Young—William Gager’s Defence of Academic Stage. 611 
coulde never dreame; and Gothofrede dothe gloze agaynst a mani¬ 
fest lawe, withowte gyvinge anye reason of his so dooinge. 
Wheras therfore you inferr by this distinction of quaestus causa , 
and sine quaestu, that a man might likewise conclude, that sithe 
by the Scripture a woman takinge monye for prostitutinge her bodye 
to men is infamous, therfor she is not so that dothe it freely, muche 
lesse that givethe monye to have her lovers cumpanye, whome yet 
the Scripture countethe most infamous of all; I vtterly denye that 
any suche consequence may be framed therbye. ffor it is not 
simplye able to cumm vpon the Stage, because the lawe allowethe 
it in some case, that is, when it is doone sine quaestu; but it is a 
thinge absolutely wicked for a woman to prostitute her selfe 
eyther freely or for rewarde, thoughe more wicked also for re- 
warde. nowe you assume that the one is as greevus a sin, as the 
other,or <!p.46> at the leste,as absolutely a sin; which is the state 
of owre cause, and therfor you must prove it, for we can in no 
wise grante it you. wherfor you must evicte that it is simplye a 
vyle sin, in any case, and namely in owres, for any, thoughe 
freely, prodire in scenam; as it is for a woman freely to prostitute 
her bodye; and then I confesse that of my distinction so absurde an 
argument may be deduced. Descendere in certamen, et prodire in 
scenam quaestus causa, infamant; er go Descendere in certamen, et 
Prodire in Scenam sine quaestu, non infamant, is a good consequence, 
because the lawe so distinguishethe. but to say A woman prosti¬ 
tutinge her body to men for monye is infamous; er go she is not so 
that dothe it freelye, is a wronge and a wicked consequation, for 
the reason before alleaged. Therfore the answere that I made to 
Momusses fyrst cheefe obiection, standethe good and fyrme, be¬ 
cause the lawe led me by the hande vnto it. and if I had byn to 
answere in this question in owre Acte, the same beinge obiected, 
if I should not so have answered, I shoulde have byn thought 
never to have looked vpon the lawe, whence my question was 
taken. I thought it not meete, to enlarge myn answere furder, 
then Momus did inforce his obiection; but as he only proposed 
the lawe, so I only gave that answere, which the lawe in the same 
texte affoorded me; as one that sees no cause to dislike it, lesse 
dares dispute agaynst it, and hathe lesse authorytye to abol- 
ysshe it. 
But you in a manner admyttinge that Pegasus and Nerua 
filius, in addinge quaestus causa, intended my conclusion, yet not 
stayinge there, you goe abowte to overthrowe theire creditts, 
partely by opposinge and preferringe Dionysius Gothofredus to 
them, a lawyer also, as you say, perhapps more learned then thaye , 
whoe hathe made this note theron, Immo et qui sine quaestu , 
moved thervnto by a sayinge in S. Austin, and Livye; partely by 
