Selections from William Prynne’s Histrio-mastix (1633)
A Critical Introduction and Annotated Edition
by Sarah MacLeod, University of British Columbia-Okanagan
The Dangers of Men in Women’s Roles on the Renaissance Stage:
An Analysis of William Prynne’s Histrio-mastix
I. BIOGRAPHY OF WILLIAM PRYNNE (1600-1669)1
William Prynne was a Renaissance “pamphleteer and lawyer,” who “was born in Upper
Swainswick, Somerset.” His father, Thomas Prynne, was a farmer, and his mother, Marie was
the daughter of William Sherston, “the first mayor of Bath under Elizabeth I’s charter.” Prynne
“attended Bath grammar school” in 1612 and went to Oriel College in 1616. In January of 1621
he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts, “and was admitted as a student of Lincoln’s Inn in the
same year.” Prynne was “called to the bar in 1628, and by then had produced the first of his
more than two hundred pamphlets” (William Lamont).
His most famous work remains Histrio-mastix (1633), a more than one thousand page
argument for the closure of the theatres. In it, Prynne attacked actresses, arguing that having
women actors on stage would lead them and their audience to whoredom. The denunciation was
often seen as one against Queen Henrietta Maria as she was participating in a court masque at the
time of the work’s publication. As a direct result of the publication of Histrio-mastix, Prynne
was tried in 1633 for sedition (Lamont). Prynne argued in his defence that the pamphlet had
I would like to acknowledge my indebtedness to William Lamont’s excellent biography of William Prynne in the
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. What follows is a summary of Lamont’s work.
1
2
been in the works for many years, “and [that] it had been published a month before the queen’s
performance” (Lamont). However, it was also noted that “[he] had inserted additional criticisms
of female actors in an appendix while Henrietta Maria was rehearsing for the event” (Lamont).
The Star Chamber was unconvinced and “he was . . . found guilty of sedition, sentenced to have
his ears cut off, fined £5000, and sentenced to life imprisonment” (Lamont).
Imprisonment, however, did not stop his pamphlets from being smuggled out and
reaching the streets. In 1637, he was tried on a second count of sedition and found guilty once
again (Lamont). As his ears only received a trim the first time around, Prynne was sentenced to
having his ears fully removed. In addition, “[Prynne’s] nose was slit, and the initials S.L
[“Seditious Libeller”] burnt into his cheeks” (Lamont). Despite his punishment, Prynne’s spirit
was unbroken. In A New Discovery of the Prelates Tyranny (1641), he stated, “The more I am
beat down, the more am I lifted up” (Lamont). He was released from the Tower of London in
1640 by the Long Parliament.
Prynne was a determined critic of the Church of England under Archbishop Laud,
particularly because of Laud’s emphasis on ceremony, ritual and the powers of bishops, all of
which struck Prynne and others as smacking of a return to Roman Catholicism: “Throughout his
writings in the 1630s, Prynne assailed Laudianism as a betrayal of his sentimentalized perception
of what the Elizabethan church had been” (Lamont). However, “in 1641, he lost faith in [the]
non-Laudian bishops” he had initially championed (Lamont). In the same year, one of these
non-Laudian bishops, Joseph Hall, defended the “divine right episcopacy,” a position also
adopted by Laud (Lamont).
In response to this apparent betrayal of early Elizabethan
Protestantism, Prynne became violently opposed to bishops in general: “in The Antipathie (1641)
3
. . . [Prynne] attacked all bishops, . . . argu[ing] for a “’root and branch’ destruction of
episcopacy” (Lamont).
During the 1640s, Prynne often wrote scathing critiques of King Charles I, including a
“bitter, personal attack upon [the king]” called Popish Royall Favourite (1643). He and fellow
Puritans believed that the civil war originated because Charles I “had secretly commissioned the
Irish rebels of October 1641” (Lamont). However, he was strongly against Pride’s Purge of
Parliament, and the trial and beheading of the king, which he argued “were all . . . part of an
orchestrated ‘popish plot’” (Lamont). After the beheading of the king, Prynne changed his tune
about Charles I and saw him as a martyr of the Church of England; in fact, “[he] reverted to the
royalism of his earlier years, maintaining that he had been consistent even in the period from
1642 to 1649, since (in his view) it was Charles I, not himself, who had lapsed from his imperial
principles” (Lamont).
During the civil war, “Prynne opposed both Calvinist Independency and presbyterianism”
(Lamont). In 1644, he argued that Independency was an “anti-social force which denied man’s
dependence upon his neighbours, church and country for the fulfilment of his nature” (Lamont).
After the beheading of the “Martyr King,” Prynne was imprisoned, once again, for three years
“for opposing the Commonwealth” (Lamont).
Charles II noted Prynne’s support of the royalist cause during the interregnum and
“recognized Prynne’s worth” (Lamont). Although some were suspicious of Prynne’s royalist
credentials, he did quite well after Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660: he became MP
for Bath during the Convention Parliament and the Cavalier Parliament, recorder of Bath, as well
as “the “keeper of the records in the Tower of London,” a position to which he was appointed by
the king himself (Lamont). This royal patronage, however, did not deter Prynne from writing
4
and publishing tracts attacking his favourite targets: public immorality, particularly fighting and
drunkenness. Prynne also continued to attack the non-puritan court, but always added to his
criticisms “professions of loyalty to Charles II” (Lamont). For example, “in the introduction to
the fourth volume [of An Exact Chronologiacall Vindication . . . of our Kings Supreme
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction,]” Prynne argued that “the king was God’s viceroy to implement his
rule on earth; the distinction between church and state is a popish invention; [and] all church
power derived its authority from the crown” (Lamont). His dedication to the Crown went handin-hand with his attacks on religious outsiders and home-grown English sectarian groups: in his
later years, Prynne continued to oppose the “readmission of Jews into England,” believed the
Quakers to be “masked papists,” and “blamed the great fire of London on the papists” (Lamont).
When a Laudian revival loomed, however, he did not advocate his violent “‘root and branch’
principles of 1641-45,” but rather “revert[ed] to his moderate episcopalianism of 1628 to 1640”
(Lamont).
Many of Prynne’s contemporaries did not think highly of him. One stated that his
arguments, although superficial, “take with the people” (Lamont). His public writings, howver,
offer modern critics valuable eye-witness commentary on contemporary events (Lamont). He
was “never married . . . but [somewhat jokingly] support[ed] . . . measures to punish women
who refused to cohabit with their husbands” (Lamont). After his death, his brother Thomas and
sister Katherine Clarke were executors of his will. His private papers have not been recovered to
this day (Lamont).
II. SUMMARY OF HISTRIO-MASTIX: ACTUS 5, SCENA SEXTA
5
Histrio-mastix is a 1006 page argument for the closure of the theatres. “Actus 5, Scena
Sexta” focuses on the dangers involved in acting and watching plays, that such activities
threatened to make male actors and spectators alike effeminate; because women were barred
from performing on the Renaissance stage, male actors dressed in female costumes to play the
women’s roles. Prynne argues that plays are unlawful and “abominable unto men” specifically
because of the “apparell in which they are acted, which is first of all womanish and effeminate,
belonging properly to the female sex” (178). He states that men who act women’s roles in
women’s costumes “must needs be sinfull, yea, abominable unto Christians” (179).
Prynne makes many references to Deuteronomy 22.5: “The women shall not weare that
which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for all that do so,
are abomination to the Lord thy God” (179). To those who believe that this passage refers only
to those who wear the women’s clothing “from day to day; or to those who put it on with a lewd
intent..; or to satisfy their lusts,” and excludes those who only occasionally wear the clothes to
act in a play or save their lives in some extreme circumstance, Prynne maintains that they are
wrong. He states that this passage is for all who dress in the clothes of the opposite sex at one
point or another, no matter what the reason is. Prynne adds that “rareity adds nothing to its
lawfulnesse” (182). As God has left no exceptions, those who dress in the opposite sex’s
clothing to save their lives are still abominable.
Prynne refers to Philo’s statement that men should never wear women’s garments in case
“the shadow or footsteps of effeminacy, should stamp some blemish on the masculine sex”
(186). Clemens Alexandrinus argues that the Deuteronomic law exists because God “would
have us to be men, and not to be effeminate neither in body, nor in deeds, nor in minde, nor in
words” (187). As men playing women’s characters are seen as most effeminate, they act against
6
the teachings of the Bible and are thus, abominable. Prynne adds, “Men’s putting on of woman’s
raiment is a temptation, an inducement not only to adultery, but to the beastly sin of Sodomy,
which . . . is most properly called adultery, because it is unnaturall” (212).
To further his argument, he refers to a number of “Pagans” who believe it wrong for men
to dress as women. He adds, “If men in women’s apparel be thus execrable unto Pagans, how
much more detestable should they be to Christians, who are taught not only by the light of
nature, but of the Gospel too, to hate such beastly male-monsters in the shapes of women?”
(200). Prynne concludes with the argument that it would not be better, or worse, for women to
play female parts on stage, since neither female actors nor male actors playing women’s roles
should be tolerated: “[B]oth of them are abominable both intolerable, neither of them laudable or
necessary” (216).
III. THE DANGERS OF THEATRE IN THE RENAISSANCE
During the Renaissance going to the theatre was a popular recreation. For playwrights,
the stage was a useful venue for political, social and cultural commentary and a place to
introduce new ideas to the public. It is, then, not surprising that the theatre had a number of
critics that argued that the stage was dangerous. By the beginning of the seventeenth century, the
Puritans were just such a loud and forceful anti-theatrical lobby. Edmund Morgan states that the
“longest, most bitter, and most effective attacks on the theatre came from English Puritans, or at
least from Englishmen living in the age of Puritanism” (Morgan 340). Numerous pamphlets
were written against theatre in an attempt to close it down. This “literature of denunciation” was
influential and “reached its culmination in William Prynne’s Histrio-Mastix in 1633” (340).
Although, according to Morgan, Prynne writes that it is perfectly fine to read plays for recreation
7
(341), he still believes that it is dangerous to participate in them as an actor or an audience
member. The Puritan fear of the theatre was telling. Many twentieth-century critics have argued
that this fear was part of a wider anxiety about the nature of identity. Puritans feared the theatre,
because they feared that people’s identities were unstable, and they saw the theatre as revealing
and producing this instability and a terrifying, monstrous transformation of the self; they saw the
theatre as so powerful that people mimicked what they saw, and what they saw on the stage was
men playing women’s parts.
In “Androgyny, Mimesis, and the Marriage of the Boy Heroine on the English
Renaissance Stage,” Phyllis Rackin states that the term “gender roles” implies that “gender is a
kind of act for all women, not only for actresses and not only for boys pretending to be women”
(Rackin 29). As “gender roles” can be applied to men as well, it is not just women who are
acting as women, but men as men. When men play women’s roles there is an erasure, or at least
a fear of erasure, of the actor’s ability not just to play and establish a masculine role, but to ‘be’ a
man at all. Like Rackin, Laura Levine recognizes Renaissance fears concerning the dangers
inherent in this role playing of the sexes. In Men in Women’s Clothing, Levine states:
. . . [m]en are only men in the performance of their masculinity (or, put more
frighteningly, that they are not men except in the performance, the constant reenactment of their masculinity) – or . . . that they have no way of knowing they
are men except in the re-enactment, the relentless re-enactment, of their own
masculinity. (Levin 7)
Similarly, Judith Butler argues that the “’gendered body’ has no ‘ontological status’ at all except
for these series of actions and performances that create the idea of gender. For Butler this is a
liberating possibility precisely because it is in the failure to repeat these acts (as well as in
8
parody) that the possibility for gender transformation exists” (8). It is easy to see, then, why
cross-gendered theatrical role-playing generated such anxiety and fear.
If a man played a
woman’s role, this actor was not reinforcing his masculinity---proving to himself and others that
he is a man---but instead is compromising the whole concept of a stable masculine identity.
During a time in which the only true human was man, when women and homosexuals
(‘sodomites’ to use the dominant Renaissance term for men who had sexual relations with other
men) were seen as inferior, it would have been very important for men to continuously reinforce
the idea that they were masculine and still deserved to remain superior to these ‘lesser’ beings.
The idea that gender or sex is fluid would have been frightening, as it threatens men’s dominant
role. It also opens up the question of whether men contain in themselves that which they find so
abhorrent in the ‘other’ (the sodomite and the woman).
Plays like John Lyly’s Gallathea (1587) and Shakespeare’s As You Like It and Twelfth
Night seem to draw attention to the idea that “gender is, above all, a social construct, arbitrary
and varying from one society to another, related to sex but not identical with it” (Rackin 30).
Lyly’s Gallathea is about two girls, “disguised as boys, [who] fall in love with each other.
When their true sex is revealed, the possibility of their marriage seems to be precluded” (30).
However, the gods decide to intervene and they agree to change one of the girls (it is unknown
which one) into a boy. Neither girl cares if it is she or her lover whose gender is to be
transformed (Rackin 30). The two girls in Gallathea, Rosalind in As You Like It, and Viola in
Twelfth Night are all able to cross the borders of gender and be accepted as either sex in society.
In fact, “Shakespeare emphasizes the attractiveness of his transvestite heroines, to other women
as well as to the men they love” (36). This gender fluidity and the desires it permits particularly
horrified the Puritans. Prynne stresses over and over again that men should never wear women’s
9
clothes and vice versa, under any circumstances: “It is again a most abominable thing for women
to become men . . . and to wear that apparell of a man” (188). He also repeatedly calls such
cross-dressing “unnaturall” (200) and “effeminate” (206). This repetition in Prynne’s work
seems to parallel that which Butler and Rackin speak of. Prynne’s repetition seems to be an
attempt to establish (or re-establish) the division of the two sexes. By doing so, he (and his
fellow anti-theatrical critics) try to hold on to their age’s conventional sexual and gender
hierarchy.
In an attempt to maintain this hierarchy, Prynne continuously calls those who cross-dress
“monsters of nature” (as he does those cross-dressers of the classical past: Elagabalus, Sporus,
Nero, and Caligula) (Prynne 200), and “abominations” (as he does all men who dress in
women’s garments). Levine states that Prynne “described a man whom women’s clothing had
literally caused to ‘degenerate’ into a woman” (Levine 10). Prynne sees woman as being so
below man that in order to become woman a man must degenerate, diminish in quality. The
same result occurs when a man becomes effeminate; he diminishes in quality in order to take on
the natural actions and likeness of a woman. The Puritans believed that theatre could cause men
to become effeminate. However, there is no mention of being able to undo the monstrous
transformation that has occurred. Levine argues that the self (as the people of the Renaissance
saw it) “can . . . be altered [but only] by . . . malevolent forces outside its control” (Levine 12).
Anti-theatricalists held the view that “the self was both inherently monstrous and inherently
nothing at all” (12). Therefore, a “male actor, dressed in woman’s clothing, seemed to lack an
inherent gender, and this seemed to make him monstrous” (12).
Perhaps this is why Prynne and other anti-theatricalists also represent sodomites as
unnatural and monstrous, since they are also perceived as lacking a visible and distinct inherent
10
gender. As Prynne’s repeated and anxious attacks show, the anti-theatricalists generally like to
have clear, visible gender borders, with no blurred lines. Borders allow them to believe that their
own identity is solid and unchangeable. However, the representation of female characters by
male actors suggests that gender borders are as fluid as water, and gender can take the shape of
whatever clothing it is put into. Thus, the anti-theatricalists use strong and repeated attacks to
convince themselves that this fluidity is unnatural and evil, something like magic (Levine 12-13).
In order to keep the lines from blurring, Prynne argues that one of the reasons that God
has given the two sexes different clothing is to establish and demonstrate the clear distinction
between them. He argues that a man’s dressing in woman’s garments “perverts one principall
use of garments, to difference men from women” (207). Similarly, another anti-theatricalist
Stephen Gosson states, “Garments are set down for signes distinctive betwene sexe and sexe”
(Levine 4). The very fact that clothing is what shows difference between men and women
suggests that there is no difference when the clothes are off, and so gender is merely a construct
reflective of what is being worn. As society and culture typically decides what is to be worn by
whom, gender must, therefore, be a construct of society and culture.
If a portion of the
population benefits by this created difference, that group will fight to keep it. Prynne and his
fellow Puritan anti-theatricalists attempt to maintain this created difference by repeating the
importance of staying within the confines of one’s prescribed gender and not wearing the
garments that are prescribed for the opposite gender.
Although anti-theatricalists seem to believe that clothes are a stable sign of gender, they
also have a contradictory fear that wearing the garments of the opposite sex can “actually alter
the gender beneath” (4). In “Transvestism and the Stage Controversy in Spain and England,
1580-1680,” Ursula Heise states, “[i]n a culture for which the ‘essence’ of gender identity is not
11
biologically grounded, but consists precisely of certain sets of cultural encodings and practices,
the infringement of such codes may indeed have an ‘emasculating’ or ‘un-sexing’ effect” (371).
In this connection, Gosson, like Prynne, suggests “that there is something dangerous not only
about dressing, but also about talking and gesturing like a woman” (Levine 21). Prynne feels
that not only wearing the clothing of women but also acting like them is an abomination to God
because Deuteronomy 22.5 and 1 Corinthians 11.14-15 state that gender-exclusive clothing and
hairstyles bear witness to the difference between men and women. Prynne believes that God
wants a clear distinction between the sexes, and thus gestures and mannerisms must too be
distinct between the sexes. A man who acts as a woman, in Prynne’s view and that of his fellow
anti-theatricalists, will eventually become a woman; therefore, the very act of playing the role of
a woman is seen as blurring the distinct lines drawn by God and resulting in a terrifying male
effeminacy.
Prynne, like most other Puritans, represents homosexuality and homoeroticism as ‘vices’
that grow out of a violation of gender boundaries:
[Prynne] associates male homosexuality with the loss of the masculine gender in a
number of ways: first, through associations attached to the Incubi1 and Succubi2
who have no inherent gender, second, through the associations of a castration – or
as Prynne puts it ‘dissection’- and third, through the notion . . . that ‘doing’ what a
woman does leads to ‘being’ what a woman is. (Levine 23).
In Prynne’s view, the homosexual (or sodomite) is the same as the effeminate or androgynous
male. Moreover, the anti-theatricalists often saw theatre as a “pretext for male homosexuality”
(22). This view, as Prynne repeatedly explains, comes from the idea that men who dress in
“A feigned evil spirit or demon... supposed to descend upon persons in their sleep, and especially to seek carnal
intercourse with women.” See “Incubus” OED.
2
“A demon in female form supposed to have carnal intercourse with men in their sleep.” See “Succubus” OED.
1
12
women’s clothing outside of the theatre (Prynne lists Nero and Caligula, for example) are
“monsters of unparalleled effeminacy” (Prynne 206). Therefore, a man who plays a woman’s
parts on stage must also be the same type of monsters, since “he who puts on a woman’s raiment
but to act a part, though it be but once, is doubtless a ‘putter on of women’s apparell’” (181).
Prynne “believed it was too much to expect [that] mortal men . . . could view without
imitating ‘those immodest gestures, speeches, attires, which inseparably accompany the acting of
our Stage-Playes; especially where the Bawdes . . . [and] the Womans . . . parts are lively
represented’” (Morgan 342). Like Prynne, Phillip Stubbes sees the theatre as encouraging men
to play the woman’s part, and it is a small step from this claim to the accusation that the theatre
fosters homosexual activity. He argues that after a play is over “everyone bringes another
homeward of their way verye friendly,” and secretly “they play the Sodomits, or worse. And
these be the fruits of Playes and Interludes” (22).
Stubbes, Prynne and their fellow anti-
theatricalists believed that the audience would get so wrapped up in the play (as would the
actors) that they would be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality and would duplicate the
actions and behaviours that they saw on stage. It was feared, then, that not only would the male
audience members lust after women, but also that they would lust after men in women’s clothing
or desire to put on women’s clothing themselves, thus becoming effeminate. And as we have
seen argued, the anti-theatricalists believed that effeminacy would automatically lead to sodomy.
Although there was a strong belief among the Puritans that the casting of men in female
roles would lead to the replacement of masculinity with effeminacy in male actors and
spectators, there was no demand for women actors to take on the female roles. In fact, Puritans
“took care to avoid suggesting that the acting of women’s roles by women would be less
objectionable” (Morgan 342). Prynne states that the “temptations to whoredom and adultery
13
were no more tolerable than temptations to sodomy” (342). The Puritans, instead, called for the
shutting down of the theatres in order to stop the threat of male effeminacy, which would likely
result in sodomy and men’s degeneration into women. For the Puritans, the stage created
‘others’ out of men. The fact that the Puritans believed that people were so likely to mimic what
was displayed on stage (both fictionally and literally) reveals an uncertainty about the stability of
the gendered self. It shows that there was an underlying fear that the self was unstable and could
be altered (but only negatively) by the slightest suggestion. If this was the case, then perhaps the
self that was presented and guarded against alteration was not the true self. Perhaps the real self
was an ambiguous self which blurred borders. In a time that demanded rigid definitions for two
distinct genders, this blurred self was feared and denied the freedom to exist by being defined as
abominable. Those who gave freedom to this ambiguous self were denied access to the status of
being human (man) and were defined as monstrous, abominable, unnatural, and therefore evil.
IV. EDITING PRINCIPLES: SELECTIONS FROM ACTUS 5, SCENA SEXTA OF HISTRIO-MASTIX
In the following selections from Histrio-mastix, I have changed some of the spelling, but
not all of it. I have converted the “u” to “v” and “v” to “u” to fit modern spelling. For example,
what was written “euen” has been changed to “even,” and what was written “vse” has been
changed to “use.” The same action has been taken with “i” and “y.” Words that are close to
their modern spelling have been maintained; I have, however, dropped an additional “l” or “e” in
words that are spelled basically the same way they are today, as well as the extra “e” which often
accompanies plural forms in the text (i.e., ‘Playes” becomes “Plays”). The “ie” which usually
substitutes for the modern “y” has also been altered; thus, “testifie” becomes “testify.”
Capitalization has remained unchanged. All of the quotations were italicized, and I have replaced
14
the italicization with double quotation marks. The sentences that were italicized to express
emphasis or stress for the most part have been un-italicized as much of the text was in italics.
The italics that remain are the shorter sections of emphasis or Latin words. Only minimal
punctuation has been added or taken away; all quotation marks have been added, as have all
apostrophes showing possession. Sections of the piece have been taken out for brevity’s sake.
Ellipses [. . . ] mark brief textual deletions; a row of asterisks marks places where I have taken
out a page or more. In addition, I have not transcribed Prynne’s extensive marginalia (much of
which is in Latin). The original page numbers are also marked in square brackets within the text.
Finally, I have broken up some of Prynne’s very long paragraphs to assist the modern reader in
following his argument.
15
HISTRIO-MASTIX.
THE
PLAYER’S SCOURGE,
OR,
ACTOR’S TRAGAEDY,
Divided into Two Parts.
Wherein it is largely evidenced, by divers
Arguments, by the concurring Authorities and Resolutions of sundry texts of Scripture, of the whole Primitive Church, both under the Law and Gospel; of 55 Synods and
Councels; of 71 Fathers and Christian Writers, before the year
of our Lord 1200; of above 150 foraigne and domestique Protestant
and Popish Authors, since; of 40 Heathen Philosophers, Historians, Poets; of many Heathen, many Christian Nations, Republiques, Emperors, Princes, Magistrates; of sundry Apostolical, Canonical, Imperial Constitutions; and of our own
English Statutes, Magistrates, Universities,
Writers, Preachers.
That popular Stage-plays (the very Pomps of the Divell
which we renounce in Baptism, if we believe the Fathers) are sinful, heathenish, lewd, ungodly Spectacles, and most pernicious Corruptions; condemned in all ages, as intolerable Mischiefs to Churches,
to Republicks, to the manners, minds, and souls of men. And that the
profession of Play-poets, of Stage-players; together with the penning, acting, and
frequenting of Stage-plays, are unlawful, infamous and misbeseeming Christians. All pretences to the contrary are here likewise fully answered; and
the unlawfulness of acting, of beholding Academical Interludes,1
briefly discussed; besides sundry other particulars concerning Dancing, Dicing, Health-drinking, etc., of
which the Table will inform you.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
By WILLIAM PRYNNE, an utter-barrister of Lincoln’s Inn.2
LONDON.
Printed by E. A. and W. I. for Michael Sparke, and are to be sold at the Blue Bible in Greene
Arbor, in little Old Bayly. 1633.
1
Prynne condemns not the performance of plays on the public stage by professional actors, but their performance in
private, university venues by university students.
2
Following this line, the title page has a number of Latin quotations from Cyprian (De Spectaculis), Lactantius (De
Vero Cultu), various works of Saint Chrysostom and Saint Augustine (De Civitate Dei).
16
HISTRIO-MASTIX, OR THE ACTOR’S TRAGEDY.
ACTUS 5.
SCENA SEXTA.
[pp. 178-216]
T
he third thing considerable in the very action of Stage-playes, is the apparel in which they
are acted, which is first of all womanish and effeminate, belonging properly to the female
sex; therefore unlawful, yea, abominable unto [end p. 178] men. From whence this
twenty one Argument is deducible.
These Plays wherein men act any women’s parts in woman’s apparel, must needs be
sinful, yea, abominable unto Christians.1
But in all, or at least in most Stage-plays whatsoever, men act the parts of women in
woman’s apparel. 2
Therefore they must needs be sinful, yea, abominable unto Christians.
The Minor is a notorious experimental truth which all Players, all Play-haunters must
acknowledge: which sundry Fathers,3 and approved modern Authors testify.
The Major is undeniably confirmed by Deuteronomy 22 verse 5: “The Woman shall not
wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for all
that do so, are abomination to the Lord thy God.” God himself doth here expressly inhibit men
to put on woman’s apparel, because it is an abomination to him: therefore it must certainly be
unlawfull, yea abominable for Players to put on such apparel to act a woman’s part.
If any here object (as some Play-patrons do) that this Scripture extends to those alone,
who usually clothe themselves in woman’s array from day to day; or to those who put it on with
a lewd intent to circumvent or enamor others: or to satisfy their lusts: in which case the Synod of
Augusta4 inhibits women, who put on man’s apparel, from the Sacrament, till they have
repented: not to such who only wear it now and then to act a woman’s part, or in case of
necessity to save their lives (as some have done); [end p. 179] To this I answer: First, that sundry
common Actors do usually once a day, at leastwise5 twice or thrice a week, attire themselves in
women’s array to act their female parts; yea, they make a daily practice of it to put on women’s
attire, it being inseparably incident to their lewd profession: therefore they are within the express
condemnation of this Scripture, and their own most favourable gloss6 upon it, as the objection
itself doth evidence.
“A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's dress; for anyone who does
such things is an abomination to the LORD, your God” (Deut. 22.5).
2
Male actors played women’s roles on the English Renaissance stage.
3
Fathers: i.e., the Church Fathers, such as Augustine
4
Synod of Augusta: Synodus Augustensis 1548 (Prynne’s marginal note).
5
Leastwise: at the least (OED).
6
gloss: explanation, interpretation or comment; often used in a sinister sense (OED).
1
17
Secondly, the very putting on of woman’s apparel to act a Play, though it be but now and
then for an hour or two, is directly condemned by this Scripture, which prohibits, not only the
frequent wearing, but the very putting on of women’s apparel, for the words are not: “A man
shall not ordinarily or frequently put on a woman’s garment, nor yet wear it now and then to a
lewd intent,” as the Objectors gloss it: but, “Neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment.”
The original word “Iilbosch,” which signifieth to “put on,” is the very same (as two Worthies of
our Church observe) with that of the 1 Sam. 17.38, 39. where it is written, “Saul clothed David
with his Armor, and put an Helmet of brass upon his head,” etc. If then David in the Scripture
phrase, were said to “put on Saul’s Armor,” (though “he put it off immediately,” because he had
it once upon him, though for a little space1[)]; then he who puts on a woman’s raiment but to act
a part, though it be but once, is doubtless a “putter on of women’s apparel” within the very literal
meaning of this Scripture; and so a ground delinquent against God because the very putting on of
a woman’s garment, not the frequent or long wearing of it, is the thing this text condemns, as the
word “put on” imports.
Thirdly, the very reason of this precept2 expressed in the text, will take off this evasion:
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a
woman’s garment”: mark the reason. “For all that do so, are abomination to the Lord thy God.”
That which [end p. 180] makes a man an abomination to the Lord his God, must be such a thing
as is sinful and abominable in its own nature, not in its abuse or circumstances only, as the
Scriptures,3 and Alexander Alesius4 testify: If a man’s putting on of woman’s apparel were not
simply evil in itself, the frequent wearing of it, or the putting of it on to a sinister intent, could
not make him an abomination unto God. For the use of apparel being to clothe and adorn the
body; if the putting on of it were not unlawful, the frequent putting on of it, being the true use of
it, could not be sinful, and so not abominable; there being nothing odious unto God but sin, and
sinful things. Since then this putting on of woman’s apparel is an abomination to the Lord: not
only the frequent wearing of it, or the putting of it on to lewd intents, but even the bare putting of
it on to act a vicious Play, though it be but once, must needs be within the verge of this sacred
inhibition.
Fourthly, this precept; Neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment, as it is a branch of
the moral law, having a relation to the 7th Commandment,5 and to several Scriptures in the New
Testament, concerning modesty and decency in apparel: as good Divines observe. So it is a
universal negative, which by the rules of Theology binds all men, in all cases, in all places,6 both
Semper & ad Semper;7 always, and at all times whatsoever: therefore a man putting on of
women’s apparel at any time upon [end p. 181] any occasion (yea in case of saving life, as some
David takes off Saul’s armour because it was difficult for him to walk in, since he was not used to wearing it.
precept: “a general command or injunction; a rule for action or conduct, esp. a rule for moral conduct, a maxim;
spec. a divine command” (OED)
3
as the Scriptures: often, sin or connection to sin is described as an abomination to God. See Deut. 7.25-6; Prov.
3.32.
4
Alexander Alesius (1500-1565), Lutheran theologian and reformer.
5
the 7th Commandment: “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Ex. 20.14).
6
So it is a universal . . . in all places: a Covenant Theology development of the New Testament doctrine in
Calvinism, also known as “Federal Theology.” God made a covenant with Adam at his creation and as Adam is the
father of all mankind, the covenant is passed on to all of humanity through him. See McGiffet “From Moses to
Adam.”
7
Latin, “always and for always.” It is Prynne’s general practise to translate the Latin in his texts immediately after it
(as here, “always, and at all times whatsoever”).
1
2
18
affirm) but especially to act a Bawd’s,1 a Sorceress’s, Whore’s, or any other lewd female’s part
upon the Stage; must undoubtedly be within the express letter of this universal negative text; and
so an abomination to the Lord. Neither will this poor evasion of acting in woman’s apparel but
now and then, take off its guilt; For since men’s putting on of such array is here prohibited by a
negative precept, which binds at all times, as an abomination to the Lord, and a thing that is
sinful in its own nature; the rarity of it can no ways expiate the sinfulness that is in it. That which
is sinful in itself, is no where, no time lawful upon no occasion.2 It is no justification, no excuse
at all for a Murtherer,3 an Adulterer, Swearer, Liar, Thief, Drunkard, or the like, to plead, that he
commits these sins but seldom upon some special causes, because God’s precepts are so strict,
that they allow no place, no time for any sin. The infrequency, the rareness, then, of wearing
woman’s apparel (suppose it were as rare upon the Stage as now it is common) adds nothing to
its lawfulness, it still continues an abomination to the Lord.
Fifthly, admit it were lawful for a man to put on woman’s apparel to save his life, or to
avoid some imminent danger, as Achilles,4 Euclis,5 William B[isho]p of Ely,6 with some few
others, & The Tyrrheneans7 are recorded to have done, though St. Augustine himself makes a
Quaere8 of its lawfulness even in case of life, and others determine it to be unlawful, it being a
negative moral precept which admits no qualifications; yet it follows not hence, that therefore it
is lawful for Men-actors to put on women’s array to act a Play: For doubtless if it be abominable
in any case, or in case of [end p. 182] daily use, as all acknowledge; it must necessarily be so in
case of acting Plays, which are but a mere abuse. For first, Plays themselves, at leastwise the
personating of the Bawd’s, Adulteress’s, Whore’s, or Sorceress’s part, which savour of nought
else but lewdness and effeminacy, are evil: therefore the very putting on of woman’s apparel to
act such parts, cannot be good. Secondly, Plays, and female parts in Plays, admit they be not
simply evil, yet they are but mere superfluous vanities; or Abuses, as some rightly style9 them,
there is no necessary use of Plays, of women’s parts in Plays, or of acting female parts in
woman’s apparel. For men therefore to put on woman’s attire contrary to this sacred precept, to
act a lewd lascivious woman’s part out of a mere effeminate, vain,10 lascivious humour, there
being no urgent necessity, no warrantable occasion so to do, must needs be a great abomination,
a most apparent violation of this ample precept; which being in itself exceeding broad, as all
Gods precepts are, must always be taken in its utmost latitude, without any human restrictions of
1
bawd: a woman employed in pandering to sexual debauchery; a female pimp (OED).
Although today extra negatives in a sentence cancel each other out, in early modern English more negatives were
often used in a sentence to stress the negative.
3
Murtherer: Murderer (a form left over from Middle English).
4
Achilles: “When the Greek contingents were gathering for Troy, Peleus or Thetis, seeking to save him [i.e.,
Achilles] from his fated death, hid him on the island of Scyros at the court of King Lycomedes dressed as a girl and
called, according to one source, Pyrrha.” See “Achilles,” Oxford Reference Online.
5
Euclis: probably Euclides (c. 430-360 BCE), Megarian philosopher. While he was a student of Socrates, the
Athenians barred any Megarians from entering their city. Euclides dressed as woman to gain entrance. (The Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
6
William, bishop of Ely: William Longchamp (d. 1197), bishop and statesman. During King Richard I’s absence,
Longchamp was the “most powerful man in England. He was forced into exile in 1191 by John, Richard’s brother,
and his supporters. For a contemporary account of his transvestism, see Christie Davies, “Sexual Taboos and Social
Boundaries,” pp.1049-1051.
7
Etruscans, called Tyrrhenians by the Greeks.
8
Quaere: Latin, a question or subject of inquiry.
9
style: to call by name or describe (OED).
10
vain: devoid of real value, worth, or significance (OED).
2
19
our own; since God Himself (who can only make exceptions out of his own general rules) hath
left us no evasion from it in His Word.
Sixthly, the concurrent testimony of sundry Councils, Fathers, & modern Authors, do
absolutely condemn men’s putting on of woman’s apparel, (and so è converso) especially to act a
part upon the Stage, as an abominable, unnatural, effeminate and dishonest thing. Hence the
ancient Council of Eliberis,1 Canon 57 decreed, “That Matrons, or their Husbands should not
lend their clothes to set forth any secular Plays or Shows; and if any did it, that they should be
excommunicated for three years space.” If then [end p. 183] the very lending of women’s
apparel to act a Play in, were so great a crime as to demerit 3 years excommunication, what doth
a Players personating of a woman’s part in such array deserve? The Council of Gangra2 in the
year of our Lord 324. Can. 13. & 17. decreed, “That if any woman under pretence of chastity, or
piety, as was supposed, should change her habit, and put on mans apparel; or clip and poll3 her
hair (as our shorn English Viragoes4 do of late) which God had given her as a badge of her
subjection;5 she should be anathematized,6 as a dissolver of the precept of obedience”: it being
directly contrary to this text of Deuteronomy: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth
to the man, &c.” and to the 1 Cor. 10.6, 15. “It is a shame for a woman to be shaven or shorn:
but if she have long hair, it is a glory unto her, for her hair is given her for a covering.” [to
middle of p. 184]
[Prynne gives a list of accounts in which women disguised themselves as men in order to save
their virginity by entering into a monastery of friars or monks, to enter into university, and to
fight in battle. All of these women were punished upon discovery.]
[p. 185] All which for this their mannish immodest attiring themselves in man’s accoutrements,
incur the execration of this text and Council.
If then a woman’s putting on, or wearing of man’s apparel, or the imitation of his
tonsure7 incurs an Anathema8 by this Council’s doom, though chastity, learning, and devotion
were pretended for it, doth not a man’s attiring himself in woman’s vestments, of purpose to act
an effeminate lascivious, amorous Strumpet’s part upon the Stage, much more demerit it, since
there can be no good pretext [end p. 185] at all for it? But to come punctually to our purpose.
The 6[th] general Council of Constantinople, Canon 62 expressly prohibits and abandons all
dances and mysteries made in the names of those who were falsely styled9 gods among the
Grecians, or in the name of men or women, after the ancient manner, far differing from the life
of Christians: ordaining, that no man should from thence-forth put on a woman’s garment, nor no
woman a man’s apparel; and that no man should put on the person or visard10 of a Comedian, a
Satirist, or a Tragedian, under pain of deposition, if a Clergyman; of excommunication, if a
1
The Council of Eliberis ordained that any one who commits adultery after receiving penance for a prior act of
adultery should be refused Holy Communion, even on his or her deathbed.
2
The Council of Gangra was held in Paphlagonia in the year 327, according to Lancelot Andrewes.
3
poll: remove [one’s hair], shave, shear (OED).
4
Virago: “a fierce or abusive woman” (OED).
5
“If a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given (her) for a covering?” 1 Cor. 11.15.
6
anathematized: “pronounced to be accursed” (OED).
7
tonsure: a particular way of shaving the head that identified the individual concerned as a member of a religious
order.
8
anathema: a curse condemning a person to damnation.
9
styled: “invest[ed] with a right to be called (so-and-so)” (OED).
10
visard: i.e., vizard: mask.
20
Laycke.1 This is punctual.2 Philo,3 a learned Jew, records, “That the law doth study to exercise
and confirm men’s minds to fortitude with so great earnestness, that it also gives precepts what
garments must be used, expressly prohibiting, that the man should not take unto him woman’s
apparel, lest the shadow or footsteps of effeminacy, should stamp some blemish on the masculine
sex. For by following nature, he doth always observe what is seemly even in the smallest things,
which might seem to be below the care of a Lawgiver.” For when he considered that the bodies
of men and women were deformed, and that both of them had their distinct offices; that to the
one of them the care of domestic businesses was committed[,] to the other the managing of
public affairs, and that by nature herself they were not both made for the same imployments,
[end p. 186] and that a good mind ought to follow the instructions of nature, he thought it fit to
determine of these things also, to wit, of food and raiment, and other things of this nature: For he
would that a man in these things should so demean himself as a man ought to do, especially in
apparel; which since he carrieth it about with him night and day, it ought to be such as may
always admonish him both of comlinesse and honesty: So also adorning the woman according to
her degree, he forbids her to wear a man’s garment; removing far both effeminate men, and
women more manly than is fit. Clemen’s Alexandrinus,4 as he condemns the putting on of
woman’s apparel as a great iniquity; so he demands this question: “Why the law in this very text
of Deuteronomy did inhibit a man to put on a woman’s garment?” And he resolves it thus:
“Because the law would have us to be men, and not to be effeminate neither in body, nor in
deeds, nor in mind, nor in words.”
Which reason doth more especially hold in case of Plays, where our Men-women Actors
are most effeminate, both in apparel, body, words, and works. Tertullian5 observes “that no kind
of raiment as he could find was accursed of God, but women’s apparel worn by men; for God
sayeth, “Cursed is every man who is clad in woman’s array.” Therefore (writes he) when as God
prescribes in his law, that he is accursed who is clothed in woman’s apparel; what will he judge
of the Stage-player, Clown or Fool in the Play, who is attired in woman’s apparel? Shall this
Crafts-master, this cheating Companion, think you, go unpunished? St. Cyprian6 writes expressly
in his Epistle to Everatius “that men in the law are prohibited [p. 187] to put on a woman’s
garment, and those who do it are adjudged7 accursed: how much greater a crime is it then, not
only to put on woman’s apparel, but likewise to express dishonest, effeminate, womanish
1
Laycke: i.e., Laic: a layman.
This is punctual: I.e., ‘this is to the point or apposite’; or perhaps, ‘this is explicit or direct.’
3
Philo (c.20 BC-c.AD 50), Jewish scholar and philosopher, whose “most influential achievement was his
development of the allegorical interpretation of Scripture which enabled him to discover much of Greek philosophy
in the OT. Of special interest for Christian theology is the central place which he accorded in his system to the
Logos, who was at once the creative power which orders the world and the intermediary through whom people know
God.” See “Philo” Oxford Reference Online.
4
Clement of Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clements [c.AD 150-210/216]), early Christian writer whose work “added
little to dogma, but his philosophy points the way to Origen, and, as in the case of the latter, prevented his being
regarded as a saint.” See “Clement of Alexandria,” Oxford Reference Online.
5
Tertullian: Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (c.AD 160-c. 240), early Christian theologian whose “writings
(in Latin) include Christian apologetics and attacks on pagan idolatry and Gnosticism. He later joined the
millenarian heretics the Montanists, urging asceticism and venerating martyrs.” See “Tertullianus,” Oxford
Reference Online.
6
Cyprian: Thascius Caecilianus Cyprianus (d. 258 AD), bishop of Carthage, “some of [whose] writings are of
theological importance, especially those dealing with the Church, the ministry, and the Sacraments.” See “St.
Cyprian,” Oxford Reference Online.
7
adjudged: deemed, judged.
2
21
gestures, by the tutorship or direction of an unchaste art? Which passage he particularly applies
to Stage-plays. Lactantius,1 among other things, taxeth Players, “for putting on womanish
gestures, and apparell, to act the parts of infamous females”: having an eye, no question, to this
text of Deuteronomy. Epiphanius Contra Haereses lib. 2. Tom. 2. Haeresis 66. Col. 543. B.
informs us: “That it is a shameful and dishonest thing for a man to become a woman and to
appear in the form of a woman.”
And that it is again a most abominable thing for women to become men, (as many of
hair-clipping modern impudent Viragoes do) and to wear the apparel of a man. Whence he
condemns the Seres for Heretiques;2 among whom the men did use to nourish and plait3 their
hair into knots like women, (as our modern Love-lock4 wearers do) sitting all the day idly at
home, perfumes with ointments, effeminate, and prepared for their wives; whereas their women
on the other side, did cut the hair of their heads, (as our English Man-women monsters do of late)
and gird themselves about with a man’s girdle: both which are condemned by this text of
Deuteronomy: and by the 1 Cor. 11.3 to 15, which I would our modern Ruffians,5 and Maddames would consider. Gregory Nazianzen,6 Oratio 1 ad Eunomianos, together with Elias,
Metropolitan of Crete, in his Commentary on that Oration; affirm, “That it is an unnatural and
disorderly thing to see flowers in winter, or women clothed in man’s, or men attired in women’s
apparel. For (as Elias comments) [end p. 188] “the first of these disturbs the times; the other
yields an inconvenient form to nature, the ornament both of the man and woman being changed,
and the order which nature hath prescribed to them, being confounded.”. . . St. Hierom7 writes
expressly; “That he shall eternally perish, who being effeminated in womanish feebleness, doth
nourish his hair, polish8 his skin, and trim himself by the glass, which is the proper passion and
madness of women.” St. Cyprian records, “That they are in the Devil’s House and Palace, who
with womanish hair transfigure themselves into women, and disgrace their masculine dignity, not
without the injury of nature.” . . . [near end of p. 189] But even by this text of Deuteronomy,
which inhibits men to put on a woman’s garment, or attire;9 of which long hair (the proper
ornament of women) as well as woman’s raiment is a part.10
If then the very nourishing of long effeminate hair be a putting on of woman’s apparel
within this Scripture’s sense, [end of p. 190] as the woman’s cutting of her hair (as Good
Expositors testify) is a wearing of that which pertaineth to a man, to whom the clipping of hair is
proper, he being in this distinguished from a woman: and so an abomination in God’s sight,
though our men and women in these licentious times believe the contrary; Much more must a
Player’s putting on of women’s apparel, gesture, speech, and manners to act a Play, be a putting
1
Lactantius: Lucius Caelius (c.AD 240 - c. 320), North African native and Christian writer, who during the
Renaissance was seen as the “most classical of all early Christian writers and came to be known as the Christian
Cicero.” See “Lactantius,” Oxford Reference Online.
2
Seres for Heretiques: the Seres were an ancient people from eastern Asia. Famed as mild-mannered, the Seres were
reputedly the inventors of silk, and perhaps their association with this ancient luxury good led to their reputation as
indolent and sensual (“Seres,” John Lempriére, Classical Dictionary).
3
plait: braid.
4
Lovelock: any curl done up in an artistic or striking way (OED).
5
Ruffian: “a man of a low and brutal character,” often given to violence (OED).
6
Gregory Nazianzen: St. Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329/30-389/90 AD). “His writings include his ‘Five Theological
Orations.’” See “St. Gregory of Nazianzus,” Oxford Reference Online.
7
St. Hierom: Saint Jerome
8
polish: make smooth.
9
Deut. 22.5.
10
1 Cor. 11.15.
22
on of woman’s apparel, and so an abomination to the Lord our God, within the very literal
meaning of this text, if these fore-quoted Fathers may be judged. St. Ambrose1 in his Annotations
Upon Deuteronomy. cap. 22 dedicated to Irenaeus:2 Wherein he examines at large the cause, why
the law should prohibit women to wear a man’s garment, and men to put on woman’s apparel;
will make this point most clear. I shall recite his words at large: “Thou hast informed me,” writes
he, “as a son, that some have demanded of thee, what is the reason, that the law should so
severely call them unclean, who use the garments of another sex, be they men or women. For
thus it is written, ‘the apparel of the man shall not be put upon the woman, neither shall a man be
arrayed in a woman’s garment; because every one who shall do these things, is an abomination
to the Lord thy God.’ And if thou mayst truly discuss it; that is incongruous, which even nature
herself abhorreth. For why being a man, wilt thou not seem to be that which thou art borne? Why
dost thou take unto thy self a different form? Why dost thou feine3 thyself a woman, or thou
woman thyself to be a man? Nature hath clothed every sex with its own garments. Finally, there
is a diverse use, a different colour, motion, pace, an unequal strength, [end p. 191] a different
voice in a man and in a woman. Yea likewise in living creatures of another kind, there is one
form of a Lion, another of a Lioness, yea another strength, another sound . . . For in them the
very induments4 themselves do by nature distinguish the sex. . . . What difference is there in
Poultry? How shrill is the crowing of the Cock, a solemn gift to stir up and sing, in the several
watches5 of the night? Do these things change their shapes or habit? Why then do we desire to
change? And verily the custom of the Grecians hath flown in among us, that women wear short
coats,6 as being shorter then their own. Well, be it so now, that these may seem to imitate the
nature of the better sex;7 why will men counterfeit the habit8 of the inferior sex?9 A lie even in
word is dishonest: much more in apparel. Finally, in Temples, where there is a counterfeiting of
faith, there is a counterfeiting of nature: For men there to take unto them woman’s apparel, and a
womanish behaviour, is thought an holy thing. Whence the Law sayeth: “Because every one,
who shall do these things, is an abomination to the Lord thy God”: that is, a man who shall put
on a woman’s garment. But I suppose, that it speaks this, not so much of clothes, as of manners,
or of our customs and actions, wherein one act may become a man, another a woman. . . . [end
p. 192] But how unseemly a thing is it for a man to do womanish works? Therefore also may
they bring forth children, therefore may they ravell10 of child-birth, who crisp11 their hair like
women. [top of p. 193]
******************************************************************************
St. Ambrose (c. 339-397 AD), Church Father. “His knowledge of Greek enabled him to introduce much Eastern
theology and liturgical practice into the West.” See “St. Ambrose,” Oxford Reference Online.
2
Irenaeus was “bishop of Lyons in Gaul from about 180 CE; a champion of orthodoxy against the Gnostics.” See
“Irenaeus,” Oxford Reference Online.
3
fein: i.e., feign: allege or pretend.
4
induments: clothes.
5
watches: “each of the (three, four, or five) periods into which the night was anciently divided. Now often in
collective plural, ‘the watches of the night.’” See “watch, n.” OED.
6
short coat: here, “an outer garment worn by men; usually of cloth, with sleeves.” See “coat, n.” OED.
7
the better sex: male
8
habit: Mode or fashion of apparel, clothing.
9
the inferior sex: female.
10
ravel: Complications, tangle. [Check: is this ‘travell’?]
11
crisp: curl (OED).
1
23
[St. Chrysostome1 argues that a woman should have her head covered and a man should have his
uncovered. Therefore, if a woman cuts her hair and a man grows his, the two sin. By growing
his hair long, a man falls to the level of a woman and by cutting hers, a woman attempts to raise
herself to the level of a man.]
Lastly, the very reasons alleged against the putting on of woman’s apparel on men, will
evidently evince it to be sinful to put it on to act a Play. For first, the very putting on of woman’s
apparel (much more to act a lewd lascivious Interlude) is an unnatural, and so a detestable and
shameful act: as not only Ambrose, and the fore-quoted Christian Authors, but even Seneca2 and
Statius,3 with other Pagans testify. For since nature hath made a difference, not only between the
sex, but even betwixt the habit and apparel of men and women, as well among the most
barbarous, as the civilest Nations, in so much that they are visibly distinguished by the diversity
of their raiment one from the other: it must needs be a violation of the very dictates of nature, for
a man to clothe himself in that apparel which nature and custom have prescribed to another sex,
as mis-becoming4 his. As nature itself doth teach men, that it is a shame for them to wear long
hair (though our modern Ruffians glory in it) because it is naturally proper unto women, to
whom it is given for a veil, a covering: so much more doth it teach men, that it is a detestable,
unnatural, shameful thing for them, to put on woman’s attire to act a Strumpet’s part. Hence men
in women’s, and women in men’s apparel have been ever odious. Witness Heliogabalus,5 [end p.
199] Sporus,6 Sardanapalus,7 Nero,8 Caligula,9 . . . & others; together with the Male-priests of
Venus,10 the Roman Galli or Cinaedi,11 the passive Sodomites in Florida, Gayra, and Peru;1 who
John Chrysostome (370-407) became archbishop of Constantinople in 397. He set to work cleaning up the “morals
of the court, the clergy and the people.” He criticized “the behavior, the clothes, and make-up of the women at
court.” After his death, in the West he was named one of the Four Greek Doctors, and one of the Three Holy
Hierarchs and Universal Teachers in the East. See “John Chrysostome,” Oxford Reference Online.
2
Seneca: Lucius Annaeus Seneca (c. 4 BC-65 AD), Roman statesman, philosopher, and dramatist. In 49, he
became a tutor to Nero. He was discovered to be a part of a plot against Nero’s life and was forced to commit
suicide; “as a philosopher, he expounded the ethics of Stoicism in such works as Epistulae Morales.” See “Seneca
the Younger,” Oxford Reference Online.
3
Statius: Publius Papinius Statius (c. 45 AD-96), Roman poet.
4
mis-becoming: unbecoming.
5
Elagabalus (or Heliogabalus), Roman emperor (reigned, c. 218-22). As emperor, he took the name of the SyroPhoenician sun-god, whose priest he was and whom he worshipped fanatically. Elagabalus outraged the army with
his obscene excesses, resulting in the praetorian guard murdering him. See “Elagabalus,” Oxford Reference Online.
6
Sporus was the “effeminate favourite of the Emperor Nero.” See “Sporus,” Oxford Reference Online.
7
Sardanapalus: believed to be an Assyrian Emperor who lived in extravagant luxury, “he was besieged in Nineveh
by the Medes for two years, at the end of which time he set fire to his palace and burned himself and his court to
death.” Some believe him to be Assurbanipal, who lived around 669-630 BC; however, the known details of both
lives do not match up. See “Sardanapalus,” The Columbia Encyclopedia.
8
Nero, Roman emperor from 54-68 AD, murdered three family members, including his mother. When Rome
burned in 64, it was rumoured that he ordered the burning. He blamed the Christians and began their persecution.
He committed suicide when faced with rebellion. See “Nero,” Oxford Reference Online.
9
Caligula (Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus [12 AD-41]), Roman Emperor (reigned, 37-41 AD). As an emperor he
was very autocratic and appointed his “horse as a consul to mock the Senate.” Brutal, murderous, and infamous for
his sexual ‘perversions,’ which included transvestism, he accepted “extravagant honours which came close to
deification.” He was assassinated by the praetorian guard. See “Gaius [1],” Oxford Reference Online.
10
Venus: Roman goddess of love and sexual desire. See “Venus,” Oxford Reference Online.
11
Cinaedus: a catamite: a corrupt form of Ganymede; a “boy kept for unnatural purposes.” See “Cinaedus,” Oxford
Reference Online, and “catamite” (OED).
1
24
clothing themselves sometimes, not always in woman’s apparel (as did also William[,] Bishop of
Ely2 to his shame,) are for this, recorded to posterity, as the very monsters of nature, and the
shame, the scum of men. Witness the Innkeepers of Fez3 at this day, who attiring themselves like
women, shaving their beards, and becoming effeminate in their speech, are so odious to these
very Infidels,4 (some base villains only excepted who resort unto them,) that the better sort of
people will not so much as speak to them, neither will they suffer them to come within their
Temples. If men in women’s apparel be thus execrable unto Pagans, how much more detestable
should they be to Christians, who are taught not only by the light of nature, but of the Gospel too,
to hate such beastly male-monsters in the shapes of women? And as the verdict of human nature
condemns men’s degenerating into women; so from the very selfsame grounds, it deepely
censures the aspiring of women above the limits of their female sex, & their metamorphosis into
the shapes of men, either in hair, or apparel. As nature dictates to men, that it is a shame for them
to wear long hair, or woman’s raiment, so it instructs women, that it is a shame, a sin for them, to
put on mans apparel, or to clip or cut their hair, their feminine glory (as our Viragoes do) because
it is given them as a natural covering to distinguish them from men: as the Apostle plainly
teaches, in the 1 Cor. 11.5, 6,5 156 the 1 Tim. 2.97 & Deut. 22.5. Hence the Council of Gangra did
anathematize those women, as infringers of the [p. 200] law of nature, and of the precept of
subjection, who did either cut their hair, or clothe themselves in man’s apparel, though it were
under pretence of Religion8 . . . [beginning of p. 201]
****************************************************************************
. . . The second History is that of Aristodemus the Tyrant,9 surnamed effeminate, because he
wore long womanish hair, for which the very Barbarians did condemn him. This unnatural
Tyrant endeavoring to effeminate the Cumaeans, commanded and taught their Youths to nourish
their hair like women, to colour it yellow, to curl and embroider10 it, and bind it up in phillets;11
and to wear painted and embroidered Gowns and garments until they were past 20 years of age.
And withal he compelled their women to cut their hair round, and to put on men’s apparel.
1
Passive Sodomites in Florida, Gayra and Peru: Gayra is in present-day Bangladesh; all of these would have
constituted exotic places for sixteenth-century Englishmen and women, and sodomy was often represented in
Prynne’s time as a foreign ‘vice,’ not native to England.
2
See p. 18, n6.
3
Fez: Large city in Morocco.
4
Infidels: a term used by Christians to refer to Muslims, meaning, ‘one who does not believe in (what the speaker
believes is) the true religion’ (OED).
5
“For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a
woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.” 1 Cor. 11.6.
6
“Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has
long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given (her) for a covering?” (1 Cor. 11.14-15).
7
“Similarly, (too,) women should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with
braided hairstyles and gold ornaments, or pearls, or expensive clothes” (1 Tim. 2.9).
8
of the precept of subjection . . . Religion: perhaps, a reference to women cutting their hair in order to enter a
convent or monastery; or perhaps, more generally, women who dressed as men and cut their hair to disguise their
gender for some ‘virtuous’ reason (e.g., to avoid the sexual advances of men?)
9
Aristodemus drove off the Etruscans from the Greek city of Cumae and established himself as tyrant in c. 505 BC.
See “Cumae,” Oxford Reference Online.
10
embroider: braid
11
phillet: i.e, fillet: a hairdo that used ribbons to bind up the hair (OED)
25
Which inversion of the course of nature in both sexes (condemned by Plutarch,1 as a tyranny
beyond all his other wickedness) did make him so execrably odious to the Cumaeans, that they
rose up with one accord against him and slew him, together with all his posterity, as detestable
and worthy ruin both with God and man. It is evident then by all these premises: that the putting
on of woman’s apparel, and so è converso; is an unnatural, and so a shameful, an abominable act:
[end p. 205] therefore to put it on to act a Play, must needs be such.
Secondly, as it is an unnatural, so likewise it is an effeminate act to put on woman’s
apparel, especially to play a woman’s part. This all the fore-quoted Authors . . . abundantly
testify: This Plutarch, and Dionysius Hallicarnasseus2 in the now recited History of Aristodemus
the Cumaean Tyrant; together with Orosius,3 Suetonius,4 Philo Judaeus,5 Diodorus Siculus,6
Athenaeus,7 Justin,8 Lampridius,9 Juvenal,10 Eusebius,11 Purchas,12 and the fore-quoted
Historians, who condemn Sardanapolus, Heliogabalus, Nero, Sporus, the Male-priests of Venus,
the Roman Galli, Cinaedi and others formerly mentioned for so many Monsters of unparalleled
effeminacy, for putting on woman’s attire, together with the very grounds of common reason,
fully evidence. For what higher streine13 of invirility14 can any Christian name, then for a man to
put on a woman’s raiment, gesture, countenance and behaviour, to act a Whore’s, as Bawd’s, or
some other lewd, lascivious female’s part? If this be not effeminacy in the superlative degree, I
know not yet what effeminacy means. But if it be effeminate, as all must grant, then it must
needs be sinful, yea abominable, since effeminacy is both an odious and a condemning sin, as
both Scriptures and Fathers do proclaim it. [to near the end of p. 206]
[Prynne continues and notes that “thirdly,” a man dressing as a woman to act in a play “is a
dishonest, immodest, and unseemly thing,” and thus sinful; “fourthly,” a man dressing in
1
Plutarch: Lucius (?) Mestrius Plutarchus (b. before AD 50, d. after AD 120), philosopher and biographer, his
“Parallel Lives,” biographies of great Greek and Roman men, remains his greatest work and has been a source of
“understanding of the ancient world for many readers from the Renaissance to the present day.” See
“Plutarch,”Oxford Reference Online.
2
Dionysius Halicarnasseus (c. 60 BC- after 7 BC), Greek critic and historian, wrote a twenty book history extending
back to the First Punic War. He argued that Rome was actually a Greek established city.
3
Paulus Orosius (5th century AD), Latin church historian.
4
Suetonius: Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (b. c. 70 AD), Latin biographer.
5
Philo Judaeus (c. 20 BC-50 AD), Jewish scholar and philosopher. See n37.
6
Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC), “Sicilian-born classical historian.” His Bibliotheca Historica [Library of
History] was a universal history, beginning with the earliest mythological times and running to the contemporary
conquest of Gaul.” See “Diodorus Siculus,” Oxford Reference Online.
7
Athenaeus (3rd century AD), Greek author of the Deipnosophistae. See “Athenaeus,” Oxford Reference Online.
8
Justin: Marcus Junianus Justinus (2nd or 3rd century AD), Roman historian. He “wrote in Latin an abridgement of
the universal history (Historiae Philippicae, now lost) of Trogus.” See “Marcus Junianus Justinus,” Oxford
Reference Online.
9
Lampridius: Aelius Lampridius, one of the six authors attributed with writing a collection of biographies of
Roman Emperors from AD 117-284.
10
Juvenal: Decimus Junius Juvenalis (c. AD55-128), Roman satirist.
11
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. AD 260–339) was a “writer, biblical scholar and apologist, effective founder of the
Christian genres of Church history and chronicle, and the most important contemporary source for the reign of
Constantine I.” See “Eusebius,” Oxford Reference Online.
12
Samuel Purchas (1577-1626), English travel writer.
13
streine: i.e., strain: type, kind
14
invirility: effeminacy.
26
woman’s attire is “an imitation of the effeminate idolatrous priests and pagans” who dress as
women.]
. . . Fifthly, this putting on of woman’s raiment, is a mere abuse of it. The end why God
ordained apparel at the first, was only to cover nakedness; to fence the body against cold, wind,
rain, and other annoyances: to put men in mind of their penury,1 their mortality, their spiritual
clothing from Heaven, and the like; and to distinguish one Sex, one Nation, one dignity, office,
calling, profession from another. Now a man’s attiring himself in woman’s array, as it serves for
neither of these good ends for which garments were at first ordained; which proves it a mere
abuse: so it perverts one principal use of garments, to difference men from women; by
confounding, interchanging, transforming these two sexes for the present, as long as the Play or
part doth last. If therefore [end p. 207] men’s ordinary wearing of women’s garments, if the
putting of them on in any other place but in a Play-house, or the wearing of them in the streets
for an hour or two, and that but seldom; be within the malediction2 of this text, or an unlawful
thing (as our very Antagonists in this case of Plays, confess) because it transforms the male in
outward appearance into the more ignoble female sex, and nullifies that external difference
between them, which it ought to make: Then questionlesse men’s arraying themselves in
woman’s vestments to act a part in Masques, in Plays, or other Interludes, must needs be much
more abominable, within the meaning of this Scripture: because it not only inverts these Sexes
which God and nature have distinguished: but also abuseth apparel, not to any good or necessary
purpose which is evil; but to an unnecessary, lewd, lascivious end, from whence no good at all
proceeds.
Lastly, this putting on of woman’s array (especially to act a lascivious, amorous, whorish,
Love-sick Play upon the Stage, must needs be sinful, yea abominable, because it not only excites
many adulterous filthy lusts, both in the Actors and Spectators; and draws them on both to
contemplative and actual lewdness, (as the marginal Authors testify) which is evil; but likewise
instigates them to self-pollution,3 (a sin for which Onan was destroyed:4) and to that unnatural
Sodomitical sin of uncleanesse, to which the reprobate Gentiles were given over; (a sin not once
to be named, much less then practiced among Christians). . . . [end p. 208]
Male-Priests of Venus, with the passive beastly Sodomites in Florida, Gayra, and Peru,
evidence: who went clad in woman’s apparel, the better to elliciate,5 countenance, act, and colour
their unnatural execrable uncleanness, which I abhor to think of. This the usual practice of other
ancient Incubi, who clothed their Galli, Succubi, Ganymedes, and Cynadi in woman’s attire,
whose virilities they did oft-times dissect,6 to make them more effeminate, transforming them as
neere as might be into women, both in apparel, gesture, speech, behaviour. And more especially
in long unshorn womannish, frizled, lust-provoking [end p. 209] hair and Love-locks, (grown
1
penury: destitution, poverty
malediction: curse.
3
self-pollution: masturbation
4
a sin for which Onan was destroyed: Onan was the second son of Judah and Bathshua, his Canaanite wife. “After
the death of his older brother Er without progeny, Judah ordered Onan to impregnate Er’s wife Tamar. Although
Onan did cohabit with Tamar, ‘he spilled his seed on the ground;’ for this he was put to death by God. Onan’s effort
to avoid impregnating his sister-in-law has given rise to the term ‘onanism,’ a synonym for masturbation.” See
“Onan,” Oxford Reference Online.
5
elliciate: eliciate: draw out
6
whose virilities they did oft-times dissect: i.e., they often castrated them
2
27
now too much in fashion with comely Pages, Youths, and lewd effeminate ruffianly persons; as
they were with these unnatural Pagans, I dare not write, to amorous beastly purposes, to which
they are strong allectives,1 of which they were [end p. 210] ancient Symptoms, as sundry profane
and Christian writers testify: Which should cause all chaste ingenious Christians for ever to
detest them, the better to avoid the snares, the badges, the suspicions of incontinency, and this
most filthy sin:) the more to extenuate this their unnatural wickedness, or rather the more freely
to embolden, to allure and provoke them to the undaunted, unlamented practise of it, by reducing
it as neere to natural lewdness as they could devise: since few of them were so prodigiously
impudent, so unmeasurably outragious at the first, as desperately to rush upon this unnatural
filthiness in suparlative native vileness, without some extenuating varnishes cast into it, to charm
their consciences, and inflame their lusts. Yea this the execrable Precedents of ancient, of
modern Play-poets and Players witness, who have been deepely plunged in this abominable
wickedness, which my Ink is not black enough to discypher.2 Witness the example of Sophocles,
that famous Greek Tragaedian, whom [many classical writers] have stigmatized for this sin.
Witness Saint Cyprian, who writes thus of the “womanish Pantomimes and Players” in his times
. . . Witness Saint Chrysost[om] . . . Yea witness . . . Suetoni[us] . . . with M[aster] Stubbes, his
Anatomy of Abuses p. 105, where he affirms, “that Players and Play-haunters in their secret
conclaves play the Sodomites”: together with some modern examples of such, who have been
desperately enamored with Players’ Boys thus clad in woman’s apparel, so far as to sollicite [end
p. 211] them by words, by Letters, even actually to abuse them. All which give doleful testimony
to this experimental reason, which should make this very putting on of woman’s apparel on
Boys, to act a Play, for ever execrable to all chaste Christian hearts.
Hence is it, that sundry learned Divines annex this text of Deuteronomy to the 7[th]
Commandment, as a moral precept sounded upon the very Law of nature; because men’s putting
on of woman’s raiment is a temptation, an inducement not only to adultery, but to the beastly sin
of Sodomy, which (sayeth Lactantius3) is most properly called adultery, because it is unnatural.
Yea hence (as some have truly observed) those women who put on men’s, and men who put on
women’s apparel, are said in this text, not only to be abominable, but even, to be an
abomination, in the abstract, to the Lord their God; because it is an occasion of, a violent
provocation to that monstrous unparalleled sin of Sodomy, (Cuius defecit interpretatio erubuit
ratio, conticuit oratio4) which the following chapter, with several other Scriptures, expressly
style; an abomination to the Lord our God. Since then it is abundantly evident by all these
premises, (and I suppose by many Players’s and Play-haunters’s particular experience) that
men’s putting on of woman’s apparel (especially to act a Whore’s, a Bawd’s, or Sweet-heart’s
womanish wanton part upon the Stage, where all the solicitations, and inescating5 allectives to
uncleaness do accompany it) is a preparative, an incendiary, not only to sundry noisome6 lusts, to
speculative, to practical adultery, whoredom, and the like: but even to the most abominable
unnatural [end p. 212] sin of Sodom, to which men’s imbred7 corruption, (as good Authors
1
allectives: allurements, powerful temptations (OED).
discypher: decipher
3
See n42.
4
Roughly translated, “Discussion [of sodomy] is shameful and one should be silent about it.”
5
inescating: enticing.
6
noisome: harmful, noxious.
7
imbred: innate.
2
28
testify) is over-prone; as the detestable examples of the flagitious1Sodomites, Canaanites, Jews,
Gentiles, Corinthians, Italians, Turks, Persians, Grecians, Tartars, Chinoyes,2 Celtae,3 Pagans,
Floridians,4 ancient Romans, Moors in Barbary, Gayrians, Peruvians, Jupiter and his
Ganymedes,5 the ancient Priests of Venus, Sardanapalus, Nero and his Sporus, Heliogabalus, and
many others: yea the frequent Sodomiticall wickednesses of sundry unholy-Popes, Cardinals,
Popish Bishops, Abbots, Priests, Friars, Monks, (such are the unchaste fruits of their vowed and
much-admired [end p. 213] chastity) together with the frequent inhibitions, Laws & Edicts
against this prodigious villainy in Scriptures, Councils Heathen States, and in our English
Statutes, (which have made it capital, as a late example of a memorable act of justice on an
English Peer6 can witness) do more then testify; it cannot but be inexcusably sinful, both in the
eyes of God, who literally prohibits it; and in the sight of natural, much more of Christian men,
who cannot but detest it. And so by consequence the Plays themselves which are acted in such
apparel (as all our Masques and Stage-plays for the most part are) must questionless be sinful,
yea abominable, as men’s putting on of woman’s apparel is. Thus all the fore-alleged Councils,
Fathers, Authors, do from hence conclude, & so must I from all the premises.
If any now object, that it is far better, far more commendable for Boys to act in woman’s
attire, than to bring women-Actors on the Stage to personate female parts; a practice much in use
in former times among the Greeks, and Romans; who had their Mimae,7 their Sceni[…]ae
mulieres, or women-Actors (who were all notorious impudent, prostituted Strumpets,) especially
in their Floralian Interludes; as they have now their [end p. 214] female-Players in Italy, and
other foreign parts, and as they had such French-women Actors, in a Play not long since
personated in Black-friars Play-house,8 to which there was great resort.
I answer first, that the very ground of this objection is false, unless the objectors can
manifest it to be a greater abomination, a more detestable damning sin, for a woman to act a
females part upon the Stage, then for a Boy to put on a woman’s apparel, person and behaviour,
to act a feminine part; which the Scripture expressly prohibits, as an abomination to the Lord
our God: or unless they can prove an irritation, an inducement to Sodomy, to self-pollution (in
thought at least if not in act,) a lesser sin, a more tolerable evil, then mannish impudence, or a
temptation to whoredom, and adultery: which none can evidence.
flagitious: “Of persons: Guilty of or addicted to atrocious crimes” (OED).
Chinoyes: Chinese.
3
Celtae: the Celts.
4
Floridians: natives of Florida.
5
Jupiter, the “supreme god of the Romans” (See “Jupiter,” Oxford Reference Online) came to be identified with
Zeus, the Greek supreme god. In Greek mythology, Ganymede, son of the king of Troy, was kidnapped by Zeus (or
Zeus’ eagle, or Zeus as an eagle) because of his beauty, and taken to Olympus to serve as the gods’ cupbearer; “from
the Latin version of his name (Catamitus) is derived the word ‘catamite.’” See “Ganymede,” Oxford Reference
Online.
6
English Peer: a ref. to the trial and execution of Mervin, Lord Audley, earl of Castlehaven for sodomy in 1631. The
scandal was well-known, although the first published account only appeared in 1642 (see C. Herrup, “Touchet,
Mervin, second earl of Castlehaven (1593-1631),” Dictionary of National Biography, Online, 13 March 2007)
7
Mimae: actresses who performed mime.
8
Black-friars Play-house: “Two Blackfriars theatres were built within the boundaries of the old Blackfriars
monastery,” one was bigger and more expensive than the open-air theatres and had no standing room. An “attempt
to close the theatre in 1631 was unsuccessful, and it was one of the most popular of the pre-Restoration playhouses.”
See “Blackfriars Theater,” Oxford Reference Online.
1
2
29
Secondly, admit men-Actors in women’s attire, are not altogether so bad, so
discommendable as women Stage-players; yet since both of them are evil, yea extremely vicious,
neither of them necessary, both superfluous as all Plays and Players are; the superabundant
sinfulness of the one, can neither justify the lawfulness, nor extenuate the wickedness of the
other. It is no good argument to say, Adultery is worse than simple Fornication: Sodomy with
such other unnatural wickednesses are far more abominable then adultery: therefore fornication
and adultery are lawful and may still be tolerated, (as they are in beastly Rome, the very Sink, the
Stews1 and Nursery of all such uncleanness; which should cause all Christians to detest this
Whore, together with her head, her Pope, her supreme Pander2:) because the [end p. 215]
transcendent badness of the one, doth neither expiate nor extenuate the sinfulness of the other.
Yet this is the present objection in effect: Female-Actors, are worse than male-Actors arrayed in
woman’s apparel; therefore they are tolerable, if not lawful. Whereas this should rather be the
conclusion (with which I will close up this Scene) both of them are abominable both intolerable,
neither of them laudable or necessary; therefore both of them to be abandoned, neither of them to
be henceforth tolerated among Christians. [end p. 216]
1
2
Stews: brothels
pander: pimp.
30
Works Cited
Biography
Lamont, William. “Prynne, William.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford U.
Press. Online. University of British Columbia. 7 April 2007.
Summary and Edited Excerpt
Prynne, William. Histrio-Mastix: The Player’s Scourge or Actor’s Tragedy. Early English
Books Online. ProQuest Information and Learning Company. Online. University of
British Columbia. 21 February 2007.
Essay
Heise, Ursula K. “Transvestism and the Stage Controversy in Spain and England, 1580-1680.”
Theater Journal 44.3 (1992): 357-74.
Levine, Laura. Men In Women’s Clothing: Anti-theatricality and Effeminization 1579-1642.
Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1994.
Morgan, Edmund S. “Puritan Hostility to the Theater.” Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society. 110.5 (1966): 340-47.
Prynne, William. “Histrio-Mastix: The Player’s Scourge or Actor’s Tragedy.” Early English
Books Online. ProQuest Information and Learning Company. Online. University of
British Columbia. 21 February 2007.
Rackin, Phyllis. “Androgyny, Mimesis, and the Marriage of the Boy Heroine on the English
Renaissance Stage.” PMLA 102.1 (1987): 29-41.
Annotations
“A Letter To A Member of Parliament.” Early English Books Online. ProQuest Information
And Learning Company. Online. University of British Columbia. 17 March 2007.
Andrews, Lancelot. “Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine at Large: Or a Learned and Pious
Exposition of the Ten Commandments.” Early English Books Online. ProQuest
Information And Learning Company. Online. University of British Columbia.
1 March 2007.
Davies, Christie. “Sexual Taboos and Social Boundaries” The American Journals of Sociology
87.5 (Mar. 1982): 1032-1063.
Herrup, Cynthia B. “Touchet, Mervin, second earl of Castlehaven (1593-1631)”, Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004
31
[http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/66794, accessed 24 March 2007]
Lempriére, John. Classical Dictionary. (1788). London: Bracken Books, 1994.
McGiffet, Michael. “From Moses to Adam: The Making of the Covenant of Works.”
Sixteenth C. Journal 19.2 (1988): 131-155.
Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Online. University of British Columbia.
“Sardanapalus.” The Columbia Encyclopedia. 6th ed.
Wiedermann, Gotthelf. “Alesius, Alexander.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
Oxford University Press. Online. University of British Columbia. 17 March 2007.