Contemporary Authors

1. Dramatic spaces : scenography and spectatorial perceptions https://lccn.loc.gov/2015003887 Low, Jennifer A., 1962- author. Dramatic spaces : scenography and spectatorial perceptions / Jennifer A. Low. London ; New York : Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016.©2016 xi, 207 pages : illustrations ; 25 cm PN1590.A9 L69 2016 ISBN: 9781138852488 (hbk) 2. Manhood and the duel : masculinity in early modern drama and culture https://lccn.loc.gov/2002072831 Low, Jennifer A., 1962- Manhood and the duel : masculinity in early modern drama and culture / Jennifer Low. 1st ed. New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. ix, 238 p. : ill. ; 22 cm. PR658.D84 L69 2003 ISBN: 1403961301

• Department of English - http://www.fau.edu/english/facultypages_low.php

  Jennifer A. Low, a native New Yorker, earned her B. A. from Oberlin College and her M. A. and Ph. D. from the University of Virginia. She is an associate professor of English, with current research interests in scenography of the past and present; her teaching areas include Shakespeare, Renaissance literature, and modern drama. She has published articles in such venues as Comparative Drama, Poetics Today, The Centennial Review, and Philological Quarterly. Her book Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in Early Modern Drama and Culture, was published in 2003. Its subject was the significance of the duel in the drama and in pamphlets written in Shakespeare's time. That book was followed by an edited collection of essays entitled Imagining the Audience in Early Modern Drama, 1558-1603, coedited with Nova Myhill, professor of English at New College, Florida (Palgrave, 2011). Imagining the Audience initiated her interest in theater audiences, which was further developed in Professor Low's most recent book, Dramatic Spaces: Scenography and Spectatorial Perceptions, which was published by Routledge Press in the summer of 2015. Her new project involves research on Gordon Craig's illustrated edition of Hamlet.

• Routeledge - https://www.routledge.com/authors/i13021-jennifer-low

  Jennifer Low
  associate professor of English
  Florida Atlantic University
  Boca Raton Florida US

  Jennifer A. Low is an associate professor of English at Florida Atlantic University. She has published work in such venues as Poetics Today, Comparative Drama, and Philological Quarterly. Her first book, Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in Early Modern Drama and Culture, was published by Palgrave in 2003. It was followed by a coedited collection, Imagining the Audience in Early Modern Drama, 1558-1603. Her most recent book is Dramatic Spaces: Scenography and Spectatorial Perceptions.

  Subjects

  Literature

Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in Early Modern Drama
and Culture
Helen Wilcox
Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England.
18 (Annual 2006): p227.
COPYRIGHT 2006 Associated University Presses
http://www.aupresses.com
Full Text: 
Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in Early Modern Drama and Culture, by Jennifer A. Low. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Pp. xvii +
238. Hardcover $59.95.
In one of the most outspoken of her Sociable Letters (1664), Margaret Cavendish expresses her fictional correspondent's reaction to a duel,
probably closely modeled on Cavendish's own response to an actual seventeenth-century dueling incident:
I Am Sorry that Sir C.A. is Kill'd, and as Sorry that V.A. hath Kill'd
him, for by Report they were both Worthy and Right Honourable Persons,
which causes me to wonder how such two Persons could Fall out, for
surely they were such men as would be as Unwilling to Give an Offence
as to Take an Affront, and if the Offence was Unwillingly given, as by
Chance, they being men of Honour and Merit, would not be Grieved, at
least, not Angry at or for it ... (1)
Cavendish's account contains almost all the important ingredients of an early modern duel. The participants are aristocratic males, known not only
for their worth and "merit" but also, more significantly in this test of manhood, for their "Honour," a quality twice mentioned in one sentence by
Cavendish. The apparent cause of their duel is the giving of "Offence" on the one hand and the taking of "Affront" on the other, though
Cavendish wonders whether this occurred "Unwillingly" rather than with deliberate intent. In the ensuing discussion she goes on to note that the
causes of duels are often "Frivolous, Idle, or Base," and include disagreements about "Words, or Women, or Hawks, or Dogs, or Whores, or about
3/6/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1488858534314 2/17
Cards or Dice," a list that is particularly remarkable considering that it was put together by a woman. However, what remains indisputable in this
case is the fact that, of the two distinguished gentlemen, "the one is Kill'd, the other Banished" (81).
Cavendish's observations do not feature in Jennifer Low's study of the duel in early modern English culture, no doubt because her concern is
largely with the period 1580-1620. However, I am gratefully conscious of having been made more alert to the significance of the details of this
passage through reading Low's work. I never expected to find a whole book on Renaissance dueling so compelling and enlightening, and it is
greatly to the credit of Professor Low that she manages to maintain the interest and variety of her study to the very end. Indeed, her arguments
and examples thoroughly convince me of the appropriateness of treating the theory and practice of the duel of honor as a lens through which to
view early modern English culture. As Cavendish's epistolary description makes clear, the duel involves not only matters of class, masculinity,
and honor, but also broader issues of language and gender. After all, the first two causes of duels mentioned by Cavendish are "Words" and
"Women." In addition, assumptions about religion and politics underlie many cases of single combat since a man could well be upholding the
integrity of his faith or his monarch by means of the duel. The principles of dueling betray the often conflicting ideas of early modern English
culture concerning law, violence, and the body. And bearing in mind the fact that a duel must be witnessed, and is therefore by nature always a
performance, it has an obviously close relationship with theater and the dramatization of conflict. For all these reasons, a study of the duel is a
welcome addition to our knowledge of the cultural and theatrical history of early modern England.
In each of her five chapters, Low examines an aspect of duelling and then explores its presence and impact in plays of the late Elizabethan and
Jacobean eras, rightly maintaining that "the duel frequently became a touchstone" in the drama (27). Throughout her study she interweaves
historical, social, and literary material, demonstrating "the recent critical tenet that literature may affect the culture just as the culture does
literature" (170).
The opening chapter begins with definitions of the early modern duel of honor, identifying both its roots in and contrasts with earlier versions of
individual fighting such as single combat between two opposed leaders, the more playful chivalric tradition of jousting, and the judicial duel
offering trial by combat. One of the most significant developments in the late sixteenth-century duel was the decrease in the perceived
involvement of justice and providence, while the importance of sheer competence increased, especially after the introduction of the more easily
maneuverable rapier. As Low neatly puts it, by the late 1580s "combatants generally recognised that victory in a duel depended more on skill in
rapier fight than on God's intervention" (17). The words of Lord Bruce of Kinloss when challenging an opponent, "Be master of your owne
weapons and tyme," (2) seem to sum up the era's new consciousness of individual responsibility and noble self-fashioning through dueling. Low
investigates the idea of heroism associated with dueling in an excellent discussion of Benedick's challenge to Claudio in Much Ado About
Nothing, noting how "the stature of the protagonist" (27) in a drama may be measured in relation to the various dueling traditions. By the end of
the play, she suggests, Benedick has achieved "at least arguably heroic stature" (39) through his desire to undertake a duel with Claudio, even
though his plans, and by implication the efficacy of dueling, are ironically frustrated by Dogberry's thoroughly nonaristocratic intuition.
When Shakespeare was writing Much Ado, this new kind of dueling for honor was immensely popular in England. Low identifies the
phenomenon as a side effect of increased travel on the Continent, where rapier fencing had been widely practiced throughout the sixteenth
century. To be competent with a rapier became one of the expected accomplishments of a Renaissance gentleman, with the result that in England,
as Low puts it, "the semiotics of aristocratic masculinity became literally foreign to the middling sort" (20). Vincentio Saviolo's manual of
fencing skills, published in London in 1595, declares, "The dutie of gentlemen is to preferre their honor before their life," (3) and early modern
English gentlemen began to take this "dutie" so seriously that James I issued a proclamation in 1613 forbidding duels. However, neither this royal
disapproval, nor that of the merchant class, dissuaded early seventeenth-century English noblemen from indulging in this dangerously honorable
way of settling quarrels.
3/6/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1488858534314 3/17
In her second chapter, the most fascinating of the book, Low looks at the consequences of dueling for the sense of the body and personal space
experienced by both the participants and the onlookers. Using the words and illustrations of contemporary fencing manuals, as well as the work
of cultural historians such as Gail Kern Paster, Norbert Elias, and Anna Bryson, (4) Low examines the ways in which duelers worked within
physical boundaries defined by their bodies and rapiers. The dueler's "ward," she suggests, was not only a "defensive blocking gesture" during
combat but also "a parameter defining the physical limit of the combatant himself" (48). The practice of dueling thus encouraged the aristocratic
male to use "a physical expansiveness denied to women and to men untaught in fencing" (44). As a result, the skills of fencing became integral to
the sense of masculinity in the higher ranks of early modern English society. Low further cites the interesting work done on "the Renaissance
elbow" by art historian Joaneath Spicer, who has observed how sixteenth-century painters suggest "the manly virtues" by means of "attributes and
body language, such as the arm akimbo, most frequently showing one hand on the hip by a sword or rapier." (5) This emphasis on the trained
movements of fencers leads Low to propose parallels between duels and dancing and, more significantly for her study, between the skills of
fencers and those of English actors in this period. She tests this claim in a discussion of the importance of body language in The Alchemist,
demonstrating the ways in which status and masculinity could be represented "in the realm of the non-verbal" (70).
Building on the idea that the penetration of the dueler's "ward" by the opponent's rapier has obvious sexual associations, Low's third chapter
explores the assumptions by which early modern dueling defined the identity of mature men as opposed to women and young boys. The defeated
party in a duel was "affiliated not only with the passive, permeable woman but also with her alternative, the immature male" (71). Low refines
this argument with reference to the anonymous play, Swetnam, the Woman-Hater, Massinger's The Unnatural Combat and Shakespeare's 1 Henry
IV. In Swetnam it comes as no surprise to learn that the misogynist Joseph Swetnam has just opened a fencing school in Sicily, where success in
the fencing match symbolizes mastery in marriage. As Malefort Senior says while taunting his son before the duel in Massinger's play, "All that is
manly in thee, I call mine; / But what is weak and womanish, thine owne." (6) Although Shakespeare depicts a form of single combat between
Hal and Hotspur that is far removed from the early modern duel of honor, Low argues that the combatants' remarks about one another "manifest
the same sense about proxemic penetration" (92) as contemporary manuals and accounts of fencing.
One of the most impressive features of Low's study is the range of texts to which it refers. In the third chapter, Swetnam, the Woman-Hater rubs
shoulders with a Lancelot Andrewes sermon on effeminacy, while the fourth sets Chapman's Bussy D'Ambois plays alongside Bacon's antidueling
tract of 1614. Low suggests in this chapter that useful links may be made between the arguments of those who attacked the practice of
dueling, and the manner in which duels were exploited for dramatic purposes. Bacon, for example, questions the straightforward association of
the duel with honor, imploring the nobility "for true honors sake, honor of Religion, Law, and the King our Maister" to abandon dueling, "this
fond and false disguise or puppetrey of honor." (7) Low demonstrates how plays such as Middleton and Rowley's A Fair Quarrel make use of the
dramatic ritual of a duel while simultaneously "interrogating" its assumptions, portraying honor and reputation as "dangerously unstable"
concepts (109-10). In tragedy, too, the "dramatic intensity of the duel" is shown to be "undermined" (118). Low offers a splendid reading of the
final scene of Hamlet, drawing together the play's preceding modes and ideas of single combat with Hamlet's own "oddly botched fencing match"
(118-19). This leads into a subtle analysis of the way in which Hamlet's desires and obligations "fall into place" once he realizes that "he is in the
midst of a duel rather than a fencing match" (123). However, the "distorted rituals" (134) of the duel also function as a measure of the corruption
of the society that stages it.
In Much Ado About Nothing, when Beatrice realizes that she must rely upon Benedick to challenge Claudio for slandering Hero, her frustration
is profound: "O God, that I were a man!" (8) Knowing that, as a woman, she cannot fight a duel, she longs for a man to act on her behalf but
implies that this is a vain hope since "manhood is melted into cur' sies, valor into compliment, and men are only turn'd into tongue." (9) In this
scathing image, men fail to match their words with deeds; the early modern proverb encapsulating gender roles--"Women are wordes, Men are
deedes" (10)--is mockingly reversed. Several dramas of the period, explored in Low's fifth chapter, experiment with cross-dressing to the extent
3/6/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1488858534314 4/17
that women themselves, Amazon-like, fulfill Beatrice's wish, taking over men's "deedes" and participating in duels. The plays newly discussed in
this final chapter are Heywood's Fair Maid of the West, Middleton and Dekker's The Roaring Girl, and Beaumont and Fletcher's The Maid's
Tragedy and Love's Cure, or the Martial Maid.
In addition to highlighting masculine pretensions with regard to dueling and honor, these early modern theatrical fencing women are shown to
serve a double function. First, they can help modern readers to understand why early modern women cross-dressed in both drama and actual
historical practice. Second, their mode of performance in duels, being significantly different from that of their male counterparts, serves to
redefine both the rituals of dueling and what was meant by femininity in the early modern period. To take just one example: Moll Cutpurse (the
roaring girl herself, wittily named by Low "Hic Mulier incarnate") (11) approaches her duel with Laxton with specifically didactic intent, hoping
to teach him a lesson or two about herself, even while he expects no other knowledge than "carnal" (155) from his encounter with her.
It would be possible to supply many more instances of the intelligently analyzed examples in this fine study, but only a full reading of the book
itself can do it justice. Inevitably, any reader will have minor quibbles over interpretation or coverage. I could have wished for a few more
examples of actual duels to set alongside the manuals and plays, and should have enjoyed some further exploration of the metaphors of fencing
and penetration, but the effect of Professor Low's work is to awaken our curiosity to seek these for ourselves. The arguments she puts forward are
always sensitive to the potential paradoxes of historical and theatrical situations. In discussing the sense of masculine space encouraged by
fencing, for example, she is conscious of the fact that noblemen distinguished themselves from those of lower rank even as their skills "renewed
the upper-class Englishman's perception of himself as one linked to the yeoman class, or even to the soil of England" (45). Her elegant book--
both well written and handsomely printed--concludes by rehearsing some of the dualities through which early modern masculinity was defined.
These include gentlemanliness versus commonness, manliness versus womanliness, and maturity versus boyishness, though Low is at pains to
stress the complexity of the simultaneous interaction of these modes of identity. The strength of her research is its openness to the mutual
influences of social, spatial, dramatic, and verbal conceptions of "what it meant to be a man in the rapidly changing social world of early modern
England" (170).
Notes
1. Margaret Cavendish, Sociable Letters, ed. James Fitzmaurice (New York, 1997), 80-81.
2. Lord Bruce of Kinloss, challenging Edward Sackvile (Folger MS 1054.4), cited by Low, 18.
3. Vincentio Saviolo, Vincentio Saviolo His Practise (London, 1595), Ee3v [my italics].
4. See Gail Kern Paster, The Body Embarrassed: Drama and the Disciplines of Shame in Early Modern England (Ithaca, 1993); Norbert Elias,
The Civilizing Process: The History of Manners and State Formation and Civilization, trans. Edmund Jephcott (Oxford, 1994); Anna Bryson,
"The Rhetoric of Status: Gesture, Demeanour, and the Image of the Gentleman in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century England," in Renaissance
Bodies: The Human Figure in English Culture, c. 1540-1660, ed. Lucy Gent and Nigel Llewellyn (London, 1990), 136-53.
5. Joaneath Spicer, "The Renaissance Elbow," in A Cultural History of Gesture, ed. Jan Bremmer and Herman Rodenburg (Ithaca, 1991), 93.
6. Philip Massinger, The Unnatural Combat, in The Plays and Poems of Philip Massinger, ed. Philip Edwards and Colin Gibson (Oxford, 1976),
vol. 2, II.i. 176-77.
3/6/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1488858534314 5/17
7. Francis Bacon, The Charge of Sir Francis Bacon Knight, His Majesties Attourney Generall, touching Duells (London, 1614), 34.
8. William Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, in The Riverside Shakespeare, ed. G. Blakemore Evans (Boston, 1974), IV.i.305.
9. Ibid., IV.i.319-20.
10. Thomas Howell, Devises (London, 1581), D2r.
11. A passing reference to the anonymous 1620 pamphlet, Hic Mulier ("This [masculine] woman"], which together with Haec Vir ("This
[feminine] man") explored the issue of cross-dressing in Jacobean society.
Reviewer: HELEN WILCOX
Wilcox, Helen
Source Citation   (MLA 8th
Edition)
Wilcox, Helen. "Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in Early Modern Drama and Culture." Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England, vol.
18, 2006, p. 227+. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?
p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA138400532&it=r&asid=5c232149b429a36980488994913baf63. Accessed 6 Mar.
2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A138400532

---

3/6/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1488858534314 6/17
Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in Early Modern Drama
and Culture
Ronda Arab
Renaissance Quarterly.
57.2 (Summer 2004): p746.
COPYRIGHT 2004 The Renaissance Society of America
http://www.rsa.org/RQ.HTM
Full Text: 
Jennifer A. Low. Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in Early Modern Drama and Culture.
New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave/St. Martin's Press, 2003. xviii + 238 pp. index. illus. bibl. $59.95. ISBN: 1-4039-6130-1.
Jennifer A. Low's study of the duel of honor, which arose in the 1580s and was outlawed by James I in 1613 but still practiced, begins with the
premises that "different social ranks manifest different kinds of masculinity" and that "we may recognize these varied ideas of masculinity in the
dramatic depictions of different aspects of the duel" (4). The book is, however, primarily a study of different constructions of aristocratic
masculinity: although middling sort social climbers did engage in fencing and dueling, the practices were primarily associated with the
aristocracy, and Low focuses on showing the various ways the duel's meaning helped to define aristocratic identity within the period of 1580-
1620. The middling sort enter this study as playwrights and commentators, critiquing the duel of honor in stageplays and anti-dueling tracts, and
by means of critiquing a valued aristocratic practice, contributing their own constructions of masculinity to the social dialogue.
Reputation--one's standing in the community--was the goal of the duelist. In her first chapter, Low examines the connections between dueling,
heroism, and masculinity. By taking the law into their own hands, duelists defied the monarch and seized back some of the power the monarch
was centralizing in the state; defying the monarch could enhance reputation by demonstrating the duelist's heroic commitment to honor above all
other considerations. It was necessary also that honor appear "more valuable than [the duelists'] lives" (18), an impression achieved at least in part
through the ease with which a noble might respond to even the most trivial of insults with a challenge to duel. This construction of honor and the
heroic did not go unchallenged, and Low effectively uses Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing to demonstrate both the duel's relation to
elaborate but empty conventions of courtliness, and, how the manhood of the hero of the duel could be seen by critics as merely outward show,
based on "ceremonial forms" (37).
In her fascinating second chapter, "The Art of Fence and the Sense of Masculine Space," after acknowledging the influence of Norbert Elias's and
Gail Paster's work on the semiotics of the body, Low accounts for the "physically expansive postures" (42) of high-ranking early modern men by
arguing that instruction in fencing "influenced [gentlemen] to develop a sense of extended personal space that eventually became a visible sign of
gentle birth" (7). Fencing manuals conflated the body and the defensive ward (that is, the space extending as far as the fencer's outstretched hand
or even as far as the point on his rapier), and "the extended proxemic sense gained from fencing became part of how men of a certain rank
conceived of their masculinity" (44). Penetration of this space would have been experienced, Low argues, as an aggressive physical intrusion,
3/6/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1488858534314 7/17
both within a match or duel (where it would constitute a psychological victory for the aggressor) and without. Chapter 2 segues nicely into Low's
third chapter, which focuses on the penetration of the ward and its symbolic meanings for masculinity. Since there existed an "implicit analogy
between the feminine body and the conquered body" (71), "to be conquered was to be emasculated" (76) and shamed. However, the unmanly,
wounded, penetrated body "was as likely to be construed as the realm of preadolescent boyhood as it was to signify feminization"; thus, "the
duelist's loss could suggest his physical immaturity instead of or in addition to effeminacy" (76). Low analyzes the relation between Hal and
Hotspur in 1 Henry IV to illustrate this "manhood/boyhood dynamic": "Their language sexualizes conquest and recasts it in terms of domination
of an immature male by a mature male, suggesting that masculinity was understood not only as the antithesis of femininity but also as physical
maturity opposing effete immaturity" (92).
The title of Low's fourth chapter, "Misperceiving Masculinity, Misreading the Duel," is misleading; it would be more accurate to say that the
chapter is about different, not mistaken, perceptions and readings of the duelist's masculinity among aristocrats, gentry, and the middling sort.
Dramatists and authors of anti-dueling tracts, who came from similar social groups, in many instances held similar views of masculinity and
dueling, views based, Low argues, on a failure "to comprehend the significance of honor for the gentry and aristocracy" (92). A result in the
drama is that sympathetic heroes are generally compelled to duel by serious family wrongs, as opposed to more trivial causes; "more trivial
provocations were generally presented only in satiric contexts" (94). Low characterizes such playwrights as "mistrust[ing] the ideology of violent
masculinity" and notes that they "use[d] the staged combat in a way that only intermittently or partially achieved the ends that the duel did in real
life and in written narrative" (8), that is, as a means by which the duelist proved his elite status and achieved masculinity.
Low's claim for the effects of the "real life" duel strike me as odd, not only because her unqualified use of the phrase "real life" seems to suggest
an unmediated access to the past, but also because her book discusses only two historical duels, and those discussions are brief--the study is
predominantly of fencing manuals, anti-dueling tracts, and stageplays. Yet Low's greatest claims are for the powers of "practice." Dueling was a
"practice ... so central to the notion of the courtier that its meaning helped to define the aristocracy of the period as a whole" (9). "What is
fascinating about the literary and cultural phenomenon of the early modern duel is that a practice, rather than a study, application, thought, or
conversation should be perceived as possessing transformative potential" (169, original italics). Given the significance that Low ascribes to
practice, a more developed account of what constitutes practice would be welcome. Without such a definition it is difficult to assess her claims
about its scope and importance.
In her fifth chapter, Low provides astute readings of dueling women onstage. Persuasively demonstrating that female characters fight for didactic
purposes rather than for vengeance or to prove self-worth, Low argues that plays in which women fight challenge concepts of manhood and "the
link between masculinity and violence by suggesting that motive can redefine the practice of dueling" (8). This insightful and innovative reading,
based on tying together intentionality and meaning, nicely and fittingly ends a fine study that successfully demonstrates a broad range of cultural
meanings for which dueling was responsible.
RONDA ARAB
Augusta State University
Arab, Ronda
Source Citation   (MLA 8th
Edition)
3/6/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1488858534314 8/17
Arab, Ronda. "Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in Early Modern Drama and Culture." Renaissance Quarterly, vol. 57, no. 2, 2004, p. 746+.
General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?
p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA117426289&it=r&asid=2f65ef7f78ae2a2862df21687373393c. Accessed 6 Mar.
2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A117426289

---

3/6/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1488858534314 9/17
Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in Early Modern Drama
and Culture
Goran V. Stanivukovic
CLIO.
34.4 (Summer 2005): p458.
COPYRIGHT 2005 Indiana University, Purdue University of Fort Wayne
http://www.ipfw.edu/engl/clio.html
Full Text: 
Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in Early Modern Drama and Culture. By Jennifer A. Low. New York: Palgrave, 2003. xvii + 238 pages.
The Duel in Early Modern England: Civility, Politeness, and Honour. By Markku Peltonen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. x +
355 pages.
Early modern dueling has not attracted much scholarly attention. The authors of these two books on the duel, however, have approached their
topic with attentiveness to the larger context of manners and identity, and by doing extensive research in the archives. One would expect that two
books on the same topic might overlap in a number of ways, but this is not the case with Jennifer Low and Markku Peltonen. Although both
explore the relationship between the duel and the formation of masculinity, they do so from two different perspectives: Low approaches the duel
as a literary historian, Peltonen as a social historian. Their disciplinary origins play a role in the scope and the approach to their treatment of
evidence. Low deploys nonliterary documents to help her read literature; Peltonen reads historical documents to produce a cultural history of the
duel. The chronological range of Low's book is the first half of the seventeenth century; Peltonen's book stretches into the Augustan age. Low
demonstrates how the duel often exposed the vulnerable and permeable, and at times even nostalgically romantic, aspect of early modern
masculinity. Peltonen sets out to show how the duel was an important facet in the formation of the early modern (masculine) self, but emphasizes
the humanist ideals of civility, politeness, and honor. While Low's book is more concerned with gender and (less so) sexuality, Peltonen's study
delves deeper into the complex and often misleading territory of manners, courtesy, and ethics. Thus one could say that Low deals with a cultural
signification of the exterior manifestations of the masculine self, Peltonen with a specific aspect of male interiority symbolically projected
outwardly in the duel.
Because of their shared topic, both authors inevitably cover some of the same territory, especially in the archives they use. Low's method is that
of a new historicist; she uses archival documents and reads them against a number of plays by William Shakespeare, Thomas Dekker, Thomas
Middleton, Francis Beaumont, and John Fletcher. She focuses on dueling scenes and motifs in Renaissance drama and nondramatic prose.
However, Peltonen reads historical documents in order to revise the history of the duel. His book reaches deep into the philosophy, morality, and
history of the concepts of valor and civility as described in the dueling manuals of pre-Enlightenment England. Among the topics that Peltonen's
book addresses are insults and lies, commerce and dueling, cursing and civility, and wounding and victory. These topics are presented as essays
on the history of manners in early modern England. The breadth of topics and the chronological span make Peltonen's book a broader study than
Low's.
3/6/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1488858534314 10/17
Peltonen's book provides us with an almost encyclopedic archive of the duel, going back to the Middle Ages, linking "various medieval forms of
single combat" (3), especially the judicial combat, and moving on to the early modern period and the rise of the humanist culture of honor and
civility. The book creates an intellectual context based on the ideas and practices of dueling, judging, and defending honor, deriving it from a
large body of material that includes court documents, courtesy manuals (in English and Italian, as well as in English translations of Italian texts),
rhetorical treatises, and only occasionally literature. A number of sources that Peltonen uses are anonymous and pertinent to his topic. Given the
overlapping historical, literary, and (in Peltonen's case) philosophical and moral archives of dueling and honor, these two books will be of much
use to anyone interested in the history of the early modern masculinity and, to some extent, femininity as well.
Low's argument is more novel and finely nuanced when she analyzes the plays to extend her point that "the romantic nature of the ritual gave the
nobleman a mirror that reflected and idealized his reality" (6). The argument is stronger and fresher in these places because it delves into seeing
the aristocratic subject and masculinity in the light of its own (narcissistic) idealization. Chapter 1, "The Duellist as Hero," lays out the
methodological ground for the book, by explaining that the theory of performativity applied to masculinity is used to analyze dueling scenes in
drama, within the context of the humanist literature on civility. Low explores drama that shows how, and why, the duel was "both feared and
admired" (12). She also reminds us that the early modern duel did not consist of combat only, but that it was a ceremonial phenomenon with a
complex ethical, textual, and rhetorical structure, and the product of a culture in which it was part of "the chivalric revival" (16). Her arguments
about the cultural background of the duel are clear and wide-ranging, her textual readings finely developed. On a rare occasion, however, Low
misses an opportunity to complicate her points in ways that may help develop her arguments further. For example, her reading (23) of a quoted
passage from William Wiseman, referring to "idle books," and the works of Amadis and by Ariosto, does not consider the fact that Wiseman
clearly associates the dueling challenge and the masculine bravado to the popular attitudes toward prose romances. In the context of Wiseman's
text, the duel, like the romances, is linked to the construction of masculinity as romantic, not militant. Thus, one might argue that the association
of the duel with the romantic masculinity opens up a way for discussing the connection between the changing representation of masculinity as
romantic and the rise of pleasure reading, especially romances, in the sixteenth century.
Chapter 2 ("The Art of Fence and The Sense of Masculine Space") and chapter 3 ("Sexual Status and the Combat") contextualize, through
fencing manuals, the debates on the duel in terms of early modern ideas about manly comportment and about theatrical conventions. Chapter 3 in
particular deals with the ways in which the period pitted manliness against boyishness and its tendency to conceive womanliness against
manliness. In that sense, this chapter is a methodologically well-grounded segment of the book that prepares the reader for the last two chapters in
which manliness and womanliness are discussed within specific plays. Chapter 4 ("Misperceiving Masculinity, Misreading the Duel") discusses
the "modified" (93) notion of honor when the playwrights of the commercial theater adapted the period's ideas about honor in such a way that the
dramatists' "understanding of the duel resembles that of the authors of the anti-theatrical tracts" (93). The chapter is mostly devoted to a reading
of select moments of the dueling combat in a number of plays. One would have liked to read in this chapter how those focused analyses change
the accepted arguments about early modern masculinity. The last chapter, "When Women Fight," examines female duelists in drama. One would
expect in this chapter more emphasis on the relationship between the dueling woman (a boy cross-dressed as a woman) and the notion of
womanhood compared to the construction of manhood through the duel. However, the chapter is mostly concerned with cross-dressing as a
phenomenon, the role of dueling women in challenging men's honor, and their function in reminding men of their patriarchal duty.
The cultural and historical archives that Low examines in building a larger context for her work are much smaller and somewhat predictable.
Baldassare Castiglione's The Courtier (1561) looms large over many of her arguments. The corpus of drama she analyzes is similarly canonical,
leaving us to wonder how dueling in other plays (Shakespeare's, non-Shakespearean historical drama, city comedies, and Caroline satire) may
challenge her own analysis of early modern manhood. Similarly predictable is Low's use of Judith Butler's theory of gender performativity, a
useful but already somewhat dated concept, at least the way Low uses it. By now, those who study the etiology of gender both synchronically and
3/6/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1488858534314 11/17
diachronically, especially feminists and queer theorists, have expanded, quibbled with, and fine-tuned Butler's idea of performativity. Even Butler
herself has done so, starting with Bodies that Matter (1993) (which does not appear in Low's bibliography) onward. Low's over-arching argument
is that the dramatization of the dueling culture reminds us that "there is no single unitary masculinity" and "that different social ranks manifest
different kinds of masculinity" (4). The echo of Butler on performativity is quite clear in these statements. While Low demonstrates this
persuasively, one wonders how novel this general argument actually is, given that studies (for example, on cross-dressing, queerness, imperial
travels, prose romances) of other forms of masculine performativity have come to similar conclusions about masculinity.
If one is to look for supplementary theoretical reading of masculine performance, Pierre Bourdieu's Masculine Domination (2001) offers a
pertinent counterbalance to Butler on the performativity of gender and a different theoretical framework for male symbolic violence. The
contextual, canonical, and theoretical framework of Low's book, as well as one (obligatory?) chapter on dueling women in a study primarily
devoted to men, may be an accident of the book's origin in a doctoral thesis. Still, Low's is a thorough book full of useful and fresh analyses of
familiar moments in drama (there are splendid readings of the rapier duels in Hamlet and Twelfth Night). It also offers new readings of a few less
familiar but equally compelling early modern dramatic texts, such as the Bussy plays. The introduction locates the discussion of the duel as a
"form of ritualized violence" (5) in the context of the culture of Italian fencing schools in London on the one hand, and, on the other, within the
emergence of the new early modern masculine subject. Focusing on the connection between the duel and masculinity, Low's study of the duel in
drama and early modern culture differs from a social historian's work on the relationship between "the duel of honour" (3) and the growing
"instability of the social institution of the aristocracy" (3), in that Low examines literature in more detail than the historical context she deploys.
The result of Low's research is a focused monograph on a relatively small literary corpus of texts.
While Low's book examines the dueling masculinity (and femininity) on stage, Peltonen's explores the duel within the history of culture. Like
Low, Peltonen emphasizes the ceremonial and artificial (even performative) nature of masculinity, civility, and honor in the dueling combat.
Chapter divisions in his book follow the chronology of texts about civility and valor: the first chapter locates the origins of the concepts of civility
and honor in the classics, and the last chapter is concerned with the duel and its relation to commercial society in Bernard Mandeville's writing.
For Mandeville, the civility related to stylized dueling and politeness did not have its counterpart among merchants, who had to lay aside honor in
the crude reality of fighting for profit. Through a number of treatises on civility and conduct that targeted young men, such as James Cleland's
Hero-paideia, or the institution of a young noble man (1607) and to some extent Stefano Guazzo's The civile conversation (1586), Peltonen's
book offers a detailed discussion of the role and emphasis placed on honor in the genteel society of England between the sixteenth and the
eighteenth centuries. The two concepts of honor that Peltonen introduces are meant to disentangle the complexity of the concept, but the
distinction does not avoid further complications. Vertical honor is "a right to special respect due to one's superiority," the horizontal "an honour
group which follows the same honour or conduct" (35). Whether the former could be imagined to form a part of the latter is not quite clear. How
individual honor is distinguished from collective, especially as it relates to the dueling culture, remains unexplained. Given the book's use of
sources that underlay English treatises of honor and valor, Peltonen's discussion of Cicero does not adequately address the complex yet
fascinating nuances of Cicero's treatment of honor in a number of his treatises. But these are minor quibbles. Anyone interested in learning more
about the culture of male youth, stages of maturity through which early modern youth passed on its way to adulthood, the relationship between
exteriority and interiority in the conceptualizing of honor (and masculinity), and the social and psychological formation of the concepts of
reputation and friendliness, will find this book compelling. Peltonen is both a historian of the duel as a specific manly custom and of particular
interior structures that underpin that custom. His easy moving between classical and Italian, and English and Italian, sources is executed
seamlessly and convincingly. This study presents us with the long history of the formation of masculinity through the dueling culture and ranks
within early modern culture. For example, Peltonen documents what appears to be a subtle difference, such as the one between a gallant and a
true gentleman, in such detail that he clarifies the distinction between the two apparently similar categories.
3/6/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1488858534314 12/17
But Peltonen's book is not just a history of the dueling culture in early modern England: it is also a history of the changes and slow fading of
dueling. While the earlier chapters of his book explore the pronounced presence of the duel in a culture at the formative stage of its (urban and
aristocratic) civility, much of the second half of the book, dealing with the Restoration and the early eighteenth century, explores the anti-dueling
sentiments and the dropping of duel out of the fashion of manly behavior. The parts of Peltonen's book that I think will particularly appeal to a
larger scholarly audience are the ones in which he writes as a comparativist. In those segments, the book relates the English duel with the dueling
tradition in France and Italy, and to a large extent Scotland, too. His research shows that French and Italian influences met the English practice of
dueling at the point at which they were imported into England through the culture of politeness and courtliness. Like Low, Peltonen is interested
in the early modern anti-dueling debate and practice; yet again he analyzes more texts of this kind, and goes into more detail than Low does.
Peltonen's discussion of the Restoration as a period that deepened and made more complicated Elizabethan and Jacobean civil conversation,
civility, and courtesy exemplifies the methodological virtue of his book. His book does not allow us to see the duel as an isolated and specific
social action but as a signifier of the changing nature of a much larger social fabric of men's engagement with one another. Peltonen sees dueling
as an extension of civil conversation: "the chief role of civility and politeness in shaping human sociability was to provide rules for agreeable
behavior and thus for pleasing one's company" (153). The larger and long-lasting effect of this interdependence of dueling and sociability was
that dueling, both as an act and as rhetoric, much like conversation, signified general sociability. Peltonen implies that the Restoration's impulse to
subsume ceremonial violence, such as the duel, to civility, sociability, and conversation was crucial to formation of the concepts of society and
rank of both aristocrats and gentlemen. While on the one hand, Peltonen's book explores the origins, nature, and proliferation of dueling for the
culture of civility and honor, on the other, it also addresses the issue of dueling as a potential source of anarchy that threatens hierarchical society
such as that of England, by eliciting anger and insults. This anarchic consequence of dueling gave rise to the proliferating anti-duelist attitudes
and writing in the early modern period. The stance was primarily animated by the belief that, almost paradoxically, while being constitutive of the
culture of civility (and manhood), the duel was also responsible for undermining the culture and theory of civility.
Moving from the inception of dueling as a social and ethical phenomenon to its slow disappearance as a major cultural practice in the eighteenth
century, Peltonen's book represents a history of the rise and fall of the duel. More is said, however, about the beginnings than about the ends of
the duel. Yet Peltonon's comment about the end of the duel at the point when it reached its "ultimate end of civilizing men" (311) reminds the
reader of the crucial link between the construction of early modern masculinity and the ritualized violence of the duel; or even, of the dependency
of the subsequent history of civil, honorable, and valorous masculinity to the duel.
Although too many long titles and facts that are jammed in short paragraphs slow down one's reading at times, Peltonen's book is likely to remain
the definitive study of a custom that had such a long history and such a major impact on western masculinity. Like Low's book, Peltonen's study
both engages with, and expands, current scholarship on the history of early modern masculinity and the humanist foundations of the early modern
representations of manhood. Both books also demonstrate that the history of masculinity is inextricably linked to the history of violence, however
symbolic and controlled by the protocols of cultural civility.
Goran V. Stanivukovic
Saint Mary's University
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Stanivukovic, Goran V.
3/6/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1488858534314 13/17
Source Citation   (MLA 8th
Edition)
Stanivukovic, Goran V. "Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in Early Modern Drama and Culture." CLIO, vol. 34, no. 4, 2005, p. 458+. General
OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?
p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA138812340&it=r&asid=441588b06d9640b2a6456d9fae873c74. Accessed 6 Mar.
2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A138812340

---

3/6/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1488858534314 14/17
Jennifer A. Low, Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in
Early Modern Drama and Culture
Mark Chambers
Medium Aevum.
73.2 (Fall 2004): p343.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Society for the Study of Mediaeval Languages and Literature
http://www.mod-langs.ox.ac.uk/ssmll/
Full Text: 
Jennifer A. Low, Manhood and the Duel." Masculinity in Early Modern Drama and Culture, Early Modern Cultural Studies, 1550-1700
(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003). 238 pp.; 3 figures. ISBN 1-40396-130-1. 40.00 [pounds sterling].
Jennifer A. Low's Manhood and the Duel." Masculinity in Early Modern Drama and Culture offers a largely beneficial, historically based reading
of selections from early modern English drama by positing the enactment--whether realized or forestalled--of the dramatic stage duel against
contemporary accounts of duelling practices espoused in fencing manuals, decried in anti-duelling tracts, and examined in other less explicitly
fictionalized writings of the early modern period. Following a brief introduction, the first chapter discusses the auspices of the duel of honour in
the declining late-medieval trial by combat and other legally sanctioned forms of deadly play, discussing shifts in attitude, practice, and meaning
that resulted in the early modern extra-legal duel. Her discussion is necessarily wide ranging, attempting to acknowledge and describe the many
varying attitudes surrounding the trial by combat, joust, mock-battle, and the emerging duel of honour of the early modern period. Given the
scope of the discussion--focusing on changing attitudes and practices in different times, places, social strata, and genders--many of the chapter's
points might benefit from a fuller examination. But this relatively general groundwork does lead to an interesting discussion of 'manliness',
heroism, and anti-heroism in Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing. Low ultimately suggests that Benedick's proposed duel with Claudio
presents traditional heroic values based on the earlier trail by combat, rather than on the contemporary duel of honour.
The second chapter discusses early modern notions of personal space with regard to gender, looking quite closely at fencing manuals by
Vincentio Saviolo and Giacomo de Grassi--both working in England in the late-sixteenth century--and by the English fencer George Silver. While
the argument does tend towards repetition, the ultimate result is a fascinating examination of spatial relationships and the construction of gender
in the period, concluding with a discussion of masculine 'self-shaping' and its limitations in Jonson's The Alchemist. This leads into the third
chapter's discussion of early modern courtesy manuals for women, with their emphasis on 'containment' and 'restraint' in gendered spatial
relationships. While the argument is both relevant and astute, and serves to counter ideals of masculine space discussed in the previous chapter,
relatively little direct evidence is offered of wider social practices outside the courtesy manuals. Low follows with an examination of physical
deportment and masculinity in Shakespeare's I Henry IV, harking back to the ideas presented in the second chapter.
Chapter iv looks closely at causes for duels, discussing humanist antiduelling tracts (particularly by William Wiseman, Francis Bacon, and James
I), notions of virtus/vertu, and honour, finally turning to a discussion of the cause and justification of duelling in Middleton and Rowley's A Fair
Quarrel, Shakespeare's Hamlet, and Chapman's Bussy d'Ambois plays. The final, most interesting chapter discusses examples of women duellers,
3/6/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1488858534314 15/17
pausing to look first at attitudes towards androgyny and transvestism. Low examines female or cross-dressing duellers in Swetnam the Woman
Hater, The Maid's Tragedy, The Roaring Girl, The Fair Maid of the West, and Love's Cure, or, The Martial Maid, but for some reason fails to
acknowledge the implications of legally imposed transvestism in the earlier Renaissance theatre.
Manhood and the Duel represents an interesting discussion of the relationship between gender construction and the early modern art of the duel,
and how this relationship finds expression in many examples of duelling on the early modern stage. While some important aspects of the work's
argument rely largely on secondary criticism and could benefit from further illustration, it is an ambitious and fruitful study of the sword, the
skirt, and the stage in early modern theory and culture.
Dublin
MARK CHAMBERS
Chambers, Mark
Source Citation   (MLA 8th
Edition)
Chambers, Mark. "Jennifer A. Low, Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in Early Modern Drama and Culture." Medium Aevum, vol. 73, no. 2,
2004, p. 343+. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?
p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA129970424&it=r&asid=de1a4f1fd55ce57e0e3addc4ad20a05d. Accessed 6 Mar.
2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A129970424

---

3/6/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1488858534314 16/17
Low, Jennifer A.: Dramatic spaces: scenography and
spectatorial perceptions
R.A. Naversen
CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries.
53.8 (Apr. 2016): p1177.
COPYRIGHT 2016 American Library Association CHOICE
http://www.ala.org/acrl/choice/about
Full Text: 
Low, Jennifer A. Dramatic spaces: scenography and spectatorial perceptions. Routledge, 2015. 207p bibl index afp ISBN 9781138852488 cloth,
$145.00; ISBN 9781317528012 ebook, contact publisher for price
53-3448
PN1590
2015-3887 CIP
Low (English, Florida Atlantic Univ.) employs an eclectic blend of methodologies--semiotics, phenomenology, spatial theory, and proxemics as
well as traditional literary textual analysis and theater historicism--to examine how physical theater space, sociocultural influences, and scenic
design help to define a performance and facilitate the creation of meaning for the theater audience. The author first explores how the shape and
architectural backgrounds of the Roman and Elizabethan stages influenced the writing of the plays and the performers. She goes on to examine
how in the 19th century commercial French theater's use of paid claques extended the performance beyond the stage and into the audience. In the
final section Low uses close readings of performance and design to illuminate how modern scenic designers actively transform the bare stage
space not simply to achieve a realistic representation of reality but to enhance playwright and directorial vision and promote specific artistic
movements and philosophies that aid in constructing meaning for the audience. Meticulously researched, this book provides a great deal of
material evidence on how spatiality and the spectator are co-creators of performance. Summing Up: ** Recommended. Graduate students,
researchers, faculty.--R. A. Naversen, Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Source Citation   (MLA 8th
Edition)
Naversen, R.A. "Low, Jennifer A.: Dramatic spaces: scenography and spectatorial perceptions." CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic
Libraries, Apr. 2016, p. 1177+. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?
p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA449661579&it=r&asid=1e005765e3c974772cfece7e2356c7cf. Accessed 6 Mar.
2017.
3/6/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1488858534314 17/17
Gale Document Number: GALE|A449661579

Wilcox, Helen. "Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in Early Modern Drama and Culture." Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England, vol. 18, 2006, p. 227+. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA138400532&it=r. Accessed 6 Mar. 2017. Arab, Ronda. "Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in Early Modern Drama and Culture." Renaissance Quarterly, vol. 57, no. 2, 2004, p. 746+. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA117426289&it=r. Accessed 6 Mar. 2017. Stanivukovic, Goran V. "Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in Early Modern Drama and Culture." CLIO, vol. 34, no. 4, 2005, p. 458+. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA138812340&it=r. Accessed 6 Mar. 2017. Chambers, Mark. "Jennifer A. Low, Manhood and the Duel: Masculinity in Early Modern Drama and Culture." Medium Aevum, vol. 73, no. 2, 2004, p. 343+. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA129970424&it=r. Accessed 6 Mar. 2017. Naversen, R.A. "Low, Jennifer A.: Dramatic spaces: scenography and spectatorial perceptions." CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, Apr. 2016, p. 1177+. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do? p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA449661579&it=r. Accessed 6 Mar. 2017.

Word Count