The Overthrow of Stage Plays

The Printer to the Reader.

T He vanity and unlawfulness of Plaies and Interludes hath been often spoken against by the holy men of God. The danger and hurt that cometh by them hath been plainly laid open by sundry frutfull treatises of this our age. Farther it seemeth that the Lord himself by sundry his visible judgments from Heaven, hath pronounced a sensible vae against them even in the face of the world. Witness Paris Garden and other places where divers have been grievously hurt, wounded, and maimed; and some by lamentable death and destruction utterly cut of and consumed. These and such like warninges and examples going before should (a man would think) have been a fearful precedent to the succeeding age that came after. But alas our practice showeth it to be far otherwise, Th'usual flocking and gadding that we see daily before our eyes to these Play-Houses and idle places of intercourse (many leaving their houses and sundry necessary duties vnperfourmed, yea not sparing the very Sabbath it self, nor fearing the profanation thereof, so they may therein serve their unruly appetites and affections) doth sufficiently descry a far of of what metal we are made, and wherein the treasure of our heart consisteth.

Th'Israelites that were so backward and unwilling to serve the Lord and to follow his ordinances, were yet willing enough (we see) to spare their earinges and most precious Iuells to the furtherance of Idolatry & worshipping of a Caulf. This is truly, good Reader (I speak it with grief) the very case and disease of to many of us at this day. There is nothing in a manner tedious and burdensome unto us but the furtherance of holy Religion, and the Christian practice of the same: on the other side there is nothing commonly so dear and of price unto us, but the love of our vanities and fleashly delights can easily make it melt and consume. Mooue men to contribute anything to the relief of God's Saints, or to the re-edifying of a decayed Church and place of prayer, alas they have in a readiness without study a whole budget full of lets and excuses, able to drown and extinguish a better man's devotion then theirs. Why, they give forsooth, in their own parishes; they have a great charge at home, or else they are so indebted and behind hand, that they cannot &c. And yet to the maintenance of their pleasures, or to nouzle themselves in their vanities (whether it be in apparel, gamening, gadding to plays, masking, dancing, bellicheare, shows, or such like.) It is wonder to see how cheerfully they can vntye their purse-stringes without respect either of parish, home charge, debt or anything else. The young man in the Gospel went away sorrowful and mourning, but when? When our Savior bade him, Go sel all that he had, and follow him. Wherein if we mark the words well, the holy Ghost seemeth to lay down unto us that the young man's grief did arise not only from this, in that he was to depart with his substance and wealth, which he loved so dearly, but also from this that he must depart withal to so base, so hard, and dangerous an end as he imagined, namely To follow Christ, wherein he saw there was no earthly comfort and felicity to be hoped for. For if our Savior had enjoined him to sell that he had for his better attendance on Caesar's Court, or for his preferrement to any place of credit or commodity, like enough it would not have gone so nigh him, nor have been any such gall or coresie to his heart, but, To sell all and follow Christ, this was the stinger that made him thus to hang down his head, to look droopingly, and to fling away thus inwardly wounded and discontented. And hath not this young man to many followers and successors in this age of ours? or, are there not Israelites enow among us ready to give anything to the golden Caulf, and repining at everything that they should depart withal to the good of God's Church? Do we not see before our eyes, howe he that can hardly be drawn to spare a penny in the Church, can yet willingly and chearefullie afoord both pence and teaster, enow for himself and others at a play? Nay more, are there not some that never gave groate in their lives to the furtherance of any good cause without grudging, and yet to feed and foste •… themselves in their vanities and superfluities, have full gallantl •… spent themselfs and their patrimony in all manner of riot and li centiousnes? The Lord lay not this sin to their charge bu •… humble them to repentance before the day of his wrath.

This treatise therefore of that thrice Reverend man Maiste •… D. Rainolds, against stage Plaies (being a notable looking glass for such cold Christians as these, and coming from 〈◊〉 man of those rare and incomparable gifts, envied and yet admi red of his very enemies for his learning, judgment, and piety▪ falling by God's providence into my hands, I thought it not my part, good Reader, (though it should be in some respect offensive t •… th' Author himself) to conceal and keep back from thee in re gard of the public benefit that may thereby arise to the Church of God: And so much the rather, in that the matter herein lay •… down, is handled in another sort by way of controversy, and far otherways canvased both by sound arguments, divine and human authorities, then to my knowledge hath been done by an man that ever wrote in that cause before. His adversary Master D. Gager is likewise, I understand, a man of gifts, a good Scholar, and an honest man, and (as it should seem by Master Rainolds his several answers and replies) hath said more for the defense of Plaies then can be well said again by any man that shall succeed or come after him. So that the cause being thus wittely and scholar like maintained on the one side, for, and in defense of plays, and yet in the end all this rampier of defense quite overthrown and laid flat to th'earth by an irresistible battery of profound and vnaunswerable arguments and resolutions on the other side, this must needs make the case more clear and evident in th'eyes of any man of judgment, then if it had not been gain said or withstood at all. I have been informed also that Master Gager himself upon the last rejoinder of Master Rainolds hath let go his hold, and in a Christian modesty and humility yielded to the truth, and quite altered his judgment. If it be so (good Reader) and that so grave and learned a man hath chosen rather with that ancient father humile peccatum, then superbam ignorantiam, be not thou for thy part willful and obstinate in thy conceit, whosoever thou art, but ponder the reasons and arguments on the one side, consider the dangers and inconveniences on the other side. And if thou have been bewitched with his vanity heretofore, see whether th'advised perusal of this excellent treatise may happily by God's mercy vnwitch thee again. And take this with thee for a general lesson and observation while thou livest, That whatsoever thy fleash, according to the common course of carnal men, delighteth in, suspect thou there is mischief in it, though thou be able to defend it by thy reason. Surely for mine own part, I am persuaded if this present discourse be read, marked, and digested as it should be, the gentlewoman that sware by her truth, That she was as much edefied at a play as ever she was at any sermo, &c. will, ere she die, be of another mind, though it may be she said true then, in regard of her own negligence and backwardness in not giving ear to the word of God with reverence. The like may fall out also to those men too, that have not been afraid of late days to bring upon the Stage the very sober countenances, grave attire, modest and matronelike gestures & speeches of men & women to be laughed at as a scorn and reproach to the world, as if the hypocrisy of Judas (if it were brought upon the stage) could any whitt disgrace the Apostles of our Savior Christ, and yet if these men had but thus far exceeded, kept themselves there, and gone no farther to the foul profaning and abusing of the holy Scriptures of God, their sin had not been half so great as it is. Well to heal, if it may be, or at least, to correct the bad humor of such humorists as these (who in their discovery of humors do withal foully discover their own shame and wretchedness to the world) here is now laid before thee (good Reader) a most excellent remedy and receipt, if thou canst be so happy to make thy profit of it. Read it therefore and disgeast it, and, if thou find good thereof, give God the glory, and bless his Name, for so worthy an instrument.

Master D. Rainolds answer unto Master D. Gager, concerning Theater-sights, Stage-plays, &c.

I AM much to thank you, Master D. Gager, for both your letters, and your Tragedie: the more, for that you have enlarged the answer to Momus (as you signify) because you understood that I & others should ask why those things were not answered which were objected. Indeed, as our Savior 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, & thereby noted them as unjust reproovers, might justly say in my judgment; If our reasons be naught, discover their naughtiness; if good, why do you Mome us? And what so ever others had cause to think of them selves, yet I must needs think myself touched therein: although I should yield unto your request (which I most gladly do) in that you pray me, not to mistake your meaning; protesting your intent is not to note any man, but only Momus. For I did reprove our Theater-sights & Stage-plays, as hurtful and pernicious, many years ago: and this year, ere your Momus, or any of your Interludes came upon the stage, I had (in letters written to our good friend Master D. Thornton) alleged those reasons, which you make Momus use, against them. Now Aesopes tale of Momus (as Aristotle showeth in that yourself mention of his reproving nature for setting bulls horns upon their heads, not upon their shoulders) was devised to check such as reprove unjustly the best and perfitest works of the most wise and skillful. To the which purpose since you rehearse it also, and infer upon it, that the man who taunteth plays with the rascal reproaches there specified, offendeth in the same sort: how can it be avoided, but I, who had uttered those things against plays, though deeming them sound reasons, not rascal reproaches, must think myself charged under the name of Momus? unless I should be so unwise as to suppose, that my friend a lawyer, saying, If Sempronius borrow a horse of Seius, and ride him a mile farther, then Seius was content he should, he committeth theft, the speech doeth not charge me with theft, though I had done so, because the lawyer meant not to charge me, whom he loveth, nor knew perhaps that I had done it; but his meaning was to charge Sempronius only. Wherefore albeit you mean not to hot any man but only Momus, as you protest, and I believe you: yet you mean withal (I trow) the same that Tully, when having reproved the covetousness of Chieftaines and Gouuernours of their wars, I (quoth he) name no man; Wherefore no man can be angie with me, unless he will confess first of him self. Which I do not mention to prove that I have cause of being angry with you (be it far from me,) although I confess myself to have written those things which they, who speak, are stained with Momus name by you: but only to show that by your speech against Momus, notwithstanding your intent to note no man but him, yet you note us all, in him, as unjust reproovers of plays, who soever inveigh against them as he doeth. And this yourself cannot choose but see and grant, if you call to mind your verses ad Zoilum, and Epistle ad Criticum. For you will profess (I hope) that your intent is not to note any man but only Zoilus and Criticus: Yet, if any find such fault with your Tragedie, as you control them for: you will not deny but you mean to note him as a malicious Zoilus, and a carping Criticke. Your words enforce so much, in that you tell the Criticke, that who so carpeth at the baseness of your matter and style, doeth not blame you but Homer; And who so blameth Homer, he must needs be a Zoilus. I must pray you therefore, not to misdeeme of me, that I mistake your meaning, when I think you purposed to note generally all reprovers of plays, as unjust reproovers: and so do take myself, though not intended by the Censurer, who did not aim at me; yet touched by the censure, which in event doeth light upon me.

As for that you add, that upon confidence of your own conscience, and the truth of the things them selves, you assure yourself, that I cannot be displeased: I will assure you also that I mislike nothing in your entitling Momus unto our reasons of reproof, or in your answer to them, if, as you approve your cause of confidence on the one parte, so you shall on the other. For your protestation of your own conscience doeth bind me by the law of charity to think that you have done this in singleness of heart, without spite and malice. But the truth of the things themselves, that you challenge, belongeth to the reasons fathered on Momus, not to your answer, in my opinion. Whereof, least you suspect it to proceed rather from a conceited fancy, then a sound judgment, I will open to you my grounds and inducements: requesting you the same that Horace did a friend of his; Si quid novisti rectius istis, Candidus imperti; si non, his utere mecum. And, because in weighing your answers with the reasons I shall be occasioned to name this or that part, by circumstances, of your plays, as Antinous, Eurymachus, Hippodamia, Melantho, the rest of Penelopes wooers, or her maids, Phemius, Irus, Rivales, Phaedra, or her Nurse: I must pray you to deal with me in this case, as you desired to be dealt with, that is, to take my words, as spoken of Histrio (to fain a person like your Momus) with no intent to note any of your players; no more, then if they had not seen the stage at all, but Roscius & Aesopus had played those parts, not Christ-church-students. Whom, and you for them, I shall find the readier to grant this, I trust: because both my conscience doeth bear me witness before God, that I bear none of them evil will, nay, I wish unto them all as to myself; and I assure you I know not who they were that played any of those partes, nor what their names be.

To the first reason then (for I will take them in your own order) that Stage-players are infamous by the civil law, you answer that they are not all, but only such as play for gain sake: which you avouch is proved by the Praetors words. But that which you make the Praetor say, as distinguishing, Qui sui spectaculum Mercedis ergô praebet, infamis siet; the Praetor saith not. Nay, contrariwise he saith without all distinction, generally and simply: Infamia notatur, qui artis ludicrae, pronuntiandive causa, in scenam prodierit. And Ulpian (whose place you quote for proof thereof) doeth report him so, with these very words: Ait Praetor, Qui in scenam prodierit, "infamis est". But Vlpian, expounding these words of the Praetor, citeth some lawiers saying, that they are infamous, qui quaestus causa in certamina descendunt, & propter premium in scenam prodeunt: and hereof you conclude, that they, who come not forth into the stage for gain sake, are not infamous. By which kind of reasoning one might conclude likewise, that since by the scripture a woman taking money for prostituting her body to men is infamous: therefore she is not so, who doeth it freely; much less, who giveth money to have her lovers company; whom yet the scripture counteth most infamous of all. Howbeit, had those lawiers, in adding, quaestus causa, intended your conclusion; which I know not whether they did, but admit it: nevertheless you know that a lawyer also, perhaps more learned then they, hath made this note thereon, Immo & qui sine quaestu. omnes enim scenici probrosi. August. lib. 2. de civit. Dei, cap. 11. & tribu moveri soliti, Livius lib. 7. wherein, as he gathereth, that such as come upon the stage without gain, are proved by S. Augustine and Livy to be infamous, because S. Austin and Livy do show that all stage-players (free players not excepted) were branded with a mark of infamy & dishonesty, disfranchised in a sort: so he confirmeth hereby (which was and ought to be the drift of his note) that by law the players without gain are infamous, not only such as play for gain sake. And this do their words, whom he allegeth, imply, if they be unfolded and weighed indifferently, according to the rules of law for douts thence rising: to weet, that custom is the best interpreter of laws; and, authority of things still judged of alike hath the force of law. For S. Augustine groundeth his general conclusion upon the ancient practice and order of the Romans testified by Tully: who saith that their ancestors, counting all kind of stage plays shameful and dishonest, agreed that such persons should not only want the honor of other citizens, but also be disfranchised by the controlment and check of Censors. Neither were they checked with this reproach and ignominy of old time alone, but in Livies age too; yea, before, and after; at least, with the blemish and stain in men's opinion, •… hough not with the punishment. Cornelius Nepos saith, that to come on the stage & be a spectacle to the people, was counted no dishonesty or shame among the Grecians; among the Romans it was. Laberius, a gentleman of Rome, taking pleasure in writing of poemes, when Caesar prayed him to play them him self upon the stage, he yielded as constrained by the Princes request; but signified so much in his prologue, and declared withal what a blott it was unto him: Ego his tricenis annis actis sine nota, Eques Romanus e lare egressus meo, Domum revertar mimus: nimirum hoc die Uno plus vixi, mihi quàm vivendum fuit. fuvenal, rebuking men of noble parentage tainted with like dishonor, doeth touch them under Lentulus name, with this censure: Laureolum velox etiam been Lentulus egit, Iudice me dignus vera cruce. So shameful a matter seemed it to him for Lentulus to play the parte of Laureolus (one, who in a Tragedie was feigned to be hanged, as Melantho in yours) that he thought him worthy to be hanged in ea •… est for it. Moreover, he prosequuteth the point in such sort, •… at he cutteth off all opposition and reply, whereof else a show, but show alone, might be made against this testimony and the former. For the Grecians spoken of by Cornelius Nepos did come upon the stage for gain, at least some of them: though his speech concerning them (in the branch I cited) be general, like Tullius, without that limitation; and so must contrariwise be meant touching the Romans. Laberius had a ring and money given him by Caesar: though he show sufficiently, that whereas no ambition, no reward ever, no fear, no force, no authority, could make him a stage-player in his youth; much less should it have done in his old age at three score years: it was necessity only, even Caesar's request, that is, constraint, which brought him to it. The men of noble parentage, whom Juvenal rebuketh, were hired, as himself noteth; and the story of Nero, who bought those needy squires to do that service, recordeth: though Juvenal adiudgeth them unworthy of life, not only in respect that they played for their fee, but even that they played too; as may appear by that which followeth, Nec tamen ipse Ignoscas populo: populi frons durior huius, Quisedet & spectat triscurria patriciorum, Planipedes audit Fabios ridere potest qui Mamercorum alapas. For seeing that he findeth fault with the people, who sat & beheld the fowl misorders & scurrilities (such as your Antinous & other wooers practice) of persons nobly borne; who heard the race of Fabius resembling & couterfaiting such base ridiculous things as are expressed in Irus; who could abide to laugh at blows & whirrets, given to the Mamercians, as you would say unto Ulysses. he showeth that the very action it self, all regard of lucre, or whatsoever motive had brought them to it, set apart, was dishonorable & shameful in his judgment. But his like or sharper inveighing against Nero, touching whom he addeth, that it was no marvel if noble men were stageplayers whē the Prince was a minstrel, doeth put the matter out of doubt: in as much as he, comparing Nero to Orestes, both murderers of their mothers, maketh Nero worse in many respects, and this amongst them: In scena nunquam cantavit Orestes. Wherein, by "cantavit, he meaneth not only that Nero played a minstrels part upon the stage, as Phemius on yours: but also that he played the partes of men and women, perhaps with song alone, as your Hippodamia; perhaps with song and speech both, as Eurymachus; but partes of Men and Women certainly. This, obscurelie signified by Juvenal himself, mentioning the tragical habit of Thyestes, Antigona, Menalippe, worn by the offspring of Domitius, that is, by Nero; Suetonius maketh plainer; saying, Tragoedias cantavit personatus; and, Inter caetera cantavit Canacen parturientem, Orestem matricidam, Oedipodem excaecatum, Herculem insanum. In the last of which tragedies it is reported that a young soldier (one of Nero's gard) being set to keep the entry, when he saw Nero attired and bound with Chaines, as the argument required, he ran to him to help him; thinking (poor freshwater creature) that his master had been chained in earnest. Another, better acquainted then he with stage matters, and having served longer, when Nero played the first of them, namely Canace, the soldier being asked by some who met him in the city what the Emperor was doing, He is travailing with child, quoth he. The singing then used upon the stage by Nero, for which Juvenal counteth him worse then Orestes, was his playing of men's and wemens partes in tragedies. But Nero never played for gain: nay, he was so far from it, that, when a Praetor, who did set forth plays, offered him about eight thousand pound to be an actor, he took the pains, refused the money, disdaining to do ought for hire. Juvenal therefore counteth all stage-players infamous, not only such as played for gain. And what should I adjoin the testimonies of others, learned, unlearned; both sortes declaring what Roman citizens thought hereof? For beside Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio, &c who hath written of Nero that hath not attainted him with this reproach? the common people, even soldiers, reckoned his stage-playing among his vicious acts: as, in a conspiracy that was made against him, he heard to his great grief; when Subrius Flavius, a Tribune, being demanded by him why he had sought his death, answered, Oderam te, nec quisquam tibi fidelior militum fuit, dum amari meruisti; odisse caepi, postquam parricida matris, & vxoris, auriga, histrio, & incendiarius extitisti: and Sulpitius Asper, answering more briefly to the same demand, said, Non aliter tot flavigitiis ejus subveniri posse. Neither was it the baseness thereof in comparison of his imperial Majesty, that they detested only, as his chariot-driving upbraided him withal might give cause to think, were it not a whelp too of the same litter: but the dishonesty and lewdness, which, accompanying commonly that trade, by many occasions incident into stage-plays, made such men infamous; and thereupon was noted, though as a more eminent fault in him then others, yet as a fault in others also. Pecuniam ob delicta dedit, saith Tacitus, telling how Nero brought those poor decayed gentlemen of noble houses to the stage: and blaming him, that he did not rather give them money to keep them from offending (so he termeth stage-playing of it self without gain) then to drive them to it. And Dio, a Senator of Rome, well acquainted with their laws and orders by sundry great offices of state borne among them, amplifying that injury done to more also, and to meaner persons then Tacitus speaketh of, nether all rewarded like them peradventure, sure Dio giving no inkling of that as the shame of it, saith, it was most shameful and grievous that they entered, some willing, some marvelous unwilling, but they entered, as the most infamous persons, to the stage, and played both tragedies & comedies. Wherefore since the practice and judgment of the Romans noted all stage-players generally with infamy, not only such as played for gain: it followeth that the meaning of their law was general, and so all stage-players to be infamous by the civil law. Which law, if it deserve, though not the title of the best applied to it by your Momus, yet of good and godly, given it by you in the rehearsal of his words, as you will grant it doeth: I leave it to your own consideration, what credit your apology of those plays deserveth. Chieflie seeing Nero, whom that law condemned, might have used the same defense against his Momus, that you against yours, and knit it up with the same words; Quis hîc rogavit sportulam, vel quis dedit? Cui non patebant sponte sine lucro sores? And thus far of your answer to the first reason.

2 To the next, drawn from the best law indeed, even the law of God which forbiddeth a man to put on woman's raiment; a thing though not distaining all stage-plays, yet well nigh all, and there amongst all yours: you answer that it is not unlawful simply and always, as if one do it to save his life, to benefit many; & hereof you conclude, that to do it in plays is not unlawful. Of the which enthymeme (to call the trial of your arguments to the touchstone of Logic) the consequution doutlesse is unsound and naught, whatsoever the antecedent be: and the antecedent, although in the balance of human reason it may seem to have weight, yet if it be weighed in the scales of the sanctuary, will prove unsound and light too. For the holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth teacheth us that it is not lawful for us to do evil, that good may come thereof. When Christ on a Sabbat day went through the corn, and his disciples were an hungered, they began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. The Pharisees reproved them for it; but unjustly: because it was not evil to work upon the Sabbat day in such a case. For by evil is sin meant. Sin is the transgression of the law. The law allowed Priests to work on the Sabbat day in offering sacrifices. And sacrifice did not please God in comparison of mercy. Therefore to do that work of mercy and charity for the relief of hungry bodies upon the Sabbath day, was not evil. Contrariwise, when Peter being in danger of trouble and vexation, if he had been known to be of Christ's disciples, did thereupon deny that he knew him, or had been with him: he was put in mind by Christ's words & deeds, and he did acknowledge by his own tears, that he should not have done so. Why? Because he lied, and to lie is evil; not allowed in any case by our Lawgiuer, no not for the defense of the glory of God, much less for the safety of man a worm. By conference and laying of which things together we are taught this difference between the moral law, and the ceremonial, that the ceremonial was not enjoined to be kept absolutely and simply; and therefore when it could not be kept without the breach af the moral law, the law of love and charity it yielded thereunto: but the moral law is simply and absolutely enjoined to be kept, as a pattern of that holiness which God requireth in his children, Be ye holy, for I am holy; and therefore, who so breaketh any part thereof, though to keep another parte, doeth defile himself, and displease the Highest. Now, the prohibitiō of men to be attired as women, women as men, belongeth to the moral, not to the ceremonial law. For Christ hath delivered us frō the keeping of the ceremonial. So that, were this difference of attire a ceremony, then Christian men and women might e •… h cōtinuallie wear the others raiment: as lawfully; as they may wear a garment made of linen & woolen; sow their field with maslin; plow with an ox and an asse; eat of swine's flesh; of blood; of strangled: if not more lawfully rather then these last, which the Apostles did forbid the Gentiles for a time, in respect of the Jews. But they may not wear ech the others raiment: as the general precepts absolutely given in the new testament touching the distinct and several attire of both sexes, show. It is a commandment therefore of the moral law, that women shall not attire them selves like men, nether men like women. And hereof it followeth that if a man might save his life, or benefit many, by putting on woman's raimēt, yet ought he not to do it, because it is evil. Nay (which addeth greater weight unto the reason) it is a notorious and detestable evil: as the Spirit showeth by the words ensuing, For all that do so are abomination to the Lord thy God. And seeing that himself hath given this censure, God forbid but we should think it most true and just: although our weak eyesight could discern no cause, why so small a matter, as flesh and blood might countit, should be controlled so sharpelie. Howbeir, if we mark with judgment and wisdom, first, how this precept is referred by learned Divines to the commandment Thou shalt not commit adultery, some expressly making it a point annexed thereto, some impliedlie, in that either they knit it to modesty, a parte of temperance, or note the breach of it as joined with wantonness and impurity: next, among the kinds of adulterous lewdness howe filthy and monstrous a sin against nature men's natural corruption and vitiousnes is prone to; the Scripture witnesseth it in Canaanites, Jews, Corinthians, other in other nations, & one with special caution, Nimium est quod intelligitur: thirdlie, what sparkles of lust to that vice the putting of wemens attire on men may kindle in unclean affections, as Nero shown in Sporus, Heliogabalus in him self; yea certain, who grew not to such excess of impudency, yet arguing the same in causing their boys to wear long hear like women: if we consider these things, I say, we shall perceive that he, who condemneth the female hoore and male, and, detesting specially the male by terming him a dog, rejecteth both their offerings with these words that they both are abomination to the Lord thy God, might well control likewise the means and occasions whereby men are transformed into dogs, the sooner, to cut off all incitements to that beastly filthiness, or rather more then beastly. But whether this were part of the cause that moved the Spirit of God, or no: it is clear and certain that he pronounceth them abominable in his sight, or (as the Hebrews speak more forciblie) abomination, whosoever put on the different sexes raiment. And so, it being simply and absolutely unlawful, because it is forbidden by the moral law, and proved to be evil, a fowl abominable evil in God's sight: the Christian faith instructeth us that we may not do it for any good to come thereof, no not for the saving of honor, wealth, or life, of others, or our selves. The arguments, whereby you strive to prove the contrary, are drawn from two examples: One of the Macedonians, whose king Amyntas entertaining Persian ambassadors, & having at their request brought noble women to the banket, when the ambassadors dalying with them did touch their breasts, & offered some to kiss them; the kings son, misliking their lascivious actions, desired thē to give the women leave to go forth, pretending they should return neater, & so by his directiō there came in their steed young men, attired like them, with daggers under their garments, who slew the ambassadors as soon as they offered to touch them: The other of Achilles, whose mother Thetis, at the time of the Troian war, knowing (as Poëts fain) that he should die at Troy, if he went thither with the Grecians, did thervpo •… attire him (they say) as a woman, and committed him as her daughter to Lycomedes king of Scyros, there to be kept safe from that danger. For hence you conclude that a man may lawfully putt on woman's raiment to benefit others, to save his life; because the Macedonians, by their young Princes motion, and Achilles did so. Which argument if it hold, then may a man lie to save his life, or benefit others, because David did so: then may a man forswear to save his life, or benefit others, because Peter did so. For the examples of Prophets and Apostles are surer grounds to build on, then of Achilles or Macedonians. But you will not say that we may forswear, nor lie (I hope) for any cause; sure the Scripture will not, neither the best Divins; no not Schoolmen, or Canonistes, which yet in many points are far beneth the best. you must remember therefore that we are to live by laws, not by examples: and regard in Macedonie, and Greece, as in Rome, not what is done there, but what ought to be done there. Else, by these very examples that you stand o •… , not only kings, but also their sons may put to death; and that, for wanton touching, not only for adultery; nor their own subjects alone, but foreign ambassadors; yea, their servants also, though innocent and giltlesse; and make a bootie of their carriage, their treasure, their furniture; all against the kings advise and commandment: for so did the son of Amyntas. And a man, whose country doeth need and crave his service in lawful war against their enemies, may, for fear of death, use Vettienus his shifts to keep at home; a youth, that is in love, may put on maidens raiment, as Chaerea did the Eunuchs for his Pamphilaes sake; a son may obey his mother, not in the Lord, but against the Lord, and by her commandment behave him self vnduetifullie, cowardlie, wantonlie: for so did the son of Thetis. Wherein by the way you may observe too, both what inconvenience and danger of uncleanness cleaveth to this practice: and how Heathen men by the light of nature did descry the shamefulness of it and condemned it. For as he whose fact yourself adjudge wicked Clodius I mean, did satisfy his vilanous lust with Caesar's wife by cladding him self in woman's raiment: semblably Achilles deflowered Deidamia, king Lycomedes daughter, by the same occasion. And Statius, who reporteth the story (so to term it with you) most exactlie, saith that Chiron, the instructer and bringer up of Achilles, would not have suffered his mother to have had him away, Si molles habitus & tegmina foedafateri Ausa foret: that Calchas the Prophet, being filled wth Apollos spirit, cried out, O scelus, en fluxae veniunt in pectora vestes; Scinde pure, scinde, & timidae ne creed parenti: that Achilles him self did say unto Deidamia, Neque ego hos cultus, aut foeda subissem Tegmina, ni primo te visa in littore; and unto his mother, Paruimus genitrix, quanquam haud toleranda jubebas, Paruimus nimium; and unto Ulysses, that Maternum nefas had caused him to put on indecores, fatorum crimina, cultus▪ The wich resolutions and speeches being attributed to heathen men by an heathen, and him an excellent Poet, who so well discerned what was fit and seemly for everyone to speak and think, that in this respect he is preferred by a learned judicious autor before Homer; do argue and declare, that wise & virtuous persons, represented in Chiron, would not have a man for safeguard of his life undergo the shame of wearing woman's raiment; that religious folk having the Spirit of GOD, as Calchas is imagined, accounted it a heinous crime, and wished children to rent such raiment when it were put on, and therein disobey their parents; that ingenuous valiant youths, like Achilles, may be ensnared for love sake to wear it, not for life; and do it for reverence of parents, though with grief; and lay the fault afterward upon their mothers, and the destenies, that they were tainted with such dishonor. Thus is it apparent even by the example which yourself commend, that, as S. Paul observeth on the like occasion, nature and scripture •… each the same: and the moral law of God, and law of nature, agreeing both in one, do prove it to be simply unlawful and evil for men to put on wemens raiment. But suppose it were not unlawful simply & always, because a great Divine saith it is a great question whether a man may do it to deliver his country from an enemy, though him self seem to approve the negative; and a certain Schoolman, affirming it to be evil and naught of it self, saith that it may nevertheless be done for necessity, perhaps upon I know not what conceit of somewhat ceremonial in it; but suppose a man might do it for the saving of his life or country: yet your reason faileth in the consequution, that a man may therefore do it to play a part in comedies or tragedies. David, when he was hungry, did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat: and our Savior showeth that he did well therein. But if he hah done it in sport and of a merriment, when no need enforced: the law, which condemned a man for gathering sticks upon the Sabbatday, would have condemned him too. The grave Athenian Judges, Areopagitae did never punish any (I trow) for killing quail to supply his want. But, whē a lewd boy did pick out quail eyes of a wanton humor, they judged him worthy of death for it. Good Emperors have allowed men to do their works of tillage and husbandry on the Soonday, when other days the season serveth not. What? to have stage-plays upon the Soonday therefore, or running of horses, or bearebaytings? No: they disallowed it. He that should spend his life as Samson did, in avenging him self of the Philistines, might have the same testimony of faith which Samson had. But if one should spend it to show men Theater-pastime, as that fellow did who played Icarus before Nero, and falling down near to his chamber, sprinkled him with blood; well might he earn the praise of Icarus. Wherefore albeit a man for the performance of necessary duties might putt on women's raiment: yet would it not follow thereof, that he may do it to play a part in Interludes; Much less will that conclusion follow, which in steed hereof you set down generally, thereby to fetch about this hidden conclusion. For you do infer, as proved by those examples with the contrary of Clodius, that it is no fault for young men to wear women's raiment, but to do it (as Clodius) with a lewd intent of committing whoredom, beguiling, and deceyving: neither doeth any apparel, but the mind, make a man dishonest. And so assuming hereto, that none of your young men, who were attired like women, had any such intent or meaning; you imply by consequence that it was no fault for them to be attired so; and therefore men may lawfully put wemens raiment on to play. But what a foundation this frame is built upon, the consequence in religion and reason both will show. The Scripture saith that women, praying, or prophesying, ought to have a veil or cover on their heads in token of subjection: but men ought not to have so. Now, what if a man should preach or pray in the Church with such a veil as women bear in this respect; with a call (for examples sake) or with a French hoode: should he offend, or no? Your inference saith, Nay, unless he wear it with a lewd intent, as Clodius did. For no apparel, but the mind, doeth make a man dishonest: and therefore it is no fault for a man to pray with a French hoode on his head. But Saint Paul saith otherwise: and, though he would grant the wearing of it with Clodius mind to be a greater fault; yet a fault would he judge it to wear it with Penelopes, because the very wearing of it, is forbidden. The Civil law, speaking of Men's and Womens garments, some peculiar to either, some common to them both, defineth those to be common, which both may wear without reproof; peculiar, which both may not. Women shall have no garments peculiar now to them, if your speech be true. For men may wear their peticoates, kirtles, and whatsoever else without reproof: because it is not any apparel, but the mind, that makes a man blame-worthy. The Prophets reprehend the people of Jury and Jerusalem, for vanity in apparel. The Apostles require modesty and decency therein. The Fathers, instructing folk of several sexes, estates, and professions, give special precepts of the same. The Philosophers, and Statemen, have thought some raiment comely for honest personages, some vncomelie. All greatly overseen, if it be no shame for what so ever person to go attired how so ever; and everyone may wear of any matter, facion, color, price he list. But if they were not overseen all, which for some of them we are sure they were not: then must we acknowledge, that, as in meats and drinks that which goeth into the mouth, defileth not the man; yet, if men drink too much wine, they are defiled by their intemperance and riott: likewise in apparel, that which cometh upon the back, dishonesteth not the man; yet, if men wear costlier garments then they ought, they are dishonested by their riotous and vnmodest behavior. And so, if any man do put on Woman's raiment, he is dishonested and defiled, because he transgresseth the bounds of modesty and comeliness, and weareth that which God's law forbiddeth him to wear, which man's law affirmeth he cannot wear without reproof: though otherwise a Woman's raiment of it self doeth neither discommende or commend the wearer; no more then meat maketh us acceptable to God; For the kingdom of God is not meat, nor drink (I may add, nor apparel) but righteousness and peace and joy in the holy Ghost. Wherefore you had done better service to the truth, if, in steed of your egre knitting up of this point with this epiphonema, Cursed is the gloss that corrupteth the good text, you had observed rather as Tertullian doeth, that the good text you speak of, I mean, the holy Scripture specifieth not any apparel Cursed by God, but only woman's worn by man; and had applied it also against men's wearing of it in stage-plays, as he doeth. At least I could have wished your censure had been milder, if not in regard of a younger Preacher, who did so expound that text in a godly Sermon before your book was printed: yet in consideration of that ancient Father, with many other worthy men, whose learned writings do gloss it in the same sort; and of a general Council, which noreth men's wearing of wemens, raiment though in plays, as a heinous crime. But if our gloss be cursed, who say that in the general sentence of the Scripture, All men are abomination that put on wemens raiment, the special is comprised, Players are abomination that put on wemens raiment; a thing which your Law-glosses observe upon your laws, as standing with reason, and thereupon do gather (agreeablie to a rule of law) that he, who fordiddeth the general, will not have the special practiced; and, every special is suspended, whē the general is suspended: what manner a gloss is yours, which deduceth out of the general affirmative a particular negative, that is, a flat contradictory; & turneth, Alare, into, Some are not; and delivereth as a rule that it is no dishonesty for a man to wear whatsoever apparel, if his mind be chaste?

3 Yet the third reason, wherein plays are charged, not for making young men come forth in hoores attire, like the Iewde woman in the Proverbs; but for teaching them to counterfeit her actions, her wanton kiss, her impudent face, her wicked speeches and enticements; should have been allowed even by your own gloss and exposition of the text: since you say upon it, that different behavior becometh different sexes, and, it beseemeth not men to follow wemens manners. Thetis taught Achilles howe to play the woman in gate, in speech, in gesture: Sic ergo gradus; sic ora, manus{que} nate feres, comites{que} modis imitabere fictis. And because his mother had not taught him enough, or he was but a bad scholar: Deidamia gave him farther advertisements, how he must hold his naked breast, his hands, & so forth. These are wemens manners vnseemelie for Achilles to imitate: he should not have done it. How much less seemly then is it for young men to danse like women, though like those, who praised God with danses: and much less seemelie yet to danse like dishonest women, like Herodias? whereby what a flame of lust may be kindled in the hearts of men, as ready for the most part to conceue this fire, as flax is the other, Christian writers show in parte by Herodes example: but a Heathen Poët more fully by his own experience; affirming that he was not ravished so much with his mistresses face, though marvelous fair and beautiful, nor with her hear hanging down loose after the facion about her smooth neck; nor with her radiant eyes, like stars; nor with her silks, & outlandish bravery; as he was with her galant dancing. And greater reason is it you should condemn all stage-plays, wherein young men are trained to play such wemens partes, because, unto Momus terming the stage a school of scurrility and wantonness, you reply, that merry things are called wanton by him, and that he is not able to allege one word savouring of scurrility. As if you had said, that, could he make proof of the least scurrility or wantonness therein, yourself would condemn them: according both to Christian piety, by the Apostles, and to civil honesty by the Philosophers precept. Which showeth that you acknowledge it vnseemelie also for men to play such men's parts, as defile their mouths with vnmodest speeches; much more, as stain their bodies & minds with wanton deeds. When Critobulus kissed the son of Alcibiades, a beautiful boy, Socrates said he had done amiss and very dangerously: because, as certain spiders, if they do but touch men only with their mouth, they put them to wonderful pain and make them mad: so beautiful boys by kissing do sting and pour secretly in a kind of poison, the poison of incontinency, as Clemens Alexandrinus speaking of unholy and amatorie kisses, saith: Amatorie embracing goeth in the same line with amatorie kissing, if not a line beyond it. Amatorie dancing is, in Homers wantons, as oil unto the fire: and the commendation that Tully giveth it in banquets, S. Ambrose giveth it in stage-plays. Herewithall if amatorie pangs be expressed in most effectual sort: can wise men be persuaded that there is no wantonness in the players partes, when experience showeth (as wise men have observed) that ^x men are made adulterers and enemies of all chastity by coming to such plays? that senses are moved, affections are delited, hearts though strong and constant are vanquished by such players? that an ² effeminate stage-player, while he feigneth love, imprinteth wounds of love? Moreover, since of like things you must needs judge alike: you disallow the practicing of other vices also, as well as of wantonness and scurrility. Which I presume the rather, because you say of your actors, the young men of your house, that they are ingenuous, learned, chaste, well nurtured, and virtuously disposed. For if, upon this praise given them by you, I should reply, as Phocio the Atheniā did, who, when the king of Macedonie (his countries secret enemy) sent him a hundred talents, and he demāding of the bringers why among so great a number of the Athenians, the King sent that to him alone, they answered that the King thought him alone an honest man; Then let him suffer me both to seem and be such a one, quoth Phocio: I assure myself you would rejoin that you wish them to seem & be such as you avouch they are; and therefore that you would no more have them do anything, whereby they might hazard the loss of any other of those good qualities, or the credit thereof, then whereby of chastity.

Now, within the compass hereof doth the playing of sundry parts in Comedies fall, as of coosening varlets, base parasites, and the rest, reproved by S. Cyprian: of sundry partes in tragedies, as of ambitious, cruel, blasphemous, godless caitiues, and such as Horace noteth, Sponsi Penelopae, nebulones, Alcinoi{que} In cute curanda plus aequo operata iuventus: in a word of all such parts in whatsoever plays, as Saluianus censureth with that text of Scripture, The fool doth commit wickedness in pastime; & the Scripture teacheth they are no better then mad men, As a mad man casteth firebrands, arrows, and mortal things; so is he that deceiveth his neighbor, and saith, was I not in sport? For, the care of making a show to do such feats, and to do them as lively as the beasts them selves in whom the vices reign, worketh in the actors a marvelous impression of being like the persons whose qualities they express and imitate: chiefly when earnest and much meditation of sundry days and weeks, by often repetition and representation of the partes, shall as it were engrave the things in their mind with a pen of iron, or with the point of a diamond. In which consideration the Spirit of God instructeth us, that we ought to imitate, resemble, follow God, and Godly men, and that wich is good; not any evil thing, but good only; and meditate, exercise those things. And the Paynim Romans, though bound to have stage-plays by their superstition in honor of their Deified devils, Yet destroyed Theaters once as unprofitable, & likely to breed public corruption of manners. And the Lacedemonians, by their ancient orders, might not hear comedies nor tragedies: because they would not have their laws gainsaid, though in jest. Neither would the Massiliās suffer any stageplayers to come amongst thē: least the custom of beholding evil things represented should breed licentiousness of following them. And 7 Solon, when Thespis, the first tragedy-player, being demanded by him if he were not ashamed to utter such lies before so great a company, said it was no harm to speak and do such things in sport; the grave old man, striking the ground with his staff, But shortly (saith he) we, who do commend and approve this sport, shall find it in our earnest contracts and affairs. This if that discreet Athenian lawgeuir, if the Romans, the Lacedemonians, the Massilians feared in the beholders & hearers, and feared not without cause, as experience taught: how much greater outrage of wickedness and iniquity are the actors & players them selves likely to fall into? Seeing that diseases of the mind are gotten far sooner by counterfeiting, then are diseases of the body: and bodily diseases may be gotten so, as appeareth by him, who, feigning for a purpose that he was sick of the gowte, became (through care of counterfeiting it) gowtie in deed. So much can imitation & meditatiō do. Wherefore, in my iudmēt considering what yourself do grant, or must by consequence, such plays as bring in wooers masked, and dancing, using much vnmodest behavior in words and deeds; young men in wemens raiment, and supposed to be gentlewemen, dancing with them; Eurymachus kissing of Melantho, and Melantho bewailing the case that no more kissing, nor dancing now, when she must be hanged; Riuales fond, & amarous; mariners beastly drunken; Phoedra incestuously embracing, and endeavoring to inflame her sonnne Hippolytus with love-speeches; the Nurse, and a new Nymph thereto, bringing fuel enough to heal and melt a heart of yse or snow; with other things haply, which, as Aeschines said of Demosthenes, What if you had heard him self? so they who were present, and beheld the plays, can better tell then I: such stageplayes, I say, you ought in my judgment acknowledge to be justly charged and condemned by the third reason. But you, proposing it briefly, that much time was lost and misspent about them, make answer that there was not; & add sundry arguments to justify the spending of time and pains therein. S. Cyprian writing of a stageplayer who made boys effeminate by instructing then how to play the women, and to express & counterfeit dishonest wanton gestures, saith, he was a master not of teaching but spilling children. Whose words put me in mind that the loss of time should not have been objected so much against your plays: seeing some of the players (if they were like the youthes whom Cyprian speaketh of) might reply as Phaedria; when Parmeno did tell him that his gift bestowed on Thais would be lost, Ego quoque vnà pereo, quod mihi est carius: ne istuc tam iniquo patiare animo. There was no more time spent about them ( you say) then useth to be spent in sports, sleep, talk, and learned releasing of the mind from study. It may be that there was: even some time that should have been spent in hearing Sermons the very day that your Ulyssis redux came on the stage. But if a student haunting a dicing house or taverne with us, or stews at Rome, should say he spent no more time thereat, then others do in sports, sleep, talk and learned releasing of the mind from study: were this sufficient proof that he did not misspend his time? you add that your actors can show greater fruit of their time well spent, then any that is bred up by Momusses discipline can. I pray God they may. Sure they shall the better if they be informed that this which you term the discipline of Momus, is not his, but Cyprians, who entitled the stage a stews of public shame; or rather the holy Ghosts, who willeth us to abstain from all appearance of evil: and that the contrary, for the love whereof you would disgrace this, hath to great affinity with the strumpets discipline, mentioned in the Proverbs. You demand whether we dare despise learned Poëtrie. No. For S. Paul hath sanctified (as Tertullian well saith) a verse of Menander: and citing other Poets doth show that there is good use of them. But S. Paul who did not despise Menanders comedies could have deemed it unmeet for a Timothy to play the midwifes part, or Darus, or Dromo, in his Andria or Perentia. you ask Whether we think it a loss to recite Seneca. Not I: who have recited sundry of his verses upon occasion in my Lectures. But it is one thing to recite; another thing to play: as you may learn by Juvenal, who dispraised not Poets for reciting comedies, yet thought a mā ought rather choose to die thē play them: by Pliny, who esteemed (no dout) of stage-playing like a Roman; yet prayed others to recite, or praised them for doing it, and did it him self; by Scaliger, who reporteth out of the same Pliny that a Latin comedie endited in such sort as the old comedie of the Greek was recited in his time at Rome, but not played. And if your tragedy had been recited only, as by the title a stranger might conceue, who knew not that it had been played: surely for mine own parte I would have accounted it no more loss of time to have heard you pronounce it then myself to read it. But it being played as Terences were: a looser Poet then Terence would control my judgment and very justly might, if seeing there is in it a sweet Melantho, a lewd queane, I should not think there came hurt by the playing of it. For you know what Plautus saith of his captive, that it would be good for them to hear and see that interlude played, because it was not made like others, it had no filthy verse, nor perjured bawde, nor wicked hoore, nor boasting soldier. Finally you say that there is a time for sports, plays, danses, a time for earnest studies: and, man consisteth not of one part alone; he hath a body as well as a mind.

Time of recreation is necessary, I grant: and think as necessary for scholars that are scholars in deed, I mean, good students, as it is for any. Yet in my opinion it were not fit for them to play at stool ball among wenches; nor at Mum-chance or Maw with idle loose companions, nor at trunkes in Guile-hals, nor to danse about Maypoles, nor to rifle in alehouses, nor to carowse in tavernes, nor to steal deer, nor to rob orchardes. Though who can deny, but they may do these things, yea worse, even those S. Paul meant by chambering and wantonness, and that in the most heinous degree, even of incest, if your general speech concerning recreation be not better limited? For to go no farther then your own Phoedra, the same reason serveth her unto Hippolytus: Quod caret alterna requie durabile non est: Haec reparat vires, fessa{que} membra levat. Arcus, & arma tuae tibi sint imitanda Dianae: Si nunquam cesses tendere, mollis erit. Good verses, and a wholesome lesson: fit for chaste Hippolytus to think of & remember. But as he had learned by the light of nature, that albeit rest and recreation is needful, yet the thing which Phoedra labored to persuade him under pretense of rest and recreation, was execrable: so students are instructed by followers of the same light (to go no higher for this matter) that all sports and plays are not expedient, honest, seemly, some savor of dishonesty. Of which kind danses are, as the Gentiles saw by the same light also: those danses, that you speak of, if you speak to purpose; not David's dancing, which S. Ambrose doeth well distinguish from them, but danses of Penelopes wooers, of Melantho; of other of her maids, and simply all stage-dancing. In so much that the Romans, whom Nero enforced, if they could do no other service on the stage, to danse there at least, pronounced the dead happy, who by departure out of life had escaped that shame.

The Philistines accounted it a meet dishonor for their greatest enemy, when they put Samson to it: if yet the playing & sporting before them, which they put him too, were so ignominious. All ancient laws almost (as a learned man doeth note upon occasion of that concerning Samson) yea, and reason it self do brande with a mark of dishonesty and infamy, those that daunse publikelie; and persons of such shows and spectacles. Wherefore the needfulnes of a time for sportes, for plays, for recreation, as well as for study, doeth not prove the lawfulness of your Theatricall sports, and plays; of the daunses mentioned; of young men's womanlie raiment; of Melanthos kissing; of Phaedras furious rage; her Nurses and the Nymphes bawdrie; of wantonness and scurrility shown in sundry speeches, actions and gestures; of the loose and beastly behavior of the mariners, with the rest of like quality. Nay, your own argument that man consisteth not of one part alone, he hath a mind as well as a body, confuteth all such sportes; because, as recreation is needful in regard of the body, so virtuous recreation in regard of the mind: and virtue more necessary much then recreation, by howe much the mind is of more excellency then the body; or rather by how much more profitable it is for mind and body both, since he who wanteth virtue, is blind, and, godliness hath the promise both of the life present & of the life to come, and without peace and holiness, no man shall see the Lord.

Now, these things standing thus, what need I spend words in proving of the fourth reason, namely, that the charge of setting forth such plays is money cast away, and addeth wastfulnes to wantonness, when your own answer doeth strengthen it sufficiently? For in that you say, there is a time of sparing, a time of honest spending, you grant that dishonest expense is still unlawful: as you have cause to do, seeing it is of riott condemned by our Savior in the prodigal son. Wherefore, unless that unthrift might have answered Christ or any other reproouer, Thou blamest me for wasting, but I wast none of thine; thou mayest drink with me scot-free, if thou be a good fellow, and welcome: I see not how your answer to Momus can be justified, Thou sayest the charge is great; but thou mayest come, and look on, Momus, and pay nothing, no man doeth ask thee a penny. And that which he objecteth, that it had been better bestowed on the poor, is as weaklie met with; in that you reply, The charge, great to him, is mean & moderate to you; none will give the less to the poor for that▪ none would have given the more without it. For Nero, being tickled with desire of praise, and loving to hear men approve his playing on the stage with clapping of their hands, and crying out, Excellent, excellent, did choose a lusty bande of valiant youthes to do it, whose Captains he gave three hundred pound a piece, or better. This, if we consider the millions that he wasted in prodigal gifts, was less charge to him, supposing it amounted to three thousand pound, or four, or five, or more, then three or four, or five, or a few more shillings is to some of yours. Yet the story noteth it as part of his wastfulnes: and Nero peradventure was either less able or less willing to help the poor, by reason of that moony given for a Plaudite. But you tell Momus, that their speech, who said, what needed this waste? is evil. An evil speech in deed, as Judas and others used it, because that was no waste, it was a good work done for the preparing of Christ to his burial. But neither is it a good work or service unto Christ, to spend thirty pound in trimming up a stage and borrowing robes out of the revils, for the feeding of that humor which Horace, though an Epicure, condemned of great lightness in the people of Rome: and Chrysostom, but what speak I of a Christian Bishop, who may be thought to rigorous? a heathenish Lacedemoniā, seeing much cost bestowed on a stage at Athens, said they were much to blame for wasting things of worth on toys; And ^m Tully with the learned (whose judgment he relieth on) do give such expense the note of prodigality. The more sorry am I, that you conclude your answer to this and all the former reasons with alleging the judgment of our University; yea, with asking us, whether we set nothing by it. Wherein first you do the University wrong, in charging the body thereof with allowing that, which some were not present at, because they disallowed it, some disallow it who were present: as in part I know by a grave learned man, your good friend and mine, who shown me his dislike of the representation of amorousnes and drunkenness, in Rivales both; the former, not in Rivales only: in parte I conjecture by that I understand that certain who came thither, came evē pressed to it by great importunity; and as myself by such means have been ouerintreated to do that sometimes which I reap̄ted afterward, so I think of others, men subject to the like passions that I am. Next, you do us injury, who dissent from them that approve and like it, in that you entwite us as setting nothing by their judgment: when you should rather think, by the rule of charity, that we dissent from them as Augustine did from Cyprian, whose judgment notwithstanding he reverenced and made account of. But to them I say▪ with Paul; to the Philippians, If ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveile even the same to you, and I assure myself, they will take in good part, that I prefer before them the judgment of the Church in so many Councils, what General, what Provincial, of Constantinople, Laodicea, Carthage, Arles, and Aquisgranum; to pretermitt the Fathers, of whom what one is otherwise minded? To yourself I say farther, that in steed of your question proposed unto us, Academiae tu judicia nihili facis? I propose you another upon a surer ground, though in a verse like yours, and God grant you may think religiouslie, wisely, & fruitfullie thereof, Ecclesiae t •… iudi •… ia nihili facis?

Thus have I shown you what moveth me to think that the truth belongeth rather to the reasons fathered upon Momus, then to your answers: Which I have strained myself to do the sooner amiddest my great business, that as you were desirous by a common friend of ours to satisfy me, with protestation of your hearty affection and good will: so you might perceive I am as careful to approve my judgment unto you, my good will at least, if you shall notwithstanding mislike of my judgment. And if you will signify to me what you mislike in any of the pointes; which I have stood upon or touched by occasion; you shall find me as willing to learn, by God's grace, as I am ready to teach, according to Saint Basils counsel. For as the love I bear to you, and to others, enforceth me the later, not to conceal through envy anything I know; so the love I bear to GOD and his truth, persuadeth me the former, not to be ashamed to learn that I know not. The Lord fill our hearts with his holy Spirit, and have us in his gracious protection forever.

Unto this master D. Gager replying and desiring Master Rainolds to forbear, Master Rainolds did reioine as followeth.

Y OUR request, Master D. Gager, that I should forbear farther reply in writing, and by word of mouth in private conference inform you, if you have greatly erred in any part of your answer; brought into my mind the Philosophers censuring and checking of such as offered sacrifice for health, and at their very sacrifizing did banket riotouslie against health. For that which I wrote concerning things, the stage-plays, you draw unto the persons, who played on the stage at Christchurch, as if I went about to make thē and your house most vilanouslie infamous: and partly by concealing, partly by perverting the drift & substance of my speeches, you seek to smoother up and suppress the truth. Which being done in writing by you with care and diligence, not to be imparted unto me alone, but to others also, as yourself do signify: if I should note the fault thereof by word of mouth, my plaster would be less a great deal then the wound, and therefore never reach to heal it: for words have wings, and fly away, men's writings do remain. But as far as possibly I may without neglect of the duty I owe to GOD and to his Church, I yield to your request: that is, I will endeavor to make plain unto you the injuries and wrongs that your answer doth me, as briefly as the necessary clearing of the truth, and scattering of the mists whereby you go about to darken it, will permit.

The point that is in question between us touching stageplayes, was generally moved: to weet, whether such as play them do offend, or such as reprove the playing of them. You undertook to show that the reproouers are faulty: I, that the Players. And least the dissension of opinions herein should breed exulceration of minds between us, if that, which either of us said touching the matter, should be taken odiously as meant against the persons whom it might concern: you, with protestation of your good will to me-ward, desired me not to think that you meant to note me by the name of Momus; I prayed you the like with like protestation in respect of your players; & that with greater reason why you should have yielded to it in my opinion, since neither one of their names, Phemius for example sake, doeth signify a lewd player, as Momus doeth an unjust reproouer; neither did I know who played that part and others, as you knew my mislike of plays. Now, I condescended to your desire most gladly: yourself acknowledge it, and hartilie thank me for it. I would to God I might have likewise thanked you: whereof you have given me so little cause, so great cause to the contrary, that I must needs cōplain you have forgotten the lesson which a heathen Emperor had learned of Jews or Christians, and marvelously loved it, Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris. For whereas you had said that stage-players were not counted infamous by the civil law, but only such as played for game; and I, to refute this, declared that the Romans, whose judgment and custom doeth best interpret their own law, counted Nero infamous for playing, though freely; which, least you perhaps through ambiguity of a word, should except against, that it was not stage-playing of Men's and Womens partes, I opened it by the examples of your Hippodamia, Eurymachus, and Phemius: you reply hereon, that this is my arguing; Many noble men, and Nero him self were infamous for playing, though freely, men's and women's partes, and specially Nero for singing like a fiddler on the stage; Ergo, scholars and the students of Christ-church are to be noted with a mark of infamy, for playing, though gratis, such partes as they did in Ulysse reduce; and namely the Master of our Choristers for playing Phemius; notwithstanding for his honesty, modesty, and good voice, he is as worthy to be delivered from infamy, as Phemius him self is feigned to be saved from death, for his excellent skill in Music, to say nothing of the rest. And not content to wrest mine argument from my drift, and rack it to my sentence from the Civil law, to Christ-church players from the Roman, you shut up your tale with this moral: I dare not deny this argument, because it is yours; I refer it to the charitable judgment of my betters. Hast thou appealed to Caesar? to Caesar shalt thou go, quoth Fest •… s, Even so am I contented, good Syr, that our betters do judge of mine argument, and your charitable usage of it. To the which intent I beseech you hartilie, that, with the next play you publish, you will set forth my letters, and your answer to them. In the mean season, I think, that when omitting the force of mine argument against your distinction of playing for gain, & freely, you drew in the mention of the Master of your Choristers, his honesty, his modesty, his good voice, his Music, and of the rest of the Scholers & students of Christ-church: your purpose was to show a piece of that art, that Servius Galba did. Who, being endited of a great offense, whereof he could not clear him self, and therefore slipping from it, commended to the judges both his own children, and the child of his kinsman, a most worthy citizen, that being lately dead, had left him gardian to his child: so to save him self by the people's mercy and commiseration of the boys, which he could not have done by the desert of the cause and his own innocence. For if the good qualities of the Master of your Choristers, or of your Scholers and Students, do prove that the Romans counted it no infamy for such to be stage-players, howe soever they counted it for Nero: then Tully spake absurdly, when he said that Roscius both for his skill in playing seemed alone worthy to come upon the stage, and for his virtue and honesty, seemed alone worthy not to come upon it. And how can the charitable judgment of your betters; nay, howe can your own, charge me as offending for setting down that of the Romans, which by consequent toucheth the Master of your Choristers credit, and others of Christchurch: where yourself acknowledge, that your invectiue against Momus, doeth consequently fall on me, on the Preacher, on whosoever else reprove plays, and yet you may have written it without offense, you trust?

But in this matter your fault is the less, because you had some color thereof by mine exemplifying in three of your players: nor did the Romans always count them so infamous but that the best of them were sometime well esteemed of, as Tullius great acquaintance with Roscius and Aesopus argueth. In the next you do me so much the greater injury, by how much both the turpitude and vilanie is greater wherewith you bear your Students in hand that I charge them: and I was farther off from giving cause to be so dealt with, having refrained purposely from naming any of yours in opening of the point. For being to prove that the prohibition of men to put on women's raiment (in Deuteronomy) belongeth to the moral law, and thereupon declaring how it is referred by learned Divines, to the commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery: I said that they had reason to refer it so, because, among the kinds of adulterous lewdenes, men's natural corruption and vitiousnes is prone to monstrous sin against nature, as the Scripture witnesseth in Canaanites, Jews, Corinthians, other in other nations, one with special caution Nimium est quod intelligitur; and the putting of women's attire upon men, may kindle great sparkles of lust thereunto in unclean affections, as Nero shown in Sporus, Heliogabalus in himself; yea certain, who grew not to such excess of impudency, yet arguing the same in causing their boys to wear long hear like women. This, in your examining the sense of Moses words, whereunto I used it, you pass over wholly; without mention of the judgment of the learned Divines, or of my reason given for it. But in the point following, where I handled other inconveniences and discommodities of plays, with special applyinge thereof unto yours: We pray you Syr (say you) to make a great difference between us and Nero with his Sporus, or Heliogabalus with him self, or the Canaanites, Jews, Corinthians, or them that cause their Pages to wear long hear like women, or any such dogs: we hartilie abhor them. You say out of Quintilian, Nimium est quod intelligitur: and I may say, Nimium est quod dicitur. We thank God, our youth do not practice such things, they think not of thē, they know them not: neither cā any mā living the rather for our plays charge any one of us with the least suspicion of any such abomination. I have been often moved by our plays to laughter, and sometime to tears: but I cannot accuse either myself, or any other, of any such beastly thought stirred up by them. And therefore we should most vncharitablie be wronged, if our putting on of Womanly raiment, should either directly or indirectlie be referred to the commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery. All these are your own words. In which that you may see, what your dealing is, behold a pattern of it. There was a certain Preacher, who catechizing his hearers in the principles of faith, and delivering to them Christ's exposition of the law, Thou shalt not commit adultery; told them that the very looking upon women, whereby men are occasioned to think or lust vnchastlie, is a breach thereof. He proved it by the examples of Putiphars wife, who cast her eyes on Joseph, and fell in love with him; of Job, who therefore made a covenant with his eyes, least he should think upon a maid; of David, who looking on Bethsabe from his house top, did lust incontinentlie after her. And because the parties, whom he taught, were scholars, well read in foreign writers, he added howe the learned Heathens had declared that love doeth enter in by the eyes; fair persons seen, have made men mad; and in them also is that verified, Urit{que} videndo Foemina; as Xenophon recordeth Cyrus to have noted; and Propertius found by trial in him self. Now, among the company to which the Preacher spake, one, not evil minded, yet loving good fellowship, and a more remiss, or well nigh loose kind of living, fearing least by the credit & force of this doctrine, certain of his friends whom he had made acquainted with beautiful wives, or handsome maids, should grow into suspicion of wantonness and lightness, rose up and said unto the Preacher; We pray you, Syr, to make a great difference between us, and them whom Cyrus speaketh of, or Propertius him self; or Putiphras Wife, Job, David, or such as let their eyes be porters unto love, and dote by seeing fair persoons: we hartilie mislike them. You say out of Uirgill, Urit{que} videndo Foemina; and I may say, Urit{que} loquendo Masculus. We thank God, our youth do not practice such things, they think not of them, they know them not: neither can any man living, the rather for our looking on handsome maids, or beautiful Wives, charge any one of us with the least suspicion of any such uncleanness. I have been delited often with their sight, and sometime moved to pity: but I cannot accuse either myself, or any other of any such wicked thought stirred up thereby. And therefore we should most uncharitably be wronged, if the casting of our eyes on wives, or on maids, should either directly or indirectlie be referred to the commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery. What think you of this man, Master D. Gager? Did he not the Preacher wrong? Certainly, if you have the spirit wherewith David answered Nathan's parable, you will confess, he did. And what ensueth, you see: I need not add, You are the man. But this I must add, that the wrong you do me is so much more palpable, then was this carpers of the Preacher, because I said, that the putting of Womens attire upon men, may kindle sparks of lust in unclean affections: I said not, in all men's affections, but in some; not in sanctified, but in unclean. What? And do you grant, that you, and your youth, have unclean affections, to the intent you may blame my speech? If not, why tell you me, that the putting of womanlie raiment upon men, hath not stirred any such beastly thought in any of you; whē I spake expressly of unclean affections? Besides, can you accuse yourself, or any other, of any wanton thought stirred up in you by looking on a beautiful Woman? If you can; then ought you beware of beautiful boys transformed into womē by putting on their raiment, their feature, looks and facions. For men may be ravished with love of stones, of dead stuff, framed by cunning grauers to beautiful women's likeness; as, in Poets fables appeareth by Pygmalion, by Venus Gnidia in stories: and Chaerea, arrayed like an Eunuch only, did move the beastly lust of him who was lasciviouslie given in the Comedy. If you cannot: then do you both me, yourself and others, injury in concluding, that therefore you should most uncharitably be wronged, if your putting on of Womanly raiment, should either directly or indirectlie be referred to the commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery. For my speech was general, that the cladding of youthes in such attire is an occasion of drawing & provoking corruptlie minded men to most heinous wickedness, & therefore should be wisely cut off by the faithful: as if, in a Sermon to the vniversitie, expounding that of Job, I made a covenant with mine eyes, I should tell the Students, that though he name a maid, we must extend the lesson farther; by the man's example, whom a worthy governor, in other words to like effect, admonished of making a covenant with his eyes, for saying; O puerum pulchrum Pericle. Wherevppon if any should tell his acquaintance of this, or that College, Tutor, or other, accustomed to cast his eyes on such children as God had adorned with comeliness of body, that I went about to make them suspected of most horrible lewdenes, he should do both them and me notorious injury. Albeit, as our Savior, saying to his Disciples, Take heed what you hear, did purpose to stir them up to mark diligently that which he delivered, & faithfully to perform it; yet condemned them not as reckless or unfruitful hearers of his word: so I would acknowledge that in saying likewise, Take heed what you see, my meaning were to stir up both Tutours, and all other, to carry them selves chastlie, even in their looks also, least death come in by their windows, though I mean no more to make them suspected by this admonition, then I do myself. Which if you, who touch me so bitterlie, and often, for doing you or yours uncharitable wrong, had charitably marked: I should have less cause of wishing you to play the Physician better, & first to heal yourself.

This I say not only of my general speeches set upon the rack to make me odious to your Studentes: but of the particular too, that may be thought to concern them specially. As namely that I mentioned Eurymachus kissing of Melantho: a thing which I gathered to have been done by her own words: since they were both intended to be alone secretly, when he had fowl vnmodest lascivious talk with her; and the music & daunsing, whereof she speaks withal, was represented on the stage. But I named them only for example sake; my drift being general against such plays as express such actions: whether set forth presently by you; as your Rivales, in which some of the wooers perhaps kissed Phoedra; or heretofore, as that of Plautus, in which Phaedromus kissed Planesium without perhaps. Wherefore since you defend your former plays as well as these, and in that respect commend by name Plautus, as you have great reason, comparing any Comedy of his with your Rivales: what aimed you at in saying, that, for the danger of kissing beautiful boys you know not howe the suspicion should reach unto you, because it is untrue that Eurymachus kissed Melantho; unless your meaning were to practice that malice (so learned men do justly term it) of rhetorike, I mean, by restraining my general intent unto your present players, to draw me into their hatred? Else, when you inquired of the parties them selves, whether any such action were used by them, and they (you say) denied it constantly: why did you not inquire also of Plautus, whether it were used by Phaedromus, & Planesiū, and of the ancients of your house, whether Phoedromus and Planesium came ever on your stage? Sure you should have takē this course by the equity of that which seemeth reasonable to you in your own cause. For, spying by mine answer, that your example of Achilles wearing woman's raiment, did not serve your turn: you reply, that we may imagine such a one as will serve it, with change of a circumstance. And this in your defense must go for sufficient. But the case is altered, when it toucheth me: yea, although my purpose may be proved by true, not by imagined, examples. So indulgent commonly are men unto them selves: so rigorous unto others.

Howbeit, I should not complain of this rigor, but for the tail of it, and the sting of breeding evil will among brethren, which doeth lurk therein. The venom and poison whereof goeth about to spread it self abroad through more partes of your body, then Phemius, Eurymachus, & the players of women; by means that you likewise instill the same humor, at least seek to instill it as much as in you lieth, into the rest of all your players, their teachers and instructors, and in conclusion your whole house. For whereas the third branch of our reasons, set down by you in Momus his name against plays, had avouched not only their time to be misspent who were employed therein, but some of their persons, their minds, corrupted also; and I, to show how cunninglie you, encountering this proposed the loss of time alone and not of men, did declare that Cyprian writing of a stage-player, who made boys effeminate by instructing them howe to play the women, and to express and counterfeit dishonest wanton gestures, saith, he was a master not of teaching but spilling children; and thereof did infer, that the loss of time should not have been objected so much against your plays, seeing some of the players (if they were like the youthes whom Cyprian speaketh of) might reply as Phaedria, when Parmeno did tell him that his gift bestowed on Thais would be lost, Ego quoque unà pereo, quod mihi est carius; ne istuc tam iniquo patiare animo: behold, with how charitable applying of my words you come in thus upon me, The saying of Saint Cyprian against a stage-player, or of Phaedria of him self to Parmeno, cannot be justly used against us. For he should do us great contumely, that should think, or say, that either we are masters not of teaching, but spilling children; or that both time and our young men were cast away altogether by those exercises. And to make a deeper impression in your young men that I do them this contumely, with another also brought for proof hereof: you go forward thus: But it is no marvel that you imply so ill a coceite of them, if you doubt that, as I answered Momus, our actors can show greater fruit of their time well spent, then any that is bred up by Mo •… usses discipline can. For you pray God that they may: as doubting it is not so. Wherein, first and foremost, if your conscience tell you, that yourself (for whom else you associate to you by we are masters, I know not) are touched in Saint Cyprians reproof of the stage-player: I can no way help it, save with that of Scripture, If your heart condemn you, God is greater then your heart, and knoweth all things. But whether I might not allege Saint Cyprians words, to show that somewhat more then time is cast away and spilled by such stage-plays as make boys effeminate: let our betters judge. Who, I trust, will not condemn the poor swalowes for chattering and using their voice, agreeably to nature, because Bessus surmised they cried against him that he had killed his father. Next, in that you charge me with insinuating of your young men, that both time and them selves are cast away altogether by those exercises, and add, it is no marvel that I imply so ill a conceit of them: truly, it is marvel, that you, professing so much good will to me as you do, should in so few words use so many tricks of calumniation to breed a misliking of me in your young men. One, by making me to speak of them at large, and indefinitlie: whereas I noted only such as played the Women, and of them such only, as were taught to counterfeit dishonest wanton gestures, that is, as played unchaste women. An other, by adjoining the particle Altogether, as if I had judged them dead, dead, past all recovery: whereas the terms I used imported that they were in spilling, not spilled, much less spilled altogether, but like the things in Sardis which were ready to die. A third, by suppressing the means of their spilling, to weet, the making of them effeminate, which I specified; and by setting down a word of more honest and common signification in steed thereof, to weet, exercises: as who say that peremptory sentence had been given of all, even them who played men's partes, yea the best men's; where I censured only the filth of playing wanton queanes so with Cyprian. A fourth, by rehearsing it as absolutely pronounced: where I with a condition restraining the sentence, did manifestly show that I affirmed it not, except they took like harm with those whom Cyprian speaketh of; and therefore drew my speech from your special players, to the general question. A fifth, by making proof thereof, as good and sound, as the thing proved; in saying, It is no marvel that I imply so ill a conceit of them, if I doubt that your actors can show greater fruit of their time well spent then any that is bred up by Momusses discipline can: and yielding this reason to persuade the young men that I doubt it is not so, because I pray God that they may. Which reason if it hold: then our Oxford Preachers have a badd opinion of the Uicechancelour, the Doctors, the Proctors, the Heades of houses: for they are wont to pray that we may be good; and therefore by your inference they doubt we are not so. And will not your Christ. church Preachers be discredited hereby with your Studentes, as much as I am: seeing they pray commonlie as well for the Studentes, as for the Dean and Prebendaries? Questionlesse yourself would think, he did you injury who should say you believe not an article of your faith, the forgiveness of sins. Yet you are accustomed to pray, Forgive us our sins, when notwithstanding he that doubteth, faileth in belief. And for mine own part, if to one commending the French most Christian King, that he can look wisely enough to his own safety against both open force, & secret fraud of the Leaguers, I should answer (in like sort as I did to you) I pray God he may; sure he shall the better if he never trust them, nor any of that brood of the whore of Babylon: I would be understood, both hartilie to wish, and reasonablie to hope, that he shall meetelie well be able to do it; although the more able, if he use this caution. Or, if some presumptions moved you to doubt whether I meant thus, or worse: you should have remembered the rules of your law for gentle construying of things doubtful. But suppose that I had even denied also, not only doubted, that your actors can show greater fruit of their time well spent then any that is bred up by Momusses discipline can: is it therefore likely that I imply so ill a conceit of them as that they are altogether cast away? Yea, you say. And why? Because they could do little, if they could not do so much, and a great deal more, and better, whensoever they shall be tried. For what is the discipline of Momus, but the school of carping, nipping, depraving, and reprehending of every good thing? Wherevpon you add, to amplify the strange iniquity of my dealing, that of all other things you thought I would not, or could not have taken any exception to that speech of yours. In deed if I had taken the discipline of Momus in that sense you give it; your so ill collection of my so ill conceit should have some probability. But I had declared that by the name of Momus you noted all reproovers of plays. And howsoever that be, whereof more hereafter: dowtlesse I meant scholars trained up by such in godliness and good learning, when I prayed that your actors might show greater fruit of their time well spent, then any that is bred up by Momusses discipline can. Which is plain and evident by the words following, in that I affirmed, that this which you term the discipline of Momus, is not his but Cyprians, or rather the holy Ghosts. For God forbid that you should proceed from evil to worse in such excess of sclandering, as to tell your actors, that I say, the discipline of the holy Ghost is the school of carping, nipping, depraving, & reprehending of every good thing. Now, though my conceit of them be so good, that I am persuaded, or rather know in part, they can show great fruit of their time well spent, and have in trial done it: yet I know withal some of so great towardness brought up by the other, that, if all your actors think they can show greater fruit thē any of these, they will make me think their good conceit of themselves is worse thē mine ill. And see of how different opinions you and I are about this matter. I know sundry scholars of rare expectatiō and hope in other Colleges, for whom my prayer is they may show as great fruit of their time well spent as some of these can: and yet in my judgment I have no ill conceit of them. You, unless I think that your Christ-church actors can show much greater fruit, do judge, and give sentence, that my conceit of them is ill: so ill, beyond all huy and cry, that it is a token I imply in covert speech (expounded charitably) that they are cast away, yea, cast away altogether, and irrecoverably lost.

Lesser is the wrong, yet a wrong also, that of your actors likewise you say, they are condemned by me to hateful infamy, a thing to all honest minds more intolerable then death it self: and farther, that your house, yourself, and many honest towardly young men, your friends, whom for good causes you heartily love, are charged with open infamy. It may be, the circumstance noted herewithal, in that you add it greeveth you and them not a little, that they should in private, but much more in public, be charged with such infamy: hath reference to the Sermon rather which was preached in the public audience of the vniversitie, then to letters written in private unto you. Howbeit, whethersoeuer of us it toucheth more, your complaint is somewhat partial to yourself: who take in evil parte, that we by word or writing should teach or maintain ought whereof there may grow infamy by consequent to you; yet would have us take it well and patiently, that you have set forth and published that in print, whereof there may grow infamy by consequent to us. But the wrong I meant you do me in those clauses of your accusation, concerneth both the matter of crime, and the persons: the matter, for aggravating the quality of the note of infamy, which they are charged with, by terming it hateful, open, more intolerable to all honest minds then death it self: the persons, for extending it from a few members to the whole body, from the players to your house. Concerning the later (to begin with it) beside that you say that in answering my writing you defend your house, not only the particular players, from infamy: you add that they are charged therewith to the general reproach of your house, if so hard a censure should be by men of note enforced and persuaded. And why should you more interpret our action to the general reproach of your house, because we reproved that by word or writing which some of Christchurch had practiced: then we interpret yours to the general reproach of our house, because you defended that by printed treatise, which some of Queens college had reproved? If the reason be, for that we are men of note who work the discrediting of you: they are men of note too, whose verses you having prefixed before your book, do countenance your disgrace of us. Nether do I see what reason else you bring, or can, but that we shall meet you in the same (speak of consent, or what you list) to wring out of the special reproach of your players the general of your house. As for the former concerning the infamy, the quality whereof not content to amplify with terms that may be common to all infamy in a sort, you name it more intolerable to all honest minds then death it self: whether do you mean the infamy they are charged with by the Civil law, in the first reason; or that which lighteth on them by the law of God, in the reasons following? If by the civil law: then belike a chaste and honestlie minded woman, who having lost her husband doeth marry within twelve month after his decease, had rather she were dead: and her father likewise, who placeth her so in marriage, had rather he were dead with her. For both these are noted with infamy by the civil law: and that in such degree, as may be more intolerable and grievous unto them, for ought that I said, then unto your players. If by the law of God: do you not know that infamy being opposit to good fame, and nothing being counted of good fame, praiseworthy, but that which is honest, just, pure, virtuous; every fault hath infamy, annexed thereunto; not every fault a little degree and height of infamy, but every fault infamy? Do you not think that all your players have some fault: and account the shame thereof to be more tolerable a great deal, then death? Do you not confess (though tempering it with saying it may be so perhaps) that they have in their playing picked out as it were quail eyes of a wantonness, and offended in some small matter? What needed then your tragical exaggeration of hateful open infamy, more intolerable to all honest minds then death it self: when all that I enforced against them was but infamy? whom sought you to make hateful by that pathetical speech, tending to compassion of Ulysses in show, to somewhat else in deed: Unhappy Ulysses, to whom as it was fatal ever to be in trouble in his life, so is he more hardly dealt withal after his death, that his person may not honestly be resembled without note of infamy to the actor? Howe skillful an inveigling is this of your players, to think themselves defamed most odiouslie forever, when he who played Ulysses parte, one of the best, and therefore least of all touched with that note, is said to be so touched with it, that all the troubles of Ulysses are nothing to his shame? Nay, the shame inflicted on him who played Ulysses, is such a vexation to Ulysses himself, that he is more hardly dealt withal herein (poor soul) after his death, then while in his life time his sweet wine was drunk, his men were eaten up, two at a meal, by Polyphemus; himself escaped hardly through Polyphemus rams help out of his clouches, not without great fear, I know, when Polyphemus talked with the ram; and beside the danger to be soonke and drowned by the top of a mountain that Polyphemus hurled at him, he was tossed in the sea, upon broken pieces of his ship, being wracked, ten nights and nine days, save one wherein he stuck fast to a wild fig tree growing in Charybdis; whereof, and of a great deal more such woe, he tasted, by his men's unhappy letting out of the winds, which Aeolus had given him bound up in a leathren bag or satchell.

To make an end of this point, I am to request your Students and your house; because you contstrain me (that I may use the Prophets phrase) to restore that which I took not away, that they will consider how the note of infamy, which I did enforce, I enforced it against the partes played by Histrio, not against the Christ church parties who played them; against Roscius & Aesopus, not against the Master of your Choristers; I mean against players, not against those players: as Tully saith of Piso, that when the Romans gave him the office of the Aedileship, they gave it to Piso, not to this Piso; meaning that in committing such place of honor to him they respected the dignity of his name and stock, not the qualities of his person. For as this Piso, the particular man, was lewd, base, dishonorable; yet Piso, the kindred it self, whereof he came, was honorable and renowned: semblablie may players, the general that I spake of, be esteemed infamous; and yet the same infamy, as small as it is in comparison of the capital marks you fasten on it, be less or none at all in the special persons of your house, of those players. Which, if it be lawful for me to compare lesser things with greater (as I, by the example of our Saviors parables always thought I might, & never heard them called incomparable comparisons till you controlled me with this taunt and the like for using them) I shall make plain unto you by the clear evidence & light of both those laws, whence they are charged. For wicked persons are infamous; idolaters are wicked; they, that offer incense, as Paynims did, are idolaters. Certain Christian soldiers, not knowing what such offering of incense did import, were by the conveyance of Julian the apostata brought to offer it. Who, when they were afterward informed, what they had done, returned back to Julian, professing and protesting them selves to be Christians, persisting in the faith, and praying they might die for it. Were these infamous for that fact? No: because their hand did offend through ignorance (saith the Ecclesiastical history) their mind was pure and guiltless. And although their ignorance of the law was faulty, the mother of their error: yet man's constitutions bearing with soldiers that way, and God forgiving his servants greater oversights, who dare condemn them for their fall? Those monsters of nature, which burning in their lust one toward another, men with men work filthiness, are as infamous, as Sodom: not the doers only, but the sufferers also.

A young Italian Gentleman, named Cosmus Cherius, had that horrible villainy wrought through force upon him by Petrus Aloisius Pope Paul the thirds son. Was he infamous for his suffering? No more then Lucretia for violence done by Tarquin, how soever he died for sorrow and shame of it: the law of God and man both will acquit him. In a word, all impious and dishonest wretches, namely the unrighteous, fornicators, adulterous, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners, are infamous. The Corinthians had been such, but they repented. Were they infamous for their vices? A natural man might stick hereat in some part: but Saint Paul denieth it. For he saith, they were sanctified, holy, washed, justified: and such as are cleansed from the filth of sin, are cleansed from the blemish & reproach thereof; no just and holy man is infamous. In the like sort therefore may a note of infamy remain upon players: and yet be removed as far from your players, as is the East from the West. For what if some of them knew not this point of law? and were of such age too (which they were all perhaps, at least the players of wemens partes) as the law exeuseth for ignorance thereof? What if others were commanded to play by their superiors, whom they durst not displease; and so were in a manner enforced thereunto; excused by Tully for necessity? What if a third sort, or more, even these also, have since repented their playing, and thereby Washed them selves, and made them selves clean? Or if neither ignorance, nor force, nor repentance, had either diminished that ignominious blott, or clean abolished it; the contrary whereof I am persuaded by the good nature, and honest ingenuity of such of the parties as I know; but if they had not: yet I being taught to presume the best by him who saith that charity believeth all things, hopeth all things, was to deem they had, and so I do still.

Yea, although you say it grieveth them not a little that they should in private, but much more in public, be charged with infamy, I believe and hope so much the better of them: knowing that there is a grief to repentance, which the Lord worketh in his by such reproofs; and it was well with Peter, whē he wept bitterlie. Wherefore having this persuasion of your players, even of them for whose partes I charged plays most, namely Hippodamia, Melantho, the Nyph, Phaedra, & her Nurse; if I should have noted them as infamous, them I say, not their partes, these players and not players; I should have taken on me the judgment that belongeth unto the searcher of hearts and reins, and spoken against mine own conscience. Which if you have made them believe I love them so ill, by reason of the bad conceit I have of them, that I would do of spite and malice to discredit them: yet lett me entreat them to think I love myself better, then that I would through their sides wound mine own; who, when I was about the age that they are, six and twenty years since, did play a woman's parte upon the same stage, the part of Hippolyta. As for you, who pretending in your proposition you would assay to show that the truth in this controversy belongeth rather to your answers, then to the reasons fathered on Momus, do afterward endeavor in your confutation to obscure & darken the truth with mists of pity and human affections, inculcating that it would be a contumely to this or that youth with many, unless the cause be won on your side: lett me entreat you likewise to regard hereafter, if not my most reasonable petition and desire, yet your own conclusion; who, saying you may grant without offense, you trust, that your censure of Momus in the generality lighteth upon me, do add these words to prove it; For the main matter is not, whether you had occasion to think yourself to be touched in the generality, or no, being of that opinion you are, but whether the opinion be justifiable, or no. Which point if you remember in your next reply, though next reply rather I need not much to fear if this point be remembered, no more then Cato needed to fear Galbas answer, who had been condemned except he had used boys & tears, as Cato wrote; but, had you remembered it in your last reply: you might have induced me the more easily to hearken unto your advise and request, that I should rather deal with you by private conference then by further writing, if you had greatly erred in anything.

For the truth and equity of that which I said in defense 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 hunger, which for an inordinate appetite it breedeth, Physicians call the 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 proême. Wherein I having thanked you for that by enlarging your answer to Momus, you shown why you thought our reasons to be naught, since 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 carpe and check. But how? First, where I had written, that as our Savior, 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 judgment, 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 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 smiten by you. Then which speech of yours (I pray you be not offended with me for my plainesse) I never read any, to my remembrance, more void of reason. For our Saviors dilemma (according to the 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 two thieves, who suffered with Christ, and deserved death, were brought into judgment, in case the judge had offered to give sentence against them before they *heard why, they might have justly said, If we have robbed any, bear witness of our robbery; if not, why do you condemn us? Wherefore when, to reprove the former part of my dilemma, you affirm that no man can rightly say unto you, If our reasons be naught, discover their naughtiness, because Christ undoubtedly had said nothing but reason: undoubtedly yourself do speak beside all reason. As much in a manner, as beside the truth, when to reprove the later part thereof you add, that you do Mome no man. For so must I interpret your words of smiting no man: or else you speak beside all reason herein too, when upon my citing Christ's words, Why doest thou smite me, by way of similitude to your Moming us, you say, no man is smitten by you. But that some are smitē by you with Momus name, even all reproovers of plays, and so (which is the next branch you pluck at) myself; I shown by the meaning of the tale of Momus, opened out of Aristotle, joined with your applying thereof unto a person who chargeth plays as we do. To the refutation whereof it maketh nothing, that when you declared you did enlarge therefore your answer unto Momus, because I and others had asked why the things by him objected were not answered, you say that by others you meant some of your friends, not reprovers of plays: and that you had no purpose to touch me in particular, nor knew, when you conceived and penned the devise of Momus, that I had reproved them. For was it the man in the moon, trow we, whose rascal reproaches, or (as you correct it) trivial and common, you put in the mouth of Momus, and made your Epilog control them? Or was it some on earth, whose speeches, being noted by you as commō and taunting, do argue that they had one or more authors, not friends, but adversaries of plays? Moreover, when you tell me, that till you understood it by me and by a Preacher of late, you never thought that either I, or any other, in the University had abbetted Momus objections: do you not confess, that, ere you wrote this, you understood it of us two? And can you persuade yourself that we two alone, and nobody else, are abbetters of them? Nay, do you not signify that you see there are more, when, speaking of others, you say you mean •… not such, as you perceive by me there are, who should mislike your plays; and by way of opposing me and them to Many, you name us One or a Few? You acknowledge then, that notwithstanding yourself meant not these by others, yet certain such there are. Neither can your using the devise of Criticus & Zoilus in like manner to rebuke the carpers of your own Tragedie as curious and malicious, permit you to deny with any color of probability that you meant to note these by Momus name. Chieflie now that you have expressly fastened it on them in your reply: saying in excuse of the time, the Sunday, whereon your Tragedie was played, that some of them, it may be, who misliked your plays, were worse occupied then your actors were on the same night, playing Momus part in good earnest before you, which you did afterward but for pastime. Wherefore your complaing that you know not whom, nor very well what, I mean by They & Us, in that I said, They whose objections, and, Why do you Mome us, is frivolous and idle, to say no worse of it: frivolous, because you know I mean the Preacher, myself, and all abbetters of Momus his objections: idle, because albeit you knew not whom I mean, yet my speech is found, that, They, whose objections against plays, you attributed to the person of Momus, might justly say in my judgment, If our reasons be naught, discover their naughtiness; if good, Why do you Morne us? More idle and frivolous is your laboring to persuade me, that I had no just occasion to suspect that your purpose was therein to touch me, to tax me in particular; both by discoursing that those two inducements, to weet, my reproving of Theater-sights and stage-plays in the Preface of my Thesis, and my reasons given thereof in letters to D. Thornton, which I (so you affirm) did chiefly allege to prove my conjecture, are not enough to prove it, in as much as you had not read the one of thē, nor heard of the other: and by most earnestly avouching coram Deo (as if an oath needed to clear you from my wrongful opinion and surmise) that your meaning only was to move delight in the auditory, with the novelty of the invention, and the person; and to object those things against yourselves by yourselves, which might abate all suspicion of vain glory or self-pleasing in you; and so by this means, as it were with a slight, to shift of all occasion of others ill speaking, whē you had prevented them with as ill as mought be. I say, this is more idle and frivolous then the former, because I was so far from making any show of suspecting myself to be touched purposely by you in particular: that contrariwise I signified I thought myself touched, not so, but in general; by the censure lighting, not in your intent, but in event, upon me. And for this respect alone, not for the other, did I allege those writings of mine, which you mention; to prove, not a conjecture thereby, but a certainty, that I was a reproover of plays; and therefore since you meant to note all such reproovers under the name of Momus, as I shown withal, must needs think myself to be touched therein. Which also I delivered with such care of plainesse and perspecuity, distinguishing eftsoons your intent of noting no particular man from your general note touching me by consequent, that as on the one parte you could not choose but grant that I had occasion to think myself touched in the generality; likewise of the other, you were enforced to see, that I gave no token of any way suspecting you to have intended particularly to tax me. In so much that yourself, encoūtring as it were your discourse thereof, acknowledge it expresselie with these very words; But that I had no purpose by Momus side to wound you, according to the law of charity, upon my former protestation, you do most gladly credit me, as you write; and with these, The matter is cleared in your good mind; thus yourself commend me, and heartily thank me for it. A strange kind of dealing to charge a man with thinking amiss of your purpose, who, by your own confession, thinketh rightly of it; to touch him as breaking the law of charity through false surmises, who keepeth it in your own judgment; to take the name of God for effecting with him by new protestation, that which your former protestation, yourself say, had obtained of him; by manifest misconstruction to press out of his writing a point whereof he writeth the contrary, as yourself witness; to control a thing as misdeemed by him upon erroneous conjecture, which your own conscience testified to you, and your own mouth to others, that it is cleared in his mind; finally to pretend, that being assaulted by one who sought your life, you were compelled to enter a long combat with him, when you grant straightways upon the ende thereof that no man did assault you; it was a post only, whereon you set a helmet to make it seem a man, that so by valiant foyning at it, and hacking of it, you might get the creditt of having slain an enemy, and left him in the place as dead as a door nail. The Physicians note, that such as are diseased with that kind of hungry sickness, which I mentioned, have a greedy appetite to be eating still: but being unable to keep that they have eaten, do cast it up by vomit; and then eat more, and vomit again; and eat eftsoons, and vomit. How like a distemper you are fallen into, through desire of swalowing up & contradicting all that I had written, which yet your want of strength to hold and maintain doeth force you to regorge and yield: your going onward in this course bewrayeth farther. For I, to show how all reproovers of plays are noted as unjust reproovers by your tale of Momus, declared out of Aristotle, that it was devised to check such as reprove unjustly the best and perfitest works of the most wise and skillful. You reply that you brought him not in so much in that sense that Aristotle speaketh of, as a reproover of the best and perfitest works of the most wise and skillful; for I never took (say you) either ourselves, or our plays to be such: but as we commonly take him as a carper, and a pincher at all things that are done with any opinion of well doing. Wherein with one breath you overthwart, and grant, the purport of my speech. You overthwart it in saying that you brought Momus in, as we commonly take him; & opposing this point to the point I mentioned, Not in that sense that Aristotle speaketh of, but thus: You grant it in confessing that you brought him in also in that sense, though not so much in that sense: which I said not you did so much, but only that you did it. And albeit herein by gainsaying me with your, Not, and But, you may seem to charge me with saying that you brought him in so much in that sense: yet you meant rather by cunning interlacing of those words, so much, closely to discharge your mouth of a morsel, which you had taken in, and felt it overhoott and burning. For having alleged the very same that Aristotle, howe Momus carped Nature, the Creator of all things, that is, God, I trow, the most wise and skillful framer of the best and perfitest works: you add, that after this sort, Momus (whom you bring in) though doing naught him self, yet carpeth at the best; and hath with these and these tants declaimed against your plays. So, whereas your reason, that you never took yourselves or your plays to be such, should import that you brought him not in at all in that sense; and then had I affirmed amiss, that you rehearsed the tale to such purpose: your ground thereof alayed with the terms, so much, implieth that you grant, that the thing itself, which I affirmed, is true, and that you were disposed to play by this conveyance a juggling trick of fast and loose. Again, whereas I noted that you called our reasons, attributed to Momus, rascal reproaches, using the English words to express your Latin, probra arrepta ex triviis: first you wish I had not so tanslated it, for that the words in Latin naturally sound not so hardly; yet afterward you grant that you know the words may be so properly translated. Wherof in the later how manifestly you cast up that which you swallowed in the former, appeareth by your laboring to cōfirm the former, what with Alciats saying, that words must be generally taken so far forth as their propriety may bear; what with your own denying that probra arrepta ex triviis do most properly and principally signify rascal reproaches. Most properly, and principally; a like seat in adding to the word properly, most, and principally, as before in thrusting in the terms, so much: since neither in the clause, which answereth to this, you join most with naturally; nor say out of Alciat, that words must be taken as their most principal propriety may bear (though by an other note of his, displaced cunningly, and racked hereunto, it seemeth you would fain imply it) but as their propriety. Howbeit, if I list to press you therein also, perhaps the same phrase, arnipere maledictum ex trivio, used by Tully, and compared with Alciats meaning of most proper and principal signification, would prove that probra arrepta ex triviis do most properly and principally signify rascal reproaches. Sure they have been deemed skillful of both languages, who taking on them to deliver the principal and most proper signification of Latin words, have Englished maledictum arreptum ex trivio, a reproach or taunt, which is commonly spoken by every railing knave, or, that is common in every verlets mouth: and what doeth this, I pray you, differ from rascal? But since yourself acknowledge that words naturally do sound and signify that which they signife properly, and that these in question may be translated properly as I did translate them: you show that in affirming they do not naturally sound so hardly, you controlled as false that which yourself knew to be true, yea, which you needs must so acknowledge. In like sort do you cross your me, nay, you cross yourself, when in another indictment that you draw against me for the same Englishing of your Latin, to weet, that though the words may be so properly translated, yet not to your mind so properly, that is, not so gently as you meant them, and therefore I did mistranslate them: you say that in law and reason they are ever to be interpreted according to their natural and proper signification, unless we conjecture that he who speak them meant otherwise; and no man can justly conjecture that you meant to use any honest man with so illtermes, when you meant no man at all. See the pitiful taking of such as seek devises to bolster out untruths for their credits sake: who by those very shifts, by which they hope to scape, are oftentimes entangled, and as it were with nets or chains entrapped faster. Your own affirmation, that you meant no man at all, doeth give me just cause of coniecturing that you meant to use the term of rascal, as well as of reproaches, be they never so ill. For in that you say, that you meant no man at all, you intend your former speech, that you meant Momus only. Now you charged Momus with a filthy tongue, an ugly face, a stinking breath, an ill favored gastly rammish bush of hear: and can no man justly conjecture that you meant to use him with so ill terms, as rascal reproaches? You called him a spirit, an impious carper of the God's, of men, and of nature, a person therefore odious and detestable to the God's, and to the best men: and can no man justly conjecture that you meant to use him with so ill terms, as rascal reproaches? You reported of him that he defileth all things with the unclean touch of his tongue; that he is unskillful, dull, or sottish rather: & can no man justly conjecture that you meant to use him with so ill terms, as rascal reproaches? But what do I reason out of your former writing that I had cause to think so: when yourself, in this, do give most evident & clear tokens that you meant so? For you say expressly that you made Momus to speak as ill as mought be; neither cared greatly what you made him say, as thinking any such thing became him well enough: nor talked otherwise of him, then as of a carper, a nipper, a depraver, and a reprehender of every goodthing. And can you deny that your meaning was to speak of his reproaches as rascal, base and contemptible, whom you made purposely to speak as ill as mought be, and cared not what you made him say? or dare you affirm you meant to use him gently, whom you accuse of carping, nipping, depraving, and reprehending all good things, and do rough hewe him in such sort? You tell me that how words are to be taken in charity I know better then you: but in law and reason they are to be interpreted with this rule of the speakers meaning. Belike because you weened that you had proved hereby, (chiefly having quoted thereto a lawiers text,) that, look in what sense you say you meant your words, in that I must interpret them by law and reason: you thought that I was likewise in charity bound to think that you meant them so, in as much as the scripture saith, Charity believeth all things. But you should have marked that the scripture saith also, A fool believeth everything: and he who exhorteth the faithful to be charitable, dehorteth them from doing foolishly, Walk not as fools, but as wise. A sure demonstration, that charity is said to believe all things, not properly, but in a figure; not simply all, but a number; even all that a good man in wisdom may believe. And to believe untruths, is a point of folly; repugnant, as to wisdom, so consequently to charity: which in the same parcel of scripture is said, not to rejoice in iniquity, but to rejoice at the truth. Wherefore seeing reason doeth show by sundry circumstances, that you say untruly, You meant not to use so ill and hard terms, as rascal reproaches; and this is the natural and proper signification of your Latin words, which therefore must be so interpreted by law: it were to be wished, that you learned better what charity requireth, before you raise uncharitable suspicions of others as sinning against it whē they do not; and then it might be hoped you would no more pretend the name of law or reason, to plaster your unreasonable and unlawful blaming of things delivered rightly according both to law and reason.

Pindarus saith, that men who take works in hand, must set them forth with beautiful forefrontes and entrees. The less do I marvel that you who make so badd a beginning of your work, deal worse, if worse might be, and more perverslie in the rest. Whereof to reserve for their several places the proof that in a manner all the particulars yield; two general kinds of seelie evasions and shifts may serve for the first taste: one, that when you see your arguments refuted, you deny them to be yours; another that you say, you used them not to us, but to Momus; and by this fine devise you neither answer Momus, nor us. For examples sake, whereas to the objection made out of the word of God against your plays, that it is unlawful for men to put on wemens raiment, you replied that it is not unlawful simply and always, as if one do it to save his life, to benefitt many: I shown that this reason is unsound and naught:; A mā to save his life or country, may do it; He may do it therefore to play a parte on a stage. Herevnto you answer, that you do not thus argue, It is lawful in such and such cases to putt on women's raiment; Ergo it is lawful to do it in plays: but thus; ergo it is not simply unlawful so to do. And did you argue thus in deed, neither concluded you, that it is lawful therefore to do it in plays? Certes then you disputed valiantlie against Momus, who reproved plays because young men are clad like maidens therein. But your whole discourse doeth argue that this argument whereof you are ashamed (well, if you would also ingenuouslie confess it) was intended by you. For you professed that albeit you thought Momus rascal reproaches against plays worthier to be laughed at, then to be refuted: yet the weightiest of them you would in few words shake out of their rags; or who soever you will translate your excutere, applied to those rascalls. Now by what consequence doeth your answer shake that reproach of his, unless it conclude that men may be lawfully clad in plays like women? Or who is so blind that reading your reply, perceyueth not your second Ergo, I say your second, For the first (I grant) concludeth, that it is not simply unlawful so to do; but the seconde Ergo, with the assumption following, and the Epiphonema, directly do imply a contradicting of Momus; and therefore a concluding out of the former point, that, because it is lawful in such and such cases to put on Wemens raiment, Ergo it is lawful to do it in plays? What? And when you said that no apparel but the mind doeth make a man dishonest, meant you not that men may wear women's raiment with honesty in plays? Whē you concluded that You list not wash away other things which Momus spake against you: did you not imply that herein you had met with his blaming you for young men made maidens on the stage? When you begged a seconde Plaudite of the beholders, that the guts of Momus might burst for spite asunder: sought you their approbation of Achilles changing his sex to save his life; or of Melanthos doing it to feed theatrical humors? In the Greek Epigrammes we read of two deaf men impleading one the other before a deaf judge. Amongst whom when the plaintiff objected to the defendant, that he ought him five months rent for his house, and the defendant answered that he was grinding corn at the mill that night: What a God's name, quoth the judge, what needeth this contention? Hath not eche of you a mother? Let eche find his own. I am glad, M ^r D. Gager, that by your appealing to the judgment of our betters, we have agreed on judges who hear well enough. For they, understanding how your Ulysses redux is penned and was played, will judge that you are not deaf: as their like at Athens having heard Oedipus Coloneus read, a tragedy written by Sophocles, gave sentence that he was not a sott or doting man. And therefore, though you tell them that in your reply, of grinding at the mill, you meant to prove only that you hurt not Momus by seeking of his life or purse that night on Salsbery plain: yet they, considering wisely that you professed to answer his bill of complaint touching the five months rent, will think you argued thus against him; I was grinding corn at the mill that night, Ergo I owe him not five months rent for his house. Neither can I doubt but they will in like sort mislike your other practice, of saying that you spake not to us but to Momus, and so slipping away with answering neither him, nor us. As when you asked us in Momus person, (so I took it) Dare ye despise learned poetrie? secretly to infer thereby your main conclusion, that if learned poetrie may not be despised, your students may be actors of learned Poets plays; and I out of S ^t Paul did refell this argument: you reply that you asked not of me, or them, or any man but Momus, any such question. Which thing you do not only avouch upon your word, affirming that you should be believed: but you cite your writing also to prove it, An tu Poësin despicere doctam audeas? Vrging that you said not, An vos; but An tu. Manie grievous pangs of that hungry sickness, which, for the symptomata of eating still and vomiting, Physicians (as I shown) do name the dogged appetit, appear in your whole reply. But none more grievous in any part thereof, then here, where, through the sharpness and outrage of your humor, you fulfil that proverb, (your intemperance forceth me to be more cruel, I mean, to use more loathsome & displeasant speeches then otherwise I would, specially to persons of your state and quality) you fulfill, I say, that proverb of Solomon, A dog returneth to his vomit. Yea, in so much worse sort do you sup this again up, which you vomited before, of meaning neither me nor any other man in your reproof of Momus: because you add such reasons to prove you meant not us in asking that questiō, as yourself must needs know you uttered but a sick man's dream. For (to begin with the later, which is the stronger of them) yourself do acknowledge upon my proof thereof out of your own words, that in your reproof of Criticus and Zoilus, whosoever findeth such fault with your Tragedie, as you control them for, him you meant to note as a malicious Zoilus, and a carping Criticke. Yet the Criticke you speak to in the singular number, as well as to Momus: You answer to his sundry checks of your epistle, Recte tu quidem ista, Critice, si scriberem epigrammata: you say not vos, but tu. You note him for his witty railing at your Tragedie, Profecto ipsum te esse Criticum oportet: you say not vos, but te. You detest his foolish & quarelsome wranglings, Emoriar si amem lites, saltem criticas, id est futiles, id est tuas, Critice: you say not vestras, but tuas. You come upon him eftsoons, again, and again, with tu, and tu, and tuae; and, Critice, as to one still: you say not vos Critici, vos Critici, and vestrae. Wherefore if notwithstanding your form of speech to one in the singular number, you inten ded it to all, as curious carpers, who will be picking quarells at your Tragedie-writing: alas, What was become of your wits and senses, when by such a cavil you thought to convince me, that, because you said not An vos, but An tu, you meant not your speech to me and all others, as unjust reproovers, who will be finding fault with your interlude-playing? Those idol-pastors of the Church, evil beasts, and slow-bellies, who have mouths, and speak not; eyes, and see not; feet, and go not; who feed themselves and not their flocks, but take their ease in Zion; do seek with faces harder then brass, and hearts then adamant, to besott themselves, and persuade others, that Christ's reproof of the wicked servant, which employed not the moony he receved as his master charged him in trade and traficke to his advantage, belongeth not to them. But amongst their wretched excuses and defenses of their non-residence, though as lewd and brainesicke many, as this is, yet never heard I this; that Christ speaketh not to them; but to a losell who laid up his money in a napkin, because his words are, of thine own mouth will I judge thee, ô evil servant; he saith not, of your own mouths, but of thine; not, I will judge you, but thee. The covetous engrossers of wealth & slaves of Mammon, who join house to house, and lay field to field, till there be no place; whose hope is their gold; whose godliness their gain; whose meditation, what shall I do? I will pull down my barns and build greater, and therein will I gather all my fruits and my goods; and I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; live at ease, eat, drink, and be merry: these worldlings fain would flatter themselves with assurance of many years life, and much would they give for a lease thereof. But I think they are not so full of Nabal's quality, that the Lord's advertisement o fool, this night shall thy soul be fetched away from thee, they will reject by noting he saith, thy soul from thee, he saith not, yours from you: and thereupon imagine they are not tenants at will, nor may be turned out of their houses of clay upon an hours warning, nay upon no warning given them at all. Tully maketh mention of some witty lawiers, who, because they found the name of Caia set down for example sake in some authors books treating of a certain solemnity in betrothing, they thought that every woman so betrothed and married should be called Caia. A conceit, that seemed ridiculous to Tully: yet coming far behind that which yours implieth, that no other woman but Caia alone was meant in the treatise, and therefore none but she might be so betrothed. By consequence whereof if you had lived in those days, you must have maintained that it was not lawful for any to be married but only John and Joan, I would say Gaius and Caia. For the manner was that they, who brought the bride into the bridegromes house, did bid her use this speech, Ubi tu Gaius, ego Caia: not making any mention of Lucius and Lucia, Sempronius and Sempronia, but of Gaius and Caia; neither saying nos, & vos, but tu & ego.

Now if the stronger of your reasons hinder not but your demand might be made to us: much less doeth the weaker.

For whereas you tell us, that you demanded not of me, or them, or any man but Momus, any such question, if you may be believed; as, why you should not, you see no cause: first how prove you this, that you see no cause, why you should not be believed? Forsooth because you were as sure (you say) that I or any learned man did not despise poëtrie, as you were certain that Momus did. O miserable blindness shall I say? or madness, wherewith your humorous greediness of crossing me distracted you. As who say you had not so much the greater reason to ask us such a question, because you were sure that we did not despise poetrie. Else you must affirm that when Christ demanded, what man shall there be among you that hath a sheep, who, if it fall on a Sabbat day into a pit, will not take holdof it, and lift it out? He asked not any such question of the Pharisees, or Scribes, or any man, but your Momus brethren, that is, the men whom fancies imagine in the clouds: because he was as sure that the Pharisees or any wise man would not suffer his sheep to lie in the pit on the Sabbat day, as he was certain that the clouds would. For if you perceive that Christ, to make the Pharisees confess that it is lawful to heal a man on a Sabbat day, had reason to demand whether they would not lift up their sheep out of a pit then, which he knew they would; that by granting this they might discern the better they must needs grant that: how could you choose but see, that your purpose being to make us confess, that comedies & tragedies may be lawfully played, you had like reason to ask whether we did despise learned poëtrie, which you were sure we did not; that by granting this (you thought) we might the rather be forced to grant that. Wherefore since-even herein there was cause sufficient to make me imagine that you did demand the question of us: you should conclude rather that your sight was naught, who saw not so much, then that, because you saw it not, you should be believed affirming the contrary. Moreover, to admit there was no cause herein why you should not be believed, yet might there be in somewhat else: and such, as you should also have easily espied, unless the inordinate passion of your mind had daseled your sight. For your law informed you that they, who are unconstant and light in their testimonies, must not be believed: Now, though you perceue not your own fault therein, as Aristotle saith, Physicians being sick cannot discern the truth touching their own diseases because of their distemper, and therefore do they use the help of other Physicians: the events of your hungry sickness, which I noted, do manifestly argue, that you wauered much in saying and vnsaying the same when you wrote to me. And how small account of yielding to the truth you make in these matters, you had shown before when you told Criticus, that you know not whether those things be true, which he objecteth; and perhaps they are not far from being true: yet are you disposed to go against them, to cross them. You might see cause therefore why you should not be believed in that you affirm you demanded not of us, or any man but Momus, any such question. Howbeit granting this, which you so wrestle for, what say you then to Momus; I mean to the argument implied in your demand to him, and proved by mine answer to be naught and defective? Nay, not a word to that. Only, as if you would say that you were disposed to spurr him idle questions, and not to reason against him; or that, although the reason meant therein were naught, yet good enough for him whom you make a Mome and fain to yourself a foolish adversary, a thing that Quintilian misliketh in declaimers; you say that you asked it of no man but of Momus. Thus in these general and common kinds of miserable evasions and shifts through the mist whereof you would scape away: our judges will acknowledge (I hope) that your intent was rather to seek corners for hiding of your fault, then to confess your oversights and yield the victory to the truth. Surely, for mine own parte, your dealing doeth persuade me that when you resolved to reply upon me, you thought with yourself the same that you uttered in your epistle unto Criticus: I know not whether these things be true which he writeth; and perhaps they are not far from being true, yet am I disposed to have a crash against them.

Yea, even for the branches and points whereunto you stand in the particulars, the four heads of reasons, neither denying their drift, the mark they aimed at; nor excusing them as fair against Momus, though they come nothing near the mark: albeit you deal with greater probability, and therefore carry yourself the bolder, yet deal you like yourself, and lay still the colors of probability on sophistry. For whereas in the first, concerning the judgment of the ancient Romans holding all stage-players infamous by their law, you said that the Praetor pronounced none infamous but such as played for gain sake, and I proved the contrary by the Praetors words: you reply that the Praetor meant the same that you say, though his words were general of stage-players without distinction. This in the foremost rank, if it will prevail. If not; you add thereto, that the actors of your plays are no stageplayers. But how false both these things are, and how fraudulently sought to be avouched: our bettets, if it please them to compare my proofs with your reply, shall see. For Tully, as I shown, affirmeth that the Romans counting all kinds of stageplayes shameful and dishonest, agreed that such as played them should not only want the honor of other citizens, but also be disfranchised: Which, for the last note of infamy, being also witnessed by Livy, and S. Austin having thereupon observed that the Romans counted all stage-players infamous: Gothofredus knowing that the edict of the Praetor did express the judgment and law of the Romans, and marking that the words of the edict were general touching all stage-players, saith in the interpreting thereof that both players for gain sake and without gain were held infamous by it, according to S. Austin and Livy. And this to have been truly said by Gothofredus, I declared agreeably to the grounds of law by testimonies of the Romans; of Cornelius Nepos, Laberius, Juvenal, Suetonius, Tacitus, Die, and others. As for that Vlpian (whose words you cited as the Praetors) and Pegasus with Nerva, do say that such as play for gain sake are infamous, I answered that it followeth not that therefore they thought free players not infamous: since the Scripture likewise counteth a woman infamous who prostituteth her body unto men for money; yet counteth her infamous too who doeth it freely. 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 disproove my proofs, affirm that Nerva and Pegasus add those words for 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 shown only what cause I had to dout, I denied it not: you should bring strong arguments to convince they do so, not idle affirmatiōs that it is manifest they do. For what if a wealthy and lascivious courtisan should say that Moses mentioneth the hire of the whore, to distinguish mercenary whores frō free and frank dames, as it is manifest: and again, as manifest that the Prophets 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 frō defilers of them selves without hire; dishonest 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 cannot 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, whō 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; Budaeus, and an Autour of a Greek abridgement of the Civil law, whom Budaeus citeth. For the Greek author doth expound it thus, That all, who try masteries in solemn games for gain sake, are infamous: and also they who come upon the stage for praise sake. And Budaeus moving a question and doubt how these words of the text, that all who come upon the stage for reward, are infamous; should be understood, whether that they be not also infamous who come upon the stage for vainglorious ostentation, answereth and resolveth out of S ^t Augustine, and Livy, that all stageplaying was counted infamous at Rome, and all stageplayers were wont to be disfranchised by the Censors. Whose interpretation in a point of this quality deserveth more credit then a hundred such as Paulus de Castro: so meanlie seen in the text he treateth of, that he giveth the word, stage, a different meaning from that in the Praetors edict, which it expoundeth; and saith, it speaketh of other games. An argument much stronger in show, in substance weaker, you fetch out of the text: that in certamen descendere, and in scenam prodire, do (as they say in your law) ambulare aequis passibus, in the same places of the same title, De his qui notātur infamia; but it is most evident, that qui descendit in certamen depugnaturus cum bestijs dentatis, ac feris, virtutis ostendendae nō mercedis causa, non est notatus; Ergo qui prodit in scenam pronuntiandi gratia sine praemio & quaestu, non est notatus. Which syllogism of yours if you allow for good: what say you unto this, that (me seems) is like it? In certamen descendere and in scenam prodire do ambulare aequis passibus in the same places of the same title; but it is most evident, that qui descendit in certamen luct a aut cur su certaturus cum hominibus non facit artem ludicram; Ergo qui prodit in scenā pronuntiandi gratia non facit artem ludicra. The major is your own. The minor as true as yours: Yet the conclusiō false; which the same places of the same title show. And seeing by my syllogism you perceive, I trust, that the manlie exercises of wrestling and running do far out-run stageplaying, as it is meet they should: you see that the major of your syllogism faileth, and that certamen and scena do not walk with evē pass, but are coupled together as a quick greyhound and a lazy cur. Farder is it from reason that you adjoin a reason of the favorable parte of the distinction out of the Code; or rather adjoin it not, but say that you think it may be gathered thence: because the games of wrestling, running, and such like be permitted to them who desire and offer to bear the charge thereof. When neither doeth it follow that because these games are allowed by Emperors to willing bearers of the charge, not imposed on the unwilling, therefore free stageplayers are approved by Ulpian: and it is a wandering fancy to imagine why it should be so, when the question is whether it be so or no. The reason of the other side which I set down to show that the distinction cannot be enforced out of Ulpians words, because the scripture likewise condemneth them of wickedness who play the hoores for hire, yet acquitteth not free hoores; you confute as soundly, as you confirm your own. For you say it is simply evil to play the hoore, either freely or for reward; but not simply evil to come upon the stage, because the law alloweth it if it be done sine quaestu: which is a plain begging of the point in question. And yet having told me that I must evict that it is simply a sin for any prodire in scenam, as it is for a woman to prostitute her body; (I cut off your superfluous words, as namely, vile, in adding which epitheton to sin you double a fault corrected by yourself before when you said, that I assume that the one is as grievous a sin, as the other, or at the least as absolutely a sin:) but having told me this, you plead again the same sophism, avouching that your consequence, Prodire in scenam quaestus causa, infamat; ergo prodire in scenam sine quaestu, non infamat, is a good consequence, because the law so distinguisheth. How much greater reason had you to be persuaded, that since I had evicted it to be simply evil, because simply infamous by the Praetors sentence, that is, by the law; Vlpian, with his authors, interpreters thereof, did insert those words not for distinction sake, but to note the common cause why it was practiced, the love of reward. Chiefly seeing otherwise it must needs follow there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 between the texts of your law, and one of them doeth cross another. Which if the lawiers whom you have seen thereon, had as well observed by S. Austin and Livy, as Budaeus had: perhaps they would have thought that all sortes of stage-players, even such as show them selves for applause to please men, are therein noted also, as Budaeus did. But I, who think there may be repugnancies in your texts, and had an eye to the point in question between us, to weet, whether the Praetor, whose edict expressed the ancient Romans law, pronounced all stage-players infamous; not whether Vlpian thought so, who lived in later age after greaterand longer corruption of manners, and consequently of opinions; in so much that he would exempt a sort of fruitless game-servers from infamy, whom neither ancient Romans, though Heathens, did before him, nor Christian Emperors after: I (as you acknowledge) did admit they thought so, but urged that the Praetor affirmed the same that I do, and they mistook his meaning, as Gothofredus proveth in his note thereon. To the which assertion, after a preferring of them before Gothofrede, if not in learning, yet authority, needless to be stood on; (for though he were not better learned then they were, yet might he see by S. Austin and Livy that they saw not; neither is it authority, but learning, that must teach us what the Praetor meant:) you say that in some sense his short, but quick note, Immo & qui sine quaestu, hurteth not you at all. Well. In some sense then it hurteth you, in some it doeth not. And doth that sense, wherein he meant it, hurt you or no? If no: why say you afterward, Gothofrede doeth gloze against a manifest law without giving any reason of his so doing? If yea: what spirit of wrangling had bewitched you to construe an authors words as not gainsaying you, which in his own meaning you knew made flat against you? For after you had said, If he meaneth thereby to tax Laberius, Lentulus, Nero, and such like, that did exercere histrioniam, though gratuitam, his exception maketh not against your text; and had given a reason thereof, beside the text clean, neither agreeing to Laberius, whom yet by your forenaming him it should have touched: you come in with these words, But Gothofrede in deed foundeth his sharp note upon a saying of S. Austin, Omnes enim scenici probrosi; and of Livy, Et tribu moveri soliti. So you do confess that Gothofrede in deed, although you sensed him as if he taxed only them who played to satisfy their dissolute and lewd humors, that so he might not seem to make against your text, your sense thereof at least; yet in deed he counteth all stage-players infamous, according to the sayings of S. Austin and Livy, whereon he foundeth his note. In deed Master Gager, you are much to blame, who, to show that you can obscure a most clear truth with pretense of law, and a distinction of some sense, do hazard the shipwreck of a good conscience, and wastefully employ your wit and time both, in bolstering out by writing that which yourself see and know to be untrue. I did say before, that I gathered by your dealing that when you resolved to reply against me, you thought with yourself: I know not whether these things be true which he writeth; yet am I disposed to have a crash against them. Now I must inpart correct that my saying. For you show that somewhere in your reply you thought; I know that this thing, which he writeth, is true; yet have I a lust to contradict it.

True it is therefore that by Gothofredes judgment the Praetor accounted all stage-players infamous; and they, who took the Praetor otherwise, mistook him. Whereof although I did not allege Gothofredus for the chiefest proof, but principally cited him to satisfy you, a lawyer by a lawyer, and proved it by the best interpreter of the law, the practice and consent of the ancient Romans, which he doeth ground on also: yet you having answered him (you say) already as it were by the way, do add that by him the rest of my authorities and all mine examples also may receve their true, though short answer. The authorities then of Tully, of Nepos, of Laberius, of Liuie, of Juvenal, of Suetonius, of Tacitus, of Dio, and of S. Austin; the examples of Nero, Lentulus, and the rest, whom not such authors only but the people of Rome too did esteem infamous for their stage-playing, were it freely, or for gain; may be answered by your answer to Gothofredus. And how? For he (you say) glozeth against a manifest law without giving any reason of his so doing. Why? Doeth not he give a reason in these words, Omnes enim scenici probrosi, & tribu moveri soliti, proved by S. Austin and Livy? But S. Austin and Livy could never dream of your text, you say; and so their authorities serve not to interpret it. As who say Gothofredus brought them to interpret your text, that is, Ulpian: not rather to interpret the Praetors edict, & to correct your text thereby. For thus doth he reason in effect: Ulpian expounding the Praetors edict, saith that, they only, who play upon the stage for gain sake, are infamous: but the Praetor meant that they, who play without gain, are infamous also, even generally all stage-players; as it is apparent by S. Austin and Livy: therefore Ulpian misseth in expounding the Praetors edict. And, I trust, an older writer may be cited to correct a younger, of whom he could not dream: or else yourself do evil to cite Ulpian against me, of whom he could not dream you wote well. Though S. Austin also might have dreamed of Vlpian, for ought that I know. But you say farther that S. Austin and Livy are to be understood against Histriones: and so their authorities serve not to this of your text. Wherein I must confess I understand not what you mean. For I cannot imagine you should be so absurd as to say that they speak not against players on stage, because they speak against Histriones. Only as Socrates; being asked what he thought of a certain book of Heraclitus, answered, Those things which I understood in it are excellent, and so, I think, are those to which I understood not: semblably may I say touching these branches and partes of your reply, that what I understand therein maketh nothing against the point that I did conclude by Gothofredus; no more, I think, doeth that which I understand not. Nay, I say too little when I say I think. For seeing histriones signifieth stage-players; & stage-players are such as come upon the stage to play or pronounce, whom the Praetor speaketh of: I know, that whatsoever your meaning be therein, it can have no force to overthrow that wich I concluded by Gothofredus. So this with the former distinctionlesse distinction of a sense he meant not, being all the answer that you make to him: the rest of my authorities and examples all are so far from being answered by him, that your answerlesse answer doth rather leave both him and them as unanswerable. But you go forward, and, to overthrow them both another way, you deny that the Romans ever judged Omnes scenicos infames. And why? Because plays (say you) were sometime instituted, as in a common plague, ad placandos Deos, and were provided by great officers of the common treasure: and so they are referred ad religionem & deuotionem. Sometime they were set out at the private cost of them that sued to the people for great offices, or generally for the honor and solace of the city: and so they are referred to magnificence. For magnificentia is a goodly virtue, & versatur circa sumptus amplos, non turpes aut infames, because it is a virtue, but circa quaecunque in Rempublicam honestae laudis studio conferuntur: among the which Aristotle reckoneth Ludos splendide facere. Neither is it to be thought that Aesopus & Roscius, being both men of that fame, favor, wealth, and entire familiarity with the best and wisest in their times, were reputed as infamous persons. What should I speak of so many Circi, Theatra, Amphitheatra, built by the greatest and bravest Romans with so huge charge & sumptuousnes? Which though they were once upon fowl abuses, or some other occasion, as you write, overthrown by the Romans themselves: yet even those plays for which they were abolished were ex eo genere of whom they might have said (as Tacitus doeth of Astrologers) quod in civitate nostra, & vetabitur semper, & retinebitur. Howsoever; I cannot think that either they would have suffered such things to be done at all, if they had judged them evil: or to be performed by infamous persons, being matters of that state and magnificence, and, as they thought, of that devotion and necessity. Thus far your own words. In which, to show that you do not deny without cause that the Romans ever judged all stage-players to be infamous, you make two proofs thereof: one, that Aesopus & Roscius were not reputed as infamous persons; another, that the Romans would not have suffered such things to be performed by infamous persons, being matters of great state & magnificence, and; as they thought, of great devotion and necessity. Such proposition, such proofs. The proposition savouring of a strange boldness (to use no harder term) that you, who scarce are forty years old, if yet forty, in a questiō of fact, of a thing done fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen hundred years ago, which a number of witnesses, that lived the same time, men of good credit, affirm to have been doon, should presume to say, I deny that it was done. For Tully reporteth that the Romans counting all kinds of stage-plays shameful and dishonest, did judge accordingly of the players. Nepos, Laberius, Livy, Iuvenall, Tacitus, the rest, whom I cited, both of the learned sort, and of the common people, do testify the same. Neither can you deny but their words alleged by me, do clearly argue that they judged thus of free players also, not only of players for gain. Yet you harden your face to say against them all: I deny that the Romans ever judged all stage-players to be infamous. Yea, for proof hereof you produce two reasons, which imply that they thought no stageplayers infamous, no not players for gain: and so you avouch an evident untruth against your own confession, your own conscience. For Roscius and Aesopus played for gain: as Pliny and Macrobius show. Their wealth, which you mention, was got̄ by that trade. Now your text of Ulpian with Pegasus and Nerva, saith that all who play for gain, are infamous; as you confessed before; adding that you saw no cause to mislike it, less durst dispute against it. Wherefore in saying that Aesopus and Roscius were not reputed as infamous persons, your own mouth and heart condemn you of gain saying an undoubted truth. Much more when you infer the same of other stage-players, even of the rascalls, the most vile among them, in the reason following. For although the fame, the favor, the wealth of Roscius and Aesopus, should no more have moved you to wash away all stain from their credit, then from Flora and Phryne, who were whores of great fame, favor, wealth: yet their familiarity with the best and wisest might probably persuade you, that they were not reputed as infamous persons. Howbeit, had you weighed, how the best and wisest so well acquainted with them, had shown in one of thē, that other things brought him to such estimation, his stage-playing was some stain unto him: you should have perceived that in this respect their credit might be tainted, notwithstanding the acquaintance, whereto, by means of other partes approved in them, they grew in process of time with the best and wisest. But your next reason saith as much for the vilest and most beastly stageplayers, as for Aesopus and Roscius. For in certain plays, called the plays of Flora, the players were not men, but women, and those lewd ones, professed whores and strumpers: which, besides all wanton filthiness of words, did show them selves naked also to the people, and used most shameful motions and gestures. These plays were instituted (to use your own words) ad placandos Deos, that Flora, as the Goddess of flowers, might be entreated not to hurt the corn, nor anything that bloweth and blossemeth: and so they are referred ad religionem & devotionem. The officers that had the charge to set them out, did set them out at their private cost, to get the people's favor for the obtaining of greater offices: and so they are referred to magnificence. The stages and theaters, wherein men behold them, were built by the greatest and bravest Romans with huge charge and sumptuousnes: Wherefore since the Romans would not have suffered such things to be performed by infamous persons, being matters of great state and magnificence, and, as they thought, of great devotion and necessity: it followeth, by your reason, that they did not judge professed whores and strumpets to be infamous persons. Now, if this consequent touching whores be false, as your law showeth it is: then is the consequution of your reason faulty. Which yourself may see by the other branch thereof, avouched jointly, to weet, that the Romans would not have suffered such things to be done at all, if they had judged them evil: and by him, whose sentence, that it is a virtue to set out plays bravelie, you add for the gracing and countenancing of your reason, I mean, even by Aristotle. For he, in reckoning it among magnificent actions if anywhere men think they ought to set out plays bravelie (so he qualifieth his sentence with a circumstance of moment omitted by you in alleging it,) respecteth the opinions and customs of the Grecians: who thought it an honorable thing to be at charges with furnishing and decking companies of Musicians, of Dansers, of Players, in their solemn feasts, & usual processions celebrated to their God's. As among the Athenians, for example sake, Demosthenes, when no man of his tribe was willing to bear the charge thereof, did promise of his own accord that he would bear it, and thereupon provided golden crowns and costlie garments for a company in the feast of Bacchus. This feast had as filthy matters represented, though by another sex, in the shows & plays belonging thereunto, as that of Flora had. Yet, such was the brutish superstition of Heathens, that Aristotle him self, one of the best among them, banishing all unseemly speeches and spectacles out of his commō wealth, excepteth such as these, done in the honor of their God's, according to their law, which allowed that beastliness in many cities then. In like sort the Romans, albeit they judged the things to be evil which the players did in the feast of Flora, so evil that the refuse & dregs of the people durst not for shame desire to have the fight there of while Cato was present: yet did they allow; and by public order provide for the doing of them, because 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 the mother of their God's, or any of her childrē, they thought it a necessary devotion to set them out, a statelie magnificence to set them out bravelie; yet did they repute the players thereof infamous, as Tully, Livy, the Praetor, Vlpian, all consent; though withal discrediting thereby both God's and plays, as Austin and Tertullian 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 cannot think it, I cannot 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 cannot think 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, one, that plays are evil, because the Praetor noted the players with infamy; an other, that such God's 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, amongst 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 yourself, in citing & applying Tacitus his words touching Astrologers to the point in question, do confute yourself, 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: can you not think that they would have suffered such things to be done at all, if they had judged thē evil? And if you think plays to be of that kind, of which they might have said as Tacitus doth of Astrologers: can you think that they who judged Astrologers worthy of greater punishment, would have judged players worthy a note of infamy? I would to God you could think, & think vpō your bed (as the Prophet exhorteth) of your offense herein, your loving of vanity, your seeking of lies. Then would you be still, and quietlie acknowledge that by Tully, Nepos, Laberius, Livy, Juvenal, and other ancient Romans, stage-players were taken to be infamous persons, even all, whether they played freely, or for gain: and therefore not only the hirelinges, but the free too, are comprised and noted in the Praetors words. Then would you rather observe in the reading of your Glossa communis, that though certain lawiers took the Praetor otherwise, yet certain took him so as well as Gothofredus. Then would you devise more and better reasons for the general doctrine out of Iustinians Code, and Theodosius both, then now for the favorable part of your distinctō you did out of Iustinianus; omitting and neglecting that, in the same title, whence that seelie single reason was enforced, stage-players are termed vile, dishonest persons, without all distinction.

It may be that your conscience felt some prick hereof; or at least your knowledge informed you that this would not hold water. Else, why adjoin you a new point of defense, that the actors of your plays are no stage-players? Whereas before your only answer to this point was, that you played freely: nor needed there more in your desire to be short (which you pretend often) if you thought it certain the law comprised not free players. But whatsoever you thought, when you resolved of having two stringes unto your bow: this new string is worse a great deal then the old was; the hempe is naught whereof you made it. For whereas you deny; that you, who come on the stage once in a year, or two, in seven, or in ten, or sometime twenty years, are to be termed stage-players; as he is not a wrastler that sometime to prove his strength, trieth for a fall or two; nor he a fenser, that sometime taketh up the cudgells to play a venny: First make these similitudes perfitt with adding that which answereth to the stage, that they be not similia dissimilia, (as Tully calleth them,) and then he is a wrastler who to prove his strength on that stage, as it were, doeth try for a fall or two; and a Fencer likewise, who cometh once thither, though he never come again; and so are they stage-players, who play upon the stage once in a year or two. Next, the law doeth cut off all strife about the name, by noting him with infamy, who cometh on the stage to play, or pronounce. So that when you acknowledge that yours come on the stage to this intent and ende, you show that both you wrangle and trifle in denying they are to be termed stage-players. As for that you add, that you do differ from them, whom I mentioned, in the manner of your playing, in the ende, effects, & other circumstances, as in the examination of mine exaples shall appear;

the drift of your speech is to prove, even for the thing too, that you are clear from that which the law disgraceth; but with what sinews of arguments you do it, I will (by a more perfitt similitude thē yours were) endeavor to make plain unto you: Maximinus, a savage Emperor, a man of a huge, tall, and strong body, took a most sottish and proud conceit thereof that he could not be killed. Wherevpon a certain man said in his presence; He that cannot be killed by one, is killed by many: The Elephant is great; yet is he killed: The Lion is strong; yet is he killed: The Tiger is swift; yet is he killed: Beware of many joined, if single ones you fear not.

The author of this speech meant to reason thus, by way of a syllogism: Every living creature may be killed: Maximinus the Emperor is a living creature: Therefore he may be killed. And least Maximinus through his proud conceit should object against it, that every living creature, who could be overmatched by one, might be killed; but it was impossible for any one to match him: the author said, that such as could not be killed by one, might by many; adding for proof thereof that Elephants, Lions, Tigers, be they never so great, strong, and swift, are killed. Here suppose that he had withal, in hope of better persuading Maximinus, told him that Tully saith all living creatures may be killed: which to be true in all absolutely and simply, yea even such as no one can lightly overmatch, Tully showeth farther; and Xenophon, Polybius, Livy, Pliny, Plutarch, do witness by sundry stories of those beasts. Now, if Maximinus had given ea •… e thereto, and answered that him self did differ from those beasts in the manner of his strength, in the end, effects, and other circumstances, as it should appear in examination of the examples; which as the man had cited to illustrate his authorities, as being the creatures whom they properly speak of, so if Maximinus had shown that he was not to be likened to thē neither the authorities, nor the examples should touch him; what should the fellow have done, who did make that argument? Should he have denied that Maximinus differed from Elephants, Lions, Tigers, in the manner of his strength, and the rest of your circumstances? How could he? when he might have been controlled straight by Maximinus saying: They have no man to their subjects: I rule the whole world; they want helps to shield them from wounds; I wear armor: they can hold no swords, or other weapons; I can: they are of low stature; I am eleven foot high. Should he have granted that because it appeareth by those and the like differences, that Maximinus was not such a living creature as those beasts were, therefore he was no living creature: nether could he be touched either by the examples or by the authorities? That had been to bewray either fear, or ignorance, and to betray the truth: since the authorities reached to the thing in general; and so the examples brought to illustrate them did touch Maximinus also by consequent. Then belike, albeit the differences, that he might allege against the authors reason had been true all, yet had they all been idle; as neither disprooving the major, nor the minor, whereof the conclusion doeth necessarily follow. This is the condition and state of your differences, M ^r . D. Gager; they are not all true, and they are all idle. They are not all true. Nay, is there any of them not untrue in part? Doutlesse not the first: wherein you affirm that you differ from them altogether in furniture, & manner of setting out plays: they did it with excessive charge: you thriftily, warily, and almost beggarly. For, I hope, as Irus came beggarly in with you; so they would have clothed him in rags too, and could: and such clokes as they used to borrow for brave wooers, cost them no more the fetching, then yours out of the revils: and excess in charges is measured by ability, as Aristotle showeth; the widow giving two mites, gave more then all the rest: and you in spending pence might be more excessive then they in spending pounds. Not the second difference, touching the manner of action; whereof you say that they acted their plays in another sort then you do, or can or well know how: but so exquisitly and carefully, that you may seem compared with them either for skill, or diligence, rather Recitare, which I do not dislike, then Agere. For other sort of playing you fancy without ground, saying you know not what of things performed you know not how: I ween you know not, neither why they who played unwilling and had small list to learn it; should be more skillful and diligent then yours: sure if yours should seem rather recitare, which I mislike not, then agere; none of yours played drunken, nor daunsed, nor hurled footestooles, nor put on wemens raiment. Not the third difference, which you set in this, that they came on the stage of a lewd, vast, dssolute, wicked, impudent, prodigal, monstrous humor; you contrariwise do it to sundry good intents, as namely (for example) to conform your youth to convenient action. For neither came they all with such a disposition; witness is Laberius, witnesses are others alleged out of Dio; so that you speak herein as if Maximinus had said that those beasts, which the fellow mentioned, are of low stature, a thing untrue in Ele phants: noris it more true that you frame your youth to convenient action, framing some of them to the action of wooers, some of knaves, some of parasites, some of clownes, some of drunkards, some of bragging soldiers, or of the like to these, then that Maximinus was eleven foot high. Not the fourth difference, wherein (to make a farther profit of the circumstance that before you urged against the name of stage-players) you say that they frequented the stage; you do it seldom, sometime not in seven, ten or twenty years. For how do you prove that they whom Juvenal, Tacitus, Dio note, frequented it more then some of yours have? and Laberius did it but once in three score years, who yet both called himself a stage-player for that doing, and counted it a stain unto him. The fifth offendeth less, affirming that they did it on the public theater not of the city only, but of the whole world: you in a private house, and to a few, men of understanding. Yet look by what reason you name the Roman theater, the theater of the whole world, your should be the theater of England, France, and Ireland, if not of whole Europe: and why say you that you did it to men of understanding? as if in Rome women also had been present who might behold the lusty motions of the players, and understand not what they spake; none such on your stage. In the sixth you lavish more then in the fourth, saying that they were men grown, one of them three score years old, Knights, of noble houses, Patricii, & one of them Emperor of the world: in you being young men, boys, poor Scholers, all these things are quite contrary. For, touching age, among them who were compelled by Nero to become stage-players, the stories, which I cited, do record (quite contrary to your quite contrary) that there were not only men grown, and old, but young too; and some of your players came on the stage as old as Nero, your great Emperor: touching wealth, the beggary of those needy squiers, whom out of Juvenal and Tacitus I specified, hath small contrariety unto poor scholars state: touching birth, and gentrie, you forgott yourself, when, in saying elsewhere, The gentleman that played Ulysses, and setting his verses before your book, you shown that your players are not quite contrary to Patricii; unless you think so meanlie of his name, and stock, that a smokie Lentulus, or Fabius, or Mamercus, doeth pass it in nobility; yea, though it have learning and Scholership joined with it; neither only pass it, but pass it so far, that not content to make it differ in degree, you make it quite contrary, as if it were of the basest of the rascalitie. And seeing these things, specially this last point, wherein you must bear with me, if farthermore being taught by Tully, that Lentulitas, what shall I term it? the Lentulusnes of noble parentage is nothing in comparison of virtue; nay, being taught by him, whom Tullius light came from, even by the Father of lights, that they are most noble who most excel in godliness and graces of the spirit, I account all Christian Scholers and Studentes, as good and noble gentlemen, as the Heathen Lentuli; but seeing these differences do square so frō the truth: the rest, which are the same, enlarged and applied to particular comparisons of certain of your players with certain of theirs, must needs be enroled in the same predicament. Howbeit you do utter them in such a sort, as if you did not only mean to have it though, that there is less resemblance, and therefore greater difference between their players & yours, whom I notwithstanding had compared as like: but also that I should be forced to acknowledge it by mine own confession, and grant that I was wonderfully overseen therein. For you ask of me (to set down your own words:) Who ever would resemble our Melantho with your Laureolus? the one represented by an ingenuous boy, and for her lewdness imagined to be hanged within: the other acted by Lentulus, a man nobly descended, expressing perhaps openly on the stage the same punishment. What likeness is there between our young men, putting on the persons of Antinous, and the rest of Penelopes wooers: and between gentlemen of the noble race of Fabius, in their own persons, not so much counterfeiting others, as expressing their own scurrilities? Such as our Antinous and the rest of the wooers cannot be justly charged with: no not our Irus, or Ulysses. Again, what resemblance is there between our Hippodamia only singing, Eurimachus only saying, Phemius both singing and saying, all three represented by such as they were: and between Nero, playing men's, wemens, and minstrels parts upon the stage in Rome? Behold A marvelous case, that I should compare and resemble players together so absurdly, as no man would ever have done besides me: and that I should affirm them to be like one another, between whom there is no likeness, no resemblance, as your sharp urging doeth emply. But perhaps your stomach is the more egre against my comparisons, because of our dissension about the stage and plays. The party, that spake in the presence of Maximinus, spake upon the stage, and was a player himself: it may be you would have used him more gently. For else, had you been there, and loved Maximinus you might (which I marvel if you think not absurd) have answered thus in his behalf. Who ever would resemble Maximinus to an Elephant? the one, a man well featured, and feeding very daintily within doors in his palace: the other a beast, a thick skin, having a nose an ell long, and eating grass perhaps without doors on the mountains. What likeness is there between him, our Emperor, a most gracious personage, and of sweet conditions: and between a Tigre, a cruel savage beast, wearing hear of sundry coolours, speckled, spotty? Such as our Emperor hath none upon his body: no, nor the like paws, or tail. Again what resemblance is there between him, excelling in all three things, greatness, strength, and swiftness: & between an Elephant, great and strong only; a Tigre, strong and swift; a Lion having little to trust to, beside strength? Think you that you had spoken with any grain of salt, M ^r . D. Gager, if you had spoken thus? Though I have disadvantaged myself in this similitude: because both your Melantho was a great deal liker to Iuvenals Laureolus, your wooers and the rest to those degenerate gentlemen, then Maximinus was to beasts: and I have scarce put one false difference in mine, of Maximinus sweet conditions; you have put many in yours. For, to pass over the ingenuousnes of the boy that represented Melantho, opposed to the noblenes of Lentulus who did act Laureolus, the vnlikenes whereof in noblenes, and acting, is disprooved already; chiefly since things that are not the same, may be like: first, what proof have you, that they, whom Juvenal noted under the name of Fabii, did not so much counterfeit others, which your wooers did, as express their own scurrilities? When contrariwise some of them would have hid their faces with visours, for shame, that they might not be known, as counting the infamy thereof worse then death: a very great presumption, that they did abhor from expressing their own scurrilities on the stage, whom it grieved so much to come on the stage at all.

Next, what wrong is it to charge your Antinous, and other of the whores, with such scurrilities, as theirs? were not the plays that they played made of like arguments, in like sort, to yours? Is not Antinous set forth by Homer, as a malapert knave? to speak in Horaces phrase, of him and his complices. Do you not follow Homer, and express Antinous with the rest accordingly, both in their misbehaviour of words & of deeds? Thirdly, do you know what is meant in Juvenal by planipedes Fabios, when I having said that the race of Fabius resembled & counterfaited such base ridiculous things as are expressed in Irus, you deny that he may be justly charged with such? And if you know that they, who were termed planipedes, counterfaited such things as Laberius did when he put on the person of a bondslave whipped: are you not ashamed to deny that such are expressed in Irus, a beggar buffeted, thrown down, and hailed out by the feet, the wooers laughing thereat? Finally, why are not the blows, in your tragedy, given to Ulysses, like the Mamercians whirrets that Juvenal speaketh of? you think them not so bad. I think them worse rather. For whirrets, that he speaketh of, were given with the hand. Your Ulysses is stricken with Melanthius heel, and with Antinous foot-stool: unless Antinous hurling it did miss the mark, and played not his part as you appointed him out of Homer. Thus are your differences all untrue, in part: in whole, a number of them. But suppose they were true. Yet are they all idle: because, as in the fellows speech to Maximinus, the major being proved that all living creatures may be killed, whether one or many be able to surprise them; the minor apparent, that he was a living creature; the conclusion followed, notwithstanding whatsoever differences between him, and them, whose examples were brought to prove the major: likewise in my reason, the major being proved, that all stage-players are infamous by the civil law, whether they play for gain, or freely; the minor apparent, that they who play your plays on the stage, are stage-players; the conclusion followeth, notwithstanding whatsoever differences between yours, and them whose examples for proof of the major I produced. Nay, I say farther, that as some true differences between Maximinus, and the beasts, do sharpen the edge of the conclusion against him; for if greater, stronger, and swifter creatures are killed, how much more might he be? so for you to be stage-players it is more shameful then for the old Romans, since they were ignorant, infidels, without God in the world; you are Scholers, Christians, chosen to be trained up unto the Ministry; and unto whom much is committed, the more shall be required of him; they who have many sins forgiven them, should love much; it is a great offense to give the Nazarites wine to drink, though to drink wine be not unlawful. Wherefore that of Terence wherewith you conclude, saying that you think it was a fowl shame for noble men and Nero to play, but to play noble men or Nero it is no shame for you; as he saith in the Comedy, Duo quum idem faciunt, saepe, vt possis dicere, Hoc liceti mpune facere huic, illi non licet; Non quod dissimilis res sit, sed quod is qui facit: although you straiten the point (whether for shame, or for the figure?) when you speak of playing noble men and Nero, your purpose being to justify the playing of the basest, drunkards, & whooers too; but if Terences saying would fit the point in question, the use thereof must be to prove that they might lawfully come on the stage, you may not. The truth is that it cannot be applied hereto, because the law speaketh generally of stage-players, as it doeth of bauds, of thieves, with the like; and common sense doeth teach us, that we may not distinguish where the law distinguisheth not. Else, if I should say that by the same law our English thieves, who rob on Gaddes hill, are infamous; one of their abbetters might answer, No not so: for the Law speaketh of such as Lucius Tubulus, men of wealth and state, who robbed the whole world repairing unto Rome; not of poor good fellows that rob a few Kentish men travailing to Graves-end: and I think it was a fowl shame for rich men and Tubulus to rob; but to rob riche men and Tubulus, it is no shame for us: as he saith in the Comedy, that oftentimes, you may say, when two men do the same thing, the one is not blameworthy for it, the other is, not as if there were difference in the thing it self, but in the man that doeth it. Which Comicall sentence, though it might be as well applied by Justice Graybeard to the excuse of theft in poor men, as by Terences Mitio it is to the excuse of whoordom in a young man; yet were it unjustly applied thereunto: because the law condemning theft in whomsoever without respect of persons, be they rich or poor, doeth count it none of those things which fall within the compass of Terences oftentimes. So considering, stage-players are spoken of in like sort, as thieves, by the law: you see how Terences saying may be applied unto them. But if we might apply it unto them justly, we must infer thereof that it was no shame for Nero & his mates to come on the stage, for you it is: as S. Paul commandeth us not to eat with any that is called a brother, if he be a fornicator; which, with an infidel committing the same filthiness, he doeth not forbid. And thus while you endeavor to vnwind yourself out of the net of ignominy and infamy cast upon you by the civil law, you are bound faster in it: to the fulfilling of that proverb, which I wish you had marked in the Comedy rather, if not in the Scripture, It is hard to kick against pricks.

In the second head, to a reason drawn out of the law of God for the reproof of stage-plays as now you handle it, denying that you made it to prove that men may lawfully put on wemens raiment therein, as I took it; though howe just cause I had to take it so, I have declared; but unto this reason grounded on the law of God in Deuteronomy, Whatsoever man doeth put on woman's raiment, he is abominable to the Lord; But men did put on wemens raiment in your plays; you must acknowledge therefore that you were justly blamed: you reply in like sort as unto the former of the civil law; first, that the prohibition of men to wear wemens raiment is not general, but toucheth certain cases only; next, that your players did not wear wemens raiment. And because in treating of the prohibition I shown out of the Scriptures, that it doeth belong not to the ceremonial law, but to the moral; and no parte of the moral law may be transgressed, no, not for the saving of honor, wealth, or life: my proofs hereof being so clear, strong, and pregnant, that you durst not deny the thing to be proved, you move a dout, as your term is, out of words of mine; in deed you reason thus against it. I pray you give me leave to propose my contrary dout. The moral law, as you truly say, is the law of love and charity; to the which wheresoever the ceremonial law is repugnant, there it giveth place to the moral. The moral law therefore is never contrary to love and charity, in commanding or forbidding anything. But the place of Deutero nomie, being taken strictly, absolutely, and in the rigor of the letter, may sometimes hinder the actions of love and charity, both towards ourselves and others; as in those cases, which both you and I propose. Ergo in that strictness it belongeth rather to the law ceremonial, though the equity thereof pertaineth to the law moral, and so it is perpetually and simply to be observed. Now, I have given you leave to propose your contrary dout. I pray you give me leave to propose my contrary question. In the same book of Deuteronomy it is written, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery. These precepts being taken strictly, absolutely, and in the rigor of the letter, may sometimes hinder the actions of love and charity, both towards ourselves and others; as appeareth by the example of Joseph, and of David: Joseph, who lost his liberty and put his life in hazard, because he refused to commit adultery with his Masters wife; David, who cast his followers and him self into sundry dangers and distresses, because he would not kill Saul. Herevpon I ask you, whether you think, that seeing the moral law bound Joseph & David to love their neighbors, & themselves, therefore they should have made no scruple of adultery and murder, in these cases, in which the forbearing thereof did hinder the actions of love toward them selves and others: but ought to have judged those precepts in that strictness to belong rather to the law ceremonial, though the equity thereof pertaineth to the law moral, and so it is perpetually and simply to be observed. Which if you think not, as God forbid you should, and you will profess (as I am persuaded) that you detest such thoughts: then do you acknowledge that it came rather of a lust to cross and contradict my speech, then of any dout you had within yourself, that you say, a precept, which being strictly kept might breed some disadvantage to ourselves or others, must in this respect be counted ceremonial, and not be kept strictly, because the moral law is never contrary to love and charity in commanding or forbidding anything. And sure you might have reason to take it not well, if I should suppose you to be so ill catechized, as that you knew not that the moral law commandeth us to love God above all things, and man after him; that our love to Godward is proved by the observing and keeping of his commandments; that if by keeping of them we should seem to hate man, we must hate him rather, then not perform our love to God: that it followeth not hereof the law is contrary unto love neither, because to hate man so is to love him less then God, in comparison, and not in deed to hate him; nay, it is to love him, since it is to wish him and work him greater good by loss of less good which he cannot retain therewith. Howbeit, had you doubted, yet might you have found enough to resolve you, if you had read my writing rather with a mind to learn, then to gainsay, in as much as I shown by Scripture touching Peter, that he should not have lied to avoid the danger of whatsoever trouble: because to lie is evil; not allowed in any case by our law-giver, no not for the defense of the glory of God, much less for the safety of man, a worm. Or, if, notwithstanding all that this could teach you, there might some occasion of doubting still remain: should you not have rather sought to be resolved by me in private conference, then publikelie in writing (made common with many, even in the country also, not only in our University) to affirm a point implying flat atheism, that we are no farther to keep God's commandments, then stands with our commodity? and so conclusivelie to vouch it with an Ergo, as if it did follow necessarily, that all the laws of God (for your reason holdeth by consequent in all) must be set aside, like ceremonial matters, when our own, or other men's, honor, wealth, or life, cometh in question with them? and to add that the equity thereof yet pertaineth to the law moral, and so they are perpetuallie and simply to be observed? which seemeth by distinguishing their equity from strictness to strengthen them in sound meaning; in deed destroyeth them by teaching their transgressors how to defend most gross iniquity: as idolaters, for example, when, if Nebuchadnezzar do threaten he will burn all who worship not his golden image, they may say, that albeit in Deuteronomy God saith, Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them, yet since the moral law is never contrary to love in forbidding anything, and the place of Deuteronomy, being taken strictlie, would hinder now men's actions of love toward them selves; Ergo in that strictness it belongeth rather to the law ceremonial, though the equity thereof pertaineth to the law moral, and so it is perpetuallie and simply to be observed. A sentence so ungodly, that when Peter only touched it a far off, or rather less then touched it, speaking of a particular case, no general law; nor Ergoing against it, nor terming the keeping of it strictness, nor plaistering the breach of it with equity: but when he tended towards it by saying to our Savior, Master, pity thyself, this shall not be unto thee, our Savior answered him, Gett thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offense unto me, because thou savorest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.

Suitable to this new argument of yours is the defense of your old (the only one you pressed before) from two examples. For whereas you had reasoned thus, Some men of Macedonie, moved by Prince Alexander, did putt on Wemens raiment to save the honor of Ladies; the like did Achilles, the son of Thetis, to save his life; Ergo it is lawful to do it in such cases; and I made answer thereto, that the reason is naught, because we are to live by laws, not by examples; neither may we lie or forswear ourselves to save our lives, or benefitt others, though David & Peter did so, men worthier to be followed then Macedonians, or Achilles: you reply, that the reason is good (this must you mean by saying that the examples are alleged to good purpose in the circumstances that you apply them for, or else you delude us with another sophism;) and why? For Alexanders fact is commended (say you) as proceeding from a most noble, and true heroical mind; and because it was better that the Persian Ambassadors were slain, then that the chastities of so many great Ladies should so dishonorably be either overthrown, or so much as assailed: and Thetis might well hide her son Achilles in a maidens apparel in respect of motherlie love & pity which she was to bear her son, knowing, as she did, that he should be slain in that journey to Troy, whether he was requested to accompany the other Grecian Lord's. Touching the former whereof, to admit, that Alexanders fact proceeded from a noble true heroical mind, and that it was better the Persian Ambassadors were slain then the chastities of so many great Ladies should so dishonorably be overthrown, or assailed: yet doeth it not follow that men might therefore lawfully put women's raiment on to kill them; the thing might be cōvenient and good to be done, the means of doing it not good. As it is better that a person guilty should be left unpunished, then a person guiltless should be condemned: and he, whose saying this was, spake it of a noble true heroical mind. Yet were the means naught to procure by bribes or by false witnesses the escape or acquittall of a guilty person: and if any man, who had used such dealing, should be commended for it, he should be commended amiss in that respect, as Alexander is by you. Now, for the later, how prove you that Thetis might well hide her son Achilles, as she did? You say, that you think not but she might do it well. So. Your reason then is: I think she might do it well; Ergo she might. A common kind of argument with you; but thin, and lean: nor likely to prove better at the length in trial, of whatsoever plight it seem in your writing. For let it fare as it may in Topickes, in Analytickes it must fast: it cannot away with mood and figure. And what if you think not that she might neither? as I think you do not; unless you think contraries, or speak otherwise then you think. For yourself affirm, that the putting on of wemens raiment which is termed an abomination to the Lord in the place of Deuteronomy, is the wearing of it ordinarily, so to converse among men and women, against the course of all natural and civil regard. But Thetis, intending thereby to hide Achilles, did clothe him to converse so ordinarily among men and women: even longer, then he would endure to converse so; though he endured for certain years. Therefore that, which she did, you think to be abominable: yea, pronounced in Scripture an abomination to the Lord. The less material is it whether that be true which by the way I noted, that Statius the Poet making Chiron, Calchas, and Achilles himself to reprove the putting of that raiment on him, meant that men of wise, virtuous, religious, ingenuous, valiant minds, did judge the thing simply in any case unlawful by the light of nature. Though I wish our judges, unto whose arbitrement I refer the matter, whether you control me therein well, or no, to mark that for Chiron, in whom are represented wise and virtuous persons, albeit you affirm he had a further reach then his words outwardly import: yet in setting down that reach you add, perhaps, as staggering at your own conceit; and withal acknowledge that his words outwardly, whereof you cannot prove an other inward meaning, import as much as I said. Beside that they may justly suspect your partial censure, because, where I had likewise noted by the way that the fact of Achilles, deflowering Deidamia by means and occasion of his conversing so with her, doeth show what inconvenience and danger of uncleanness cleaveth to the cladding of men in wemens raiment: you do overthwartly & wrongfully cross my note by saying that he was likely to do as much in his own likeness anywhere else. For let malefactors be never so ready to practice any wickedness of their own corrupt and lewd inclination: the circumstances of manner, season, place, and so forth, commodious to perform it do more entice them thereunto. Weapons them selves (saith Homer) do draw men to fight: and opportunity maketh the eves. The force whereof in this thing I said enough to open by that, as Chaerea could not have defiled Pamphila, no not in Thais house, without his Eunuchs raiment: so, if woman's raiment had not come on Clodius, Caesar should not have put away his wife Pompeia so soon as he did; perhaps never. Or are you of opinion that with us it skilleth not whether scholars lodge in Colleges & Halls, or in townesmens houses? Yea, although they be neither so much conversant, nor go in like attire, as Achilles used with Lycomedes daughter? Our Savior said to his Disciples, If thy foot cause thee to offend, cut it of; if thine eye cause thee to offend, pluck it out: meaning that we must sever ourselves from things and persons that are most dear unto us, if they be an occasion unto us of sin, and hinder us in the way of life. Yet a man that had heard him with your disposition, might have said, What needs it? seeing though we cut off one foot, or pluck out one eye, the other is likely to cause us to offend. Upon Moses words in Genesis, touching Dinah, that she went out to see the daughters of that country, and Shechem ravished her, godly learned interpreters observe that her wandering and idle curiosity is noted and reproved as an occasion of the vilanie that was done unto her. Yet a gadding humor and wanton eye of maidens loath to follow S. Paul's rule and keep at home, might say that such teachers are puritans, who cannot abide whitson-ladies: for Shechem was likely to do as much to Dinah, though she had kept at home in her fathers house, and never come in Sichems sight. The very fact in question, whereon you mislike that I made this note of such occasions and enticements, hath the same observed therein by the Poet, the wise reporter of it: namely, that Achilles lust was first kindled by seeing Deidamia; afterward increased by conversing with her; and finally accomplished by coming through the falacie of his attire, like a woman, whither else in likeness of a man he could not. But whatsoever Statius judged of the matter, or others shall judge of that I noted by the way; you grant it was abominable by the law of God, for Thetis to put woman's raiment on her son Achilles, as she did. And so you have rather confirmed, then confuted, mine answer to your argument from the two examples of Macedonians and Achilles. You come in now anew with half a dozen more: three of men, attiring them selves in wemens raiment; three of women, in men's. And quoting their names only in your margent, you say that if you had thought that these two examples should not have been taken in your meaning, that is, only in the circumstance for the which you alleged them, you could have used many true stories of both sexes, to the which no such exceptions could have been taken. Wherein, to pass over, that by giving the name of true to those stories, you make it very probable that you meant before under the name of stories, the fable of Achilles, as I supposed you did by the drift of your words, (speaking first in general of stories proving two points; then bringing one in special to prove the one of them, Achilles to prove the other) which yet you deny to have been your meaning, and charge me with untruth in effect for saying it: you do farther charge me that I have not taken those two examples in your meaning. No have? Why? Meant you not by them to conclude, that a man may lawfully put on woman's raiment, to save his life, or benefit many, because in such cases Achilles and the Macedonians did put on such raiment? And have not I expressly set this reason down, affirming it to be your reason, and making mine answer accordingly thereto? yes: but I have also in mine answer to it noted other circumstances of the same examples, thereby to make plainer the badness of your reason: and so I have not taken them in your meaning, that is (as you expound it) only in the circumstance for the which you alleged them. You are a merry man, and not much unlike in this respect to one, who when he had taken up a waster and buckler in Cheapeside at London to play with an apprentice, & the apprentice rapped him, sometime upon the head, sometime upon the elbow, or shoulder, or side, he cast them down again; saying, that if he had thought that the apprentice would not have stricken upon his buckler still, he would not have played with him. Yet in this you vary from the vain of his speech, that you say you could have used many true stories of both sexes, to the which no such exceptions could have been taken. Though you help yourself no more by this varying, then if his skill had served him to have warded all the blows with his buckler; his weakness being nevertheless unable to resist, but that he might have had his buckler beaten about his ears. For what if no such exceptions could be taken against your six examples? Doeth not the same answer that I made to your reason from the Macedonians example, and Achilles, beat down these also to the ground: since none of them is equal to David, or to Peter, whose actions notwithstanding are no sufficient warrants for us? Moreover, as in beheading of noble personages, that are traitors, the executioner, having cut of their heads, doeth hold them up in his hands, & show them to the people: so I, having thus beheaded, as it were, these your six examples, I mean, the reason drawn from them, perhaps (notwithstanding your confident assertion that no such exceptions can be taken against them) might hold them up in my hands, and show that they are dead, by the like or more absurd consequutions from other circumstances thereof. For example, in one or two, the chiefest of them, the first of eche sex, Euclides, and Euphrosyna; the story of Euclides is, that when the Athenians, having their neighbors of Megara in great hatred, had decreed that if any of the men of that city were found within Athens, he should suffer death: Euclides being of it, and loath to lose the benefit of the school of Socrates, with whom he used to be at Athens and to hear him, before that law was made, did cloth himself in woman's attire towards evening; went from his house in Megara to Athens, unto Socrates; enjoyed his speech and conference some parte of the night time; and when day approached, returned home again a little more then twenty miles in the same attire.

Now, if this were lawfully done, because he did it: then William Bishop of Eli, who, to save his honor and wealth, became a green-sleeves, going in woman's raiment less way then twenty miles, from Dover castle to the Sea side, did therein like a man; although the women of Dover, when they had found it out by plucking down his muffler & seeing his newshauen beard, called him a monster for it: then with us a scholar, who thinketh of some man, as Euclid did of Socrates, and cannot well frequent his house in the day time for suspitiō of lewdness with his Xanthippe, or of Popery, may come like a maiden thither in the night: then our University Statute of night-walkers would be taken away, or qualified at least; and if our Proctors meet one like a womā at midnight, they must not be suspicious; some studious youth, it may be, come from Wickam or Beaconsfield, and daring not to travail by day for thieves through Shotouer, is going to some learned man. In like sort, touching Euphrosyna, a maid of Alexandria, (of Antioch you name her, by slip of pen or memory) the story is, that she, desiring much to live in an Abbay like a monk, forsook not only her father, who had brought her up to be a staff in his old age, a comfort in his weakness to him; but also a worthy, noble, virtuous gentleman, to whom she was betrothed; clad in man's apparel she came unto the Abbot; and being asked of him who she was, from what place, & for what cause she came, she answered, that her name in deed was Smaragdus, and she was of the Emperors Court, and came to that Abbay to lead a holy life, if she might be admitted; and so finding favor to be admitted as a man, she lived there eight and thirty years in man's apparel. Whereof if you infer again, as you do, Euphrosyna did it, Ergo lawful; a better proof, I grant, then, Achilles did it, or Mocedonians did it, because they were profane men, Euphrosyna is a Saint; but as you reason thus: likewise may another in the same mood and figure; Euphrosyna, through a desire of moonkish perfection, refused to honor her father; Ergo Christ did wrongfully check the Scribes and Pharisees for breaking God's commandments to keep traditions of men: Euphrosyna chose rather to be with others then with him to whom she was betrothed; Ergo Moses erred in teaching that a maid bethrothed is a wife, & that the wife should cleave inseparably to her husband: Euphrosyna lied for a vantage; Ergo S ^t . John was a precisian, who condemneth all lies: Euphrosyna conversed in men's apparel, amongst men, eight and thirty years; Ergo D. Gager mistook the place of Deuteronomy, when he gave it this meaning, that to go attired so ordinarily is abomination to the Lord. See you now what manner if true stories, of true all, you could have used of both sexes? and how bold you were in saying that no such exceptions could be taken to them, as to the former? The which notwithstanding, were it as you say, you do no more help your argument thereby, then if a traitor being beheaded, whom you favored, you stayed the executioner from holding up his head, and sowed it on again yourself to his body with close and hansom stitches. For although no such exceptions could be taken to any of your examples, yet had I beheaded with the the sword of God's word the reason drawn from them: and with Iustinians sword too, in that I adjoined for your sake out of your law, that we are to live by laws, not by examples: and to look, not so much what is done anywhere, as what ought to be done.

Hereunto you add another new argument to show that the place of Deuteronomy toucheth certain cases only, not generally forbiddeth a man to put on woman's raiment: and that is, the opinion and judgment of Divines. For after you had delivered these expositions of it, as liked by yourself, that to wear such raiment of a lewd intent, the rather thereby, & the more safely to be in the company of women to bring some bad purpose about; or of an effeminate mind to suffer his hear to grow long, or to frizell it; or in speech, color, gate, gesture, and behavior to become womanish; or ordinarily so to converse among men and women, against the course of all natural, and civil regard, is abomination to the Lord: and noted it moreover to be expounded by other thus, that women are forbidden to put on the armor of men, and men the raiment of women, because at that time it was superstitious, in as much as among the Gentiles women woare men's armor in the sacrifices of Mars, and men woare wemens ornaments and instruments, as distaff, spindell, and such like, in the sacrifices of Venus; and therefore is it added that he who doth so is abominable to God because abomination is taken in the Scriptures commonly for idolatry, or something belonging to idolatry: but after you had set down these expositions, you say that all the Divines whom ever you talked with of this matter, do affirm the true meaning of that place to be contained in these senses rehearsed. Wherein by alleging the consent of all Divines that ever you talked with hereof, as making for you, first, you grant yourself never to have talked here of with S. Cyprian, Chrysostom, Procopius, Thomas Aquinas, Liranus, Calvin, Hyperius, Beza, Bishop Babingtō; who making it a point annexed (as I shown) to the seventh commandment, do imply the meaning thereof to be larger then your rehearsed senses: never with Clemens Alexandrinus, Gulielmus Parisiensis, Dionysius Carthusianus, Ferus, Fagius, Danaus; who by handling it in like sort as the former, do testify their agreement with them in the conclusion: never with Tertullian, Lactantius, Austin, the Bishops assembled in the sixth general council to the number of above two hundred and twenty: who partly by urging that place against stage-players partly by condemning the thing it speaketh of, as lewd, do evidently argue that they are of a different mind from you concerning it. Or since you having had the most of these quoted in my letters to you, do grant, for Cyprian namely & the general concel, that they make against you, & therefore seem, in citing all that ever you talked with; to mean not such as you have read and perused, but whom you have asked thereof by word of mouth: then, why should you more enforce against me the sayings and judgment of all that ever you talked with, then I against you the sayings and judgments of all that ever I talked with? For as you report of them whom you talked with that they are very godly and excellently learned: in like sort may I of them whom I talked with. And of mine you cannot but the rather believe me, because I named you one, of whom yourself answer, that you esteem him to be a good man, a good scholar, and a good Preacher: you name me none of yours. Again, there hath not any of yours in public place, where men do speak with greater advise to Christian auditories, avouched that which you hold: he, whom you commend, and commend justly, hath preached the same that I teach. But, you say, he could not justify his speech, uttered so publicly, if it should come to due trial. But, I say, this speech of yours so publicly uttered is come to due trial, and you cannot justify it. For he, having opened the words of his text, Let me not wander from thy commandments, & begun to show what a contrary course unto the Prophets practice we take now a days, did prosequute it thus. To lett pass other things, let stage-plays in the University, and Maygames in the town, speak whether these things be so. In Deuteronomy the precept is, The woman shall not put on man's raiment, nether shall a man putt on woman's raiment; for all that do so are abomination to the Lord: And it is the Apostles precept to abstain from all appearance of evil. Whether the former precept be broken in all plays, I know not. Sure very few or none there are, wherein either the one, or both, is not broken: either through the vile scurrility of the matter oftentimes unbeseeming chaste ears; or thorough the time for the preparing for them; or through the unnecessary charges about them; or through the manifold dangers coming both to actors, and spectators, by them. Herevpon, having added somewhat touching maygames, he made this exhortation. The Prophet prayeth unto the Lord, that he may not wander from his commandments. His action ought to be thine instruction: and art thou so far from following him that thou treadest his law under thy feet, and castest his words behind thee? Take heed, fear, and tremble; thou hast not to deal with man, but with God: who hath left thee his law, not to dally withal, or cunningly to deceve thyself with thine own glosses upon the same, but to be the witness of his will, and rule of thy life. This is the same speech, and all, that he did utter so publicly hereof; set down in writing by him self before he uttered it: a speech, that in this present trial between us is already justified, and shall be declared farther to be gold, silver, precious stones, in the day of great trial. So shall the same doctrine delivered by S. Cyprian, the sixth general council, and other worthy men: when of the contrary side your wood, hay, stubble, shall be consumed by fire. In the mean season yourself do lay open your own corrupt affections, & blaze your own shame sundry ways. One, in that you say, that you trust you shall not seem to any man to wrong S. Cyprian & the rest, if you follow the opiniō of others both very godly & excellently learned, who do interpret that text of Deuter. otherwise then he, or they do: specially in a case that toucheth you so near, wherein you are to defend yourself and many your good friends from the reproach of open infamy. For you speak therein, as if the question being of another text, Thou shalt not give to usury unto thy brother, which some newer writers expound against unmerciful and cutting usury, as they term it; not against all usury, as Austin with a number of ancient Fathers doeth; an usurer should say: I trust I shall not seem to any man to wrong S. Austin and the rest, if I follow the opinion of others, both very godly and excellenly learned, who do expound that text otherwise then he, or they do; specially in a case that toucheth me so near, wherein I am to defend myself, and many my good friends, from great discredit and discommoditie. An other, in that you add, that you well wote it little becometh you to say, Da veniam Cypriane. In deed, for myself, whom in this you glance at, I must confess I thought that it did become me to say, Da veniam Cypriane, upon the circumstances that I said it: which, if it were a fault, though D. Fulke thought otherwise, but if it were, it was of error; and I will recant it, if you confute the reasons that moved me to think it did become me so to say. But you, who wote well (by your own confession) it little becometh you to say, Da veniam Cypriane, do thereby acknowledge, that although you are persuaded, as you pretend, the proper natural sense of the word of God to be on your side, not on Cyprians; in truth you are not so. For else you would think that it should become you very well to say, Pardon me, O Cyprian: since you know, I hope, that it became the Apostles very well to say, We ought rather to obey God then men. And if it do little become you to say, Pardon me, O Cyprian, when yet you dissent from him and contradict him: then you glozed in saying that with all humbleness you reverence his authority; seeing, to crave leave and pardon, in dissenting, is a sign of reverence. And if to use so mild words, Pardon me, O Cyprian, it become you little: how much less, to say, as in effect you do, It is a cursed gloss, O Cyprian, which thou makest? And if unto Cyprian alone it little becometh you to say so much: how greatly unbeseeming is it for you to say it unto such a number, both of old, & new interpreters, besides him? Finally, for an vpshoote, where you say that he, as a godly man, was carried with a vehement & a perfect hatred against the detestable abuses of the heathen spectacles in his time: you grant that the spectacles of plays set forth by you have detestable abuses in them; since the tragedies, the playing whereof he detesteth, are such as your Ulysses; the Comedies, as your Rivales: and so, how little care you have of being godly, who are not only not carried with an hatred, I say not, with a vehement & perfect hatred, against them, but also dote upon them, & write defenses of thē, I judge you not, your own mouth judgeth you. As for those godly and learned Divines, who being talked withal by you touching the true sense of the place of Deuteronomy, did make that answer which you mention: what if they, misliking your resolute intent, did follow the example of Michaeas the Prophet? who being asked by king Ahab wheher he should go against Ramoth Gilead to battle, or leave off; did answer him, Go up, & prosper; & the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king. What if in a merriment, knowing why you asked it, they spake unto you, as Cassellius a lawyer unto a certain Roman? Of whom, when Uatinius having had stones thrown at him by the people, to whom he was odious, did purpose to set forth a spectacle of fensers, and had gotten the magistrates to make proclamation that no man should cast ought into the place of spectacles saving an apple only; Cascellius being asked, whether a pine apple were an apple, If thou mean to hurl it at Vatianus, it is, quoth he. What if you mistook the sum of their answer, or a word therein? they telling you perhaps that the true meaning of the place of Deuteronomy doeth contain those senses which are rehearsed by you; and you misconstruing them as if they had said that the true meaning thereof is contained in those senses rehearsed, and so may in no case be extended farther. Of which three conjectures (you force me to divine of them, and between them, because you would not name the parties whom you cite, that by them selves I might learn what they said, and why,) the last in my opinion seemeth most probable: considering it is likely that godly learned men would look what had been written upon the place by interpreters; and the interpreters, whose words, even translated by you in a manner, are an evident token what your Divines told you, do specify those things as meant, in such sort, that they deny not but more might be meant; yea most of them affirm the general to be meant also. For, of five particulars (so many you set down) Strabus, the author of the ordinary Gloss, hath two: namely that a man must not become womanish in color, gate, and so forth; nor suffer his hear to grow long, or frizill it. The other three, that he may not put on woman's raiment, thereby the more safely to be in wemens company, to bring about some bad purpose; nor ordinarily so to converse among men and women, against the course of natural & civil regard; nor to be womanlike in the sacrifices of Uenus: these hath Gulielmus Alvernus, Bishop of Parise, and Carthusianus after him; Aquinas, and Liranus too, the last of them. Now Strabus saith not that those two things alone are meant: the rest do say that so much more is meant then the other three, as proveth my assertion. For the Bishop of Parise, cited and abbridged by Dionysius Carthusianus, among sundry causes why the law of God should forbid a man to put on woman's raiment, giveth this for one, that a great occasion of provoking men to lust might be taken away. For the apparel of women (saith he) is a great provocation of men to lust and leacherie: because a woman's garment being put on a man doeth vehemently touch and move him with the remembrance & imagination of a woman; and the imagination of a thing desirable doth stir up the desire. The same in fewer words Aquinas doeth affirm. And Liranus farther, having declared what moved him to prefer the last exposition (rehearsed by yourself, though somewhat confusely, which I was bold to mend in the recital of it, the better here to be understood) saith, that if the text be meant of common apparel, then is such an use or rather abuse forbidden, because it is an occasion of wantonness and lust. Wherein he hath relation to that, whereas the word, used in the former branch of the sentence touching men's furniture not to be worn by women, doeth sometime signify common apparel, sometime armor; he had said, that this place, he thought, the signification of armor fitted best: induced thereunto because he had read that women in the sacrifices of Mars did bear armor; and the reason added, for all that do so are abomination to the Lord, might well enough agree, since matters of idolatry are commonly in the Scriptures termed abomination. But seeing it appeareth not by sufficient proof that women woare men's armor in the sacrifices of Mars, or men woare wemens distaffes, spindles, and such like, in the sacrifices of Uenus; and the later branch of the law forbidding a man to put on woman's raiment, doeth show that common apparel is meant in the former, as S. Jerome also in the vulgar Latin translation hath noted: it followeth that Liranus resteth and resolveth upon the general sense and exposition as truest. By consequence whereof the word, abomination, must not be restrained to matters of idolatry, but taken in his natural meaning: according to the like use thereof in like places, where the law condemneth those execrable villainies, to which this change of raiment provoketh and entiseth. Thus seeing that no one of all those interpreters, by whom the expositions, which you rehearse, are set down, denieth that the law extendeth farther then your specialties, & most of them affirm it: I fear it were a fault in me to believe you, that godly learned Divines, with whom you talked thereof, should all avouch unto you the thing you father on them. Howbeit, if they did, and you will needs enforce their testimony against me; mine answer made to Cyprian, to them I must apply: The law forbidding men to put on wemens raiment, saith that all who do so are abomination to the Lord. What? And have godly learned Divines said otherwise? Pardon me, ye godly & learned Divines; I would believe you gladly, but that believing you I should not believe the word of God. And I assure myself so much of their modesty, that though you, with Gregory Martin, do taunt me for my presumptuous saying, Pardon me O Cyprian: yet, since Austin thought he might, without any disgrace unto Cyprian, allow of Tychonius the Donatists exposition as better sitting a place of scripture, then his did; they will not take it hardly that I prefer the judgment of Cyprian, with Austin, and such, so many other both old and new interpreters, before theirs in this point.

But you, to cut the cable of my chiefest anker, the sacred anker, as they term it, which is, the generality of the law it self, pronouncing all abominable who change their raiment so, betake yourself at the last to this desperate refuge, that though the proposition be a general affirmative, All men are abomination who put on woman's apparel, yet in your cases it suffereth exception. I call this refuge desperate, because your own handling thereof doeth seem to argue, that when you came unto it, you did tread on thorns; and felt that you should be pitifully pricked, if you stood long upon it. For when, unto the rules of law which I cited, that every special is suspended when the general is suspended, and he who forbiddeth the general will not have the special practiced, you had replied that these rules are to be understood of those generals that absolutely command, and necessarily comprehend their specials sub potestate sua, not those which must endure controlment as it were, & suffer exceptions to restrain their power; you give this reason of it: For general propositions, both in Divinity, and Law, do usually admit particular exceptions and limitations, quae derogant generalitati: of which sort this proposition, that we have in hand, is; as there are many mo of like nature, which you could allege (you say) to illustrate these rules, but that they are plain to me, and you are weary already, and have a great way yet to go, and fear that I am stark tired with your tedious discourse. It is recorded by historians that the Parthians used to fly frō their enemies, & withal to strike thē with arrows shot backward. Whervpō Horace, affirming that he wrote no verses at all, when he wrote many, doeth compare himself to them, who fought most, when they pretended flight. You resemble the Parthiās in your courageous flying: you will not seem to withdraw yourself, as overcome, but as weary with killing, & having other exploits to do, and taking pity of me. Only you differ frō them, in that you shoot no arrows while you are flying away; which else I might be afraid of, as Horace saith their soldiers were. For your axiom urged in manner of a proof, that general propositions both in Divinity, and Law, do usually admit particular exceptions; proveth just nothing: unless peradventure you think that in good Logic this argument will hold: Some general propositions, for the word usually betokeneth some not all; some therefore do admit particular exceptions; Ergo the proposition we have in hand doeth so. A shaft so unshapen without head or feather, that although the stele, I mean the antecedēt thereof, be well wrought, & many examples might you allege to illustrate it, if need were: yet yourself durst not as much as make a show of nocking, and drawing it, to shoot it of with an Ergo. But I of the contrary side will so encounter this devise of yours, that there shall no more life be left therein, then there was in Ahab the evening after he was wounded. And that by means of this argument. No particular exception is good against a general proposition in Divinity, save only such as Scripture maketh and warranteth. But your asseveration, that men may put on wemens raiment in stage-plays, is a particular exception not warranted by Scripture, against the general proposition that all who do so are abominable. Therefore men's wearing of wemens raiment on stages cannot be good in Divinity. The major of which syllogism the Law (to go no farther) matched with Divinity by yourself in this case of rules and limitations, propositions & exceptions, will approve unto you. For if against a general rule and proposition, as for example sake, that right ought always to be done, a man of Caesar's mind should by way of exception and limitation say, that it ought in deed, save when a kingdom may be gotten by doing injury and wrong: must we allow this exception? No. And why? Because it is not warranted by any text of Law. Hence is it that Bartolus, and Glossa communis after him, affirming absolutely that where the law distinguisheth not, we may not distinguish, do show that they mean this, not of any one law, but of the whole body, to weete, that we may not distinguish upon a law, unless that law by some other law be so distinguished. Likewise, in Divinity, if against the doctrine of doing righteousness at all times (to press the same example) a woman like Jezebel, or men like the Elders and Governors, whom she wrote to, should say that general rules may admit exceptions, and righteousness is requisite to be done at all times, save when land may be gotten by suborning false witnesses, or a king pleased by shedding innocent blood: this might be very justly called a cursed gloss, because the Scripture doeth not teach in any place that it is lawful to do evil for advantage, or gratifying of Princes. Neither could the Apostle rightly praise the Scripture, as serving to furnish a man of God perfectly unto all good works, if a work therein commanded or forbidden generally, as good or naught, were contrariwise abominable or allowable in particulars not declared by Scripture. Which moved S. Austin, among lessons given for the right expounding thereof, to make this one, that doutfull points of Scripture ought to be cleared by the Scripture it self, because all such things as touch faith and manners are set down plainly in the Scripture. True it is therefore that no particular exception, in Divinity, may be admitted against a general proposition, unless the Scripture warrant it: which was the first parte of my syllogism. The next, that your assertion touching men's wearing of wemens raiment in stage-plays, is a particular exception not warranted by Scripture against a general proposition: must needs be granted also. Specially by you: who, having talked thereof with Divines, both many, and excellently learned, perceive that none of them could bring forth any warrant out of Scripture for it. Wherefore, the conclusion, against your stage-play-women, may cause both them and you to die your faces with that color, which a Philosopher termed well the color of virtue: and I pray God it do.

So the commandment, that a man shall not put on woman's raiment, being proved to reach unto all in general, even such, as for the saving of honor, wealth, or life, do it, much more whom nothing moveth thereto but a playing humor: it followeth to be sifted whether there be truth and weight in that you add, that your players did not wear wemens raiment. A thing avouched by you in like sort almost, as if Ahab being wounded to death with an arrow sticking in his side, should have said, I am not hurt. But this, which, if he had brought reason to persuade men, he might have seemed desirous to be mad with reason, you labor to confirm, saying that you may not in deed be said at all to wear wemens apparel, because wearing implieth a custom and a common use of so doing: whereas you do it for an hour, or two, or three, to represent an others person, by one that is openly known to be as he is in deed. For answer whereunto, first, passing over your idle addition concerning the ende and circumstance of your using it; which I term idle, because if men should use it still to whatsoever ende, and openly known to be the same they are, as Sporus was, they may indeed be said to wear it, you will grant: but first if it be only for an hour, or two, or three, that you do it; where are your women dressed? by whom? at what time? all at the same moment they come upon the stage? and hath none been dressed at noon, to play at night? and hath it not been towards midnight, ere some plays ended? Next, if it be true, that wearing implieth a custom and a common use of so doing: then belike it may not be said that Nero the Emperor did ever wear any garment. For he did never put on any garment twice, as Suetonius writeth: and therefore had no custom and common use of any. Furthermore, suppose that you might not be said to wear wemens apparel; yet are you not the nearer to that which you intend: since the Scripture saith, that a man shall not put on woman's raiment, and you do put it on (I trow) when you play, whether you wear it, or no. Finally, the Prophets word, betokening this in the original text, is the very same with that whereby the armor of Saul is described to have been put on David. Now if David who put off Saul's armor by and by, within half an hour, a quarter, or less much; yet had it put on, after the phrase of Scripture: may it not be said, that they, who went in wemens raiment certain hours, did that which Scripture speaketh of, English it as you list, put on, or wear such raiment? Alas, in how miserable plight is he, saith Tully, who cannot deny that, which to confess it is most shameful? I, with a little change of his sentence, must lament your case, who dare not confess that which to deny it is most shameful. For how many hundreds are there of eye-witnesses, that your Euryclea, Melantho, Penelope, Phoedra, Nais, others, did wear wemens raiment? Howe many did observe, and with mislike have mentioned, that Penelopes maids did not only wear it, but also sat in it among true women in deed, longer then David woare Saul's armor? neither were more known to them to be men, then Achilles was at first to Deidamia; until they suspected it, seeing them entreated by the wooers to rise and danse upon the stage. I wish there had not been so bad a token to convince you; nor so many beholders to testify thereof: though I am glad withal that they had such mislike of the thing testified. And this commodity by it besides, that I might fear else, least you, who did before deny that men playing on your stage, are stage-players; and do deny here that the players of wemens partes wear wemens raiment; would at length deny that you had any plays at all; and so accuse me of slandering your friends for being on the stage, when they were in their studies.

The third head of reasons, knit up under the title of losing time in your speech, but containing loss of better things then time, I declared the strength of, chiefly by this argument. To imitate and resemble wantonness, scurrility, impudēcie, drunkenness, or any other misbehaviour, is a thing unlawful: But sundry misbehaviours were imitated and resembled by Penelopes wooers, her maids, Rivales, mariners, Phaedra, the Nurse, the Nymph, and others in the playing of your tragedies and comedie: The playing therefore of them is to be misliked. Whereagainst you say not much for the major. Only, for as much as I, beside a number both of divine authorities, and human, avouching it, alleged your own consent too, in that you affirm that it beseemeth not men to follow wemens manners: you say your meaning was, that it doth not beseem them to follow wemens manners in the common course of life, to the perverting of the law of nature, honesty, and comeliness; or for any evil purpose; yet a boy, by way of representation only, may, not indecently, imitate may denlie or womanlie demeanour. Which answer though it seemeth to deny your approoving of my reproof in part, about young men's imitating of the manners of women: yet the greatest part thereof doeth it approve. For I found most fault with imitating the manners of strumpets and bauds, Melantho, Phaedra, the Nurse: and, I trust, you will not say that the demeanour of such vnmaidenly maidens, & vnwemenly women, is either maidenly or womanly. But whatsoever you say touching your own sentence, and after your common course of distinguishing interpret it as meant in the common course of life, to the perverting of the law of nature, honesty and comeliness, or for any evil purpose: it sufficeth me, that you durst not apply these distinctions to the Scriptures, Fathers, or foreign writers, by which I confirmed the major of mine argument and you acknowledge it to be truly confirmed. The minor is the hedge, whereat, as the lowest, you were in hope that you might leap over with less difficulty. And in this confidence you ask What proportion there is between those things, which I enlarge in my major; and those things which in particular application against you, are used in my minor? To the which question I will make no answer, till you have considered and told me what proportion there is between an Elephant, and Maximinus the Emperor. But the minor of mine argument, whereto I must hold you, and not give you leave thus to run at riott upon every wandering conceit of proportions; the minor of mine argument, I say, is most certain, & true, in every branch thereof. Though neither is your cunning and art, by the way, to be passed over, that whereas I having in general disclosed the hurt of amatorie dancing, did note in particular your wooers dancing with their minions: you reply that they dansed only two solemn measures, without any lighter galliard; and hereupon you ask me, What Herod could be inflamed? What Propertius ravished? what flame of lust kindled thereby in men's hearts? what wounds of love imprinted? whose senses could be moved, or affections delited more then ought to be, or may honestly be? What enemies of chastity made by this sight? what strong or constant heart vanquished; nay, what reed shaken thereby? What so much as flax or towe set on fire? Great cry, and little wool: as who say that I had applied all these things to dancing alone; and not diverse of them to amatorie kissing, amatorie embracing, and amatorie pangs expressed in most effectual sort, together with it. Or, as who say farther, that none could be touched with any spark of lust by seeing the supposed gentlewemen danse so small a time, so grauelie with galant lusty yoonkers; because you, a marvelous indifferent judge, & well seen in things of this quality, do pronounce that none could. Lactantius, controlling a sentence, wherein Tully had magnified the force of fortune, and given edge thereto with an interrogatiō, Who knoweth not that Fortune is of great force both ways, either to prosperity, or to adversity? forsooth, saith he, I know it not. In like sort they whose judgment herein is so much sounder, less daseled with affection and prejudice, then yours, as in matters touching God and true Religion, Lactantius was then Tullius, may answer your demands, that many Herod's might be inflamed, many a Propertius ravished thereby. For your partiality and weakness of sight doeth bewray it self, in that, where I had noted how your new Nymph, by lively expressing of amorous pangs, brought fuel enough to heat & melt a heart of ice or snow: you reply, that she hath been worse reported of to me a great deal, then she did deserve, as I and the world shall one day see. Now she was so reported of to me by Lactantius, I mean, a man whose word I offer you no wrong if I believe before yours; a man, that deserveth to be as well esteemed of, as he, for sundry causes, & for some, better, a man, who did report it, not of surmise, but of knowledge; not of hear-say, but of sight; not of that which might be, but which had happened in senses and affections moved and tickled with it. And the thing which the world and I should one day see, whereby your meaning shown in the words ensuing, is, that she did profer honest, lawful, virtuous, marriage-meaning love, as her speech committed now to print declareth; doeth not prove that he reported worse a great deal to me of her expressing those pangs, then she deserved. For that very action, which she did insinuate her self to be enraged & burn with desire of, is honest, and lawful, belonging unto virtuous and marriage-meaning love. Yet if one should say, that the open doing of it, like a Cynicke, or using of sweet words and gestures tending to it, like Bacchus and Ariadne, cannot shake a reed, much less surprise or wound a strong and constant heart: he might seem unworthy to be talked withal by men of ingenuous modesty and judgment. Wherefore since the profer of nothing else but honest and marriage-meaning love, made in words only by a hansom boy appareled like a woman did ravish a Propertius, and inflame an Herod; notwithstanding you thought that it could not possibly work any such effect, as I and the world also should perceive: your thick interrogations wherewith you come upon me, as with so many foines and pricks of a sword, to make me yield that youthes attired in wemens raiment, & dancing a few solemn measures like Sempronia, cannot set flax on fire; in show they do brave it, as if no way but one; in deed they draw not so much blood, as a needle would. But be it as be may, for the forcible operation and working of the poison, which neither I affirmed to be altogether so quick in every branch of the minor, concerning your players, as in some alleged for proof of the major; nor do you rightly judge of, who acknowledging it to be as poison in the major for bad effects of such plays, would have it triacle in the minor for good effects of yours: the minor of mine argument, as I said, is certain and true in every branch thereof. One alone, amongst all that I specified, you take exception at; which is the Nymphes part. And therein I mistook a circumstance, I grant. How be it I must tell you withal that I mistook it so, and such a circumstance, that the righting of it doth not only not diminish the certainty and truth of my minor, but rather much increaseth it. For when the grave and godly man, whom I spake of, had shown me his mislike of amorousnes and drunk̄nes expressed in your plays; and namely, for the former, had noted the mischief of the representing those pangs so effectually by the Nymph, a new part inserted into Seneca: I not being farther inquisitive thereof, did think that you supposing the person of a bawde was not set forth lively and skillfully enough by Seneca in Phaedras Nurse, had brought in a Nymph to persuade Hippolytus that which the Nurse could not; and thereupon I mentioned the Nurses and the Nymphes bawderie. Now, by your publishing of that which you inserted, I perceive you added a new bawd in deed, but a man bawde, Pandarus; and gave the Nymph another part almost as shameful: so that, I confess, I was, through some negligence, doubly overseen; first, in naming Titius, or rather Titia, for Seius; again, in imagining one naughty part added by you unto Seneca, whereas you added two. For, whatsoever you say of your Nymphes wooing and profer to Hippolytus: S. Ambrose, on the Scripture touching Rebeccas spousals, saith that a woman should give unto her parents the choice of her husband, least she be reputed too malapert and wanton, if she take upon her to make her own choice: for she must rather seem to be desired by a man, then to desire a man her self. And you should have noted, that Erasmus words, alleged by yourself to justify the Nymphes action, are, Si res honesta est matrimonium, & procum agere honestum est. Procum agere, he saith, of the masculine gender; not of the feminine, Procam. A thing, from allowing whereof he was so far; much more from terming them tetrica ingenia & ab omnibus Gratiis aliena, who do disallow it; though you, not contented to adjoin this also, enlarge it with comparison of your speech to Momus; as if Erasmus likewise blamed us for accounting all matters touching love, and pleasant mirth, unchaste, jump as yourself do for calling that dishonest and wanton, which is merry and light: but Erasmus was so far from allowing a maid to be a wooer, or wooesse, what shall I name it? that in express words he disalloweth it as unseemly. By the judgment therefore of your own witness it was a misbehavior in Nais to be wooing. What? And was it not a misbehaviour also in her to be railing? to say unto Hippolytus, that his mother was a tiger, his father was a bull, him self a proud, a cruel, a barbarous savage man? to banne him? to curse him? to wish him the most horrible kind of death that might be? and all because he would not leave his lawful liberty to satisfy her lust? Or would your Erasmus have reproved me as rigorous, to say no more, for blaming this in a maiden; and him self have liked it, who misliked in men that they fain and spread lewd reports of such as yield not to their wooing? Truelie, for mine own part, albeit Nais had not transgressed any duty with so fowl language, and might without impeachment of maidenly modesty, have sued to be Hippolytus bedfellow: yet should I have thought it a thing unbeseeming a youth of tender years to be inured, and taught, how he may by amorous speeches, looks, and gestures, woo for a husband, or a wife. But seeing she did that which cannot be cleared of wantonness and scurrility: my minor (notwithstanding the circumstance I mistook) is most true and certame for the branch concerning her. Yea, it is as certain and true, with alteration of the name only, even for the very crime too wherewith I charged her in steed of her brother Pandarus: that is to say, for bawderie. Which word why you should censure by terming it the broad name of bawderie, I know not: since the Latin words, leno, and lena, have none in our English correspondent to them (for ought that I know) but a bawde; and lenocinium, bawderie. How cometh it to pass then that my use of the English name should be faulty: where you do use the Latin without fault, I trust, and that in the person of modest, chaste, Hippolytus? The truth is that I should have spoken broder, so to term it, and used words of greater eagernes and sharpness. For his practice is bawderie, who entiseth any to single fornication. What is it farther to adultery? What farther yet, to incest? And to do this simply, as incestuous Amnon did, were abominable. What, to do it in such sort, as the Nurse in Seneca? but chiefly as your Pandarus? My speech was too minsing, when I named bawderie. If I had termed it most filthy beastly bawderie, my words had been broder, though not broad enough yet. But to return to mine argument, the major and the minor being thus confirmed, the conclusion followeth necessarily, and should have been granted by you in my judgment.

So many heads, so many wits: your fancy lead you another way. And therefore, according to the young Scholers axiom, that always when both the praemisses are true, the conclusion must be denied: You deny that the playing of your tragedies and comedie 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 defense of plays, you strive (though in vain, for want of strength) to draw out, and turn against myself. 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 receve any hurt thereby; another, 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 entier, because neither of them doeth touch a hear of the praemisses. The shows of reason first, whereby you would prove that neither the spectators, nor actors could receue any hurt by your plays, are these; that for your penning you are base and mean, as I see, (so you tell me) and specially for womanly behavior you were so careless, that when one of your actors should have made courtsie 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 disprooved in part by Nais: and yourself, 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 midst, of one actor forgetting his woman hoode, doeth no more argue that you were earelesse for womanly behavior, and for other also, but specially for womanly: then the oversight of a Greek stage-player, who, when he said, O God, pointed to the ground; when he said, O earth, cast up his hand to heaven ward, doeth argue that the Romans, Roscius, Aesopus, but specially the Greeks, were careless for seemly gesture on the stage. The foremost, like the rest; and worthy to be their ringleader for untruth, or trifling. For neither do I see, that in your penning you are base and mean, if you speak of all, and comprise love-speeches too, as that of Nais: neither if you were so, is it any proof that you could not hurt; for base and mean writers may utter evil speeches, & evil speeches corrupt good manners: and, beside your own, you played Seneca too, whose penning neither Scaliger, nor Lipsius, nor yourself, do vilify as base; so that the very style of somewhat, which you played, might work strong impressions by your own verdict. Wherefore when of those three assertions you infer, that neither the spectators, nor actors, could receive any hurt by your plays: you dispute in like sort, as if to control Suetonius and Tacitus, who say, that, when Rome was burnt in Nero's time, some did of purpose fire it, one should reason thus: The stuff which those incendiaries did use, was towe and firebrands scarce kindled, as you see: and specially for certain of them, who brought that stuff, they were so careless of setting fire on houses, that they fell to pillage, carrying things away out of houses vnburnt; & such as they robbed and spoiled with sword and fire could not greatly charge them with any such diligence in pains and care to burn the city: and so neither the city suffered hurt by them, nor they did any hurt. Strange, that Suetonius and Tacitus should say the contrary. But sometimes good Homer him self will fall a slumbering. Now as you have proved thus, that neither actors nor spectators could receive hurt by your plays: semblably you prove that no evil affections could be stirred up thereby, but rather good. For in Ulysse reduce (say you) who did not love though fidelity of Eumaeus; and Philaetius, towards their master; and hate the contrary in Melanthius? who was not moved to compassion to see Ulysses, a great Lord, driven so hardly, as that he was fain to be a beggar in his own house? who did not wish him well, and all ill to the wooers; and think them worthily slain for their bloody purpose against Telemachus, and other dissolute behavior, not so much expressed on the stage, as imagined to be done within? And so you go forward with a troupe of questions, urging it as certain that all your spectators did admire the constancy of Penelope, and dispraise the lightness and bad nature of Melantho, and think her justly hanged for it; all did praise the patience, wisdom and secrecy of Ulysses, & Telemachus his son; all were glad to see Ulysses restored to his wife; and goods, and his mortal enemies overthrown and punished: again, that in Rivates, all might be delited to see the fond behavior of country-wooing, expressed by civil men, or the vanity of a bragging soldier; all might detest drunkenness by seeing the deformity of drunken mariners actions: that in Hippolytus likewise all young men did wish them selves to be as chaste as Hippolytus was; all the spectators detested the love of Phoedra; approved the grave counsel of the Nurse to her in secret; none of them could be the worse for her wooing Hippolytus in so general terms; all did wish that Theseus had not been so credulous; and were sory for the cruel death of Hippolytus. The most of which things you affirm they did, not meaning to pronounce of their secret thoughts, but that your plays were naturally to work these effects: as appeareth by that in some of the branches you say that the spectators might do so, or so; yea, could not be the worse. And the same appeareth farther, by that you add, that these & such like passions were, or might be moved in your plays, without hurt, at the least, to any man: as in other tragedies, who doeth not hate (say you) the fury of Medea; the revenge of Atreus; the treason of Clytaemnestra, and Aegysthus; and the cruelty of Nero? Contrariwise who doeth not pity the rage, and death of Hercules; the calamity of Hecuba and her children; the infortunat valor of Oedipus; the murder of Agamemnon; the banishment of Octavia; and such like? You take yourself therefore hereby to have proved that no evil affections could be stirred up by your plays in any: at the least, no evil; and many good perhaps. But why in the particular point touching Hippolytus, in which it most behooved you (because of your new piece of Pandarus and Nais) to show that good affections might be stirred up by his part in all, and no evil in any: Why demanded you, what young man did not wish himself to be as chaste, as Hippolytus was, if he were not so already? Why asked you not generally, as in the rest, who did not? was it because you thought, that some elder men did not wish them selves as chaste, as he was: but were stirred up by Phaedras pangs, and Pandarus reasons, to wish the like motion had been made to them? Or, that any maidens were upon the stage, who could have been contented to become unchaste in yielding to Hippolytus that which he would not grant to Nais chastlie? As for the young men of our University who were present at it, I am hartilie glad if they were so minded: and do reap myself the greater comfort of it, the more I have commended his example to them. But if they wished so, when they saw your play: it came more of somewhat which they brought thither, then which they found there. For, by your instruction, the death of Hippolytus should have served to teach them, that they must never deny unto a Nais, or Phaedra, such requests: as yourself tell them, on speech concerning women; Quas ne quis vnquam spernere dehinc audeat, Hippolytus ecce horrible documentum dedit; Impune temnat nemo terrestres Deas. And what if all, who were present, not the young men only, did admire the constancy of Penelope? Could no evil affection be therefore stirred in any by seeing a boy play so chaste a part? Happy would Lucretia then have thought her self. For she was not inferior in chastity to Penelope: and when Tarquin saw her, he saw her employed as a most virtuous woman. Yet, for all the wonderment he had of her virtue: he was more inflamed with love of her beauty. Yea, the very sight of her chaste behavior stirred up his wicked lust. Moreover, if Ulysses begging in his own house, did move all the spectators to have compassion of him, and thereby grew no hurt to them: yet into the actor might there grow some hurt by acquainting himself with hypocritical feigning of lies, hunger, beggary, wrath, and shedding of blood. As Aesopus playing the part of Atreus in a tragedy (one of your examples of passions moved, without hurt, at the least, to any man) grew to such a rage by thinking and advising how he might wreak his anger, and be revenged on Thyestes; that with his Mace royal he struck one of the servants running by, and slew him. And beside this hurt that possibly might grow, there did grow the suffering of such things at Melanthius and Antinous hands, or one of their heels rather, as a poor wretch in Terence thought too contumelious and base for him to suffer; & a Parasite in Plautus counted a piece of his trade. Which reproachful patience if you think, I say not, that all who saw it, praised it (in saying so you blemish your spectators much;) but, that is was no hurt unto your actor of Ulysses, because (as you distinguished on Iuuenals words thereof) he is a poor Scholar: you are not of Tertullian's, and Nazianzenes mind, who note it for a stain in whatsoever players, even in rascal Heathens; how much more would they, if not in Scholers, yet in Christians, whom Saint Paul exhorteth to do only those things which adorn & set them out with coomly gravity? Now, if some might be the worse for beholding or playing of the best partes, the partes of Ulysses, and Penelope: what harm might they receive by the parts of the Wooers; of Melanthius, of Melantho, of a bragging soldier, of the drunken mariners, of the Nurse, of Phoedra? In some of which number your general propositions, that all the spectators must needs be moved thus or thus thereby, are untrue. In the rest, nay, in these too, manifest is the weakness of your particular conclusions, that because good thoughts might be stirred up in all the spectators by this or that part, therefore those parts could hurt no man. Besides, if by those partes no hurt could come to any, yet might there much by other which here you mention not: and so you come short of your conclusion general, that no hurt could come to any by the passions that were moved in your plays. Your general propositions do fail in the women: of whom you speak in such sort, that as some by putting away a good conscience, made shipwreck of their faith: so it may be feared that you, by putting truth and singleness away, will hazard the shipwreck of common sense and reason. For when married women do commit adultery, all are not displeased with their lightness and bad nature, nor think them worthy of death for it. David had another opinion of Bathseba, in the sacred story; the fool in the Proverbs, of the strange woman; the Trojans, in your Homers, Ilias, of Helena: and in his Odyssea, the supposed God's, that is to say, great persons, specially Mercury, thought otherwise of Uenus. How can it be then, that all should not only dispraise the bad nature and lightness of Melantho, an unmarried harlot, but also account her justly hanged for it? whom it is more likely that some would have stepped forth to beg from the gallows, at least the loving wooer, who had said unto her; O most fair Melantho, O sweet Melantho; if he had thought that she should have been hanged in earnest. Like probability hath it, that all would approve the Nurses grave counsel given to Phoedra in secret: when the counsel given openly to men, by the Prophets, by the Apostles, yea, by Christ him self, wherewith this hypocrites counsel deserveth not for gravity to be named the same day, was not approved by all. As for that concerning Phoedra you demand; who could be the worse for her wooing Hippolytus in so general terms: ask Caracallus the Emperor; in whose sight when his stepmother Julia, being mad with the same love to him-ward, that Phoedra to Hippolytus, did vncover and make bare, as it were through negligence, the most of her body, his heart conceived fire straight, his tongue disclosed it; and by her wooing of him in more general terms, then Phoedra wooed Hippolytus, his consent was woon to her incestuous lust. But of all absurd speeches in this matter, that may bear the bell, that having asked who could be the worse for her wooing Hippolytus in so general terms, you infer thereon: The drift whereof if it had been to procure an honest honorable marriage, as it was covertlie to allure him to incest, he might very well have listened to it. As if one of them, unto whom Solomon attributeth this speech, Cast in thy lott among us, we will all have one purse, should say that none could be the worse for his enticing in so general terms: the drift whereof if it had been to draw men to lawful war against enemies, as it was to unlawful spoiling of the innocent, they might very well have listened to it. Your particular conclusions do fail both in the women (for a surplusage of your former default concerning them) & in the men also. For although Melanthos lightness and bad nature had been dispraised by all: yet some might be corrupted by Melanthos looseness and bad lascivious talk, unless Saint Paul erred. And the grave counsel given unto Phoedra by the Nurse in secret, might hurt unwary lovely youthes, as doeth a scorpion, with the rail thereof. And Phoedras general terms might be as Joab's right hand, wherewith he took Amasa by the beard to kiss him: when her special drift being no more covered thē Joab's sword was, might in the mean season wound Amasa to death, and shed his bowels to the ground. The same is apparent in the scurrility of Melanthius, the lewd or fond tricks of the wooers, the vanity of the bragging soldier, the beastliness of the drunken mariners. For Aristotle wishing a law to be made in all well ordered cities, that young men should neither see tragedy played, nor Comedy, until in riper years they be past danger of being hurt thereby, groundeth his advise on reason and experience; because things which young men receive, do stick fast by them: and therefore since principal care ought to be taken that they may prove virtuous, they should be kept frō hearing any ill speeches, and seeing any ill deeds; chiefly such deeds and speeches, as are lewd or hateful. So that, where you tell us in defense of the spectacle of your drunken mariners, that it was not possible that any man should be provoked to drunkenness thereby: albeit this were true, whereof yet I doubt, or rather I dout not, considering that many are overprone to follow any vice or evil, which they see or hear, as an author praised by yourself observeth out of daily experience in childrē swearing great oaths, and speaking lascivious and unclean words by such example of other; but if it were true, there might nevertheless a dew of that poison, which Aristotle mentioneth, infect some tender buds, and annoy their fruit by the drunken songs, by the drunken speeches, by the drunken gestures of those drunken beasts. The greater is your fault, who say, the Lacedemonians are commended for causing their slaves, being drunk in deed, to be brought before their children, that they seeing the beastly usage of such men, might the more loath that vice: but you much better expressing the same intent, not with drunken, but with sober men, counterfeiting such vnseemelie manners, are the less therefore to be reprehended. Wherein how overthwarthly you affirm yourselves to have done much better then the Lacedaemonians, whose fact is commended; and yet conclude that you are the less therefore to be reprehended, as if your conscience told you that either your fact is not like to theirs, or hath some notable difference whereby it is made worse and worthy of reproof, though of the less reproof, the liker it is to theirs in part: we shall the more easily perceive, if we consider how the commender of it (why signified you not his name, or place?) Plutarch, doeth likewise by and by thereupon commend them for that they neither heard Comedy nor Tragedie, least they should in earnest, or jest, lend ear to those who gain said the laws. For hereby I gather, that they did not purposely make their slaves drunken; against their laws had that been: but when the slaves were drunk, they turned the example to their children's benefit, that, by seeing swine wallowing in the mire of vomit, and so forth, they might detest drūkennes. As with us when thieves are hanged, or hoores carted, we show them to our children, to breed a detestation of theft and hoordome in them. Wherevpon if Seius should say, it were much better that true men should fain them selves to be thieves, display some thievish pranke of theirs vpō a stage, and seem to be hanged for it; or that chaste maidens and young men should counterfeit the misdemeanor of hoores & knaves, and openly representing the filthy act of their uncleanness, be taken in it, and putt to shame: yourself, I am persuaded, would judge his better to be worse; at least in the latter point of knaves and hoores, because the shame, that lighteth on thē after the fact done, may profit the beholders; but the doing of it, and of things tending to it, hath turpitude that may corrupt them. Which censure if you will apply to your fact compared with the example of the Lacedaemonians, you may see their drunken slaves do little help to justify your mariners: because the rotton or stinking talk (as Scripture termeth it) which your mariners used before and at their quaffing, would not have been suffered among the Lacedaemonians to be soong or said in their children's hearing, no not by interlude-players. Neither have you greater reason to commend and extol the worthy play-fellows of your mariners by Catos name and credit, in that you ask; What Cato might not be delited to see the fond behavior of Country-wooing expressed by civil men, or the vanity of a bragging soldier? For Cato, not the younger, whose Stoicall austerity Tully findeth fault with, but whom without such note he praiseth, the elder, did put out of the number of Senators one Manilius, because in the day time he had kissed his wife in his daughters sight: & him self took no less heed of speaking filthy words in his sons presence, then he would have done in presence of the Uestall virgins; nor ever would enter into the bathe with him, least his son should see him naked. And can you think that any of this man's disposition, what delight soever him self might have taken in that which could not taint his gravity and constancy, would have been delited, delited? nay, contented to behold the filth of your country-wooers in the mouths & actions of Scholers like his son, before so great a company both of sons and daughters; in whose ears, & eyes, a Poët, no way comparable with Cato for severity and care of virtuous nurturing & training up of youth, detesteth the expressing of any one such foolerie, as your country-wooers did express a number?

As for the vanity of your bragging soldier, I marvel that intending to prove there could no evil affection be stirred up thereby in any, you durst mention Cato: whē I had shown that Plautus, a far looser person, and better experienced in matters of this kind, doeth note that men's manners are wont to be corrupted and made worse by plays which have a bawde, or boore, or bragging soldier in them. The dissolute behavior of your courtly-wooers, you say, was not so much expressed on the stage, as imagined to be doon within. Not so much on the stage: much on the stage therefore; and in deed too much. Yet this would prove, I grant, that small harm could be done by the playing of their partes, unless that were true which the Scripture saith: How great a pile of wood how little fire kindleth? Melanthius alone of all the sorts, or varlets, whom you namely specify, hath no amplification of Lacedaemonians, or Cato; no extenuation of not so much on the stage, to grace the vngratiousnes of his fowl scurrility. The likelier is Aristotle's sentence and authority to prevail with you, that young men might be stained by hearing of his railing, his Iambicall speeches, as Aristotle termeth them. At least Syr Thomas Eliots words of playing at footeball, that therein is nothing but beastly fury, & extreme violence, whereof proceedeth hurt, and consequently rancor & malice do remain with them that be wounded, may move you to think that there was danger of anoying our youth by Melanthius action, striking and girding (like Silenus asse) at Ulysses with his heel. For boys affecting footebale, will argue peradventure, that seeing such horseplay was used by Melanthius, & he might strike Ulysses body with his foot; more lawful should it be for them to strike a ball so: and what Cato would not be delited to see them break one an others shinnes? or who was that vicechancellour, what a convocation, that made our University statute to the contrary? Thus are your particular conclusions overthrown, even by those passions which the parties mentioned might imprint in others. How much more in them selves? Whose minds in what danger they are of infection, by meditating and studying sundry days, or weeks, how to express the manners of wantons, or drunkards, or country-wooers lively, the seeing whereof played but an hour, or two, might taint the spectators: I wish with all my heart, that I may rather seem in vain to have feared, then they should by experience feel. Your conclusion general faileth more and more yet, because evil affections might be stirred up by other partes then these: as namely, by your new parts of Pandarus and Nais. The former, after a sort confessed by yourself, in that you demand; who could be the worse for Phoedras wooing Hippolytus in so general terms? For this doeth insinuate that through Pandarus wooing him i •… special terms, so special, that incestuous Myrrha went no farther (as Ovid thought fit to describe it) not in her secret thoughts, some might be the worse. The later, most evident by that which is recorded to have come to pass in the Citi •… of Abdêra. Where, when at midsummer, in very hottweather, Andromeda (a Tragedie of Euripides) being played, many brought home a burning ague from the theater: about the seventh day following, they were rid thereof, some by much bleeding, some by sweating, but all, as soon as they were abroad out of their beds, did fall into a strange distemper and passion of a light frenzy. The which exciting them to say & cry aloud such things as were sticking freshly in their memory, and had affected most their mind, they grew all to Tragedie-playing, and full lustilie they sounded out Iambicall speeches: their tongues harping chiefly on Euripides, Andromeda, and the melodious words of Perseus touching love. So that the whole city was full of pale and thin folk, pronouncing like stage-players, and braying with a loud voice. But O Cupido, prince of God's and men, with the rest of that part: until at length the winter and cold, waxing great, asswaged their distemper, and eased them of their frantic folly. A word to a wise man is enough. That speech, But O Cupido, Prince of God's and men, uttered under Perseus, that is, a man's person, was of all likely hoode less piercing and pathetical, then yours, O quàm iuvaret igne tam pulchro mori, uttered by Nais, a woman, and a Nymph. It was well that she played in winter, not in summer. For Perseus loved Andromeda in the way of marriage too, as Nais did Hippolytus. But the force of love-pangs, and the care of lawfulness, join not their dwelling houses together still in all hearts. Wherefore you are so far off from having proved that no evil affection could be stirred up in any by your plays: that I can hardly remember any evil affection, which might not be stirred up thereby in many; not only in the actors, but the spectators also. And I think yourself, if you peruse advisedly this which I have written, and diligently compare it with your Ulysses redux, Rivales, and Hippolytus, will take time of respitt before you name as much as one inordinate passion; whereto I shall not quote, at least one players part, perhaps two, or three, that may be as oil unto the fire. Howbeit, had you proved the contrary hereof, yet is my conclusion entier, as I said, and your plays unlawful: because it is unlawful to imitate and resemble any misbehaviour; and yourself cannot deny but sundry lewdnesses were imitated and resembled in eche of your plays.

Herein is that confuted withal by the way, which otherwhere you mention as an intent sufficient to justify & warrant your coming on the stage: namely that you do it to practice your style, either in prose or verse; to be well acquainted with Seneca, or Plautus; honestly to embolden your youth; to try their voices, & cōfirm their memories, to frame their speech; to conform them to convenient action; to try what metal is in everyone, and of what disposition they are. For although you aimed at all these things, and hit them, which as I have shown in one branche to be false, so must you grant it in some other; unless you will say, that to arm a youth with a whores forehead, is honestly to embolden him; or, by trying what metta •… is in everyone, you mean the occasioning of thē to give proof whether their brows be made of brass; but admitting all were even as you pretend: yet your stage-playing being convicted of unlawfulness, your pretēses for it are grinded all to powder; just is their damnation, who say, Let us do evil that good may come thereof. Our great and first parents, seduced by the serpent, did eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree: to the intent that they might become like to God, and know both good and evil. The knowledge of good and evil, is to be wished: but because the means was joined with disobedience, it had been better for them to have lacked that knowledge. Among the Lacedaemonians, boys by their public order were instructed, and through want of vittalls were provoked to steal meat: that being occasioned thereby to watch at night, while others were sleeping, and to lie in wait by day time for their pray, they might be the skilfuller to circumvent & spoil their enemies in war.

The end good and commendable, as he who taught David to fight, assureth us: but David was not taught it by pilfering and stealing. Parmeno in Terence telleth what commodity Chaerea might purchase by coming into Thais ho •… se: to be acquainted with the nature and manners of harlots, that knowing them betime he might forever hate them. To hate thē, is a quality beseeming virtuous persons: but who so by acquaintance with them do seek to hate them, are likely to be evil qualified; for can a man go upon coals, and his feet not be burnt? But here you will reply percase that in Chaerea, beside the good effect which Parmeno did boast of, some bad effects might fall out, through the seeing of Jupiter's picture with Danaë, and being near to Pamphila: which in your plays cā not be feared. But I have prevented this reply by showing that your Danaes picture with Melanthos talk may breed some bad effects in a Chaerea too, though he were a beholder only of your plays, much more if he be a player him self. Wherefore if a dead fly doeth cause the sweet ointment of the Apothecary to stink, as the wise man saith: what a loathsome savor must needs so great store of such caraine breed in the perfume of eloquence, into the which you cast it? Beside that, to come nearer you, the ointment and perfume itself commended by you, hath a rammish smell, and stinketh like a goat: as a good Apothecary, and of very quick sent, Quintilian, I mean, acknowledgeth and avoucheth. For he, requiring chiefly that young and tender minds should not only learn such things as are well uttered, but, & that much rather, such things as are honest; forbiddeth them to read at all any poëmes of amatorie fancies, at least, till they be grown to greater maturity of years, and strength of age. In which sort he alloweth them to read Menanders Comedies also, and others, Whē they be past danger of having their manners corrupted. And their style he willeth to be exercised in commō places, either against vices, or touching doubtful questions; in praising good, dispraysing evil: in reporting truth; in defense of innocence; and the like matters that may serve an honest man in use of life. Their memory he wisheth to be confirmed by learning without book, sometime somewhat of their own, well penned; but principally, places elected and chosen out of orations, or stories, or other kind of writings worthy that care and study; that they may accustom themselves to the best, and have their style holpen many ways thereby. Finallie, for framing of speech, voice, and gesture, he would not have them imitate the voice of Women, or old men; nor express the faults of drunkenness; nor be taught to play the slaves; nor learn the affection and passion of love, of covetousness, of fear. Which things are neither necessary, saith he, for an orator; and they do corrupt the mind, in childhoode specially, while it is tender yet and unacquainted with things; because such as those are whom we imitate much, such ourselves become. Behold the great difference between a heathen man's conceit of the instructing of oratours for civil causes: & yours, of Christian Preachers, or whatsoever place your Studentes shall be called to in Church or Common weal, at least of honest men and Christians.

He would have no amatorie poëmes, neither Comedies, no not Menanders, that is, the best of all to be read by his youth: you, as if Phaedras amorous speech expressed by Seneca were nothing without a pe •… ce of menstruous cloth sowed to it, do occasion yours to make them selves familiar and well acquainted with Plautus, one far beneath the best. He would have his youth to practice their style in good things, as in weapons, which they may use when need shall be: you practice yours in speeches enticing men to Uenerie, to ribauderie, to scurrility, to hoordom, to incest, to other abominations. He would have his youth to commit most excellent things and words to memory; you pester yours with filth, such filth in Rivales (I am ashamed to rehearse it) as cannot be matched, I think, sure very hardly, throughout all Plautus. He would not have his youth to counterfeit a woman's voice: you procur •… Minerva, Penelope, Euryclea, Antonoë, Eurynome, Hippodamia, Melantho, Phaedra, the Nurse, the Nymph, besides I know not whom in the vnprinted Comedy, to be played by yours. He would not have his youth to represent the faults of drunkenness: yours must flant it out in most vnmodest guise, with unseemly barbarous carousing songs and speeches, and be defended too by the brave example of Lacedaemonian slaves. He would not have his youth to be imbrued and tainted with slavish behavior: for yours it is an ornament to play the goteheard Melanthius, or a bragging soldier, or a clownish wooer. In fine, he would not have his youth to learn the passion of amorousnes and love; nor to be stage-player-like in action and gesture: you breed yours in stage-playing, as conforming them to convenient action; and teach them to resemble the pangs of love in manner of most amorous Nymphes, with burning exclamations, and fancies of Poëticall fables. S ^t Austin reproving the course of the world which traineth up their children in Poëts wanton tales of Jupiter's adulteries, and useth to defend their custom by saying, Hence are words learned, hence is eloquence gotten: forsooth, saith he, belike we could not know these words, imbrem aureum, and gremium, and fucum, and templa caeli, and the rest there written, unless ^f Terence had brought in a lewd young man proposing Jupiter to him self for an example of hooredome, while he beholdeth on the wall a certain painted table, wherein was this picture; how Jupiter sent a golden shower, they say, of old time into the lap of Danaë, under the color thereof to beguile a woman. And see how he stirreth up himself to lust as it were by the instruction of a heavenly master. But what God? saith he. Even that God which shaketh the sanctuaries of heaven with thunder. Should not I, who am a mortal wretch, do the same? Yes in deed I did it, and gladly. No, no, saith S. Austin, those words are not learned the more conveniently by means of this dishonesty: but this dishonesty is wrought the more confidently by means of those words. Thus did that discreet and godly Father judge of causing such devises of Poëts to be learned by children yea although the Poëts were as good as Terence and the childrē as well inclined as himself. For him self it is, of whom he confesseth that he learned many profitable words in vain, Poëticall fancies; but such as both may be learned in things not vain, & that is a safe way wherein children ought to walk. On which consideration sundry men of note in our memory also, not only among professors of purer religion, but even among the Papists, have advised Scholemasters & instructors of youth either not to read Terence to their Scholers, or if they will read him, not to read him all. Ludovicus Uives, having declared in general out of Plutarch touching the reading of Poëts, that, unless you use it most warily, it hurteth; and therefore, if a child may be allowed to meddle with it, their writings would be purged first, & filthy matters be wholly cut out of them: Doth wish the same concerning Terence in special for those things which might defile the minds of children with such faults and vices, as naturally we are prone to. Ignatius Loiola, a man no worse minded in certain pointes then were the old Jewish Pharisees, whose sect in his offspring of Jesuits he hath renewed, did forbid Terence to be read in schools (unless he were purged) least he should more annoy their manners by his wantonness, then by his Latin help their wits. Georgius Fabricius, not seeing how he may be well purged to this purpose, because the conditions of fond or bad persons, as of lovers, •… oores, murmurers, mizers, fretters, ruffians, varlets, flatterers, boasters, bauds, and sycophants, that is, the most of those things which Comedies entreat of, belong to stronger minds, and to an age confirmed and stayed with some judgment, not to unskillful children, before whom they are better omitted and concealed; Fabricius therefore grounding him self upon the judgment of Aristotle, and Quintilian, both applied to Terence, resolveth that he is not to be read at all to youths of tender years. Wherevnto a light of our vniversitie and country, D. Humfrye, subscribeth and agreeth, in that upon occasion of showing how Noblemen’s children and Gentlemens should be brought up in learning, he saith that they may have Terence read unto them, but them, when they shall be grown in age and judgment. Though douting least even then too the poison of his filthiness may be more forcible then the coūter-poison to be used against it he addeth that he would not grant him this place neither in their education, but that Tully had made good account of him, and prosited in eloquence by him. Now the same reasons, that, in choice of authors to be read by us, exclude so fine a Poët, and send us unto purer fountains of good literature: do likewise in the practice of style, the frame of speech, and employment of memory, exclude such points and matters as Terence is excluded for, and commend unto us more commendable arguments to exercise our wits, our tongues, our pens in. Which the wise Founders and Governors of the worthy Colleges and companies of Students here among us did very well consider: taking order therefore that by rendering and rehearsing of Aristotle; or Tully; by writing, pronouncing, declaiming, disputing, of questions in sundry faculties and arts, the use whereof may serve them afterward to purpose, young men should be made the readier and fitter to confirm the truth, to confute errors, to dehort from evil things, and instruct to good. Neither doeth your suttle matching and comparing of these scholastical exercises with interludes and plays, in as much as you tell me that if I had but said that your plays are toys, unnecessary, vaineit had been no more perhaps then is, in strictness, true, because vnum modo necessarium; and he, that had tried all things, of his own wise experience pronounceth, vanitas vanitatum, & omnia vanitas, yea, even learning, and wisdom, and all things else, except the fear of God which endureth forever, & you have heard a godly & a learned Preacher in the pulpitt affirm, that our declamations, oppositions, suppositions, and such scholastical exercises, are no better then vain things: but these three authorities, wherein you saw not strength sufficient to persuade you that your plays are certainly unnecessary and vain, (your speech concerning them you lay in water with perhaps;) do not convince in deed our disputations, declamations, with the like exercises, to be so. For when our Savior said that one thing is needful, speaking of the good part which Marie had chosen in that she heard his preaching, the word of God preached by him: he did not by commending the needfulnes of the ende, condemn the means, as needless, whereby the ende is attained to. Nay, he did imply rather that the means are consequently needful: as if a natural man should say, We must live, his meaning were that we must have sustenance to live by. And how shall men hear the word of GOD preached, unless there be Preachers to expound it? How can Preachers expound it, unless they learn the way of cutting it aright and applying it? How can they learn the way ordinarily: unless they be trained up in Logike and Rhetoric? The necessary use whereof for the sound interpreting of Scripture, it may be that you heard me show against the Brownists, as well as you heard the Preacher whom you speak of: or if you did not, Saint Austin, or Hyperius, may serve to inform you. The a •… tes then of Rhetoric & Logike are requisite to preaching of the word. And the exercises of declaiming, answering, opposing, do help to breed ripeness in those arts. Our Savior's sentence therefore that one thing is needful, argueth not these exercises to be unnecessary. No more doth Salamons saying that all things are vanity, prove them to be vain. For out of those all things him self doeth except, the fear of God (as you note) and (as you should have noted) the keeping of God's commandments. Wherefore since our Students be commanded by God to employ the pieces of moony that he hath given them, in trade and traficke as it were, to make gai •… e thereof; and the trade, wherein they must employ their time, is, to get them selves all instruments of learning, by which they may be able to exhort with wholesome doctrine; and convince such as gainsay it: their practice of exhortatorie and convincing faculties, of declamations, of elenches, of oppositions and suppositions, cannot be condemned, as vain, by his word, by whom the evil servant is condemned, as unprofitable, for hyding his talent in the earth. Well may you have heard a Preacher in the pulpitt affirm that which you mention: but I doubt whether you understood him well. For you allege him so, as if he had pronounced those exercises simply, & in them selves, vain: Which it were injurious to think, that a learned and a godli •… Preacher (such do you report him; and I, not knowing who it was, do believe you) should purpose to affirm: feing Christ; whose mouth was never defiled with toy or any vain thing, used certain of them, as oppositions namely. For what are oppositions but arguments objected against a point in question? What was it but an argument objected so by Christ, when against the Sadducees, denying the resurrection, he urged a text of Moses? and against the Pharisees, holding no more of Christ but that he was David's son, a testimony of David? Yea, in this later he did that which of all things in our disputations might seem to be most vain, object against a truth, although with purpose for the truth. It is not to be thought then, that the Preacher, terming our exercises vain, meant that they are such simply and in them selves; but as they are used by us, by many of us, to sundry fruitless ends, not to make us fitter for the good and need full edifying of men: nor to advance godliness profitable for all things, but to increase or make a show of that knowledge, which therefore is called vanity by the wise man, because it hath no permanent and lasting commodity, nor bringeth us salvation and eternal life. Whereof it doeth no more follow that the exercises are vain, as you conclude; then if one should reason that the fear of God, (which you except) is vain, upon that place of Isaiah, Their f •… are toward me is taught by the precept of men. For, if, notwithstanding that the Jews worshipped and feared God in vain, fearing him amiss according to the precepts of men, not to his word, yet the fear of God is most beneficial, and was to some among the Jews too: then may declamations, supposititions, oppositions, and such schol •… sticall exercises be profitable & fruitful, even unto some among us also, though many of us make them vanity of vanities, as vain as that strife is which Saint Paul reprooveth, I mean, both void of wholesome juice, & full of poison. But to what purpose are these discourses, will you say, of exercises fit for scholars, and Terence not to be read unto them, till they be of riper years & judgment? To let you understand, that whereas you tell us, you come upon the stage to practice your style, to acquaint yourselves with Plautus, to embolden your youth, to try their voices, confirm their memories, frame their speech and action; you are so far from justifying your plays by this defense, that you condemn thē more. For if the tale of Jupiter with Danaë, in Eunuchus, should not be read to such as your Melantho and Nais: much less should they be taught the same tale urged farther, in Ulysses •… edux; and less yet another tale of wanton Salmacis with her boy; in Hippolytus. If they should not as much as salute Te •… ence, the finest Comicall Poët, for pureness of the Latin tongue in Tullius judgment: much less should they be made well acquainted with Plautus; and less yet with Rivales. If they should not be suffered to peruse writings of base & filthy quality, nor to cast their eyes, as it were, upon them: much less should they engrave them by heart in their remembrance, express them with voice, commend them with action, deliver them with boldness. If they should not exercise their style, their speech, their memory, but in honest, virtuous, and commendable matters, which in use of lise may serve them to good purpose: much less should they meditate how they may inflame & tender youth with love; entice him to daliance, to hoordom, to incest; inure their minds and bodies to vncoomly, dissolute, railing, boasting, knavish, foolish, brainsicke, drunken conceits, words, and gestures. Wherefore to the Timothy's, that are among your Students, I must say in like sort as Saint Paul to Timothy: Consider what I say; and the Lord give you understanding in all things.

Now, the inconveniences and mischiefs of your plays being so notorious and manifold, as I have shown: the rest of mine answer opposed to your reasons devised for their defense, will easily deliver it self from your cavils. For where you having said that your Students did not misspend their time therein, because they spent no more time then useth to be spent in sports, sleep, talk, and learned releasing of the mind from study; and having added thereto that, since there is a time for sportes, plays, danses, and man consisting not of one part alone doeth need recreation, therefore you may be stage-players; I answered to the former, that by the like reason a student haunting a dicing house, or taverne, or stews, might prove that he did not misspend his time thereat; to the later, that recreation is necessary for Scholars, yet would it not beseem them to play at stool-ball among wenches, nor at Mumchance or Maw with idle lost companions; nor at trunkes in Guile-halls, nor to danse about Maypoles, nor to rifle in alehouses, nor to carowse in Taverns, nor to steal Deere, nor to rob Orchyards: you reply that to compare your plays to these things, it exceedeth the compass of any tolerable resemblance; and thereupon eftsoons you surname them hard and incomparable comparisons. Wherein howe incomparably you lavish out of measure, and exceed the compass of any reasonable speech, you may quickly see, now that I have proved your plays to be evil: si •… h these things being likewise evil and disorderlie, and so agreeing with them in a general point, it is clear they may be resembled thereunto.

The Scripture compareth our Savior to an usurer, who desireth gain by the moony he lendeth; the children of light to an unjust steward, who maketh him self friends with his masters goods against a time of need, the coming of the Lord •… day to a thief in the night, who cometh suddenly and unlooked for. Comparisons not tolerable, if the special qualities of userers, of unjust men, of the •… ves, should be meant: but very good and fit, if we mark the general points that they are matched in. Or, if Scripture-eloquence, which yet S ^t Austin magnifieth, seem base in your eyes; though, seem it never so base, I trust you will not say that to compare our Savior, and so forth, to these things, it exceedeth the compass of any tolerable resemblance: but the eloquence, the learning, the authority of Homer, whose wit ( you say) enlightened both men and God's together, whose majesty you worship with prayer and thanksgiving, to whom you wish eternal glory, and call him the eternal old man, will suffice to open your eyes and stop your mouth. For he compareth valiant Aiax to an asse, that being in a corn-field will not be driven out with any cudgels of boys till he have filled his belly; the ^m Grecians and Troians about Sarpedons carcass, to flies about a milk-paile in a warm spring-time, all busy and loath to leave it. There are who find fault with these comparisons, I grant, as overbase and abject: but your adoration of Homer doeth persuade me, that you will make more of his censure, who, for the general drift thereof, approoveth them. At least you shall be forced to yield by your own words, in as much as having compared our reproof of your expense in plays to their speech who said of the costly ointment poured upon Christ's head, what needed this wast? and being told the difference of that fact from yours; you say, that though you know there is an infinite difference between yours and the action against the which it was hypocritically first used: yet you think it may also be applied against, either the niggardise, or the hypocrisy of any Momus, that shall condemn all expense as cast away, that is sometimes moderately bestowed upon honest sports and pastimes. For how can it be chosen but to compare your charges on plays to those on Christ, must needs exceed the compass of any tolerable resemblance: unless things agreeing in a general point, as you suppose (though falsely) these to do in honesty, may be very well resembled eche to other? And why should you reprove it in me as a hard incomparable deed: when you think it comparable and soft in your own case? Chiefly, since you know, that even in the degree of honest matters too, whereon expenses are made, there is an infinite difference between the actions, which you match: I cannot say so of those that I compare. Nay, some of the things that I compare your stage-plays with, are less evil; as namely, for scholars to play at stooleball among wenches: which to do by day light, in open streets, in their own likeness, were not so unmeet and inconvenient for them, as to be attired in wemens raiment, by women, within doors, in the night time, to go to and fro, and come upon the stage, and play Melantho, or Nais. Contrariwise, the action wherewith you match yours; was infinitely better, as yourself acknowledge: and had, as you must also acknowledge, less bestowed thereon, then yours had. So that your consequution doeth halt here again; It was no wast to be at lesser cost in working a good work on Christ; Ergo it is no wast to be at greater charges in setting forth of plays. But mine is vnreprooveable; It beseemeth not scholars to play at stooleball among wenches, though modest and chaste; Therefore it beseemeth them not to play wanton women on the stage. The same may I say of the two comparisons, which herewithal you check; the former, alleged out of Salvianus, or out of Scripture rather; the later, adjoined by me for illustrating and opening the former: to weete, that with the players of lewd and naughty parts it fareth as with ae fool committing wickedness in pastime; and they are like a mad man, who casteth firebrands, arrows, and mortal things, and saith, was I not in sport? For a mad man casting firebrandes, and the like, endangereth bodies only: the players of lewd parts do endanger souls. And a fool committing wickedness in pastime hath seldom many admirers and followers to hurt: the players have as many, as a great Theater holdeth, and can hear them say, But O Cupido, or, O quàm juvaret. Wherefore when you amplify hereupon, and tell me, you could have wisht that such comparisons had been forborne, if not for the plays them selves, though also they ought for the plays them selves, being things that savor of some wit, learning, and judgment; yet in respect of the actors, your whole house, the spectators, approovers, authors, writers; all which points you load with pathetical circumstances otherwhere entreated of: you force me to say I could have wisht also that you had forborne these Galba-tricks of seeking to prejudice the truth and equity of causes with partial affections and respect of persons, a thing condemned by Scriptire; and that you had considered that if plays savouring of some wit learning, and judgment, ought not to be compared to such things as I mentioned, then yourself did ill in praising and allowing that part of my discourse, wherein the fool and mad man served for comparisons. For you gave testimony thereof, that I had written copiously and truly against the bad effects of stage-plays in general. Yea, specifying the proofs that I made by sundry examples and authorities, among which the authority of Salvianus was, you soothed it as containing a truth, and well handled. But the stage-plays spoken of by Salvianus, did savor of some wit, learning, and judgment: as what play doeth nor? at least of all those that any ancient Poët wrote. Your reason therefore brought from the savor of wit learning, and judgment, to cross my comparisons; doeth cross your own allowance of that which you acknowledged to be well spoken against the bad effects of stage-plays in general. And thus, as Lycurgus the Thracian imagining that he was hewing down a vine with his hatchet, is said to have slain his son, and maimed him self: likewise you intending to show that my comparisons are hard and incomparable, and exceed the compass of any tolerable resemblance, and should have been forborne, have wounded unawares your eternal old man, and yourself greevously.

A more grievous wound have you given yourself in saying that you presumed your plays to be lawful, when you made your simple assertion (so you term it) that there is a needful time for sports. For this is in effect as much as if you said, that you played the Sophister, begging the point in question, and taking it as granted. The which kind of dealing, if it had any sinews to graple with an adversary, the Jesuits might trooble us, by saying that the Catholic faith must be kept; and they presume that Popery is the Catholic faith. Likewise the meanest advocate in a court of law might speed all his clients, by saying that such as have wrong offered them, ought to be relieved; and he presumeth his clients have so. Neither had you needed to write so long a reply of twelve leaves to me: twelve words might have sufficed, that you presume my cause is naught, and naughty things must not be credited. But yourself acknowledge that this proveth not the lawfulness of your plays. So that, in affirming you did presume them to be lawful, and calling it a simple assertion which you avowed concerning sports, you speak more truth then you intended. For it is a simple assertion in deed to say that sports are needful, against a man's arguments who saith that stage-plays are unlawful. And he may be justly noted of presumption, who, being unable to prove a thing he fancieth, condemneth them as Momes that are minded otherwise and bring sound proof against it.

Howbeit, had you kept yourself within the compass of such oversights, you were more excusable. But it is a greater fault to play the sclanderer by falsifying men's words, and fathering upon them an erroneous sentence, which never came into their minds, nor fell out of their mouths or pens. And what do you else, when having said that I use many words against dancing, you reply that you love to see honest dancing; and, you see no cause in reason, charity, or Christian liberty, why dancing should simply be condemned. For hereby you insinuate, or pronounce rather, that I condemned dancing simply, and honest dancing: whereas my words were that danses of Penelopes wooers, of Melantho, of other of her maids, and simply all stage-dancing do savor of dishonesty. Which differeth as much from that you father on me, as the speech of Christ, Destroy ye this temple, & in three days I will raise it up again, meaning of his body, did differ from that which the false witnesses affirmed him to have said of the temple of God, the temple made with hands. Nay, it surpasseth that of the false witnesses: it differeth as much as if, where Christ said, that all ungodly men shall perish, they had fathered on him that all men shall perish. And your crime herein is the more blamewoorthy, because I had so plainly excepted certain dancing, that you cannot seem to have mistaken my words, and read all dancing, for all stage-dancing; but willfully and advisedly to have misreported me. For I said expressly, I meant those danses that I specified, and not David's dancing, which S ^t Ambrose doeth well distinguish from them. Now S ^t Ambrose saith that David's religious and godly dancing is decent: but the dangerous dancing practiced by players, and the foolish toys, the dotages, of the stage; are faulty even in youth too. So both mine own words, and the author I cited, do manifestly show, that whē you took vpō you to praise honest dancing, and said you saw no cause in charity or reason why dancing should simply be condemned, you could not but in reason and charity see cause, why you should have dealt more simply and honestly, then so calumniouslie to raise a false surmise of me. You know what creature it is, whom the scripture nameth a calumniatour.

Beside, as you offend in charging me with that I said not: so in going about to overthrow that which I said. For whereas I affirmed that dancing of Penelopes wooers with her maids, and simply all stage-dancing, is disallowed by the light of nature; and for proof thereof did allege the testimonies, of Romans putt by Nero, of Philistines putting Samson to it, and of all ancient laws in a manner, yea of reason it self, as Arias Montanus noteth: you, avouching two men's opinions to the contrary, do add, that to apply, either the dancing of those noble Romans, whom Nero enforced to danse so publicly; or, Samsons dancing among the Philistines; or, the note of Arias Montanus, against your dancing only of two sober measures, is a comparison without all measure. Wherein first, through negligence of marking my words, or desire of crossing them before you understood them, you misreport my drift: and say that I applied those things against your dancing only of two sober measures, (you mean, the wooers dancing with the maids,) which I applied not against it alone, but against the rest of your stage-dancing also, that is, all your stage-playing. For this did I betoken by the name of stage-dancing, the better to express the sentence, that I had in hand, of Saint Ambrose, who by dancing noteth all histrionical motions and playings on the stage, in like sort as Horace saith, one was requested to danse Polyphemus, meaning to play his part; and Plancus dansed Glaucus, in Uelleius story; and g stage-players dansed Oedipus, and Hercules, in Macrobius; and Arnobius speaketh of dancing Europa, Leda, Ganymedes. Neither was it hard for you to perceive that I meant thus much, if you had better weighed the branches of my speech, & proofs thereto answering, concluded with the note of Arias Montanus, touching not only dansers, but persons of such shows & spectacles. Chiefly if you had looked on the author him self, and marked that in the persons of such shows and spectacles, he compriseth stage-players; as the generality of his words, exemplified by Nero, maketh plain.

An other injury is it, that you term those proofs of mine, a comparison; and (which is more) a comparison without all measure. What measure you did use in the meting out hereof, I cannot guess: unless peradventure, because that you had heard that comparisons are odious, you hoped you should make all my proofs odious by naming them comparisons. For I, having noted, against your argument drawn from sports and recreations, that sports by the light of nature, are accounted vnseemelie, bad, infamous, and so is all stage-dancing; did allege the judgments of Romans, of Philistines, of ancient laws well nigh all, and of reason it self, as testimonies to prove that proposition by; not as comparisons, but as testimonies And therefore in the note of Arias Montanus, I did omit that he saith of the law of God condemning stage-plays likewise, because that might go higher then the light of nature. Otherwise, you may be sure that I, who cited him for men's laws, a thing of weaker proof, would not have omitted the law of GOD, his strongest argument. But if I had joined supernatural light to the light of nature, and had produced testimonies of the Scripture also: would you have replied, that, to allege the Scripture, is a comparison without all measure? You must by like reason. And what should stay you from it? All would have espied that it were no comparison. Why more, then the note of Arias Montanus? which yet, when you had cast my allegation of the Romans and Philistines in such a mould, that it could not appear I brought them in as testimonies; you named with them for company a comparison too. Though, seeing you are grieved with my applying of it against your stage-dancing, and that induced you to call it a comparison: me thinks you should have fastened that odious name rather on the proposition proved by those testimonies. For the proofs reach not you immediately, they fight not nigh at hand: the proposition doeth; as being the major of that argument, whereof your stage-players make the minor. And the proposition, condemning all stage-dancing, doth give a deadlyer wound; nether can it choose but light on your stage-dancing: the proofs might seem to be more easily avoided; or, coming so far off, to raze the skin only. Again, my applying of the proposition to you, by the assumption, would deserve more worthily the name of a comparison: and the assumption being particular, or singular; the proposition universal; were not this applying of all against some, a comparison without all measure?

The third injurious part offered me in this point, is, that you allege the judgment of Homer and Syr Thomas Eliot, as making for that dancing, which I did reprove. And bringing in the former of them by a figure, saying, To omit Homers judgment thereof; himself you call an excellent observer of decorum in all things, and quote for his judgment the eight book of his Odyssea. Now, better had it ben •… •… or you to omit him without a figure in deed: since he, describing there the life of King Alcinous, and of his people, the Phaeacians, saith, that they took pleasure continually in feasting, and music, and daunsing, and bravery of apparel, and hot baths, and chambering: wherein a livelie pattern of a wanton, riotous, voluptuous, Epicures life, being set forth by Homer, as Horace, Athenaeus, Eustathius may teach you: if I should not have blamed dancing in your plays, because such an excellent observer of decorum saith the Phoeacians used it; then must the belly be your players God, because such an excellent observer of decorū saith the Phoeacians served it. Moreover seeing that the Music which the minstrel gave thē to their dancing, was a song of Mars taken in adultery with Venus Vulcans wife; & you commend in dancing the number of the footing well expressing, answering, and as it were acting the measure and meaning of the Music: you see what good instructions you give men by extolling your excellent observer of decorum in all things. Add thereunto that he, so good an observer of decorum, maketh the Phoeacian actors danse with others of their own sex, or single. Which how much, & why, it is more allowable, then men and women to danse together: I wish you to consider, by weighing, with examples mentioned in Scripture, the judgment of Divines thereon. So shall you perceive, that Homer in the eight book of his Odyssea, hath no sufficient warrant for Melantho to danse together with Eurymachus, the maids with the wooers; no not though they were maids and Melantho in deed; much less for boys attired like Melantho, & maids, to danse with men upon a stage. The later of your authors you allege directly; and, that learned Knight Syr Thomas Eliot, say you, among other things that he writeth in a book of his, in the praise of dancing, compareth the man treading the measures, to Fortitude, and the woman on his hand, to Temperance. You add, that you have seen the book, and you remember he useth this comparison in it. But did you not remember the name of the book too? or was it for some special cause that you concealed it? your words might give a man occasion to think, that he had written a book in the praise of dancing: which that he did, I find not. I guess you mean therefore his book entitled the Governor. Wherein he praiseth Dansing, and uttereth somewhat like to that avouched by you, and treateth of circumstances (a point you touch also) which being all observed, dancing may be honestlie and honorably used: But his speech of Fortitude and Temperance represented by men and maidens in a danse, cometh nothing near your maids and wooers measures, whereto you would stretch it. For, among diverse manners and kinds of dancing used in ancient time, he rehearseth one, wherein (as Lucian saith, translated word for word by him in a manner) dansed young men and maidens; the man going before, and expressing such motions as he might afterward use in war; the maiden following him modestly and shamefastlie; so that it represented a pleasant conjunction of temperance & fortitude. Now those warlike motions were (as Plato showeth, speaking of the like danse) gestures which resembled, partly the avoiding all sortes of wounds and blows by bending aside, by going back, by leaping up, by bowing down; partly the enforcing of enemies by shooting arrows, and casting darts at them, and giving them all sortes of wounds. Wherefore this being it, that represented Fortitude in the danse described by Syr Thomas Eliot: far was it frō his meaning to make your measures, your sober measures, warlike motions; or compare a wooer treading them, to Fortitude. As far, as to compare a boy doing the same in maidens likeness, to Temperance. Which, if you had otherwise expressed his sense rightly, yet should you have forborne to apply to yours for the observing of decorum, a thing that you commend so in Homer, and yourself aim at: since those maids and wooers, intended both by Homer and you, to be wantons, must use lascivious danses; and the man (if you will needs have such resemblances) be compared rather to Mollitude, or Cowardnes, the woman to Incontinencie. Beside that, the praise which that learned Knight geveth unto dancing, he giveth it not simply; (for he saith some danses, do corrupt the minds of them that danse, and provoke sin:) but with limitation, to weete, being used and continued in such form, and with such observations and rules, as he specifieth. Whereof the first (to name one for example) is, that, by the courtesy or reverent inclination made at beginning of dancing, the dansers and beholders should mark and remember this to be signified, that at the beginning of all our acts, we should do due honor to God, which is the root of prudence. And in deed if dansers in treading of their measures had such regards and meditations: then not Syr Thomas Eliot only, but the Fathers would praise dancing too. For, when godly Bishops assembled in the Councils of Laodicea, and Ilarda, decreed that Christians ought not to danse at marriages; when S ^t Chrysostom blamed women for so doing, as being a stain unto their sex; when S ^t Ambrose cited and averred that of Tully, that such as danse are drunk, or mad; when S ^t Austin said that it were better to spend the Sabbat day in digging & delving, then in dancing: they meant not to restrain men from marking, and remembering, that at the beginning of all their acts, they should do due honor to God; but they thought that dansers have commonly their minds on things of another quality. Which if your wooers and maidens also had; as (I am persuaded) them selves will not deny, and you seem to have thought by touching so nicely, or rather scarcelie touching, the circumstances that you say should be observed in dancing: you abuse the name of that learned Knight, in urging his praise of a good danse that might be, against my disprayse of an ill danse that is. It had been more reason, that when his conceit carried him a little out of the way sometimes, as in that he praiseth Lucians stage-danser, who dansed the adultery of Mars and Venus with resembling of every act therein, (which I hope, yourself would not allow on your stage;) you should have acknowledged that through too great a love of dancing, he liked too well of Lucians treatise: though otherwise he fancied not the author much; as he well declareth by noting of his ribaudrie, and his too much scorning; and by saying farther, It were better that a child should never read any part of Lucian, then all Lucian. Or, if the sentence of a Knight, so worthy, had such credit with you; why did you not consider his religious wish, that the names of idols, of Paynim God's and Goddesses, were not used at this day in balades and dities, to the corrupting of many good wits with godless fantasies? For though his reproof do specially touch the most vile idols, Venus, and Bacchus, remembered so in dancing-songs as if the danse were to their honor and memory; a matter most abhorring from Christ's religion, and savouring of the ancient error of Paganism: yet as the Scripture, the ground of his reproof, doeth generally condemn such naming of other God's, semblably he showeth, that, if you had attributed so much to his judgment, you should have eschewed that fault in your tragedy. At least, where the words are uttered as it were in your own person: as those of the God's enlightened or beautificd by Homers fables are. Perhaps, where players of other men's persons also speak: as Ulysses, and Eumaeus, adoring spirits of Devils, or of dead men, and women, with sacrifices and prayers; Telemachus swearing by Jupiter; Philaetius, first blaspheming GOD under Iuppiters name, then confessing to him that there are God's in heaven. Chieflie seeing that these speeches are delivered by the flower of those persons, by whose partes (you say) no hurt could come to any man: and Syr Thomas Eliot thought that such speeches, savouring of Paganism, might corrupt good wits. But howsoever you shall distinguish your Poëme from the balades and dities, in which he controlleth this irreligious custom of giving the honor of God to vile idols: yourself do bear witness that he commondeth not the dancing of Eurymachus & the rest of your wooers with their Melanthos on the stage. For among the partes of their dissolute behavior imagined to be doon within, you rehearse their dancing: and that in the person, not of a carping Momus, but of wise Telemachus. Now look what was imagined to be doon within, the same was expressed on the stage in part, by your own confession: as Telemachus also saith, that in their manners at home they kept their wont, Their dancing on the stage then, yourself acknowledge, was dishonest dancing. And the dancing praised by Syr Thomas Eliot is honest dancing, you say. Therefore you do manifest wrong unto us both, in alleging him as praising that which I dispraised.

When the Lacedaemonians had accused the Thebans of many and grievous matters: In deed, quoth Epaminondas, these have made you give over your short form of speaking. I wish I might be short, as were the Lacedaemonians; but you contstrain me to be long: you deal so Theban -like continually with me. A doubtful word being used in a question of yours, whether we account it a loss recitare, to recite Seneca; Wherevnto I answered that it is one thing to recite, another thing to play, as I declared by sundry writers; and added that I would have been content to hear your tragedy recited; had it been recited or pronounced only; you reply that the word is used in Quintilian; not only de scripto, but also memoriter recitare; and therefore you might use it indifferently, for agere, in a general acceptatiō; moreover, that as Horace and Persius do scoff bitterly at recitatores also, and the law in the generality of the term noteth also with imfamie, them, qui pronuntiandi, that is properly, recitandi causa in scenam prodeunt: so the University would have thought it a more absurd thing to have heard you, or any other, openly reading your Ulysses to them, then to have seen it acted as it was. Wherein to the intent you may see how you play the Theban, I will use a comparison, and that within some measure I trust. Plutarch hath written a dialogue to prove that brute beasts have reason as well as men have: in jest peradvēture, seeing he maketh it to be avouched by Gryllus: or meaning, that they have a natural sagacity and understanding like to reason, not reason capable of Religion, as in the conclusion he seemeth to insinuate, and a certain Christian writer hath maintained, though speaking not so fitly in saying they have reason, since the Scripture termeth them Creatures void of reason. But suppose that some man being of Gryllus mind, (or let us call him Gryllus for more perspecuity, and make Sempronius likewise his adversaries name;) suppose then that Gryllus having asked this question, Do you think that animal, a living creature endued with sense, wanteth reason? Sempronius answered him, that animal is one thing, and a beast another, as Tully declareth, affirming a man (whom he calleth animal) to be full of reason, whereof he saith, that no beast at all is partaker. If Gryllus should reply that the word is used in Ovid for all things that have life and sense, not for men only, and therefore he might use it indifferently for beasts in a general acceptatiō: would not they, who see, that belike he meant to comprehend men also under that general word, thereby the more closely to fetch in beasts with them; and that, restraining it to beasts, his question must be, Think you that beasts want reason? which were an idle question, and openly implying a begging of the point in controversy; would they not, I say, condemn him as a wrangling and contentious Sophister? Now, if in the same vain, or rather in a worse, he should add moreover, that as Horace and Persius speak scoffingly of mad men too, and the law appointeth gar •… •… s for idiots, that is properly, for men wanting the use of re •… ; so the grave Athenian bench of Areopagus would judge it more absurd to say that men have reason, then that beasts have it, chiefly certain beasts, as horses and oxen dancing upon stages in a more exquisite manner then men are lightly able: would not this speech of Gryllus show that he deserveth a sharper commendation, then Plutarch by praising his sophistry meant unto him? Here your usual dealing causeth me to fear that you will ask whether I make you a Gryllus. As when a Catholic Bishop, being rebuked by an Arian Emperor for standing alone with Athanasius against the whole world, said that the doctrine of faith was not impeached though he alone maintained it, seeing that of old time three alone were found who stood against the Kings commandment: What? quoth an Eunuche, doest thou make our Emperor a Nebuchadnezzar? But, I pray you, leave this Eunuchs odious practice in racking my cōparisons: and mark the main point whereat I aim in them, and which I seek to open by them. For, as in Gryllus question, and verse, framed like yours, the circumstances give, that he used the general word comprising man, thereby to breed a fancy that if this kind of animal have reason, why not the other? In like sort your express mention of reading, I say, of reading, not of playing, in showing what a jewel you take the reciting of Seneca to be; maketh it probable that you meant to do by the generality of the word recitare. The more, because you used it not only in your verse, where your excuse might serve, that it stood better then agere would in that place; as Gryllus might say likewise for versifying animal rather, then bestiam: but in your prose also, the title of your tragedy; as if Gryllus, setting down the point controversed between him and Sempronius, should make it, vtrum animal sit rationis expers; where the word bestia, would serve as fitly in prose; nay, (if plain dealing were meant) a great deal more fitly. And if you intended not to make that reason which I supposed you did, it is no loss to recite Seneca, Ergo no loss to play him: but meant to use the general word for the special, and to ask Momus only, Think you it a loss to play Seneca? thē you begged at Momus hand, or took as granted, the point you should have proved; since the playing of Seneca was condemned by him, and you undertook to confute his arguments. Again, as Horace, Persius, the law, alleged by Gryllus, do show that certain men want the use of reason, but neither prove that beasts have it, nor that mankind wanteth it; and his presumed testimony of the Areopagus, brought in with a particle of similitude, So, as hitting jump with Horace, Persius, and the law, is too too absurd: in like sort the same authors, alleged by yourself, do show that some reciters are misliked by them, but neither prove that players are liked, nor all reciters misliked; and the Universities testimony which you bring in with the same particle, as hitting jump with those authors, I cannot say you bring it altogether as Gryllus, but you bring it strangely. For Horace scoffeth at them, who recite their writings out of due place or time, and are importunatlie displeasant: Persius, at wantons reciting wanton verses, with an effeminate voice, and a vainglorious mind. The law noteth with infamy such as come upon the stage to recite: belike, for their vain-glorious desire of being seen, and getting men's applause, which Persius iesteth at. Now in that you add hereto the University, and make us join with the former in opinion, saying; So the University would have thought it a more absurd thing, to have heard me, or any other, openly reading my Ulysses to them, then to have seen it acted, as it was: what mean you by this term, So? That if you, or an other, had read your Ulysses openly unto them, it had been done out of due place, or due time? or, they should have heard wanton verses read? or wantonly? or by a wanton? or with a vain-glorious mind? or on the stage? In deed, they should have heard some wanton verses, I grant: and both out of due place, and time, if you had read it where, & when it was acted. Neither do I doubt but the University would have thought such open reading, of such stuff, on such a day, absurd: though, whether more absurd, then to have seen it acted as it was, I know not. But whatsoever they would have thought in this comparison, wherein the law, that you cite, noting both with infamy, should give (me thinks) a deeper print thereof to acting then reading, all things weighed: you are far from hitting the mark, whereat you shoot; namely, from cōvincing by the Universities testimony, and judgment, my sentence as absurd, that if your tragedy had been recited only, I would have accounted it no more loss of time to have heard you pronounce it, then myself to read it. For, I did not mean, if it had been recited as those were, which the authors by you alleged, do reprove: but as Horace used to recite his own writings; as poëmes were recited to Quintilius Uarus; as Persius did recite his book unto Cornutus, before he published it. Whereof if you pronounce (as you do, if you speak to purpose) that our University would have thought it a more absurd thing, then to have seen it acted as it was: you deal in like manner with our University, as Gryllus with the reverend bench of Areopagus, if he should abuse their name and estimation, to persuade that brute beasts have more reason, then the wisest men have.

Hereto would be annexed that, which in the fourth and, last head of reasons, you urge again concerning our Universities judgment for the approbation of your plays in general: if your interlaced defense 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 mischifes 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 whē 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; another, 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 shown to be of no force for warrāting of expēses on things of that quality, because, both dishonest spending of a man's own, is wastfulnes & riott, condemned by our Savior in the prodigal son: and, as Nero giving much to get a Plaudite, was the less able to help the poor by so much, and the less willing too perhaps; in like sort may you be. Herevpon 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 vnlikenes to him in that he wasted all, and brought him self to extreme misery thereby: if you had considered that word in the original text of the Gospel, whereto my quotation for riott did direct you. For usually it noteth the quality of expenses made by loose & wanton persons on their pleasures, as in foreign writers, Aristotle and Tully; so in Scripture likewise: and, to that effect in the same parable of the prodigal son is it said afterward, that he devoured his goods with harlotts. Now, in Rome, of old time, there were common harlots to be hired for two pence half-penny. The price in our days, by reason of the tribute, which they are to pay the Pope, may be enhaunsed. But if one, desirous of an harlots company, could have her so cheap, and should plead for himself that the moony he spendeth on her is his own, & the charge not great, neither would he geve the less unto the poor for that, nor more without it: were this a lawful bar to stay us from accusing him of riott, I mean, of wasteful and dishonest spending; (give it a fitter English name, if you know any; I took that which our best interpreters agree on;) but might we not accuse him thereof upon the same ground that Scripture doeth the prodigal son? Or, if some Preacher, more severe then Cato, should deal so strictly and rigorously with him; might he ask what similitude there is, or can be, between his expense of two pence half-penny, and the prodigal son, who in such a sort, as he did, spent all, and brought himself to the extremest misery? Much fault have you found with my hard incomparable comparisons and similitudes; & some of them are hard in deed, though none incōparable: but I must say thereof, as the Apostle of his boasting, you have compelled me. For when I took a softer and more gentle course, as here, to encounter that answer made to Momus, Thou sayest the charge is great; but thou mayst come, and look on, Momus, and pay nothing, no man doeth ask thee a penny; I resembled it to an answer which the prodigal son might thus have made to his reproover, Thou blamest me for wasting, but I wast none of thine; thou mayst drink with me scot-free, if thou be a good fellow, & welcome: albeit the very word, wasting, might have shown I meant dishonest spending, (for things spent honestly are not wasted,) chiefly since I used it in respect of the riot noted by our Savior; and in the vnthrifts speech, drawing good fellows to drink with him, I pointed to his lusty, excessive, dissolute drinkings with lewd companions like himself; yet you did reply, that, if he had been as moderate and thrifty in spending at his board, as you were at your plays, he might well enough have said to any niggard, that should have unwisely found fault with him, as much as I make him say, not with the note of a prodigal, but with the commendation of an ingenuous and liberal disposition. Whereby you make me see, to what reprochefull contumelies of a niggardly mind, and want of wisdom and discretion, I should have laid myself open, if I had still endeavored to disclose unto you the weakness of your answers by gentle similitudes. That similitude therefore of mine, the tender smoothnes whereof occasioned you to mistake my meaning, and entertain it so coursly, I have now corrected with substituting a rougher, which may deliver you from error, and me from such tantes. For seeing you perceve this to be my meaning, that the threefold answer made by you to Momus is like as if Gallonius, or some other Epicure, reproved by a Stoike for going to the stews, should answer him; Thou blamest me for spending two pence half-penny on a wench, but I spend none of thine; thou mayest go with me thither, if thou be a good fellow, & I will give her as much for thee too; the charge, though it seem great to thee, is small to me; neither will I bestow a dodkin less upon the poor for that, nor more without it: you will not reply, that if Gallonius had been as moderate and thrifty in his spending at his bed, as you were at your plays, (they cost a number of you more, you wote, in several, then twice two pence half-penny;) he might well enough have said to any niggard, that should have unwisely found fault with him, as much as I make him say, not with the note of a prodigal, but with the commendation of an ingenuous and liberal disposition. And so, by the other similitude likewise mended, and as it were rough hewn, you may the better learn to discern my drift, and spare your own replying. For when, to discover the poverty of your answer touching the poor, I said, that Nero peradventure was either less able, or less willing to help the poor, by reason of five or six thousand pownd given for a Plaudite; which charge notwithstanding he might better bear, then some of your students may five or six shillings: you replied, that, if Nero could have as well spared such huge sums of moony, which he spent that way often, as your House, with the company in it, and belonging to it, can once in many years thirty powndes: Nero should have been wronged greatly, being an Emperor, to have been noted of wastfulnes; and, if ever he had any such good mind, he mought nevertheless have relieved the poor. Now, altering and changing Nero's charge on Plaudite into his charge on Acte (a harlot whom he loved better then his wife,) and telling you that he was less able, or less willing (nay, both) to help the poor, by reason of gifts bestowed on her: I shall not hear, I trust, that, if Nero could have as well spared the sundry sums of moony which he spent that way often, as your House, with the company in it, and belonging to it, can once in many years thirty powndes: Nero should have been wronged greatly, being an Emperor, to have been noted of wastfulnes. No, not, though in adding that clause, being an Emperor, you seem to allude to Aristotle's saying, that Princes are not termed wasteful, or prodigal. For therein he respecteth the abundance of their wealth, which Nero could hardly exceed in gifts and expenses: not the quality of the matters that they spend their wealth on, wherein as prodigal persons may and do wast, so Nero. Neither will you affirm that Nero mought nevertheless have relieved the poor; for fear least you cause your reader to suspect you of shamelesnesse, or sophistry. Shamelesnesse, if you say, that, whatsoever it were which Nero gave to Acte, he had no whit the less in his coffers to give others. Sophistry, if by the word nevertheless, you mean, notwithstanding. For Phoedria in the Comedy, mought have helped Parmeno, notwithstanding the moony that he spent on Thais. Yet the greater charge he was at with his harlot, the less had he remaining to give his poor servant. And your dout, if Nero had ever any such good mind, will be as badly opposed unto my speech of his less willinglesse. For both him self, having so good a mind once, became worse minded afterward, when he was grown wasteful such ways, yea, simply wasteful, proving that to be possible which Aristotle judgeth not easy to be done: and if he had always been equally ill-minded, yet cometh it otherwise to pass in man's nature, as you might have learned by Caesar and Plutarch. Of whom the one, beholding certain rich strangers and foreiners, at Rome, carrying whelps of dogs and apes in their bosoms, and making much of them, did ask, Whether women brought not forth children in their countries: the other saith that Caesar herein gave a worthy and princely admonition to them who do consume & wast, upon beasts, the natural affection and love due to men. Both, evidently showing, that the more we spend on things of less value, the less we are disposed to spend on things more precious; since, as a man's love is, so is his willingness to spend for love sake: and the love of apes and dogs may better stand with the love of Children, eche of them being to be loved, though not alike; then expenses on plays may with relieving of the poor, the Lord accounting mercy had vpō the poor, as had vpō him self, & money spent on plays, being as money spent on harlots. Wherefore, if you will be suitable to yourself, & as you deal for plays, so for the love of apes & dogs, for which you may more reasonably; your threefold answer against Momus in your own defense, is quickly turned against Caesar & Plutarch, for those strangers: The love, which they did bear to the whelps of dogs and apes, was their own love, it was not Caesar's, or Plutarch’s; great might it be to Caesar and Plutarch, mean to them; neither would they love children the less for that, nor more without it. And as you assaulted Momus with the Scripture, telling him that Judas his speech, who said, what needed this wast? is an evil speech; and now, notwithstanding the difference between your plays and Christ; us and Indas, do think that it may also be applied against either the niggardise, or the hypocrisy of any Momus, that shall condemn all expense, as cast away, that is sometime moderately bestowed upon honest sportes and pastimes, and not upon the poor: so, what letteth you to think that it may also be applied against either the clownishnes, or the hypocrisy of Caesar and Plutarch, who condemned all love, as cast away, that is sometime, moderately bestowed upon sweet whelps of dogs and apes, and not upon children? For, if you should answer, the case is unlike because you cannot prove that men's colling and dandeling of such whelps is seemly, which Caesar and Plutarch saw good cause to reprove: you must be remembered that yet you may say, the thing is seemly, though say it only, and deny their reproof to be just, though not refute it; as you avouch against me that your plays were honest and lawful recreations, whatsoever is rather objected then proved to the contrary. Nay, if Caesar, or Plutarch, had, beside their reasons to prove it unseemly; alleged sundry testimonies of Romans and Grecians so esteeming it, as I did the judgments of a Lacedaemonian, of Horace, of Tully of other learned men, to show that they deemed such cost, as you were at, to be vain and wasteful: yet, as you reply to me that all Paynim and heathen judgment you have answered in the defense of your first reason; so might you to them, that all the testimonies which they bring, you have answered in the prologue of your last play. I have read that whē the Spaniards invincible navy met with ours, about some five years since, upon the narrow seas, it was published in print, at Parise, by Mendoza the Spaniards procurement, that they got a brave victory, wherein my Lord Admiral of England, with sixteen of the Queens great ships, were sunk to the bottom of the sea, and the rest put to flight with the Vice-admirall Francis Drake. But, God be thanked, we saw my Lord Admiral of England alive at her Majesty's late being here with us: and now may the Mendozians pick out of their own Mercurius Gallobelgicus, that neither any one ship of the Queens navy, were it great, or small, was sunk by the Spaniards, nor the Vice-admirall put to flight.

And thus at length approaching unto the conclusion, I come to your maintenance of that which you objected concerning the judgment of our University. Wherewith (least I pass anything of weight in your reply, as you do many in mine) I will join that elsewhere you touch about the worshipful, & sometimes honorable presence at your plays; and those reverend, famous, and excellent men, for life, and learning, and their places in the Church of God, who have been not only writers of such things them selves, but also actors, and do think well of them (as you affirm) to this day. Our Universities judgment therefore you avow that you produced rightfully to the approoving of your plays, because the greater part of the University did with their hearty applause approve them. An argument, that neither layeth sound foundation, nor buildeth thereupon to purpose. For how prove you, first, that the greater part did with their hearty appause approve them; seeing you acknowledge that many, some absent, some present, disallowed them? Forsooth, you say, you are sure of it. But your bold avouching things, you are not sure of, doeth make me dout of your assurance. For, upon my speech that certain who came thither were pressed thereunto by great importunity, you wish they had more truly, and more charitably, for dancing, kissing, and other demeanour, reported to me of your plays, with such a mind as you will forbear (you say) to speak of. Wherein you do charge them, how charitably, judge yourself; but questionless, most untruly, with making false reports of your plays to me, to whom they made no report at all thereof. Yea, you take upon you to pronounce of their thoughts: and say they did it with such a mind, as in your figurative forbearing to speak of, you speak most bitterly of, and raise a very wrongful and vile suspicion of them. Again, where I told you how the grave and learned man, our common friend, shown me his dislike of the representation of amorousnes, and drunkenness; in the Comedy, both; the former, not in it only: you say, that you know how far he did somewhat dislike some Comicall action; but you are sure he commended much the plays to you, & would be sorry that any speech of his should be, by mistaking, alleged against you. And do you not in assuring us after this sort that he did like of your plays, saving a little in the Comedy, imply that he disliked naught in any tragedy? Or breed you not a sclanderous surmise of his integrity, as if he had commended to you the very same, which unto me he discommended? Or seek you not to make men think that I mistook him, in fathering that upon him; when him self hath sithence acknowledged unto me, that I mistook him not; and (as I am persuaded) hath certified you no less too?

Wherefore your pronouncing, that you are sure the greater part did with their hearty applause approve your plays, may rather prove you to be rash, then your assertion to be true. Chieflie, since you mention, not only their applause, a thing that sense might judge of; but their hearty applause, a circumstance presumed by your conceit peradventure. For as they did clappe their hands after your plays, so after the appendix thereof touching Momus. Which yet some approovers of your plays approved not: as them selves have signified. How can you then be sure, that all, who did clappe their hands, did it with liking; and that the applause, which they gave, was hearty? Beside that, if their hearts joined with their hands, how can you be sure they approved your plays by such applause, and not somewhat else? As Tully declareth that the Romans used it to show their love of gracious persons: and in one of your plays you wished it to be given to her gracious Majesty. Nether is it impossible, but that, as a number gave it to the apparel and furniture of the stage at Rome: so lighter bodies might with you. And what if the graver sort did show the liking of your pains and charges employed for their delight sake? or of the better parts; not of wantons, of drunckards, & of the whole plays? Now, suppose the greater part of the University approved them with their hearty applause: might you therefore lawfully urge the Universities judgment as making for them? Yea, say you, if the greater part may denominate the whole, Nay, by your leave, even so too will you come short still, unless you add, that judgment and hearty applause is all one: which he, who affirmed that the people of Rome was lead with affection sometimes, not with judgment, did put a difference between. And though the greater part denominate the whole, commonly; & always may, if the word, greater, be well expounded: yet there fall out cases when the lesser part in number shall denominate it, and the greater shall not. For example sake, there were in the primitive Church certain Christians (as in ours there are) who, having lost sowewhat, would go to a wisard, or a setter of figures, or other such soothsayer, to know how it went from them, or by what means they might recover it. One of the general Councils spake against this: and called it a pernicious and an heathenish custom. The number of Bishops assembled in that Council was lesser of all likelihood (amounting not to twelve score) then the number of Christians, who either used that practice them selves, or liked it in others. Yet, in my opinion, the Churches judgment did control it: and to say the contrary, because the greater part denominateth the whole, were most injurious to the Church. Or, if this example satisfy you not, the same Council made a decree, that no man should put on woman's raiment. Whereto, being pressed by me, whē you reply that the voice of the Church therein may be interpreted by them who are of your mind; you acknowledge, that, taking it in the right sense, it is the Churches judgment. And the sense thereof by your interpretation of putting on, or wearing, must be that none may do it commonly. So, the Council speaking of doing it in plays, you grant that the Churches judgment is against it as common players use to practice it. But greater assemblies of Christians then that Council, allow it in common players: the Curtain and Theater can tell so much. Neither will you say, that common players are approved by the Churches judgment. For, the Churches judgment you profess obedience too: yet common players you condemn. The lesser part therefore in number may sometime denominate the whole; and the greater may not. Which if we apply to the case in question, it is plain you should not have urged the Universities judgment for your plays, although the greater part thereof had approved them. For, the chiefest cause that moved the governors of our University, the Uicechancellour and Convocation, to forbid by statute the use of common plays among us, was, least the younger sort should be spectators of so many lewd and evil sports as in them are practiced. Now, reason doeth give, that men of understanding, who, through a godly care of the good training up of youth, restrained them from seeing those plays, because of such sportes; must think it inconvenient for them to see such sportes in whatsoever plays, even in your Rivales. And, if inconvenient to see such sportes only, much more to play and represent such: the representing of them being so far worse, then the beholding, in Platos judgment, that they would be seen and known, he saith, because their contraries, honest things and serious, cannot be known without them, if one intend to be wise; but practice both them, and their contraries, it is impossible, if one intend to have as much as a spark of virtue. Our gouvernours might think more hopefully, then Plato, that virtuous youths may do them both: and Plato peradventure meant by impossible, very hard, as Tully elsewhere doeth interpret him. But the dutiful reverence, which I owe unto them, will not permit me to judge of them, that where Plato suffered his citizens to see sportes of folly and scurrility, yet none beside bondslaves & mercenary strangers to imitate and express them: the guides of our University should deem it convenient for youths to be actors of loose and wanton pranks, whereof to be spectators, they have pronounced it unmeet and hurtful for them. Wherefore, whatsoever the greater part approved with their hearty applause, I am persuaded still that you did wrong in urging the Universities judgment as making for your plays. No less in a manner, then if one beholding a great number of Scholers playing in winter time at footeball, should say, the Universities judgment doeth approve it. Which I contrariewise should be so far from thinking, that if any graver man were looking on them, or touched the ball with his foot, I would take it rather to savor of affection borne to some playing thereat, then of judgment.

As for the worshipful, and sometimes honorable presence at your plays, you might seem to press it against me with more credit, if honorable and worshipful persons never used to grace any plays, save only yours, with their presence. But if they be present at common plays also, such as our University-statute banisheth hence, and yourself make offer that you will join with me in writing against the players thereof, if I will: consider with yourself what you would answer to this argument alleged by those players, and let the same serve on my behalf to yours. For a supply whereof I add, that worthy personages, who, upon intreatty, become your spectators, perhaps think with Plato, that the seeing of Comedies played can do no harm, of tragedies may be dangerous; perhaps incline to Aristotle, that they both may safely be seen by elder folk, not by younger: and so, though them selves behold one, or both, yet do they warrant neither of the pointes you strive for; I mean, that either students of Christ-church may be actors, or the youth of Oxford spectators of your plays. There were at Vienna, in the time of Trajan the Emperor, by some bodies last will and testament, certain solemn games and shows set forth yearly: the which, as Pliny saith, had stained the manners of the inhabitants of that city, in like sort as the games & shows set forth at Rome had stained the manners of all the world. This corruption of manners was not bred by other exercises and masteries tried, in those games, but by the stage-plays, as a learned man of your profession judgeth: and Pliny's own speech, concerning sundry kinds of games among the Romans, maketh it most probable, that he meant, the corruption grew from stage-plays chiefly, if not from them alone.

But when the Uiennians plays were taken away by Trebonius Rufinus, a governor of theirs, and he was accused to the Emperor for it: Junius Mauricus, a grave and faithful Counselor, being asked by the Emperor, what he thought thereof, said, it was not meet the plays should be restored again to the Viennians; adding, I would to God they might be taken away at Rome too. Which corollarie of his sentence touching plays at Rome, it may be, that as Pliny liked very well of, so the Emperor did: albeit he gave order for the not restoring of the Uiennians only; and yet shown great mislike of plays therein also, forbidding that to be done which by ones testament was required. Deceve not yourself, Master D. Gager, with a vain conceit, as if, because a Prince, far and far more excellent then Trajan, though surnamed most virtuous, with Her counselors and Nobles more honorable then Mauricus, did vouchsafe the last year to see that Comedy played, which being played a few moonths before I reproved, therefore you had gained against me the matter in question between us. Her Majesty with their Honors, & Commons of the realm, having made an Act of Parliament long since, and since that time renewed it, that common players in interludes, not licensed by special authority to go abroad, shall be adjudged rogues and vagabonds, hath taken away more plays, and in more places, then Trajan did by giving order that they should not be used again at Vienna. Whether the taking of them away at Oxford too, have been wished by any of the Counsellers, who might be notwithstanding present with her Highnes, as Pliny & Mauricus of likelihood were with Trajan at the plays in Rome: you and I are not so near of their counsel, that we can define. But thus much I may say, and say it upon knowledge, that, if your Comedy had still as homely speeches (to say no worse) as it had when your prologue praised it, there is greater cause why you should fear the check which Augustus gave one (were not our Augusta the more gracious to us) for presuming to play it before a presence of such honor: then why you should mention to the credit of your plays, and to my discredit, that they are things done by you, in a worshipful, and sometimes honorable presence.

But reverend, famous, excellent men, for life, and learning (you say) and for their places in the Church of God, have been not only writers of such things themselves, but also actors; and to this day do think well of them: to whom it were a great reproach (thus you amplify it) at any time to have been acquainted with things of so vile & base quality; & much more, still to allow of thē. When the Donatists praised S ^t Cyprians life, and learning, and spake of his place in the church of God, to countenance their error by the reputation of such a Bishop and Martyr, S. Austin, answering thē, said that the authority of Cyprian did not dismay him, because the humility of Cyprian did relieve him. Which as Austin said, considering how Cyprian had set down in writing, that Peter, whom the Lord chose his first Apostle, and upon whom he built his Church, did not, when Paul afterward grew to question with him touching circumcision, take proudly on him self, to say that he had the prerogative of being first, and that new-sprong and later-come ought rather to obey him; neither despised he Paul for having been a persequuter of the Church before, but yielded to the advise of truth, and easily approved the rightful way, which Paul contended for; giving us a lesson of peaceablenes, and patience, that we should not obstinately love our own conceits; but such things as sometimes are profitably and holesomly shown us by our brethren and fellows in office, those should we account of as our own rather, if they be true and rightful: whereunto Paul having a careful eye also, and Christianly providing for concord and peace, said, Let the Prophets speak, two or three, and let the rest judge; and if anything be reviled to another that sitteth by, lett the first hold his peace; teaching therein that many things are reviled better to particular persons; and that everyone, if anything be found better and more profitable, ought gladly to embrace it, not obstinately to strive for that which he hath once conceived and maintained: as these points (I say) noted thus by Cyprian made Austin be persuaded of him, that seeing he knew, he might more easily err then Peter, he would have been very well content to change his mind, if any man by Scripture had proved him to be overseen, or the Church had sifted the truth in a general Council, and agreed of it; so the knowledge of the same engraven in those learned and godly men, whom you speak of, induceth me to think that when they shall have weighed what grounds of God's word, what consent of the Church, what Councils, what Fathers, impugn their opinion, they will not approve your obstinate striving for it. It may be, that they will mislike of your art too, in that, for the surer uniting of them to you, and stirring them up against me, you do not only affirm that they are exceedinglie tainted in honor, if plays, which they allow of, be justly disallowed by me: but also, that it were a great reproach to them, though not so exceedingly great, as is the other, yet a great reproach, at any time to have been acquainted with things of so vile and base quality. For why? Is the writing of Comedies, or tragedies, but what speak I of writing? in mentioning whereof your art appeareth farther, since I condemned it not: is the playing of them made by me a thing of so vile and base quality, as persequuting, or blaspheming? Yet Saint Paul thought it no great disgrace for him, in former time to have been a blaspemer, and a persequuter, when he was now become a faithful minister of Christ: no more then for the Romans to have been slaves of sin, when they did now obey the doctrine of the Gospel; or for Abraham to have been in the land of Chaldea & served other God's there; when he came now to Canaan. and served there the Lord. Not, to have been evil, is a reproach; but to be. Again, what reason have you to say that a much greater reproach it were to them, still to allow of plays: when you commend S ^t Cyprian as a man of singular godliness, and zeal, who did more then allow, another manner of matter then plays, even rebaptizing of men baptized by heretics? For as he followed his predecessors in this error, and therefore was the more excusable: so had the reverend men, whom you allege, their predecessors that trained them to the liking of plays. Neither is it probable that they have been advertised of their oversight by any such man's writing, as Cyprian was by Stephanus. And Cyprian continued in his error still, notwithstanding that advertisement: howe know you that they have not changed their opinion? Or, if they have not changed it, they may ere they die: which none is able to say that Cyprian did, for ought that Austin could find, a man most likely to have found it, had there been ought that could have shown it. Wherefore it savoreth strongly of a bad quality, that you would persuade them, they must by my judgment be noted and disgraced with a fowl exceeding great reproach and infamy, if they allow of plays still. Much worse doeth it savor, that you bear them in hand, although their minds should alter and think hereof when they pray, Remember not, O Lord; the sins of my youth, it must be nevertheless a great reproach unto them, at any time to have been acquainted with the writing and playing of such matters. But what quality, nay, what canker shall I say it savoreth of, that, unto the Prophets, whose judgment and authority the spirits of these Prophets were likely to be moved with, I mean, unto the Fathers and Councils laid in balance by me against your testimonies, you reply, that, if they be rightly understood, their forces are not bent against you; Whereas your own pen telleth you, that you know the contrary. For, the first and greatest Council that I quoted, is that general Council of Constantinople, which (grounding it self vpō the place of Deuteronomy) noteth men's wearing of wemens raiment in plays as a heinous crime. Now this to make against you, even being rightly understood, yourself did acknowledge whē I alleged it afore: in so much that you opposed thereunto the opinion of others interpreting that text otherwise then the Council doeth. The same did you likewise confess of sundry Fathers upon the same occasion, & namely of Saint Cyprian; whom here notwithstanding you do namely mention as making not against you: yea, whom you moreover do set down for a special pattern of the rest, to infer the general, that none of all the Fathers or Councils do reprove your plays. For, Saint Cyprian (say you) inveigheth most eloquentlie and godly against the abuses of the tragike buskin in his time. So he doeth also against the evils of war, of judgment seats, of judges, of advocates, of gold, and riches. Shall we therefore conclude there should be no war, no tribunals, no judges, no advocates, no gold, no riches; and likewise no tragike buskin in any sort? Wherevpon you add; No doubt the Fathers, as holy men of God, both in their Councelles, and in their books, have decreed, and written, many zealous & most godly things against the theatrical sightes of their times: but distinguish the times, the places, the qualities of the sights & actors, and the use from the abuse; and it is evident by that which is said before, that we and our plays are not reproached by them. Thus labor you to face it out that your plays are not reproached by the Fathers, as dealing forsooth, just like Saint Cyprian against the abuses of playing tragedies, not the use; when yet you had granted that he condemneth the attyring of boys in women's raiment, and teaching them to play the women, the self same thing he doth in the place you quote: so that your tragedy-playing is reproved by him in your own conscience, because of your Melantho and Nais played by boys, although it were true that he inveigheth only against the abuses thereof, as you distinguish.

The truth is that he distinguished not so, neither for tragike buskin, nor for comike stertvp, but inveigheth against stage-playing it self: in like sort as he doeth against the games and sights of fensers, or sword-players, and of beast-players (so to term them) wherewith he matcheth this of stage-players. So that the absurd conclusion which you frame, of no war, no judges, no advocates, no riches, if no tragike buskin, is framed amiss on error, and would have reason enough if it were framed rightly, as it should be, thus, that, if no stage-playing ought to be allowed by Saint Cyprians judgment, then ought there no. unjust wars, no perfidious advocates, no corrupt judges, no. covetous encrochers on the poor, to be allowed: because he inveigheth as well against the iniquity, treachery, bribery, and misery of these, as he doeth against stage-playing. Or, if you will needs have him to reprove the abuses only of stage-playing, not the thing: then by like reason he reprooveth not the bloody sport and game of beast-players, or of sword-players, but the abuses of it. Which, I hope you will not affirm to be his meaning, no not for the former, since the Church condemned it, as Epiphanius witnesseth: it, I say, the thing, not the abuses of it, as if it had a right use, allowed by the Church. At least you will not make it his meaning for the later; which Emperors, less severe then that holy Martyr, even Constantine, Theodosius, Honorius, and Justinian, took absolutely away by edictes and laws, as a thing faulty of it self. Though, when I consider your speech, above rehearsed, of so many Circi, Theatra, Amphitheatra, built by the greatest & bravest Romans with huge charge; and of games set out therein, referred by Aristotle to magnificence, a goodly virtue: Your professed desire of approoving the Romans judgment so far forth, as serveth for the necessary defense of your own doings, causeth me to dout that seeing in Theatra, condemned by the Church, you distingush abuse from use, you will in Circi also, and Amphitheatra; and therefore say that Cyprian reprooveth not the use, but the abuses only of beast-plays, yea of sword-plays, unless there come some other shift into your mind for severance of your stageplayes from them. And sure if one possessed with Machiavells humor and love of bloody sacrifices, as helping by the sight thereof to make men valiant, should wish for bloody games of sword-players in like respect: he might, by your example, not only challenge them from the mark of infamy wherewith the Romans branded them, (for fuvenal, Suetonius, Tacitus, and so forth, do reproach noble men and Knights for sword-playing, not base folk;) but also defend them from the reproof of Cyprian and all the rest of the Fathers. For Cyprian inveigheth most eloquently and godly against the abuses of sword-playing in his time. So he doth also against the evils of war, of judgment seats, of judges, of advocates, of gold, and riches. Shall we therefore conclude there should be no war, no tribunals, no judges, no advocates, no gold, no riches, and likewise no sword-playing in any sort? No dout the Fathers, as holy men of God, have written many Zealous and most godly things against the amphitheatricall sights of their times: but distinguish the times, the places, the qualities of the sights and actors, and the use from the abuse; and it is evident by that which Machiavell saith, that sword-plays of our age are not reproached by them. A very true sentence, that, no dout the Fathers have written many zealous and most godly things against those sights of both sorts: and likewise true, no dout, that it is as evident by Machiavels discourse, that, if such swoordplayes should now be used in London, as were then at Rome, the Fathers check them not; as it is by yours, that the Fathers do not repoche the same stage-plays of Plautus, Terence, Seneca, or worse (which comparison Rivales may well bear) played here, of late, among us. Wherefore it had been better for your credit to contain yourself within generalities, by saying that men mistake the Fathers: as Machiavell contented him self to say in gross, that base and cowardly wretches have miss-interpreted our religion. For then I could not have blamed you about particulars; your policy had prevented me, as it hath in Chrysostom: whose testimony, quoted by me against your wasteful expenses on such toys, you make no answer to, no more then to others whom I quoted not. Now, when you affirm that Cyprian, and the rest, writing against the theatrical sights of their times, do not write against such as in our time are used: I must needs tell you, that you show less conscience and singleness in your writing, then to whom you ought and easily might excel in all religious duties, Bodinus, and Lipsius. Of whom the one, declaring what need there is for Censors for theaters of our time, allegeth sundry Fathers, and namely Cyprian, against them: yea, that very epistle of Cyprian, which you specify, and wring to the contrary. The other, observing how the Fathers have inveighed against games, as springes of lust, and cruelty; pointing, in the term of lust, unto theaters; of cruelty, unto amphitheaters; doeth argue that sword-plays, if they were used in our time, might be as well denied to be reproached by the Fathers, as stage-plays of our time are. But, with whatsoever cunning or boldness, you blind the eyes of children, and make them believe that these ancient Prophets write not against your fancy: the praise given by you to our own Prophets, those reverend and famous persons now living, causeth me to fear I was too faint when I said, They will not approve your obstinate striving for it; I should have said, They will not approve your bare opinion or this, will, is also too faint; They do not approve it. For, being excellent men in life, they love modesty, and yield unto the known truth. Being excellent in learning, they know that your theatrical sights are of the same kind, that the Fathers have decreed in their Councils, and written in their books against. The things which the Fathers have decreed and written, are not only zealous, but also most godly, as you say. Most godly; therefore consonant to the holy Scriptures: on the ground whereof it is expressly noted by Epiphanius likewise that the churches doctrine and ordinances were framed. And how can it be thought then with any likelihood, that those reverend persons do approve your stage-plays: which, by all presumptions, and your own verdict, they know that the Church, the Fathers, the Councils, the Scriptures have condemned? In deed if they were Papists, and such as would rather put on the shameless forehead of the hoore of Babylon, then confess them selves to have been overseen: a man might have reason to think, that their own doeings they would still allow of. For, whereas the profane and wicked toys of Passion-plays, plays setting forth Christ's passion, procured by Popish Priests, who, being corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ, as they have transformed the celebrating of the Sacrament of the Lord's supper into a Mass-game, and all other partes of Ecclesiastical service into theatrical sights; so, in steed of preaching the word, they caused it to be played; a thing put in practice by their flowers, the Jesuits, among the poor Indians; but whereas these babbles were reproved by Vives: the Purgatory-censors commanded that reproof of his to be defaced; and the Divines of Lovan have razed it out accordingly. Yea, though some Italian Bishops in a Council, under their Archbishop Cardinal Borrhomaeus, have ordered, for their Province, that the Passion shall not be played hereafter anywhere: yet (for fear of breeding a scruple in men's minds that their Church might err) they say, it was a custom religiously brought in. So loath are ambitious spirits to acknowledge their oversights and faults. But seeing that our reverend Pastors and Doctors have another spirit, as he saith of Caleb, and profess a purer religion then Papists: you must give me leave to suspect rather that you charge them wrongfully, then that men of excellent godliness and wisdom do allow and think well of so manifold evils, as in your plays I have disclosed.

And thus, a great deal later then my desire and hope was, but as soon as sickness and business would permit, have you that performed, which in your conclusion, by words, you request me to forbear the doing of; in your whole discourse, by deeds, you have induced and urged me to undertake. The reason added by you to move me to forbear it, namely, that I have something else to do, then to trouble myself, and my better studies, with a matter of this nature and moment; I know not whether it would have seemed sound to others, sure to me it did not. For, if I had lived among the Jews at that time, when the priests neglecting the service of the altar, and sacrifices of the law, made hast to be partakers of unlawful games in the wrestling place: I should of all studies have deemed that the best, which the Lord requireth at his Prophets hands, to rise up in the gap, and keep out the enemy striving to enter in thereby, What study therefore could I account so good, as this, to spend my vacant time in, when Christians, anointed by God, an holy Priesthood, make hast from spiritual sacrifices and service to be partakers of stage-plays; that is, of more unlawful games then were those exercises in the wrestling place, as the thing it self, & your own law may teach you? Again, the virtuous training up of youth among us, and the godly life of all sorts of persons, are matters of great moment and weight in his sight, who without respect of person judgeth every man according to his work. Now, what hurt it is for youth to be seasoned with a liking of stage-players; I say not, to be stage-players them selves, which is worse, but to have a liking and love of such only; the author of the dialogue (were it Tacitus, or Quintilian) touching the decay of eloquence among the Romans, doeth show by their example. And, how the manners of all spectators commonly are hazarded by the contagion of theatrical sights, I made plain unto you in my former letters by the testimonies of learned men and noble nations; all granted by yourself, or as good as granted, in that you have either not answered them at all, or vnsufficientlie. Wherefore, considering S. Aust. zealous care to reclaim Alipius (a young man whō he loved, a worthy Bishop afterward) from the vain delight that he took in seeing games of chariot-drivers: I could not but esteem it a thing of price, and worth, to seek to reclaim from a far more vain and dangerous delight the Students of your house, among whom there are many no less deer to me then Alipius was to Austin, and as likely (by God's grace) hereafter to prove well. With whom I have also greater cause to hope that I shall prevail, then he had with Alipius, because yourself tell me, that you do and ever will most gladly embrace, not only my good will, but also my judgment in this cause so far as I write in the general against stage-players. For I am persuaded that their opinions of me are as kind as yours: and then do they agree with me in a manner about the point we treat of. They will agree wholly, if they weigh advisedlie one rule, which you can teach them, and I would I might entreat you so to do: namely, that the general doeth evermore comprise the special. The Lord behold both them, and you, in his mercy: and give you all his grace to know the way that leadeth unto life eternal, and to walk therein.

IOANNI RAINOLDO doct. theologo clariss. Albericus Gentilis, S.

N ON feres, opinor, aegre, missa haec à me in vulgus, quae unum habent, & alterum aliter, atque tu senseris, & docueris. Neque enim ego contra te stare volui, à quo steti semper, & Deo faciente stabo: sed adversus alios disputavi, quos sequi non potui: eos etsi tu sequereris, & ad probares. Rogavi te coram de utraque quaestione: nec tamen audire à te nisi nudam sententiam tuam valui. Petii etiam à communi amico nostro Errico Cuffio, ut de te ipsum hoc sciscitaretur, si mihi autor esses, ut commentationes istas typis mandarem. Sed aut te convenire ill non potuit: aut accepit nihil, quod responderet. Audi, mi Rainolde: quaestionem de histrionibus publice ego tractavi antea quam tibi haec quaestio cum altero esset. Itaque ipsam demere nunc de corpore reliquo, honestum non fuerit. Imo ad me spectare videtur, defendere semper jus civile, quod profiteor, & quod semper iustissimum observavi. In vestras autem si sedes{que} veni, non solùm tutari conatus sum nostras: tu illud nosti iuris esse, quando & tu invisere nos in nostris sedibus voluisti. Quanquam de te ego cogitare nequivi, qui post meam commentationem ingressus es istam disceptationem: at moralia, & politica sacrorum librorum aut nostra existimavi, aut certe communia nobis, & theologis: & vero etiamnum versor in eadem opinione. Uale, vir clarissime. Et de meis his chartis, •… t literis sic facies, vt te in opere, quod nunc aggrederis, arduo, et summo, ne tantillum quidem morentur: neque enim tanti sunt.

ALBERICO GENTILI, I. C. professori regio, 10. Rainoldus S.

QVae duo per epistolam, erudite Gentilis, à me videris petere, ea tibi lubens ambo concedo: alterum, ne aegre feram commentarium à te in lucem editum, quimeam sententiam de Samuele pythonissae, & histrionibus oppugnet; alterum, ut literas chartasque tuas sic accipiam, ne me in opere, quod aggredior, vel tantillum morentur. Cur enim ego tibi magis irascar, quod de Samuele adversus Augustinum, aliosque theologos à me citatos disputes; aut quaestionem do histrionibus publice tractâris antea quàm ego de iis cum altero controversarer: quàm tu succenseas mihi, quod probationes opiniones tuae à Bellarmino propositas iam pridem convellerim; & à pestibus scenicorum spectaculisque theatralibus nostros dehortatus sim, prius quàm tu cathedram istam, ex qua ludios laudas, occupares. Nihil autem esse quamobrē me chartae tuae remorentur, verissimo colligis argumento: Neque enim tanti sunt, inquis. Huc accedit, quod actum agere vetamur proverbio. Et ego, in meis adversus Bellarminum de Samuele praelectionibus, rations omnes, quibus contendis Samuelem ipsum à pythonissa evocatum, satis superque refutavi. Binis porro literis, quas ad familiarem tuum de ludis ludionibusque, uti scis, scripsi, ea quae ex Platone, Aristotele, Tertulliano, Augustino, Aquinate, aliisque citas, aut falso, aut frustra urgeri, planum feci. Quin & ipse, quum fabularum, quales Terentianae sunt, verbis factisque inhonestis & improbis aspersae, actores pronuntias jure improbari, sententiam meam astruis. Nam Ulysses redux, Hippolytus, & Rivales (de quibus amici tui Momus hanc quae nobis est litem excitavit) non minus illis vitiis laborant, quàm nonnullae, immo Rivales multo magis, quàm ulla, Terentii. Itaque licet quaedam addas refutatu forsitan non indigna, ut quod mimos asseris habitu muliebri egisse personam viri, lenonis, adulteri, temulenti, ne temulenti in Rivalibus eorum similes videantur; & Theophrasti exemplo, qui in schola docens, ita omnes gestus rei, quam tractabat, congruentes adhibuit, ut exerta lingua labra circumlinxerit quum heluonem describeret, histrioniam oratori concludas esse necessariam: tamē cùm hoc redarguat Quintilianus, illud Macrobius, alia alii, quorum ad fontes digitum intendi; & operam in minus firmis refellendis, qui firmiora fregerim, à me sumi nolis; obsequor voluntati tuae. Ac eo quidem facio libentius quae cupis, quoniam impetrare à te vicissim aveo, ut, si qua deinceps typis excudes, in iis duarum rerum maiorem habeas rationem; pietatis, & modestiae. Pietatis dico, non tam ob eam causam quod theologorū autoritate in rebus religions te valde moveri dicas, in rebus morum non valde; quanquam ob eam quoque; nam theologia, ut fidei, sic vitae est magistra: quàm quod histrioniam colendam esse statuis, non tanquam rem honestam, sed tanquam necessariam naturae depravatae & medendis hominum vitiis. Et sicut nec medici à mendacio refugiunt officioso, nec alii ulli (tua haec sunt verba) quod alias explicavi; & mendacium res omnium turpissima est tamē: ita hîc medici isti ab his indecoris imitationibus non subtrahent se: Et morbos corporis per spectacula curari scribit Hippocrates. Vbi, cùm fides doceat non facienda mala ut eveniant bona, primùm, doleo te, quem fidei causa exulare ferunt, & mendacium rem turpissimam esse confiteri, & emolumenti gratia mentiendum contendere. Deinde, nullos esse qui officiosum mendacium refugiant, nullos, non modo medicos, sed nec alios ullos, nollem dixisses: ne cui videatis memoriam eius renovare, qui, impurus ipse, persuasissimum habuit neminem hominem pudicum, aut ulla corporis parte purum esse; verùm pleros{que} dissimulare vitium, & calliditate obtegere. Praetereà, quum adiungis te alias hoe explicasse, amandas nos ad similem commentationem, in qua id confirmas Heliodori, gravis scilicet autoris, iudicio, & isto Poëtae nescio cuius versu, Quum vitia prosunt, peccat qui recte facit. Qua sententia quid potest fingi flagitiosius, impurius, execrabilius? Et tamen quo magis eam, eiusque scopum, adversus Dei verbum, cuius memini, praemunias, Scito (inquis) in tota hac disputatione non me ullibi dicere mala facienda ut bona adveniant, sed abusum malorum malum non esse, at bonum. Ita, quia mendaciis curantur melancholici, ut ibidem adiicis, quemadmodum hîc & morbos per spectacula curari notas: distinguis, hunc abusum, quem vocas, mendacii bonum esse, non malum; neque verbo Dei disputatione tua contradici. Quo genere argutiolae, stuprum, adulterium, incestum, & quid non? defendere licebit. Nam Antiochus, Seleuci filius, contrahendis incestis cum noverca nuptiis, e gravissimo evasit morbo: ac licet incestus sit malus, nec committendus ut adveniat bonum; tamen abusus malorum (ut tu doces) malus non est, sed bonus. Hujusmodi fundamenta impietatis & nequitiae vehementer peto ne amplius nobis iacias; praesertim in operibus quae typis evulgabis; idque in Academia nostra; & viro clarissimo, insigni ecclesiae lumini, dedicatis; ac ita dedicatis, ut etiam eius filio, lectissimo, & summae spei puero, Tobiae, legenda commendentur. Vides enim quanto cum dedecore nostro fama, à comitiis nostris, quoquoversum perlatura sit, pueros, quibus maximam deberi reverentiam profanus poëta sensuit, in nostra Academia publice doceri ut de rebus morum quid theologi sentiant non magnopere curent; neque vereantur mentiri quum erit commodum; immo peccare se putent, si, quum vitia prosunt, recte faciant; & malorum quidem usum Dei verbo condemnari credant, sed abusum malorum malum esse negent, bonum contendant. Modestiae vero plus in tuis scriptis idcirco desidero, quod Deuteronomii locum interpretatus aliter ac theologi, ac patres, ac concilia, quemadmodum declaravi, concludis hoc epiphonemate: Nihil facit lex illa Dei adversus histrioniam; & minus nihilo aliud, quicquid theologi afferunt. Dixeras paulo prius te theologorum autoritate in rebus religions moveri valde: & scripturarum interpretatio res est religions. Quanto consultius veterum Romanorum laudatam à M. Tullio consuetudinem sequutus esses, ut arbitrari te diceres etiam quae scires, quàm ut tam fidenter quod nescis affirmares. Nam, quod legem Mosis, Non induetur mulier vest virili, nec vir utetur vest foeminea, interpretaris, contra omnes theologos, non proprie, sed figurate; non de vestibus, sed de flagitio retectis vestibus commisso: hujus rei probationem, etsi petitione principii tantùm nixam, tamen fidenter item asseris percunctando; Nam additur ibi, inquis, Abominabilis apud Deum est, qui facit haec; quod autem scelus hîc est, ut sit abominatio? Minime quidem miror, te, quem theologorum autoritas non movet in re religions, in qua te permultum illis tribuere profiteris verbo, atque adeo in scriptis modo affirmaveras; ita eorum disputationes de histrionia, re nimirum morali, floccifacere, ut quicquid theologi contra eam afferunt, id omne minus nihilo esse assevêres. Quamquam hoc minus nihilo esse aliquid, familiaris tuus, tametsi tuis istis magnis multisque adiutus, suo fortasse ad meas literas, vel responso docebit, vel silentio. Sed utut haec sese habeant, modestiam quidem certe in pronuntiando maiorem ut adhibeas, praesertim quum de rebus religions agis, tua te ipsius experientia, in rebus morum, immo iuris admonere debet. Qui, cùm affirms, atque ex Tacito doceas, in theatro publico vel orationes, vel carmina recitare, probrosum Romae visum: satis demonstras te Praetoris verba, Infamis est qui artis ludicrae pronuntiandive causa in scenā prodierit, nimis sicco pede (quod aiunt) transiisse. Nam, ut concedatur quod Alciato tribuis, artem non facere eum, qui semel, iterum, quid artis facit: at pronuntiandi causa in scenam prodit, qui prodit semel tantùm; ac propterà notam & metuit Laberius, & subierunt de quibus Tacitus, tametsi gratis recitarent. Vale: & meam admonitionem eodem quaeso animo, quo ego munusculū tuum, accipias, id est, grato, candidoque.

IO. RAINOLDO doct. theol. clariss. A. Gentilis S.

NEque grato, candidóve animo munusculum meum accepisti, neque quidquam est in literis tuis non longe, late{que} positum a veritate. Quid enim tu me impietatis, & nequitiae dicis architectum in quaestione de mendacio officioso, in qua ipsum hoc non intelligis, quid sit officiosum mendacium? Etenim meministi, recensuisse te Petri illud in officiosis, quod contra omne officium fidei, & religions suit. Quid me impurissimo assimulas principi, si imo reliqui nullum tibi in eadem quaestione scriptorem extra theologos, at alios omnes nec sine theologis mecum facere explicavi? Te ad epistolas meas amando: caeteros ad libros magis, quàm ad commentationes, de iure belli; quos exituros aliquando, praemonui dedicatione prima ad illustrissimum Comitem: &, Deo volente, edam brevi. Tuae enim istiusmodi admonitiones non tenent me, quem aut in ea parte non improbant viri in Ecclesia, & republica vestra clarissimi, & laudatissimi. Quid me modestiae laesae facis tu reum, qui nunc ex papistico spiritu arces me à tractatione librorum sacrorum: Et, quod Erastus ait similibus tui, non vides, tentare haec te cis, annos istos septuaginta? Non vides, te cum eo sic agere imperiose, qui Papae imperium contempsit, & exulare patria potuit, & universo regno Papali? Uerissima ferunt, qui haec ferunt: et in his tu vinceris à me, qui pro pietate me obiurgas tamen. Communes sunt sacri libri; & in his, quae spectant ad secundam tabulam, nostri magis, quàm vestri. Sic ut, autoritati theologorum valde nos tribuere hîc, minime necesse sit. Doce contrarium tu, si potes. Noli calumniari, me pueros docere, ut de rebus morum non magnopere curent, quid sentiant theologi. nam de me, de iurisconsulto scripsi, & re politica. De re religions quod scripsi, id sentio: & in ea serio theologorum valde tribuo autoritati. Sed res religions quid est? Scripturarum interpretatio omnis, aut omnium, non est res religions. Theologia fidei, & vitae magistra est. sed non omnis vitae. nec omnis pars sermonum Dei in solidum vestra est. Ostende diversum, audiam. De rationibus theologorum in quaestione ista de histrionibus sic censui, ut quas contra histriones illos publice mercenarios, & indignarum fabularum actores habent, eae nihili non sint. Sed quae sunt adversùs omnem histrioniam, ease minus nihilo esse, asserui, & vero etiamnum assero. Pudet earum me, quas Tertullianus, quem unum e nostris iurisconsultis opinantur, adfert adversùs cothurnos tragicos, & fictas scoenicorum personas. Quam etiam obtrudere pro Potentissima videtur, esse nihili, demonstravi. Nec fidenter (ut tu ais) adfirmo, quod nescio: sed tu reprehendis confidentissime, quae non capis. Audi, audi. Quae in histrionia vitari peccata negotio nullo saepe solent, & possunt semper; ea nihil contra histrioniam faciunt. Sed peccatum illud, si quod est, promiscui vestimentorum usus vitari saepe solet, & semper potest. Ergo. Qui sensus bonarum aliarum legum est prohibentium hunc usum vestium, idem verisimiliter est & bonae legis Dei. Sed aliarum legum sensus nihil facit contra histrioniam. Abomin tio ubi dicitur in Scriptures, ibi peccatum significatur, quod facile superet flagitia pleraque omnia. Sed hoc vestimentorum non est tale. Ergo ubi dicitur abominatio, ibi hoc peccatum non significatur. Et ubi propria significatio non accipitur, ibi figurata fuerit, vel aliter impropria. at in lege illa Dei propria significatio non accipitur. Quae autem figurata locutio sic exponitur, ut verae sententiae conveniat, & aliis similibus locis stabiliatur, ea been exposita est. Sed sic exponitur à me figurata illa locutio. Utinam, utinam sic contenderes, & non reijceres argumentis bonis fabulas non bonas semper: quibus illudere pueris potes, nobis non potes. De Augustini sententia, & de sententia Aquinatis ad eundem locum, quas recitavi, & falso, aut frustra urgeri adfirmas, nihil nunc dico, quando tu me ablegas ad scripta tua Anglicana: nisi illud tacendum non sit, ex sententia utriusque adfirmarique, peccatum vestiarium non esse flagitiosissimum. Mea sunt reliqua. Et ea (falleris) non dixi nihili esse, quae tu nunquam refutaveris, si tibi sententiam non pronuncias: sed quae aut te, aut me, aut alium morari ab operibus maioribus tantillum non debeant. Nec morabitur me sane quaestio haec. Itaque nec à te literas alias de ea expecto, nec expeto. Ego cupiam à te iterum audire, quae à te primo convicia audivi in vita? cupiam illa? priusquam tu cathedram istam, ex qua ludios laudas, occupares. Ego ludios non laudo, sed tu cum convicio ludis genere istoe loquendi laudatissimo, & per suasorias Senecae per suasissimo tibi. Ego cathedram istam non occupo, quam bonis adprobantibus teneo de principis optima, & humanissimae largitate: & in qua sic doceo, ut benignitatis suae reginam serenissimam, iudicii reliquos non poeniteat. Magna ego horum nomina defendo in commentatione mea de histrionibus. Si enim Tobias Matthaeus, si alii tot viri gravissimi, & religiosissimi ist haec iuventutis aut exercitamenta, aut ludos adprobarunt, praefecti, & moderatores collegiorum, atque totius lumina academiae: si princeps sanctissima, religions summum praesidium, & •… ulici eius, viri spectatissimae sapientiae praesentia sua bonestarunt ludos: ludos tu apellare pestes qui vales? Hic enim de Tertulliano rectissime, Cur liceat videre, quae facere, flagitium est? Et de nostris in eodem proposito, par est culpa, spectacula edere, & spectare spectacula. Neque bic me damnabit Matthaeus. neque enim sic contaminavi nomen eius, ut put as tu, dedicatione libelli mei: ne{que} filium malis imbui volo, praeceptionibus à lection commentationis meae. Ne quaeso, ne te Matthaeum inter & me ponas non vocatus. Tota haec tua epistola, praeter maledicta, aut his constat, quae ad te non spectant: aut his, quae non spectant ad me: aut, quae non ad rem, quae in manibus est: aut si quid habet aliud, id vnum est, quod tu meae commentationis verba non legisti, aut non expendisti been. Nec enim scripsi ego, oratori necessariam histrioniam, sed poëmatibus: & it a argumentatus sum, Si eius, quod leve, & importunum est in oratoria, ut est actio, habetur ratio tanquam necessarii: eius etiam, quod leve, & importunum est in poetica, habenda ratio est tanquam necessarii. hoc autem histrionia est. Ergo in poetica habenda sic est ratio histrioniae. Rursus dum docui ex Alciato, eum non facere artem, qui semel, iterum quid artis facit, sic argumentor, Ars notata est edicto. Sed unaproditio non est ars. Ergo una proditio non est notata. Alciato ego illud non tribuo: quanquam est erratum in subnotato capite, quod esse debuit ccv II. De Laberio plus satis. De oratoribus, & vatibus subieci, ut mores illius populi antiquos magis ostenderem: de quibus sane illi apud Tacitum disceptaebant: & secundum quos visum etiam crimen maiestatis laesae, si magistratus pro concione legisset velcodices (ni male memini) eorum, quae ad magistratus spectabant tamen. Sed & dixi, in scaena fuisse eos oratores, & vates. Sed & pretii, aut praemii spe, atque fiducia recitationibus incubuisse, persuasum est mihi. Itaque, tribus his convenientibus, censura à patriis moribus, recitatione in scaena, & spe praemii, notati. Itaque falsum tu colligis, notatos semper omnes qui etiam gratis recitarent. An sicco (quod exprobras) sicco nimis pede transi, praetoris edictum, an tu in sicco es? Vale. Rog •… autem, atque obsecro te, si ad aures tuas à me accidit nunc insolens aliquid, ut scias, ad meas etiam accidisse insolentissimum a te: & ad tanta crimina patientem esse non oportere. Et vale iterum. Londini. Idib. Iul.

Non me continere possum, quin de meis libris bellicis tibi, argutiolam dicenti, quod de abusu mali in commentationibus adnotavi, exscribam Augustini unum hoc, In nuptiis est bonus usus mali, hoc est bonus usus concupiscentiae carnis. Ne quaeso, ne hominem tui studio sissimum sic tractaris pessime, immerito. Vitia non sunt, quibus recte uti licet. hoc Lactantius. Sic possumu •… concupiscentia carnis. sic mendacio, &c.

ALBERICO GENTILI, I. C. professori regio, Io. Rainoldus S.

REGIVM est audire male quum been facias, inquit rex magnus: & beatos pronuntiat discipulos suos Christus, quum homines conviciis eos affecerint immerentes, ipsius causa. Quo aequiore animo, benevolentiae erga te meae, & veritatis eorum quae scripsi, mihi conscius, tuam, Alberice, inhumanitatem ac maledicentiam, iniquissime iustissimam amicissimamque admonitionem vellicantes, fero. Etenim, nec grato candidóve animo munusculum me tuum accepisse asseris: nec quicquam est in meis literis non longe lateque positum à veritate. Quorum alterius nullam certiorem habes probationem, quàm Galatae habuerunt malevolentiae Pauli; Num inimicus factus sum vobis, dum vera vobis loquor? alterum falso dici, tuum de mimis aliisque multis silentium est indicio; nisi forte dubium sit quin ea falsi convicturus fueris, si quidem potuisses, qui, quae non potes, conaris. Atque (ut caetera, quae confuse carpis, ordine percurram) quod ego commemoravi me à pestibus scenicorum spectaculisque theatralibus nostros dehortatum, prius quàm tu cathedram istam, ex qua ludios laudas, occupares; ut hinc commonefieres, tibi, qui sententiam tuam in vulgus editam negabasaegre ferre me oportere, quod quaestionem de histrionibus publice tractasses anteà quàm ego de iis cum altero controversarer, pari ration ferendam aegre non esse meam à sententia tua dissensionem, quod mihi periculosos videri ludios docuissem prius quàm hic tibi locus laudandi eos foret: in eo vociferaris te à me convicia, quae nunquam à quoquam prius, audivisse. Quid ita? Quia cathedram istam (ut ais) non occupas, sed tenes de Principis humanissimae & optimae largitate. Ita, cùm vocabula, tenere, & occupare, idem significent, quemadmodum ex Plauto, Virgilio, Cicerone, observavit Nonius; atque hoc sensu ego (quod sancte affirmare possum) illud usurparim: tu absurdam mihi calumniam affingis, ac si dixissem te professionis locum, non Reginae nostrae beneficio, sed vi, aut fraud, aut nescio quo modo, possidere. Similiter affirmas te ludios non laudare, sed me cum convicio ludere genere istoc loquendi laudatissimo, & per suasorias Senecae persuasissimo mihi. In quo quid istoc loquendi genere significes, fateor, non intelligo: dicturus alioqui ad illud quod e Seneca vitio mihi vertis. Sed errârunt turpiter in laudationis tractatione & nomine viri eruditi, si tu non laudas ludios: quos poëmatum perfectioni, quos oratoriae facultati, quos & corporum morbis, & animorum vitiis medendis necessarios esse assevêras. Quaeris, cùm Praefecti collegiorum, viri gravissimi, approbarint ludos; cùm sanctissima Princeps, aulicique eius, viri spectatissimi, sua praesentia honestarint ludos, ludos appellare pestes qui valeam: hîc enim, ut rectissime Tertullianus, Cur liceat videre, quae facere flagitium est? ita & de nostris dici posse asseris, Par est culpa spectacula edere & spectare. Parem esse culpam non ausim tecum dicere. Nam Tertullianus ibidem, & rectissime, Cur liceat audire, quae loqui non licet? Neque tamen arbitror aeque peccare eum qui maledico aut scurrae praebet aures, ac maledicū & scurram ipsum. Sed ego ad illorum luminum approbantium spectantiúmve ludos iudicia, & exempla, familiari tuo dudum respondi: ut, si tibi rursum respondeam, actum agam; quod me facturum negavi. Tu, qui possis ludorum, Rivalibus nostris (ut docui) puriorum, non actores solùm sed etiam autores iure improbatos pronuntiare, ipse videris: cùm scias spectatores fuisse Rivalium sanctissimam Principem caeterosque; & in pari culpa eos, qui spectant talia, cum iis qui edunt, ponas. Nam quod tu Terentii simihumque fabulas verbis factisque inhonestis & improbis aspersas esse scribis, ideoque earum actores iure improbas propter corruprelam & contagionem: idem ego, pestes scenicorum nuncupans, per metaphoram dixi. Et mihi figurate id exprimere nefas est, quod tibi proprie enuntiare ius est?

Affirmanti tibi, non esse tanti tua scripta quae remorari me deberent, assensi. Hic me falliais: nec enim te dixisse ea esse nihili, quae ego nunquam refutavero si mihi sententiam non pronuntiem; sed quae me morari ab operibus maioribus non debeant. Quid ego aliquando refutavero aut refutaverim, iudicent alii aequiores: nec mihi ius ferendae hac de re sententiae assumo, nec tibi defero. Verùm nihili esse tua scripta non dixi: tantum repetii tuum argumentum, Neque enim tanti sunt; ac ex eo intuli, nihil esse (an inde emersittuum nihili?) quamobrem ab opere, quod eram aggressurus, me distinerent tua scripta. De familia liberata, inquit Cicero ad Terentiam, nihil est quod te moveat. Non dicit familiam liberatam esse nihili: sed nihil esse cur res ea moveat Terentiarn; neque enim erat tanti. Nihil esse cur iuris interpres historias legat cognoscátve, te ipsum scribere meministi. An quod sentires ease esse nihili? Absit. Nam & sacras divinasque historias eo nomine te complecti indicas. Caeterùm, nihilesse cur iuriusconsultis in illis tempus conterat, significatum voluisti. Porro, quod adieci te Theophrasti exemplo histrioniam oratori necessariam esse concludere, ais me tuae commentationis verba non legisse, aut non expendisse been: nec enim te scripsisse oratori necessariamhistrioniam, sed Poëmatibus. Itáne vero? Poëmatibus tantùm, non item oratori? Cur igitur, postquàm dixeras posse mulieris partes à viro, servi à libero, ebrii à sobrio, impuri ab honesto, belluae ab homine, agi aliquātisper utilitatis & ioci causa, haec verba subtexuisti. Oratori sunt omnes illae personae induendae saepius, nec cum dedecore, quia necessario: referunt Theophrastum & docentem in scholis gestu ornnia dicta comitari solitum, etiam quum de ebrio, similiúe oratio incidisset? Cur, quod de oratore nominatim dicis, non doces quemadmodum ad poëmata referri accommodarique volueris, & non ad oratorem? Cur omnem mentionē exempli Theophrasti, quioratorio genere sermonis usus est, non poëtico, in reprehensione dicti met supprimis? Atque (si permittis ut hoc à te quaeram more censorum) Ex animi tui sententia: nónne quum Athenaeus in eius exemplo, non ebrii qui vino, sed heluonis & gulosi qui cib •… se ingurgitat, mentionem faciat; tu, mutata voice, nominasti ebrium, ut, qui ebriorum egerunt partes in Rivalibus, nihil aliud fecisse quàm fecit Theophrastus, & oratores facere convenit, viderentur?

Ad illud quod asserui, non solùm fidei sed etiam vitae magistram esse theologiam; quo magis me optare, ut, qui theologorum autoritate in rebus religions te valde dixeris moveri, ne adiunxisses, in rebus morum non valde: respondes theologiam magistram esse vitae, sed non omnis vitae, communes esse sacros libros, & in his, quae spectant ad secundam tabulam, vestros magis quàm nostros; ut autoritati theologorum multum vos tribuere hîc, non sit necesse; meque iubes contrarium docere, si possim. Sane, si non possem: tu tamen satis causae, cur mihi sententia tua displiceret, fuisse docuisses. Nam si theologiam magistram vitae iudicas, licet non omnis vitae: debeas ergo multum theologorū autoritati in rebus morum tribuere, tametsi non in rebus morum quibuscunque. Verùm, universae vitae magistram esse theologiam, tum docui, quum asserui, si animadvertisses: notatis ad marginem duobus Scripturae locis. Quorum ex priore id confirmant omnes ecclesiae Christianae: quum in cathechismo theologis committunt explicationem totius decalogi, non primae solùm tabulae; neque sensum à iuriscōsultis peri iubent. Ex posteriore, scriptor tui ordinis, Chassanaeus, à te laudatus: quum, distinguens alias cunctas scientias, in iisque vestram, à nostra, Theologia (inquit) inserit virtutes, docet facienda, & omnia ad salutem pertinentia. 2. ad Timotheum. Quin & ipse, quum Baldum, Bartolum, Accursium, cōmentariis ius universum illustrasse perhibes, doces nullam partem sacrorum librorū (quid enim in Scripturas Baldus, caeterique?) vestri iuris esse. Quid? Quum contendis nullam literarū Graecarum peritiam in iurisconsulto requiri; ex dialectica posse plurimum detrimenti & incommodi ad vos venire, nihil boni; ne historias quidem quicquam confer: nonne sacros libros relinquis nobis integros, ad quorum cognitionem Hebraea quoque lingua, non modo Graeca, opus esse; ac historiam, & dialecticam plurimum adiuvare, declarat Augustinus? Mihi vero videris hoc animo fuisse, quando, solis libris prudentiae civilis, iurisconsultos hortatus ut vacarent; id te de solis Iustinianeis libris, & horum interpretibus, Accursianis & Alciateis intelligere demonstrasti. Teque existimo, cùm ius canonicum Canonistis, ut suam messem assignâris; ac eos à Legistis, à Theologis autem utrosque distinxeris: omnino, sicut illis totum corpus iuris, alteris civiles, alteris canonici; ita nobis totum corpus Bibliorum attribuendum censuisse. Quod si iam in aliam sententiam transiisti, & in his quae pertinent ad secundam tabulam Scripturas non tam nostras esse putas quàm vestras: ostende mihi, quaeso, ubi eius tabulae lex ultima, Non concupisces, à iurisconsultis pertractetur; ut, utrae ecclesiae, reformatae, an Pontificiae, saniorem tradant de concupiscentia doctrinam, ex vestris, ad quos huius rei disquisitio magis quàm ad nostros pertinet, intelligam.

Quia non sine magna multorum injuria falso affirmaras, nec medicos, nec alios ullos à mendacio officioso refugere; ut mihi videreris monendus ne memoriam Neronis renovares, qui alios ex se aestimans persuasissimum habuit pudicum esse neminem: impuro Principi te conferri, licet just, si unjust homines traducas, quod à te factum res docebit, veruntamen indignaris; meque negas intelligere quid sit officiosum mendacium; quippe qui Petri illud recensuerim in officiosis, quod contra omne officium fidei & religions fuit. Equidem ignorantiam hac in re meam tantam esse fateor, ut ne an sit quidem officiosum ullum mendacium cognoscam, immo nec esse credam: ne tu me mireris quid sit id nescire. Sed, ne magni criminis loco mihi exprobres hanc imperitiam, scito Senecam aliosque veterum Romanorum pari inscitia, in re majori, laborasse. Nam, quum Aterius (libertinum reum defendens, cu •… obijciebatur quod patroni cōcubinus fuisset, dixisset, Impudicitia in ingenuo crimē est, in servo necessitas, in liberto officiū: res in jocos abiit, Non facis mihi officium; &, Multum ill & hic in officiis versatur; ex eo impudici & obscaeni (inquit Seneca) aliquandiu officiosi vocitati sunt. Ecce tibi distinctio impudicitiae in criminosam, necessariam, & officiosam: cujus pars ultima quid esset, ignorarunt isti; immo nec esse ullam officiosam impudicitiam rati sunt. Itidem mendacium, nescio quis primus, quod fit nocumenti causa, perniciosum; quod ludi, jocosum; quod autem utilitatis, officiosum vocavit. Ego vero, qui officium esse id quod fieri debeat sum edoctus, unde nomen ipsum ab efficiendo ductum sunt qui notent nullum mendacium officiosum puto: quia nullum mendacium est ex veritate, ut ait Deus mentiri nescius; & deposito mendacio veritatem quisque jubemur loqui proximo suo; mendaciumque peccatum esse, etiam quum redundat in Dei gloriam, edocemur. Sed, ut tu mendacium utile commodumque officiosum nominasti, in ista conclusione, Si ad utilitatem sermo datus est, ut censet Aristoteles; quaeso, num improbemus mendacium officiosum? ita illud Petri, qui utilitatis, non joci, aut nocumenti, causa est mentitus, in officiosis recensui: ut & periurium eius (ex tua ration) officiosum dixerim, quia sermo datus est ad utilitatem, ut censet Aristoteles; &, Iusiurandum rei servandae, non perdendae, conditum est, inquit Plautus. At Petri mendaciū contra omne officium fidei & religions fuit. Scio. Et omne mendacium (sicut docui) est contra aliquod officium: nullum igitur officiosum. At officii nostri est ut iuvemus alios, dices fortasse: itaque officiosum mendaciū te vocare quod hoc officium praestet. Esto. Sed ita & incestum Antiochi officiosum appellaveris. Nam officii quoque nostri est ut nostrā ipsorum vitam tueamur. Quare, licet scirem Petri mendacium perniciosum, & esse, & haberi à tractatoribus officiosi mendacii: tamen quia definiunt mendacium officiosum, quod est pro salute & commodo alicuius; aut, quod ordinatur ad aliquod bonum utile; quo intenditur iuvamentum alterius, ut ait Thomas, vel remotio nocumenti; perniciosum autem, quod fit ex malignitate; aut, quo nocumentum alterius intenditur; tu me doceas velim quemadmodum sibi constent, aut cur debuerim secus de Petro sentire ac scripsi. Neque enim fecit ex malignitate, aut nocumentum alterius (nam cuius tandem?) intendit: sed, timore lapsus, utilitatem, commodum, salutem spectavit suam; & intendit nocumenti, peticuli nempe imminentis si ex Christi discipulis esse agnosceretur, remotionem ac depulsionem. I am iniuriose & falso tibi excidisse, nullos improbare officiosum mendacium, tua ipsius confessio testis est. Etenim theologos, quorum, in quaestione de iure divino, unius autoritatem pluris aestimare, quàm centum iuris humani peritorum debes; theologos, & quidem eos theologos, quorum hunc maximum appellas, illum summum, alios praestantes esse non negabis; theologos plerosque omnes, tametsi solos, mecum facere concedis. Immo hoc quoque falso & iniuriose, quod solos theologos; testantur epistolae tuae, ad quas me amandas. Quippe Iustum Lipsium, & Tassum, mecum esse, ibi agnoscis. Aristotelem negas de nostro loqui mendacio, quum ait mendacium perse malum esse & vituperabile, sed de arroganti, vano, versuto, pravo, & id genus, aliis. Atqui de mendacio in genere eum loqui, & proptereà de nostro, tûm ex iis apparet quae de viro bono & veritatis amante subijcit: tûm ex eo ipso quod ait, per se malum; ut te docere potest is quem summū nominas philosopho theologum. Ciceronis dicto, cadit in virum bonum mentiri emolumenti sui causa? nihil minus: opponis alia eius tanquam repugnantia, quae minime repugnant, ut de Socrate simulatore, dissimulatore Q. Maximo. Nam Socratis ironia, quemadmodum ab eo tractatur in facetiis, & Quintilianus docet in figuris, non fuit mendax sermo, sed figurate verax. Quinti autem Maximi disssimulatio celautis erat, & tacentis, ut Cicero exponit: quam nos laudandam ducimus. Canonici iuris professores ex me sciscitaris utrum nominem, an rideam: qui, Iacobum à mendacio immunem divinae obtentu concessionis pronuntiatum, in titulo de divortiis legerim. Ego sane serio illos nominavi: à quibus tradi video magno consensu, ne pro vita quidem hominis servanda mentiri fas esse. Tu per iocum forsitan id de Iacobo citas e titulo de divortiis: nisi furtum, homicidium, adulterium officiosum, aeque ac mendacium, iis probari velis. Namque, ut Jacob illic, à mendacio: sic Israelitae, à furto; Samson, ab homicidio; Patriarchy, & alii viri iusti, ab adulterio excusari dicuntur. Plures autores eiusdem sententiae contra te producere magis proclive est quàm necessarium. Quot enim censes extitisse similes illius apud Iuvenalem, qui mendacium, quod videri posset officiosissimum, inhonestum & à viri boni officio alienum reputans, in haec erumpit verba: Quid Romae faciam •… mentiri nescio: librū, Si malus est, nequeo laudare, & poscere. Atque haud scio an medicorum exempla, melancholicos scilicet mendaciis curantiū, aeque falso cites in tuam sententiam, ac Q. Maximi. Certe curationes tales quales iudicas, à magno medico notatae, in factis positae, non in dictis carent signorum abusu: quem nos in mendacio, uti scis, damnamus. Verùm, cùm habeas poëtas, philosophos, Canonistas, theologos, ac plerosque horum te ipso cōfitente, tibi repugnantes: ignosce mihi si Neronis cote ad majorem modestiam & cautionem te acuere volui; ne errati hujus toties admonitus, rursum non modo medicos, sed etiam alios omnes, mendacii, rei turpissimae, patrocinio inquinares.

Quod eo magis opus fuisse ut facerem jam sentio & cerno, quia, quae mihi maxim omnium capitalis sententia vide batur, nempe, abusum malorum non esse malum, sed bonum: eam tu significas te in libris bellicis denuo defensurum; & ita defensurum, ut ab argutiolae, quam dixi, opprobrio distinctionem tuam vindices Augustini & Lactantii autoritate. Quid igitur? An argumentum meum, quo stuprum, adulterium, incestum, & quodvis facinus ac flagitium ea argutiola defendi posse docui, Augustini etiam atque Lactantii autoritate profligabis? Omnino, tanquam aliquid tale cogitares, postquàm ex eorum altero notasses, bonum in nuptiis esse usum mali concupiscentiae carnis; ex altero, vitia non esse quibus recte uti licet: Sic, inquis, uti possumus concupiscentia carnis; sic mendacio; &c. Vbi, si particula ista, &c. non referatur ad incestum, & caetera mala à me commemorata; quod (opinor) abominabere; quanquam quae ad alia referatut, non video; sed si ad ea non referatur: argumentum igitur meum ab exemplo Antiochi & novercae, ita solidum & firmum, ut ne attingere quidem illud ausus sis, satis adhuc habet ad mei dicti veritatem de vanitate argutiolae tuae comprobandam. Veruntamen, ut idem Augustini quoque, testis à te ipso & pro te citati, autoritate corroborari scias: lege doctissimam gravissimamque eius disputationem, qua tanquam ex professo tuam de malorum abusu (quem vocas) sententiam refellens, quum ex ea consequence esse demonstrasset, nec falsum testimonium, nec furtum, nec adulterium, nec ullum malum opus malum fore, sed bonum, si bona intenione, bono fine, perpetretur; Quis ista dicat, inquit, nisi qui res humanas omnesque conatur mores leges{que} subvertere? Clarissimum documentū quàm iniuriose, ne quid dicam gravius, & Patrum testimonia & Scripturas tractes. Nam Augustinus ait eos concupiscentiae malo been uti qui licite procreandis liberis operam dant, ut pede vitiato recte quis utitur quum ad aliquod bonum claudicando pervenit: nec propter claudicationis malum mala est illa perventio, nec propter illius perventionis bonum bona est claudicatio. Tu bonum esse mali usum sic contendis, ut malum mendacii, ceu claudicationis, malum esse neges, quum eo quis ad bonū pervenit: & eum, cui Deus pedes dedit integros, se mutilare iubes, ut aliquo accedat quo nulli nisi claudo fortasse datur aditus. Lactantius, ad errorem quorundam minuendum qui affectus vitia esse concedunt, sed ea mediocriter temperant: assignandi, inquit, fuerunt affectus certis temporibus, & rebus, & locis: ne vitia sint quibus recte uti licet. Tu vocabulum eius, recte, ad omnes circumstantias relatum, de quibus Aristoteles quum distinguit iusta ab iis quae just fiunt, & virtutis naturam aperit, ad unicam restringis: & mendacia in rectum finem destinata, (quo modo possunt periuria, sacrilegia, blasphemy,) recte fieri dicis, eoque non esse vitia. Apostolus ait non facienda mala ut eveniant bona: concedens posse bona intention fieri quae tamen mala sint, ut Saul exemplo suo •… ocuit. Tu mala esse negas quae fiunt ut eveniant bona: eum enim esse abusum malorum; & abusum malorum malum non esse, at bonum. Ac lectorem moans te in tota illa disputatione non dicere ullibi, mala facienda, ut bona adveniant: in qua tamen laudas istam poëtae antiqui sententiam, Quum vitia prosunt, peccat qui recte facit.

Haec si fundamēta non sint nequitiae & impietatis; si te, quem fidei causa exulare ferunt, atque, ut respondes, vere ferunt, deceant; si •… cclesiae lumini rite dedicentur, ut illius quasi luce lucentia acceptiora sint in vulgus; denique si nihil contineant veneni, quin pueris haurienda propinari possint: errarim ego qui immerito, te, ne talibus, talia, sub talis viri nomine deinceps commendes & excudas typis in Academia nostra, rogandum mihi censui. Nil intra est oleam, nil extra est in nuce duri. Sed noli asserere me calumniari in eo quod pueros à te doceri dixi ut de rebus morum quid theologi sentiant non magnopere curent. Immo vero, inquis, de me, de jurisconsulto scripsi, & re politica. De te? de jurisconsulto? Atqui, & Petrus, quum subduxit sese ac separavit à Gentibus, respondere potuit se respectu sui, Iudaei, id fecisse: cui tamen Paulus dixit, Cur Gentes cogis Iudaizare? quod iis exemplo suo hac in re praeiret; ut tu, nec solùm exemplo, sed etiam verbo, pueris. De politica autem re, quid tibi vis? aut qui hoc ausus dicere? cùm verba tua typis excusa sic habeant; Ego ut theologorum autoritate in re religions valde moveor, ita in re morali, aut politica non valde. Adeóne mei reprehendendi aestu te transversum abripi, ut in eo mihi notam calumniae, in quo calumniaris ipse, inuras?

Locum scripturae de vest viri à foemina, foeminae à viro non induenda, quem theologi omnes interpretantur proprie, figurate à te exponi mirabar eo magis: quod theologorum autoritate in rebus religions te valde moveri dixeras; & scripturarum interpretatio res est religions. Hîc tu scripturarum interpretationem omnem, aut omnium, rem religions esse inficiaris. Omnem, quorsum addis? Nam ne legum quidem interpretatio omnis res est jurisprudentiae: sed ea, cuius gratia, scribis Canonistas, maiorum nostrorū tempore, ad Legistas remisisse auditors suos, si incideret argumentum ex legibus componendum. Et talis est quam nos quaerimus: non qualem adhibeant qui à te ridentur, quod nunc, benigniori scilicet coelo nati, non modo utriusque iuris doctores existunt, sed & Medicinae periti, & Theology. Quum autem is inficias Scripturarum omnium interpretationem rem esse religions, & ad facultatem theologicam spectare: perinde mihi loqui videris, acsi quis diceret, non omnes leges vestras & totum ius civile ab Accursianis aut Alceiateis interpretibus exponi oportere. Sed, ut hoc absurdum tibi visum iri dialogi tui docent: ita & illud debuit. Quod, si mihi non credis, creed Petro Martyri, quem theologorum maximum appellas: & ab eo disce facultatem nostram à vestra distinguere. Ac vide quàm scienter huic scripturae loco, cuius exponendi ius, abiudicatum nobis, tibi vindicas, sensum figuratum & improprium affingas. Ne esto instrumentum virile super foeminam, inquit Moses, neque induito vir vestem foeminae: nam abominationi est Iehovae Deo tuo quisquis facit ista. Hac lege, Ne induito vir vestem foeminae, tu, per nescio quam figuram orationis, vis nefarium illud scelus denotari, quod Moses alibi verbis proprie sumptis damnans abominationem vocavit: &, sicut in Levitico, verbo retectionis quasi vestimentorum significantur talia flagitia; ita in lege hac, simili loquendi modo, par crimen proponi. Satis id quidem duriter, ut idem plane sonet induere vestem, ac retegere: & hoccine est quod ais expositionem tuam similibus locis stabiliri? Verùm exponendam ita esse legem confirmas hunc in modum. Vbi significatio propria non accipitur, ibi figurata fuerit, vel aliter impropria. At in lege illa Dei non accipitur propria significatio. Quid ita? Quoniam, inquis, Vbi abominatio dicitur in scriptures, ibi peccatum significatur, quod facile superet flagitia pleraque omnia. Sed hoc vestimentorum non est tale. Ergo ubi dicitur abominatio, ibi hoc peccatum non significatur. Ac non esse tale hoc vestimentorū, affirmari ais ex sententia Augustini. Quem, si consideratius animum attendisses ad inexcusabiles in quas ait decidi posse turpitudines hac lege negligenda: vidisses minus causae subesse, quàm putabas, cur pro te citares. Sed unde tandem colligis, ubicun{que}, id enim sonat tuum ubi, aut nihil agis; ubicunque igitur abominatio in scriptures dicitur, ibi significari peccatum quod facile flagitia pleraque omnia superet? Nam abominationi Iehovae esse dicitur argentum & aurum, de quo idôla facta sint: & quicunque insert illum in domum suam, rem infer dicitur abominabilem. Abominationi Iehovae esse dicitur bovis aut pecudis ullum habentis vitium immolatio. De quibus, si volueris tibi constare, & sententiam ei quam de nostra lege tulisti, ferre similem, rogabis mirabundus: Quod tantum scelus hîc est, ut sit abominatio, si, cui desunt opes, aliquid e Baalis auro aut argento in usum suum accipiat? si, qui meliorem victimam non habet, claudam, aut caecam Deo offerat? Quod si prudentius & religiosius dices haec merito pro flagitiosissimis habita fuisse, quod insignis sceleris, id est, impietatis, aut occasiones e •… ant, aut indicia: idem tibi puta responsum de muliebri vestitu in viro, abomina •… di sceleris illecebra & fomite, ut e Neronis Sporo & Heliogabalo amicum tuum monui. Relinquitur idcirco sensum legis proprium, non figuratum esse: ut omnes theologi, non ut tu exponis. Quod tuo •… uoque ipsius aliud agentis dicto comprobatur, dum ais, qui sensus bonarum aliarum legum est prohibentium hunc usum vestium, eundem verisimiliter esse & legis Dei. Nam aliae bonae leges Canonicae, Civilesque, à teipso notatae, loquuntur de vestitu non figurate, sed proprie, ut scis & confiteris.

Legem autem illam Dei nihil facere adversus histrioniam, quod fidentius aequo à te dictum censui, conaris astruere duobus argumentis. Quorum alterum superiore nixum fundamento, vitiose adiicit, sensum aliarum bonarum legum nihil facere contra histrioniam; ergo neque bonae ilhus legis Dei. Nam primo lex canonica, à multo ampliore synodo sancita, quàm quae à te notatur, vetat in ludicris eum usum vestium, ut alibi declaravi. Civili vero jure idem interdictum existimasse videtur Augustinus, ad histriones accommodans quod jure infames & intestabiles haberi, qui muliebri habitu se ostentant, dixerat. Atque adeo Tatiani verba reprehendentis vestem muliebrem in scenicis actoribus, ut indignam viro, Cujacius arbitratus est cum vestrorum jurisconsultorum sensu congruere, & post Cuiacium Gothofredus. Deinde, etiamsi aliae bonae leges diuturniorem & graviorem abusum tantummodo vetarent, quem ne lege quidem coerceri voluit Tiberius Imperator: tamen lege Dei, multo meliore, notari possent & coargui, quilevius, quomodocunque, & quantulocunque tempore, in ea re delinquerent. Nam aliae bonae leges negant furtum animo posse committi, sine contrectatione: lex Dei vel affectu solo flagitia perpetrari asserit. Itaque errarunt Josephus & David Kimhi, post Scribas & Pharisaeos, qui malos animi motus & cogitations peccata non putarunt, nisi in opus exeant: quod de legibus hominum, non Dei, si dixissent, nequaquam lapsi essent. Ac ipse verisimiliter tantùm, non certo eundem legis Dei atque aliarum sensum esse ais. Quamobrem adhuc salva est assertio mea, consultius te facturum fuisse, si modestius, de re quam opinaris, non scis, pronuntiasses. At altero argumento iugulasti hominem. Nam quae in histrionia (inquis) vitari peccata negotio nullo saepe solent, & possunt semper: ea nihil contra histrioniam faciunt. Sed peccatum illud, si quod est, promiscui vestimentorum usus, vitari saepe solet, & semper potest. Ergo. Quid Ergo? Cur reliquum non attexis, Ergo nihil facit lex illa Dei adversus histrioniam? Hoc enim erat concludendum. Ac utinam, quod assumis vetari saepe solere promiscuum usum vestium, eius rei testis fuisset nostra scena: viamque meliorē, qua vitari semper possit, ostēdisses quàm mimas & scenicas inter histriones introducendo: quod dedecus foeminei pudoris ac verecūdiaepeius esset paene remediū ipso malo. Sed cuiusmodi syllogismo causam tuā fulcias, agnosce ex consimili, ad aliam Dei legem, nequis liberos suos idôlis sacrificet. Quae in idololatria vitari peccata negotio nullo saepe solent, & possunt semper: ea nihil faciunt contra idololatriam. Sed peccatum illud comburendorum filiorum & filiarum, vitari saepesolet, & semper potest. Ergo ninil facit lex illa Dei adversus idololatriam. Propositiogermana est & gemina tuae: non lac similius lacti. Assumptio, luce clarior e varia Papistarum idololatria. Conclusio tamen falsa videtur omnibus theologis: quorum hac in causa, ad primam legis tabulam spectante, autoritas, per Prophetas saltem, assensum tuum impetrabit. Quapropter, cùm ex veris nil nisi verum consequatur, restat falsam esse proposition̄: & posse peccatum in idololatriam hanc aut illam cadere, quod in omne tamen idololatriae genus non cadat. Ego quidem certe hoc iudicio fui, quum ob latriam imaginibus Christi & crucis delatam, Papistas arguerē idololatriae. Nam ipsi saepe solent idololatriam committere, & semper possunt, absque imaginum cultu. Et tu, qui histriones mimas habere & scenicas scripsisti, videris aliquatenus idem sensisse. Cur enim non aeque putemus histrioniam, etsi non omnem histrioniam, perstrictam à Tertulliano mimas notante: ac tu asseruisti histriones mimas habere & scenicas, etsi non omnes histriones habeant? Sed quia iam hoc tibi discrimen ita displicet, ut me confidentissime reprehendere, quae non capio, proptereà affirms: docebis nos fortasse, exemplum Ezekiae; serpentem aeneum confringentis quod filii Israelis incensum ei adolerent, nihil facere contra Pontificiorum, qui incensum adolent rebus similibus, idololatriam; quoniam est quaedam idololatria, puta, liberos suos idólis immolantium, quae hoc peccato vacet. Quin & Ieremiam, istud Iudaeorum peccatum in Baale colendo increpantem, nihil adversus idololatriam eorum dixisse: quoniam Papistae, invocantes ligneam crucem ut Deum, & sacramēto cultum latriae exhibentes, committunt idololatriam, nec tamen suos cremant liberos. An quaestuariorum item histrionum, quorum contagio & lues apud nos nuper est grassata, negabis actiones histrioniae nomine traduci oportere, quoniam exerceri potest histrionia, ut tandem à Roscio, sine quaestu? Luculenter vero probasti scholasticos, à quibus apud nos fabulae aguntur, nullam labem contrahere, tametsi contra legem muliebribus vestiantur, ut loquitur Tertullianus: quoniam ostendisti posse foeminarum partes à mimis, scenicisque foeminis, sine viris, agi. Perinde quasi dixisses nullam labem contrahi ab immorantibus apud vinum, nec iis ebrietatem merito exprobrari; quoniam esse potest ebrietas sine vino. Atque hoc modo rationem illam, quam Tertullianus obtrudere videtur pro potentissima, nihili esse demonstrasti.

Porro, minus nihilo esse quicquid aliud adversus histrioniā afferunt theologi, quod mihi minus item modeste visus es asserere, tu contrà rursum asseris: & demonstras etiam, opinor; sed quemadmodum? Pudet me, inquis, earum rationū quas Tertullianus affert adversus cothurnos tragicos & fictas scenicorum personas. Age.

Sint eius rations leves contra histrionicum istum ornatum: rem adeo putidā & insulsam, ut nullas rations ad eam explodendam desiderarint nostri, sed sua sponte rejecerint. Etenim cothurnis (cuiusmodicunque demum id genus fuit calceorū) efferebātur tragoedi quo altiores apparerent; & fictis ad eorum, quos agebant, speciem personis tegebātur: ut Sarmenti scurrae jocus in Messium docet; quem immani corporis proceritate, & foeda cicatrice in facie deformem, rogabat Sarmentus ut Polyphemum ageret; Nil illi larya aut tragicis opus esse cothurnis. E nostris autem nemo in scenam cothurnatus & larvatus prodit. Quid igitur? An quia te pudet rationem quas Tertullianus affert adversus ineptias histrionicas, quarum tragoedos & scenicos nostros pudet: idcirco minus nihilo est quicquid aliud adversus histrioniam Tertullianus affert? Ac, ut Tertullianus, unus e multis, hallucinatus sit: idcirco minus nihilo est quicquid aliud adversus histrioniam afferunt theologi? Quanto te magis pudêre debuit conviciorum, quae in me effundis; quia, ut modestiam in pronuntiando maiorem adhiberes, praesertim quum de rebus religions agis, amice te admonui? Sed praeclare Cato: Nae simul pudere, quod nō oportet, caeperit; quod oportet, non pudebit.. Me namque ex Papistico spiritu à librorum sacrorum tractatione te arcere ais: & haec cis annos istos septuaginta, quod Erastus ait similibus mei, tentare: & imperiose cum eo sic agere, qui Papae imperium contempsit, & exulare patria potuit, & universo regno Papali: atque adeo, etiamsi in his à te vincar, obiurgare tamen te pro pietate: denique argumentis uti eiusmodi, quibus illudere pueris possim, vobis non possim. Bene factum, quod te ipsum longe à Papismo abesse profiteris. Nam ego multo minus te arceo à sacrorum librorum tractatione, quàm tu jurisconsultum, cui praecipis, ut nihil nisi ex Theologi praescripto enuntiet de re Theologica; & solis prudentiae civilis libris vacet, reliquis omnibus valedicat. Erastus, notans quosdam quos ait petivisse ut alii professores iuberentur à Theologorum fchola abstinere; Si hoc fuisset, inquit, ante sexaginta annos petitum, tolerabile videri poterat. Ego, ex animo tibi exoptans ut scholam Theologorum magis frequents, adhortor tantùm ut memineris, quod ante mille annos Gregorius Nazianzenus observandum tradidit, idque ex Apostolo, non omnia Christi membra iisdem facultatibus, & donis esse praedita. Imperiose autem quid à me factum? Nisi ut arguere cum omni imperio ministros Dei decet. Neque put •… am idcirco non licere mihi te arguere, quod in nonnullis rebus me anteas. Nam David item praestitit Nathani, Petrus Paulo: Davidem tamen Nathan, & Petrum Paulus reprehendit. Obiurgandi verbum haud scio an asperius sit, quàm mea meruit admonitio. Quanquam obiurgandos etiam amicos, non monendos solùm, autor est Cicero: & ego te amicum meum opinabar; condona mihi hunc errorem. Argumenta vero mea qualia sint, utrum ad falsum, an verum; malum, an bonum; cum viris, tûm pueris persuadendum facta: iudicium penes arbitros aequiores esto. A quibus animadverti & expendi velim epiphonematuum, post tua argumenta (quae nostris, uti spero, ne pueris quid •… m illudent) his subtextum verbis: Vtinam, utinam sic contenderes, & non reiiceres argumentis bonis fabulas non bonas semper. Ecce, argumenta mea esse bona confiteris ipse, accusator meus; & tua, e contrario, mala. Nimirum lingua lapso (ut est in Graecorum proverbio) verum dicit.

Postremo, quia verba edicti Praetoris, sic à te exposita, ac si unius tantùm rei, nempe artis ludicrae, non duarum, id est artis ludicrae, pronuntiándiue, disjuncte, mentionem facerent, nimis sicco pede te dixi transiisse: quaeris, an ego in sicco sim, qui hoc dixerim. In sicco sane adhuc: & aqua tibi haeret, qua, ne in sicco essem, conatus es me inundare. Nam ad testimonium Alciati, à te citatum, artem non facere eum qui semel, iterum, quid artis facit; respondi, ut concedatur hoc quod illi tribuis, pronuntiandi tamen causa in scenam prodire qui prodit semel tantùm: ac proptereà Laberium, quo primùm die prodiit inustam sibi notam infamiae censuisse; & probrosum visum Romanis (apud Tacitum) vel orationes, vel carmina ita recitare, licet id gratis facerent. Cuius responsionis ut partes, tuo more, quascunque potes carpas, negas te tribuere illud Alciato: haberi enim apud eum, quamvis in subnotato capite sit erratum. Ergone tribuere duntaxat ii dicendi sunt qui falso tribuunt: non item qui vere? Profecto tu non tribuis suum cuique, qui tribuendi verbo significationem istam solam tribuis. Ego vero, quia capite à te subnotato illud non reperi, & posse tamen alibi extare cogitavi: verbo tribuendi de industria usus sum, ut vacarem culpa, seu vere citasses, seu falso. Quanquam iam ex tui errati correctione falso citatum esse deprehendo: teque interpolasse locum Alciati inserta voice, Iterum; cùm ill tantùm dixerit, Qui semel quid artis facit. Et quorsum (narra mihi) adjecisti hoc, Iterum? An quia te videbas non satis probaturum nullam à ludionibus nostris labem contrahi, si eos tantummodo artis faciendae nota liberares, qui semel quid artis facerent? Quin igitur Alciatum scripsisti affirmare, artem non facere eum qui semel, iterum, tertio, quid artis facit? Nam potuisti eodem iure: & hoc, ad assequendum quod volebas, parum est. At eos saltem qui semel prodeunt, non amplius, immunes esse notae, docuisse te ais ex Alciato, sic argumentando: Ars notata est edicto; Sed una proditio non est ars; Ergo una proditio non est notata. At haec argumentatio vide ne similiter statuminetur, ac si quis ita disputaret: Faemina continetur appellatione hominis; Sed masculus non est foemina; Ergo masculus non continetur appellatione hominis. Nam, ut foemina quidem appellatione hominis continetur, sed non tantùm foemina: ita ars notata est edicto Praetoris, sed non tantùm ars. Quod anim advertendum tibi proposui, quàm planissime potui in tanta brevitate, ex Praetoris verbis, pronuntiándive causa, cum eo comparatis quod e Tacito citâras, de orationibus carminibusque in scena recitatis. Et, quoniam non distinguit Tacitus mercenarios recitatores à gratuitis, proptereà probrosum Romae visum dixi tametsi gratis recitarent: ut tu, qui Praetorem nullos vis notasse nisi quaestuarios, iudicum Romanorum hac in parte etiam à tua commentatione dissidere attenderes. Tu contrà affirmas persuasum esse tibi incubuisse illos, de quibus Tacitus loquitur, recitationibus, pretii aut praemii spe atque fiducia: itaque falsum me colligere, qui notatos dicam tametsi gratis recitarent. Noah tu non sine causa syllogismalem (quam appellas) altercationem à iurisprudentia tua reiecisti, si ea ration hoc potes lucrifacere ut talla enthymemata, Persuasum est mihi te colligere falsum, Itaque falsum colligis, vim idonearum probationum habeant. Sed quicquid tibi sit persuasum, historia testator eiusmodi recitatorum, quales 〈◊〉 not abant quorum verba refert Tacitus, nonnullos extitisse qui recitarent gratis: atque hos eorum iudicio notatos, à quibus notabantur quicunque in scena recitarent. Tales enim erant & ¹ orationum & carminum recitatores, quorum nemo voluit coronam accipere, licet de ea contendissent. Talis erat 〈◊〉 carminum recitator Nero: quem mercede quicquam facere dedignatum affirmat, qui hoc narrat, Dio. Quid, quod ipse addis visum etiam crimen maiestatis laesae, secundum antiquos Romanorum mores, si magistratus pro concione legisset vel codices (ni male meministi) eorum quae ad magistratus spectabant tamen. Dissimile hoc quidem: & memory tuae lapsui fortassis ex parte tribuendum. Nec enim maiestatis laesae accusatus est tribunus plebis, quod pro cōcione codicem legisset; tanquā hoc perinde turpe, immo turpius multo, habitum esset, quàm orationes aut carmina in scena recitare: sed quod, adversus intercessionem sui collegae, codicem, quem scriba legere prohibitus est, legisset ipse, itaque violasset legem Corneliam maiestatis. Caeterum, si antiquis Romanorum moribus tanti criminis reum fuisse magistratum, qui vel codices rerum, ad magistratus spectantium pro concione legisset, persuasum habes: fierine potest ut persuasum habeas non iisdem moribus probrosam Romae visam vel gratuitam carminum orationúmve in scena recitationem? Nisi forte dices te existimare magistratus eos tantum modo maiestatis crimen admisisse, qui mercedis gratia codicem legerent pro concione Quod. mihi persuaderi prorsus non potest persuasum tibi esse.

Ita postulanti tibi ut eorum, quae inficiaris, quaedam, si possem, docerem & ostenderem; non in illis solùm, sed etiam in caeteris hoc gratificari studui, ut potui. Maturius id facturus, nisi tu, omissa librorum & capitum, in quibus Augustini & aliorum quos citas verba scripta sint, indicatione, coëgisses me tempus terere perlegendis nonnullis libris integris, quo loca, quibus certo innixus videreris, explorate cognita compertaque haberem. Auxit meam huius officii praestandi cupiditatem & desiderium tua sententia, sententiam non dissimilem gravioris autoris in memoriam revocans, ad tanta crimina patientem esse non oportere. Quare, quod mihi obiicis concludens, te à me tractari pessime immerito, hominem mei studiosissimum, crimen gravissimum omnium, si verum, non modo in amore non respondere, sed etiam malefactis benevolētiam rependere: id immerito mihi à te obiectum esse, tua ipsius voice convinco, & concludo. Nam, quum per epistolam olim me moneres eorum quae putabas perperam asserta in meis praelectionibus ad primum Maccabaeorum, his verbis usus es: Aequi bonique haec consules? Certe ea ipsa sunt, quae ego in donis amicorum pretiosissima ducerem; & utinam mihi aliquis contigisset aliquando, qui in meis scriptis praestare tantum voluisset. Vides ne ut ipse te à me non pessime, sed optime tractatum; neque iniuriis affectum, sed donis; & iis non vulgaribus, sed longe pretiosissimis, carissimis, optatissimis, esse fatearis? Quod si plus aloës quam mellis medicamentis meis admiscui, vel cum acrimonia potius maiore tanquam ad secandum & urendum accessi: tamen hoc quoque à prudente morum magistro scis probari, quum nulla reperitur alia medicina. Ac ego, medicinam aliam saepiuscule in te expertus frustra, hanc unam fuperesse salutarem duxi; alioqui desperandum. Praesertim cùm rursus in pristinum de mendacio male officioso morbum recidisses: idque ita graviter & periculose, ut novo typis excuso opere defenderes, quod in vetere (liberámne amici vocem feres?) pessime affirmâras. Quantum mutatus ab illo, qui mihi esse videbare, quum in epistola quadam hac de re scripta concluderes hoc modo:

Atque in alia, ad meam precationem, Qui Petrum erexit ut agnosceret peccatum quum mendacio officioso negasset se novisse Christum, te, ut ipsum recte fecisse sentias, excitet, neque tibi verbis defendendum putes quod piis factis improbaris; respondisti his verbis: Et qua ego tandē, te, qui aliquando hoc animo fuisti, oratione compellem, nisi qua ecclesiae Ephesinae angelum compellavit Christus? Memor esto unde excideris, & resipisce, & priora opera facito.