DOCSLIB.ORG

Defining Rape Internationally: a Comment on Akayesu’ (First Published 2005) in Are Women Human? and Other International Dialogues (Cambridge, Mass

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Defining Rape Internationally: a Comment on Akayesu’ (First Published 2005) in Are Women Human? and Other International Dialogues (Cambridge, Mass Notes PREFACE TO THE PAPERBACK EDITION 1. Catherine A. MacKinnon, ‘Defining Rape Internationally: A Comment on Akayesu’ (first published 2005) in Are Women Human? And Other International Dialogues (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 2006), p. 237. 2. Susan Ehrlich, Representing Rape: Language and Sexual Consent (London and New York: Routledge, 2001), p. 1. 3. Sue Lees, Carnal Knowledge: Rape on Trial (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1996), p. xiii. 4. Cheryl Brown Travis, ed. Evolution, Gender, and Rape (Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press, 2003), responding to Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press, 2000). See in particular Emily Martin, ‘What is “Rape”? – Towards a Historical, Ethnographic Approach’ in Travis, pp. 363–81. 5. Jacqueline W. White and Lori A. Post, ‘Understanding Rape: A Metatheoretical Framework’ in Travis, pp. 383–411 (p. 401). 6. This notwithstanding the rape of men and sexual violence perpetrated by women, which also raise such questions, but are not my focus here. 7. See Karen Bamford, Sexual Violence on the Jacobean Stage (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000); Elizabeth Robertson and Christine M. Rose, eds Representing Rape in Medieval and Early Modern Literature (NY and Hampshire: Palgrave, 2001); Diane Wolfthal, Images of Rape: The ‘Heroic’ Tradition and Its Alternatives (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1999); Linda Woodbridge and Sharon Beehler, eds Women, Violence, and English Renaissance Literature: Essays Honoring Paul Jorgensen (Tempe, Arizona: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2003). 8. See Introduction, notes 3 and 4, below. 9. Eileen Allman, Jacobean Revenge Tragedy and the Politics of Virtue (NJ, Ontario and London: Associated University Presses, 1999), p. 17. By contrast, Barbara J. Baines argues that ‘many Jacobean plays uniformly reflect the binary construction of woman, [and thus] also expose the misogyny inherent therein’. Representing Rape in the English Early Modern Period (Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press, 2003), p. 226. 10. Garthine Walker, Crime, Gender and Social Order in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). 11. See also Garthine Walker, ‘Rereading Rape and Sexual Violence in Early Modern England’, Gender & History x (1998), 1–25 (16). 12. Walker, ‘Rereading Rape’, pp. 20, 19. 13. See below, pp. 12–14. Carolyn Sale also argues that in many legal treatises the idea of a woman’s consent could only work against her. 235 236 Notes ‘Representing Lavinia: The (In)significance of Women’s Consent in Legal Discourses of Rape and Ravishment and Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus’ in Woodbridge and Beehler, p. 7. 14. This may provide one explanation for Wolfthal’s finding that ‘Europeans did not gradually progress to a more enlightened view of rape’ (p. 180). 15. Baines, p. 67. 16. See Chapter 3, pp. 71–4. Cynthia E. Garrett has valuably extended my analysis of this topos in identifying its rise between 1590 and 1610 as a result of Thomas Heywood’s translation of Ovid’s Ars Amatoria, in ‘Sexual Consent and the Art of Love in the Early Modern English Lyric’, SEL xliv (2004), 37–58. 17. See below, p. 2 (and note 3) and pp. 9ff. 18. Christopher Cannon, ‘Afterword’ in Robertson and Rose, pp. 411–16 (p. 411). 19. See below, p. 9. 20. Baines, p. 261. 21. See, for example, Katherine Eggert, ‘Spenser’s Ravishment: Rape and Rapture in The Faerie Queene’ in Robertson and Rose, pp. 381–409. 22. Christine M. Rose, ‘Reading Chaucer Reading Rape’ in Robertson and Rose, pp. 21–60 (p. 34). Similarly, Woodbridge and Beehler suggest that texts deploying the ‘no means yes’ topos may be ‘inviting us to recognize that the brutality of rape is altogether different from the eroticism of sexual desire’ (p. xxiii). 23. Susan Frye, ‘Of Chastity and Rape: Edmund Spenser Confronts Elizabeth I in The Faerie Queene’ in Robertson and Rose, pp. 353–79 (p. 370). 24. Robin L. Bott, ‘ “O, keep me from their worse than killing lust”: Ideol- ogies of Rape and Mutilation in Chaucer’s Physician’s Tale and Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus’ in Robertson and Rose, pp. 189–211 (pp. 203, 202). This controversy is also discussed by Kim Solga in the context of the theatricality of rape, who argues that Lavinia is ‘an actor in a play that goes awry’. ‘Rape’s Metatheatrical Return: Rehearsing Sexual Violence among the Early Moderns’, Theatre Journal lviii (2006), 53–72 (64) and Violence against Women in Early Modern Performance (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), chapter 2. 25. Bamford, p. 79. Similarly, I cannot agree with Elizabeth Robertson’s contention that ‘just after rape, a woman’s subjectivity is released from the social constraints that determine not only her value or worth as property, but also her identity’ (‘Public Bodies and Psychic Domains: Rape, Consent, and Female Subjectivity in Geoffrey Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde’ in Robertson and Rose, pp. 281–310 (p. 285), but, analogously, this disagreement is over the degree of agency we might each attribute to the raped early modern woman. 26. For instance, Bamford concludes that not all the plays are ‘equally misogynist, nor equally simple’, citing Shakespeare as ‘offering more room for resistance’ (p. 160), in contrast to Michael Hall’s reading of Shakespeare’s The Rape of Lucrece as ‘legitimiz[ing] rape in a particularly dishonest way’. ‘Lewd but Familiar Eyes: The Narrative Notes 237 Tradition of Rape and Shakespeare’s The Rape of Lucrece’ in Woodbridge and Beehler, pp. 51–72 (p. 68). Baines makes what she describes as a ‘precarious’ distinction between the ‘merely salacious’ Master F.J. and the ‘pornographic’ The Unfortunate Traveller (pp. 144–5). 27. For an account of how such ‘critical binarism’ has failed to reconcile feminist and post-colonial positions, and the implications of this for reading the attempted rape of Miranda in The Tempest, see Jessica Slights, ‘Rape and the Romanticisation of Shakespeare’s Miranda’, SEL xli (2001), 357–79. Such binarism is perhaps closer to being avoided in the model suggested by Solga, who in examining early modern drama in performance attends to how plays ‘simultaneously reproduce and critique the performative processes of that evasion [of sexual violence]’. It thus ‘offers a space in which to interrogate the terms of that effacement’. Violence, pp. 11, 66. 28. Sid Ray, Holy Estates: Marriage and Monarchy in Shakespeare and his Contemporaries (Selinsgrove: Susquehana University Press, 2004), p. 18. Comparably, Helen Cooper argues that medieval and early modern romance evidences a belief in the ‘desirability of active female desire’ to which its misogyny provides ‘background noise’. Helen Cooper, The English Romance in Time: Transforming Motifs from Geoffrey of Monmouth to the Death of Shakespeare (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 220, 269. 29. Robert N. Watson and Stephen Dickey, ‘Wherefore Art Thou Tereu? Juliet and the Legacy of Rape’, Renaissance Quarterly lviii (2005), 127–56 (127). 30. See p. 132, below. 31. See in particular: Danielle Clarke, ed. Isabella Whitney, Mary Sidney and Aemilia Lanyer: Renaissance Women Poets (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2000); Josephine A. Roberts, ed. The First Part of the Countess of Montgomery’s Urania by Lady Mary Wroth (Tempe, Arizona: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Renaissance English Text Society, 1995; rpr. 2005) and Josephine A. Roberts, completed by Suzanne Gossett and Janel Mueller, eds The Second Part of the Countess of Montgomery’s Urania by Lady Mary Wroth (Tempe, Arizona: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Renaissance English Text Society, 1999). The 1621 edition of the first part of Urania is also available in a facsimile edition: The Early Modern Englishwoman: A Facsimile Library of Essential Works: Part 1: Printed Writings 1500– 1640, vol. 10, selected and introduced by Josephine A. Roberts, general editors Betty S. Travitsky and Patrick Cullen (Aldershot: Scolar, 1996). 32. See in particular Peter Beal’s Catalogue of English Literary Manuscripts 1450–1700 and the Perdita Project for early modern women’s manuscripts, directed by Elizabeth Clarke. 33. Particularly relevant to future studies of rape is the fact that ‘manu- script was a place where poems could do things which they could not do in the more glaring light of print’ such as ‘play[ing] with indecency’. Helen Hackett, ‘Joshua Eckhardt, Manuscript Verse Collectors and the Politics of Anti-Courtly Love Poetry’, Times Literary Supplement, 6 Nov. 2009, pp. 4–5. 238 Notes 34. Patricia Demers, Women’s Writing in English: Early Modern England (London, Toronto and Buffalo: Toronto University Press, 2005), p. 242. 35. Jennifer Summit, Lost Property: The Woman Writer and English Literary History, 1380–1589 (Chicago and London: Chicago University Press, 2000), p. 3. 36. Marion Wynne-Davies, Women Writers and Familial Discourse in the English Renaissance: Relative Values (Basingstoke and NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), p. 4. 37. Summit, p. 168. 38. Erin E. Kelly, ‘Mariam and Early Modern Discourses of Martyrdom’ in Heather Wolfe, ed. The Literary Career and Legacy of Elizabeth Cary, 1613–1680 (NY and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), pp. 35–51 (p. 49, n. 14). 39. See, for example, Danielle Clarke, ‘Speaking Women: Rhetoric and the Construction of Female Talk’ in Jennifer Richards and Alison Thorne, eds Rhetoric, Women and Politics in Early Modern England (Abingdon and NY: Routledge, 2007), pp. 70–88 (p. 75). 40. Danielle Clarke, ‘Introduction’ in Danielle Clarke and Elizabeth Clarke eds ‘This Double Voice’: Gender and Writing in Early Modern England (Basingstoke: Macmillan and NY: St Martin’s Press, 2000), pp. 1–15 (pp. 6–7). 41. Helen Hackett, Women and Romance Fiction in the English Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 174. 42. See below, p. 123. Indeed, Wolfthal finds that ‘rape was on the minds of medieval and early modern women’ (p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SCN 72 3&4 2014.Pdf (656.7Kb)
    EVENTEENTH- ENTURY EWS FALL - WINTER 2014 Vol. 72 Nos. 3&4 Including THE NEO-LATIN NEWS Vol. 62, Nos. 3&4 SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY NEWS VOLUME 72, Nos. 3&4 FALL-WINTER, 2014 An official organ of the Milton Society of America and of the Milton Section of the Modern Language Association, SCN is published as a double issue two times each year with the support of the English Department at Texas A&M University. SUBMISSIONS: As a scholarly review journal, SCN publishes only commissioned reviews. As a service to the scholarly community, SCN also publishes news items. A current style sheet, previous volumes’ Tables of Contents, and other informa- tion all may be obtained via at www.english.tamu.edu/scn/. Books for review and queries should be sent to: Prof. Donald R. Dickson English Department 4227 Texas A&M University College Station, Texas 77843-4227 E-Mail: [email protected] www.english.tamu.edu/scn/ and journals.tdl.org/scn ISSN 0037-3028 SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY NEWS EDITOR DONALD R. DICKSON Texas A&M University ASSOCIATE EDITORS Michele Marrapodi, University of Palermo Patricia Garcia, University of Texas E. Joe Johnson, Clayton State University EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Megan Pearson, Texas A&M University Morgan Wilson, Texas A&M University CONTENTS VOLUME 72, NOS. 3&4 ................................ FALL-WINTER, 2014 reviews Tom Cain and Ruth Connolly, eds., The Complete Poetry of Robert Herrick. Review by james mardock and eric rasmussen ........................... 190 Siobhán Collins, Bodies, Politics and Transformations: John Donne’s Metempsychosis. Review by anne lake prescott .......................... 195 Nabil Matar, Henry Stubbe’s The Rise and Progress of Mahometanism.
    [Show full text]
  • "A Sharers' Repertory." Rethinking Theatrical
    Syme, Holger Schott. "A Sharers’ Repertory." Rethinking Theatrical Documents in Shakespeare’s England. Ed. Tiffany Stern. London: The Arden Shakespeare, 2020. 33–51. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 26 Sep. 2021. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350051379.ch-002>. Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 26 September 2021, 08:28 UTC. Copyright © Tiffany Stern and contributors 2020. You may share this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. 2 A Sharers’ Repertory Holger Schott Syme Without Philip Henslowe, we would know next to nothing about the kinds of repertories early modern London’s resident theatre companies offered to their audiences. As things stand, thanks to the existence of the manuscript commonly known as Henslowe’s Diary , scholars have been able to contemplate the long lists of receipts and expenses that record the titles of well over 200 plays, most of them now lost. The Diary gives us some sense of the richness and diversity of this repertory, of the rapid turnover of plays, and of the kinds of investments theatre companies made to mount new shows. It also names a plethora of actors and other professionals associated with the troupes at the Rose. But, because the records are a fi nancier’s and theatre owner’s, not those of a sharer in an acting company, they do not document how a group of actors decided which plays to stage, how they chose to alternate successful shows, or what they, as actors, were looking for in new commissions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ignorant Elizabethan Author and Massinger's Believe As You List*
    The Ignorant Elizabethan Author and Massinger's Believe as You List* My purpose is to explore the evidence of the management of the acting cast offered by one of the surviving manuscript plays of the Caroline theatre and to defend its author against the charge of theatrical ineptitude. The manuscript is that of Massinger's Believe as You List (MS Egerton 2,828) 1 prepared for performance in 1631. It is in Massinger's hand, but has been heavily annotated by a reviser whom I propose to call by his old theatrical title of Plotter. I am aware that this is to beg a question at the outset, for we really do not know how many functionaries were involved in the preparation of a seventeenth-century play or on what order they worked upon the' dramatist's script. Our common picture of the Elizabethan theatre is almost all built from inference, and despite the wealth of information we appear to possess in the play-texts, theatre Plots, manuscripts, and even the builders' contracts for the Fortune and Hope thea­ tres, almost every detail of our reconstructions of the playhouses and the methods of production and performance within them is the subject of scholarly dispute. The result is that we have no clear picture of the dramatist's craft as Shakespeare and his contemporaries practised it, or of the understood conditions that governed the production and perfor­ mance of their plays. That there were well-understood methods is apparent from the remarkable uniformity of the stage directions in printed texts and manuscripts throughout the whole period from the building of the Theatre in 1576 to the end of regular playing in 1642.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge Companion Eng Renais Drama
    This page intentionally left blank The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama This second edition of the Companion offers students up-to-date factual and interpretative material about the principal theatres, playwrights, and plays of the most important period of English drama, from 1580 to 1642. Three wide- ranging chapters on theatres, dramaturgy, and the social, cultural, and political conditions of the drama are followed by chapters describing and illustrating various theatrical genres: private and occasional drama, political plays, heroic plays, burlesque, comedy, tragedy, with a final essay on the drama produced during the reign of Charles I. Several of the essays have been substantially revised and all of the references updated. An expanded biographical and bib- liographical section details the work of the dramatists discussed in the book and the best sources for further study. A chronological table provides a full listing of new plays performed from 1497 to 1642, with a parallel list of major political and theatrical events. THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO ENGLISH RENAISSANCE DRAMA EDITED BY A. R. BRAUNMULLER AND MICHAEL HATTAWAY SECOND EDITION cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru,UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9780521821155 © Cambridge University Press 1990, 2003 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
    [Show full text]
  • Munro Revised 1 Sept 2013
    King’s Research Portal Document Version Early version, also known as pre-print Link to publication record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Munro, L. C. (2014). Actors, Plays and Performances in the Indoor Playhouses, 1625-42: Boy Players, Leading Men and the Caroline Ensemble. YEARBOOK OF ENGLISH STUDIES, 44, 51-68. Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. •Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research. •You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain •You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research Portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Dramatis Personae Lists in Early Modern Manuscript Plays
    Early Theatre 18.2 (2015), 87–118 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12745/et.18.2.1166 Matteo Pangallo ‘I will keep and character that name’: Dramatis Personae Lists in Early Modern Manuscript Plays W.W. Greg’s claim that manuscript plays containing character lists were intended for publication (print or manuscript) and not playhouse use fails to account for all of the evidence in surviving manuscripts. Instead, as this essay demonstrates, a more significant variable in the inclusion of character lists in manuscript plays is the writer’s professional or amateur status. This article argues that amateur playwrights, influenced by their experiences as readers of printed plays, were more likely than professionals to include the ‘readerly’ device of a dramatis personae list in their manuscript plays, even in the case of playhouse manuscripts. In late 1632, during his long return voyage to London from Persia, East India Company clerk Walter Mountfort passed the time by writing a play that he intended to sell to a professional playing company upon his return.1 When he returned to London in the spring of 1633, Mountfort supplied his manu- script of The Launching of the Mary, or, The Seaman’s Honest Wife to a troupe of actors, who in turn paid for a license from the master of the revels and then began to prepare it for performance, though no evidence confirms that the players eventually staged the play.2 Mountfort wrote his play as a dedicated playgoer, recalling the playhouses he had years earlier frequented and then left behind when he sailed to Persia.
    [Show full text]
  • Brian Jay Corrigan 27.1.2010.Proofed
    7 The Repertoire of the Renaissance Playing Companies Brian Jay Corrigan INTRODUCTION In the process of a decades-long labor of love I call The Compendium of Renaissance Drama, I have been able, perhaps for the first time, to create several comprehensive lists of extant plays in their original settings. Several years ago one such series of lists, covering playhouses and their repertoires, appeared in Discoveries, and I offer now another series of lists indicating playing companies and their repertoires. This compendium is now online at cord.ung.edu. These lists are a comprehensive reflection of the place of extant plays in the repertoires of the various playing companies, adult and children, from the time of Westminster’s Boys (1564) until the closing of the theatres in 1642. Company histories are taken from Gurr and from my own notes to be found also online in the Compendium of Renaissance Drama. Companies are listed alphabetically while the plays are listed below each company chronologically. The dates listed are keyed to Harbage and Schoenbaum’s Annals and are therefore only approximate. A question mark before an entry indicates there is debate over whether the company in question performed that play. A question mark after a date indicates doubt that the play in question was performed at or around that date. The note [later] indicates that the play is known or thought to have been performed by that company but in a year sometime after its original production. The following lists will contain repetitions where a play is known or strongly suspected to have been performed by more than one company.
    [Show full text]
  • Extreme Casting
    EXTREME CASTING Submitted by Jeffrey Chips In Partial Fulfillment of the M.Litt. Degree MARY BALDWIN COLLEGE M.Litt./MFA Program in Shakespeare and Performance In Partnership with the American Shakespeare Center Spring 2011 March 25, 2011 Thesis Review Committee: _________________________ Matthew Davies, Ph.D. (Cand.), Supervisor _________________________ Ralph Alan Cohen, Ph.D. _________________________ James C. Bulman, Ph.D. _________________________ Date 2 Abstract Extreme casting is a term I coined to describe the techniques a theater company uses when the casting demands of a play outweigh a company‘s resources. With not enough actors to fill the stage, actors will often play two or more characters at the same time in order to meet the challenges of performing a play with limited resources. I discuss the history and evolution of doubling practices on the early-modern stage and indicate possible roots of extreme casting in this period. I also discuss the work of current companies employing extreme casting, such as Actors From the London Stage (AFTLS) and Shakespeare‘s Globe. I argue that contrary to popular assumptions, extreme casting in Shakespeare can and should appeal to all audiences, regardless of age or experience. Table of Contents Introduction…………………………………....…………………....……………………4 Chapter 1……………………………………………………………....…………………7 Chapter 2……...………….………...…………………………………………………...23 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………47 Afterword……………....………………………………………………………………..49 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………….50 Appendix A: TJ King‘s Casting Tables (25-26, 97-105) Appendix B: Russ McDonald‘s Casting Tables (77-78) Appendix C: Cast Lists for Tailgate Shakespeare‘s A Midsummer Night’s Dream and staged reading of Double Falsehood Appendix D: Midsummer Photos Appendix E: Double Falsehood Photos 3 Acknowledgements To my committee: Matthew Davies, Ralph Alan Cohen, and James Bulman.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Theatre Essay Prizes 2015
    Early Theatre A Journal Associated with the Records of Early English Drama Editors Helen Ostovich (McMaster University) Melinda J. Gough (McMaster University) Associate Editors Erin E. Kelly (University of Victoria) Sarah E. Johnson (Royal Military College of Canada) Book Review Editor Peter Kirwan (University of Nottingham) Paleographer Patrick Gregory (REED) Editorial Board Gloria Betcher (Iowa State University) Pamela Allen Brown (University of Connecticut, Stamford) Richard Cave (Royal Holloway, University of London) Theresa Coletti (University of Maryland) John Craig (Simon Fraser University) JoAnna Dutka (University of Toronto) Garrett P.J. Epp (University of Alberta) Vanessa Harding (Birkbeck College, University of London) Alexandra Johnston (REED and University of Toronto) M.A. Katritzky (The Open University) Anne Lancashire (University of Toronto) Marion F. O’Connor (University of Kent) Jill Stevenson (Marymount Manhattan College) Suzanne Westfall (Lafayette College) Paul Yachnin (McGill University) This journal is a member of the Canadian Association of Learned Journals (CALJ) and the Council of Editors of Learned Journals . Subscription Information Early Theatre: A Journal Associated with the Records of Early English Drama (ET/ REED) is published twice a year in June and in December. Volumes in print for two years or more are now available through open access at http://earlytheatre. org. The complete journal is published online through ITER, where subscrib- ers also have access to the REED Newsletter from 1976 to 1997, when it ceased publication. We gratefully acknowledge the financial assistance provided by the Dean of Humanities and the department of English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University. Online Subscriptions Online access to Early Theatre is available via subscription through ITER: Gateway to the Middle Ages and Renaissance at http://www.itergateway .org/.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of English Plays, Masques, Entertainments, and Other Dramatic Forms, by Author
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-82115-5 - The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama, Second Edition Edited by A. R. Braunmuller and Michael Hattaway Index More information INDEX OF ENGLISH PLAYS, MASQUES, ENTERTAINMENTS, AND OTHER DRAMATIC FORMS, BY AUTHOR Anonymous plays are grouped alphabetically at the end of this index. Barnes, Barnabe, Devil’s Charter 168 Daniel, Samuel, Philotas 183; Queen’s Beaumont, Francis, Cupid’s Revenge 240; Arcadia 148; Tethys’ Festival 141, 147, Knight of the Burning Pestle 19, 31, 60, 150; Vision of the Twelve Goddesses 107, 222, 233–5; Masque of the Inner 147 Temple and Gray’s Inn 150; Woman Hater Davenant, Sir William, Just Italian 34; 73, 103, 109 Salmacida Spolia 151; Temple of Love Beaumont, Francis and John Fletcher, King 368; Triumphs of the Prince D’Amour and No King 34, 244–5, 249, 306; Maid’s 158; Unfortunate Lovers 27, 37; Wits Tragedy 87, 176, 306; Philaster 63, 186, 362–4 240, 241–4, 246 Davenport, Robert, King John and Matilda Boyle, William, Jugurth (lost) 58 166 Brome, Richard, Antipodes 57, 59, 86, Davison, Francis, Proteus and the 358–9; Weeding of Covent Garden Adamantine Rock 140 362 Day, John, Travels of the Three English Browne, William, Ulysses and Circe 156 Brothers 20, 31, 224 Dekker, Thomas, 1 & 2 Honest Whore 98, Campion, Thomas, Lords’ Masque 150; 118; If it be Not Good, the Devil is in it Somerset Masque 142 166; Old Fortunatus 82, 98, 134; Campion, Thomas and Francis Davison, Shoemaker’s Holiday 20, 100, 103, 107, Proteus and the Adamantine Rock 118, 221, 300;
    [Show full text]