A10335:65
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.
For the trueth and equity of that which I said in defence of the reasons fathered on Momus to the reproof of plays, is so undoubted and manifest of it self; that men of understanding and sense, who should compare your reply with it, must (though I kept silence) needs perceive your stomach was sick of that 3hunger, which for an inordinate appetite it breedeth, xPhysicians call 4the dogged appetite: more greedily disposed to devour and swallow up all that it met with, then able to concoct or to retain well ought that it had taken. A proof hereof you give in your very beginning by crossing of my proem. Wherein I having thanked you for that by enlarging your answer to Momus, you showed why you thought our reasons to be naught, sith that your reproving thereof did touch me also, who took them not to be rascal reproaches, as you termed them, but sound reasons: every branch hereof you carp and check. But how? First, where I had written, that as our Saviour, when he was smitten by one for speaking naught 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, might justly say in my judgement, If our reasons be naught, discover their naughtiness; if good, why do you Mome us? You reply, that no man can rightly say to you, If our reasons be naught, discover their ⟨p. 47⟩naughtiness; if good, why do you Mome us? as Christ might truly say, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why doest thou smite me? because he undoubtedly had said nothing but reason, and therefore was most unjustly smitten; but the objections in your case and against you, are most untrue, and there is no man smitten by you. Then which speech of yours (I pray you be not offended with me for my plainness) I never read any, to my remembrance, more void of reason. For our Saviours dilemma (according to ythe natural force of that argument) was made to apprehend and hold fast his adversary whether soever him self had spoken, evil, or well. So that, when the