STAGING SPECTATORsHIP IN THE PLAYs OF PHILIP MAssINGER

The playwrights composing for the London stage between 1580 and 1642 repeatedly staged plays-within and other metatheatrical inserts. Such works present fictionalized spectators as well as performers, providing images ofthe audience–stage interaction within the theatre. They are as much enactments of the interpretive work of a spectator as of acting, and as such they are a potential source of information about early modern conceptions of audiences, spectatorship and perception.

This study examines on-stage spectatorship in three plays by Philip Massinger, head playwright for the King’s Men from 1625 to 1640. Each play presents a different form of metatheatrical inset, from the plays-within of The Roman Actor (1626), to the masques-within of The City Madam (1632) to the titular miniature portrait of The Picture (1629), moving thematically from spectator interpretations of dramatic performance, the visual spectacle of the masque to staged “readings” of static visual art. All three forms present a dramatization of the process of examination, and allow an analysis of Massinger’s assumptions about interpretation, perception and spectator response.

Joanne Rochester is Assistant Professor of English, University of Saskatchewan, Canada. ROUTLEDGE Routledge Taylor & Francis Group LONDON AND NEW YORK Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama General Editor’s Preface Helen Ostovich, McMaster University Performance assumes a string of creative, analytical, and collaborative acts that, in defiance of theatrical ephemerality, live on through records, manuscripts, and printed books. The monographs and essay collections in this series offer original research which addresses theatre histories and performance histories in the context of the sixteenth and seventeenth century life. Of especial interest are studies in which women’s activities are a central feature of discussion as financial or technical supporters (patrons, musicians, dancers, seamstresses, wigmakers, or ‘gatherers’), if not authors or performers per se. Welcome too are critiques of early modern drama that not only take into account the production values of the plays, but also speculate on how intellectual advances or popular culture affect the theatre. The series logo, selected by my colleague Mary V. Silcox, derives from Thomas Combe’s duodecimo volume, The Theater of Fine Devices (London, 1592), Emblem VI, sig. B. The emblem of four masks has a verse which makes claims for the increasing complexity of early modern experience, a complexity that makes interpretation difficult. Hence the corresponding perhaps uneasy rise in sophistication:

Masks will be more hereafter in request, And grow more deare than they did heretofore.

No longer simply signs of performance “in play and jest”, the mask has become the “double face” worn “in earnest” even by “the best” of people, in order to manipulate or profit from the world around them. The books stamped with this design attempt to understand the complications of performance produced on stage and interpreted by the audience, whose experiences outside the theatre may reflect the emblem’s argument:

Most men do use some colour’d shift For to conceal their craftie drift.

Centuries after their first presentations, the possible performance choices and meanings they engender still stir the imaginations of actors, audiences, and readers of early plays. The products of scholarly creativity in this series, I hope, will also stir imaginations to new ways of thinking about performance. Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger

JOANNE ROCHEsTER University of Saskatchewan, Canada ROUTLEDGE Routledge Taylor & Francis Group LONDON AND NEW YORK First published 2010 by Ashgate Publishing

Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright © Joanne Rochester 2010

Joanne Rochester has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Notices.

Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Rochester, Joanne. Staging spectatorship in the plays of Philip Massinger. – (Studies in performance and early modern drama) 1. Massinger, Philip, 1583–1640 – Criticism and interpretation. 2. Play within a play. 3. English drama – 17th century – History and criticism. I. Title II. Series 822.3–dc22

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rochester, Joanne. Staging spectatorship in the plays of Philip Massinger / Joanne Rochester. p. cm. – (Studies in performance and early modern drama) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-7546-3080-7 (hardback: alk. paper) 1. Massinger, Philip, 1583–1640 – Criticism and interpretation. 2. Theater audiences in literature. 3. Visual perception in literature. 4. Theater audiences – England – History – 17th century. I. Title. PR2707.R63 2010 822’.3–dc22 2009031368

ISBN 9780754630807 (hbk) Contents

List of Figures vii Acknowledgements ix

Introduction 1

1 “What Doe wee acte to day?”: Plays within the Play: The Roman Actor 15

2 “For your sport / You shall see a masterpiece”: Masques-within in The Picture, The Guardian and The City Madam 53

3 “Speculations / On cheating pictures”: Visual Art as Dramatic Inset: The Picture 95

Conclusion: “Make your howse the stage on which weel act / Our comick sceane”: Trials and Paradramatic Scenes 125

Bibliography 141 Index 167 This page intentionally left blank List of Figures

1.1 “A table describyng the burning of Byshop Ridley and Father Latymer at Oxford, Doctor Smith there preaching at the time of theyr Martyrdome”. John Foxe, Acts and Monuments (1583). © 2009 The Folger Shakespeare Library (STC 11223.2 Vol 2). Reproduced with permission. 36

2.1 “Emblem 40: The Choice of Hercules” (detail) from Geffery Whitney, A Choice of Emblemes (1586). © 2009 The Folger Shakespeare Library (STC 25438 Copy 1). Reproduced with permission. 67

2.2 “A Declaration for the certain time of drawing the great standing Lottery” (detail). Virginia Company Broadside (22 February 1615). © 2009 Society of Antiquaries (Lemon broadside 151). Reproduced with permission. 84 This page intentionally left blank Acknowledgements

This book owes its existence to the grace and goodwill of many people. Of these, the first to thank are Helen Ostovich and Erica Gaffney, whose forbearance, support and encouragement have been all but miraculous. I owe a vast debt of gratitude to Martin White, both for his kind and astute comments on the first chapter, early in this process, and for his mention of it in the introduction to his Revels Edition of The Roman Actor. I am also grateful to the two anonymous readers for Ashgate, whose comments and feedback on what was then a ragged monster have made this a much better book. Alexander Leggatt patiently presided over the birth of this document, many years ago; his kindly long-term guidance has my undying affection. I am also thankful to Ann Lancashire, John Astington, Alexandra Johnstone and other faculty members of the English Department at the University of Toronto. The work of Nova Myhill influenced my thinking from a distance; her friendship, and that of Meg Powers Livingstone, has helped to frame my thinking about Caroline drama; a discussion with Sophie Tomlinson on spectatorship at the MLA was also very helpful. Finally, I am thankful for the support of colleagues and friends who read, debated or corrected this document or others connected to it: among them David Parkinson, Lisa Vargo, Holly Forsythe, the members of the CMRS at the University of Saskatchewan, the members of my thesis reading group at the University of Toronto, Tanya Wood, Tanya Hagen, Sue Carter and Kim Yates, and my good friends Casie Hermanson, Alice Palumbo, Georgia Wilder and Chet Scoville. Finally, I want to thank my mother and father, Harry James Rochester and Tordis Marie Rochester, who have paid, in so many ways, for everything. This page intentionally left blank Introduction

Renaissance drama compulsively reflects on itself. The playwrights composing for the London stage between 1580 and 1642 repeatedly stage performances of performance, repeating the conditions of their own productions: again and again, the theatre audience watches a fictional audience watch the work of a company of players, dancers, singers or mimes. Although most studies of Renaissance metadrama focus on the content of the play-within itself, plays-within and other metadramatic inserts represent both participants in the theatrical experience, providing images of the audience–stage interaction within the theatre. They are as much enactments of spectatorship—the interpretive work of a spectator—as of acting, and as such they are a potential source of information about Early Modern conceptions of audiences, spectatorship and perception. In metadramatic plays from Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy at the opening of the period to Brome’s The Antipodes at its close, the fictional audience provides insight into the way the playwright imagines his relations with his actual audience, providing a glimpse of the house from the tiring room. This present study focuses on such presentation of spectatorship in the work of the Caroline playwright Philip Massinger—that is, his treatment of the onstage audiences of his metadramatic inset pieces and plays-within. Massinger’s plays- within, like those of many of his Caroline contemporaries, focus as much on the reactions of the fictional spectators to the performances they are watching as on the content of the play-within itself. In addition, Massinger’s onstage spectators typically misread, overinterpret or otherwise misconstrue the metadramatic insets they watch, and their responses to these interpretations structure the plots of his plays. This treatment of the interpretive relationship between the inset art and its onstage viewer, which I call the “spectatorial” relation, is one of the most important elements of Massinger’s metadrama. The most obvious reason for approaching Massinger through his metadrama is his authorship of The Roman Actor (1626), one of the most complex metatheatrical plays of the period. More importantly, the dramaturgical structures and concerns of The Roman Actor are repeated and reworked in his later plays: as this study will show, Massinger’s work stages performance and reception to a degree which has not been widely recognized. His peculiarly analytic approach to the play-within, and particularly to its reception by its onstage audiences, is as central to his dramaturgy as The Roman Actor is to his work. The plot of The Roman Actor is essentially built around the reactions of its onstage spectators to its plays-within, and this particular approach to metadrama is the foundation of Massinger’s dramaturgy; in most of the work he writes after 1626, he foregrounds the process of interpretation and response, and builds his plots around this push–pull interaction between the  Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger spectator and show. He also stages this interaction using onstage audience reaction to forms of metadramatic inserts besides plays-within: masques-within and pieces of visual art. All enable the focus on the issues of perception, interpretation and judgment that lies at the heart of his metadrama. This study centers on three of Massinger’s Caroline plays, each of which present three different forms of inset, from the plays-within of The Roman Actor (1626), to the masques-within of The City Madam (1932) to the titular miniature portrait of The Picture (1629). The book violates chronological order in order to move thematically from spectatorial relations with dramatic performance to performed visual images to static visual art. All three forms present a dramatization of the process of examination, and allow an analysis of Massinger’s assumptions about interpretation, perception and spectator response. In all cases, the focus is on Massinger’s presentation of onstage spectators and their relations to the shows they watch: how they interpret what they see, how the theatre audience is invited to judge their interpretation, and what this interaction between the onstage spectator and the inset spectacle is supposed to mean. One crucial assumption is that onstage spectators are as important as the inset shows they watch, and that their responses to the shows help to frame and determine the shows’ meanings. Massinger’s interest in these elements is more practical than abstract: he is interested in dramatic structure because it is his medium, the delivery system for his ideas. I would also argue that he examines how spectators interpret what they see, and how actors and spectators interact to produce meaning, as a way of testing or analysing his medium, much as he does his characters. Massinger has long been seen as a playwright of ethical issues, and his interest in dramatic structure has been linked to these larger concerns. Ira Clark relates Massinger’s metadrama directly to his ethical themes, reading Massinger’s self-reflexive dramatic structures through a sociological lens. In Clark’s view, Massinger’s characters build societies around “reflexivity and reciprocity” (Professional 51) in the performance of social roles, making the plays’ metadrama a structural expression of the playwright’s recurrent themes, an extension of Massinger’s interest in gratitude and patronage (Professional 49–51). Massinger’s demands that his audience be consciously aware of the theatrical process in which they take part, and that their aesthetic and moral judgments march together, imply that the mirroring structures that pervade his stage are meant to call forth a mirroring response from his audience. This book has a deliberately tight focus: it examines metadramatic insets in the work of one playwright, with the intention of reaching some conclusions about Massinger and his theatre. But this does not mean that it will not have wider implications. It will be of use to studies of Massinger, but also to studies of his

 This focus on metadrama precludes examination of important plays that lack metadramatic elements—notably the City Comedy A New Way to Pay Old Debts, but also The Bondsman, The Renegado and The Virgin Martyr, all of which have been the subject of recent study. Introduction  contemporaries, audience and theatre, and the Caroline period’s reception of his predecessors. Any discussion of Massinger’s work must draw on and contribute to the growing literature on Caroline drama: as the attached playwright for the King’s Men from 1625 to 1642, he is important to the period, and his approaches and preoccupations are shared by other Caroline playwrights. Fruitful connections can be drawn between his work and that of Brome, Ford, Shirley and Davenant as well as the late works of Jonson and Heywood, and his career must be seen in the context of the “distinctive culture of drama [that develops] in Caroline England” (Farmer and Lesser 18). Recent critical commentary on the period, such as the essays in Zucker and Farmer’s collection Localizing Caroline Drama (2006), Steggle’s studies Richard Brome: Place and Politics on the Caroline Stage (2004) and The Wars of the Theatres (1998), and Clark’s Professional Playwrights (1992) have corrected the view of Caroline drama as a derivative product staged in the shadow of catastrophe. Zucker and Farmer’s introduction is a survey of recent work which reframes the rich, complex and diverse period as “more than the precursor to closure and cataclysm” (11). Massinger’s work is also important to the reception of the earlier generation of playwrights, notably Fletcher, Jonson and Shakespeare. Massinger is a transitional figure, whose career spans the last half of the period 1580–1642: he begins writing sometime before 1614, as Shakespeare retires, and dies two years before the 1642 closure. His career encompasses two reigns, multiple collaborations and three performance venues: Henslowe’s Rose, Beeston’s Cockpit and the King’s Men’s Blackfriars and Globe. He starts out working on collaborative plays for Henslowe

 Contemporary criticism of Caroline drama starts with Butler’s Theatre and Crisis: 1632–1642 (1984); in addition to Steggle, Clark, and the Farmer and Zucker collection, recent treatments include Sanders’ Caroline Drama: The Plays of Massinger, Ford, Shirley and Brome (1999), Bulman’s essay “Caroline Drama” in The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama (1986, 2003) and Venuti’s Our Halcyon Days: English Prerevolutionary Texts and Postmodern Culture (1989). Caroline court drama and masques are studied by Britland, Drama at the Courts of Queen Henrietta Maria (2006), Ravelhofer, The Early Stuart Masque (2006), Tomlinson, Women on Stage in Stuart Drama (2005), McManus, Women and Culture at the Courts of the Stuart Queens (2003) and Veevers, Images of Love and Religion (1989). Tragicomedies, including the works of Massinger, are treated in Foster’s Name and Nature of Tragicomedy (2004) and McMullan and Hope’s collection The Politics of Tragicomedy (1992).  Throughout his early career, Massinger wrote to the requirements of particular markets: comedies and tragicomedies for Beeston, tragedies for the King’s Men and romantic tragicomedies in collaboration with John Fletcher. The plays he wrote for Beeston all treat controversial political or social issues: The Maid of Honour (1621–2), The Bondman (1623), The Renegado (1624), The Parliament of Love (1624), A New Way to Pay Old Debts (1625) and The Great Duke of Florence (1627). In the same period he sold two tragedies to the King’s Men: The Duke of Milan (1621) and The Unnatural Combat (1624–5). Both turn on sensational erotic obsessions (incest and necrophilia) and end with visually spectacular deaths. At the same time, he worked on 16 collaborative plays with Fletcher, most of which  Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger

(Henslowe Papers 65–6), and by the late 1610s, moves to more prestigious collaborative work with Fletcher, Field and Dekker. Between 1618 and 1625 he becomes Fletcher’s primary partner, at the same time starting a solo career. Upon Fletcher’s death in 1625 he becomes the attached playwright for the King’s Men, producing 20 titles for them—roughly two a year—until his death in March 1640 (E&G I: xliiii). Neither the range of markets nor the length of his career are unprecedented: Heywood and Middleton also start out writing for Henslowe and end by selling plays to King’s, and Shakespeare, Jonson, Heywood and Dekker have 30-year careers. However, a long career marked by shifts in markets does require the writer to become particularly aware of shifting audience expectations, which may be one reason for Massinger’s interest in spectator response. Also, Massinger’s position with the King’s Men pushes him into deep engagement with the work of Shakespeare, Fletcher and Jonson; their plays form the bulk of the company’s holdings and are the foundation of its success. He is writing primarily for the Blackfriars playhouse, which has a longstanding tradition of metatheatrical play or negotiation with its audience. He is writing within a tradition, and he acknowledges this in a number of ways. His work engages directly with the company backlist, most obviously in his revisions of Fletcher: in 1634 he reworks two earlier collaborations, A Very Woman and The Lovers’ Progress (formerly Cleander). In the case of Shakespeare and Jonson, his reception is subtler: he responds to, echoes and alludes to their works. A Midsummer Night’s Dream underlies the plot of The Guardian, and The City Madam draws on both Volpone (in the character of Luke) and The Winter’s Tale (in the animated pictures scene). Massinger is not merely being derivative in either case: he is effectively quoting the earlier plays, playing with a theatrically literate audience that can be depended on to catch the references. The script holdings of the King’s Men and their historic dominance of the market are two of the company’s strengths, and Massinger’s references draw attention to this. Finally, he is playing with and helping to build the theatrical public’s developing sense of theatrical history and taste, both of which evolve in the Caroline period. Farmer and Lesser provide evidence for the beginnings of an “Early Modern Canon” of plays (28–35) in Caroline print culture: old plays are marketed as “not merely older than but significantly different from Caroline plays” (34), with a “more direct and unrefined style” (35) than the complex plots and witty dialogue of the Caroline writers. Conscious aesthetic reception develops in the audience as well: Neill (“Wits”), Salingar (“Judicious”) and Bulman (“Caroline”) all note the development of a self-consciously aesthetic approach to drama in the Caroline audience, and Massinger’s metadrama must be set within this context. The genre he is working in is probably also responsible: tragicomedy, the period’s dominant are romantic tragicomedies. See Edwards and Gibson’s General Introduction xx–xxxiii, for dates and attribution.  All quotations are from The Plays and Poems of Philip Massinger (1976), edited by Edwards and Gibson, and will be referred to throughout as E&G. Introduction  genre, requires complex, artificial plotting that startles, shocks and delights its audience. Spectatorial response is central to the tragicomic aesthetic, since control of the audience’s emotional response is key to the success of the plot, but the audience must also retain an awareness of being worked on. This results in a self-conscious, artful tone to the period’s tragicomedy, as noted by Waith, Gosset and Foster. Finally, Massinger is working for an audience who appreciate this company style, developing patterns and dramaturgical structures that will please an audience drawn by the older plays in the repertoire. He needs to analyse the work of his predecessors, to understand the patterns and forms of their dramatic structure. His metadramatic approach seems related to this; he is breaking the patterns of audience response into constituent parts, analysing and theorizing as he writes. He is not alone in this interest: Caroline drama is strikingly self-conscious, and Massinger’s metadrama needs to be discussed in a Caroline context. All four Caroline professional playwrights—to use Clark’s terminology—produce plays about playing. Massinger does so in The Roman Actor and several other plays, 10 of Brome’s 16 plays contain some form of metatheatrical inset piece (Steggle, Brome 9) and Ford’s “emblematic” theatre draws on masque elements of music and spectacle. Even Shirley, the least theatrically self-conscious of the group, presents a framed play-within in The Bird in a Cage (1633). Finally, Jonson’s late plays contain structures reminiscent of the inductions and frames that structure his early Cynthia’s Revels (1600) or Every Man Out of His Humour (1599): these include the Chorus of The Magnetic Lady (1632), the Gossips who frame The Staple of News (1626) and inset pieces such as the plays within of A Tale of a Tub (1633) and The New Inn (1629), which presents love-debates staged in an inn, a direct parallel to the theatre (Lawry 309). Even by the standards of Renaissance drama as a whole, Caroline drama is strikingly concerned with issues of performance, and one of its common themes is the nature and place of the stage. A probable source for this “introspective … theatrical self–reference” (Bulman 359) is the tradition of metatheatrical inductions in the private theatres. Salingar, examining the turn of the century children’s company drama, argues that the inductions introduce a new critical vocabulary to the theatrical mix. Those of Marston and Jonson, in particular, make reference to the “idea of critical ‘judgment’” which Salingar eventually sees arising in “in roughly one play out of every five” by the 1610s (211). He reads these moments of extra-dramatic address as the beginning of dramatic criticism: they frame out the “general laws or principles” of the drama (216) and “reveal a new climate of vocal theatrical criticism” in England (217). Haynes sees Jacobean metadrama such as Beaumont’s The Knight of the Burning Pestle as demonstrations of the theatre’s growing strength, its ability to “carry a qualitatively new discourse about the social nature and function of art” (62). He reads Beaumont’s play as a development from the Jonsonian induction, which was used to “guide and control the audience, to extend the dramatist’s control of the play’s reception” (65); Beaumont, in contrast, absorbs the induction into the action, making the stage’s critique of its reception part of the plot.  Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger

Such readings imply that metatheatre, in the Jacobean private theatre, is something used to discuss and analyse the drama itself. This approach becomes the standard model for metadrama in the Caroline period. Many of the same ideas and terms of address are still in use 25 years later: Salingar notes that “judgment” is the buzzword of the earlier drama (4), but Massinger also frames his theatre audience as judges, and makes implicit and explicit reference to the need for judgment from his spectators. While the Elizabethan stage was deeply interested in the relationship of acting to being, in the relation of world-stage to stage, the Caroline writers explore the audience–stage relation more narrowly, repeatedly staging the process of audience interpretation by presenting onstage audiences reading plays, masques and other shows. The primary difference between the earlier Jacobean metadrama and the Caroline form is that the Caroline plays integrate their plots with onstage spectator reactions, after the manner of The Knight of the Burning Pestle. Several Caroline plays have plots which are entirely structured around plays-within: Massinger’s The Roman Actor (1626), Thomas Randolph’s The Muses’ Looking Glass (1630) and Brome’s The Antipodes (1638), along with Jonson’s The New Inn (1629), not only contain inset dramatic performances but are set in theatres, have actors as characters and are, narratively, about the theatre and the work of actors and spectators—although Jonson’s play is not as explicit about this as the other three. These plays are tightly focused on the onstage audience’s reactions to, relations with and interpretations of the plays-within; in fact, the interrelation of the audience and play work to create the plot in all four plays. These plays are not theories of drama—descriptions of how drama ought to work according to theoretical rules— or framing attempts to control the play’s reception by the theatre audience, but practical examinations of the ways in which drama and audience interact. They are enacted analyses of how drama works (or doesn’t work), and The Roman Actor is the earliest of them. Such Caroline metadrama has been read as a pre-emptive defence against the coming closure of 1642: Jonas Barish reads the plays of Massinger, Randolph and Brome as flawed “defenses” of the stage which attempt to “erect a bulwark against the onrushing Puritan tide” (“Caroline Defenses” 211). James Bulman also sees it as a defensive reaction to the threat posed by the reduction in commissions for new plays, growing censorship and the threat of Puritan anti-theatrical prejudice, arguing that “collectively, [such plays] provide evidence that the theatre was suffering a crisis of identity in which dramatists asserted their power to influence an audience while in fact fearing their own impotence” (356). The difficulty with these arguments is that none of the these plays exhibit much anxiety: all insist on the stage’s dependence on the audience but also seem to trust the audience’s capacity to understand their role in the interpretive contract of attention. They are strikingly confident in their audience’s capacity of interpretation. Even in The Roman Actor, in which Paris’ theatre “goes down to defeat” (Barish, “Caroline Defenses” 201) the Blackfriars audience is meant to resent the drama’s abuse, not applaud it (see Chapter 1, this volume). While Caroline theatre is, to use Introduction 

Yachnin’s term, “powerless” and openly aware of its dependence on its spectators, who are “the chief manipulator[s], the stage–hands for [their] own emotions, the craftsm[e]n of the theatrical event” (Pavis 349), it is also confident in the ability of the spectators to fill that role. I read Caroline metadrama—that of Massinger as well as others—not as defence but as exploration and analysis: Caroline dramatists use metatheatrical insets to analyse the nature of the form they are practicing. This exploration is neither a theory nor a defence of drama, but an examination of the audience/stage contract which usually emerges as a series of questions, posed “obliquely, inferentially in the course of the action” (Barish, “Caroline Defenses” 206). The central question— how does drama work—is often explored by demonstrating what goes wrong when it doesn’t work. Further questions—what is the role the stage is expected to fulfill, what are the expectations of the audience, how is the drama supposed to fulfill them, what is the responsibility of the audience to the play—are usually explored through performance rather than answered directly. This open-ended quality can make the plays seem uncertain or defensive, but I would argue they are rather the product of a confident drama: one that trusts its audience and is confident that the audience is interested in these questions too. This approach is one step on the route to a formal theory of drama based on contemporary practice, not on classical precepts.

Criticism and Sources

Critical interest in Massinger has been rising since the publication of Edward’s and Gibson’s Oxford edition of The Plays and Poems of Philip Massinger in 1976. The first treatments to engage his complete body of work were those of New Historicist critics: Heinemann in Puritanism and Theatre (1980), Goldberg in James I and the Politics of Literature (1983) and Patterson in Censorship and Interpretation (1984). Butler’s seminal study of Caroline drama, Theatre and Crisis: 1632–1642 (1984) is of central importance to a reading of Massinger, as are the essays collected in Howard’s Phillip Massinger: A Critical Reassessment (1985), and Clark’s two books, Professional Playwrights (1992) and The Moral Art of Philip Massinger (1993). The most recent major piece of criticism is Martin White’s Revels Plays edition of The Roman Actor (2008); particularly significant is the introduction, a performance-based interpretation of the play. Specifically

 There are well over 200 papers on the plays, which I discuss in the chapters which follow. The greatest interest is in The Roman Actor, with three recent papers on its metatheatre: Edward Rocklin’s “Placing the Audience at Risk: Realizing the design of Massinger’s The Roman Actor” (2006), Pastoor’s “Metadramatic Performances in Hamlet and The Roman Actor” (2006) and Delery’s “Dramatic Instruction and Misinstruction in Philip Massinger’s The Roman Actor” (2004). There are several post-colonial readings of the tragicomedies, notably The Renegado and The City Madam: Robinson’s “The ‘Turks,’ Caroline Politics and Philip Massinger’s The Renegado” (2006), Claire Jowitt’s “Massinger’s The Renegado  Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger important to my approach are two critics who have treated Massinger’s inset pieces. Martin Garrett’s “A Diamond Though Set in Horn”: Philip Massinger’s Attitude to Spectacle (1984) deals with Massinger’s use of inset “spectacle”, a category that includes many of the playwright’s inset shows and masques, and has been invaluable to my readings of the masque-within. Nova Myhill’s unpublished UCLA dissertation, “‘Judging Spectators’: Dramatic Representations of Spectatorship in Early Modern London, 1580–1642” (1997) has also been immensely valuable. Her focus on the period’s representation of onstage audience response helped to frame my approach from the outset, and her reading of The Roman Actor as a study in the “reciprocal influence and dependence of the theatre and its audience” (viii) is very much the foundation of my own. The years since the millennium have seen substantial theatrical interest in the works as well. In part due to the consultancy of Martin White, the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) has produced two Massinger plays: The Roman Actor, directed by Sean Holmes and starring Anthony Sher as the Emperor Domitian, was mounted in the 2002–3 season, and Believe as You List, re-titled Believe What You Will, directed by Josie Rourke and starring William Houston and Peter De Jersey, in the 2005–6 “Gunpowder” season. While the popular and critical success of the RSC Roman Actor justifies Massinger’s pride in this play, the positive critical response to his lesser-known Believe as You List suggests that the playwright’s deliberately open-ended moral and political commentary retains its theatrical power. Massinger composed the play as a commentary on Spanish military adventurism, but the tale of a Near Eastern monarch deposed and destroyed by Imperial Rome had obvious resonance with the American invasion of Iraq. This play was designed to invite political interpretations from its original audience, and it still does so today. Of the many studies of Renaissance metadrama, Ann Righter’s (Barton’s) Shakespeare and the Idea of the Play (1962), is the first and most important: her view is that metadrama is a defensive element adopted to combat the “tyranny of the audience”. She sees drama developing away from the open performance practices of the Medieval and Tudor stages towards illusory mimesis, and therefore argues that Elizabethan playwrights replace extra-dramatic address with the formal play-within, to engage the audience but preserve mimetic difference. Because of this perspective, she sees the metatheatre of Jacobean and Caroline drama—such as The Knight of the Burning Pestle or The Roman Actor—as retrograde “play with illusion for its own sake” (Barton 205). Recent criticism disagrees with this assessment, but Barton’s connection of Elizabethan metadramatic insets to the theatrical relation of performer and audience in Medieval and Tudor drama is still and the Spanish Marriage” (2004) and Bindu Maliedekal’s “Wanton Irreligious Madness: Conversion and Castration in Massinger’s The Renegado” (2002). The two articles on City Madam are Claire Jowitt’s “‘Her Flesh must Serve You’: Gender, Commerce and the New World in Fletcher and Massinger’s The Sea Voyage and Massinger’s The City Madam” (2001) and Nakayama’s “Redressing Wrongs” (2001). There are also recent articles on The Virgin Martyr and the Bondman: see bibliography for details. Introduction  the foundation for all work in this area. Later studies in the field are less applicable to my study; with the exception of Cope in The Theatre and the Dream (1973), who reads Brome’s The Antipodes, they focus exclusively on Shakespeare and treat “metatheatre” as a metaphor for the wider play of reality and illusion in poetics. Broader studies of metadrama are fascinating but this book has a deliberately narrow focus, and does not treat issues of metadrama, audience reception and response in Western drama as a whole. Performance-oriented criticism such as that of Martin White, Alan Dessen, Robert Weimann and Jeremy Lopez has been a much stronger influence: a particularly useful model has been the theatrically oriented approach of White’s Renaissance Drama in Action (1997), which explicitly situates the works examined in the playhouse. The growth of this approach has shifted the focus of criticism towards interest in the relation between the script in performance and spectator’s expectations and experience, and has resulted in readings of metadrama that focus on the theatrical function of plays-within and their onstage audiences in performance. These stress the ways in which “metadrama” forced audiences to

 For example, Calderwood focuses on the self-conscious poetics of Romeo and Juliet as well as the play-within of A Midsummer Night’s Dream (85–119), and Robert Egan examines Shakespeare’s “concern to define the aesthetic and moral relevance of his art to reality” (57) through self-dramatization by characters rather than the “overtly artificial play- within-a-play” (2). By contrast, my focus is the artificial play-within. The most important of these works are Calderwood’s Shakespearian Metadrama (1971), Cope’s The Theatre and the Dream (1973), Egan’s Drama within Drama (1975), Homan’s When the Theatre Turns to Itself (1981) and Hubert’s Metatheater (1991).  Studies of metadrama begin with Abel’s Metatheater (1963), which discusses Hamlet and The Tempest in the context of European theatre ranging from Racine and Calderon to Brecht, Beckett and Genet. Abel’s argument, that Sophoclean tragedy is displaced by self- conscious “theatre pieces about life seen as already theatricalized” (60) from the Renaissance onwards, primarily provides a history for twentieth-century metadrama. Hornby’s Drama, Metadrama and Perception (1986) similarly ranges from Athens to Epic theatre, concluding that the device is “reflective and expressive of its society’s deep cynicism about life … the play-within the play becomes a metaphor for life itself” (45). Nelson’s Play-Within-A-Play (1958) focuses on French drama from the seventeenth to twentieth centuries and reaches similar broad conclusions.  Skura’s Shakespeare the Actor and the Purposes of Playing (1993) discusses Shakespeare’s plays-within in the context of a psychoanalytic discussion of the experience of the actor in the period. The chapter on the play-within—“Player King as Beggar in Great Men’s Houses”—is an excellent discussion; she is one of the few critics to make a distinction between the play within and the masque, dumbshow, or induction (268 n. 1). The essays in Laroque’s The Show Within are essential; this collection treats the work of minor playwrights as well as Shakespeare and Jonson, and contains a number of theoretical treatments of the subject by Bourgy, Maquerlot and Willems. It also includes Fuzier’s invaluable list of “inset spectacle” in Renaissance drama (see note 13 in Chapter 2). Papers on the play-within include Hyde, “Identity and Acting”; Brown, “The Play Within a Play”; Spivack, “Alienation and Illusion: The Play-Within-a-Play on the Caroline Stage”; Mehl, 10 Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger reflect on “the apparent ‘reality’ of the surrounding action, and so to stimulate the audience’s awareness of the way that that too has been created” (White 101). The work of Dessen has been particularly useful, especially his reading of the onstage spectator as a tool which tells the theatre audience how to “read” onstage cues. In this view, the descriptions and dialogue of onstage spectators provide one of the “narrative tools [used by the audience] to summarize the fiction conveyed by the staging” (Dessen, Recovering 202), telling the audience how to interpret what they see. Onstage spectators provide the theatre audience with conventional cues for their own responses, either negative or positive, implying that the theatre audience pays as much attention to the audiences watching a show-within as to the show itself. Therefore, formalized onstage spectatorship of metatheatrical inset pieces calls attention to the process of spectatorship, not just by making audience aware of their own status as spectators or by demonstrating how to watch a play but by making them aware of the convention itself: making them notice the ways in which onstage spectators provide cues, by watching the relation between the show and the onstage spectator. Onstage spectators are therefore considerably more important than they may initially seem. Studies of vision and spectatorship, or “seeing” on stage, have also been valuable: two essential starting points were Maus’ “Horns of Dilemma” (1987) and Diehl’s Staging Reform, Reforming the Stage (1997). Maus’ focus on the figure of the jealous husband as an analogue of the audience started me thinking about the relation of the onstage spectator to the conception of the drama, and Deihl’s readings of the visual elements of the theatre through the Reformation anxieties about imagery began my thinking on the relation of theatre to broader English conceptions of vision and sight. Finally, since this book attempts to deals with the interaction between play and spectator, I am obviously drawing on studies of theatre and performance, both in and out of the period. Although my focus is on onstage representations of spectator behaviour, any analysis of the audience– play relationship must be based on current treatments of audiences, actors, staging and performance response; these include works of theatre history and critical treatments of theatres, audiences and actors.10

“Forms and Functions of a Play within a Play”, and Barish, “Three Caroline Defenses of the Stage”. Treatments of onstage audiences include Happe, “Jonson’s Onstage Audiences”; Leggatt, “The Audience as Patron”; Kernan “Shakespeare’s Stage Audiences”; Haynes, “The Elizabethan Audience on Stage”; Osborne, “Staging the Female Playgoer”; Myhill, “Spectatorship in/of Much Ado About Nothing”; Wells, “Shakespeare’s Onstage Audiences” and two papers from the collection Inside Shakespeare: Stern, “Taking Part: Actors and Audience on the Stage at Blackfriars” and Thompson, “Who’s In, Who’s Out? The Knight of the Burning Pestle on the Blackfriars Stage”.  Theoretical studies of theatre and performance include Ubersfeld, Reading Theatre; States, Great Reckonings in Little Rooms and Elam, The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. 10 Important general treatments of audience and actor include Bennett’s Theatre Audiences, Worthen’s The Idea of the Actor and De Marinis’ “The Dramaturgy of the Introduction 11

Before outlining the book’s structure I should explain some of my terminology, which is often quite specific. Although I do sometimes use the terms “metadrama” and “metatheatre” interchangeably, as I have in this introduction, in general, I use “metatheatre” for self-consciously theatrical or performance references, and “metadrama” for self-conscious references to other playtexts. Thus, the references to Julius Caesar that dot The Roman Actor are metadramatic, designed to situate the play in a literary context, but its plays-within are metatheatrical, designed to stress the circumstances of the play’s production. I use the term “onstage” audience for the fictional audiences of the spectatorial insets and “theatre audience” for the real audience (despite the fact that, in Blackfriars, members of the real audience are also seated on the stage). Since several of the inset pieces I’m looking at have multiple onstage audiences, I make a distinction between “primary” and “secondary” audiences, particularly in the chapter on the masque- within. The primary audience is the spectator who is the target of the show, the character that the play, masque or fiction is designed to cure, enlighten, deceive or expose. Members of the secondary audience are the onstage spectators who watch the reactions of this person to the spectatorial inset: the primary audience member watches the show, while the secondary audience members watch the primary audience, often ignoring the show completely. This is the pattern of the first two plays-within ofThe Roman Actor, the masque-within that closes The City Madam, as well as many eavesdropping scenes discussed in the Conclusion. I use the coinages “spectatorial” and “spectatorship” to allow me to discuss scenes, deliberately staged or not, in which the onstage spectators mediate what they see to the theatre audience: “spectatorial” elements can include pieces of art, as in The Picture, deliberately staged metatheatre, such as the play or masque-within, or informal playlets or spying scenes. In all cases, the focus is on the interpretation of the onstage images by the onstage spectator. Finally, I use “play-within” specifically. The term is often used to encompass all metatheatrical moments in drama: Pavis’ Dictionary of Theatre defines “play- within” as a “play or performance whose subject is the performance of a play. The external audience watches a performance within which an audience of actors is also watching a performance” (270). The term normally indicates the existence of an internal performance, not its genre. However, I use “play-within” to indicate an

Spectator”. The historical and critical treatments of Renaissance audience and reception include Gurr’s Playgoing in Shakespeare’s London and The Shakespeare Company; Stern’s Rehearsal from Shakespeare to Sheridan; Cook, Privileged Playgoers; and Dawson and Yachnin’s The Culture of Playgoing. Charles Whitney’s Early Responses to Renaissance Drama is a reception study which examines allusions to plays, players and playhouse culture; similar evidence is offered by anti-theatrical responses, examined by Barish in The Anti-Theatrical Prejudice and O’Connell in “The Idolatrous Eye”. The players are treated by Bentley, The Professions of Dramatist and Player in Shakespeare’s Time 1590–1642; Skura, Shakespeare the Actor and the Purposes of Playing and Mann, The Elizabethan Player. 12 Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger inset play, in particular, while I use “spectatorial inset” or “metatheatrical inset” as a general term for all moments in which an internal spectacle is presented to an onstage audience. This stresses the purpose of the inset piece: it is presented for the spectators, to be interpreted or read and responded to by the fictional onstage audience. I then break these spectatorial insets into genres—plays-within, masques-within and pieces of visual art—and handle each type separately. This precision serves a number of purposes. All inset forms break the flow of the drama and call attention to the means by which the play is being presented, making the theatre audience aware of watching a play: watching characters watch a show emphasizes the audience’s own position. But within the playworld masques- within, plays-within, dances, dumbshows, triumphs, rituals and processions encode meaning differently. The way onstage spectators respond to the inset is dependent on its genre; masques, plays and pieces of visual art have very different relations to their spectators, and the presuppositions of their spectators are dictated by the form of the insets themselves. Masques and plays, in particular, are approached differently by onstage audiences because attendance at a masque was a very different cultural and social experience from attendance at a play: such distinctions are preserved in onstage treatments. This approach also allows me to include the magical miniature of The Picture, since it too is a spectatorial object placed into the drama to be interpreted by its onstage spectator. It performs the same function even though it does not have the same form. Preserving such distinctions also allows for insights that get lost in broader generalizations: for example, although metadramatic insets are very common in the period, formal plays-within are surprisingly rare.11 The comparative rarity of this type of inset suggests that playwrights who insert plays-within—as opposed to masques, dumbshows or pageants—intend a specific reflection of the audience’s relation to the drama. Placing all inset forms into one category blurs such distinctions. The book has three chapters, each of which deals with a separate form of “inset art”, plus a conclusion that discusses Massinger’s broader presentation of onstage spectatorship. Chapter 1 examines the plays-within of The Roman Actor (1626), Massinger’s most complex examination of the process and interrelation of staging and spectatorship, and one which frames his use of the device in his later work. Chapter 2 opens with a preamble on the masque, masquing culture and the masque-within before examining Massinger’s use of inset masques, the most common form of metadramatic inset, in The Duke of Milan (1621), The Picture (1629) and The Guardian (1633). It ends with a reading of his most complex use of the masque-within, the ‘spectatorial’ masques-within of The City Madam (1632). Chapter 3 examines Massinger’s use of pieces of visual art as spectatorial objects (that is, objects interpreted by onstage spectators) in The Renegado (1624) and The

11 Skura notes the relative rarity of actual plays-within (268 n. 1). Evidence for the rarity of the form is also provided by Fuzier’s checklist of plays, appended to the essay collection The Show Within. This lists 281 plays containing “inset spectacle” from the years 1560–1642; only 22 are marked as containing “plays-within”. Introduction 13

Emperor of the East (1631) before ending with an extended reading of the magical miniature in The Picture (1629). Like the second chapter, it has a preamble: I discuss some of the effects attitudes to visual art in the larger world could have on the presentation of art on the stage, examining some of the social and cultural meanings that visual art carried in the period. I then examine Massinger’s staging of three different forms of paintings, concluding with his remarkably complex treatment of The Picture’s miniature. The conclusion takes the opportunity to examine Massinger’s treatment of onstage spectators in his paradramatic scenes and trial scenes, before drawing some final conclusions on his work as a whole. This page intentionally left blank Bibliography

Primary Sources

A True Declaration of the Estate of the Colonie in Virginia. 1610. Quinn, New American World 5: 248–62. Beaumont, Francis, and John Fletcher. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon. 10 vols. Gen. ed. Fredson Bowers. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1966–96. Brome, Richard. The Antipodes. Ed. Anne Haaker. Regents Renaissance Drama. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1966. –––––. The Dramatic Works of Richard Brome. 1873. Ed. J. Pearson. 3 vols. New York: AMS, 1966. Davenant, William. The Dramatic Works with Prefatory Memoir and Notes. 1872– 4. Ed. James Maidment and W.H. Logan. 5 vols. New York: Russell, 1964. Dryden, John. Works. Gen. ed. Edward Niles Hooker and H.T. Swedenberg Jr. 20 vols. Berkeley: U of California P, 1661–1989. Foxe, John. Acts and Monuments. 1563. 5th ed. 2 vols. London: P. Short by the Assignment of John Day, 1596. Gosson, Stephen. Plays Confuted in Five Actions. 1582. English Stage: Attack and Defence, 1577–1730. New York: Garland, 1972. –––––. School of Abuse. English Stage: Attack and Defence, 1577–1730. New York: Garland, 1973. Hakluyt, Richard. A Discourse of Western Planting. 1585. Quinn, New American 3: 70–123. Harriot, Thomas. A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia. 1590. Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, 1971. Henslowe Papers, being Documents Supplementary to Henslowe’s Diary. Ed. W.W. Greg. London: Bullen, 1907. Herbert, Sir Henry. The Control and Censorship of Caroline Drama: The Records of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels 1623–73. Ed. N.W. Bawcutt. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Heywood, Thomas. An Apology for Actors. 1612. English Stage: Attack and Defence, 1577–1730. New York: Garland, 1973. –––––. Thomas Heywood’s Pageants: A Critical Edition. Ed. David Bergeron. New York: Garland, 1986. Hilliard, Nicholas. Nicholas Hilliard’s [the] Arte of Limning: A New Edition of A Treatise Concerning the Arte of Limning. Writ by N. Hilliard. Transcription Arthur F. Kinney. Commentary and Apparatus Linda Bradley Salamon. Boston: Northeastern UP, 1983. 142 Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger

Jonson, Ben. Works of Ben Jonson. Ed. Charles H. Herford, Percy Simpson and Evelyn Simpson. 11 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1925–52. –––––. Ben Jonson: The Complete Masques. Ed Stephen Orgel. New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1969. Kyd, Thomas. The Spanish Tragedy. Ed. Philip Edwards. Revels Plays. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1959. Marlowe, Christopher. “Tamburlaine the Great Part I”. The Complete Works of Christopher Marlowe. Ed. David Fuller. Vol. 5. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998. Massinger, Philip. The City-Madam: A Comedy. Ed. Rudolf Kirk. Princeton Studies in English 10. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1934. –––––. The City-Madam. Ed. T.W. Craik. New Mermaids. London: Benn, 1964. –––––. The Plays and Poems of Philip Massinger. Ed. Philip Edwards and Colin Gibson. 5 vols. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1976. –––––. The Roman Actor. Ed. Martin White. The Revels Plays. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2008. Middleton, Thomas. Thomas Middleton: The Collected Works. Ed. Gary Taylor and John Lavagnino. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007. Painter, William. The Palace of Pleasure. 1580. Ed. Joseph Jacobs. 3 vols. London: Nutt, 1895. Peacham, Henry. Minerva Britanna. 1612. English Emblem Books. 5. Ed. John Horden. Menston, Yorkshire: Scholar, 1969. Percy, George. A Discourse of the Plantation ... 1606–7. Quinn, New American World 5: 266–74. Prynne, William. Histriomastix. 1633. English Stage: Attack and Defence, 1577– 1730. New York: Garland, 1974. Randolph, Thomas. Poetical and Dramatic Works. Ed. William Hazlitt. London: Reeves, 1875. Ripa, Caesare. Iconologia. 1611. New York: Garland, 1976. Sandys, George. Ouids Metamorphosis Englished, mythologiz’d, and represented in figures. Oxford: 1632. The Second Maiden’s Tragedy. Ed. Anne Lancashire. Revels Plays. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1978. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. Harold Jenkins. Arden Shakespeare. London: Methuen, 1982. –––––. Julius Caesar. Ed. David Daniell. Arden Shakespeare. Walton: Nelson, 1998. –––––. Merchant of Venice. Ed. John Russell Brown. Arden Shakespeare. London: Methuen, 1959. –––––. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Ed. Harold F. Brooks. Arden Shakespeare. London: Methuen, 1979. –––––. Othello. Ed. E.A.J. Honigmann. Arden Shakespeare. London: Nelson, 1997. –––––. Richard III. Ed. Antony Hammond. Arden Shakespeare. London: Methuen, 1981. Bibliography 143

–––––. The Taming of the Shrew. Ed. Brian Morris. Arden Shakespeare. London: Methuen, 1981. Shirley, James. Dramatic Works and Poems. 1833. Ed. William Gifford. New York: Russell, 1966. Smith, John. The Generall Historie of Virginia, New–England, and the Summer Isles. (1624). The Complete Works of Captain John Smith (1580–1631). Ed. Philip L. Barbour. 3 vols. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1986. Townshend, Aurelian. Tempe Restored. (1632). In Inigo Jones: The Theatre of the Stuart Court. Ed. Stephen Orgel and Roy Strong. 2 vols. London: Sotheby; Berkeley: U of California P, 1973. II: 478–503. –––––. Albion’s Triumph. (1632). In Inigo Jones: The Theatre of the Stuart Court. Ed. Stephen Orgel and Roy Strong. 2 vols. London: Sotheby; Berkeley: U of California P, 1973. II: 452–77. Whitney, Geffery. A Choice of Emblemes. (1586). Intro John Manning. Aldershot: Scholar Press, 1989. Wood, William. New England’s Prospect. 1633. Ed. Alden T. Vaughan. The Commonwealth Series. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1977.

Secondary Sources

Abel, Lionel. Metatheater: A New View of Dramatic Form. New York: Hill, 1963. Adler, Doris. Philip Massinger. Twayne’s English Authors. 435. Boston: Twayne, 1987. Alpers, Svetlana. The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1983. Alsop, J.D. “Further Connections of Sir Warham St. Leger”. Notes and Queries 30 (1983): 422. Altman, Joel. The Tudor Play of Mind. Berkeley: U of California P, 1978. Anglo, Sydney. Spectacle, Pageantry and Early Tudor Policy. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969. Astington, John. English Court Theatre, 1558–1642. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. –––––. “The King and Queenes Entertainment at Richmond”. REED Newsletter 12:1 (1987): 12–18. –––––. “The ‘Messalina’ Stage and Salisbury Court Plays”. Theatre Journal 43 (1991): 141–56. Aston, Margaret. England’s Iconoclasts: Laws against Images. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1988. –––––. The King’s Bedpost: Reformation and Iconography in a Tudor Group Portrait. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993. Bach, Rebecca Ann. Colonial Transformations: The Cultural Production of the New Atlantic World, 1580–1640. New York: Palgrave, 2000. 144 Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger

Barish, Jonas. The Anti-Theatrical Prejudice. Berkeley: U of California P, 1981. –––––. “Three Caroline Defenses of the Stage”. In Comedy from Shakespeare to Sheridan: Change and Continuity in the English and European Dramatic Tradition. Eds A.R. Braunmuller and J.C. Bulman. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1986: 194–212. Barkan, Leonard. “The Beholder’s Tale: Ancient Sculpture, Renaissance Narratives”. Representations 44 (1993): 133–66. –––––. The Gods Made Flesh: Metamorphosis & the Pursuit of Paganism. New Haven: Yale UP, 1986. –––––. “‘Living Sculptures’: Ovid, Michaelangelo, and The Winter’s Tale”. ELH 48 (1981): 639–67. –––––. “Making Pictures Speak: Renaissance Art, Elizabethan Literature, Modern Scholarship”. Renaissance Quarterly 48 (1995): 326–51. Barrett, James. “Pentheus and the Spectator in Euripides Bacchae”. American Journal of Philology 119 (1998): 337–60. Barroll, J. Leeds, Alexander Leggatt, Richard Hosley, and Alvin Kernan. The Revels History of Drama in English; Vol. III 1576–1613. Gen. eds Clifford Leech and T.W. Craik. 8 vols. London: Methuen, 1975. Barton, Anne. “The Distinctive Voice of Massinger”. In Philip Massinger: A Critical Reassessment. Ed. Douglas Howard. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985: 221–32. –––––. [Righter, Anne]. Shakespeare and the Idea of the Play. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1963. Bas, George. “James Shirley et ‘Th’ Untuned Kennel’: Une Petite Guerre des Théâtres vers 1630”. Etudes Anglaises 16 (1963): 11–22. Baxandall, Michael. Giotto and the Orators: Humanist Observers of Painting in the Italy and the Discovery of Pictorial Composition 1350–1450. 1971. Rpt. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1991. –––––. Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy; A Primer in the Social History of Pictorial Style. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1972. Beal, Peter. “Massinger at Bay: Unpublished Verses in a War of the Theatres”. Yearbook of English Studies 10 (1980): 190–203. Beckerman, Bernard. Dynamics of Drama: Theory and Method of Analysis. New York: Knopf, 1970. Belsey, Andrew, and Catherine Belsey. “Icons of Divinity: Portraits of Elizabeth I”. In Renaissance Bodies: The Human Figure in English Culture, c. 1540– 1660. Eds Lucy Gent and Nigel Llewellyn. London: Reaktion: 11–35. Bennett, A.L. “The Early Editions of Massinger’s Plays”. Papers on Language and Literature 1 (1965): 177–81. –––––. “The Moral Tone of Massinger’s Drama”. Papers on Language and Literature 2 (1966): 207–16. Bennett, Susan. Theatre Audiences: A Theory of Production and Reception. London: Routledge, 1990. Bibliography 145

Bentley, Gerald Eades. The Jacobean and Caroline Stage. 7 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1941–68. –––––. “General Introduction”. In A Book of Masques in Honour of Allardyce Nicoll. Ed. T.J.B. Spencer and Stanley Wells. London: Cambridge UP, 1967: 1–15. –––––. The Professions of Dramatist and Player in Shakespeare’s Time 1590– 1642. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1986. Rpt. of The Profession of Dramatist in Shakespeare’s Time 1590–1642. 1971. The Profession of Player in Shakespeare’s Time 1590–1642. 1984. Berger, Harry, Jr. “Fictions of the Pose: Facing the Gaze in Early Modern Portraiture”. Representations 46 (1994): 87–120. –––––. Imaginary Audition: Shakespeare on Stage and Page. Berkeley: U of California P, 1989. –––––. Second World and Green World: Studies in Renaissance Fiction-Making. Berkeley: U of California P, 1988. Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin, 1972. Bergeron, David. English Civic Pageantry, 1558–1642. London: Arnold, 1971. –––––. Pageantry in the Shakespearian Theatre. Athens: U of Georgia P, 1985. Bevington, David, and Peter Holbrook, eds. The Politics of the Stuart Court Masque. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Bevington, David and Peter Holbrook. “Introduction”. The Politics of the Stuart Court Masque. Ed. David Bevington and Peter Holbrook. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. 1–19. Bishop, Tom. “Have his ‘Carkasse’: The Aftermaths of English Court Masques”. In Robert E. Stillman, ed. Spectacle and Public Performance in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Leiden: Brill, 2006: 211–29. Bitot, Michel. “‘Alteration in a Commonwealth’: Disturbing Voices in Caroline Drama”. Cahiers Élisabéthains 47 (1995): 79–86. Bliss, Michael D. “Massinger’s City Madam and the Lost City Honest Man”. ELR 7 (1977): 368–81. Blum, Abbe. “‘Strike All That Look upon with Mar[b]le’: Monumentalizing Women in Shakespeare’s Plays”. In The Renaissance Englishwoman in Print: Counterbalancing the Canon. Eds Ann Haselkorn and Betty Travitsky. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1990: 99–118. Bourgy, Victor. “About the Inset Spectacle in Shakespeare (Stance, Distance, Substance)”. In The Show Within: Dramatic and Other Insets: English Renaissance Drama (1500–1642). Ed. François Laroque. Proc. of Int. Conference, 22–5 Nov. 1990, Montpellier. 2 vols. Collection Astraea 4. Montpellier: Paul Valery UP, 1990: 1–20. Braudel, Fernand. Civilization and Capitalism: 15th–18th Century. 3 vols. New York: Harper, 1981–4. Braunmuller, A.R., and J.C. Bulman, eds. Comedy from Shakespeare to Sheridan: Change and Continuity in the English and European Dramatic Tradition. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1986. 146 Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger

Braunmuller, A.R., and Michael Hattaway, eds. The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990, 2003. Britland, Karen. Drama at the Courts of Queen Henrietta Maria. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. Brown, Arthur. “The Play Within a Play: An Elizabethan Dramatic Device”. Essays and Studies 13 (1960): 36–48. Brown, Cedric C. “Milton’s Arcades: Context, Form and Function”. Renaissance Drama 8 (1977): 245–74. Brown, Langdon. “Review: The Roman Actor, Eastward Ho, Edward III and The Malcontent”. Theatre Journal 55:4 (2003): 713–16. Bryson, Norman. Vision and Painting: The Logic of the Gaze. New Haven: Yale UP, 1983. Bulman, James. “Caroline Drama”. In The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama. Eds A.R. Braunmuller and Michael Hattaway. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990, 2003: 344–71. Burt, Richard. “‘Tis Writ by Me’: Massinger’s The Roman Actor and the Politics of Reception in the English Renaissance Theatre”. Theatre Journal 40 (1988): 332–46. Bushnell, Rebecca. Tragedies of Tyrants: Political Thought and Theater in the English Renaissance. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1990. Butler, Martin. “Entertaining the Palatine Prince: Plays on Foreign Affairs 1635– 1637”. ELR 13:3 (1983): 319–44. –––––. “Massinger’s The City Madam and the Caroline Audience”. Renaissance Drama 13 (1982): 157–87. –––––. “Reform or Reverence? The Politics of the Caroline Masque”. In Theatre and Government Under the Early Stuarts. Ed. J.R. Mulryne and Margaret Shewring. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993. 118–56. –––––. “Romans in Britain: The Roman Actor and the Early Stuart Classical Play”. In Philip Massinger: A Critical Reassessment. Ed. Douglas Howard. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985: 139–70. –––––. Theatre and Crisis: 1632–1642. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984. Calderwood, James L. Shakespearean Metadrama: the Argument of the Play in Titus Andronicus, Love’s Labor’s Lost, Romeo and Juliet, A Midsummer Nights Dream, and Richard II. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1971. Callaghan, Dympna. “What is an Audience?”. In Shakespeare Without Women: Representing Gender and Race on the Renaissance Stage. London: Routledge, 2000. 139–65. Carlson, Peter. “Judging Spectators”. ELH 44 (1977): 443–57. Chakravorty, Swapan. “Court, City and Country: Social and Political Themes in Philip Massinger”. Journal of the Department of English, University of Calcutta 18 (1982–3): 59–86. Chambers, E.K. The Elizabethan Stage. 4 vols. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1923. Bibliography 147

Chibnall, Jennifer. “To secure that fix’d state’: The Function of the Caroline Masque Form”. In The Court Masque. Ed. David Lindley. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1984: 78–93. Chirelstein, Ellen. “Lady Elizabeth Pope: The Heraldic Body”. In Renaissance Bodies: The Human Figure in English Culture, c. 1540–1660. Eds Lucy Gent and Nigel Llewellyn. London: Reaktion: 36–59. Clark, Ira. The Moral Art of Philip Massinger. Lewisburg: Bucknell UP, 1993. –––––. “The Power of Integrity in Massinger’s Women”. In The Renaissance Englishwoman in Print: Counterbalancing the Canon. Eds Ann Haselkorn and Betty Travitsky. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1990: 63–79. –––––. Professional Playwrights: Massinger, Ford, Shirley and Brome. Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 1992. Cohen, Walter. “Prerevolutionary Drama”. In The Politics of Tragicomedy: Shakespeare and After. Eds Gordon McMullan and Jonathan Hope. London: Routledge, 1992: 122–50. Cook, Ann Jennalie. The Privileged Playgoers of Shakespeare’s London, 1576– 1642. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1981. Cope, Jackson. The Theatre and the Dream: From Metaphor to Form in Renaissance Drama. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1973. Cornelia, Marie. The Function of the Masque in Jacobean Tragedy and Tragicomedy. Salzburg Studies in English: Jacobean Drama Studies. 77. Salzburg: Salzburg UP, 1978. Crabtree, John H. “Philip Massinger’s Use of Rhetoric in The Roman Actor”. Furman Studies 7:3 (1960): 39–58. Craven, Wesley Frank. The Dissolution of the Virginia Company: The Failure of a Colonial Experiment. 1932. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1964. Cropper, Elizabeth. “The Beauty of Woman: Problems in the Rhetoric of Renaissance Portraiture”. In Rewriting the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe. Eds Margaret W. Ferguson, Maureen Quilligan, and Nancy J. Vickers. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1986: 175–90. Cruickshank, A.H. Philip Massinger. Oxford: Blackwell, 1920. Curran, John E. “‘You are yourself’: Calvinist Dramaturgy and its Discontents in The Tragedy of Sir John Van Olden Barnvelt”. Exemplaria 16:1 (2004): 235–65. Daileader, Celia R. Eroticism on the Renaissance Stage: Transcendence, Desire and the Limits of the Visible. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Dällenbach, Lucien. The Mirror in the Text. 1977. Trans. Jeremy Whitely with Emma Hughes. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1989. Danby, John F. Poets on Fortune’s Hill: Studies in Sidney, Shakespeare, Beaumont and Fletcher. London: Faber, 1952. Davidson, Clifford. “The Anti-Visual Prejudice”. In Iconoclasm vz Art and Drama. Eds Clifford Davidson and Ann E. Nichols. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1988: 33–46. 148 Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger

–––––. “Iconography and Some Problems of Terminology in the Study of the Drama and Theater of the Renaissance”. Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama 29 (1986–7): 7–14. Davidson, Peter H. “The Theme and Structure of The Roman Actor”. AUMLA: Journal of Australasian Universities Language and Literature Association 19 (1963): 39–56. Davies, H. Neville. “A New Way to Pay Old Debts: Massinger and the RSC”. Critical Quarterly 26:3 (1984): 47–56. Davis, Joe Lee. The Sons of Ben: Jonsonian Comedy in Caroline England. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1967. Dawson, Anthony B. and Paul Yachnin. The Culture of Playgoing in Shakespeare’s England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. De Marinis, Marco. “Dramaturgy of the Spectator”. Drama Review 31 (1987): 100–114. Degenhardt, Jane Hwang. “Catholic Martyrdom in Dekker and Massinger’s The Virgin Martir and the Early Modern Threat of ‘Turning Turk’”. ELH 73 (2006): 83–117. Delery, Clayton. “Dramatic Instruction and Misinstruction in Philip Massinger’s The Roman Actor”. In A Search for Meaning: Critical Essays on Early Modern Literature. Ed. Paula Harmes Payne. New York: Peter Lang, 2004: 105–14. Dessen, Alan C. “Elizabethan Audiences and the Open Stage: Recovering Lost Conventions”. Yearbook of English Studies 10 (1980): 10–20. –––––. Elizabethan Drama and the Viewer’s Eye. Chapel Hill: UP of North Carolina, 1977. –––––. Elizabethan Stage Conventions and Modern Interpreters. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984. –––––. Recovering Shakespeare’s Theatrical Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. Dessen, Alan C. and Leslie Thompson. A Dictionary of Stage Directions in English Drama, 1580–1642. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. Diehl, Huston. “Horrid Image, Sorry Sight, Fatal Vision: The Visual Rhetoric of Macbeth”. Shakespeare Studies 16 (1983): 191–203. –––––. “Inversion, Parody and Irony: The Visual Rhetoric of English Renaissance Tragedy”. SEL 22 (1982): 197–209. –––––. “Observing the Lord’s Supper and the Lord Chamberlain’s Men: The Visual Rhetoric of Ritual and Play in Early Modern England”. Renaissance Drama 22 (1991): 147–74. –––––. “‘Reduce Thy Understanding to Thine Eye’: Seeing and Interpreting in The Atheist’s Tragedy”. Studies in Philology 78 (1981): 47–60. –––––. Staging Reform, Reforming the Stage: Protestantism and Popular Theatre in Early Modern England. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1997. Dolan, Frances E. “Taking the Pencil out of God’s Hand: Art, Nature and the Face- Painting Debate in Early Modern England”. PMLA 108:2 (1993): 224–39. Bibliography 149

Dollimore, Jonathan. “Two Concepts of Mimesis: Renaissance Literary Theory and The Revenger’s Tragedy”. In Drama and Mimesis. Ed. James Redmond. Themes in Drama. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1980: 25–50. Doran, Madeleine. Endeavours of Art: A Study of Form in Elizabethan Drama. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1954. Dowley, Francis. “French Portraits of Ladies as Minerva”. Gazette des Beaux–Arts 45 (1955): 261–86. Drew-Bear, Annette. Painted Faces on the Renaissance Stage: The Moral Significance of Face-Painting Conventions. Lewisburg: Bucknell UP, 1994. Dunfey, Francesca. “‘Mighty Showes’: Masque Elements in Jacobean and Caroline Drama”. Shakespeare Studies Tokyo 6 (1967–8): 122–46. Dunn, T.A. Philip Massinger: The Man and the Playwright. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons for the University College of Ghana, 1957. Edwards, Philip. “Massinger’s Men and Women”. In Philip Massinger: A Critical Reassessment. Ed. Douglas Howard. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985: 39– 49. –––––. “Massinger the Censor”. In Essays on Shakespeare and Elizabethan Dramatists in Honour of Hardin Craig. Ed. Richard Hosley. Columbia: U of Missouri P, 1962: 341–50. –––––. “Philip Massinger: Comedy and Comical History”. In Comedy from Shakespeare to Sheridan: Change and Continuity in the English and European Dramatic Tradition. Eds A.R. Braunmuller and J.C. Bulman. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1986: 179–93. –––––. “The Royal Pretenders in Massinger and Ford”. Essays and Studies 27 (1974): 18–36. Edwards, Philip, Gerald Eades Bentley, Kathleen McLuskie, and Lois Potter. The Revels History of Drama in English: Vol. IV, 1613–1660. Gen. ed. Clifford Leech and T.W. Craik. 8 vols. London: Methuen, 1975. Egan, Gabriel. “Hearing or Seeing a Play? Evidence of Early Modern Theatrical Terminology”. Ben Jonson Journal 8:2 (2002): 327–47. Egan, Robert. Drama within Drama: Shakespeare’s Sense of his Art in King Lear, The Winter’s Tale and The Tempest. New York: Columbia UP, 1975. Elam, Keir. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. London: Methuen, 1980. Eliot, T.S. “Philip Massinger”. Elizabethan Dramatists. 1922. London: Faber, 1963. 134–51. Elkins, James. The Object Stares Back: On the Nature of Seeing. Orlando: Harcourt, 1997. Enright, D.J. “Poetic Satire and Satire in Verse: A Consideration of Jonson and Massinger”. Scrutiny 18 (1951): 211–23. Erickson, Peter and Clark Hulse, eds. Early Modern Visual Culture: Representation, Race and Empire in Renaissance England. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2000. 150 Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger

Erickson, Peter and Clark Hulse. “Introduction”. In Early Modern Visual Culture. Ed. Peter Erickson and Clark Hulse. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2000. 1–14. Esslin, Martin. The Field of Drama: How Signs of Drama Create Meaning on Stage and Screen. London: Methuen, 1987. Evans, Herbert. English Masques. London: Blackie and Son, 1897. Evett, David. Literature and the Visual Arts in Tudor England. Athens: U of Georgia P, 1990. Ewbank, Inga-Stina. “‘These Pretty Devices’: A Study of Masques in Plays”. A Book of Masques in Honour of Allardyce Nicoll. Ed. T.J.B. Spencer and Stanley Wells. London: Cambridge UP, 1967: 407–48. Farmer, Alan B., and Zachary Lesser. “Canons and Classics: Publishing Drama in Caroline England”. In Localizing Caroline Drama: Politics and Economics of the Early Modern Stage, 1625–1642. Ed. Adam Zucker and Alan B. Farmer. New York & Houndmills: Palgrave, 2006: 17–41. Farmer, Norman K. Poets and the Visual Arts in Renaissance England. Austin: U of Texas P, 1984. Ferguson, Margaret W., Maureen Quilligan, and Nancy J. Vickers, eds. Rewriting the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1986. Finkelpearl, Philip J. Court and Country Politics in the Plays of Beaumont and Fletcher. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1990. –––––. “The Role of the Court in the Development of Jacobean Drama”. Criticism 24 (1982): 138–58. Foakes, R.A. Illustrations of the English Stage 1580–1642. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1985. Ford, Boris, ed. The Cambridge Cultural History of Britain: Volume 4 Seventeenth- Century Britian. 1989. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. Forestier, George. “Le Théâtre dans le Théâtre ou la Conjonction de Deux Dramaturgies à la Fin de la Renaissance”. Revue d’Histoire du Théâtre 35 (1983): 162–73. –––––. Le Théâtre dans le Théâtre sur la Scène Française du XVII Siècle. Geneve: Librarie Droz, 1981. Foster, Verna. The Name and Nature of Tragicomedy. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004. Fothergill, Robert A. “The Dramatic Experience of Massinger’s The City Madam and A New Way to Pay Old Debts”. UTQ 43 (1973): 68–86. Freccero, John. “Medusa: the Letter and the Spirit”. Yearbook of Italian Studies 2 (1972): 1–18. Free, Mary. “Audience within Audience in The Old Wives Tale”. Renaissance Papers (1983): 53–61. Freedberg, David. The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1989. Friedman, John B. Orpheus in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1970. Bibliography 151

Frye, Northrop. The Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1957. –––––. “The ‘Shakesperearean’ Portrait of Richard III in Edward Alleyn’s Picture Collection”. SQ 32:3 (1981): 352–4. –––––. “Ways of Seeing in Shakespearean Drama and Elizabethan Painting”. SQ 31 (1980): 323–42. Fuller, Mary. Voyages in Print: English Travel to America, 1576–1624. New York: Cambridge UP, 1995. Fulton, Thomas. “‘The True and Naturall Constitution of that Mixed Government’: Massinger’s The Bondman and the Influence of Dutch Republicanism”.Studies in Philology 99:2 (2002): 152–77. Fumerton, Patricia. Cultural Aesthetics: Renaissance Literature and the Practice of Social Ornament. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1991. –––––. “‘Secret’ Arts: Elizabethan Miniatures and Sonnets”. Representations 15 (1986): 57–97. Fuzier, Jean. “Forms of Metadramatic Insertions in Renaissance English Drama, 1580–1642”. In The Show Within: Dramatic and Other Insets: English Renaissance Drama (1500–1642). Ed. François Laroque. Proc. of Int. Conference, 22–5 Nov. 1990, Montpellier. 2 vols. Collection Astraea 4. Montpellier: Paul Valery UP, 1990: 461–8. –––––. “De l’espace de la Représentation à la Représentation des Espaces: Avatars du Théâtre dans le Théâtre dans The Roman Actor de Philip Massinger (1626)”. Espaces et Représentations Dans le Monde Anglo–Américain aux XVII et XVIII siècles. Actes du Colloque du Soc. d’ Etudes Anglo–Amer. des XVII et XVIII siècles, 23–4 Oct, 1981, Paris. Paris: PU de Paris–Sorbonne, 1984. 105–14. Gardiner, S.R. “The Political Element in Massinger”. Contemporary Review 28 (1876): 495–507. Garrett, Martin. “A Diamond, Though Set in Horn”: Philip Massinger’s Attitude to Spectacle. Salzburg Studies in English: Jacobean Drama Studies. 72. Salzburg: Salzburg UP, 1984. –––––. “Introduction”. Critical Heritage. 1–50. –––––, ed. Massinger: The Critical Heritage. London: Routledge, 1991. Gent, Lucy, ed. Albion’s Classicism: The Visual Arts in Britain, 1550–1660. New Haven: Yale UP, 1995. –––––. Picture and Poetry 1560–1620: Relations between Literature and the Visual Arts in the English Renaissance. Leamington Spa: James Hall, 1981. Gent, Lucy and Nigel Llewellyn, eds. Renaissance Bodies: The Human Figure in English Culture, c. 1540–1660. London: Reaktion, 1990. Gibbons, Brian. Jacobean City Comedy. 2nd ed. London: Methuen, 1980. –––––. “Romance and the Heroic play”. In The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama. Eds A.R. Braunmuller and Michael Hattaway. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990, 2003: 207–36. 152 Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger

Gibson, Colin A. “Another Shot in the War of the Theatres (1630)”. Notes and Queries 34 (1987): 308–9. –––––. “Elizabethan and Stuart Dramatists in Wit’s Recreations (1640)”. Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama 29 (1986–7): 15–23. –––––. “Massinger’s ‘Composite Mistresses.’” AUMLA: Journal of the Australasian Universities Language and Literature Association 29 (1968): 44–51. –––––. “Massinger’s Hungarian History”. Yearbook of English Studies 2 (1972): 89–92. –––––. “Massinger’s London Merchant and the Date of The City Madam”. MLR 65 (1970): 737–49. –––––. “Massinger’s Theatrical Language”. In Philip Massinger: A Critical Reassessment. Ed. Douglas Howard. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985: 9–38. –––––. “Massinger’s Use of his Sources for The Roman Actor”. AUMLA 15 (May 1961): 60–72. Gill, Roma. “Collaboration and Revision in Massinger’s A Very Woman”. RES 18 (1967): 136–48. –––––. “‘Necessitie of State’: Massinger’s Believe As You List”. English Studies 46 (1965): 407–16. Gillies, John. “Shakespeare’s Virginian Masque”. ELH 53:4 (1986): 673–707. Gilman, Ernest P. “‘All eyes’: Prospero’s Inverted Masque”. RQ 33:2 (1980): 214–30. –––––. The Curious Perspective: Literary and Pictorial Wit in the Seventeenth Century. New Haven: Yale UP. 1978. –––––. Down Went Dagon: Iconoclasm and Poetry in the English Reformation. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1986. Goffen, Rona. “Titian’s Sacred and Profane Love and Marriage”. In The Expanding Discourse: Feminism and Art History. Ed. Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard. New York: Westview Press, 1992: 111–25. Goldberg, Jonathan. “Fatherly Authority: The Politics of Stuart Family Images”. Ferguson et al. 3–32. –––––. James I and the Politics of Literature: Jonson, Shakespeare, Donne and their Contemporaries. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1983. Gombrich, E.H. Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1977. Gossett, Suzanne. The Influence of the Jacobean Masque on the Plays of Beaumont and Fletcher. New York: Garland, 1988. –––––. “‘Man-Maid, begone!’: Women in Masques”. ELR 18 (1988): 96–113. –––––. “Masque Influence on the Dramaturgy of Beaumont and Fletcher”.Modern Philology 69 (1972): 199–208. –––––. “The Term ‘Masque’ in Shakespeare and Fletcher, and The Coxcomb”. SEL 14 (1974): 285–95. Gough, Melinda. “‘Not as myself’: The Queen’s Voice in Tempe Restored ”. Modern Philology 101 (2003): 48–67. Bibliography 153

Gould, J.D. “The Royal Mint in the Early Seventeenth Century”. Economic History Review 5:2 (1952): 240–248. Greenblatt, Stephen. Marvellous Possessions: The Wonder of the New World. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991. –––––. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1980. –––––. Shakespearian Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England. Berkeley: U of California P, 1988. Greenwood, John. Shifting Perspectives and the Stylish Style: Mannerism in Shakespeare and his Jacobean Contemporaries. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1988. Grivelet, Michel. “‘Th’ Untun’d Kennell’: Note sur Thomas Heywood et le Théâtre sous Charles Ier”. Etudes Anglaises 7 (1954): 101–6. Gross, Allen Gerald. “Contemporary Politics in Massinger”. SEL 6 (1966): 279– 90. –––––. “Social Change and Philip Massinger”. SEL 7 (1967): 329–42. Gross, Kenneth. The Dream of the Moving Statue. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1992. Gurr, Andrew. “Hearers and Beholders in Shakespearean Drama”. Essays in Theatre 3:1 (1984): 30–45. –––––. Playgoing in Shakespeare’s London. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. –––––. The Shakespeare Company, 1594–1642. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004. –––––. The Shakespearian Playing Companies. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996. –––––. The Shakespearean Stage, 1574–1642. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. –––––. “‘Singing Through the Chatter’: Ford and Contemporary Theatrical Fashion”. In John Ford: Critical Re-Visions. Ed. Michael Neill. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1988: 81–96. Habicht, Werner. “Traps of Illusion in Massinger’s The Roman Actor”. In The Show Within: Dramatic and Other Insets: English Renaissance Drama (1500–1642). Ed. François Laroque. Proc. of Int. Conference, 22–5 Nov. 1990, Montpellier. 2 vols. Collection Astraea 4. Montpellier: Paul Valery UP, 1990: 359–68. Happe, Peter. “Jonson’s On-stage Audiences”. Ben Jonson Journal 10 (2003): 24–41. Harbage, Alfred. Annals of English Drama, 975–1700. 2nd ed. London: Methuen, 1964. –––––. Cavalier Drama. New York: MLA, 1936. Hardie, Phillip. Ovid’s Poetics of Illusion. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. Harris, Jonathan Gil, and Natasha Korda. Staged Properties in Early Modern English Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. Hartley, Andrew James. “Philip Massinger’s The Roman Actor and the Semiotics of Censored Theater”. ELH 68 (2001): 359–78. 154 Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger

Haselkorn, FAnn, and Betty Travitsky, eds. The Renaissance Englishwoman in Print: Counterbalancing the Canon. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1990. Haynes, Jonathan. “The Elizabethan Audience on Stage”. In The Theatrical Space. Ed. James Redmond. Themes in Drama. 9. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987: 59–68. Hayward, Steven. “‘I’ll make one i’ the masque’: John Marston’s The Malcontent and the Appropriation of the Masque”. Renaissance Papers (1998): 69–79. Heinemann, Margot. “Drama and Opinion in the 1620s: Middleton and Massinger”. In Theatre and Government Under the Early Stuarts. Ed. J.R. Mulryne and Margaret Shewring. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993: 237–65. –––––. Puritanism and Theatre: Thomas Middleton and Opposition Drama under the Early Stuarts. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1980. Henze, Catherine A. “Unraveling Beaumont from Fletcher with Music, Misogyny and Masque”. SEL 44:2 (2004): 379–404. Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution, 1603–1714. 2nd ed. 1961. Norton: New York, 1980. Hogan, A.P. “Imagery of Acting in The Roman Actor”. MLR 66 (1971): 273–81. Homan, Sidney. When the Theatre Turns to Itself: The Aesthetic Metaphor in Shakespeare. Lewisburg: Bucknell UP, 1981. Honig, Elizabeth. “In Memory: Lady Dacre and Pairing by Hans Eworth”. In Renaissance Bodies: The Human Figure in English Culture, c. 1540–1660. Eds Lucy Gent and Nigel Llewellyn. London: Reaktion: 60–85. Hopkins, Lisa. “Play Houses: Drama at Bolsover and Welbeck”. Early Theatre 2 (1999), 25–44. Hornby, Richard. Drama, Metadrama and Perception. Lewisburg: Bucknell UP, 1986. Howard, Douglas. “Massinger’s Political Tragedies”. In Philip Massinger: A Critical Reassessment. Ed. Douglas Howard. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985: 117–37. –––––, ed. Philip Massinger: A Critical Reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985. Howard, Jean E. “Shakespearian Counterpoint: Stage Technique and the Interaction between Play and Audience”. SQ 30:3 (1979): 343–57. –––––. The Stage and Social Struggle in Early Modern England. London: Routledge, 1994. Howard, Skiles. The Politics of Courtly Dancing in Early Modern England. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1998. Hoy, Cyrus. “The Shares of Fletcher and his Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon: I–VII”. Studies in Bibliography 8 (1956): 129–46; 9 (1957): 143–62; 11 (1959): 85–106; 12 (1960): 91–116; 13 (1961): 77–108; 14 (1962): 45–67; 15 (1963): 71–90. Hubert, Judd D. Metatheater: The Example of Shakespeare. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1991. Bibliography 155

Huebert, Ronald. John Ford: Baroque English Dramatist. Montreal: McGill– Queens UP, 1977. Hulse, Clark. The Rule of Art: Literature and Painting in the Renaissance. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1990. Hurley, Ann Hollinshead. John Donne’s Poetry and Early Modern Visual Culture. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna UP, 2005. Hyde, Thomas. “Identity and Acting in Elizabethan Tragedy”. Renaissance Drama 15 (1984): 93–114. Isaacson, Emily R. “Relocating Devices: The Masque in Middleton’s Your Five Gallants”. Discoveries: South Central Renaissance Conference News and Notes 21:1 (spring 2004): 1–11. Jardine, Lisa. Worldly Goods. London: Macmillan, 1996. Jones-Davies, M.T. “‘The players … will tell all,’ or the Actor’s Role in Renaissance Drama”. In Shakespeare: Man of the Theatre. Ed. Kenneth Muir, Jay L. Halio, and D.J. Palmer. Proc. of the 2nd Congress of the Int. Shakespeare Ass., 1981. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1983: 76–85. Jowitt, Claire. “‘Her Flesh must Serve You’: Gender, Commerce and the New World in Fletcher’s and Massinger’s The Sea Voyage and Massinger’s The City Madam”. Parergon: Bulletin of the Australian and New Zealand Association for Medieval and Early Modern Studies 18:3 (2001): 93–117. –––––. “Massinger’s The Renegado (1624) and The Spanish Marriage”. Cahiers Elisabethains 65 (2004): 45–53. Kalas, Rayna. “The Technology of Reflection: Renaissance Mirrors of Steel and Glass”. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 32 (2002): 519–42. Kernan, Alvin B. “This Goodly Frame, The Stage: The Interior Theater of Imagination in English Renaissance Drama”. Shakespeare Quarterly 25 (1974): 1–5. –––––. “Shakespearean Comedy and its Courtly Audience”. In Comedy from Shakespeare to Sheridan: Change and Continuity in the English and European Dramatic Tradition. Eds A.R. Braunmuller and J.C. Bulman. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1986: 91–101. –––––. “Shakespeare’s Stage Audiences: the Playwright’s Reflections and Control of Audience Response”. In Shakespeare’s Craft: Eight Lectures. Ed. Philip Highfill Jr. Carbondale: Southern Illinios UP for George Washington University, 1982: 138–55. King, Laura Severt. “Violence and the Masque: A Ritual Sabotaged in Middleton’s Women Beware Women”. Pacific Coast Philology 21 (1986): 42–7. Kirsch, Arthur C. “A Caroline Commentary on the Drama”. Modern Philology 66 (1969): 256–61. Knights, L.C. Drama and Society in the Age of Jonson. 1937. London: Chatto, 1968. Knowles, James. “Insubstantial Pageants: The Tempest and Masquing Culture”. In Shakespeare’s Late Plays: New Readings. Ed. Jennifer Richards and James Knowles. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1999: 108–25. 156 Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger

Kogan, Stephen. The Hieroglyphic King: Wisdom and Idolatry in the Seventeenth- Century Masque. London: Associated UP, 1986. Laroque, François. Shakespeare’s Festive World: Elizabethan Seasonal Entertainment and the Professional Stage. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991. –––––, ed. The Show Within: Dramatic and Other Insets: English Renaissance Drama (1500–1642). Proc. of Int. Conference, 22–5 Nov. 1990, Montpellier. 2 vols. Collection Astraea 4. Montpellier: Paul Valery UP, 1990. Lawless, Donald S. Philip Massinger and His Associates. Ball State Monograph. 10. Muncie: Ball State U, 1967. Lawry, Jon S. “A Prospect of Jonson’s The New Inn”. SEL 23 (1983): 311–27. Leech, Clifford. “The Caroline Audience”. Modern Language Review 36 (1941): 304–19. Leggatt, Alexander. “The Audience as Patron: The Knight of the Burning Pestle”. In Shakespeare and Theatrical Patronage in Early Modern England. Ed. Paul White and Suzanne Westfall. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002: 295–315. –––––. Citizen Comedy in the Age of Shakespeare. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1973. Leinwand, Theodore B. The City Staged: Jacobean Comedy, 1603–1613. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1986. –––––. “London’s Triumphing: the Jacobean Lord Mayor’s Show”. Clio 11 (1982): 137–53. Levin, Richard. “The Two-Audience Theory of English Renaissance Drama”. Shakespeare Studies 18 (1986): 251–75. –––––. “Women in the Renaissance Theatre Audience”. SQ 40:2 (1989): 165– 74. Limon, Jerzy. The Masque of Stuart Culture. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1990. –––––. “A ‘Theatrical Emblem’ in The Roman Actor”. Notes and Queries 39 (1992): 371–4. Lindley, David, ed. The Court Masque. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1984. Linton, Joan Pong. The Romance of the New World: Gender and the Literary Formations of English Colonialism. Cambridge Studies in Renaissance Literature and Culture 27. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Llewellyn, Nigel. “The Royal Body: Monuments to the Dead, for the Living”. In Renaissance Bodies: The Human Figure in English Culture, c. 1540–1660. Eds Lucy Gent and Nigel Llewellyn. London: Reaktion: 281–40. Lomax, Marion. Stage Images and Traditions: Shakespeare to Ford. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987. Lopez, Jeremy. Theatrical Convention and Audience Response in Early Modern Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. Lyons, Charles R. “Character and Theatrical Space”. In The Theatrical Space. Ed. James Redmond. Themes in Drama. 9. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987: 27–44. Bibliography 157

Maliedekal, Bindi. “Wanton Irreligious Madness: Conversion and Castration in Massinger’s The Renegado”. Essays in the Arts and Sciences 31 (2002): 25– 43. Mamczarz, Irene. “Masquerades and Interludes in the English Renaissance Drama”. In The Show Within: Dramatic and Other Insets: English Renaissance Drama (1500–1642). Ed. François Laroque. Proc. of Int. Conference, 22–5 Nov. 1990, Montpellier. 2 vols. Collection Astraea 4. Montpellier: Paul Valery UP, 1990: 389–98. Mann, David. The Elizabethan Player: Contemporary Stage Representation. London: Routledge, 1991. Mann, Jeanette. “Printer’s Copy for The Roman Actor”. Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 70 (1976): 395–9. Mancall, Peter C. Envisioning America: English Plans for the Colonization of North America, 1580–1640. Boston: St. Martins, 1995. Maquerlot, Jean-Pierre. “Playing Within the Play: Towards a Semiotics of Metadrama and Metatheatre”. In The Show Within: Dramatic and Other Insets: English Renaissance Drama (1500–1642). Ed. François Laroque. Proc. of Int. Conference, 22–5 Nov. 1990, Montpellier. 2 vols. Collection Astraea 4. Montpellier: Paul Valery UP, 1990: 39–49. Marin, Louis. “Towards a Theory of Reading in the Visual Arts: Poussin’s The Arcadian Shepherds”. In Calligram: Essays in New Art History from France. Ed. Norman Bryson. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1988: 63–90. Masten, Jeffery. “Beaumont and/or Fletcher: Collaboration and the Interpretation of Renaissance Drama”. ELH 59 (1992): 337–56. Maus, Katharine Eisaman. “Horns of Dilemma: Jealousy, Gender, and Spectatorship in English Renaissance Drama”. ELH 54 (1987): 561–83. Maxwell, Baldwin. Studies in Beaumont, Fletcher, and Massinger. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1939. McGee, C.E. “Cupid’s Banishment”. RD 19 (1988): 55–77. McGee, C.E., and John C. Meagher. “Preliminary Checklist of Tudor and Stuart Entertainments: 1603–1613”. Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama 27 (1984): 47–126. –––––. “Preliminary Checklist of Tudor and Stuart Entertainments: 1614–1625”. Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama 30 (1988): 17–128. –––––. “Preliminary Checklist of Tudor and Stuart Entertainments: 1625–1634”. Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama 36 (1997): 23–95. –––––. “Preliminary Checklist of Tudor and Stuart Entertainments: 1634–1642”. Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama 38 (1999): 23–85. McGuire, Mary Ann. “Milton’s Arcades and the Entertainment Tradition”. Studies in Philology 75 (1978): 451–71. McLuskie, Kathleen. “Figuring the Consumer for Early Modern Drama”. In Rematerialising Shakespeare: Authority and Representation on the Early Modern English Stage. Ed. Bryan Reynolds and William West. Houndmills: Palgrave, 2005: 186–206. 158 Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger

–––––. “The Plays and the Playwrights: 1613–42”. In The Revels History of Drama in English: Vol. IV, 1613–1660. 8 vols. Eds Philip Edwards, Gerald Eades Bentley, Kathleen McLuskie, and Lois Potter. London: Methuen, 1975: 127–260. McManus, Clare. “Memorializing Anna of Denmark’s Court: Cupid’s Banishment at Greenwich Palace”. In Women and Culture at the Courts of the Stuart Queens. Ed. Clare McManus. Houndmills: Palgrave, 2003: 81–99. –––––. Women on the Renaissance Stage: Anna of Denmark and Female Masquing in the Stuart Court (1590–1619). Manchester: Manchester UP, 2002. –––––, ed. Women and Culture at the Courts of the Stuart Queens. Houndmills: Palgrave, 2003. McMullan, Gordon. The Politics of Unease in the Plays of John Fletcher. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1994. McMullan, Gordon, and Jonathan Hope, eds. The Politics of Tragicomedy: Shakespeare and After. London: Routledge, 1992. Meagher, John. Method and Meaning in Jonson’s Masques. Notre Dame, IN: U of Notre Dame P, 1966. Mehl, Dieter. The Elizabethan Dumb Show: The History of a Dramatic Convention. Trans. Dieter Mehl. 1966. London: Methuen, 1982. –––––. “Forms and Functions of a Play within a Play”. Renaissance Drama 8 (1965): 41–61. Mickel, Lesley. “Glorious Spangs and Rich Embroidery: Costume in The Masque of Blackness and Hymenaei ”. Studies in the Literary Imagination 36:2 (2003): 41–59. Miller, Shannon. Invested with Meaning: the Raleigh Circle in the New World. Philadelphia: U of Penn P, 1998. Montrose, Louis A. “A Midsummer Night’s Dream and the Shaping Fantasies of Elizabethan Culture: Gender, Power, Form”. In Rewriting the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe. Eds Margaret W. Ferguson, Maureen Quilligan, and Nancy J. Vickers. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1986: 65–87. –––––. The Purpose of Playing: Shakespeare and the Cultural Politics of the Elizabethan Theatre. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996. Mukherji, Subha. “False Trials in Shakespeare, Massinger, and Ford”. Essays in Criticism 56 (2006): 219–40. Mullaney, Stephen. The Place of the Stage: License, Play, and Power in Renaissance England. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1988. Mulvey, Laura. Visual and Other Pleasures. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1989. Murdoch, John, Jim Murrell, Patrick J. Noon, and Roy Strong, eds. The English Miniature. New Haven: Yale UP, 1981. Murrell, Jim. “The Craft of the Miniaturist”. In The English Miniature. Eds John Murdoch, Jim Murrell, Patrick J. Noon, and Roy Strong, eds. New Haven: Yale UP, 1981: 1–24. Bibliography 159

–––––. The Way Howe to Lymne: Tudor Miniatures Observed. London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 1983. Myhill, Nova. “‘Judging Spectators’: Dramatic Representations of Spectatorship in Early Modern London, 1580–1642”. Diss. U of California at Los Angeles, 1997. –––––. “Making Death a Miracle: Audience and the Genres of Martyrdom in Dekker and Massinger’s The Virgin Martyr”. Early Theatre 7 (2004): 9–31. –––––. “Spectatorship in/of Much Ado About Nothing”. SEL 1500–1900 39:2 (1999): 291–311. Nakayama, Randall. “Redressing Wrongs”. Renaissance Drama 30 (1999–2001): 25–41. Neill, Michael, ed. John Ford: Critical Re-Visions. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1988. –––––. “Massinger’s Patriarchy: The Social Vision of A New Way to Pay Old Debts”. Renaissance Drama 10 (1979): 185–213. –––––. “‘The Simetry, Which Gives a Poem Grace’: Masque, Imagery, and the Fancy of The Maid’s Tragedy”. Renaissance Drama 3 (1970): 111–35. –––––. “‘The Tongues of Angels’: Charity and the Social Order in The City Madam”. D. Howard, Philip Massinger 193–220. –––––. “‘Wits most accomplished Senate’: The Audience of the Caroline Private Theatres”. SEL 18 (1978): 341–60. Nelson, Robert James. The Play-Within-A-Play: The Dramatist’s Conception of his Art: Shakespeare to Anouilh. New Haven: Yale UP, 1958. New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. 20 vols. Ed. Stanley Sadie. Washington: Grove’s Dictionaries of Music, 1980. Nicoll, Allardyce. Stuart Masques and the Renaissance Stage. 1938. New York: B. Blom, 1963. Norbrook, David. “The Reformation of the Masque”. The Court Masque. Ed. David Lindley. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1984: 94–110. O’Connell, Michael. “The Idolatrous Eye: Iconoclasm, Anti–Theatricalism and the Image of the Elizabethan Theater”. ELH 52 (1985): 279–310. –––––. The Idolatrous Eye: Iconoclasm and Theater in Early-Modern England. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. Orgel, Stephen. “Idols of the Gallery: Becoming a Connoisseur in Renaissance England”. In Early Modern Visual Culture: Representation, Race and Empire in Renaissance England. Ed. Peter Erickson and Clark Hulse. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2000. 251–83. –––––. The Illusion of Power: Political Theater in the English Renaissance. Berkeley: U of California P, 1975. –––––. “Introduction”. In Ben Jonson: The Complete Masques. Ed. Stephen Orgel. New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1969: 1–39. –––––. “Jonson and the Amazons”. In Soliciting Interpretation: Literary Theory and Seventeenth-Century English Poetry. Ed. Elizabeth Harvey and Katharine Eisaman Maus. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1990: 119–39. 160 Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger

–––––. The Jonsonian Masque. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1965. –––––. “The Renaissance Artist as Plagiarist”. ELH 48:3 (1981): 476–95. Orgel, Stephen, and Roy Strong. Inigo Jones: The Theatre of the Stuart Court. 2 vols. London: Sotheby; Berkeley: U of California P, 1973. Osborne, Laurie E. “Staging the Female Playgoer: Gender in Shakespeare’s Onstage Audiences”. In Enacting Gender on the Renaissance Stage. Ed. Viviana Comensoli and Anne Russell. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1999: 201–17. Ostovich, Helen. “‘To Behold the Scene Full’: Seeing and Judging in Every Man Out of His Humour”. In Re-presenting Ben Jonson: Text, History and Performance. Ed. Martin Butler. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1999: 76–92. –––––. “Introduction”. In Jonson, Ben. Every Man Out of His Humour. Ed. Helen Ostovich. Manchester and New York: Manchester UP, 2001: 1–97. –––––. “‘So Sudden and Strange a Cure’: A Rudimentary Masque in Every Man Out of His Humour”. ELR 22 (1992): 315–32. Otten, Elizabeth Spalding. “Massinger’s Sexual Society”. In Sexuality and Politics in Renaissance Drama. Ed. Carol Levin and Karen Robertson. Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1991: 137–58. Parry, Graham. The Golden Age restor’d: The Culture of the Stuart Court, 1603– 42. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1981. –––––. “The Politics of the Jacobean Masque”. In Theatre and Government Under the Early Stuarts. Ed. J. R. Mulryne and Margaret Shewring. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993: 87–117. Paster, Gail Kern. “Quomodo, Sir Giles, and Triangular Desire: Social Aspiration in Middleton and Massinger”. In Comedy from Shakespeare to Sheridan: Change and Continuity in the English and European Dramatic Tradition. Eds A.R. Braunmuller and J.C. Bulman. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1986: 165–78. Pastoor, Charles. “Metadramatic Performances in Hamlet and The Roman Actor”. Phil Review 31:1 (2006): 1–20. Patterson, Annabel. Censorship and Interpretation: The Conditions of Writing and Reading in Early Modern England. 1984. Wisconsin: U of Wisconsin P, 1991. Pavis, Patrice. Dictionary of the Theatre: Terms, Concepts, and Analysis. Trans. Christine Shantz. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1998. Peacock, John. “The Politics of Portraiture”. In Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England. Eds Kevin Sharpe and Peter Lake. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1993: 199–228. Peck, Linda Levy. “The Caroline Audience: Evidence from Hatfield House”. SQ 51 (2000): 474–77. Peyré, Yves. “Massinger’s Plays Within: Pygmalion or Medusa?”. In The Show Within: Dramatic and Other Insets: English Renaissance Drama (1500–1642). Ed. François Laroque. Proc. of Int. Conference, 22–5 Nov. 1990, Montpellier. 2 vols. Collection Astraea 4. Montpellier: Paul Valery UP, 1990: 333–57. Pope-Hennessy, John. The Portrait in the Renaissance. 1966. A.W. Mellon Lect. in the Fine Arts. 12. Bollingen. 35. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1979. Bibliography 161

Potter, John. “‘In Time of Sports’: Masques and Masking in Middleton’s Women Beware Women”. Papers on Language and Literature 18 (1982): 368–83. Potter, Lois. “Seeing and Believing”. In The Arts of Performance in Elizabethan and Early Stuart Drama: Essays for G. K. Hunter. Ed. Murray Biggs, Philip Edwards, Inga-Stina Ewbank, and Eugene Waith. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1991: 113–23. Poynting, Sarah. “‘In the Name of all the Sisters’: Henrietta Maria’s Notorious Whores”. In Women and Culture at the Courts of the Stuart Queens. Ed. Clare McManus. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003: 163–85. Putt, S. Gorley. “The Complacency of Philip Massinger, Gent”. English 30 (1981): 99–114. Quinn, David Beers. England and the Discovery of America, 1481–1620. New York: Knopf, 1974. –––––. Set Fair for Roanoke: Voyages and Colonies, 1584–1606. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1985. –––––, ed. The Voyages and Colonising Enterprises of Sir Humphrey Gilbert. Vol. 1. London: Hakluyt Society, 1940. Quinn, David, and Alison Quinn, eds. New American World: a Documentary History of North America to 1612. 5 vols. New York: Arno P, 1979. Ramachandraiah, P. The Late Twilight: A Study of the Plays of Philip Massinger. Tirupati: Sri Venkateswara U, 1984. Ravelhofer, Barbara. The Early Stuart Masque: Dance, Costume and Music. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006. Raylor, Timothy. The Essex House Masque of 1621: Viscount Doncaster and the Jacobean Masque. Pittsburgh: Duquesne UP, 2000. Reinheimer, David. “The Roman Actor, Censorship, and Dramatic Autonomy”. SEL 38 (1998): 317–32. Reyher, Paul. Les Masques Anglais: Etude sur les Ballets et la Vie du Cour en Angleterre 1512–1640. Paris: Hachette, 1909. Reynolds, Bryan, and William West, eds. Rematerializing Shakespeare: Authority and Representation on the Early Modern English Stage. New York and Houndmills: Palgrave, 2005. Robbins, Emmet. “Famous Orpheus”. Warden 3–24. Robertson, Karen. “Pocahontas at the Masque”. Signs 21 (1996): 551–83. Robinson, Benedict Scott. “The ‘Turks,’ Caroline Politics, and Phillip Massinger’s The Renegado”. In Localizing Caroline Drama: Politics and Economics of the Early Modern Stage, 1625–1642. Ed. Adam Zucker and Alan B. Farmer. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006: 213–38. Rocklin, Edward L. “Placing the Audience at Risk: Realizing the Design of Massinger’s The Roman Actor”. In Acts of Criticism: Performance Matters in Shakespeare and His Contemporaries. Ed. Paul Nelsen and June Schlueter. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 2006: 144–58. Roston, Murray. Renaissance Perspectives in Literature and the Visual Arts. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1987. 162 Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger

Salamon, Linda Bradley. “The Art of Nicholas Hilliard”. Hilliard 65–145. Salingar, Leo. “Jacobean Playwrights and ‘Judicious’ Spectators”. Renaissance Drama 22 (1991): 209–34. Salomon, Brownell. “Visual and Aural Signs in the Performed English Renaissance Play”. Renaissance Drama 5 (1972): 143–69. Sanders, Julie. Caroline Drama: The Plays of Massinger, Ford, Shirley and Brome. Writers and their Work. Plymouth: Northcote House, 1999. –––––. “Caroline Salon Culture and Female Agency: The Countess of Carlisle, Henrietta Maria and Public Theatre”. Theatre Journal 52 (2000): 450–464. –––––. “‘The Day’s Sports Devised in the Inn’: Jonson’s The New Inn and Theatrical Politics”. MLR 91 (1996): 545–60. –––––. “‘Twill fit the players yet’: Women and Theatre in Jonson’s Late Plays”. In Ben Jonson and Theatre: Performance, Practice and Theory. London: Routledge, 1999: 179–90. –––––. “‘Wardrobe Stuffe’: Clothes, Costume and the Politics of Dress in Ben Jonson’s The New Inn”. Renaissance Forum 6:1 (2002). Sanders, Julie, Kate Chedgzoy, and Susan Wiseman, eds. Re-Fashioning Ben Jonson. Houndmills: MacMillan, 1998. Schwarz, Kathryn. “Amazon Reflections in the Jacobean Queen’s Masque”. SEL 35:2 (1995): 293–319. Sharpe, Kevin, and Peter Lake, eds. Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1993. Shaw, Catherine M. ‘Some Vanity of Mine Art’: The Masque in English Renaissance Drama. 2 vols. Jacobean Drama Studies. 81. Salzburg: U of Salzburg, 1979. Shohet, Lauren. “Reading/Genres: On 1630’s Masques”. In Spectacle and Public Performance in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Ed Robert E Stillman. Leiden: Brill, 2006: 231–48. –––––. “Reading Triumphs: Localizing Caroline Masques”. In Localizing Caroline Drama: Politics and Economics of the Early Modern Stage, 1625–1642. Ed. Adam Zucker and Alan B. Farmer. New York and Houndmills: Palgrave, 2006: 69–96. Shurgot, Michael. Stages of Play: Shakespeare’s Theatrical Energies in Elizabethan Performance. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1998. Simonds, Peggy Munoz. “‘Killing Care and Grief of Heart’: Orpheus and Shakespeare”. Renaissance Papers (1990): 79–90. Skura, Meredith Anne. Shakespeare the Actor and the Purposes of Playing. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1993. Smith, David L., Richard Strier, and David Bevington, eds. The Theatrical City: Culture, Theatre and Politics in London, 1576–1649. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. Smuts, R. Malcolm. “Court-Centred Politics and the Uses of Roman Historians, c. 1590–1630”. In Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England. Eds Kevin Sharpe and Peter Lake. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1993: 21–44. Bibliography 163

–––––. Court Culture and the Origins of a Royalist Tradition in Early Stuart England. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1987. –––––. “The Political Failure of Stuart Cultural Patronage”. In Patronage in the Renaissance. Ed. Guy Lytle and Stephen Orgel. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1981: 165–87. Sofer, Andrew. The Stage Life of Props. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 2003. Sokol, B.J. Art and Illusion in The Winter’s Tale. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1994. Spivack, Charlotte. “Alienation and Illusion: The Play-Within-a-Play on the Caroline Stage”. Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 4 (1989): 195–210. Stallybrass, Peter. “Patriarchal Territories: The Body Enclosed”. In Rewriting the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe. Eds Margaret W. Ferguson, Maureen Quilligan, and Nancy J. Vickers. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1986: 123–42. –––––. “Worn Worlds: Clothes and Identity on the Renaissance Stage”. In Subject and Object in Renaissance Culture. Ed. De Grazia, Quilligan and Stallybrass. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. Stallybrass, Peter, and Anne Rosalind Jones. Renaissance Clothing and the Materials of Memory. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000: 289–320. States, Bert. Great Reckonings in Little Rooms: On the Phenomenology of Theater. Berkeley: U of California P, 1985. Steinberg, Glenn A. “‘You Know the Plot/ We Both Agreed On?’: Plot, Self- Consciousness, and The London Merchant in Beaumont’s The Knight of the Burning Pestle”. Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 5 (1991): 211–24. Steggle, Matthew. Richard Brome: Place and Politics on the Caroline Stage. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2004. –––––. Wars of the Theatres: The Poetics of Personation in the Age of Jonson. Victoria: English Literary Studies, 1998. Stern, Tiffany. Rehearsal from Shakespeare to Sheridan. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. –––––. “Taking Part: Actors and Audience on the Stage at Blackfriars”. In Inside Shakespeare: Essays on the Blackfriars Stage. Ed. Paul Menzer. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna UP, 2006: 35–53. Stillman, Robert E., ed. Spectacle and Public Performance in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Stone, Lawrence. The Crisis of The Aristocracy 1558–1641. 2nd imp. Oxford: Clarendon, 1979. Stott, Andrew. “Henry Unton’s Little Lives: Inscription and Suture in the Elizabethan Portrait”. Word and Image 13 (1997): 1–22. Strong, Roy. Charles I on Horseback. New York: Viking, 1972. –––––. The Cult of Elizabeth: Elizabethan Portraiture and Pageantry. 1977. Berkeley: U of California P, 1977. 164 Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger

–––––. The English Icon: Elizabethan and Jacobean Portraiture. London: Paul Mellon Found. in ass. with Routledge, 1969. –––––. The English Renaissance Miniature. London: Thames and Hudson, 1983. –––––. “From Manuscript to Miniature”. In The English Miniature. Eds John Murdoch, Jim Murrell, Patrick J. Noon, and Roy Strong, eds. New Haven: Yale UP, 1981: 25–84. Sturgess, Keith. Jacobean Private Theatre. London: Routledge, 1987. Sullivan, Mary. Court Masques of James I: Their Influence on Shakespeare and the Public Theatres. New York: Putnam, 1913. Sutherland, Sarah P. Masques in Jacobean Tragedy. New York: AMS, 1983. Tassi, Marguerite. “Lover, Poisoner, Counterfeiter: The Painter in Elizabethan Drama”. The Ben Jonson Journal 7 (2000): 129–56. –––––. “O fair face’: The Aesthetic of the Portrait Miniature in John Lyly’s Campaspe”. Discoveries 17:3 (2000): 1–2; 11–13. –––––. “The Player’s Passion and the Elizabethan Painting Trope: A Study of the Painter Addition to Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy”. Explorations in Renaissance Culture 26:1 (2000): 73–100. –––––. The Scandal of Images: Iconoclasm, Eroticism and Painting in Early Modern English Drama. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna UP, 2005 Teague, Frances. Shakespeare’s Speaking Properties. Lewisburg: Bucknell UP, 1991. Thompson, Leslie. “Who’s In, Who’s Out? The Knight of the Burning Pestle on the Blackfriars Stage”. In Inside Shakespeare: Essays on the Blackfriars Stage. Ed. Paul Menzer. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna UP, 2006: 61–71. Thompson, Patricia. “World Stage and Stage in Massinger’s Roman Actor”. Neophilologus 54 (1970): 409–26. Thorne, Alison. Vision and Rhetoric in Shakespeare: Looking through Language. Houndmills and London: Macmillan, 2000. Tinagli, Paola. Women in Italian Renaissance Art: Gender, Representation, Identity. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1997. Tomlinson, Sophie. “She That Plays the King: Henrietta Maria and the Threat of the Actress in Caroline Culture”. In The Politics of Tragicomedy: Shakespeare and After. Eds Gordon McMullan and Jonathan Hope. London: Routledge, 1992: 189–207. –––––. “Theatrical Vibrancy on the Caroline Court Stage: Tempe Restored and The Shepherd’s Paradise”. In Women and Culture at the Courts of the Stuart Queens. Ed. Clare McManus. Houndmills: Palgrave, 2003: 186–203. –––––. Women on Stage in Stuart Drama. Cambridge; Cambridge UP, 2005. Toro, Fernando de. Theatre Semiotics: Text and Staging in Modern Theatre. Trans. John Lewis. Ed. Carole Hubbard. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1995. Tosi, Laura. “Painting, Deception and Dramatic Illusion in Elizabethan–Jacobean Theatre”. Textus 12 (1999): 37–56. –––––. “Woman’s Pictorial Representation and Patriarchal Control in Elizabethan Drama”. Annali Di Ca’ Foscari 38:1–2 (1999): 603–21. Bibliography 165

Traub, Valerie. Desire and Anxiety: Circulations of Sexuality in Shakespearean Drama. London: Routledge, 1992. Tricomi, Albert H. Anticourt Drama in England, 1603–1642. Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 1989. Turner, Robert Y. “Giving and Taking in Massinger’s Tragicomedies”. SEL 35 (1995): 361–81. Ubersfeld, Anne. Reading Theatre. Trans. Frank Collins. Eds Paul Perron and Patrick Debbèche. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1999. Veevers, Erica. Images of Love and Religion: Queen Henrietta Maria and Court Entertainments. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989. Venuti, Lawrence. Our Halcyon Days: English Prerevolutionary Texts and Postmodern Culture. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1989. Vicari, Patricia. “Sparagmos: Orpheus among the Christians”. In Orpheus: The Metamorphoses of a Myth. Ed. John Warden. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1982 63–83. Waith, Eugene. The Pattern of Tragicomedy in Beaumont and Fletcher. New Haven: Yale UP, 1952. Walls, Peter. Music in the English Courtly Masque 1604–1640. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Warden, John, ed. Orpheus: The Metamorphoses of a Myth. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1982. Waterfield, Giles, et al. Mr. Cartwright’s Pictures: a Seventeenth Century Collection. Dulwich: Dulwich Picture Gallery, 1987. Weimann, Robert. Author’s Pen and Actor’s Voice: Playing and Writing in Shakespeare’s Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Wells, Stanley. “Shakespeare’s Onstage Audiences”. In The Show Within: Dramatic and Other Insets: English Renaissance Drama (1500–1642). Ed. François Laroque. Proc. of Int. Conference, 22–5 Nov. 1990, Montpellier. 2 vols. Collection Astraea 4. Montpellier: Paul Valery UP, 1990: 89–108. Welsford, Enid. The Court Masque: A Study in the Relationship between Poetry and the Revels. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1927. Werstine, Paul. “Massinger’s The City Madam III.i.46–51”. Explicator 38:4 (1980): 18–20. White, Martin. Renaissance Drama in Action: An Introduction to Aspects of Theatre Practice and Performance. London: Routledge, 1998. –––––. “Introduction”. In The Roman Actor. By Phillip Massinger. Ed. Martin White. The Revels Plays. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2008: 1–67. Whitney, Charles. Early Responses to Renaissance Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. Wickham, Glynne, Herbert Berry, and William Ingram, eds. English Professional Theatre, 1300–1660. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Willems, Michéle. “‘They Do but Jest’ or Do They? Reflections on the Ambiguities of the Space within the Space”. In The Show Within: Dramatic and Other Insets: English Renaissance Drama (1500–1642). Ed. François Laroque. Proc. 166 Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger

of Int. Conference, 22–5 Nov. 1990, Montpellier. 2 vols. Collection Astraea 4. Montpellier: Paul Valery UP, 1990: 51–64. Wilson, Rod. “Massinger’s The Roman Actor”. Explicator 40:4 (1982): 16–17. Wittkower, Rudolf. “Transformations of Minerva in Renaissance Imagery”. Journal of the Warburg Institute 2 (1939): 194–205. Wood, Jeremy. “Van Dyck and the Earl of Northumberland: Taste and Collecting in Stuart England”. In Van Dyck, 350: Studies in the History of Art 46: Symposium Papers XXVI. Ed. Susan Barnes and Arthur Wheelock Jr. Washington: National Gallery of Art, 1994: 281–324. Woolland, Brian, ed. Jonsonians: Living Traditions. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003. Worthen, W.B. “Deeper Meanings and Theatrical Technique: The Rhetoric of Performance Criticism”. Shakespeare Quarterly 40 (1989): 441–55. –––––. The Idea of the Actor: Drama and the Ethics of Performance. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1984. Wynne, Lorraine. “The Poetic Function of the Stage Audience and Embedded Performance in Drama”. Proc. of 5th Annual Meeting of Semiotic Soc. Of America, Oct 16–19 1980, Lubbock. Semiotics 1980. Ed. Michael Herzfeld and Margot Lenhart. New York: Plenum, 1982: 571–6. Wynne-Davies, Marion. “The Queen’s Masque: Renaissance Women and the Seventeenth-Century Court Masque”. In Gloriana’s Face: Women, Public and Private, in the English Renaissance. Ed. Susan Cerasano and Marion Wynne- Davies. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1992: 79–104. Yachnin, Paul. “The Powerless Theatre”. ELR 21(1991): 49–74. Zimmerman, Susan. The Early Modern Corpse and Shakespeare’s Theatre. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2005. Zucker, Adam, and Alan B. Farmer. “Introduction”. In Localizing Caroline Drama: Politics and Economics of the Early Modern Stage, 1625–1642. Ed. Adam Zucker and Alan B. Farmer. New York and Houndmills: Palgrave, 2006: 2–15. –––––, eds. Localizing Caroline Drama: Politics and Economics of the Early Modern Stage, 1625–1642. Ed. Adam Zucker and Alan B. Farmer. New York and Houndmills: Palgrave, 2006.