A10335:109
Th'overthrow of stage-plays, by the way of controversy betwixt D. Gager and D. Rainoldes…Th'overthrow of stage-playes, by the way of controversie betwixt D. Gager and D. Rainoldes…
Th'overthrow of stage-plays, by the way of controversy betwixt D. Gager and D. Rainoldes wherein all the reasons that can be made for them are notably refuted; th'objections answered, and the case so cleared and resolved, as that the judgement of any man, that is not froward and perverse, may easily be satisfied. Wherein is manifestly proved, that it is not only unlawful to be an actor, but a beholder of those vanities. Whereunto are added also and annexed in th'end certain latin letters betwixt the said Master Rainoldes, and D. Gentiles, reader of the civill law in Oxford, concerning the same matter.Th'overthrow of stage-playes, by the way of controversie betwixt D. Gager and D. Rainoldes wherein all the reasons that can be made for them are notably refuted; th'objections aunswered, and the case so cleared and resolved, as that the iudgement of any man, that is not froward and perverse, may easelie be satisfied. Wherein is manifestly proved, that it is not onely vnlawfull to bee an actor, but a beholder of those vanities. Wherevnto are added also and annexed in th'end certeine latine letters betwixt the sayed Maister Rainoldes, and D. Gentiles, reader of the civill law in Oxford, concerning the same matter.
Middelburg: printed by Richard Schilders, 1599
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Suitable to this new argument of yours is the defence of your old (the only one you pressed before) from two examples. For whereas you had reasoned thus, Some men of Macedonia, moved by Prince Alexander, did putt on Women's raiment to save the honour of Ladies; the like did Achilles, the son of Thetis, to save his life; Ergo it is lawful to do it in such cases; and I made answer thereto, that the reason is naught, because we are to live by laws, not by examples; neither may we lye or forswear our selves to save our lives, or benefit others, though David & Peter did so, men worthier to be followed then Macedonians, or Achilles: you reply, that the reason is good (this must you mean by saying that the examples are alleged to good purpose in the circumstances that you apply them for, or else you delude us with an other sophism;) and why? For Alexander's fact is commended (say you) as proceeding from a most noble, and true heroical mind; and because it was better that the Persian Ambassadors were slain, then that the chastities of so many great Ladies should so dishonourably be either overthrown, or so much as assailed: and Thetis might well hide her son Achilles in a maidens apparel in respect of motherly love & pity which she was to bear her son, knowing, as she did, that he should be slain in that journey to Troy, whether he was requested to accompany the other Grecian Lords. Touching the former whereof, to admit, that Alexander's fact proceeded from a noble true heroical mind, and that it was better the Persian Ambassadors were slain then the chastities of so many great Ladies should so dishonourably be overthrown, or assailed: yet doeth it not follow that men might therefore lawfully put women's raiment on to kill them; the thing might be convenient and good to be done, the means of doing it not good. As 1it is better that a person guilty should be left unpunished, then a person guiltless should be condemned: and 2he, whose saying this was, spake it ⟨p. 86⟩of a noble true heroical mind. Yet were the means naught to procure by bribes or by false witnesses the escape or acquittal of a guilty person: and if any man, who had used such dealing, should be commended for it, he should be commended amiss in that respect, as Alexander is by you.
Sutable to this new argument of yours is the defense of your olde (the onely one you pressed before) from two examples. For whereas you had reasoned thus, Some men of Macedonie, mooved by Prince Alexander, did putt on Wemens raiment to save the honor of Ladies; the like did Achilles, the sonne of Thetis, to save his life; Ergo it is lawfull to doe it in such cases; and I made answer thereto, that the reason is naught, because we are to live by lawes, not by exāples; neyther may we lye or forsweare our selves to save our lives, or benefitt others, though David & Peter did so, men worthier to be folowed then Macedonians, or Achilles: you reply, that the reason is good (this must you meane by saying that the examples are alleadged to good purpose in the circumstances that you apply them for, or else you delude vs with an other sophisme;) and why? For Alexanders fact is commended (say you) as proceeding from a most noble, and true heroicall minde; and because it was better that the Persian Embassadors were slaine, then that the chastities of so many great Ladies should so dishonorably be either overthrowne, or so much as assailed: and Thetis might well hide her sonne Achilles in a maidens apparell in respect of motherlie love & pitie which shee was to beare her sonne, knowing, as shee did, that hee should be slaine in that iourney to Troy, whether he was requested to accompanie the other Grecian Lords. Touching the former wherof, to admitt, that Alexanders fact proceeded from a noble true heroicall minde, and that it was better the Persian Embassadours were slaine then the chastities of so many great Ladies should so dishonorably be overthrowne, or assailed: yet doeth it not folow that men might therefore lawfullie put womens raiment on to kill them; the thing might be cōvenient and good to be done, the meanes of doeing it not good. As