In Light of the Controversies: Spectatorship Reconsidered Clotilde Thouret (Nancy) The controversies about theatre in Europe call for a redefinition of the place and role of theatre in society, and doing so, they invite us to rethink the historiography of theatre (in terms of scale, of objects and of canon). In the light of the controversies, new perspectives may be opened on playwrights and plays. This is particularly the case for spectatorship, which lies at the crossroads of three different historical paths (cultural and aesthetic, scientific and anthropological and theologico-political) and requires an aesthetical approach inspired by pragmatism, since polemical texts aim at the theatrical experience and even more precisely at the uses of the performance by the spectator. Finally, considering responses of Jonson, Shakespeare and Corneille to antitheatrical discourse, this article suggests the emergence, in early modern Europe, of the figure of a singular spectator. Recent trends in literary criticism tend to combine approaches from fields such as history, philosophy, literary theory, and cognitive sciences. This approach, which blurs the frontiers between disciplines, can be interpreted as the counterpart of the unifying tendency, since the end of the 20 th century, to reaffirm the connection between art and life, or the link between literary texts and the world, often in terms of exchange and sharing. New historicism has been one of the most influential trends in this respect. In contrast to its focus on the ‘ production ’ side, other critical works concentrate on the ‘ reception ’ side of this cultural phenomenon. 1 They participate in what is called the ‘ ethical turn ’ but not exclusively; the object of analysis is more broadly the aesthetic experience of literature, its specificities, and the ways in which literary texts allow for mediations and subjective appropriations by the reader or spectator. This critical inflection is not without connections to the development of the history of emotions or the renewed influence of philosophical pragmatism, which locates aesthetic analysis in the relation between the receptor and the work of art and suggests taking into account what art does rather than what it is (since a work of art has no intrinsic properties). In this perspective, it is interesting to study controversies about the theatre in Europe 2 and the way they articulate text and performance, since it implies a reconsideration of spectatorship and a new understanding of what a theatrical event is. Polemical texts deal with the effects the theatre may have on the public and their possible dangers; by doing so, they aim at the theatrical experience and even more precisely at the spectator ’ s uses of the performance. But to grasp what is at stake in narratives and descriptions of reception, one has to draw on cultural history, historical anthropology, and an aesthetic approach inspired by philosophical pragmatism. These texts imply a reconsideration of the spectator in historical terms and a rethinking of the history of spectatorship. A Renewed History of the Controversies Hostility to the theatre and to spectacles reemerged in Italy and in England in the 1570s, Forum Modernes Theater, 32/ 2 (2021), 228 - 237. Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen DOI 10.2357/ FMTh-2021-0021 and afterwards in other European countries. It manifested itself in a number of crises, which led to the publication of treatises, pamphlets, sermons, episcopal pastorals, and reports to the authorities. It led to vindications and defences in as many different forms, and to plays as well. Previous scholarship on the subject focused mainly on the arguments and the topics of the debates. 3 The approach we developed in the “ Hatred of the stage ” (Haine du Théâtre) project, instead, is more rooted in cultural history. In fact, these debates are closely linked to the professionalization and institutionalization of theatre as a cultural practice. We believed that the controversies should be reconsidered in this light and this has led us to suggest some changes in their historiography: changes in terms of scale, in terms of objects, and in terms of discourses and literary genres. In terms of scale, first, it was necessary to expand the scope to Europe and to narrow it down to specific events. The discourse of the enemies of theatre and, to a lesser extent, that of its defenders is based on the condemnations of the Church Fathers and of Antiquity; the polemical texts and their ideas circulate throughout Europe, as do some theatre troupes; in a word, controversies about the theatre are a European phenomenon. But as Ubaldo Floris and Deborah Blocker 4 have shown for some French episodes, understanding polemical texts implies knowing exactly what is going on locally and what the political and social positions of the authors are. It requires developing a fine contextualization. For example, the ‘ Guerra polemic ’ at the end of the 17 th century in Spain cannot be understood without taking into account a former political conflict between Guerra, the Trinitarian Friar, who wrote a defence of the theatre, and the Jesuits, who launched an attack against it. 5 Fine contextualization also sheds new light on topical arguments: the example of the Roman emperor Augustus as a protector of theatre is often interpreted as a demand for intervention on the part of the king. There is also a change in terms of objects. The history of the controversies is the history of the theatre, but it is also political, social and religious history. In these conflicts, economic and political dimensions are essential, and the theatre is a kind of alternate battleground for political and religious conflicts. 6 Furthermore, through the polemics, quarrels, and scandals, one realizes that what is at stake is the role and place of theatre in society. It is particularly salient for the first half of the 17 th century, but it remains true afterwards, even if formulated in more specific terms (I am thinking, for example, of the debate surrounding the comic in France in the 18 th century). As a consequence, the history of controversies has to focus especially on the relations and exchanges between the stage, the state and the market, and more specifically, the emergent cultural market. 7 The third change concerns the classification of texts: the actual corpus of controversies blurs the frontier between polemical texts and dramatic texts, and between discourse and fiction, since a significant part of the defences are to be found in plays. For example, Cervantes ’ Pedro de Urdemalas, Lope de Vega ’ s Lo Fingido Verdadero, and A Midsummer Night ’ s Dream may be read as defences of theatre, and more specifically as defences of the actor and his art. With its dialogues about obscene jokes and female spectatorship, Molière ’ s La Critique de l ’ Ecole des Femmes takes part in the controversies about the theatre and not only in the quarrel about the play. Reading the texts of the controversies illuminates allusions and hints in the plays and leads to the identification of their polemical dimension and to new interpretations. This historicization also has consequences for the analysis of theatrical experi- 229 In Light of the Controversies: Spectatorship Reconsidered ence. Cultural history and theatre studies have already renewed our concept of a theatrical event by adding the dimension of the conditions of performance: how the show is produced, when, by whom, where, and in front of whom. It is now time to consider more directly the audience, to take into account the conditions of reception and their history, and in doing so, to try to identify an appropriate epistemology for the spectator. After a few remarks on the access we have to early modern theatrical experience, I will identify the ‘ dimensions ’ of early modern spectatorship: i. e. the systems of constraints and concepts (in terms of anthropology, ideology, aesthetics, etc.) that determine reception, or rather receptions. Finally, focusing on texts by Jonson, Corneille, and Shakespeare, I will try to explore these dimensions and see how they suggest some shifts or reconfigurations of categories for analysing spectators ’ responses. Where is Early Modern Theatrical Experience to be Found? The study of theatrical effects encounters a major obstacle: we have no direct access to them. First, because they are composed of thoughts and emotions. Second, because the here and now of performance is forever behind us. We have texts but we do not have access to performances; nevertheless, we have texts on performances, narratives of performances. Furthermore, theatrical effects or emotions belong to the social world: they depend on the context of their expression, and as such, they are objects of history. Narratives and descriptions of theatrical emotions and/ or performances appear in very different discursive contexts: polemical texts, poetic treatises, gazettes, anecdotes, memoranda to the authorities, police reports, and official records of spectacular events. They also appear in dramatic criticism, which emerged in the second half of the 17 th century: this is a collection of texts that reflect the spectator ’ s point of view and refer to a specific performance. They can be found in memoirs, journals, prefaces, letters, novels, and poetry. 8 These records of the audience ’ s passions and emotions are contained in very different discursive forms; and they are obviously determined by the logic and the aim of the discourse in which they appear. As a consequence, it is impossible to treat them as direct evidence, as testimonies describing accurately and truthfully the emotions aroused by a performance. They are only traces that give mediated access to past representations. Nevertheless, they can be helpful when trying to grasp the concrete effects of spectacle. First, some models of describing and understanding are to be found in several texts and are sometimes used by authors on opposite sides ( ‘ contagion ’ for example, or ‘ the fever seizing the audience ’ ). 9 These may be considered as symptoms: they show that the circulation of theatrical effects during and around performances is a fixation point of reflection during the period. Second, since these texts aim to persuade, we can legitimately think that they describe emotional dynamics that are not without links to contemporary sensibilities and people ’ s representations of them. This match, as tenuous as it may be, is necessary to the efficacy of these discourses. Furthermore, polemists claim that theirs is a pragmatic analysis, different from the speculations that are to be found in poetics; at least, they usually think of performance as a concrete event, as is also the case with police reports and official reports. For example, the scope and logic of the events provoked by the performance of the scandalous play A Game at Chess can be grasped through a series of official and private letters. 10 This allegorical and satirical play was produced at the Globe Theatre in London, in 1624. Using chess characters and 230 Clotilde Thouret figures, it alluded directly to the diplomatic relations between England and Spain (especially the aborted union between Charles, the heir to the English Crown, and the Spanish Infanta), and did so in an offensive manner: Philip IVof Spain is manipulated by deceptive, Machiavellian, and decadent Jesuits who are trying to conquer Europe. 11 It was an immediate and significant success: more than 20,000 spectators (i. e. ten percent of the London population at the time) went to see it in nine days, which was quite unprecedented. The Spanish Ambassador wrote to James I, asking for censorship of the play, punishment of the actors, and threatening to interrupt all diplomatic relations between the two countries. Several factors intervened in the scandalous appropriation of a text which is not so subversive in itself: the actual presence on stage of the costume of the former Spanish ambassador; the socially mixed audience, which took part in matters of state as a result of the performance, and thus engaged in an illegal activity; 12 the laughter, identified with abuse of both kings; and reactions that assigned a stable meaning to characters and actions. All these aspects created a number of transgressions and explain the scandal; they show how the performance overflowed the text, mixing together economic, political and theatrical contexts. As a whole, the narratives and descriptions of performances appearing in the large group of texts mentioned above delineate a framework for the theatrical experience, which provides for the collection of possible reactions or emotions in which we may find a contribution to aesthetic history and to historical anthropology. As Sylvaine Guyot and I have shown, transmission, contagion, scissions, and incitements are the main emotional regimes to be distinguished. 13 As far as the historiography of spectatorship is concerned, it is fruitful to delineate the historical framework or structure of these narratives, that is, the cultural, aesthetic, anthropological, and theological presuppositions and categories that govern texts about theatrical experience. They are, in a way, the coordinates of early modern spectatorship. The Dimensions of Early Modern Spectatorship Concepts of theatrical experience in early modern Europe, and more specifically in 17 th -century Europe, lie at the crossroads of three different historical paths: cultural and aesthetic; scientific and anthropological; and theologico-political. Approaches and ideas about dramatic effects are first rooted in an aesthetic and cultural context. From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, the aesthetic sphere is not autonomous. One does not think about how to create a work of art without thinking about the effect it should have or the aim it should achieve. Every theory and every artistic practice engage in consideration of the reader ’ s or spectator ’ s emotions and their possible practical role. This general framework is reinforced by intellectual events of the time, especially the rediscovery of Aristotle ’ s Poetics and the thousands of pages of commentary on it. Since the dramatic poem is defined by the effects it provokes - tragedy excites fear and pity, comedy elicits laughter - these texts turned theatrical thinking towards the passions and spectators ’ reactions. 14 Moreover, the concept of catharsis is sufficiently vague to give rise to infinite interpretations and is reformulated for its moral, therapeutic or physiological utility. 15 Aristotle ’ s recommendations add to the Horatian precepts and the rhetorical model, with both retaining an indisputable influence, the second owing to its major role in education. Poetical composition is governed by the verses on the utile dulci and the verses on the mimetic 231 In Light of the Controversies: Spectatorship Reconsidered response of the auditor or spectator ( “ si vis me flere, dolendum est / primum ipsi tibi . . . ” ; “ if you wish me to weep, you yourself / Must first feel grief . . . ” ), in other words by the emotional aim. 16 In fact, Horace ’ s Ars poetica already transposed rhetorical precepts for poetry. The docere, delectare, movere trio shows how the art of rhetoric is focused on the audience and its intellectual and emotional reception, since persuasion is obtained through pleasure and the passions. To understand fully what is at stake in this concern with the effect of the work of art and the terms in which it is understood, one has to take into account the scientific context. 16 th -century thought, and to a large extent 17 th -century thought as well, rely on the idea of an organic union of body and psyche. Passions are understood and defined as “ movements of the soul ” ; dispositions and characters are considered in terms of humoral fluids. After the scientific and philosophical shift imposed by the mechanical view of the body, the Aristotelian-Galenic models are discarded, but (as Erec Koch has shown) the body becomes the source and site of the production of passion and sensibility. This development constructs an aesthetic body that is, in its full etymological sense, a body whose principal functions are the production of sensation and affectivity, and which acts as the locus of interaction between the world and the soul. 17 This framework has two implications which are part of the perceptive structure of early modern theatrical experience. First, that the aesthetic experience is, first and foremost, a physical experience, and possibly a physical pleasure - even if sensation is not the last word on aesthetic experience. To a certain extent, this contradicts the modern concept, which associates emotions and the psyche. Second, that emotional reactions are not necessarily disconnected from the intellectual faculty of the soul; in other words, the emotions aroused by performance may possess a cognitive dimension. To a large extent, this contradicts the modern opposition between emotions and reason. As Thomas Dixon puts it, the creation of the psychological category of ‘ emotions ’ during the 19 th century led to a significant reduction in the conceptual richness used to describe and understand the reality of the passions, feelings, sentiments, appetites, etc. Furthermore, this category sets aside the cognitive dimension that was accorded to the ‘ passions ’ . Finally, by associating passions with the body alone, it cuts off their link with reason, whereas in the traditional Christian perspective of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, passions, appetites, and feelings were considered as movements or acts of the soul and were linked with the will. 18 A third context, which may be called theologico-political, adds another dimension to views on early modern spectatorship. It is linked to the way in which Augustine ’ s views influenced aesthetics by shifting attention to the way in which a work is appropriated, in other words towards the uses of art. I rely here on the seminal article by Joachim Küpper. 19 For Augustine, one assimilates something in one of two ways: either one uses it (uti) or one gets pleasure from it (frui). The wrong or incorrect use of these forms of appropriation leads to depravity. Pleasure (delectatio) in itself is not to be condemned; it is condemned only if the will uses it badly, that is, if one simply enjoys an immediate and sensual pleasure without directing this enjoyment to the Creator. The application of these two forms of delectatio to aesthetic pleasure ultimately determined how aesthetics are understood in the Christian world. It implies a view of art that is very different from that of antiquity: it is no longer the essence of the work of art (and in particular its relation to truth) which gives aesthetic pleasure its value and dignity, but instead how it is appropriated. It is the appropriate reaction to the artwork (the 232 Clotilde Thouret right use of art), more than the appreciation of its beauty which gives legitimacy to artistic practice and thus becomes the determining principle for thinking about the arts and our relation to them. As a result, the epistemology of early modern spectatorship tends to resonate with the pragmatist aesthetics of Dickie or Goodman. 20 This approach sets the use of objects above the objects themselves. As the question of the essence of art inevitably leads to an impasse, it concerns itself less with what a work of art is, than with what it does. It places itself on the side of its effects and therefore on the side of its reception. This is not to say that aesthetic pragmatism is the whole story of reception before Kant. The political and cultural contexts are not at all the same and philosophical ideas cannot be equated with historical description. However, a pragmatic approach encourages a shift in attention that makes it possible to take account of certain aspects of reception which are otherwise given little attention or go unrecognized. Moreover, this viewpoint seems particularly fruitful when addressing controversies about the theatre, precisely because the debates centre on its usefulness or utility. Criticism, and especially French criticism, tends to speak of “ polemics on the morality of the theater ” , 21 but the range of these debates is, in reality, far wider. What is at stake is the utility of the theatre, as an art and as a cultural practice, its moral use, but also its religious, social, political, and even legal use. The justification of a relatively new and marginal practice, such as a public theatre, calls for a listing of its roles in the social and political community, that is, its usefulness or its uses. A Singular Spectator In this survey of important contexts, I have left out one dimension of the early modern theatrical experience: the social and economic. One change that occurred during the 16 th century profoundly modified the status of the spectator in public theatres and his or her relation to the performance: the admission fee. Ben Jonson was particularly concerned with this aspect of theatrical experience and its consequences; he incorporated it in all of his numerous characters of spectators 22 and some of his plays give very a precise and complex representation of what is going on during a performance. This is the case, for example, in the induction of Bartholomew Fair. 23 In the prologue, a stage-keeper enters to criticize the play about to be presented. Then, a book-keeper appears: he was sent to present an agreement between the author and the audience; he introduces the scrivener who reads out the articles of agreement. It is a contract between the author of Bartholomew Fair and the “ spectators or hearers at the Hope on the Bankside ” ; 24 a spectator ’ s payment for his seat acts as his seal. It is on the basis of this purchase that the author gives spectators the right to judge the play: each spectator may judge according to the price of his seat, “ and if he pay for half a dozen, he may censure for all them, too, so that he will undertake that they shall be silent ” . 25 But there are some further stipulations. The agreement requires the spectator to use his own judgment, not to allow himself to be influenced by others, and not to change his opinion. In addition, he promises not to be a decipherer, or “ politic pick-lock of the scene ” 26 (this last part alluding to satirical plays). The contract thus creates an ambivalent relationship between the spectators and the dramatist and defines two different concepts of the audience. Because of the commercial relationship that now defines the theatrical experience, spectators compose a group of individuals at once equal and unequal. All have the right to judge, and the weight of that 233 In Light of the Controversies: Spectatorship Reconsidered judgement depends on the money they have spent, which equates them with a body of consumers. But at the same time, the contract restructures the commercial relationship and places theatrical activity, if only partially, outside the limits of a commercial exchange, because the purchase of the right to judge implies a moral responsibility on the spectator ’ s part: the commercial contract hides an obligation. At the heart of the undifferentiated body of ‘ consumers ’ , Jonson makes his spectator an individual. This suggests two remarks; paying to enter a theatre radically changes the nature of the audience, and the integration of theatrical practice into a market implies a new type of aggregate. Shifting from religious or political celebration to a market economy is to shift from a hierarchical group to individual recreation in which spectators are on the same level (or on a level measured by money). Acknowledging this situation, Jonson tries to establish a specific relationship with the good spectators, the “ attentive auditors, / Such as will join their profit with their pleasure, / And come to feed their understanding parts ” . 27 In a very different manner, and almost thirty years later, a similar motivation is also seen in Corneille: it is to be found in texts about the moral effect of the play, in which he tries to defend the exemplarity of his theatre. In the epistles placed before his Medea and before the continuation of The Liar, he explains his position on the moral utility of theatre. 28 It is deeply influenced by the Quarrel of the Cid. Corneille responds to Scudéry ’ s criticism of the play and especially of the character of Chimène, but it can be summarized as follows: the first purpose of the play is to please the spectator, but if it is a good play, it will have ethical value. Moral utility does not depend upon poetic justice. There is no moral lesson to be formulated; the spectator ’ s emotional and intellectual response to the truthful representation of virtues and vices will provide morality enough. In the epistle for the continuation of The Liar, Corneille specifies the relationship between author and spectator on which his theatre relies. 29 On one level, the poet owes perfection to his art and this corresponds to the pleasure of the spectator; on another level, his or her moral profit has to be understood as charity, which creates a relationship between the poet as a Christian and his public. The relationship between author and spectator is not a pedagogical one in which a lesson is given by the former to the latter, but an amicable one, based on equality. To address more directly the question of the effect of performance on the spectator, I would like to take a quick look at one theatrical experience, that of Hamlet. After the player ’ s recitation in Act II of Aeneas ’ s report of Troy ’ s defeat, Hamlet stays alone on stage and gives his second soliloquy. 30 After having seen the player perform the speech and cry, the prince of Denmark reflects on his own situation and his inertia. Why is the actor so affected by Hecuba ’ s destiny? “ What ’ s Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba ” ? , 31 whereas he himself, who is abused by a rascal and suffers real grief, is lethargic, ‘ motionless ’ and does not seek revenge. The main part of the monologue describes Hamlet as a symmetric duplicate of the player: an idea, a simple fiction, provokes violent and visible disorder in the player, while his own violent and real passions remain unseen and are without consequences. In other words, Hamlet says that he is not pronouncing the appropriate soliloquy, that he does not play his role well (that of the vengeful son). This awareness allows him to realize his situation and to draw from his indignation the strength to act. Considering the relation between the player, the character, and himself, Hamlet gains a new perspective on himself and his situation. Something very similar happens to 234 Clotilde Thouret Claudius after The Mousetrap: after the aborted performance, he confesses his crime for the first time (in a soliloquy) and tries to pray and repent. These two spectators ’ responses can be interpreted as Shakespeare ’ s answer to the enemies of theatre and their Platonic idea of passion contamination. The scene with the players in fact refers precisely to the passage of Ion (535 a-536 b) in which Socrates speaks of the chain of the possessed which connects the poet to the rhapsodist and to the auditor. The situation is the one evoked by the Platonic text (a recitation); Shakespeare ’ s text is about Priam and Hecuba as are the pathetic passages Socrates questions Ion about, and the player has a powerful effect on the listeners, especially Polonius and Hamlet. However, the reaction of the latter has nothing in common with the contamination or the emotional contagion that critics of the theatre fear so much - and this is true as well for Claudius. First, the spectator engages in at least two emotional movements: one of identification with the character ’ s situation (the suffering of an offense for Hamlet; murder for Claudius) and one of differentiation (apparent calm for Hamlet; guilty feelings for Claudius). From this, proceeds a medley of emotions, in Hamlet ’ s case: indignation, self-pity, anger, irony, astonishment. Second, what is relevant is less what is shown than the relation the spectator establishes with what is shown; this reaction depends on the relations established with the character, the player, the other spectators, and himself. Third, the reaction is very much an individual one, with cognitive, emotional, and reflective dimensions. These texts suggest the emergence of the figure of spectator, with his or her own response to performance, his or her relationship with the playwright and the characters. This may be linked to an anthropological, social, and political phenomenon, the emergence of the subject and subjectivity in early modern Europe. Of course, this does not imply an individualizing conception of spectatorship: the spectator is always part of a group and the theatrical experience is eminently social. These texts are not historical documentation of performances, but when combined with the epistemological coordinates of spectatorship described above, they suggest some conceptual shifts in the production of historical knowledge about spectatorship. Instead of describing the theatrical phenomenon with categories such as ‘ audiences ’ and ‘ practitioners ’ , it would perhaps be better to use the category of ‘ community ’ , as in communities of production and communities of consumption, and to see how their practices evolve, and how they engage in dialogue and exchange. Instead of using categories of specific emotions and identification, it would be more fruitful to analyse the spectator ’ s reactions in terms of relations: what Hamlet ’ s monologue shows is that an emotion is less a subjective reaction than a relation established with other presences. Instead of speculating on the effects of a performance it is probably more interesting to ask what a performance provides a spectator by considering plays as means of mediation of relationships with the self, others, and the world. Notes 1 For France, see, for example, Yves Citton, Lire, Interpréter, Actualiser. Pourquoi les Études Littéraires? , Paris 2007; Marielle Macé, Façons de Lire, Manières d ’ Être, Paris 2011 and Hélène Merlin-Kajman, Lire Dans la Gueule du Loup. La Littérature, une Zone à Défendre, Paris 2016. 2 This study was done as part of the LABEX OBVIL project, and received financial aid managed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, as part of the programme “ In- 235 In Light of the Controversies: Spectatorship Reconsidered vestissements d ’ Avenir ” under the reference ANR-11-IDEX-0004-02. My research on controversies about the theatre takes place in the project called “ La Haine du Théâtre ” ( “ Hatred of the stage ” , Labex OBVIL, Paris- Sorbonne) which I co-headed with François Lecercle from 2013 until 2019, http: / / obvil. paris-sorbonne.fr/ projets/ la-haine-du-theatre, [accessed 22 May 2021]. 3 See, for example, Henry Phillips, The Theatre and its Critics in Seventeenth Century France, Londres/ New York 1980; Jonas Barish, The Antitheatrical Prejudice, Berkeley 1981; Laurent Thirouin, L ’ Aveuglement Salutaire. Le Réquisitoire Contre le Théâtre Dans la France Classique, Paris 1997; Sylviane Léoni, Le Poison et le Remède. Théâtre, Morale et Rhétorique en France et en Italie (1694 - 1758), Oxford 1998; Laura Levine, Men in Women ’ s Clothing: Anti-Theatricality and Effeminization 1579 - 1642, Cambridge 1994; Michael O ’ Connell, The Idolatrous Eye, Iconoclasm and Theatre in Early- Modern England, New York 2000. 4 Ubaldo Floris, Teorici, Teologi e Istrioni. Per e Contro il Teatro Nella Francia del Cinque- Seicento, Rome 2008; Déborah Blocker, Instituer un ‘ Art ’ . Politiques du Théâtre Dans la France du Premier XVII e Siècle, Paris 2009. 5 Carine Herzig, “ Fray Manuel de Guerra y Ribera, ‘ Aprobación a la Verdadera Quinta Parte de Comedias de Don Pedro Calderón (1682) ’ . Estudio, Edición y Notas ” , in: Criticón 93 (2005), pp. 95 - 154; “ La Polémica en Torno a la Aprobación del Padre Fray Manuel de Guerra y Ribera (1682 - 1684) y la Moralización de la Comedia ” , in: Criticón 103 - 104 (2008), pp. 81 - 92. 6 François Lecercle, “ An Elusive Controversy: The Beginnings of Polemics Against the Stage in France ” , in: Logan Connors (ed.), Restoration and Eighteenth-Century Theatre Research 29/ 1 (2015), pp. 17 - 34; Clotilde Thouret, Le Théâtre Réinventé. Défenses de la Scène Dans l ’ Europe de la Première Modernité, Rennes 2019 (chap. 1 “ Dynamiques polémiques ” ). 7 It was already the topic of Jean-Christophe Agnew, Worlds Apart. The Market and the Theatre in Anglo-American Thought (1550 - 1750), London/ New York/ Melbourne 1986. 8 For France, see the website “ Naissance de la Critique Dramatique ” , eds. Lise Michel and Claude Bourqui, https: / / www2.unil.ch/ ncd17/ [accessed 22 May 2021]. 9 See Sylvaine Guyot and Clotilde Thouret, “ Des Émotions en Chaîne: Représentation Théâtrale et Circulation Publique des Affects au XVII e Siècle ” , in: Hélène Merlin- Kajman (ed.), Littératures Classiques 68 (2009), pp. 225 - 241. On contagion specifically, Clotilde Thouret, “ La Contagion des Affects Dans les Polémiques Sur le Théâtre au XVII e Siècle, en Espagne et en France ” , in: Ariane Bayle (ed.), La Métaphore de la Contagion, Dijon 2013, pp. 57 - 68. 10 Thomas Middleton, A Game at Chess, ed. Trevor H. Howard-Hill, Manchester 1993, pp. 192 - 213. 11 On the text, see Margot Heinemann, “ Political Satire: A Game at Chess ” , in: Puritanism and Theatre: Thomas Middleton and Opposition Drama Under the Early Stuarts chap. 10, Cambridge 1980, pp. 151 - 171; and Clotilde Thouret, “ Pouvoirs de l ’ Allégorie. Le Scandale de A Game at Chess de Thomas Middleton (1624) ” , Fabula / Les colloques, Théâtre et scandale, http: / / www.fabula.org/ colloques/ document5876.php [accessed 11 November 2019]. 12 During the 1620s, James I repeatedly issued edicts prohibiting dealing with matters of the Crown (either foreign or domestic) and the texts specify that such topics should not be discussed by ignorant subjects of no condition. 13 Guyot and Thouret, “ Des Émotions en Chaîne . . . ” , pp. 225 - 241. 14 Nicholas Cronk, “ Aristotle, Horace, and Longinus: The Conception of Reader Response ” , in: Glyn Norton (ed.), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. The Renaissance, Cambridge 1999, pp. 199 - 204. 15 Stephen Halliwell, Aristotle ’ s Poetics, London 1998, pp. 350 - 356; Jean-Charles Darmon (ed.), Littérature et Thérapeutique des Passions. La ‘ Catharsis ’ en Question, Paris 2011. 16 Horace, Ars Poetica, v. 99 - 105 and v. 343. 236 Clotilde Thouret 17 Erec Koch, The Aesthetic Body. Passion, Sensibility, and Corporeality in Seventeenth- Century France, Newark 2008. The postcartesian age does not imply the suppression of the body: see also Hélène Merlin-Kajman, “ Un Siècle Classico-Baroque? ” , in: XVII e siècle 223 (2004), pp. 163 - 172; John D. Lyons, Before Imagination. Embodied Thought From Montaigne to Rousseau, Stanford 2005. 18 Thomas Dixon, From Passions to Emotions. The Creation of a Secular Category, Cambridge 2003. 19 Joachim Küpper, “ Uti and Frui in Augustine and the Problem of Aesthetic Pleasure in the Western Tradition (Cervantes, Kant, Marx, Freud) ” , in: MLN 127 (2012), pp. 126 - 155. 20 Jean-Pierre Cometti, Qu ’ est-ce que le Pragmatisme? , Paris 2010. 21 Marc Fumaroli, “ La Querelle de la Moralité du Théâtre avant Nicole et Bossuet ” , RHLF, sept-déc. 1970/ 5 - 6, pp. 1007 - 1030; Laurent Thirouin uses the same phrase (L ’ Aveuglement salutaire. Le réquisitoire contre le théâtre dans la France classique, Paris, Champion, 1997). 22 For example, Fitzdotterel, The Devil is an Ass (1616), the four Gossips composing the Grex, The Staple of News (1624). 23 Ben Jonson, “‘ Bartholomew Fair ’ [1614, publ. 1640] ” , in: David Bevington, Martin Butler, Ian Donaldson (eds.), The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Ben Jonson (now indicated by CEWBJ), vol. 4, The Induction on the Stage, Cambridge 2012, pp. 279 - 282. 24 Ibid., p. 279. 25 Ibid., p. 280. 26 Ibid. 27 Every Man Out of His Humour, in: CEWBJ, vol. 1, “ Induction ” , pp. 269 - 270 and pp. 199 - 201. See also The Alchemist, in: CEWBJ, vol. 3, “ To the Reader ” , p. 558. 28 I deal with this question in more detail in “ Réflexions Théoriques Sur l ’ Utilité du Théâtre au XVII e Siècle: Ben Jonson et Pierre Corneille Face aux Querelles ” , in: Bénédicte Louvat et Florence March (eds.), Les Théâtres Anglais et Français (XVI e - XVIII e s.). Contacts, Circulation, Influences, Rennes 2016, pp. 83 - 97 and in my online edition of the epistle for the continuation of The Liar, URL: http: / / www.idt.paris-sorbonne.fr/ notice.php? id=158. 29 Pierre Corneille, La Suite du Menteur (1645), Œ uvres complètes, vol. 2, ed. Georges Couton, Paris 1984, “ Épître ” , p. 96: “ Pour moi, j ’ estime extrêmement ceux qui mêlent l ’ utile au délectable, et d ’ autant plus qu ’ ils n ’ y sont pas obligés par les règles de la poésie, je suis bien aise de dire d ’ eux avec notre docteur: Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci. Mais je dénie qu ’ ils faillent contre ces règles, lorsqu ’ ils ne l ’ y mêlent pas, et les blâme seulement de ne s ’ être pas proposé un objet assez digne d ’ eux, ou, si vous me permettez de parler un peu chrétiennement, de n ’ avoir pas eu assez de charité pour prendre l ’ occasion de donner en passant quelque instruction à ceux qui les écoutent ou qui les lisent. Pourvu qu ’ ils aient trouvé le moyen de plaire, ils sont quittes envers leur art, et s ’ ils pèchent, ce n ’ est pas contre lui, c ’ est contre les bonnes m œ urs et contre leur auditoire. ” 30 William Shakespeare, Hamlet, The Norton Shakespeare, ed. Stephen Greenblatt, New York-London 1997, Act II, Scene 2, pp. 1703 - 1704. 31 Ibid., p. 1703, v. 536. 237 In Light of the Controversies: Spectatorship Reconsidered