What do you think?
Rate this book
The School of Abuse: Containing a Pleasant Invective Against Poets, Players, Jesters, &C
Excerpt from The School of Abuse: Containing a Pleasant Invective Against Poets, Players, Jesters, &C
Stephen gosson, the author of the tract reprinted on the following pages, was not the earliest literary enemy of theatrical performances in this country. That distinction belongs to John Northbrooke, whose Trea tise wherein Dicing, Dauncing, Vaine Playes or Eu terluds &c. Are reproved, was licensed for the press in 1577: it was printed by H. Bynneman, with out date, but no doubt prior to 1579, when Cosson's Schoole of Abuse, conteining a plesaunt Invective against Poets, Pipers, Plaiers, Jesters &c. Made its appearance. Our author, therefore, is only entitled to the second place in the attack upon the stage, although he says nothing about any predecessor. Northbrooke's work well merits at least equal attention; and on an early occasion we shall offer a careful re-impression of it to the members of the Shakespeare Society. We were led, in the first instance, to Gosson's tract, by his connection with Edward Alleyn, late in life, when Gosson was vicar of the parish in which that great actor and most benevolent man was born.
About the Publisher
Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com
This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.
Stephen gosson, the author of the tract reprinted on the following pages, was not the earliest literary enemy of theatrical performances in this country. That distinction belongs to John Northbrooke, whose Trea tise wherein Dicing, Dauncing, Vaine Playes or Eu terluds &c. Are reproved, was licensed for the press in 1577: it was printed by H. Bynneman, with out date, but no doubt prior to 1579, when Cosson's Schoole of Abuse, conteining a plesaunt Invective against Poets, Pipers, Plaiers, Jesters &c. Made its appearance. Our author, therefore, is only entitled to the second place in the attack upon the stage, although he says nothing about any predecessor. Northbrooke's work well merits at least equal attention; and on an early occasion we shall offer a careful re-impression of it to the members of the Shakespeare Society. We were led, in the first instance, to Gosson's tract, by his connection with Edward Alleyn, late in life, when Gosson was vicar of the parish in which that great actor and most benevolent man was born.
About the Publisher
Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com
This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.
- GenresNonfiction
162 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1579
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 15, 2015
Gosson was a playwright turned not-quite-puritan, and his "School of Abuse" is an important document in the history of the English stage.
Unfortunately, "important" does not always mean "readable." The primary issue with Gosson's pamphlet is that it reflects a premodern idea of how to have an argumen. At the time, argument from authority was an accepted mode of academic debate, and that is what Gosson does here. So a typical Gosson argument goes like this: "Marcus Aurelius says that acting in plays makes men cheat on their wives. Therefore, plays are bad."
This might be tolerable if Gosson were a better writer. I can appreciate the writing of someone like Jonathan Edwards, for example, even if I hate his theology. But Gosson belongs to that school of theological writer who prefers to circle around and around a point, rather than to illustrate it with a dramatic turn of phrase.
Once you've worked your way through two tedious, cod-apologetic prefaces (there are also two entirely unnecessary epilogues), you get to paragraphs like this one:
"C. Marius in the assembly of the whole Sallust Senate at Rome, in a solemn oration, giveth an account of his bringing up: he showeth that he hath been taught to lie on the ground, to suffer all weathers, to lead men, to strike his foe, to fear nothing but an evil name: and challengeth praise unto him self, in that he never learned the Greeke tongue, neither meant to be instructed in it heerafter, either that he thought it too far a journey to fetch learning beyond the field, or because he doubted the abuses of those schools, where poets were ever the headmasters."
This is the sort of thing your creepy right-wing uncle might write on your Facebook wall today. "No way any son of mine is going to one of those commie colleges where the gays and the atheists are gonna tell him that learning French is more important than learning how to DEFEND OUR FREEDOM!"
In the end, that's what the School of Abuse reads like: an argument posted by a fanatic on a message board. He's not interested in engaging with the subject, he has no real argument for his position, and you feel less well informed after reading it than you did before.
Unfortunately, "important" does not always mean "readable." The primary issue with Gosson's pamphlet is that it reflects a premodern idea of how to have an argumen. At the time, argument from authority was an accepted mode of academic debate, and that is what Gosson does here. So a typical Gosson argument goes like this: "Marcus Aurelius says that acting in plays makes men cheat on their wives. Therefore, plays are bad."
This might be tolerable if Gosson were a better writer. I can appreciate the writing of someone like Jonathan Edwards, for example, even if I hate his theology. But Gosson belongs to that school of theological writer who prefers to circle around and around a point, rather than to illustrate it with a dramatic turn of phrase.
Once you've worked your way through two tedious, cod-apologetic prefaces (there are also two entirely unnecessary epilogues), you get to paragraphs like this one:
"C. Marius in the assembly of the whole Sallust Senate at Rome, in a solemn oration, giveth an account of his bringing up: he showeth that he hath been taught to lie on the ground, to suffer all weathers, to lead men, to strike his foe, to fear nothing but an evil name: and challengeth praise unto him self, in that he never learned the Greeke tongue, neither meant to be instructed in it heerafter, either that he thought it too far a journey to fetch learning beyond the field, or because he doubted the abuses of those schools, where poets were ever the headmasters."
This is the sort of thing your creepy right-wing uncle might write on your Facebook wall today. "No way any son of mine is going to one of those commie colleges where the gays and the atheists are gonna tell him that learning French is more important than learning how to DEFEND OUR FREEDOM!"
In the end, that's what the School of Abuse reads like: an argument posted by a fanatic on a message board. He's not interested in engaging with the subject, he has no real argument for his position, and you feel less well informed after reading it than you did before.
February 4, 2014
Poor Gosson! If only you would have been alive to see how far off we've gone in our artistic sensibilities, you would have died of shock! If literature of your time was depraved, I wonder what kind of an adjective you'd use for the literature of our time.
Anyway, I don't think students of modern literature can find anything of interest in the writings of the likes of Gosson: they are too intolerably Puritan for our taste. This book only reiterates what Plato first said in his Republic and teaches the same doctrine. Poetry, plays, and all sorts of recreation is evil. They lead people astray. Nothing good can come out of going to the theatre and especially women should keep themselves locked up in their houses so as to protect themselves and their chastity from evil eyes and intents. Also, people who like dancing, bowling, gambling are idiots. Soldiers, on the other hand, are good.
Lol.
I don't mean to ridicule what Gosson has tried to tell us here. On the contrary, I deeply respect his values and beliefs. But the pity is, they are of no use to the world now as times have changed so drastically that things like religion, chastity, fear of God have all lost their meaning. So, there's no ultimate point in reading this book because the modern reader will only find Gosson's beliefs terribly narrow-minded and psychotic. I will only recommend this book to readers who, in some way, respect religious beliefs and all religions in general. Gosson himself has been open-minded here and admits that not all sorts of literature written is pointless and indulgent. Some brilliant pieces do exist but they are in rarity. As it is with modern cinema and literature, most of the stuff we listen to on the radio or see on the TV is basically crap. I'm not saying that every piece of art must be instructive, but at least it should be aesthetically appealing. And must have a point. Most mainstream things today, I'm afraid, do not.
3 stars because Gosson's concerns make sense to me even though I do not agree with everything he has said here. The writing, on the other hand, verges on the ridiculous sometimes: it is so theatrical. But then he was writing in the Renaissance and you can hardly blame him for his extravagance and exaggeration. A good read.
Anyway, I don't think students of modern literature can find anything of interest in the writings of the likes of Gosson: they are too intolerably Puritan for our taste. This book only reiterates what Plato first said in his Republic and teaches the same doctrine. Poetry, plays, and all sorts of recreation is evil. They lead people astray. Nothing good can come out of going to the theatre and especially women should keep themselves locked up in their houses so as to protect themselves and their chastity from evil eyes and intents. Also, people who like dancing, bowling, gambling are idiots. Soldiers, on the other hand, are good.
Lol.
I don't mean to ridicule what Gosson has tried to tell us here. On the contrary, I deeply respect his values and beliefs. But the pity is, they are of no use to the world now as times have changed so drastically that things like religion, chastity, fear of God have all lost their meaning. So, there's no ultimate point in reading this book because the modern reader will only find Gosson's beliefs terribly narrow-minded and psychotic. I will only recommend this book to readers who, in some way, respect religious beliefs and all religions in general. Gosson himself has been open-minded here and admits that not all sorts of literature written is pointless and indulgent. Some brilliant pieces do exist but they are in rarity. As it is with modern cinema and literature, most of the stuff we listen to on the radio or see on the TV is basically crap. I'm not saying that every piece of art must be instructive, but at least it should be aesthetically appealing. And must have a point. Most mainstream things today, I'm afraid, do not.
3 stars because Gosson's concerns make sense to me even though I do not agree with everything he has said here. The writing, on the other hand, verges on the ridiculous sometimes: it is so theatrical. But then he was writing in the Renaissance and you can hardly blame him for his extravagance and exaggeration. A good read.
February 15, 2024
This is tedious as hell but amusingly tedious. I remind myself that I often sound like this when I rail against the mundaneity of watching television, even though in my case I am correct while Gosson is a gas-bag, and not even a ripe one.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews