DOCSLIB.ORG

Three Restoration Comedies: the Man of Mode; the Country Wife; Love for Love

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Three Restoration Comedies: the Man of Mode; the Country Wife; Love for Love THREE RESTORATION COMEDIES FREE DOWNLOAD Sir George Etherege,William Wycherley,William Congreve,Gamini Salgado | 368 pages | 17 Jun 2011 | Penguin Books Ltd | 9780140430271 | English | London, United Kingdom Three Restoration Comedies: The Man of Mode; The Country Wife; Love for love Caroline Tweedy rated it it was amazing Mar 11, During the second wave of Restoration comedy in the s, the "softer" comedies of William Three Restoration Comedies and John Vanbrugh reflected mutating cultural perceptions and great social change. Rich attempted to finance a tangle of "farmed" shares and sleeping partners by slashing salaries and, dangerously, by Three Restoration Comedies the traditional perks of senior performers, who were stars with the clout to fight back. A unique blending of emotional and intellectual experience. When Jeremy Collier attacked Congreve and Vanbrugh in his Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage inhe was confirming a shift in audience Three Restoration Comedies that had already taken place. Nicholas Taylor-Collins rated it really liked it Mar 19, All the humour of this "comedy" is in the subsidiary love-chase and fornication plots, none in the main plot. Such an arrangement would not allow remarriage. Fashions in the drama would change almost week by week rather than season by season, as each company responded to the offerings of the other, and new plays were urgently sought. She is enthusiastic about the virile handsomeness of town gallants, rakes, and especially theatre actors such self-referential stage jokes were nourished by the new higher status of actorsand keeps Pinchwife in a state of continual horror with her plain-spokenness and her interest in sex. Eight Great Comedies. What they did was, according to their respective inclinations, to mock at all restraints. These exchanges are full of jokes, but are also thoughtful and have a dimension of melancholy Three Restoration Comedies frustration. At Three Restoration Comedies turn of the 20th century, an embattled minority of academic Restoration comedy enthusiasts began to appear, for example the important editor Montague Summerswhose work ensured that the plays of Aphra Behn remained in print. I read The Man of Mode, and Three Restoration Comedies is a fantastic piece of Restoration theatre. Web, Tablet, Phone, eReader. The dramatists of the Restoration renounced the tradition of satire, as recently embodied Three Restoration Comedies Ben Jonsonand devoted themselves to the comedy of mannerswhich uncritically accepted the social code of the upper class. The comedy of sex and wit was about to be replaced by the drama of obvious sentiment and exemplary morality. The playwrights of the s set out to appeal to more socially mixed audiences with a strong middle-class element, and to female spectators, for instance by moving the war between the sexes from the arena of intrigue into that of marriage. Horner's impotence trick provides the main plot and the play's organising principle. Artificial, irreverent, and bawdy, the Restoration theatre came as a violent reaction to the strict ordinance of the Commonwealth. Celia Lim rated it liked it Jul 03, Three Restoration Comedies rated it really liked it Jun 19, Hume as late as There are no discussion topics on this book yet. In Three Restoration Comedies mids a brief second Restoration comedy renaissance arose, aimed at a wider Three Restoration Comedies. He died in Esther Lombardi, M. Community Reviews. Literature Expert. Variety and dizzying fashion changes are typical of Restoration comedy. Enabling JavaScript in your browser will allow you to experience all the features of our site. Paperbackpages. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. London again had two competing companies. The greatest fixed stars among Restoration actors were Elizabeth Barry "Famous Mrs Barry" who "forc 'd Tears from the Eyes of her Auditory" and Thomas Bettertonboth of them active in organising the actors' revolt in and both original patent-holders in the resulting actors' cooperative. Escape the Present with These 24 Historical Romances. Javascript is not Three Restoration Comedies in your browser. Feb 11, Marianna rated it liked it Shelves: classics. New arrivals. Restoration comedy. Published on. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. Resulting differences of tone in a single play were appreciated rather than frowned on, as the audience prized "variety" within as well as between plays. The patentees scrambled for performance rights to the previous generation's Jacobean and Caroline plays, which were the first necessity for economic survival before any new plays existed. The upper-class town Three Restoration Comedies Horner mounts Three Restoration Comedies campaign for seducing as many respectable ladies as possible, first spreading a false rumour of his own impotence, to be allowed where no complete man may go. Eliot Ciardi has given us…a credible, passionate persona of the poet, stripped of the customary gauds of rhetoric and false decoration, strong and noble in utterance. Debbie Robinson rated it liked it Apr 20, The influence and the incomes of the actors dropped, too. Ten consecutive performances constituted a smash hit. Three Restoration Comedies rated it it was ok Dec 16, The unsentimental or "hard" comedies of John DrydenWilliam Wycherleyand George Etherege reflected the atmosphere at Court, and celebrated with frankness an aristocratic macho lifestyle of unremitting sexual intrigue and conquest. The company owners, wrote the young United Company employee Colley Cibber"who had made a monopoly of the stage, and consequently presum'd they might impose what conditions they pleased upon their people, did not consider that they were all Three Restoration Comedies while endeavouring to enslave Three Restoration Comedies set of actors whom the public were inclined to support. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the sexual frankness of Restoration comedy ensured that theatre producers cannibalised it or adapted it Three Restoration Comedies a heavy hand, rather than actually performed it. Fop Spark Rake. Gamini Salgado. Indeed, there exist Three Restoration Comedies typical comedies of the s or the s; even within these two short peak-times, comedy types kept mutating and multiplying. Soon after his restoration, inhe granted exclusive play-staging rights, so-called Royal patentsto the King's Company and the Duke's Companyled by two middle- aged Caroline playwrights, Thomas Killigrew and William Davenant. Uh-oh, it looks like your Internet Explorer is out of date. The Man of Mode - 3..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An A2 Timeline of the London Stage Between 1660 and 1737
    1660-61 1659-60 1661-62 1662-63 1663-64 1664-65 1665-66 1666-67 William Beeston The United Company The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company @ Salisbury Court Sir William Davenant Sir William Davenant Sir William Davenant Sir William Davenant The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company & Thomas Killigrew @ Salisbury Court @Lincoln’s Inn Fields @ Lincoln’s Inn Fields Sir William Davenant Sir William Davenant Rhodes’s Company @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane @ Red Bull Theatre @ Lincoln’s Inn Fields @ Lincoln’s Inn Fields George Jolly John Rhodes @ Salisbury Court @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane The King’s Company The King’s Company PLAGUE The King’s Company The King’s Company The King’s Company Thomas Killigrew Thomas Killigrew June 1665-October 1666 Anthony Turner Thomas Killigrew Thomas Killigrew Thomas Killigrew @ Vere Street Theatre @ Vere Street Theatre & Edward Shatterell @ Red Bull Theatre @ Bridges Street Theatre @ Bridges Street Theatre @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane @ Bridges Street Theatre, GREAT FIRE @ Red Bull Theatre Drury Lane (from 7/5/1663) The Red Bull Players The Nursery @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane September 1666 @ Red Bull Theatre George Jolly @ Hatton Garden 1676-77 1675-76 1674-75 1673-74 1672-73 1671-72 1670-71 1669-70 1668-69 1667-68 The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company Thomas Betterton & William Henry Harrison and Thomas Henry Harrison & Thomas Sir William Davenant Smith for the Davenant Betterton for the Davenant Betterton for the Davenant @ Lincoln’s Inn Fields
    [Show full text]
  • Jane Milling
    ORE Open Research Exeter TITLE ‘“For Without Vanity I’m Better Known”: Restoration Actors and Metatheatre on the London Stage.’ AUTHORS Milling, Jane JOURNAL Theatre Survey DEPOSITED IN ORE 18 March 2013 This version available at http://hdl.handle.net/10036/4491 COPYRIGHT AND REUSE Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies. A NOTE ON VERSIONS The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of publication Theatre Survey 52:1 (May 2011) # American Society for Theatre Research 2011 doi:10.1017/S0040557411000068 Jane Milling “FOR WITHOUT VANITY,I’M BETTER KNOWN”: RESTORATION ACTORS AND METATHEATRE ON THE LONDON STAGE Prologue, To the Duke of Lerma, Spoken by Mrs. Ellen[Nell], and Mrs. Nepp. NEPP: How, Mrs. Ellen, not dress’d yet, and all the Play ready to begin? EL[LEN]: Not so near ready to begin as you think for. NEPP: Why, what’s the matter? ELLEN: The Poet, and the Company are wrangling within. NEPP: About what? ELLEN: A prologue. NEPP: Why, Is’t an ill one? NELL[ELLEN]: Two to one, but it had been so if he had writ any; but the Conscious Poet with much modesty, and very Civilly and Sillily—has writ none.... NEPP: What shall we do then? ’Slife let’s be bold, And speak a Prologue— NELL[ELLEN]: —No, no let us Scold.1 When Samuel Pepys heard Nell Gwyn2 and Elizabeth Knipp3 deliver the prologue to Robert Howard’s The Duke of Lerma, he recorded the experience in his diary: “Knepp and Nell spoke the prologue most excellently, especially Knepp, who spoke beyond any creature I ever heard.”4 By 20 February 1668, when Pepys noted his thoughts, he had known Knipp personally for two years, much to the chagrin of his wife.
    [Show full text]
  • Season of 1702-03
    Season of 1702-1703 nsofar as we can judge from scrappy evidence, the two companies arrived I at a modus vivendi of sorts this season. The bitter battles of the past few years and the very real threat of the collapse of the second company are no longer evident in prologues and epilogues: the accommodation that was to lead to joint performances at court in 1704 is starting to become evident. Probably neither company was flourishing, but both appear to have been sol- vent. Nonetheless, no insider could have imagined that the situation would remain long unchanged: the tiny and makeshift Lincoln’s Inn Fields theatre was not viable for the long run. Sometime in the spring of 1703, John Van- brugh, observing an opportunity, started to canvass backers for a new theatre. His intentions are manifest in the calculations he made at this time (printed below, under “ca. April” 1703). Vanbrugh’s hope was to engineer a new theatrical union and recombine the two companies in an elegant new theatre of his own design. The personnel he pencilled into his plan show that while he intended to stage “opera” and dance, his primary repertory would be English plays. The two hostile companies of 1695 had fought themselves to a stalemate: Vanbrugh turned out to be the unexpected means by which Lon- don theatre escaped the circumstances in which it had become stuck. Unfortunately, the process was to be a bumpy one. Vanbrugh’s efforts to negotiate or force a union were to fail; his new theatre proved less than ideal for spoken plays; and his successful grab at an opera monopoly in 1708 was to put him at the verge of bankruptcy in just four months.
    [Show full text]
  • Information to Users
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back o f the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 WOMEN PLAYWRIGHTS DURING THE STRUGGLE FOR CONTROL OF THE LONDON THEATRE, 1695-1710 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Jay Edw ard Oney, B.A., M.A.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 X 10.5 Long Title.P65
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-58215-5 - The Cambridge Companion to English Restoration Theatre Edited by Deborah Payne Fisk Excerpt More information 1 EDWARD A. LANGHANS The theatre Our will and pleasure is that you prepare a Bill for our signature to passe our Greate Seale of England, containing a Grant unto our trusty and well beloved Thomas Killegrew Esquire, one of the Groomes of our Bed-chamber and Sir William Davenant Knight, to give them full power and authoritie to erect Two Companys of Players consisting respectively of such persons as they shall chuse and apoint; and to purchase or build and erect at their charge as they shall thinke ®tt Two Houses or Theaters.1 So began the draft of a warrant, dated 19 July 1660, allowing two courtiers of Charles II to have shared control of the London public theatre. The document went on to authorize Killigrew and Davenant to give perfor- mances with scenery and music, to establish ticket prices and employee salaries, and to suffer no rival companies. This draft, written, remarkably, by Davenant himself, served as the basis for a warrant a month later stating essentially the same thing and directing the two new managers to be their own censors of plays. By 1663 they had been granted de®nitive patents not only empowering them to run the only of®cial theatres in London but giving that authority to their heirs or assigns. Not until 1843 were the patents rescinded, and even today Drury Lane Theatre and the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, derive their rights from the royal grants of the 1660s.
    [Show full text]
  • Season of 1707-08 Is One of the Strangest and Most Interesting of the T Whole Eighteenth Century
    Season of 1707-1708 he season of 1707-08 is one of the strangest and most interesting of the T whole eighteenth century. The strained and unstable situation created in October 1706 manifestly could not last, but what would replace it? The management of Drury Lane changed significantly for the first time since 1693 when Sir Thomas Skipwith gave away his share to Colonel Henry Brett (a decision he subsequently regretted and managed to rescind).1 For the pre- sent, Christopher Rich was saddled with an energetic and innovation-minded partner—and one who was friendly with the actors, Colley Cibber in par- ticular. Whether Brett and Rich could coexist, and whether Brett could keep the performers happy, remained to be seen. The Queen’s Theatre, meanwhile, was marking time during the autumn under the management of Owen Swiney, awaiting the results of Vanbrugh’s machinations. It offered un- adorned plays, feebly opposed by Drury Lane’s tattered remnant of a com- pany, which held a temporary monopoly on opera as well as on the presenta- tion of song and dance in plays. Vanbrugh had been convinced by 1704 that big money was to be made in opera—and particularly in opera of the new Italian variety. The highly profi- table success of Arsinoe and Camilla at Drury Lane in 1705 and 1706 had confirmed him (and many others) in this delusion. What Vanbrugh really wanted was a single-company monopoly on all theatrical entertainments. He had settled for a genre split in 1706, but wanted the musical half, not the dramatic half.
    [Show full text]
  • A Re-Examination of Spectacle and the Spectacular in Restoration Theatre, 1660-1714
    Changing Scenes and Flying Machines: A Re-examination of Spectacle and the Spectacular in Restoration Theatre, 1660-1714 Lyndsey Bakewell A Doctoral Thesis Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy at Loughborough University October 2015 ©Lyndsey Bakewell, 2015 i Abstract Changing Scenes and Flying Machines: A Re-examination of Spectacle in Restoration Theatre, 1660-1714. Key words: Restoration Theatre, Spectacle, Plays, Machinery, Scenery, Costumes, Performers, Puppetry, Automata, Special Effects. This thesis builds upon the existing scholarship of theatrical historians such as Robert D. Hume, Judith Milhous and Jocelyn Powell, and seeks to broaden the notion of the term spectacle in relation to Restoration theatrical performances, as defined by Milhous as scenery, machinery, large cast sizes and music.1 By arguing that we should not see spectacle in Restoration theatre merely in terms of machinery and scenery, as some have done, but that it properly includes a wider range of elements, such as puppetry and performers, the thesis contends that spectacle on the Restoration stage was more of an integral aspect of theatrical development than previously thought. Through drawing on the wide aspects of theatrical presentation, including setting, stage use, mechanics, costumes and properties, puppetry and performers, this thesis examines how the numerous aspects of the Restoration performance, both in their singularity and as a collective, provided a performance driven by spectacle in order to create an appealing entertainment for its audience. In order to navigate and appreciate the complexity of theatrical performance in this period, the thesis has been divided into key aspects of theatrical presentation, each of which are argued to offer a variant of spectacle.
    [Show full text]
  • THE RISE of the LIBERTINE HERO on the RESTORATION STAGE by JAMES BRYAN HILEMAN (Under the Direction of Elizabeth Kraft)
    THE RISE OF THE LIBERTINE HERO ON THE RESTORATION STAGE by JAMES BRYAN HILEMAN (Under the Direction of Elizabeth Kraft) ABSTRACT Structured in the style of a printed play of the period (though with only three acts), this study focuses on the proto-libertine hero in the plays of the restored stage of the 1660s and on the plays from whence he sprang. My goal is to revise the thinking about this figure, to cleanse him, and the times that produced him, of centuries of cultural effluvia by taking all these accumulations into account. He attained the zenith of his cultural career during the 1670s; his best representations, outside of the poems and the lives of noblemen such as the Earl of Rochester, are on the stage. In a sense he represents and embodies the last full flowering of the aristocracy before the commercial classes and their characteristic, Idealistic, Christian-humanist, bourgeois modes of thinking came to dominate English culture and to alternately effeminize and demonize this figure as ―the Restoration rake.‖ His Epicurean Materialism also parallels the rise of experimental science, though his fall does not. I examine his practice and the theory that informs him, his emphasis on inductive, a posteriori reasoning, the fancy-wit that combines sensations and ideas in order to create new conceptions, his notion that desire for largely physical pleasure is humanity‘s (and even women‘s) primary motivation, and his valuing the freedom to act and think contrary to ―official,‖ moral constraint, often in subversive, playful, and carnivalesque ways. This character‘s primary dramatic precursors are featured most prominently in the plays of John Fletcher, the most popular playwright of the seventeenth century, but also in those of James Shirley, Sir John Suckling, and Thomas Killigrew.
    [Show full text]
  • Colley Cibber - Poems
    Classic Poetry Series Colley Cibber - poems - Publication Date: 2012 Publisher: Poemhunter.com - The World's Poetry Archive Colley Cibber(6 November 1671 – 11 December 1757) Colley Cibber was an English actor-manager, playwright and Poet Laureate. His colourful memoir Apology for the Life of Colley Cibber (1740) describes his life in a personal, anecdotal and even rambling style. He wrote 25 plays for his own company at Drury Lane, half of which were adapted from various sources, which led <a href="http://www.poemhunter.com/robert-lowe/">Robert Lowe</a> and <a href="http://www.poemhunter.com/alexander-pope/">Alexander Pope</a>, among others, to criticise his "miserable mutilation" of "crucified Molière [and] hapless Shakespeare". He regarded himself as first and foremost an actor and had great popular success in comical fop parts, while as a tragic actor he was persistent but much ridiculed. Cibber's brash, extroverted personality did not sit well with his contemporaries, and he was frequently accused of tasteless theatrical productions, shady business methods, and a social and political opportunism that was thought to have gained him the laureateship over far better poets. He rose to ignominious fame when he became the chief target, the head Dunce, of Alexander Pope's satirical poem Dunciad. Cibber's poetical work was derided in his time, and has been remembered only for being poor. His importance in British theatre history rests on his being one of the first in a long line of actor-managers, on the interest of two of his comedies as documents of evolving early 18th-century taste and ideology, and on the value of his autobiography as a historical source.
    [Show full text]
  • Proquest Dissertations
    THE FORTUNES OF KING LEAR IN LONDON BETWEEN 1681 AND 1838: â chronological account of its adaptors, actors and editors, and of the links between them. Penelope Hicks University College London Ph.D ProQuest Number: U642864 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest U642864 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Abstract This thesis examines three interwoven strands in the dramatic and editorial history of King Lear between 1681 and 1838. One strand is the history of the adaptations which held the London stage during these years; the second is the changing styles of acting over the same period; the third is the work of the editors as they attempted to establish the Shakespearean text. This triple focus enables me to explore the paradoxical dominance of the adaptations at a time which saw both the text being edited for the first time and the rise of bardolatry. The three aspects of the fortunes ofKing Lear are linked in a number of ways, and I trace these connections as the editors, adaptors and actors concentrated on their own separate concerns.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring Britain: Performances of Stuart Succession in Dublin, Edinburgh, and London
    RESTORING BRITAIN: PERFORMANCES OF STUART SUCCESSION IN DUBLIN, EDINBURGH, AND LONDON by Deirdre O’Rourke BA, Washington University in St. Louis, 2006 Masters of Arts, University of Pittsburgh, 2008 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2014 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH THE KENNETH P. DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Deirdre O’Rourke It was defended on April 2, 2014 and approved by Dr. Attilio Favorini, Professor Emeritus, Theatre Arts Dr. Bruce McConachie, Professor, Theatre Arts Dr. Jennifer Waldron, Assistant Professor, English Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Lisa Jackson-Schebetta, Assistant Professor, Theatre Arts ii Copyright © by Deirdre O’Rourke 2014 iii RESTORING BRITAIN: PERFORMANCES OF STUART SUCCESSION IN DUBLIN, EDINBURGH, AND LONDON Deirdre O’Rourke, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2014 Though much worthy scholarship exists about English Restoration theatre, few studies examine the intersections between theatrical activity in London and its British “sister” cities of Dublin and Edinburgh and the stakes of Stuart restoration and British union for all three kingdoms expressed through theatre and performance. This dissertation is a historiographical reconfiguration of the Restoration period that analyzes how theatre and performance in Dublin, Edinburgh, and London contributed to Charles II’s reestablishment of Stuart rule and British union. My project brings together new British history and performance studies to uncover the British theatrical and cultural performances that re-defined union during Charles II’s restoration. I examine Stuart succession through three case-studies: beheadings, Shakespeare adaptations, and the actress.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 X 10.5 Long Title.P65
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-58215-5 - The Cambridge Companion to English Restoration Theatre Edited by Deborah Payne Fisk Frontmatter More information This rich and varied portrait of the drama from 1660 to 1714 provides students with essential information about playwrights, staging, and genres, situating them in the social and political culture of the time. No longer seen as a privileged arena for select dramatists and eÂlite courtiers, the Restoration theatre is revealed in all of its tumult, energy, and con¯ict. Fourteen contributors examine the theatre, paying attention to major playwrights such as Dryden, Wycherley, and Congreve and also to more minor works and to plays by the ®rst professional female dramatists. The book begins with chapters on staging and performance, continues with the main dramatic genres, progresses to historical and cultural contexts, and concludes with a chapter on the canon of Restoration drama. The volume also includes a thorough chronology and biographies and bibliographies of dramatists. © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-58215-5 - The Cambridge Companion to English Restoration Theatre Edited by Deborah Payne Fisk Frontmatter More information THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO ENGLISH RESTORATION THEATRE © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-58215-5 - The Cambridge Companion to English Restoration Theatre Edited by Deborah Payne Fisk Frontmatter More information CAMBRIDGE
    [Show full text]