The Familie of Love. Acted by the Children of his Maiesties Reuells.
At London Printed for John Helmes, and are to be sold in Saint Dunstans Churchyard in Fleetstreet. 1608. 4to.
Though there is undoubtedly but one edition of this drama, yet the copies differ slightly in several places; alterations having been introduced after part of the impression had been worked off: a circumstance which will surprise those persons only who have not been accustomed to collate the 4tos of old English plays.
The Family of Love was licensed by Sir George Bucke, 12th Oct. 1607: see Chalmers’s Suppl. Apol. p. 201.
Concerning the sect which gives the title to the play, the following notices will be perhaps more than sufficient.
In Brandt’s Hist. of the Reform. &c. in the Low Countries, we are told, under the year 1555: “That Family was suspected of being more addicted to carnal than to spiritual love. Henry Nicholas, a Westphalian, born at Munster, but who had lived a great while at Amsterdam, and some time likewise at Embden, was father of this Family. He appeared upon the stage about the year 1540, stiled himself the deified man, boasted of great matters, and seemed to exalt himself above the condition of a human creature. He was, as he pretended, greater than Moses and Christ, because Moses had taught mankind to hope, Christ to believe, but he to love; which last being of more worth than both the former, he was consequently greater than both those prophets.” vol. i. p. 105, ed. 1720.
According to some writers, however, the sect was not founded by Henry Nicholas, but by David George, an anabaptist of Delft; and indeed there seems reason to believe that the Family of Love grew out of the heresies of George, with whom Nicholas had been on intimate terms.
“As to his [Nicholas’s] pretensions,” observes Mosheim, “they were indeed visionary and chimerical; for he maintained that he had a commission from heaven to teach men that the essence of religion consisted in the feelings of divine love; that all other theological tenets, whether they related to objects of faith or modes of worship, were of no sort of moment; and consequently that it was a matter of the most perfect indifference what opinions Christians entertained concerning the divine nature, provided their hearts burned with the pure and sacred flame of piety and love. To this, his main doctrine, Nicholas may have probably added other odd fancies, as always is the case with those innovators who are endued with a warm and fruitful imagination: to come, however, at a true notion of the opinions of this enthusiast, it will be much easier to consult his own writings than to depend entirely upon the accounts and refutations of his adversaries.” Eccles. Hist. (by Maclaine), vol. iv. p. 484.
“Not content,” says Fuller, “to confine his errours to his own country, over he [Nicholas] comes into England, and in the later end of the reign of Edward the Sixth joyned himself to the Dutch congregation in London, where he seduced a number of artificers and silly women,” &c. Church Hist. b. ix. p. 112, ed. 1655.
“The twelfe of June [1575], stood at Paules Crosse fiue persons Englishmen, of the sect termed the Familie of Loue, who there confessed themselues vtterlie to detest as well the author of that sect H. N. as all his damnable errors and heresies.” Holinshed’s Chron. vol. iv. p. 328, ed. 1808.
Towards the end of 1580, the sect was increasing so rapidly in England, that the government took active measures for its suppression. “The queenes maiestie being informed that in sundrie places of this realme, certeine persons secretlie taught damnable heresies, contrarie to diuers principall articles of our beleefe and christian faith, who to colour their sect named themselues the Familie of Loue, and then as manie as were allowed by them to be of that familie to be elect and saued, and all others, of what church soeuer they be, to be reiected and damned. And for that vpon conuenting of some of them before the bishops and ordinaries, it was found that the ground of their sect is mainteined by certeine lewd, hereticall, and seditious books, first made in the Dutch toong, and lastlie translated into English, and printed beyond the seas, and secretlie brought ouer into the realme, the author whereof they name H. N. &c. And considering also it is found, that those sectaries held opinion, that they may before anie magistrat or ecclesiasticall or temporall, or anie other person, noi being professed to be of their sect, by oth or otherwise denie anie thing for their aduantage: so as though manie of them are well knowne to be teachers and spreaders abroad of these dangerous and damnable sects; yet by their owne confession they cannot be condemned. Therefore hir maiestie being verie sorie to see so great an euill, by malice of the diuell to be brought into this hir realme, and by hir bishops and ordinaries she vnderstandeth it verie requisit, not onelie to haue those dangerous heretiks and sectaries to be seueralie punished; but that also other meanes be vsed by hir maiesties roiall authoritie, which is giuen hir of God to defend Christs church, to root them out from further infecting of hir realme: she hath thought meet and conuenient, and so by hir proclamation commandeth, that all hir officers and ministers temporall shall in all their seuerall vocations assist the bishops of hir realme, and all other person, to search out all persons dulie suspected to be either teachers or professors of the foresaid damnable sects, and by all good meanes to proceed seuerelie against them, being found culpable, by order of the lawes ecclesiasticall or temporall: and that all search be made in all places suspected, for the books and writings mainteining the said heresies and sects, and them to destroie and burne, &c: as more at large may appeere by the said proclamation, giuen at Richmond the third of October, and proclamed at London on the nineteenth daie of the same moneth [1580].” Holinshed’s Chron. vol. iv. p. 432, ed. 1808. See also Camdeni Annales, p. 318, ed. 1639.
A list of Nicholas’s numerous writings may be found in Lowndes’s Bibliographer’s Manual. One of them is in verse: An Enterlude of Myndes: witnessing the Mans Fall from God and Christ. Set forth by H. N. and by him newly perused and amended. Translated out of Base-Almayne into English. n. d.: see an account of, and extracts from it, in Sir E. Brydges’s Restituta, vol. iv. p. 140, sqq. Nicholas is mentioned in the last scene of The Alchemist,—B. Jonson’s Works, vol. iv. p. 187, ed. Giff.
“The Family of Love (or Lust rather),” says Fuller, “at this time [1604] presented a tedious Petition to King James, so that it is questionable whether his majesty ever graced it with his perusall, wherein they endeavoured to cleare themselves from some misrepresentations, and by fawning expression to insinuate themselves into his majesty’s good opinion.” Church Hist. b. x. p. 29, ed. 1655. Having given the document in question, which is too long for insertion here, Fuller proceeds: “I finde not what effect this their Petition produced; whether it was slighted, and the Petitioners looked upon as inconsiderable, or beheld as a few frantick folk out of their wits, which consideration alone often melted their adversaries anger into pity unto them. The main design driven on in the Petition is to separate themselves from the Puritans (as persons odious to King James), that they might not fare the worse for their vicinity unto them; though these Familists could not be so desirous to leave them as the others were glad to be left by them. For if their opinions were so senselesse, and the lives of these Familists so sensuall as is reported, no purity at all belonged unto them.” p. 32. From the Petition just mentioned, we find that “divers” of the Familists had been lately thrown into prison.
The sect was attacked, at different times, by various writers: among others by John Rogers, in The Displaying of an horrible Secte of grosse & wicked Heretiques, naming themselues the Family of Loue, with the liues of their Authours, & what doctrine they teach in corners. Newly set foorth by J. R. &c. London, 1579. 12mo.
In The Lady of Pleasure, act i. sc. 1, Shirley has the following passage:
I have quoted the lines only for the sake of correcting a mistake of the last editor of Beaumont and Fletcher. In a note on The Widow, Weber remarks, that Middleton “wrote a play entitled The Family of Love, but it seems that he was reprehended for not displaying these sectaries in their true colours. Thus Shirley in The Lady of Pleasure:
What stupidity! not to perceive that the “Play on’t” was the drama called The Ball, written by Shirley and Chapman!
Too soon and too late this work is published: too soon, in that it was in the press before I had notice of it, by which means some faults may escape in the printing; too late, for that it was not published when the general voice of the people had sealed it for good, and the newness of it made it much more desired than at this time; for plays in this city are like wenches new fallen to the trade, only desired of your neatest gallants whiles they’re fresh; when they grow stale they must be vented by termers[175] and country chapmen. I know not how this labour will please: sure I am it passed the censure of the stage with a general applause. Now, whether vox populi be vox Dei or no, that I leave to be tried by the acute judgment of the famous six wits of the city.—Farewell.