A10335:93
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.
and by public order provide for the doing of them, 5because they thought them pleasant to their devilish Goddess, whose wrathful plagues they feared, if they should omit them. And thus, for the rest of their plays also, whether made to pacify 6the mother of their Gods, or 7any of her children, they thought it a necessary devotion to set them out, a stately magnificence to set them out bravely; yet did they repute the players thereof infamous, as Tully, Livy, the Praetor, Ulpian, all consent; though withal discrediting thereby both Gods and plays, as xAustin and yTertullian note. How much the more strange doeth your boldness seem, not only to pronounce that the Romans would not have suffered such things to be performed by infamous persons; but to say, as bringing a proof thereof too, that you can not think it, I can not think that they would have suffered it. And can you think that this is a seemly thing, or tolerable, in a matter of fact, proved by the uniform consent of so many and so worthy witnesses, for you to contradict it with these kinds of speeches: I deny that the Romans ever judged all stage players to be infamous; It is not to be thought that they deemed Aesopus and Roscius infamous; I can not think ⟨p. 72⟩that they would have suffered their plays to be performed by men infamous? Can you think without blushing, how the ancient Fathers conclude by the confession of the Romans themselves, 8one, that plays are evil, because the Praetor noted the players with infamy; an 9other, that such Gods should not be worshipped, because such men were counted infamous who performed the plays that they required: and you, of the contrary, deny that such men were counted infamous by the Romans, or noted by the Praetor; a thing, that no Heathen, amongest all their adversaries (whom I have ever read of) durst? Can you think your students of Christ-church, and others, with whom you have communicated this reply of yours, to be so weak eyesighted, that they perceive not, that your self, in citing & applying Tacitus his words touching Astrologers to the point in question, do confute your self, as if God had bereft you almost of common sense, when you went about it? For if you think that the Romans would retain Astrologers always in their city, yet forbid them always: