minstrel: This is going to be fun, right?
worg29 at hotmail.com
Sun Apr 5 21:21:06 PDT 2009
I fear I may have come across wrong last night. First, I'd
like to thank every one for their responses. When I asked about references I
was asking for exactly what I got, new information to broaden my understanding.
It was not meant as a challenge.
Second, I did a Bad Thing (tm) last in making an overly broad and not very
qualified and overly definite statement. Something about the late hour and
having a little too much cider in me. I certainly know better and deserve
thirty lashes with a wet noodle for it. What I SHOULD have said would have been
something about ‘in general’, ‘depending on when and where’, yada yada yada. I
seem to have completely forgotten about the early formative period of the
church when there was very little consensus and a great deal of variance in the
relationship between religious and secular social venues. Any statement about
how things were or were not historical should always be qualified. Nothing is
ever black and white.
I also took theater to mean ‘the theater’ as opposed to
theatrical activities, plays and such. I assumed we were talking about the secular
theater and not theater in the general sense of acting in front of an audience.
My bad in the entirety.
I wasn’t aware of the church hosting plays, though it doesn’t
surprise me. Another thing to learn more about. I’m also curious though, does
any one have any evidence for any time and place when the secular theater and
the church did get along? Just because they usually didn’t, doesn’t mean they
never did. One would think that hosting religious theater might in some times
and places create a bit more sympathy…
Rediscover Hotmail®: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the minstrel