of them be so good, that I am perswaded, or rather knowe in part, they can shew great fruit of their time well spent, and hauehave in triall done it: yet I know withall some of so great towardnes brought vp by the other, that, if all your actors think they can shew greater fruit thē any of these, they will make mee thinke their good conceit of themselves is worse thē mine ill. And see of how different opinions you and I are about this matter. I know sundry scholers of rare expectatiō and hope in other Colleges, for whom my prayer is they may shew as great fruit of their time well spent as some of these can: and yet in my iudgement I hauehave no ill conceit of them. You, vnlesse I thinke that your Christ-church actors can shew much greater fruit, doe iudge, and giuegive sentence, that my conceit of them is ill: so ill, beyond all huy and cry, that it is a token I imply in couert speech (expounded charitably) that they are cast away, yea, cast away altogether, and irrecoverably lost.

Lesser is the wrong, yet a wrong also, that of your actors likewise you say, they are condemned by me to hatefull infamie, a thing to all honest mindes more intollerable then death it selfe: and farther, that your house, your selfe, and many honest towardly young men, your frendes, whom for good causes you hartely louelove, are charged with open infamie. It may be, the circumstance noted herewithall, in that you adde it greeveth you and them not a litle, that they should in private, but much more in publike, bee charged with such infamie: hath reference to the Sermon rather p. 41which was preached in the publike audience of the vniversitie, then to letters written in private vntounto you. Howbeit, whethersoeuer of vsus it toucheth more, your complaint is somewhat partiall to your selfe: who take in euill parte, that wee by word or writing should teach or mainteine ought wherof there may grow infamie by consequent to you; yet would hauehave vsus take it well and patientlie, that you hauehave set foorth and published that in print, whereof there may grow infamie by consequent to vsus. But the wrong I meant you doe mee in those clauses of your accusation, concerneth both the matter of crime, and the persons: the matter, for aggravating the qualitie of the note of infamie, whiche they are charged with, by terming it hatefull, open, more intollerable to all honest mindes then death it selfe: the persons, for extending it from a few members to the whole bodie, from the players to your house. Concerning the later (to begin with it) beside that you say that in aunswering my writing you defende your house, not onelie the particular players, from infamie: you adde that they are charged therewith to the generall reproch of your house, if so hard a censure should be by men of note enforced and perswaded. And why should you more interpret our action to the generall reproche of your house, because wee reproved that by worde or writing which some of Christchurch had practised: then wee interpret yours to the generall reproche of our house, because you defended that by printed treatise, which some of Queenes college had reprooved? If the reason bee, for that wee are men of note who worke the discrediting of you: they are men of note too, whose verses you hauing prefixed before your book, doe countenance your disgrace of vsus. Nether doe I see what reason else you bring, or can, but that wee shall meete you in the same (speake of consent, or what you list) to wring out of the speciall reproche of your players the generall of your house. As for the former concerning the infamie, the qualitie whereof not content to amplifie with termes that may bee common to all infamie in a sort, you name it more intollerable to all honest mindes then death it selfe: whether doe you meane the infamie they are charged with by the Civil law, in the first reason; or that p. 42which lighteth on them by the lawe of God, in the reasons folowing? If by the civill law: then belike a chast and honestlie minded woman, who having lost her husband doeth marrie within twelue monethmonth after his decease, had rather shee were dead: and her father likewise, who placeth her so in mariage, had rather he were dead with her. For both these are noted with infamie by the iiL. 1. D. de his qui notā tur infam ia. L. 1. & 2. c. de secundis n…ptiis.civill law: and that in such degree, as may be more intollerable and greevous vntounto them, for ought that I saide, then vntounto your players. If by the law of God: doe you not know that 44foreign.infamie being opposit to 55foreign 2. Cor. 6. 8.2 Cor 6:8good fame, and nothing being counted of 66foreigngood fame, 77foreign Phil. 4. 8.Phil 4:8praiseworthy, but that which is honest, iust, pure, vertuous; every fault hath infamie, annexed therevnto; not everie fault a litle degree and height of infamie, but everie fault infamie? Doe you not thinke that all your players hauehave some fault: and account the shame thereof to bee more tollerable a great deale, then death? Doe you not confesse (though tempering it with saying it may be so perhaps) that they hauehave in their playing picked out as it were quailes eyes of a wantonnes, and offended in some small matter? What needed then your tragicall exaggeration of hatefull open infamie, more intollerable to all honest mindes then death it selfe: when al that I enforced against them was but infamie? whom sought you to make hatefull by that patheticall speech, tending to compassion of Ulysses in shew, to somewhat else in deede: Unhappy Ulysses, to whom as it was fatall ever to be in trouble in his life, so is he more hardly dealt withall after his death, that his person may not honestly bee resembled without note of infamie to the actor? Howe skilfull an inveigling is this of your players, to thinke themselves defamed most odiouslie for euer, when he who played Ulysses parte, one of the best, and therefore least of all touched with that note, is said to bee so touched with it, that all the troubles of Ulysses are nothing to his shame? Nay, the shame inflicted on him who played Ulysses, is such a vexation to Ulysses himselfe, that hee is more hardly dealt withall herein (poore soule) after his death, then while in his life time kkHomer. Odyss. lib. 9.his sweete wine was drunke, his men were eaten vp, two at a meale, by Polyphemus; himself escaped hardlie through Polyphemus p. 43rammes helpe out of his clouches, not without great feare, I know, when Polyphemus talked with the ramme; and beside the danger to bee soonke and drowned by the top of a mountaine that Polyphemus hurled at him, llLib. 12.hee was tossed in the sea, vponupon broken peeces of his shippe, beeing wracked, ten nights and nine dayes, saue one wherin he stucke fast to a wild figtree growing in Charybdis; whereof, and of a great deale more mmLib. 5.such woe, he tasted, by nnLib. 10.his mens vnhappie letting out of the windes, which Aeolus had giuen him bound vppe in a leathren bagge or satchell.

To make an end of this point, I am to request your Students and your house; because you constraine me (that I may vse the ooPsal. 69. 4.Ps 69:4Prophets phrase) to restore that which I tooke not away, that they wil consider how the note of infamie, which I did enforce, I enforced it against the partes played by Histrio, not against the Christ church parties who played them; against Roscius & Aesopus, not against the Maister of your Choristers; I meane against players, not against those players: as ppOrat. in Pis.Tullie saith of Piso, that when the 88Aedilis es factus. Piso est à populo Rom. factus, non iste Piso.Romans gaue him the office of the Aedileship, they gaue it to Piso, not to this Piso; meaning that in committing such place of honour to him they respected the dignitie of his name and stocke, not the qualities of his person. For as this Piso, the particular man, was lewde, base, dishonorable; yet Piso, the kinred it selfe, whereof hee came, was honorable and renowmed: semblablie may players, the generall that I spake of, bee esteemed infamous; and yet the same infamie, as small as it is in comparison of the capitall markes you fasten on it, be lesse or none at all in the speciall persons of your house, of those players. Which, if it be lawfull for me to compare lesser things with greater (as I, by the example of qqMat. 13. 3. Mar. 12. 1. Luke 14. 21. and so forth in the Evangelistes commonlie.Matt 13:3Mark 12:1Luke 14:21our Sauiours parables alwayes thought I might, & neuer heard them called incomparable comparisons till you controlled mee with this taunt and the like for vsing them) I shall make plaine vntounto you by the cleere euidence & light of both those laws, whence they are charged. For rrRom. 1. 26. foreign.Rom 1:26wicked persons are infamous; ss1 Pet. 4. 3.1 Pet 4:3idolaters are wicked; they, that offer incense, as tt1 Cor. 10. 20 L. 7. c de paganis & sacrificiis.1 Cor 10:20Paynims did, are idolaters. vvTheodoret. hist ecles li. 3. cap. 15 & 16. Zozom. lib. 5. cap. 16Certaine Christian souldiers, not knowing what p. 44such offering of incense did import, were by the conveyance of Iulian the apostata brought to offer it. Who, when they were afterward informed, what they had done, returned backe to Iulian, professing and protesting them selues to be Christians, persisting in the faith, and praying they might die for it. Were these infamous for that fact? No: because their hande did offend through ignorance (saith the xxTheodor & Zozomen in the places quoted. Ca…iodor. in the Triparti. lib. 6 ca. 30. Nicephorus lib. 10. ca. 23 and others after them.Ecclesiasticall historie) their minde was pure and guiltlesse. And although their ignorance of Luk. 12. 48 L. 9. D de iu ris & facti ignorantia. L. 12. c. eod.Luke 12:48the law was faultie, the mother of their errour: yet zzL. 9. D. de iur. & fact. ignor. §. Si filius familias. l. 1. ca. eod.mans constitutions bearing with souldiers that way, and aa1 Tim. 1. 131 Tim 1:13God forgiving his servants greater ouersights, who dare condemne them for their fall? Those monsters of nature, which bbRom. 1. 27.Rom 1:27burning in their lust one toward an other, men with men worke filthines, are as infamous, as ccGen. 18. 20.Gen 18:20Sodome: not the doers onelie, but the dd1 Cor. 6. 9.1 Cor 6:9sufferers also.

A eeSleidā li. 19.yong Italian Gentleman, named Cosmus Cherius, had that horrible villanie wrought through force vponupon him by Petrus Aloisius Pope Paul the thirds sonne. Was he infamous for his suffering? No more then ffLivi. lib. 1.Lucretia for violence done by Tarquin, how soeuer he died for sorowe and shame of it: the law of ggDeut. 22. 25Deut 22:25God and hhL. 1. D. de postulando §. removet.man both will acquitt him. In a woord, iiRom. 1. 29.Rom 1:29all impious and vnhonest wretches, namelie the vnrighteous, fornicatours, adulterous, theeves, covetous, drunkardes, raylers, extortioners, are infamous. The kk1 Cor. 6. 111 Cor 6:11Corinthians had bene such, but they repented. Were they infamous for their vices? A llSeneca in Agamen.natural man might sticke hereat in 99Quem poenitet peccasse poen… est innocens. Hee saith not, planè est innocens, but poenè.some part: but Saint Paul denieth it. For mm1 Cor. 1. 2. and 6. 11.1 Cor 1:21 Cor 6:11he saieth, they were sanctified, holy, washed, iustified: and such as are cleansed from the filth of sinne, are cleansed from the blemish & reproch thereof; no iust and holy man is infamous. In the like sorte therefore may a note of infamie remayne vponupon players: and yet bee removed as farr from your players, as is the East from the West. For what if some of them knew not this point of law? and were of such llMinoribus viginti quinque annis ius ignorare permissum est.age too (which they were all perhaps, at least the players of wemens partes) as the nnLꝰ. D. de jur & fact. igno.lawe exeuseth for ignorance therof? What if others were commanded to play by their superiours, whom they durst not displease; and so were in a maner ooL. 1D. Quod metus causa gestum erit. L. 12. c. de his quae vi, … cau…inforced therevnto; excused p. 45by ppOrat. p… Coelio.Tullie for 22Si jussus … accusare: necessitati tribuo.necessitie? What if a third sorte, or more, euen these also, hauehave since repented their playing, and thereby qqEsai. 1. 16.Isa 1:16Washed them selues, and made them selves cleane? Or if neither ignorance, nor force, nor repentance, had either diminished that ignominious blott, or cleane abolished it; the contrarie whereof I am perswaded by the good nature, and honest ingenuitie of such of the parties as I knowe; but if they had not: yet I being taught to presume the best by him who sayeth that rr1. Cor. 13. …1 Cor 13charitie beleeueth all things, hopeth all things, was to deeme they had, and so I doe still.

Yea, although you saye it greeueth them not a little that they should in private, but much more in publike, be charged with infamie, I beleeue and hope so much the better of them: knowing that there is a ss2. Cor. 7. 9.2 Cor 7:9griefe to repentance, which the Lorde worketh in his by such reproofes; and it was well with ttMat. 26. 75.Matt 26:75Peter, whē he wept bitterlie. Wherefore hauing this perswasion of your players, euen of them for whose partes I charged playes most, namelie Hippodamia, Melantho, the Nyph, Phaedra, & her Nurse; if I should hauehave noted them as infamous, them I saye, not their partes, these players and not players; I should hauehave taken on me the iudgement that belongeth vntounto the searcher of heartes and reines, and spoken against mine owne conscience. Which if you hauehave made them beleeue I louelove them so ill, by reason of the bad conceit I hauehave of them, that I would doe of spite and malice to discredit them: yet lett me intreat them to thinke I louelove my selfe better, then that I would through their sides wounde mine owne; who, when I was about the age that they are, six and twentie yeares since, did play a womans parte vponupon the same stage, the part of Hippolyta. As for you, who pretending in your proposition you would assay to shewe that the trueth in this controuersie belongeth rather to your aunswers, then to the reasons fathered on Momus, doe afterward endeuour in your confutation to obscure & darken the trueth with mistes of pitie and humane affectiōs, inculcating that it would be a contumelie to this or that youth with manie, vnlesse the cause be wonne on your side: lett mee intreat you likewise to regard hereafter, if not my most reasonable petition and desire, p. 46yet your owne conclusion; who, saying you may graunt without offence, you trust, that your censure of Momus in the generalitie lighteth vponupon me, doe adde these woordes to proove it; For the maine matter is not, whether you had occasion to thinke your self to bee touched in the generalitie, or no, being of that opinion you are, but whether the opinion bee iustifiable, or no. Which point if you remember in your next replie, though next replie rather I need not much to feare if this point be remembred, no more then Cato needed to feare Galbas aunswere, who had bene condemned except he had vsed boyes & teares, as vvCic. lib. 1. de oratore.Cato wrote; but, had you remembred it in your last replie: you might hauehave induced me the more easilie to hearken vntounto your advise and request, that I should rather deale with you by private conference then by furder writing, if you had greatlie erred in any thing.

For the trueth and equitie of that which I said in defense of the reasons fathered on Momus to the reproofe of playes, is so vndoubted and manifest of it selfe; that men of vnderstanding and sense, who should compare your replie with it, must (though I kept silence) needes perceyue your stomake was sick of that 33foreign … Hippocrates termeth it. Aphorism. sect. 2. Apho. 21.hunger, which for an inordinate appetite it breedeth, xxGalen. in aphoris. Hippocra. lib. 2. Alex. Tralli. lib. 7. cap. 3Physicians call 44foreign.the dogged appetite: more greedily disposed to deuoure and swallow vp all that it mett with, then able to concoct or to retaine well ought that it had taken. A proofe heereof you giuegive in your verie beginning by crossing of my proême. Wherein I hauing thanked you for that by enlarging your aunswere to Momus, you shewed why you thought our reasons to be naught, sith that your reprooving thereof did touch mee also, who tooke them not to bee rascall reproches, as you termed them, but sound reasons: euerie braunch hereof you carpe and checke. But how? First, where I had written, that as our Saviour, when he was smitten by one for speaking naught but reason, saide, If I hauehave spoken evill, beare witnesse of the evill; but if well, why doest thou smite me? so they, whose obiections against playes you attributed to the person of Momus, might iustlie saye in my iudgement, If our reasons be naught, discouer their naughtines; if good, why doe you Mome vsus? You replie, that no man can rightlie say to you, If our reasons bee naught, discouer their p. 47naughtines; if good, why doe you Mome vsus? as Christ might truely say, If I hauehave spoken euill, beare witnes of the evill; but if well, why doest thou smite me? because he vndoubtedlie had said nothing but reason, and therefore was most vniustlie smitten; but the obiections in your case and against you, are most vntrue, and there is no man smiten by you. Then which speech of yours (I pray you be not offended with me for my plainesse) I neuer read anie, to my remembrance, more voide of reason. For our Sauiours dilemma (according to yyHermogen. de invēt. …. 4 ex Demost. de corona. Cic. lib. 1. de invent sub no mine complexion.the naturall force of that argument) was made to apprehend and holde fast his aduersarie whether soeuer him selfe had spoken, euill, or well. So that, when the zzMat. 27. 38.Matt 27:38two theeues, who suffered with Christ, and aaLuke 23. 41.Luke 23:41deserued death, were brought into iudgement, in case the iudge had offered to giuegive sentence against them bbAct. 25. 16.Acts 25:16before they *heard why, they might hauehave iustlie saide, If we hauehave robbed any, beare witnesse of our robberie; if not, why doe you condemne vsus? Wherfore when, to reproove the former part of my dilemma, you affirme that no man can rightlie saye vntounto you, If our reasons bee naught, discouer their naughtines, because Christ vndoubtedlie had saide nothing but reason: vndoubtedly your selfe doe speak beside all reason. As much in a manner, as beside the trueth, when to reprooue the later part thereof you adde, that you doe Mome no man. For so must I interpret your wordes of smiting no man: or else you speake beside all reason herein too, when vponupon my citing Christes wordes, Why doest thou smite me, by way of similitude to your Moming vsus, you say, no man is smitten by you. But that some are smitē by you with Momus name, euen all reproovers of playes, and so (which is the next branch you plucke at) my selfe; I shewed by the meaning of the tale of Momus, opened out of Aristotle, ioyned with your applying thereof vntounto a person who chargeth playes as we doe. To the refutation whereof it maketh nothing, that when you declared you did enlarge therefore your aunswer vntounto Momus, because I and others had asked why the thinges by him obiected were not answered, you say that by others you meant some of your friends, not reprovers of playes: and that you had no purpose to touch me in particular, nor knew, when you conceyued and penned p. 48the devise of Momus, that I had reprooved them. For was it the man in the moone, trow we, whose 55Probra Arrepta quae cógessit ex triviis.rascall reproches, or (as you correct it) triviall and common, you put in the mouth of Momus, and made your Epilog controll them? Or was it some on earth, whose speeches, being noted by you as commō and taunting, doe argue that they had one or more authours, not friendes, but adversaries of playes? Moreouer, when you tell me, that till you vnderstoode it by me and by a Preacher of late, you neuer thought that either I, or anie other, in the Universitie had abbetted Momus obiections: doe you not confesse, that, ere you wrote this, you vnderstood it of vsus two? And can you perswade your selfe that we twoo alone, and no body else, are abbetters of them? Nay, doe you not signifie that you see there are more, when, speaking of others, you saye you mean… not such, as you perceyue by me there are, who should mislike your playes; and by way of opposing me and them to Many, you name vsus One or a Few? You acknowledge then, that notwithstanding your selfe meant not these by others, yet certaine such there are. Neither can your vsing the devise of Criticus & Zoilus in like maner to rebuke the carpers of your owne Tragedie as curious and malitious, permit you to denie with anie colour of probabilitie that you meant to note these by Momus name. Chieflie nowe that you hauehave expreslie fastened it on them in your replie: saying in excuse of the time, the Sunday, whereon your Tragedie was played, that some of them, it may bee, who misliked your playes, were worse occupied then your actors were on the same night, playing Momus part in good earnest before you, which you did afterward but for pastime. Wherefore your complayning that you knowe not whom, nor very well what, I meane by They & Us, in that I said, They whose obiections, and, Why doe you Mome vsus, is frivolous and idle, to say no worse of it: frivolous, because you know I meane the Preacher, my self, and all abbetters of Momus his obiections: idle, because albeit you knew not whom I meane, yet my speech is found, that, They, whose obiections against playes, you attributed to the person of Momus, might iustlie say in my iudgement, If our reasons be naught, discouer their naughtines; if good, Why doe you Morne p. 49vsus? More idle and frivolous is your labouring to perswade me, that I had no iust occasion to suspect that your purpose was therein to touch me, to taxe me in particular; both by discoursing that those two inducements, to weet, my reproving of Theater-sights and stage-playes in the Preface of my Thesis, and my reasons giuen thereof in letters to D. Thornton, which I (so you affirme) did chieflie alleadge to proove my coniecture, are not enough to proove it, in as much as you had not read the one of thē, nor heard of the other: and by most earnestlie avouching coram Deo (as if an ccGal. 1. 20.Gal 1:20oath needed to cleare you from my wrongfull opinion and surmise) that your meaning onelyonly was to moove delite in the auditorie, with the noveltie of the invention, and the person; and to obiect those things against your selues by your selues, which might abate all suspicion of vaine glorie or selfe-pleasing in you; and so by this meanes, as it were with a slight, to shift of all occasion of others ill speaking, whē you had prevented them with as ill as mought be. I saye, this is more idle and frivolous then the former, because I was so farre from making any shew of suspecting my selfe to be touched purposely by you in particular: that contrariwise I signified I thought my self touched, not so, but in generall; by the censure lighting, not in your intent, but in event, vponupon me. And for this respect alone, not for the other, did I alleadge those writings of mine, whiche you mention; to proove, not a coniecture thereby, but a certaintie, that I was a reproover of playes; and therefore sith you meant to note all such reproovers vnderunder the name of Momus, as I shewed withall, must needes thinke my selfe to bee touched therein. Which also I deliuered with such care of plainesse and perspicuitie, distinguishing eftsoones your intent of noting no particular man from your generall note touching mee by consequent, that as on the one parte you could not choose but graunt that I had occasion to thinke my self touched in the generalitie; likewise of the other, you were enforced to see, that I gaue no token of anie way suspecting you to hauehave intended particularlie to taxe me. In so much that your selfe, encoūtring as it were your discourse thereof, acknowledge it expresselie with these very wordes; But that I had no purpose by Momus p. 50side to wound you, according to the law of charitie, vponupon my former protestation, you doe most gladly credit mee, as you write; and with these, The matter is cleered in your good minde; thus your selfe commende mee, and hartily thanke mee for it. A strange kinde of dealing to charge a man with thinking amisse of your purpose, who, by your owne confession, thinketh rightly of it; to touch him as breaking the lawe of charitie through false surmises, who keepeth it in your owne iudgement; to take the name of God for effecting with him by new protestation, that which your former protestation, your selfe saye, had obtained of him; by manifest misconstruction to presse out of his writing a point whereof hee writeth the contrarie, as your selfe witnesse; to controll a thing as misdeemed by him vppon erroneous coniecture, which your owne conscience testified to you, and your owne mouth to others, that it is cleered in his minde; finally to pretend, that being assaulted by one who sought your life, you were compelled to enter a long combat with him, when you graunt straightwayes vponupon the ende thereof that no man did assault you; it was a post onelie, whereon you sett a helmet to make it seeme a man, that so by valiant foyning at it, and hacking of it, you might gett the creditt of having slaine an enemie, and left him in the place as dead as a doore naile. The ddAlex. Trallian. li. 7. ca. 3. A…tius tretrab. 3. serm. 6. cap. 21.Physicians note, that such as are diseased with that kinde of hungrie sicknes, which I mentioned, hauehave a greedy appetite to bee eating still: but being vnable to keepe that they hauehave eaten, doe cast it vp by vomit; and then eate more, and vomit againe; and eate eftsoones, and vomit. How like a distemper you are fallen into, through desire of swalowing vp & contradicting all that I had written, which yet your want of strength to hold and maintaine doeth force you to regorge and yeelde: your going onward in this course bewrayeth farder. For I, to shew how all reproovers of playes are noted as vniust reproovers by your tale of Momus, declared out of Aristotle, that it was devised to checke such as reprooue vnjustly the best and perfitest workes of the most wise and skilfull. You reply that you brought him not in so much in that sense that Aristotle speaketh of, as a reproover of the best and p. 51perfitest workes of the most wise and skilfull; for I never tooke (say you) either our selves, or our playes to bee such: but as wee commonly take him as a carper, and a pincher at all thinges that are done with any opinion of well dooing. Wherein with one breath you overthwart, and graunt, the purport of my speech. You overthwart it in saying that you brought Momus in, as we cōmonly take him; & opposing this point to the point I mentioned, Not in that sense that Aristotle speaketh of, but thus: You graunt it in confessing that you brought him in also in that sense, though not so much in that sense: which I said not you did so much, but only that you did it. And albeit herein by gainesaying me with your, Not, and But, you may seeme to charge me with saying that you brought him in so much in that sense: yet you meant rather by cunning interlacing of those words, so much, closely to discharge your mouth of a morsel, which you had taken in, and felt it overhoott and burning. For having alleaged 66Ipsamque reprehendit artificem om nium. Quod capire tauris cornua, haud armis daret.the very same that Aristotle, howe Momus carped Nature, the Creatour of all things, that is, God, I trow, the most wise and skilfull framer of the best and perfitest workes: you adde, that 77Sic matre Nocte genitus …ac Somno Patre, Nihil ipse praestans optimos carpit tamenafter this sort, Momus (whom you bring in) though dooing nought him selfe, yet carpeth at the best; and hath with these and these tants declaimed against your playes. So, whereas your reason, that you never tooke your selves or your playes to be such, should import that you brought him not in at all in that sense; and then had I affirmed amisse, that you rehearsed the tale to such purpose: your ground thereof alayed with the termes, so much, implieth that you grant, that the thing it self, which I affirmed, is true, and that you were disposed to playe by this conveyance a iugling tricke of fast and loose. Againe, whereas I noted that you called our reasons, attributed to Momus, rascall reproches, vsing the English words to expresse your Latin, probra arrepta ex triviis: first you wish I had not so tanslated it, for that the wordes in Latin naturally sound not so hardly; yet afterward you graūt that you know the words may be so properly translated. Wherof in the later how manifestly you cast vp that which you swalowed in the former, appeereth by your labouring to cōfirme the former, what with eeDe verbo…. significat. lib. 1.Alciats saying, that p. 52wordes must bee generally taken so farre foorth as their proprietie may beare; what with your owne denying that **In your copie sent me, it is, arrepta ex triviis: w^t greater iniurie if you meant to sup presse the word probra Which that you did, you giuegive me occasion to suspect, becaus before likewise, you cite it, leaving out y^e word, & English it common & triviall speeches: yet because in another copie, giuē by you abroad, belike after mine, I find y^e word here: I take the omitting therof in my copie to bee a slippe of your penne, and therfore doe insert it.probra arrepta ex triviis doe most properly and principally signifie rascall reproches. Most properly, and principally; a like feate in adding to the worde properly, most, and principally, as before in thrusting in the termes, so much: sith neither in the clause, which answereth to this, you ioyne most with naturally; nor say out of Alciat, that wordes must be taken as their most principall proprietie may beare (though by an 88Primus autem intellectus proprietatis est sua vniuscujusque rei appellatioother note of his, 99From parag. 5. as if it ensued the rest of the words you cite out of Paragr. 10displaced cunningly, and racked herevnto, it seemeth you would faine imply it) but as their proprietie. Howbeit, if I list to presse you therein also, perhaps the same phrase, arnipere maledictum ex trivio, vsed by ffOrat. pro. Muraen.Tullie, and compared with Alciats meaning of most proper and principall signification, would proue that probra arrepta ex triviis doe most properly and principally signifie rascall reproches. Sure they hauehave bene deemed skilfull of both languages, who taking on them to deliver the principall and most proper signification of Latin wordes, hauehave Englished maledictum arreptum ex trivio, 11Eliota biblioth. aucta à coopero, edit. an̄. 1548. in the worde arripio.a reproche or tant, which is commonly spoken by every railing knaue, or, 22The same, in the same place edit. …t.that is common in euerie verlets mouth: and what doeth this, I pray you, differ from rascall? But sith your selfe acknowledge that wordes naturally doe sound and signifie that which they signife properly, and that these in question may bee translated properly as I did translate them: you shew that in affirming they doe not naturally sound so hardly, you controlled as false that which your selfe knew to be true, yea, which you needes must so acknowledge. In like sort doe you crosse your me, nay, you crosse yourselfe, when in an other enditement that you drawe against me for the same Englishing of your Latin, to weet, that though the wordes may bee so properly translated, yet not to your minde so properly, that is, not so gently as you meant them, and therefore I did mistranslate them: you say that in lawe and reason they are ever to bee interpreted according to their natural and proper signification, vnlesse we coniecture that hee who speake them meant otherwise; and no p. 53man can iustly coniecture that you meant to vse any honest man with so illtermes, when you meant no man at all. See the pitifull taking of such as seeke devises to bolster out vntruths for their credits sake: who by those very shifts, by which they hope to scape, are oftentimes entangled, and as it were with nettes or chaines entrapped faster. Your owne affirmation, that you meant no man at all, doeth giuegive mee iust cause of coniecturing that you meant to vse the terme of rascall, as well as of reproches, be they never so ill. For in that you say, that you meant no man at all, you intend your former speech, that you meant Momus onelyonly. Nowe you charged Momus with a 33Ipsum esse Momum lingua tam … da arguit.filthie toung, an 44Dira facies.ougly face, a 55Quis huius oris spiritum effugiat gravem?stinking breath, an 66Comae color improbus Ardens capilli quis domet virus tui?ill favored gastly rammish bush of heare: and can no man iustly coniecture that you meant to vse him with so ill termes, as rascall reproches? You called him a 77Obiicere tali me queam spectro, Deos Hominesque, naturamque carpenti impie; Odioque Diis proptereà hominibusque optimis.spirit, an impious carper of the Gods, of men, and of nature, a person therefore odious and detestable to the Gods, and to the best men: and can no man iustly coniecture that you meant to vse him with so ill termes, as rascall reproches? You reported of him that 88Linguaeque tactu foedat imundo omnia.hee defileth all thinges with the vncleane touch of his toung; that 99Inscitia tibi vt impunè sit, & animi stupor Pietas putetur?he is vnskilfull, dull, or sottish rather: & can no man iustly coniecture that you meant to vse him with so ill termes, as rascall reproches? But what doe I reason out of your former writing that I had cause to thinke so: when your selfe, in this, doe giuegive most euident & cleere tokens that you meant so? For you say expressely that you made Momus to speake as ill as mought be; neither cared greatly what you made him say, as thinking any such thing became him well inough: nor talked otherwise of him, then as of a carper, a nipper, a depraver, and a reprehender of every goodthing. And can you deny that your meaning was to speak of his reproches as rascall, base and contemptible, whom you made purposely to speak as ill as mought be, and cared not what you made him say? or dare you affirme you meant to vse him gently, whom you accuse of carping, nipping, depraving, and reprehending all good thinges, and doe rough hewe him in such sorte? You tell me that how words are to be taken in charitie I know better then you: but in law and reason they are to bee interpreted with this rule of thé speakers meaning. p. 54Belike because you weened that you had prooved hereby, (chieflie having quoted thereto a ggAlciat. de verb. signifi. lib. 1.lawiers text,) that, look in what sense you say you meant your wordes, in that I must interpret them by law and reason: you thought that I was likewise in charitie bound to thinke that you meant them so, in as much as the scripture saieth, hh1 Cor. 13. 71 Cor 13:7Charitie beleeueth all things. But you should hauehave marked that the scripture saith also, iiProv. 14. 15Prov 14:15A foole beleeueth every thing: and he who exhorteth the faithful to be charitable, dehorteth them from doeing foolishlie, kkEphe. 5. 15.Eph 5:15Walke not as fooles, but as wise. A sure demonstration, that charitie is said to beleeue all things, not properlie, but in a figure; not simplie all, but a number; euen all that a good man in wisedome may beleeue. And to ll2 Thes. 2. 112 Thess 2:11beleeue vntruthes, is a point of follie; repugnant, as to wisedome, so consequentlie to charitie: which in the mm1 Cor. 13. 61 Cor 13:6same parcell of scripture is saide, not to reioyce in iniquitie, but to reioyce at the trueth. Wherefore seeing reason doeth shew by sundrie circumstances, that you say vntrulie, You meant not to vse so ill and hard termes, as rascall reproches; and this is the naturall and proper signification of your Latin wordes, which therefore must be so interpreted by law: it were to be wished, that you learned better what charitie requireth, before you raise vncharitable suspicions of others as sinning against it whē they doe not; and then it might bee hoped you would no more pretend the name of law or reason, to plaister your vnreasonable and vnlawfull blaming of things deliuered rightlie according both to law and reason.

nnOlympior. Hymn. 6.Pindarus sayth, that men who take workes in hande, must sett them forth with beautifull forefrontes and entrees. The lesse doe I marvell that you who make so badd a beginning of your worke, deale worse, if worse might be, and more perverslie in the rest. Whereof to reserue for their severall places the proofe that in a maner all the particulars yeeld; two generall kindes of seelie evasions and shiftes may serue for the first taste: one, that when you see your argumentes refuted, you denie them to bee yours; an other that you say, you vsed them not to vsus, but to Momus; and by this fine devise you neither aunswere Momus, nor vsus. For examples sake, whereas to the obiection made out p. 55of the worde of God against your playes, that it is vnlawfull for men to put on wemens raiment, you replied that it is not vnlawfull simply and alwayes, as if one doe it to save his life, to benefitt manie: I shewed that this reason is vnsound and naught:; A mā to saue his life or countrey, may doe it; He may doe it therefore to play a parte on a stage. Herevnto you answere, that you doe not thus argue, It is lawfull in such and such cases to putt on womens raiment; Ergo it is lawfull to doe it in playes: but thus; ergo it is not simplie vnlawfull so to doe. And did you argue thus in deed, neyther concluded you, that it is lawfull therefore to doe it in playes? Certes then you disputed valiantlie against Momus, who 11Praeclara res est Mimus, & gestum assequi, Simulare vultū ac verba, testari Deos, Et sub puella tegere iuvenem puberem.reprooved playes because young men are cladde like maidens therein. But your whole discourse doeth argue that this argument whereof you are ashamed (well, if you would also ingenuouslie confesse it) was intended by you. For you professed that albeit you thought Momus rascall reproches against playes worthier to bee laughed at, then to bee refuted: 22Graviora paucis excutere fas sit tamen.yet the weightiest of them you would in fewe wordes shake out of their ragges; or who soeuer you will translate your excutere, applied to those rascalls. Now by what consequence doeth your aunswer shake that reproche of his, vnlesse it conclude that men may be lawfully cladde in playes like wemen? Or who is so blinde that reading your reply, perceyueth not your 33Nō ergo vestis faeminea iuveni est sce lus, sed prava mens, libido, &c.second Ergo, I say your second, For the 44Nō ergo iuueni est grande simpliciter nefas Mollem puell induerefirst (I graunt) concludeth, that it is not simply vnlawfull so to doe; but the seconde Ergo, with the 55Quid simile nobis obiicere quisquam potest?assumption following, and the 66Maledicta textú glossa quae vitiat bonum.Epiphonema, directlie do imply a contradicting of Momus; and therfore a concluding out of the former point, that, because it is lawfull in such and such cases to put on Wemens raiment, Ergo it is lawfull to doe it in playes? What? And when you saide that 77Nec habitus vllus, sed ani mus turpem facit.no apparell but the minde doeth make a man dishonest, meant you not that men may weare womens raiment with honestie in playes? Whē you concluded that 88Quae dixit in nos alia diluere haud placet.You list not wash away other things which Momus spake against you: did you not imply that heerein you had mett with his blaming you for young men made maidens on the stage? When you begged a 99Proinde disrumpantur vt Momo ilia, Iterum benignus vndique applausus sonet.seconde Plaudite of the beholders, that the guttes of Momus might burst for spite asunder: p. 56sought you their approbation of Achilles changing his sexe to saue his life; or of Melanthos dooing it to feede theatricall humours? In the ooLib. 2. ca. 30Greek Epigrammes we read of two deafe men impleading one the other before a deafe iudge. Amongst whom when the plaintife obiected to the defendant, that hee ought him fiue moneths rent for his house, and the defendant answered that he was grinding corne at the mill that night: What a Gods name, quoth the iudge, what needeth this contention? Hath not eche of you a mother? Let eche finde his owne. I am glad, M^r D. Gager, that by your appealing to the iudgement of our betters, wee hauehave agreed on iudges who heare well inough. For they, vnderstāding how your Ulysses redux is penned and was played, will iudge that you are not deafe: as ppCic. de Senect.their like at Athens hauing heard Oedipus Coloneus read, a tragedie written by Sophocles, gaue sentence that he was not a sott or doting man. And therefore, though you tell them that in your reply, of grinding at the mill, you meant to proove onelyonly that you hurt not Momus by seeking of his life or purse that night on Salsbery plaine: yet they, considering wiselie that you professed to aunswer his bill of complaint touching the fiue moneths rent, will think you argued thus against him; I was grinding corne at the mill that night, Ergo I owe him not fiue moneths rent for his house. Neither can I doubt but they will in like sort mislike your other practise, of saying that you spake not to vsus but to Momus, and so slipping away with answering neither him, nor vsus. As when you asked vsus in Momus person, (so I tooke it) Dare ye despise learned poetrie? secretlie to inferre thereby your maine conclusion, that if learned poetrie may not be despised, your students may be actors of learned Poets playes; and I out of S^t Paul did refell this argument: you reply that you asked not of me, or them, or any man but Momus, any such question. Which thing you doe not onelyonly avouch vponupon your word, affirming that you should be beleeued: but you cite your writing also to prove it, An tu Poësin despicere doctam audeas? Vrging that you said not, An vos; but An tu. Manie greeuous panges of that hungrie sickenes, which, for the symptomata of eating still and vomiting, Physicians (as I shewed) doe name the dogged appetit, appeare in your whole reply. But none more greeuous p. 57in any part thereof, then here, where, through the sharpnes and outrage of your humour, you fulfil that proverb, (your 11Crudelem medicum intemperans aeger facit. Publius Syrusintemperance forceth me to be more cruell, I meane, to vse more lothsome & displeasant speeches then otherwise I would, speciallie to persons of your state and qualitie) you fulfill, I say, that proverb of Salomon, qqProv. 26. …Prov 26A dogg returneth to his vomit. Yea, in so much worse sorte doe you suppe this againe vp, whiche you vomited before, of meaning neither mee nor anie other man in your reproofe of Momus: because you adde such reasons to proove you meant not vsus in asking that questiō, as your selfe must needes know you vttered but a sicke mans dreame. For (to beginne with the later, which is the stronger of them) your selfe doe acknowledge vponupon my proofe thereof out of your owne wordes, that in rrEpistola ad Criticum.your reproofe of Criticus and Zoilus, whosoever findeth such fault with your Tragedie, as you controll them for, him you meant to note as a malitious Zoilus, and a carping Criticke. Yet the Criticke you speake to in the singular number, as well as to Momus: You answere to his sundrie checkes of your epistle, Rectè tu quidem ista, Critice, si scriberem epigrammata: you say not vos, but tu. You note him for his 22Ita es ingeniose maledicus.wittie railing at your Tragedie, Profectò ipsum te esse Criticum oportet: you say not vos, but te. You detest his foolish & quarelsome wranglings, Emoriar si amem lites, saltem criticas, id est futiles, id est tuas, Critice: you say not vestras, but tuas. You come vponupon him eftsoones, againe, and againe, with 33Quid enim putidius, quàm quod tu facere soles?tu, and 44Tu improbè facis, qui in alieno libello nimis es ingeniosus.tu, and tuae; and, Critice, as to one still: you saye not vos Critici, vos Critici, and vestrae. Wherefore if notwithstanding your forme of speech to one in the singular number, you inten ded it to all, as curious carpers, who will be picking quarells at your Tragedie-writing: alas, What was become of your wittes and senses, when by such a cavill you thought to convince me, that, because you said not An vos, but An tu, you meant not 5 Lector debebit tuae, id est, malae linguae.your speech to me and all others, as vniust reproovers, who will be finding fault with your enterlude-playing? Those ssZac. 11. 17.idole-pastors of the Church, ttTit. 1. 12.Titus 1:12evill beastes, and slow-bellies, who vvPsal. 115. 5Ps 115:5hauehave mouths, and speake not; eyes, and see not; feete, and goe not; who xxEzek. 34. 2.Ezek 34:2feede themselves and not their flockes, but yyAmos. 6. …Amos 6take their p. 58ease in Sion; doo seeke with faces harder then brasse, and hearts then adamant, to besott themselves, and perswade others, that zzLuk. 19. 22.Luke 19:22Christs reproofe of the wicked servant, which employed not the moony he receved as his maister charged him in trade and traficke to his advantage, belongeth not to them. But amongst their wretched excuses and defenses of their non-residence, though as lewde and brainesicke many, as this is, yet never heard I this; that Christ speaketh not to them; but to a losell who laid vp his mony in a napkin, because his wordes are, of thine owne mouth will I iudge thee, ô evill servant; he saith not, of your own mouths, but of thine; not, I will judge you, but thee. The covetous engrossers of wealth & slaves of Mammon, who aaEsai. 5. 8.Isa 5:8ioyne house to house, and lay field to field, till there bee no place; whose bbIob. 31. 24.Job 31:24hope is their gold; whose ccAmos. 8. 5.Amos 8:5godlines their gaine; whose ddLuk. 12. 17.Luke 12:17meditation, what shall I doo? I will pull down my barnes and build greater, and therein will I gather all my fruits and my goods; and I will say to my soule, Soule, thou hast much goods laid vp for many yeares; liue at ease, eate, drinke, and be mery: these worldlings faine would flatter themselues with assurance of many yeares life, and much would they giuegive for a lease thereof. But I thinke they are not so full of ee1. Sa. 25. 251 Sam 25:25Nabals qualitie, that the Lords advertisement ffLuk. 12. 20.Luke 12:20o foole, this night shall thy soule be fetched away from thee, they will reiect by noting hee saith, thy soule from thee, he saith not, yours from you: and therevpon imagin they are not tenants at will, nor may bee turned out of their ggIob. 4. 19.Job 4:19houses of clay vponupon an howres warning, nay vponupon no warning giuen them at all. hhOrat. pro Muraen.Tullie maketh mention of some witty lawiers, who, because they found the name of Caia set downe for example sake in some autours bookes treating of a certaine solemnitie in betrothing, they thought that everie woman so betrothed and maried should be called Caia. A conceit, that seemed ridiculous to Tullie: yet coming farre behinde that which yours implyeth, that no other woman but Caia alone was meant in the treatise, and therefore none but shee might bee so betrothed. By consequence whereof if you had lived in those dayes, you must hauehave mainteined that it was not lawfull for any to bee maried but onelyonly Iohn and Ioane, I p. 59would say Caius and Caia. For iiPlutar. Romanor. institutor. ca. 30.the maner was that they, who brought the bride into the bridegromes house, did bid her vse this speech, Ubi tu Caius, ego Caia: not making any mention of Lucius and Lucia, Sempronius and Sempronia, but of Caius and Caia; neither saying nos, & vos, but tu & ego.

Nowe if the stronger of your reasons hinder not but your demande might bee made to vsus: much lesse doeth the weaker.

For whereas you tell vsus, that you demanded not of me, or them, or any man but Momus, any such question, if you may be beleeued; as, why you should not, you see no cause: first how prooue you this, that you see no cause, why you should not bee beleeued? Forsooth because you were as sure (you say) that I or any learned man did not despise poëtrie, as you were certaine that Momus did. O miserable blindnesse shall I say? or madnes, wherewith your humorous greedines of crossing me distracted you. As who say you had not so much the greater reason to aske vsus such a question, because you were sure that wee did not despise poetrie. Else you must affirme that when Christ demanded, kkMatt. 12. 12Matt 12:12what man shall there be among you that hath a sheepe, who, if it fall on a Sabbat day into a pitt, will not take holdof it, and lift it out? Hee asked not any such question of the Phariseis, or Scribes, or any man, but your Momus brethren, that is, the men whom fansies imagine in the cloudes: because hee was as sure that the Phariseis or any wise man would not suffer his sheepe to lie in the pitt on the Sabbat day, as hee was certaine that the cloudes would. For if you perceaue that Christ, to make the Phariseis confesse that it is lawfull to heale a man on a Sabbat day, had reason to demand whether they would not lift vp their sheepe out of a pitt then, which hee knewe they would; that by granting this they might discerne the better they must needes graunt that: how could you choose but see, that your purpose being to make vsus confesse, that comedies & tragedies may bee lawfully played, you had like reason to aske whether wee did despise learned poëtrie, which you were sure we did not; that by graunting this (you thought) wee might the rather be forced to graunt that. Wherefore sith-even herein there was cause sufficient to make mee imagin that you did p. 60demande the question of vsus: you should conclude rather that your sight was naught, who saw not so much, then that, because you saw it not, you should bee beleeued affirming the contrarie. Moreover, to admitt there was no cause herein why you should not be beleeved, yet might there bee in somewhat else: and such, as you should also hauehave easily espied, vnlesse the inordinate passion of your minde had daseled your sight. For your llL 2. D. de testibus. l. 27 D. ad leg. Corn. de fals.law informed you that they, who are vnconstant and light in their testimonies, must not be beleeued: Now, though you perceue not your own fault therein, as mmPoliticor. lib. 3. cap. 12Aristotle saith, Physicians beeing sicke can not discerne the trueth touching their owne diseases because of their distemper, and therefore doe they vse the helpe of other Physicians: the events of your hungry sicknes, which I noted, doe manifestly argue, that you wauered much in saying and vnsaying the same when you wrote to me. And how small account of yeelding to the trueth you make in these matters, you had shewed before when nnEpist. ad Criticum.you tolde Criticus, that 66Haud seio an vera ista sint: fortasse non multum absunt à veris Sed tamē libet ire contrà.you know not whether those things be true, which hee obiecteth; and perhaps they are not farre from beeing true: yet are you disposed to goe against them, to crosse them. You might see cause therefore why you should not bee beleeved in that you affirme you demanded not of vsus, or any man but Momus, any such question. Howbeit granting this, which you so wrastle for, what say you then to Momus; I meane to the argument implied in your demaunde to him, and prooved by mine aunswere to bee naught and defectiue? Nay, not a worde to that. OnelyOnly, as if you would say that you were disposed to spurre him idle questions, and not to reason against him; or that, although the reason meant therein were naught, yet good enough for him whom you make a Mome and faine to your selfe a foolish adversarie, a thing that ooLib. 5. ca. 13 Declamatores in primis sunt admonendi, ne sibi stultum adversariū fingant. Facimus autem &c.Quintilian misliketh in declaimers; you say that you asked it of no man but of Momus. Thus in these generall and common kindes of miserable evasions and shifts through the mist whereof you would scape away: our iudges will acknowledge (I hope) that your intent was rather to seek corners for hiding of your fault, then to confesse your oversights and yeelde the victorie to the p. 61truth. Surely, for mine owne parte, your dealing doeth perswade mee that when you resolved to reply vponupon mee, you thought with your selfe the same that you vttered in your epistle vntounto Criticus: I know not whether these thinges bee true which he writeth; and perhaps they are not farr from being true, 77Sed tamen libet ite contrà.yet am I disposed to hauehave a crash against them.

Yea, even for the branches and points wherevnto you stand in the particulars, the fower heades of reasons, neither denying their drift, the marke they aimed at; nor excusing them as faire against Momus, though they come nothing neere the marke: albeit you deale with greater probabilitie, and therefore cary your selfe the bolder, yet deale you like your selfe, and lay still the colours of probabilitie on sophistrie. For whereas in the first, concerning the iudgement of the ancient Romans holding all stage-players infamous by their lawe, you saide that the Praetor pronounced none infamous but such as played for gaine sake, and I prooved the contrarie by the Praetors words: you reply that the Praetor meant the same that you say, though his wordes were generall of stage-players without distinction. This in the formost ranke, if it will prevaile. If not; you adde thereto, that the actors of your playes are no stageplayers. But how false both these thinges are, and how fraudulently sought to bee avouched: our bettets, if it please them to compare my proofes with your reply, shall see. For Tullie, as I shewed, affirmeth that the Romans counting all kindes of stageplayes shamefull and dishonest, agreed that such as played them should not onlie want the honour of other citizens, but also bee disfranchised: Which, for the last note of infamie, beeing also witnessed by Livie, and S. Austin having therevpon observed that the Romans counted all stage-players infamous: Gothofredus knowing that the edict of the Praetor did expresse the iudgement and law of the Romans, and marking that the words of the edict were generall touching all stage-players, saith in the interpreting thereof that both players for gaine sake and without gaine were helde infamous by it, according to S. Austin and Livie. And this to hauehave bene truely saide by Gothofredus, I declared agreeably to the grounds of law by testimonies of the Romans; p. 62of Cornelius Nepos, Laberius, Iuvenal, Suetonius, Tacitus, Die, and others. As for that Vlpian (whose wordes you cited as the Praetors) and Pegasus with Nerva, doe say that such as play for gaine sake are infamous, I aunswered that it foloweth not that therefore they thought free players not infamous: sith the Scripture likewise counteth a woman infamous who prostituteth her body vntounto men for mony; yet counteth her infamous too who doeth it freely. Or if they thought the Praetors edict to hauehave that meaning, which perhaps they did: then they come too short of his meaning somewhat, and are well corrected therefore by Gothofredus. Now you, to proove the contrarie and disproove my proofes, affirme that ppD. de his qui notantur infam. l. 2. §. Ait Praetor.Nerva and Pegasus adde those words 88Quaestus causa, & propter praemiū.for gaine sake to distinguish players for gaine from free players, which, you say, is manifest: and againe as manifest, you say, that Ulpian doeth approove their distinction. But if you thought good to confirme this point, whereof I shewed onelyonly what cause I had to dout, I denied it not: you should bring strong arguments to convince they doe so, not idle affirmatiōs that it is manifest they doe. For what if a wealthie and lasciuious courtisan should say that qqDeut. 23. 18Deut 23:18Moses mentioneth the hire of the whoore, to distinguish mercenarie whoores frō free and franke dames, as it is manifest: and againe, as manifest that the rrHos. 9. 1. Mic. 1. 7.Hos 9:1Mic 1:7Prophets doe approove his distinction? were there any weight in this to perswade vsus that Moses and the Prophets mention the whoores hire to distinguish hired whoores frō defilers of them selues without hire; vnhonest from honest; infamous from prayse-worthie: and not to note rather that such as play the whoores doe it for hire commonlie? You adde, that Glossa communis, Baldus, Petrus de Castro (would you not say Paulus? for Petrus I can not heare of) and all whom you have seene vponupon that text of law doe so vnderstand it. This is an argument yet: though not strong enough. For all, whō you have seene, vnderstand it so. It may be. But others, who hauehave seene more law-bookes, perhaps can tell you of many that vnderstand it otherwise. My selfe, as few as I hauehave seene, can tell you of two; ssAnnotat. in ….Budaeus, and an Autour of a Greeke abridgement of the Civill law, whom Budaeus citeth. For the Greeke authour doth p. 63expound it thus, That all, who trie masteries in solemne games for gaine sake, are infamous: 99foreign.and also they who come vponupon the stage for prayse sake. And Budaeus moving a question and doubt how these wordes of the text, that all who come vppon the stage 11Propter prae mium.for reward, are infamous; should be vnderstoode, whether that they be not also infamous who come vponupon the stage 22Ambitiosa ostentatione.for vaineglorious ostentation, answereth and resolveth out of S^t Augustin, and Livie, 33Attem omnem scenicā probrosam Romae fuisse: atque omnes scenicos censoria nota tribu moueri solitos.that all stageplaying was counted infamous at Rome, and all stageplayers were wont to be disfranchised by the Censors. Whose interpretation in a point of this qualitie deserveth more credit then a hundred such as Paulus de Castro: so meanlie seene in the text he treateth of, that he giueth the word, stage, a different meaning from that in the Praetors edict, which it expoundeth; and saith, it speaketh of other games. An argument much stronger in shew, in substance weaker, you fetch out of the text: that in certamen descendere, and in scenam prodire, doe (as they saye in your lawe) ambulare aequis passibus, in the same places of the same title, De his qui notātur infamia; but it is most evident, that ttD. de postulando. l. 1. §. bestias. & D. de his qui not. infam. l. 4.qui descendit in certamen depugnaturus cum bestijs dentatis, ac feris, virtutis ostendendae nō mercedis causa, non est notatus; Ergo qui prodit in scenam pronuntiandi gratia sine praemio & quaestu, non est notatus. Which syllogisme of yours if you allow for good: what say you vntounto this, that (me seemes) is like it? In certamen descendere and in scenam prodire doe ambulare aequis passibus in the same places of the same title; but it is most evident, that vvD. de his qui not. infam. l. 4. C de athletis. l. un.qui descendit in certamen luct a aut cur su certaturus cum hominibus non facit artem ludicram; Ergo qui prodit in scenā pronuntiandi gratia non facit artem ludicra. The major is your owne. The minor as true as yours: Yet the conclusiō false; which xxL. 1. 2. & 3. D. de his qui not. infam.the same places of the same title shew. And seeing by my syllogisme you perceiue, I trust, that the manlie exercises of wrastling and running doe farre out-runne stageplaying, as it is meete they should: you see that the major of your syllogisme fayleth, and that certamen and scena doe not walke with evē passe, but are coupled togither as a quick greyhound and a lazy curre. Farder is it from reason that you adioyne a reason of the favourable parte of the distinction out of p. 64the yyC. de spectaculis. l. 1. in fine.Code; or rather adioyne it not, but say that you thinke it may be gathered thence: because the games of wrastling, rūning, and such like be permitted to them who desire and offer to beare the charge thereof. When neither doeth it follow that because these games are allowed by Emperours to willing bearers of the charge, zzL. 10. D. ad leg. Iul. de vi publica.not imposed on the vnwilling, therefore free stageplayers are approved by Ulpian: and it is a wandring fansie to imagin why it should be so, when the question is whether it bee so or no. The reason of the other side which I sett downe to shew that the distinction can not be enforced out of Ulpians words, because the scripture likewise condemneth them of wickednes who play the hoores for hire, yet acquitteth not free hoores; you confute as soundly, as you confirme your owne. For you say it is simply evill to play the hoore, either freely or for reward; but not simply evill to come vponupon the stage, because the law alloweth it if it bee done sine quaestu: which is a plaine begging of the point in question. And yet having tolde mee that I must evict that it is simply a sinne for any prodire in scenam, as it is for a woman to prostitute her body; (I cut off your superfluous words, as namely, vile, in adding which epitheton to sinne you double a fault corrected by your selfe before when you said, that I assume that the one is as greevous a sinne, as the other, or at the least as absolutely a sinne:) but having tolde me this, you pleade againe the same sophisme, avouching that your consequence, Prodire in scenam quaestus causa, infamat; ergo prodire in scenam sine quaestu, non infamat, is a good consequence, because the law so distinguisheth. How much greater reason had you to be perswaded, that sith I had evicted it to be simply evill, because simply infamous by the Praetors sentence, that is, by the law; Vlpian, with his autours, interpreters thereof, did insert those wordes not for distinction sake, but to note the common cause why it was practised, the louelove of reward. Chiefly seeing otherwise it must needes folow there is foreign betwene the texts of your law, and one of them doeth crosse an other. Which if the lawiers whom you hauehave seene thereon, had as wel observed by S. Austin and Livie, as Budaeus had: perhaps they would hauehave thought that all sortes of stage-players, even such p. 65as shew them selves for applause to please men, are therein noted also, as Budaeus did. But I, who thinke there may be repugnancies in your textes, and had an eye to the point in question betwene vsus, to weet, whether the Praetor, whose 44Edictum per petuū. Ascon. Paedian in cic. orat. pro corn D. de orig. jur. l. 2. §. Eodem tempore. C. de vet. jur. enucleand. l. 2. §. Sed quia.edict expressed the ancient Romans law, pronounced all stage-players infamous; not whether Vlpian thought so, who lived in later age after greaterand longer corruption of maners, and consequentlie of opinions; in so much that hee would exempt a 55Agitatores. D. de his qui notantur infam. l. 4.sort of fruitlesse game-servers from infamie, whom neither aaTacit. annal. lib. 14. Curriculo quadri garum insistere, foedum studium. Dio, Xiphil. epit. in Net. Es foreign.ancient Romans, though Heathens, did before him, nor bbC. de spectaculis & scenicis. l. 4. See Cuiacius vponupon it.Christian Emperours after: I (as you acknowledge) did admit they thought so, but vrged that the Praetor affirmed the same that I doe, and they mistooke his meaning, as Gothofredus prooveth in his note thereon. To the which assertion, after a preferring of them before Gothofrede, if not in learning, yet authoritie, needelesse to bee stoode on; (for though hee were not better learned then they were, yet might he see by S. Austin and Livie that they saw not; neither is it autoritie, but learning, that must teach vsus what the Praetor meant:) you say that in some sense his short, but quicke note, Immò & qui sine quaestu, hurteth not you at all. Well. In some sense then it hurteth you, in some it doeth not. And doth that sense, wherin he meant it, hurt you or no? If no: why say you afterward, Gothofrede doeth gloze against a manifest law without giuing any reason of his so doing? If yea: what spirit of wrangling had bewitched you to construe an autours words as not gainesaying you, which in his own meaning you knew made flat against you? For after you had saide, If hee meaneth thereby to taxe Laberius, Lentulus, Nero, and such like, that did exercere histrioniam, though gratuitam, his exception maketh not against your text; and had given a reason thereof, beside the text cleane, neither agreeing to Laberius, whom yet by your forenaming him it should hauehave touched: you come in with these wordes, But Gothofrede in deede foundeth his sharpe note vponupon a saying of S. Austin, Omnes enim scenici probrosi; and of Livie, Et tribu moveri soliti. So you doe confesse that Gothofrede in deede, although you sensed him as if he taxed onelyonly them who played to satisfie their dissolute and p. 66lewde humours, that so hee might not seeme to make against your text, your sense thereof at least; yet in deede he counteth all stage-players infamous, according to the sayinges of S. Austin and Livie, whereon he foundeth his note. In deede Maister Gager, you are much to blame, who, to shew that you can obscure a most cleere truth with pretense of lawe, and a distinction of some sense, doe hazard the shipwracke of a good conscience, and wastfully employ your witt and time both, in bolstering out by writing that which your selfe see and knowe to bee vntrue. I did say before, that I gathered by your dealing that when you resolved to reply against me, you thought with your selfe: I know not whether these things be true which he writeth; yet am I disposed to hauehave a crash against them. Now I must inpart correct that my saying. For you shew that somewhere in your reply you thought; I know that this thing, which he writeth, is true; 66Sed-tamen libet ire con….yet hauehave I a lust to contradict it.