gave him a fund of knowledge. Yet even in his own day the charge of narrowness was most often brought against him. Nashe was even more unjust to him. He ridiculed him as one of the Martin Mar-Prelate zealots; he told scandalous stories about his life; and in his Anatomie of Absurditye, in 1590, he referred again to Stubbes as a man able to see only evil in the arts.2 To these charges Gabriel Harvey replied in behalf of his friend, praising him for his "polished and garnished" style. But his modern defender, Furnivall, has done the most to clear Stubbes of the accusation of being only a "bitter, narrow-souled Puritan." That the abuse of apparel throughout the whole Tudor period was as conspicuous as Stubbes regarded it, and that the popular amusements in both city and country did lead, as Stubbes and other Puritans said, to the ruin of many innocent young persons, and to the disorder of the land, Furnivall feels confident. Therefore, in spite of Stubbes' severity, because his cause was so just, and because his spirit was not that of a railer but of an earnest reformer, Furnivall exonerates him from the old established charge of intoler ance. In this connection we were interested to find that even in theological matters Stubbes was no extremist. In the Second Part of the Anatomie of Abuses, which treats of the then existing defects of poor-laws, school systems, trades and such matters, Stubbes came in the last section to spiritual affairs. Though he urged strongly the need of preaching ministers, he admitted that mere, "readers" were better than none at all; though he spoke firmly against the system of pluralities and non-residency, he betrayed no bitterness; though he refused bishops any superiority as to "calling" over the mere pastor, he accepted their rule, and even granted them worldly titles; and though he regarded as the true mark of a minister not his vestments, but the example of his holy life and words, those ministers, who, in a time when pastors 1 An Almond for a Parrat, p. 26–7. & Pierces Supererogation, p. 290–91. were scarce, had forsaken their flocks through hatred of the surplice, he called unfaithful. If we consider that this was written in 1583, the year in which Whitgift was made archbishop, when the demand for strict uniformity was becoming the policy of the government, it is seen at once that Stubbes was a moderate Puritan in his opposition to the church, and not at all, as Nashe had said, a forerunner of Martin Mar-Prelate. Owing to the comprehensiveness of its survey of the vices of English men and women, to its sincerity as well as to the picturesque interest of its style, and above all to the fact that no matter how extreme or laughable its words sometimes were, there was always behind them a real truth, The Anatomie of Abuses exercised an influence proportionate to its popularity.1 In consideration of this influence, the book, though only incidentally mentioning plays, deserves to be ranked among the great treatises on the stage. 1 The book went through four editions in two years, and in ten years a fifth was called for. It has been twice reprinted in modern editions; the last time with valuable additional matter in introductions and appendices by Dr. Furnivall. Of its influence we shall hear later, chap. 13. CHAPTER 6. MINOR ASPECTS OF THE CONTROVERSY OF THESE YEARS. With the publication of the Anatomie of Abuses, the most important part of the Puritan literary campaign was ended. Some minor attacks, both immediately before and after the appearance of that work, may still be noted. One was issued in 1581, A Treatise of Daunses, wherein it is showed, that they are as it were accessories and dependants (or things annexed) to whoredom: where also by the way is touched and proved, that Playes are ioyned and knit together in a ranck or rowe with them,1 whose author evidently looked on both amusements with the same feelings that filled Northbrooke and Stubbes. Five years later even Thomas Newton, the admirer of Seneca, issued his Treatise touching Dyce-play and Profane gaming. Here, however, he somewhat qualified his approval of Augustine's prohibition against the support of actors with the remark, "yet these kind of persons doe, after a sorte, let out their labour unto us, and their industrie many times is laudable." Newton hesitated to sanction fully the condemnations of Puritan attackers. But, significantly for us, both these tracts illustrate how aversion to other pastimes was turned to reinforce the strength of the attack on plays. For Knowing almost nothing of these works, we turn now to three other treatises, which, apparently corroborating Fleay's charge that city funds were primarily responsible for the hostile demonstration, deserve more careful attention. One was written by Anthony Munday, the actor, playwright, romance writer and Protestant pamphleteer. About the year 1579, after his travels on the Continent, and after completing the Mirrour of Mutabilitie, he returned to the stage, to be received, it is recorded in The True Reporte of the Death of M. Campion, with hisses and jeers.3 2 Northbrooke, Treatise, p. xix. 1 See Ward, I, 460, n. 3 Dict. of Nat'l. Biog. Stung by this rebuke, the Reporte continues, Munday wrote his ballad or pamphlet against plays, presumably the Ringinge Retraite Couragiouslie sounded, Wherein Plaies and Players are fytlie confounded, entered in the Stationers' Registers.1 Yet within a year, at least not later than 1580, there is good reason to believe that Munday had returned to the stage. This was Munday's share in the controversy. Undoubtedly, he was the one in Gosson's mind who had "chaged his coppy" and returned again to his old career. The title of the ballad is strikingly similar to that of the anonymous blast against plays which appeared at the same time; but of the authorship of the latter this proves nothing. For this change of conviction Munday's character and despicable life furnish sufficient explanation. To be sure, Munday would have been just the one to sell his services to the magistrates. But at that time, when so many pamphleteers were already in the lists, only the most prodigal administration would have gone to the needless expense of hiring others. The hint given in the True Reporte furnishes, to my satisfaction at least, Munday with a motive; and when his injured pride had been somewhat mollified, he returned to the stage. Another of the apparently insincere disputants was George Whetstone, who, in A Touchstone for the Time,2 spoke against plays, although himself a dramatist. He was not, however, an entirely home-bred writer, subservient to popular taste. Since he had already attacked romantic plays, we need not be surprised to find him in this year going as far against the popular stage as did Sidney and other critics. He censured the use of plays on the Sabbath, and their "scurilytie and unchaste conveiance" at all times. Such an abuse, he thought, gave ample reason for divines to blame, and magistrates to reform them.* Against the true 1 S. R., II, p. 174, Nov. 10, 1580. 2 Appended to his Mirror for Magistrates of Cities, Date, 1584. 3 Promos and Cassandra; Introduction. 4 Touchstone for the Time, p. 24. use of the art, however, he made no objection, and with no sacrifice of conviction he could still follow the dramatic muse.1 The case of William Rankins, however, seems different. In 1587, the date of the second edition of the School of Abuse, he set forth, A Mirrour of Monsters: wherein is plainely described the manifold vices, & spotted enormities, that are caused by the infectitious sight of Playes, with the description of the subtile slights of Sathan, making them his instruments. Here surely there is no compromise. The players, whom he called monsters, "bicause vnder colour of humanitie, they present nothing but prodigious vanitie” he compared to caterpillars, "cleaving to forward branches," and to cankers, "that cankerize Rascall youth." He mentioned especially their profanation of the Sabbath day.* Then under an allegory he described in detail the ceremonies attending the marriage of "Fastus and Luxuria (Pride and Leacherie)" in the Chapel Adulterinum, as he designated the Theater and the Curtain. Here he set forth the evils attendant upon plays, where pride, dazzling with its pomp and pageant, reigned, pleasure enticed, and lust flourished. Maskers temporarily released from hell next appear to give entertainment. These maskers are Idleness wearing the visor of "Honest recreation"; Flattery masked as "Humaine curtesy"; and Ingratitude as "Hurting harmes"; Dissension envisored as "Friendly favour"; Blasphemy shrouded under the guise of "Godly learning"; and Impudence, representing "Modest audacity." These are the emissaries of Satan, each one the subject of a moral dissertation illustrated by numerous instances from history and fable. At the conclusion of the mask, which with its moral lessons takes up a large part of the work, "there were certain petty fellows ready, as the custom is in Maskes, to carry Torches, to inflame the harts, and inkindle theyr mindes to contende 1 Another critic and dramatist, George Gascoigne, in The Glasse of Gouernement showed much the same attitude as Whetstone's. 2 Fol. 2a. 8 Fol. Ib-2a. 4 Fol. 3a. 5 Fol. 23. |