Notes Introduction 1. Andrew Gurr, The Shakespearean Stage, 1574–1642, 3rd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 191. 2. For further discussion of the myth of the bare stage see Chapter 1 of this book; Jonathan Gil Harris and Natasha Korda, ‘Introduction: Towards a Materialist Account of Stage Properties’, in Jonathan Gil Harris and Natasha Korda (eds.), Staged Properties in Early Modern English Drama (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 2–7. 3. Aristotle Poetics (trans. Stephen Halliwell) (London: Harvard University Press, 1995), VII.16–20, p. 55. 4. Glynne Wickham, ‘Heavens, Machinery, and Pillars in the Early Theatre and Other Early Playhouse’, in Herbert Berry (ed.), The First Public Playhouse: The Theatre in Shoreditch, 1576–1598 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1979), p. 6. 5. Thomas H. Dickinson (ed.), Robert Greene (London: Fisher Unwin, 1911), pp. lix–lxi. 6. Kenneth Muir, ‘Robert Greene as Dramatist’, in Richard Hosley (ed.), Essays on Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama in Honor of Hardin Craig (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963), p. 48; Charles W. Crupi, Robert Greene (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1986), p. 115; Charles Mills Gayley, Representative English Comedies (London: Macmillan, 1903), p. 419. 7. Bernard Beckerman, Shakespeare at the Globe, 1599–1609 (New York: Macmillan, 1962); Gerald Eades Bentley, The Professions of Dramatist and Player in Shakespeare’s Time, 1590–1642 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); T. J. King, Shakespearean Staging, 1599–1642 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971); Andrew Gurr, Playgoing in Shakespeare’s London, 3rd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); S. P. Cerasano, ‘Editing the Theatre, Translating the Stage’, Analytic and Enumerative Bibliography, 4 (1990), pp. 21–34; John H. Astington, ‘Descent Machinery in the Playhouses’, Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England, 2 (1985), pp. 119–33; John H. Astington, ‘The London Stage in the 1580s’, in Augusta Lynne Magnusson and C. E. McGee (eds.), The Elizabethan Theatre, XI (Port Credit, Ont.: P. D. Meany, 1990), pp. 1–18. 8. Michela Calore, ‘Enter Out: Perplexing Signals in Some Elizabethan Stage Directions’, Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England, 13 (2001), pp. 117–35. 9. Kirk Melnikoff, ‘“That will I see, lead and ile follow thee”: Robert Greene and the Authority of Performance’, in Kirk Melnikoff and Edward Gieskes (eds.), Writing Robert Greene: Essays on England’s First Notorious Professional Writer (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), p. 43; Bruce R. Smith, The Acoustic World of Early Modern England (London: University of Chicago Press, 1999). 10. Sarah Werner, ‘Introduction’, in Sarah Werner (ed.), New Directions in Renaissance Drama and Performance Studies (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 145 146 Notes 2010), p. 8; Hugh Grady and Terence Hawkes (eds.), Presentist Shakespeares (London: Routledge, 2007); Hugh Grady, ‘Shakespeare Studies, 2005: A Situated Overview’, Shakespeare: A Journal, 1.1 (2005), pp. 102–20. 11. Kirk Melnikoff’s recent volume Robert Greene (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011) is one of a series from Ashgate, which sets out to reassess the work of the ‘University Wits’. 12. The Shakespeare and the Queen’s Men Project (SQM), http://tapor.mcmaster. ca/~thequeensmen/ (accessed 7 June 2011). 13. Joe Falocco, Reimagining Shakespeare’s Playhouse: Early Modern Staging Conventions in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2010), p. 2. 14. Ewan Fernie, ‘Shakespeare and the Prospect of Presentism’, Shakespeare Survey, 58 (2005), p. 169; Terence Hawkes, Shakespeare in the Present (London: Routledge, 2002). 15. Hugh Grady and Terence Hawkes, ‘Introduction: Presenting Presentism’, in Grady and Hawkes (eds.), Presentist Shakespeares, p. 5. 16. Grady and Hawkes, ‘Introduction: Presenting Presentism’, p. 4. 17. Grady, ‘Shakespeare Studies, 2005: A Situated Overview’, p. 115. 18. Fernie, ‘Shakespeare and the Prospect of Presentism’, p. 169. 19. Gillian Rose, Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials, 3rd edition (London: Sage, 2012), p. xix; W. J. T. Mitchell, Picture Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); W. J. T. Mitchell, ‘Interdisciplinary and Visual Culture’, Art Bulletin, 77 (1995), pp. 540–1. 20. Angela Ndalianis, Neo- Baroque Aesthetics and Contemporary Entertainment (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005); Albert A. Hopkins, Magic, Stage Illusions, Special Effects and Trick Photography (New York: Dover Publications, 1976); Andrew Darley, Visual Digital Culture: Surface, Play and Spectacle in New Media Genres (London: Routledge, 2000). 21. Ndalianis, Neo- Baroque Aesthetics, p. 5. 22. Ndalianis, Neo- Baroque Aesthetics, p. 5. 23. Ndalianis, Neo- Baroque Aesthetics, p. 5. 24. Wendy Griswold offers a detailed discussion of why a society revives certain cultural objects at specific times in Renaissance Revivals: City Comedy and Revenge Tragedy in the London Theatre, 1576–1980 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986). 25. Harold Love, Attributing Authorship: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 39. 26. Peter Brooker, ‘Postmodern Adaptation: Pastiche, Intertextuality and Re-Functioning’, in Deborah Cartnell and Imelda Wheleham (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Literature on Screen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 108. 27. On the status of the playwright in early modern theatre, see Jeffrey Masten, ‘Playwriting: Authorship and Collaboration’, in John D. Cox and David Scott Kastan (eds.), A New History of Early English Drama (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), pp. 357–82. 28. Tiffany Stern, Documents of Performance in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 1. 29. Michael Hattaway, Elizabethan Popular Theatre (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982), p. 4. 30. Hattaway, Elizabethan Popular Theatre, pp. 110, 106. Notes 147 31. Hattaway, Elizabethan Popular Theatre, p. 106. 32. Hattaway, Elizabethan Popular Theatre, pp. 101–2. 33. Hattaway, Elizabethan Popular Theatre, p. 95. 34. Iain Wright, ‘“Come like shadowes, so depart”: The Ghostly Kings in Macbeth’, in Peter Holbrook (ed.), The Shakespeare International Yearbook 6 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), p. 216. 35. J. A. Lavin (ed.), Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay (London: New Mermaids, 1969), p. xvii; G. E. Bentley, The Development of English Drama (New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1950), pp. 61–2. 36. Brian Walsh, ‘“Deep Prescience”: Succession and the Politics of Prophecy in Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay’, Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England, 23 (2010), p. 73. 37. David Bordwell, ‘The Idea of Montage in Soviet Art and Film’, Cinema Journal, 11 (1972), p. 14. 38. Mark Joyce, ‘The Soviet Montage Cinema of the 1920s’, in Jill Nelmes (ed.), An Introduction to Film Studies (London: Routledge, 2002), p. 427; David Bordwell, The Cinema of Eisenstein (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), p. 6; Jacques Aumont, Montage Eisenstein (trans. Lee Hildreth, Constance Penley and Andrew Ross) (London: BFI, 1987), p. 42. 39. Sergei Eisenstein, ‘Montage of Attractions: For “Enough Stupidity in Every Wiseman”’ (trans. Daniel Gerould), The Drama Review, 18 (1974), p. 78. 40. Aumont, Montage Eisenstein, p. 42. 41. S. M. Eisenstein, Writings, 1922–34, in Richard Taylor (ed. and trans.), S. M. Eisenstein: Selected Works, vol. 1 (London: BFI, 1988), p. 39; Robert Robertson, Eisenstein on the Audiovisual: The Montage of Music, Image and Sound in Cinema (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), p. 3. 42. Michele Pierson, Special Effects: Still in Search of Wonder (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), p. 168; Ndalianis, Neo- Baroque Aesthetics. For fur- ther theoretical work on film special effects, see Leger Grindon, ‘The Role of Spectacle and Excess in the Critique of Illusion’, PostScript, 13.2 (1994), pp. 35–43; John Brosnan, Movie Magic: The Story of Special Effects in the Cinema (New York: Plume, 1976). 43. Hattaway, Elizabethan Popular Theatre, p. 3; Stevie Simkin, Early Modern Tragedy and Cinema of Violence (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006); Pascale Aebischer, ‘Vampires, Cannibals and Victim- Revengers: Watching Shakespearean Tragedy Through Horror Film’, Shakespeare Jahrbuch, 143 (2007), pp. 119–31; Emma Smith, ‘Performing Relevance/Relevant Performances: Shakespeare, Jonson, Hitchcock’, in Werner (ed.), New Directions in Renaissance Drama and Performance Studies, pp. 147–61. 44. Thomas Postlewait, ‘Eyewitness to History: Visual Evidence for Theater in Early Modern England’, in Richard Dutton (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theatre (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 577, 604, 606. 45. Emma Smith, ‘“Freezing the Snowman”: (How) Can We Do Performance Criticism?’, in Laurie E. Maguire (ed.), How To Do Things With Shakespeare: New Approaches, New Essays (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), p. 283. 46. Joel Fineman, ‘The History of the Anecdote: Fiction and Fiction’, in H. Aram Vesser (ed.), The New Historicism (New York: Routledge, 1989), p. 56. 47. Catherine Belsey, ‘Historicizing New Historicism’, in Grady and Hawkes (eds.), Presentist Shakespeares, p. 35. 148 Notes 48. For a similar methodological approach to authorship, see Gillian Austen, George Gascoigne (Woodbridge: D. S. Brewer, 2008), pp. 6–21. 49. Robert Greene, The repentance of Robert Greene […] (London, 1592), sig. C1b. 50. John Clark Jordan, Robert Greene (New York: Octagon Books, 1965), pp. 201–2; Kirk Melnikoff and Edward Gieskes, ‘Introduction: Reimagining Robert Greene’, in Melnikoff and Gieskes