Titlebook: Imagining the Audience in Early Modern Drama, 1558-1642; Jennifer A. Low,Nova Myhill Book 2011 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Nature Am

不持续就爆

Rodent

Introduction,dern audience has long been recognized as central to the early modern stage, it has also, for reasons of evidence and scholarly focus, been curiously set apart from the experience of the drama of the period. There is no shortage of fascinating work on the early modern audience as a demographic entit

疏远天际

Crowd Control,was Philip Henslowe’s share for . on December 9, 1594. How about the . two years later, which also netted Henslowe three shillings? Or ., with Alleyn in the lead once more, for which Henslowe collected five shillings in January 1597? Given the vagaries of Henslowe’s accounting (and the debate over h

adroit

Taking the Stage,tion 13) to “entreat an excellent play from you” (49).. The two gentlemen are seated on the stage throughout the play, presumably among the playgoers who have paid for stools on the stage. At first glance, the Induction and between-act sections of . would seem to function as a simple didactic model,

unstable-angina

floodgate

Door Number Three, the difference between the plays is more organic. Each playwright was accustomed to composing dramas for a specific theater design; this design shaped the way that each play made use of the audience and, consequently, the way that each audience experienced the dramatic action. Like Thomas Dekker’s

ERUPT

Audience as Witness in ,,ne no more”; Richard II’s improvised self-deposition. These instances—largely visual but in cooperation with dialogue—encourage audiences to change from spectators into witnesses. The audience witnesses in a basic sense any time they see a play. They are “present” as a spectator or auditor, seeing a

crockery

figure

Bleared Vision in ,,l limitations of the stage hindered the theater’s power to create realistic illusions. In his recent work on audience response, Jeremy Lopez implies that our awareness of a non-naturalistic theater would have surprised neither playwrights nor the audience in Shakespeare’s day, claiming that “the dra

变白

,Fitzgrave’s Jewel,nly and arbitrarily restored—where compellingly antisocial characters are rounded up and expelled while bland figures of authority reassert themselves and stamp out the last embers of theatrical energy. Such moments in their sheer prevalence seem to call attention to the different expectations and d