A10335:173
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.
Hereto would be annexed that, which in the fourth and, last head of reasons, you urge again concerning our Universities judgement for the approbation of your plays in general: if your interlaced defence of wasteful cost in setting forth thereof (the only point remaining besides) were discussed. And this is easily done, considering what hath been already proved against you touching the inconveniences and mischiefs of your plays. For having made Momus object the great charges; which how great they were, you know better then I, who summed them perhaps too much beneath the due when I did mention thirty pound; but having made him say that it should have been bestowed on the poor rather, you take him up with three answers: one, that the money was your own, not his; an other, that the charge, though great to him, was mean to you; the third, that none would give the less to the poor for that, none would have given the more without it. All the which I showed to be of no force for warranting of expenses on things of that quality, because, both unhonest spending of a mans own, is wastefulness & riot, condemned by our Saviour in the prodigal son: and, as Nero giving much to get a Plaudit, was the less able to help the poor by so much, and the less willing too perhaps; in like ⟨p. 144⟩sort may you be. Hereupon you demand of me, What similitude is there, or can there be, between the prodigal son, that in such a sort, as he did, spent all, and brought him self to the extremest misery; and between your expense? A question, which you would not have pressed, as you do; for your unlikeness to him in that he wasted all, and brought him self to extreme misery thereby: if you had considered that 3word in the original text of the Gospel, whereto my quotation for iriot did direct you. For usually it noteth the quality of expenses made by loose & wanton persons on their pleasures, as in foreign writers, kAristotle and lTully; so in mScripture likewise: and, to that effect in the same parable of the prodigal son is it said