thirdly, because of the actors' vices; fourthly, because of the dangers to the beholders; fifthly, because of the disastrous fruits of the stage in the waste of time and money, in the profanation of the word of God, and in the moral corruption of men and women; sixthly, because stage-plays have been disowned in times past by heathens and Christians; and seventhly, because of the judgments of God upon the beholders of the iniquity. Under each of these several topics the argument is briefly explained and elaborated; even in the last section, with a restraint that should have commended itself to his successor, the author refrained from much display of authority, since it would be "a verie tedious and troublesome thing for so many reverend and so old aged Fathers to travell so farre" to bear witness for him. Would it be too venturesome, in the light of this tabulated arrangement, to rank the unknown author among the Puritan ministers to whom this orderly style of discourse had already commended itself? Even on still stronger grounds does it seem the work of a divine. It gives the best side of the Puritan attack-calm in tone, sensible in argument, intelligent and forcible in its use of the Scriptures; and therefore, though it reveals no intimate familiarity with the stage, it is creditable like Northbrooke's Treatise for its saneness and sincerity, and serves, if not as a spokesman of new ideas, at least as a concise summary of old. In 1628 appeared Richard Rawledge's A Monster lately found out, or The Scourging of Tipplers, which named plays among other disgraces of London, and commended those "pious magistrates" and "religious senators" for their zeal in urging Elizabeth and her Council to suppress them. Had their successors followed that worthy example, he believed sin would not then have been so rampant in the city.1 Intemperance was the main theme of this work; but so conspicuous was the evil of the stage that it was closely joined with all other forms of vice, and was so attacked by writers of this as of the earlier time. 1 p. 2-3. With these minor attacks the active literary campaign in the secular world before the appearance of the magnum opus of the Puritan cause was over. The sharpest part of the dispute, though not the most vehement, had come in the preceding century, and the Puritan aversion had been then fully expressed. Two of these later attacks we regard as particularly important. The Refutation, as a direct reply to the last great defense of the dramatic art, and as an indication of the steady advance of public opinion, and, in its comprehensiveness and detail, as a forerunner of Prynne's Histrio-Mastix; and the Shorte Treatise, as a clear, concise and well tabulated compendium of the Puritan position, are deserving of an important place in this midway period of the controversy. ΙΟ CHAPTER 14. FEELING BEHIND THIS LATER LITERARY CAMPAIGN. In the preceding chapter the rising animosity of the controversialists has been traced from the reappearance of the secular attacks to the year 1633. During these years, public feeling, from forces aside from its own momentum, increased with more than proportionate rapidity, so that in the first twenty years of the Stuart rule the appeal of the drama, once so universal, constantly narrowed, and the number of theaters and performers, in consequence, considerably diminished.1 Under the new conditions, the same causes that had at first aroused hostility were still operative. In addition, the irritating license of the dramatists in their days of prosperity, and the disinclination of the Stuart kings to conciliate the people or to reassure them of an ultimate and satisfactory settlement, did much to hurry to an end the controversy. To be sure, the Stuart sovereigns, like the Tudors, showed a disposition to watch the stage carefully. To facilitate this, James even deprived noblemen of their right of patronage, and took the companies under his own control.2 Some instances of royal supervision may here be cited. In 1614, Sir John York, his wife and brothers, were fined and imprisoned for a play acted in favor of popery, in which a character representing James was carried off on the Devil's back to the alleged home of all Protestants. In one report of this affair, a marginal comment reads, "The greatest subject in England can have no common players, and to have them it is a riot. It is no trade, but they are Parliament rogues."4 Similar attention was given the Cambridge play, Ignoramus, which ridiculed the magistrates and the legal 2 I Jac. I, c. 7. 1 Collier, I, 432. 3 3 State Papers, 1614, p. 242; 1628, p. 333. profession.1 Again, in 1625, the Council watched lest the players should offend the Dutch government;2 and in 1631, to prevent the disorderly assembly of strangers in the Inner and Middle Temples, forbade there the customary Christmas plays. Lastly, in 1639, careful examination was made of The Whore New Vamped, where magistrates were satirized and the government libeled. The Court, in fact, never ceased to look vigilantly after the common players. Notwithstanding these restrictive measures, the Stuart sovereigns were ardent lovers of the drama, and being destitute of the tact of the Tudors in dealing with the people, their acts angered the masses, and gave new impetus to the opposition against the stage. In the first place, the excess and immorality of James' court, and the lavish expenditure of much needed money on court masques—for example the riotous entertainment given the visiting King of Denmark, strengthened the Puritan hostility. No better expression of the sense of shame so aroused in the soberer classes can be found than in Lucy Hutchinson's Memoirs of her husband. There in describing the viciousness of English society, when "every great house became a sty of uncleanness," she said, "To keep the people in their deplorable security, till vengeance overtook them, they were entertained with masks, stage plays, and sorts of ruder sports. Then began murder, incest, adultery, drunkenness, swearing, fornication, and all sort of ribaldry,' to be no concealed but countenanced vices, because they held such conformity with the court example. This, as much as the increased rigor of the ecclesiastical authorities, spread the Puritan sentiment among the masses of the people. Again, though James and Charles yielded enough to public opinion to forbid plays on the Sabbath day, and to check their profanity, both took measures more than counterbalancing the good. On May 24th, 1618, James issued his famous Declaration of Lawful Sports, forbidding rude and 2 Ibid., 1625, p. 481. 1 State Papers, 1615, p. 286. p. III. disorderly pastimes on Sundays and holy days-bear-baiting, interludes and the like, but sanctioning other sports for evening amusement on those days. Heylyn explains the proclamation in this way. The King's former declaration against Sunday plays had been interpreted so strictly by Puritan ministers and magistrates that all Sabbath games were being prohibited, so that the day was raised far above festival days, and people were persuaded that Protestantism meant a sacrifice of personal liberty. Hence the Book of Sports was ordered read in all the churches. The effect was felt immediately in the stage controversy. Although plays were expressly excluded from "those lawful recreations and honest exercises," the Puritans looked on the act as only the first step toward the utter demolition of the day's sanctity. Consequently, the stage's opponents were roused by a danger which they felt imminent. Nor was their fear unjustified. In 1622 James granted liberty for church-ales, dancing and other recreations in the North, as a means of drawing recusants to church; and in 1624 he vetoed the bill passed by Parliament for sanctifying the Sabbath. Charles, to be sure, authorized a measure against Sunday plays, but it was to be operative only a year. His general heedlessness of popular sentiment on this point culminated when he ratified, in 1633, his father's Declaration of Lawful Sports, with the result, as Whitelocke asserts, that many not really Puritans were driven into opposition.* Under the Stuart rule, therefore, respect for the Fourth Commandment, which had long inspired hatred of plays, caused heightened tension. On yet a third score the people were aroused by action of the court; and this time, Queen Henrietta was the offender. With her foreign tastes and her haughty contempt of English feeling, she in 1629 induced some French actresses to play at Blackfriars. The reception accorded 1 Aerius Redivivus: Hist. Presby., edit. 1670, lib. XI, p. 389–90. 2 See Baker, Chronicles, p. 445, and Kelly, p. 120, for its reception. Also Yonge, Diary, p. 64. 3 Ibid., p. 75. 4 Memorials, I, 48. |