Young—William Gager's Defence of Academic Stage. 609 
which in all my defence I desyre still to be vnderstoode. Wherfor 
not of a desyre to contende, specially with you, quis talia demens 
Audeat, aut tecum malit contendere bellow but vpon libertye gevne 
me by you, eyther to vse your advise, or gentlye to imparte to 
you, I will not say, quid rectius, but what I thinke; as you have 
followed my order, so will I followe youres; praying you to expecte 
no other answere at my handes, then I ame necessaryly inforced 
vnto, that is to the strencthninge and illustratinge of my former 
answeares, and no furder mayntenance of the whole cause. 
Ffirst therfor wheras you denye me 1 that the Praetor dothe not 
distinguisshe, as I doe, be [t] weene thos that doe prodire in scenam 
quaestus causa , and not quaestus causa, but rather in expresse 
wordes saythe the contrarye, qui in scenam prodierit infamis est; 
it is very trwe, and I knwe that very well before, but because 
Vlpian ad edictum Praetoris, 2 dothe so expownde the Praetor, as 
it weare ex aequitate Praetor id and ex responsis prudentum Pegasi 
et Neruae filij I thought it was as good lawe, and better verse, to 
saye, Famosus ergo est quisquis in scenam exijt? Praetor negabit; 
seeinge the meaninge of the Praetor, and so the Praetor hym selfe, 
is taken to denye it; as to saye Vlpianus, or Pegasus Sc Nerua 
1 To the first reason then (for I will take them in your owne order) that 
Stage-players are infamous by the civill lawe, you aunswere that they are not 
.all, but onely such as play for gaine sake: [Side-note, from Momus, lines 134-135: 
Famosus ergo est quisquis in scenam exiit? Pretor negabit] which you avouch 
is proved by the Praetors wordes. But that which you make the Praetor say, 
as distinguishing, Qui sui spectaculum Mercedis ergo praebet, infamis siet 
[Momus, 11. 135-136]; the Praetor saith not. Nay, contrariwise he saith with¬ 
out all distinction, generallie and simplie: Infamia notatur, qui artis ludicrae, 
pronuntiandive causa, in scenam prodierit. And Ulpian (whose place you quote 
for proofe thereof) doeth report him so, with these verie words: Ait Praetor, 
Qui in scenam prodierit, “infamis est.” But Vlpian, expounding these wordes 
of the Praetor , citeth some lawiers [Side-note: Pegasus & Nerva Alius] saying, 
that they are infamous, qui quaestus causa in certamina descendunt, 
praemium in scenam prodeunt: and hereof you conclude, that they, who come 
not foorth into the stage for gaine sake, are not infamous. [Side-note, from 
Momus, 1. 137: Non ergo quenquam scena, sed quaestus notat]. By which 
kinde of reasoning one might conclude likewise, that sith by the scripture a 
woman taking mony for prostituting her body to men is infamous: therefore 
she is not so, who doeth it freelie; much lesse, who giveth money to haue her 
lovers companie; whom yet the scripture counteth most infamous of all. 
Howbeit, had those lawiers, in adding, quaestus causa, intended your conclu¬ 
sion; which I knowe not whether they did, but admitte it: neverthelesse you 
know that a lawier also, [Side-note: Dionysius Gothofredus comment, in corp. 
iur. civ. edit. 2.] perhaps more learned then they, hath made this note thereon, 
Immo Sc qui sine quaestu. omnes enim scenici probosi. August, lib. 2. de civit. 
Dei, cap. 11. Sctribu moveri soliti. Livius Lib. 7. wherein, as hee gathereth, that 
such as come vpon the stage without gaine, are prooved by S. Augustin and 
Livie to be infamous, because S. Austin and Livie doe shewe that all stage- 
players (free players not excepted) were branded with a marke of infamie & 
dishonestie, disfranchised in a sort: so he confirmeth hereby (which was and 
ought to bee the drift of his note) that by law the players without gaine are 
infamous, not onelie such as playe for gaine sake. [ Overthrow , p. 4.] 
s Gager’s side-note: ff. De his qui not. infa. 1. § Ait Praetor. 
