[From A Mirrour of Monsters: Wherein is plainely described the manifold vices & spotted enormities, that are caused by the infectious sight of Playes, with the description of the subtile slights of Sathan, making them his instruments. Compiled by Wil. Rankins. Magna spes est inferni. Seene and allowed. I. C. for T. H. 1587. The reference to Holywell suggests that the author was the dramatist (cf. ch. xxiii).]
Describes the wedding of Fastus and Luxuria at the ‘Chapell Adulterinum’, near to Κοȋλοφρἑαρ ‘by interpretation from the Greeks Hollow well [i.e. Holywell] where my selfe lulled in the lap of Securitie, not long since was brought a sleepe by carelesse cogitations’. The Chapel Adulterinum is ‘the Theater and Curtine’ (4v). A banquet and mask with torchbearers furnish an allegory of the vices of players, and various allusions, to the fall of the Bear-garden (3), to the 2d. payment for entrance (3v), to advertisements by drums and trumpets (5) and bills (5v), to doorkeepers and boxholders (6v), are commented on in marginal notes.
xxxix. 1588. John Case.
[From Sphaera Civitatis (1588), a commentary on Aristotle’s Politics (ad v. 8; vii. 17). A similar passage from the commentary on the Ethics (iv. 8) in Speculum Moralium Quaestionum (1586), 183, is quoted by Boas, 228. It is interesting to find from The Christmas Prince, 12 (cf. ch. xxiv), that Case once served as lord of misrule at St. John’s, Oxford.]
(a) Lib. v, c. 8.
Alia nunc dubitatio sequitur, Vtrum ludi chorique permittendi sunt in ciuitate? Memini me olim in Ethicis de his rebus obiter disputasse, verum quoniam opportune se offert quaestio, abs re non erit eandem paucissimis demonstrare: censeo ergo quibusdam adhibitis circumstantiis haec tolerari ac permitti debere; non quod per se et vi sua res vtiles, sed quod in moderato illorum vsu splendor comitatis (quae virtus minima non est) manifeste apparet. Sunt igitur ludi non inanes et histrionicae fabulae, veneris illecebrae, sed facetae comoediae magnificaeque tragaediae, in quibus expressa imago vitae morumque cernitur.... Adhuc in his mores hominum depictos discere, praeclara inuenta doctorum obseruare, temporum antiquorum caniciem cernere, vocem, vultum, gestumque splendide componere, varios affectus et passiones mouere, famam acquirere et comparare possumus [in margin: scenae trigemina corona]. Cum ergo ex iis tot commoda existant, non solum toleranda sed etiam iuste approbanda videntur. Insuper antiquissimis olim temporibus in omni praeclare instituta republica floruerunt ista: ergo sunt licita.... Postremo his addi potest ratio quae est in textu, nempe quod hoc modo potentiores viri quos timet ciuitas (coacti ad ista edenda populo) elumbentur sedatioresque fiant.
(b) Lib. vii, c. 17.
Tertium est vt parentes suos liberos diligenter custodiant, et arceant ab audiendis, videndis, spectandis, malis sermonibus, obscoenis idolis Veneris, vanis spectaculis leuissimorum histrionum, qui plusquam ridiculas ne dicam impias fabellas huc illuc vagabundi agunt. Hic opportunè monendi sunt illi, qui suos infantulos iurare et conuitiari docent, qui simulachra Veneris intuenda, artemque amandi perdiscendam suis filiolis proponunt, qui denique ad theatra plena Veneris, plena vanitatis illos non solum ire permittunt sed etiam alliciunt. Non hic omnes ludos omnesque histriones praesertim hystoricos, tragicos, et si placet comicos (modò sint verè faceti) condemno: quippè Aristoteles hoc loco Theodorum quendam peritum tragoediarum actorem laudat, Cicero suum laudauit Roscium, nos Angli Tarletonum, in cuius voce et vultu omnes iocosi affectus, in cuius cerebroso capite lepidae facetiae habitant.
xl. 1588–90. Martin Marprelate Controversy.
[The texts of the Marprelate pamphlets have been edited by W. Pierce, The Marprelate Tracts (1911); some were reprinted earlier by E. Arber and in J. Petheram, Puritan Discipline Tracts (1842–60). The best accounts of this ribald controversy on Church government are E. Arber, An Introductory Sketch to the Martin Marprelate Controversy (1879); W. Pierce, Historical Introduction to the Marprelate Tracts (1908); J. D. Wilson, The Marprelate Controversy (1909, C. H. iii. 374), and Martin Marprelate and Shakespeare’s Fluellen (1912); R. B. McKerrow, Works of Nashe, v (1910), 34, 184; G. Bonnard, La Controverse de Martin Marprelate (1916). It seems probable that Martin was a composite personality; Sir Roger Williams, John Penry, and Job Throckmorton may all have had a share in the pamphlets. The replies were inspired by Richard Bancroft, then Canon of Westminster and a member of the High Commission. It seems clear that both Lyly and Nashe took part in them, and Pappe with an Hatchet may reasonably be ascribed to Lyly. Nashe has often been regarded as Pasquil, but Mr. McKerrow does not think that any of the pamphlets can be supposed with any certainty to be his; he probably contributed to the lost plays. Of these Bonnard, 92, would distinguish five—(a) Martin anatomized, (b) the May Game of Martinism, (c) Martin carried to hell, as a vice, (d) Martin as cock, ape, and wolf, (e) Martin ravishing Divinity; but (b) seems to be referred to as a forthcoming pamphlet rather than as a play, and of the others (d) and (e) almost certainly, and possibly all four, were episodes in the same piece. F. Bacon in his Advertisement Touching the Controversies (Works, viii. 74), written in the summer of 1589, criticizes the episcopal policy of answering like by like, and ‘this immodest and deformed manner of writing lately entertained, whereby matters of religion are handled in the style of the stage’.]