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…

So many heads, so many wits: your fancy lead you an other way. And therefore, according to the young Scholars axiom, that always when both the premises are true, the conclusion must be denied: You deny that the playing of your tragedies and comedy is to be misliked and censured as unlawful. To the fine persuading whereof you take advantage by somewhat that I said: and the point of my sword, which pierceth through the heart of your defence of plays, you strive (though in vain, for want of strength) to draw out, and turn against my self. For, because I amplified the unlawfulness of the thing by the inconvenience and hurt which it breedeth, principally to the actors, in whom the earnest care of lively representing the lewd demeanour of bad persons doeth work a great impression of waxing like unto them; next, to the spectators, whose manners are corrupted by seeing and hearing such matters so expressed: you encounter me herein with two disputes; one, that neither the spectators of your plays, nor the actors, could receive any hurt thereby; an other, that no evil affections could be stirred up thereby, but rather good. Which points it is a world to see how you struggle to prove by shows of reason; and it will not fadge. Besides, were they proved: my conclusion standeth nevertheless entire, because neither of them doeth touch a hear of the premises. The shows of reason first, whereby you would prove that neither the spectators, nor actors could receive any hurt by your plays, are these; that for your penning ⟨p. 109⟩you are base and mean, as I see, (so you tell me) and specially for womanly behaviour you were so careless, that when one of your actors should have made curtsy like a woman, he made a leg like a man; and your spectators could not greatly charge your actors with any such diligence in meditation and care to imprint any passions. Of which three assertions the last is already disproved in part by Nais: and your self, qualifying it with the word greatly, declare that in your conscience your actors might be charged with earnest meditation and care to imprint passions, though not greatly charged. The middest, of one actor forgetting his woman hood, doeth no more argue that you were earelesse for womanly behaviour, and for other also, but specially for womanly:

So many heads, so many wittes: your fansie lead you an other way. And therefore, according to the young Scholers axiome, that alwayes when both the praemisses are true, the conclusion must be denied: You deny that the playing of your tragedies and comedie is to bee misliked and censured as vnlawfull. To the fine perswading whereof you take advantage by somewhat that I said: and the point of my sworde, which pearceth through the heart of your defense of playes, you striue (though in vaine, for want of strength) to draw out, and turne against my selfe. For, because I amplified the vnlawfulnes of the thing by the inconvenience and hurt which it breedeth, principally to the actors, in whom the earnest care of liuely representing the lewde demeanour of bad persons doeth worke a great impression of waxing like vnto them; next, to the spectators, whose maners are corrupted by seeing and hearing such matters so expressed: you encounter mee herein with two disputes; one, that neither the spectators of your playes, nor the actors, could receve any hurt thereby; an other, that no evill affections could bee stirred vp thereby, but rather good. Which points it is a worlde to see how you struggle to proove by shewes of reason; and it will not fadge. Besides, were they prooved: my conclusion standeth neverthelesse entier, because neither of them doeth touch a heare of the praemisses. The shewes of reason firste, wherby you would proove that neither the spectators, nor actors could receue any hurt by your playes, are these; that for your penning