A10335:83
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.
Or if they thought the Praetors edict to have that meaning, which perhaps they did: then they come too short of his meaning somewhat, and are well corrected therefore by Gothofredus. Now you, to prove the contrary and disprove my proofs, affirm that pNerva and Pegasus add those words 8for gain sake to distinguish players for gain from free players, which, you say, is manifest: and again as manifest, you say, that Ulpian doeth approve their distinction. But if you thought good to confirm this point, whereof I showed only what cause I had to doubt, I denied it not: you should bring strong arguments to convince they do so, not idle affirmations that it is manifest they do. For what if a wealthy and lascivious courtesan should say that qMoses mentioneth the hire of the whore, to distinguish mercenary whores from free and frank dames, as it is manifest: and again, as manifest that the rProphets do approve his distinction? were there any weight in this to persuade us that Moses and the Prophets mention the whores hire to distinguish hired whores from defilers of them selves without hire; unhonest from honest; infamous from praise-worthy: and not to note rather that such as play the whores do it for hire commonly? You add, that Glossa communis, Baldus, Petrus de Castro (would you not say Paulus? for Petrus I can not hear of) and all whom you have seen upon that text of law do so understand it. This is an argument yet: though not strong enough. For all, whom you have seen, understand it so. It may be. But others, who have seen more law-books, perhaps can tell you of many that understand it otherwise. My self, as few as I have seen, can tell you of two; sBudaeus, and an Author of a Greek abridgement of the Civill law, whom Budaeus citeth. For the Greek author doth ⟨p. 63⟩expound it thus, That all, who try masteries in solemn games for gain sake, are infamous: 9