Young—William Gager's Defence of Academic Stage. 607 
sum/??, and the most parte, weare false, as the applyinge of all 
thos reproches to vs, which are truly spoken agaynst Histriones. 
of which reproches, if I should be examyned vpon myn othe, 
wheare I harde them, and of whome, I must needes saye I harde 
them I knwe not wheare nor of whome; but that thay weare 
arrepta ex triuijs, that is thay weare common and tryviall speeches, 
and therfor I would you had not translated arrepta ex triuijs, 
rascall reproches. the wordes in Latyn naturaly sownde not so 
hardely. howe wordes are to be taken in charetye, you knowe 
better then I; in lawe and reason thay are ever with this rule to 
be interpreted; A b omnibus traditum est, in quacunque mater id , 
etiamsi poenam irroget, eatenus verba generaliter capi, quatenus 
sermonis proprietas ferre potest, nisi aliam loquentis mentem con- 
ijciamus. primus aute m intellectus proprietatis, est sua vniuscuiusque 
rei appellatio. 1 nowe, arrepta ex triuijs, doe not most properly and 
principally signifye Rascall reproches; and no man can iustly 
coniecture that my meaninge was to vse any honest man with 
so ill termes, when I meant no man at all. for of all other affections, 
spite and mallyce, weare no counselors to that devyse, to the 
notinge of you, or any man ells, so that thoughe I knowe the 
wordes may be so properly translated, yet not to my mynde so 
properly, that is not so gentlye, as I meant them. 2 
But that I had no purpose by Momus syde to wound you, ac- 
1 Gager’s side-note: Alci: de verb, signif. 1.1. 
2 To the which purpose sith you [p. 2] rehearse it also, and inferre vpon it, 
that the man who taunteth playes with the rascall reproches [Side-note, from 
Momus, line 130: Probr. Arrepta quse congessit ex triviis.] there specified, 
offendeth in the same sorte: how can it bee avoided, but I, who had vttered 
those things against playes, though deeming them sounde reasons, not rascall 
reproches, must thinke my selfe charged vnder the name of Momus ? vnlesse 
I should be so vnwise as to suppose, that my frende a lawier, saying, If 
Sempronius borow a horse of Seius, and ride him a mile farder, then Seis was 
content he should, he committeth theft, the speech doeth not charge me with 
theft, though I had done so, because the lawier meant not to charge me, whom 
he loueth, nor knewe perhaps that I had done it; but his meaning was to charge 
Sempronius onelie. Wherefore albeit you meane not to note any man but 
onelie Momus, as you protest, and I beleeue you: yet you meane withall 
(I trowe) the same that Tullie, when having reprooved the couetousnes of 
Ghieftaines and Gouuernours of their warres, I (quoth hee) name no man; 
Wherefore no man can bee angrie with me, unlesse he will confesse first of him 
selfe. Which I doe not mention to proove that I haue cause of being angrie 
with you (be it farre from me,) although I confesse my selfe to haue written 
those things which they, who speake, are stained with Momus name by you; 
but onely to shewe that by your speach against Momus, notwithstanding 
your intent to note no man but him, yet you note vs all, in him, as vniust. 
reproovers of playes, who soeuer inveigh against them as he doeth. And this 
your selfe can not choose but see and graunt, if you call to minde your verses 
ad Zoilum, and Epistle ad Criticum. For you will professe (I hope) that your 
intent is not to note anie man but onely Zoilus and Criticus: Yet, if anie finde 
such fault with your Tragedie, as you controll them for: you will not denie but 
you meane to note him as a malitious Zoilus, and a Carping Criticke. [Over¬ 
throw, pp. 1-2.] 
18 
