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.
John Rainolds 1549–1607Middelburg: printed by Richard Schilders, 1599
[8], 163, [1], 164-190, [1] p. · 74k words · STC 20616 · ESTC S115568
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.
I AM much to thank you, Master D. Gager, for both your letters, and your Tragedy: the more, for that you have enlarged the answer to Momus (as you signify) because you understood that I & others should ask why those things were not answered which were objected. Indeed, as our Saviour awhen he was smitten by one for speaking nought but reason, said, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why doest thou smite me? so they, whose objections against plays you attributed to the person of Momus, & thereby noted them as unjust reprovers, might justly say in my judgement; If our reasons be naught, discover their naughtiness; if good, why do you Mome us? And what so ever others had cause to think of them selves, yet I must needs think my self touched therein: although I should yield unto your request (which I most gladly do) in that you pray me, not to mistake your meaning; protesting your intent is not to note any man, but only Momus. For bI did reprove our Theatre-sights & Stage-plays, as 1hurtful and pernicious, many years ago: and this year, ere your Momus, or any of your Interludes came upon the stage, I had (in letters written to our good friend Master D. Thornton) alleged those reasons, which you make Momus use, against them. Now Aesopes tale of Momus (as cAristotle showeth in that your self mention of his reproving nature for setting bulls horns upon their heads, not upon their shoulders) was devised to check such as reprove unjustly the best and perfectest works of the most wise and skilful. To the which purpose sith you ⟨p. 2⟩
the rascal reproaches there specified, offendeth in the same sort: how can it be avoided, but I, who had uttered those things against plays, though deeming them sound reasons, not rascal reproaches, must think my self charged under the name of Momus? unless I should be so unwise as to suppose, that my friend a lawyer, saying, If Sempronius borrow a horse of Seius, and ride him a mile further, then Seius was content he should,
he committeth theft, the speech doeth not charge me with theft, though I had done so, because the lawyer meant not to charge me, whom he loveth, nor knew perhaps that I had done it; but his meaning was to charge Sempronius only.
I AM much to thanke you, Maister D. Gager, for both your letters, and your Tragedie: the more, for that you haue enlarged the answer to Momus (as you signifie) because you vnderstood that I & others should aske why those thinges were not aunswered which were obiected. Indeed, as our Savior awhen he was smitten by one for speaking nought but reason, saide, If I haue 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, & thereby noted them as vniust reproovers, might iustlie say in my iudgement; If our reasons be naught, discover their naughtines; if good, why doe you Mome vs? And what so euer others had cause to thinke of them selues, yet I must needes thinke my self touched therein: although I should yeeld vnto your request (which I most gladlie doe) in that you pray me, not to mistake your meaning; protesting your intent is not to note any man, but onely Momus. For bI did reprove our Theater-sights & Stage-playes, as 1hurtfull and pernicious, many yeares agoe: and this yeare, ere your Momus, or any of your Enterludes came vppon the stage, I had (in letters written to our good friend Maister D. Thornton) alleaged those reasons, which you make Momus vse, against them. Now Aesopes tale of Momus (as cAristotle sheweth in that your selfe mention of his reproving nature for setting bulles hornes vpon their heades, not vpon their shoulders) was devised to checke such as reproue vniustlie the best and perfitest works of the most wise and skilfull. To the which purpose sith you ⟨p. 2⟩rehearse it also, and inferre vpon it, that the man who taunteth playes with 2the rascall reproches there specified, offendeth in the same sorte: how can it bee avoided, but I, who had vttered those things against playes, though deeming them sounde reasons, not rascall reproches, must thinke my selfe charged vnder the name of Momus? vnlesse I should be so vnwise as to suppose, that my frende a lawier, saying, If Sempronius borow a horse of Seius, and ride him a mile farder, then Seius was content he should, dhe cōmitteth theft, the speech doeth not charge me with theft, though I had done so, because the lawier meant not to charge me, whom he loueth, nor knewe perhaps that I had done it; but his meaning was to charge Sempronius onelie.
Wherefore albeit you mean not to hot any man but only Momus, as you protest, and I believe you: yet you mean withal (I trow) the same that eTully, when having reproved the covetousness of Chieftains and Governors of their wars, I (quoth he) name no man; Wherefore no man can be angry with me, unless he will confess first of him self. Which I do not mention to prove that I have cause of being angry with you (be it far from me,) although I confess my self to have written those things which they, who speak, are stained with Momus name by you: but only to show that by your speech against Momus, notwithstanding your intent to note no man but him, yet you note us all, in him, as unjust reprovers of plays, who soever inveigh against them as he doeth. And this your self can not choose but see and grant, if you call to mind your verses ad Zoilum, and Epistle ad Criticum. For you will profess (I hope) that your intent is not to note any man but only Zoilus and Criticus: Yet, if any find such fault with your Tragedy, as you control them for: you will not deny but you mean to note him as a malicious Zoilus, and a carping Critic. Your words enforce so much, in that you tell the Critic, that who so carpeth at the baseness of your matter and style, doeth not blame you but Homer; And who so blameth Homer, he must needs be a Zoilus. I must pray you therefore, not to misdeem of me, that I mistake your meaning, ⟨p. 3⟩when I think you purposed to note generally all reprovers of plays, as unjust reprovers: and so do take my self, though not intended by the Censurer, who did not aim at me; yet touched by the censure, which in event doeth light upon me.
Wherefore albeit you meane not to hote any man but onelie Momus, as you protest, and I beleeue you: yet you meane withall (I trowe) the same that eTullie, when having reprooved the couetousnes of Chieftaines and Gouuernours of their warres, I (quoth hee) name no man; Wherefore no man can bee angie with me, vnlesse he will confesse first of him selfe. Which I doe not mention to proove that I haue cause of being angrie with you (be it farre from me,) although I confesse my selfe to haue written those things which they, who speake, are stained with Momus name by you: but onely to shewe that by your speach against Momus, notwithstanding your intent to note no man but him, yet you note vs all, in him, as vniust reproovers of playes, who soeuer inveigh against them as hee doeth. And this your selfe can not choose but see and graunt, if you call to minde your verses ad Zoilum, and Epistle ad Criticum. For you will professe (I hope) that your intent is not to note anie man but onely Zoilus and Criticus: Yet, if anie finde such fault with your Tragedie, as you controll them for: you will not denie but you meane to note him as a malitious Zoilus, and a carping Criticke. Your wordes inforce so much, in that you tell the Criticke, that who so carpeth at the basenes of your matter and style, doeth not blame you but Homer; And who so blameth Homer, he must needes be a Zoilus. I must pray you therfore, not to misdeeme of mee, that I mistake your meaning, ⟨p. 3⟩when I thinke you purposed to note generallie all reprovers of playes, as vniust reproovers: and so doe take my selfe, though not intended by the Censurer, who did not aime at mee; yet touched by the censure, whiche in event doeth light vppon mee.
As for that you add, that upon confidence of your own conscience, and the trueth of the things them selves, you assure your self, that I can not be displeased: I will assure you also that I mislike nothing in your entitling Momus unto our reasons of reproof, or in your answer to them, if, as you approve your cause of confidence on the one part, so you shall on the other. For your protestation of your own conscience doeth bind me by the law of charity to think that you have done this in singleness of heart, without spite and malice. But the trueth of the things themselves, that you challenge, belongeth to the reasons fathered on Momus, not to your answer, in my opinion. Whereof, least you suspect it to proceed rather from a conceited fancy, then a sound judgement, I will open to you my grounds and inducements: requesting you the same that fHorace did a friend of his; Si quid novisti rectius istis, Candidus imperti; si non, his utere mecum. And, because in weighing your answers with the reasons I shall be occasioned to name this or that part, by circumstances, of your plays, as Antinous, Eurymachus, Hippodamia, Melantho, the rest of Penelope's wooers, or her maids, Phemius, Irus, Rivals, Phaedra, or her Nurse: I must pray you to deal with me in this case, as you desired to be dealt with, that is, to take my words, as spoken of Histrio (to feign a person like your Momus) with no intent to note any of your players; no more, then if they had not seen the stage at all, but *Roscius & Aesopus had played those parts, not Christ-church-students. Whom, and you for them, I shall find the readier to grant this, I trust: because both my conscience doeth bear me witness before God, that I bear none of them evil will, nay, I wish unto them all as to my self; and I assure you I know not who they were that played any of those parts, nor what their names be.
As for that you adde, that vpon confidence of your owne conscience, and the trueth of the thinges them selves, you assure your selfe, that I can not bee displeased: I will assure you also that I mislike nothing in your entitling Momus vnto our reasons of reproofe, or in your answere to them, if, as you approoue your cause of confidence on the one parte, so you shall on the other. For your protestation of your own conscience doeth binde me by the law of charitie to thinke that you haue done this in singlenesse of heart, without spite and malice. But the trueth of the thinges themselves, that you chalenge, belongeth to the reasons fathered on Momus, not to your aunswere, in my opinion. Whereof, least you suspect it to proceede rather from a conceited fansie, then a sound iudgement, I will open to you my groundes and inducements: requesting you the same that fHorace did a frende of his; Si quid novisti rectius istis, Candidus imperti; si non, his utere mecum. And, because in weighing your aunswers with the reasons I shall bee occasioned to name this or that part, by circumstances, of your playes, as Antinous, Eurymachus, Hippodamia, Melantho, the rest of Penelopes wooers, or her maides, Phemius, Irus, Rivales, Phaedra, or her Nurse: I must pray you to deale with me in this case, as you desired to bee dealt with, that is, to take my wordes, as spoken of Histrio (to faine a person like your Momus) with no intent to note any of your players; no more, then if they had not seene the stage at all, but *Roscius & Aesopus had played those parts, not Christ-church-students. Whom, and you for them, I shall finde the readier to grant this, I trust: because both my conscience doeth beare me witnesse before God, that I beare none of them evill will, nay, I wish vnto them all as to my selfe; and I assure you I know not who they were that played any of those partes, nor what their names be.
To the first reason then (for I will take them in your own order) that Stage-players are infamous by the civill law, you answer that 3they are not all, but only such as play for gain sake: which you avouch is proved by the Praetors words. But that which you make the Praetor say, as distinguishing, Qui sui spectaculum Mercedis ergô praebet, infamis siet; the Praetor saith not. Nay, contrariwise ghe saith without all distinction, generally and simply: Infamia notatur, qui artis ludicrae, pronuntiandive causa, in scenam prodierit. And Ulpian (whose hplace you quote for proof thereof) doeth report him so, with these very words: Ait Praetor, Qui in scenam prodierit, "infamis est". But Ulpian, expounding these words of the Praetor, citeth some ilawyers saying, that they are infamous, qui quaestus causa in certamina descendunt, & propter praemium in scenam prodeunt: and hereof you conclude, that 4they, who come not forth into the stage for gain sake, are not infamous. By which kind of reasoning one might conclude likewise, that sith by kthe scripture a woman taking money for prostituting her body to men is infamous: therefore she is not so, who doeth it freely; much less, who giveth money to have her lovers company; whom yet lthe scripture counteth most infamous of all. Howbeit, had those lawyers, in adding, quaestus causa, intended your conclusion; which I know not whether they did, but admit it: nevertheless you know that a mlawyer also, perhaps more learned then they, hath made this note thereon, Immò & qui sine quaestu. omnes enim scenici probrosi. August. lib. 2. de civit. Dei, cap. 11. & tribu moveri soliti, Livius lib. 7. wherein, as he gathereth, that such as come upon the stage without gain, are proved by S. Augustin and Livy to be infamous, because S. Austin and Livy do show that all stage-players (free players not excepted) were branded with a mark of infamy & dishonesty, disfranchised in a sort: so he confirmeth hereby (which was and ought to be the drift of his note) that by law the players without gain are infamous, not only such as play for gain sake. And this do their words, whom he allegeth, imply, if they be unfolded and ⟨p. 5⟩weighed indifferently, according to the rules of law for doubts thence rising: to wit, that ncustom is the best interpreter of laws;
To the first reason then (for I will take them in your owne order) that Stage-players are infamous by the civill lawe, you aunswere that 3they are not all, but onely such as play for gaine sake: which you avouch is proved by the Praetors wordes. But that which you make the Praetor say, as distinguishing, Qui sui spectaculum Mercedis ergô praebet, infamis siet; the Praetor saith not. Nay, contrariwise ghe saith without all distinction, generallie and simplie: Infamia notatur, qui artis ludicrae, pronuntiandive causa, in scenam prodierit. And Ulpian (whose hplace you quote for proofe thereof) doeth report him so, with these verie words: Ait Praetor, Qui in scenam prodierit, "infamis est". But Vlpian, expounding these wordes of the Praetor, citeth some ilawiers saying, that they are infamous, qui quaestus causa in certamina descendunt, & propter praemium in scenam prodeunt: and hereof you conclude, that 4they, who come not foorth into the stage for gaine sake, are not infamous. By which kinde of reasoning one might conclude likewise, that sith by kthe scripture a woman taking mony for prostituting her body to men is infamous: therefore she is not so, who doeth it freelie; much lesse, who giveth mony to haue her lovers companie; whom yet lthe scripture counteth most infamous of all. Howbeit, had those lawiers, in adding, quaestus causa, intended your conclusion; which I knowe not whether they did, but admitte it: neverthelesse you know that a mlawier also, perhaps more learned then they, hath made this note thereon, Immò & qui sine quaestu. omnes enim scenici probrosi. August. lib. 2. de civit. Dei, cap. 11. & tribu moveri soliti, Livius lib. 7. wherein, as hee gathereth, that such as come vpon the stage without gaine, are prooved by S. Augustin and Livie to be infamous, because S. Austin and Livie doe shewe that all stage-players (free players not excepted) were branded with a marke of infamie & dishonestie, disfranchised in a sort: so he confirmeth hereby (which was and ought to bee the drift of his note) that by law the players without gaine are infamous, not onelie such as playe for gaine sake. And this doe their wordes, whom hee alleageth, implie, if they bee vnfolded and
3Famosus ergo est quisquis in scenā exiit? Praetor negabit.Famosus ergo est quisquis in scenā exiit? Praetor negabit.
gPraetoris verba dicunt. D. de his qui no tantur infamia. L. 1.
hL. 2 §. Ait Praetor.
iPegasus & Nerva filius.
4Non ergo quenquā scena, sed quaestus notat.Non ergo quenquā scena, sed quaestus notat.
and, oauthority of things still judged of alike hath the force of law. For S. pAugustin groundeth his 5general conclusion upon the ancient practise and order of the Romans testified by qTully: who saith that their ancestors, counting all kind of stage plays shameful and dishonest, agreed that such persons should not only want the honour of other citizens, but also be disfranchised by the controlment and check of Censors. Neither were they checked with this reproach and ignominy of old time alone, but in Livy's age too; yea, before, and after; at least, with the blemish and stain in mens opinion, though not with the punishment. rCornelius Nepos sayeth, that to come on the stage & be a spectacle to the people, was counted no dishonesty or shame among the Graecians; among the Romans it was. Laberius, a gentleman of Rome, taking pleasure in writing of poems, swhen Caesar prayed him to play them him self upon the stage, he yielded as constrained by the Princes request; but signified so much in his prologue, and declared withal what a blot it was unto him: Ego his tricenis annis actis sine nota, Eques Romanus è lare egressus meo, Domum revertar mimus: nimirum hoc die Uno plus vixi, mihi quàm vivendum fuit. tfuvenal, rebuking men of noble parentage tainted with like dishonour, doeth touch them under Lentulus name, with this censure: Laureolum velox etiam bene Lentulus egit, Judice me dignus vera cruce. So shameful a matter seemed it to him for Lentulus to play the part of Laureolus (one, who in a Tragedy was feigned to be hanged, as Melantho in yours) that he thought him worthy to be hanged in ea• est for it. Moreover, he prosecuteth the point in such sort, •at he cutteth off all opposition and reply, whereof else a show, but show alone, might be made against this testimony and the former. For the Grecians spoken of by Cornelius Nepos did come upon the stage for gain, at least 6some of them: though his speech concerning them (in the branch I cited) be general, like vTullies, without that limitation; and so must contrariwise be ⟨p. 6⟩meant touching the Romans. Laberius had a ring and money given him by Caesar: though he show sufficiently, that whereas no ambition, 7no reward ever, no fear, no force, no authority, could make him a stage-player in his youth; much less should it have done in his old age at three score years:
and, oautoritie of thinges still iudged of alike hath the force of law. For S. pAugustin groundeth his 5generall conclusion vpon the ancient practise and order of the Romans testified by qTullie: who saith that their auncestours, counting all kinde of stage playes shamefull and dishonest, agreed that such persons should not onely want the honour of other citizens, but also be disfranchised by the controlment and checke of Censors. Neither were they checked with this reproch and ignominie of olde time alone, but in Livies age too; yea, before, and after; at least, with the blemish and staine in mens opinion, •hough not with the punishment. rCornelius Nepos saieth, that to come on the stage & be a spectacle to the people, was coū ted no dishonestie or shame among the Graecians; among the Romans it was. Laberius, a gentleman of Rome, taking pleasure in writing of poemes, swhen Caesar prayed him to playe them him selfe vpon the stage, he yeelded as constrayned by the Princes request; but signified so much in his prologue, and declared withall what a blott it was vnto him: Ego his tricenis annis actis sine nota, Eques Romanus è lare egressus meo, Domum revertar mimus: nimirum hoc die Uno plus vixi, mihi quàm vivendum fuit. tfuvenal, rebuking men of noble parentage tainted with like dishonor, doeth touch them vnder Lentulus name, with this censure: Laureolum velox etiam bene Lentulus egit, Iudice me dignus vera cruce. So shamefull a matter seemed it to him for Lentulus to play the parte of Laureolus (one, who in a Tragedie was fained to be hanged, as Melantho in yours) that he thought him woorthie to be hanged in ea• est for it. Moreouer, he prosequuteth the point in such sorte, •at hee cutteth off all opposition and replie, whereof else a shewe, but shewe alone, might be made against this testimonie and the former. For the Grecians spoken of by Cornelius Nepos did come vpon the stage for gaine, at least 6
oL. 38. D. eod
pli. 2. de civ. Dei. cap. 13.
5Quisquis civium Romanorū esse scenicus elegisset. &c.Quisquis civium Romanorū esse scenicus elegisset. &c.
qDe repub. lib. 4.
rOr, Aemilius Probus, de vita excellent. imperat. praefat.Or, Aemilius Probus, de vita excellēt. imperat. praefat.
sMacrob. lib. 2. Satu. ca. 7.
tSatyr. 8.
6As the deg• nerate Lacedaemonian widows, whom he mentioneth.As the deg• nerate Lacedaemonian widowes, whom he mencioneth.
vLi. 4. de repub. August. de civit. Dei, lib. 2. cap. 10
it was necessity only, even Caesars request, that is, constraint, which brought him to it. The men of noble parentage, whom Juvenal rebuketh, were hired, as 8himself noteth; and the story of 9Nero, who bought those needy squires to do that service, recordeth: though Juvenal adjudgeth them unworthy of life, not only in respect that they played for their fee, but even that they played too; as may appear by that which followeth, Nec tamen ipse Ignoscas populo: populi frons durior huius, Quisedet & spectat triscurria patriciorum, Planipedes audit Fabios ridere potest qui Mamercorum alapas. For seeing that he findeth fault with the people, who sate & beheld the foul misorders & scurrilities (such as your Antinous & other wooers practise) of persons nobly borne; who heard the race of Fabius resembling & counterfeiting such base ridiculous things as are expressed in Irus; who could abide to laugh at blows & whirrets, given to the Mamercians, as you would say unto Ulysses. he showeth that the very action it self, all regard of lucre, or what soever motive had brought them to it, set apart, was dishonourable & shameful in his judgement. But his like or sharper inveighing against Nero, touching whom he addeth, 1that it was no marvel if noble men were stageplayers when the Prince was a minstrel, doeth put the matter out of doubt: in as much as he, comparing Nero to 2Orestes, both murderers of their mothers, maketh Nero worse in many respects, and this amongst them: In scena nunquam cantavit Orestes. Wherein, by "cantavit, he meaneth not only that Nero played a minstrels part upon the stage, as Phemius on yours: but also that he played the parts of men and women, perhaps with song alone, as your Hippodamia; perhaps with song and speech both, as Eurymachus; but parts of Men and Women certainly. This, obscurely signified by Juvenal himself, mentioning the ⟨p. 7⟩3tragical habit of Thyestes, Antigona, Menalippe, worn by the offspring of Domitius, that is, by Nero; xSuetonius maketh plainer; saying, Tragoedias cantavit personatus; and, Inter caetera cantavit Canacen parturientem, Orestem matricidam, Oedipodem excaecatum, Herculem insanum. In the last of which tragedies it is reported that a young soldier (one of Neros guard) being set to keep the entry, when he saw Nero attired and bound with Chains, as the argument required, he ran to him to help him;
it was necessitie onelie, euen Caesars request, that is, constraint, which brought him to it. The men of noble parentage, whom Iuvenal rebuketh, were hired, as 8himselfe noteth; and the storie of 9Nero, who bought those needie squires to doe that seruice, recordeth: though Iuvenal adiudgeth them vnworthy of life, not onelie in respect that they played for their fee, but euen that they played too; as may appeare by that which foloweth, Nec tamen ipse Ignoscas populo: populi frons durior huius, Quisedet & spectat triscurria patriciorum, Planipedes audit Fabios ridere potest qui Mamercorum alapas. For seeing that he findeth fault with the people, who sate & beheld the fowle misorders & scurrilities (such as your Antinous & other wooers practise) of persons nobly borne; who heard the race of Fabius resembling & couterfaiting such base ridiculous things as are expressed in Irus; who could abide to laugh at blowes & whirrets, giuen to the Mamercians, as you would say vnto Ulysses. he sheweth that the verie action it selfe, all regard of lucre, or what soeuer motiue had brought them to it, sett apart, was dishonorable & shamefull in his iudgement. But his like or sharper inveighing against Nero, touching whom he addeth, 1that it was no marvell if noble men were stageplayers whē the Prince was a minstrell, doeth put the matter out of doubt: in as much as he, comparing Nero to 2Orestes, both murderers of their mothers, maketh Nero worse in manie respectes, and this amongst them: In scena nunquam cantavit Orestes. Wherein, by "cantavit, he meaneth not onely that Nero played a minstrels part vpon the stage, as Phemius on yours: but also that he played the partes of men and women, perhaps with song alone, as your Hippodamia; perhaps with song and speech both, as Eurymachus; but partes of Men and Women certainlie. This, obscurelie signified by Iuvenal himselfe, mentioning the ⟨p. 7⟩3tragicall habit of Thyestes, Antigona, Menalippe, worne by the ofspring of Domitius, that is, by Nero; xSuetonius maketh playner; saying, Tragoedias cantavit personatus; and, Inter caetera cantavit Canacen parturientem, Orestem matricidam, Oedipodem excaecatum, Herculem insanum. In the last of which tragedies it is reported that a yong souldier (one of Neros gard) being sett to keepe the entrie, when hee sawe Nero attired and bound with Chaines, as the argument required, hee ranne to him to helpe him;
thinking (poor freshwater creature) that his master had been chained in earnest. Another, better acquainted then he with stage matters, and having served longer, ywhen Nero played the first of them, namely Canace, the soldier being asked by some who met him in the city what the Emperor was doing, He is travailing with child, quoth he. The singing then used upon the stage by Nero, for which Juvenal counteth him worse then Orestes, was his playing of mens and women's parts in tragedies. But Nero never played for gain: nay, he was so far from it, that, when a Praetor, who did set forth plays, offered him 4about eight thousand pound to be an actor, he took the pains, 5refused the money, disdaining to do ought for hire. Juvenal therefore counteth all stage-players infamous, not only such as played for gain. And what should I adjoin the testimonies of others, learned, unlearned; both sorts declaring what Roman citizens thought hereof? For beside Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio, &c who hath written of Nero that hath not attainted him with this reproach? the common people, even soldiers, reckoned his stage-playing among his vicious acts: as, zin a conspiracy that was made against him, he heard to his great grief; when Subrius Flavius, a Tribune, being demanded by him why he had sought his death, answered, Oderam te, nec quisquam tibi fidelior militum fuit, dum amari meruisti; odisse caepi, postquam parricida matris, & uxoris, auriga, histrio, & incendiarius extitisti: and Sulpitius Asper, answering more briefly to the same demande, saide, Non aliter tot flavigitiis ejus subveniri posse. Neither was it the baseness thereof in comparison of his ⟨p. 8⟩imperial Majesty, that they detested only, as his chariot-driving upbraided him withal might give cause to think, were it not a whelp too of 6the same litter: but the dishonesty and lewdness, which, accompanying commonly that trade, by many occasions incident into stage-plays, made such men infamous; and thereupon was noted, though as a more eminent fault in him then others, yet as a fault in others also. Pecuniam ob delicta dedit, saith aTacitus, telling how Nero brought those poor decayed gentlemen of noble houses to the stage: and blaming 7him, that he did not rather give them money to keep them from offending (so he termeth stage-playing of it self without gain) then to drive them to it.
thinking (poore freshwater creature) that his maister had bene chained in earnest. Another, better acquainted then hee with stage matters, and having served longer, ywhen Nero played the firste of them, namely Canace, the souldier beeing asked by some who mett him in the citie what the Emperour was doing, Hee is travailing with childe, quoth hee. The singing then vsed vpon the stage by Nero, for which Iuvenal counteth him worse then Orestes, was his playing of mens and wemens partes in tragedies. But Nero never played for gaine: nay, he was so farre from it, that, when a Praetor, who did sett foorth playes, offered him 4about eight thousand pound to be an actor, he tooke the paines, 5refused the mony, disdaining to doe ought for hire. Iuvenal therefore counteth all stage-players infamous, not onelie such as played for gaine. And what should I adioyne the testimonies of others, learned, vnlearned; both sortes declaring what Roman citizens thought hereof? For beside Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio, &c who hath written of Nero that hath not attainted him with this reproche? the common people, euen souldiers, reckened his stage-playing among his vitious acts: as, zin a conspiracie that was made against him, hee heard to his great grief; when Subrius Flavius, a Tribune, beeing demanded by him why he had sought his death, aunswered, Oderam te, nec quisquam tibi fidelior militum fuit, dum amari meruisti; odisse caepi, postquam parricida matris, & vxoris, auriga, histrio, & incendiarius extitisti: and Sulpitius Asper, aunswering more brieflie to the same demande, saide, Non aliter tot flavigitiis ejus subveniri posse. Neither was it the basenes thereof in comparison of his ⟨p. 8⟩imperiall Maiestie, that they detested onelie, as his chariot-driving vpbraided him withall might giue cause to thinke, were it not a whelpe too of 6the same litter: but the dishonestie and lewdnesse, which, accompanying commonly that trade, by many occasions incident into stage-playes, made such men infamous; and therevpon was noted, though as a more eminent fault in him then others, yet as a fault in others also. Pecuniam ob delicta dedit, saith aTacitus, telling how Nero brought those poore decayed gentlemen of noble houses to the stage: and blaming
yDio Ner. in Xiphili. epist.
4Sesteriûm decies. Suet. Ner. cap. 2• [Greek or Hebrew]. Dio.Sesteriûm decies. Suet. Ner. cap. 2•〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Dio.
5[Greek or Hebrew]. as Dio sayeth expressly: and Suetonius signifieth, not saying that it was given him but that a Praetor offered it.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. as Dio saieth expreslie: and Suetonius sig nifieth, not saying that it was giuē him but that a Praetor offered it.
zTacit. Annal. lib. 15.
6Circenses ludi. Sueton. Ner. cap. 22.
aAnnal. li. 14
7Eius flagitiū est qui pecuniam ob delicta potius debit, quàm ne delinquerentEius flagitiū est qui pecuniam ob delicta potius de•it, quàm ne delinquerent
And Dio, a Senator of Rome, well acquainted with their laws and orders by bsundry great offices of state borne among them, camplifying that injury done to more also, and to meaner persons then Tacitus speaketh of, nether all rewarded like them peradventure, sure Dio giving no inkling of that as the shame of it, saith, 8it was most shameful and grievous that they entered, some willing, some marvellous unwilling, but they entered, 9as the most infamous persons, to the stage, and played both tragedies & comedies. Wherefore sith the practise and judgement of the Romans noted all stage-players generally with infamy, not only such as played for gain: it followeth that the meaning of their law was general, and so all stage-players to be infamous by the civil law. Which law, if it deserve, though not the title of 1the best applied to it by your Momus, yet of 2good and godly, given it by you in the rehearsal of his words, as you will grant it doeth: I leave it to your own consideration, what credit your apology of those plays deserveth. Chiefly seeing Nero, whom that law condemned, might have used the same defence against his Momus, that you against yours, and knit it up with the same words; Quis hîc rogavit sportulam, vel quis dedit? Cui non patebant sponte sine lucro fores? And thus far of your answer to the first reason.
And Dio, a Senatour of Rome, well acquainted with their lawes and orders by bsundry great offices of state borne among them, camplifying that iniurie done to more also, and to meaner persons then Tacitus speaketh of, nether all rewarded like them peradventure, sure Dio giving no inkling of that as the shame of it, saith, 8it was most shamefull and grievous that they entred, some willing, some marvelous vnwilling, but they entred, 9as the most infamous persons, to the stage, and played both tragedies & comedies. Wherefore sith the practise and iudgement of the Romans noted all stage-players generally with infamie, not onely such as played for gaine: it foloweth that the meaning of their lawe was generall, and so all stage-players to bee infamous by the civil law. Which lawe, if it deserue, though not the title of 1the best applyed to it by your Momus, yet of 2good and godly, giuen it by you in the rehearsall of his wordes, as you will graunt it doeth: I leaue it to your owne consideration, what credit your apologie of those playes deserveth. Chieflie seeing Nero, whom that law condemned, might haue vsed the same defense against his Momus, that you against yours, and knit it vp with the same wordes; Quis hîc rogavit sportulam, vel quis dedit? Cui non patebant sponte sine lucro fores? And thus farr of your aunswer to the first reason.
2 To the next, drawn from the best law indeed, even the law of God dwhich forbiddeth a man to put on woman's raiment; ⟨p. 9⟩a thing though not distaining all stage-plays, yet wellnigh all, and there amongst all yours: you answer that 3it is not unlawful simply and always, as if one do it to save his life, to benefit many; & hereof you conclude, that to do it in plays is not unlawful. Of the which enthymeme (to call the trial of your arguments to the touchstone of Logic) the consequution doubtless is unsound and naught, whatsoever the antecedent be: and the antecedent, although in the balance of humane reason it may seem to have weight, yet if it be weighed in the escales of the sanctuary, will prove unsound and light too. For the holy Ghost, the Spirit of trueth teacheth us that fit is not lawful for us to do evil, that good may come thereof. When gChrist on a Sabbath day went through the corn, and his disciples were an hungered, they began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. The Pharisees reproved them for it; but unjustly: because it was not evil to work upon the Sabbath day in such a case. For by evil is hsin meant. iSin is the transgression of the law. The klaw allowed Priests to work on the Sabbath day in offering sacrifices. And lsacrifice did not please God in comparison of mercy. mTherefore to do that work of mercy and charity for the relief of hungry bodies upon the Sabbath day, was not evil. Contrariwise, when Peter nbeing in danger of trouble and vexation, if he had been known to be of Christs disciples, odid thereupon deny that he knew him, or had been with him: he was put in mind by Christs pwords & qdeeds, and he did acknowledge by rhis own tears, that he should not have done so. Why? Because he lied, and sto lye is evil; not allowed in any case by tour Lawgiver, no vnot for the defence of the glory of God, much less for the safety of man a xworm. By conference and laying of which things together we are taught this difference between the moral law, and the ceremonial, that the ceremonial was not enjoined to be kept absolutely and simply; and therefore ywhen it could not be kept without the breach of the moral law, the law of love and charity it yielded thereunto:
2 To the next, drawen from the best law indeed, euen the lawe of God dwhich forbiddeth a man to put on womans raiment; ⟨p. 9⟩a thing though not distaining all stage-playes, yet welnigh all, and there amongst all yours: you answer that 3it is not vnlawfull simply and alwayes, as if one doe it to saue his life, to benefit many; & hereof you conclude, that to do it in playes is not vnlawfull. Of the which enthymeme (to call the triall of your argumentes to the touchstone of Logicke) the consequution doutlesse is vnsound and naught, whatsoever the antecedent bee: and the antecedent, although in the balance of humane reason it may seeme to haue weight, yet if it be weighed in the eskales of the sanctuarie, will proove vnsound and light too. For the holy Ghost, the Spirite of trueth teacheth vs that fit is not lawfull for vs to doe evill, that good may come thereof. When gChrist on a Sabbat day went through the corne, and his disciples were an hungred, they began to plucke the eares of corne and to eate. The Phariseis reprooved them for it; but vniustlie: because it was not evill to woorke vpon the Sabbat day in such a case. For by evill is hsinne meant. iSinne is the transgression of the law. The klaw allowed Priestes to worke on the Sabbat day in offering sacrifices. And lsacrifice did not please God in comparison of mercy. mTherefore to doe that worke of mercie and charitie for the reliefe of hungrie bodies vpon the Sabbath day, was not euill. Contrariwise, when Peter nbeing in danger of trouble and vexation, if he had bene known to be of Christes disciples,
3Semper• Quid si cogeret lethi metus Mutare vestem? publicum quid si bonū suaderet? and, Non ergo juveni est gr• de simpliciter nefas, Mollem puellā induere.Semper• Quid si cogeret lethi metus Mutare vestem? publicum quid si bonū suaderet? and, Non ergo juveni est gr• de simpliciter nefas, Mollem puellā induere.
but the moral law is simply and absolutely enjoined to be kept, as a pattern of that ⟨p. 10⟩holiness which God requireth in zhis children, aBe ye holy, for I am holy; and therefore, bwho so breaketh any part thereof, though to keep an other part, doeth defile himself, and displease the Highest. Now, the prohibition of men to be attired as women, women as men, belongeth to the moral, not to the ceremonial law. For cChrist hath delivered us from the keeping of the ceremonial. So that, were this difference of attire a ceremony, then Christian men and women might e•h continually wear the others raiment: as lawfully; as they may dwear a garment made of linen & woollen; sow their field with maslin; eplough with an ox and an ass; feat of swines flesh; of gblood; of strangled: if not more lawfully rather then these last, which hthe Apostles did forbid the Gentiles for a time, in respect of the Jews. But they may not wear each the others raiment: as the general precepts absolutely given in ithe new testament touching the distinct and several attire of both sexes, show. It is a commandment therefore of the moral law, that women shall not attire them selves like men, nether men like women. And hereof it followeth that if a man might save his life, or benefit many, by putting on woman's raiment, yet ought he not to do it, because it is evil. Nay (which addeth greater weight unto the reason) it is a notorious and detestable evil: as kthe Spirit showeth by the words ensuing, For all that do so are abomination to the Lord thy God. And seeing that himself hath given this censure, God forbid but we should think it most true and just: although our weak eyesight could discern no cause, why so small a matter, as flesh and blood might count it, should be controlled so sharply. Howbeit, if we mark with judgement and wisdom, first, how this precept is referred by learned Divines to the commandment lThou shalt not commit adultery, some mexpressly making it a point annexed thereto, some impliedly, in that either nthey knit it to modesty, a part of temperance, or onote the breach of it as joined with wantonness and impurity: next, among the kinds of adulterous lewdness how filthy and monstrous a psin against nature mens natural corruption and viciousness is prone to;
but the morall lawe is simply and absolutely enioyned to be kept, as a paterne of that ⟨p. 10⟩holinesse which God requireth in zhis children, aBe yee holy, for I am holy; and therefore, bwho so breaketh any part thereof, though to keepe an other parte, doeth defile himselfe, and displease the Highest. Now, the prohibitiō of men to be attired as wemen, wemen as men, belongeth to the morall, not to the ceremoniall law. For cChrist hath delivered vs frō the keeping of the ceremoniall. So that, were this difference of attire a ceremonie, then Christian men and wemen might e•h cōtinuallie weare the others rayment: as lawfully; as they may dweare a garment made of linen & wollen; sow their field with maslin; eplow with an oxe and an asse; feate of swines flesh; of gblood; of strangled: if not more lawfullie rather then these last, which hthe Apostles did forbid the Gentiles for a time, in respect of the Iewes. But they may not weare ech the others raiment: as the generall precepts absolutelie giuen in ithe new testament touching the distinct and severall attire of both sexes, shew. It is a cōmandment therfore of the morall law, that wemen shall not attire them selves like men, nether men like wemen. And hereof it foloweth that if a man might saue his life, or benefit many, by putting on womans raimēt, yet ought he not to do it, because it is euill. Nay (which addeth greater weight vnto the reason) it is a notorious and detestable euill: as kthe Spirite sheweth by the words ensuing, For all that doe so are abomination to the Lord thy God. And seeing that himself hath giuen this censure, God forbid but we should thinke it most true and iust: although our weake eyesight could discerne no cause, why so small a matter, as flesh and blood might countit, should be controlled so sharpelie. Howbeir, if wee marke with iudgement and wisedome, first, how this precept is referred by learned Divines to the cōmandment
the Scripture ⟨p. 11⟩witnesseth it in qCanaanites, rJews, sCorinthians, tother in other nations, & vone with special caution, Nimium est quod intelligitur: thirdlie, what sparkles of lust to that vice the putting of women's attire on men may kindle in unclean affections, as xNero showed in Sporus, yHeliogabalus in him self; yea certain, who grew not to such excess of impudency, yet arguing the same in causing their zboys to wear long hear like women: if we consider these things, I say, we shall perceive that he, who acondemneth the female whore and male, and, bdetesting specially the male by terming him a dog, rejecteth both their offerings with these words that they both are abomination to the Lord thy God, might well control likewise the means and occasions whereby men are transformed into dogs, the sooner, to cut off all incitements to that beastly filthiness, or rather more then beastly. But whether this were part of the cause that moved the Spirit of God, or no: it is clear and certain that he pronounceth them abominable in his sight, or (as the Hebrews speak more forcibly) abomination, whosoever put on the different sexes raiment. And so, it being simply and absolutely unlawful, because it is forbidden by the moral law, and proved to be evil, a foul abominable evil in Gods sight: the Christian faith instructeth us that we may not do it for any good to come thereof, no not for the saving of honour, wealth, or life, of others, or our selves. The arguments, whereby you strive to prove the contrary, are drawn from two examples: One of the Macedonians, whose king Amyntas entertaining Persian ambassadors, & having at their request brought noble women to the banquet, when the ambassadors dallying with them did touch their breasts, & offered some to kiss them; 4the kings son, misliking their lascivious actions, desired them to give the women leave to go forth, pretending they should return neater, & so by his direction there came in their steed young men, attired like them, with daggers under their garments, who slew the ambassadors as soon as they offered to touch them:
the Scripture ⟨p. 11⟩witnesseth it in qCananites, rIewes, sCorinthians, tother in other nations, & vone with speciall caution, Nimium est quod intelligitur: thirdlie, what sparkles of lust to that vice the putting of wemens attire on men may kindle in vncleane affections, as xNero shewed in Sporus, yHeliogabalus in him selfe; yea certaine, who grew not to such excesse of impudencie, yet arguing the same in causing their zboyes to weare long heare like wemen: if we consider these things, I say, we shall perceiue that hee, who acondemneth the female hoore and male, and, bdetesting speciallie the male by terming him a dogge, reiecteth both their offeringes with these wordes that they both are abomination to the Lorde thy God, might well controll likewise the meanes and occasions whereby men are transformed into dogges, the sooner, to cutt off all incitements to that beastlie filthines, or rather more then beastlie. But whether this were part of the cause that moved the Spirit of God, or no: it is cleere and certaine that hee pronounceth them abominable in his sight, or (as the Hebrues speake more forciblie) abomination, whosoeuer put on the different sexes raiment. And so, it being simplie and absolutelie vnlawfull, because it is forbidden by the morall law, and proved to be evill, a fowle abominable evill in Gods sight: the Christian faith instructeth vs that wee may not doe it for any good to come thereof, no not for the saving of honor, wealth, or life, of others, or our selues. The argumēts, wherby you striue to proue the contrarie, are drawen from two exāples: One of the Macedonians, whose king Amyntas entertaining Persian ambassadors, & having at their request broght noble wemen to the banket, when the embassadours dalying with them did touch their brests, & offred some to kisse them;
4Veste filius Amyntae indui Juvenes muli•bri dumb jubet, tot faeminis Claris pudorem ser var, & petulantiam Persis superbā coed praeclara excutit.Veste filius Amyntae indui Iuvenes muli•bri dum iubet, tot faeminis Claris pudorem ser var, & petulātiam Persis superbā coede praeclara excutit.
The other of Achilles, whose mother Thetis, at the time of the Trojan war, knowing (as Poets feign) that he should ⟨p. 12⟩dye at Troy, if he went thither with the Grecians, did thereupon attire him (they say) as a woman, and committed him as her daughter to Lycomedes king of Scyros, 5there to be kept safe from that danger. For hence you conclude that a man may lawfully putt on woman's raiment to benefit others, to save his life; because the Macedonians, by their young Princes motion, and Achilles did so. Which argument if it hold, then may a man lye to save his life, or benefit others, because cDavid did so: then may a man forswear to save his life, or benefit others, because dPeter did so. For the examples of eProphets and fApostles are surer grounds to build on, then of Achilles or Macedonians. But you will not say that we may forswear, nor lye (I hope) for any cause; sure the Scripture will not, neither the gbest Divines; no not hSchoolmen, or iCanonists, which yet in many points are far beneath the best. you must remember therefore that we are to live by laws, not by examples: and regard in Macedonia, and Greece, as in kRome, not what is done there, but what ought to be done there. Else, by these very examples that you stand o•, not only kings, but also their sons may put to death; and that, for wanton touching, not only for adultery; nor their own subjects alone, but foreign ambassadors; yea, their servants also, though innocent and guiltless; and make a booty of their carriage, their treasure, their furniture; all against the kings advise and commandment: for lso did the son of Amyntas. And a man, whose country doeth need and crave his service in lawful war against their enemies, may, for fear of death, use mVettienus his shifts to keep at home; a youth, that is in love, may put on maidens raiment, as nChaerea did the Eunuchs for his Pamphilaes sake; a son may obey his mother, not oin the Lord, but against the Lord, and by her commandment behave him self undutifully, cowardly, wantonly: for pso did the son of Thetis. Wherein by the way you may observe too, both what inconvenience and danger of uncleanness cleaveth to this practise: and how Heathen men by the light of nature did descry the shamefulness of it and condemned it.
The other of Achilles, whose mother Thetis, at the time of the Troian warre, knowing (as Poëts faine) that hee should ⟨p. 12⟩dye at Troy, if he went thither with the Grecians, did thervpo• attire him (they say) as a woman, and committed him as her daughter to Lycomedes king of Scyros, 5there to bee kept safe from that danger. For hence you conclude that a man may lawfully putt on womans raiment to benefit others, to saue his life; because the Macedonians, by their young Princes motion, and Achilles did so. Which argument if it holde, then may a man lye to saue his life, or benefit others, because cDavid did so: then may a man forsweare to saue his life, or benefite others, because dPeter did so. For the examples of eProphets and fApostles are surer groundes to build on, then of Achilles or Macedonians. But you will not say that wee may forsweare, nor lye (I hope) for any cause; sure the Scripture will not, neither the gbest Divins; no not hSchoolemen, or iCanonistes, which yet in many points are farre beneth the best. you must remember therefore that wee are to liue by lawes, not by examples: and regard in Macedonie, and Greece, as in kRome, not what is done there, but what ought to bee done there. Else, by these verie examples that you stand o•, not onelie kinges, but also their sonnes may put to death; and that, for wanton touching, not onelie for adulterie; nor their owne subiects alone, but forein embassadours; yea, their servants also, though innocent and giltlesse; and make a bootie of their cariage, their treasure, their furniture; all against the kinges advise and commaundement: for l
5Vitā tu•tur filius Thetidis suam.Vitā tu•tur filius Thetidis suam.
gJustin. Mart. apolog. ad Anton. Impe. August. li. de mendacio, & contra mendacium: and others of the soundest Fathers. Calvin Tremellius, Junius, in Exod. 1. & the rest of ours.Iustin. Mart. apolog. ad Anton. Impe. August. li. de mendacio, & contra mendacium: and others of the soundest Fathers. Calvin Tremellius, Iunius, in Exod. 1. & the rest of ours.
For as ⟨p. 13⟩he whose fact 6your self adjudge wicked Clodius I mean, qdid satisfy his villainous lust with Caesars wife by cladding him self in woman's raiment: semblably Achilles deflowered Deidamia, king Lycomedes daughter, by the same occasion. And Statius, who reporteth the story (so to term it with 7you) most exactly, saith rthat Chiron, the instructor and bringer up of Achilles, would not have suffered his mother to have had him away, Si molls habitus & tegmina foedafateri Ausa foret: that Calchas the Prophet, being filled wth Apollos spirit, cried out, O scelus, en fluxae veniunt in pectora vests; Scinde puer, scinde, & timidae ne creed parenti: that Achilles him self did say unto Deidamia, Neque ego hos cultus, aut foeda subissem Tegmina, ni primo te visa in littore; and sunto his mother, Paruimus genitrix, quanquam haud toleranda jubebas, Paruimus nimium; and unto Ulysses, that Maternum nefas had caused him to put on indecores, fatorum crimina, cultus▪ The with resolutions and speeches being attributed to heathen men by an heathen, and him an excellent Poet, who so well discerned what was fit and seemly for every one to speak and think, that in this respect he is preferred by a tlearned judicious author before Homer; do argue and declare, that wise & virtuous persons, represented in Chiron, would not have a man for safeguard of his life undergo the shame of wearing woman's raiment; that religious folk having the Spirit of GOD, as Calchas is imagined, accounted it a heinous crime, and wished children to rent such raiment when it were put on, and therein disobey their parents; that ingenuous valiant youths, like Achilles, may be ensnared for love sake to wear it, not for life; and do it for reverence of parents, though with grief; and lay the fault afterward upon their mothers, and the destinies, that they were tainted with such dishonour. Thus is it apparent even by the example which your self commend, that, as S. vPaul observeth on the like occasion, nature and scripture •each the same: and the moral law of God, and law of nature, agreeing both in one, do prove it to be simply unlawful and evil for men to put on women's raiment. But suppose it were ⟨p. 14⟩not unlawful simply & always, because a xgreat Divine saith it is a great question whether a man may do it to deliver his country from an enemy, though 8him self seem to approve the negative;
For as ⟨p. 13⟩hee whose fact 6your selfe adiudge wicked Clodius I meane, qdid satisfie his vilanous lust with Caesars wife by cladding him selfe in womans raiment: semblably Achilles deflowred Deidamia, king Lycomedes daughter, by the same occasion. And Statius, who reporteth the storie (so to terme it with 7you) most exactlie, saith rthat Chiron, the instructer and bringer vp of Achilles, would not haue suffered his mother to haue had him away, Si molles habitus & tegmina foedafateri Ausa foret: that Calchas the Prophet, being filled wth Apollos spirit, cryed out, O scelus, en fluxae veniunt in pectora vestes; Scinde puer, scinde, & timidae ne crede parenti: that Achilles him selfe did say vnto Deidamia, Neque ego hos cultus, aut foeda subissem Tegmina, ni primo te visa in littore; and svnto his mother, Paruimus genitrix, quanquam haud toleranda jubebas, Paruimus nimium; and vnto Ulysses, that Maternum nefas had caused him to put on indecores, fatorum crimina, cultus▪ The wich resolutions and speeches being attributed to heathen men by an heathen, and him an excellent Poet, who so well discerned what was fitt and seemely for every one to speak and thinke, that in this respect he is preferred by a tlearned iudicious autor before Homer; doe argue and declare, that wise & vertuous persons, represented in Chiron, would not haue a man for safegard of his life vndergoe the shame of wearing womans raiment; that religious folke having the Spirit of GOD, as Calchas is imagined, accounted it a heinous crime, and wished children to rent such raiment when it were put on, and therein disobey their parents; that ingenuous valiant youths, like Achilles, may be ensnared for loue sake to weare it, not for life; and doo it for reuerence of parents, though with griefe; and lay the fault afterward vpon their mothers, and the destenies, that they were tainted with such dishonour. Thus is it apparant euen by the example which your selfe commende, that, as S. vPaul obserueth on the like occasion, nature and scripture each the same: and the moral law of God, and law of nature, agreeing both in one, doo prooue it to be simply vnlawfull and evill for men to put on wemens raiment. But suppose it were
6Mollem puellā induere, scelus est Clodio; Non est Achilli: Clodius stuprum parrot.Mollem puellā induere, scelus est Clodio; Non est Achilli: Clodius stuprum parat.
qSueton. in Caes. cap. 74.
7Id quod crebra testari p• test Historia.
rAchilleid. lib. […].Achilleid. lib. 〈…〉.
sLib. 2.
tJulius Caes. Scaliger. Poet. lib. 6. ca. 6Iulius Caes. Scaliger. Poet. lib. 6. ca. 6
and a certain ySchoolman, affirming it to be evil and naught of it self, sayeth that it may nevertheless be done for necessity, perhaps zupon I know not what conceit of somewhat ceremonial in it; but suppose a man might do it for the saving of his life or country: yet your reason faileth in the consequution, that a man may therefore do it to play a part in comedies or tragedies. aDavid, when he was hungry, did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat: and our Saviour showeth that he did well therein. But if he had done it in sport and of a merriment, when no need enforced: the law, which bcondemned a man for gathering sticks upon the Sabbath day, would have condemned him too. The grave Athenian Judges, Areopagitae did never punish any (I trow) for killing quails to supply his want. But, cwhen a lewd boy did pick out quails eyes of a wanton humour, they judged him worthy of death for it. Good Emperors have dallowed men to do their works of tillage and husbandry on the Sunday, when other days the season serveth not. What? to have stage-plays upon the Sunday therefore, or running of horses, or bearbaitings? No: they edisallowed it. He that should spend his life as fSamson did, in avenging him self of the Philistines, might have the same testimony of faith which gSamson had. But if one should spend it to show men Theatre-pastime, as hthat fellow did who played Icarus before Nero, and falling down near to his chamber, sprinkled him with blood; well might he earn the praise of Icarus. Wherefore albeit a man for the performance of necessary duties might putt on women's raiment: yet would it not follow thereof, that he may do it to play a part in Interludes; Much less will that conclusion follow, which in stead hereof you set down generally, thereby to fetch about this hidden conclusion. For you do infer, as proved by those examples with the contrary of Clodius, that 9it is no fault for young men to wear women's raiment, but to do it (as ⟨p. 15⟩Clodius) with a lewd intent of committing whoredom, beguiling, and deceiving: neither doeth any apparel, but the mind, make a man dishonest. And so assuming hereto, that lnone of your young men, who were attired like women, had any such intent or meaning; you imply by consequence that it was no fault for them to be attired so;
and a certaine ySchoolman, affirming it to be euill and naught of it selfe, saieth that it may neuerthelesse be done for necessitie, perhaps zvpon I know not what conceit of somewhat ceremonial in it; but suppose a man might doe it for the sauing of his life or countrie: yet your reason faileth in the consequution, that a man may therefore doe it to play a part in comedies or tragedies. aDauid, when he was hungry, did eate the shewbread, which was not lawfull for him to eate: and our Sauiour sheweth that he did well therein. But if he hah done it in sport and of a meriment, when no neede enforced: the law, which bcondemned a man for gathering stickes vpon the Sabbatday, would haue condemned him too. The graue Athenian Iudges, Areopagitae did never punish any (I trow) for killing quailes to supply his want. But, cwhē a lewd boy did picke out quailes eyes of a wanton humor, they iudged him worthy of death for it. Good Emperours haue dallowed men to doe their workes of tillage and husbandrie on the Soonday, when other dayes the season serveth not. What? to haue stage-playes vpon the Soonday therefore, or running of horses, or bearebaytings? No: they edisallowed it. He that should spende his life as fSamson did, in avenging him selfe of the Philistines, might haue the same testimonie of faith which gSamson had. But if one should spende it to shewe men Theater-pastime, as hthat fellowe did who played Icarus before Nero, and falling down neere to his chamber, sprinkled him with blood; wel might he earne the praise of Icarus. Wherefore albeit a man for the performance of necessarie dueties might putt on womens raiment: yet would it not folow thereof, that he may doe it to play a part in Enterludes; Much lesse will that conclusion followe, which in steede hereof you sett downe generallie, thereby to fetch about this hidden cōclusion. For you doe inferre, as proved by those examples with the contrarie of Clodius, that
9Non ergo vestis foeminca juveni est scelus; Sed prava mens, libido, malitia ac dolus: nec habitus ullus, sed animus turpem facit.Nō ergo vestis foeminca iuveni est scelus; Sed prava mens, libido, malitia ac dolus: nec habitus ullus, sed animus turpem facit.
lQuid simil• nobis obijcere quisquā potest? Quid cogitatum tale? quisQuid simil• nobis obijcere quisquā potest? Quid cogitatum tale? quis
no reward ever, no feare, no force, no authoritie, could make him a stage-player in his youth; much lesse should it haue done in his olde age at three score yeares:
him, that hee did not rather giue them mony to keepe them from offending (so hee termeth stage-playing of it selfe without gaine) then to driue them to it.
woorme. By conference and laying of which thinges together we are taught this difference betwene the morall law, and the ceremoniall, that the ceremoniall was not enioyned to be kept absolutelie and simply; and therefore
mCalvin. harmon. in lib. Mos. expos. sept. precept. Beza leg. Dei mor. cereino. & Posit. D. Babingt. exposit. of the command.Calvin. harmon. in lib. Mos. expos. sept. praecept. Beza leg. Dei mor. cereino. & Posit. D. Babingt. exposit. of the command.
nProcopius in Deut. Thom. Aquin. 2•. 2• q. 169. art. 2. Hyperius de fer. Bacchā.Procopius in Deut. Thom. Aquin. 2•. 2• q. 169. art. 2. Hyperius de fer. Bacchā.
oCyprian. epi. 61. Chrysost. hom. 38. in Mat. Liran. in Deut. 22.Cypriā. epi. 61. Chrysost. hom. 38. in Mat. Liran. in Deute. 22.
the kings sonne, misliking their lascivious actions, desired thē to giue the wemen leaue to go forth, pretēding they should returne neater, & so by his directiō there came in their steed yong men, attired like them, with daggers vnder their garmentes, who slew the embassadours as soone as they offered to touch them:
so did the sonne of Amyntas. And a man, whose countrie doeth need and craue his seruice in lawfull warre against their enemies, may, for feare of death, vse
so did the sonne of Thetis. Wherein by the way you may obserue too, both what inconvenience and danger of vncleannesse cleaveth to this practise: and how Heathen men by the light of nature did descry the shamefulnesse of it and condemned it.
it is no fault for young men to weare womens raiment, but to doe it (as
⟨p. 15⟩
Clodius) with a lewde intent of committing whoredome, beguiling, and deceyving: neither doeth anie apparell, but the minde, make a man dishonest. And so assuming hereto, that
none of your young men, who were attired like women, had anie such intent or meaning; you implie by consequence that it was no fault for them to be attired so;
