The following essay is written by the historian Charles Kingsley, and discusses the general sentiment of stage plays was like in his era and how Puritan values affect their development. Kingsley's opinions are highlighted well in this paragraph: "Yet in spite of all translations of German 'aesthetic' treatises, and 'Kunstnovellen,' the mass of the British people cares very little about the matter, and sits contented under the imputation of 'bad taste.' Our stage, long since dead, does not revive; our poetry is dying; our music, like our architecture, only reproduces the past; our painting is only first-rate when it handles landscapes and animals, and seems likely so to remain; but, meanwhile, nobody cares. Some of the deepest and most earnest minds vote the question, in general, a 'sham and a snare,' and whisper to each other confidentially, that Gothic art is beginning to be a 'bore,' and that Sir Christopher Wren was a very good fellow after all; while the middle classes look on the Art movement half-amused, as with a pretty toy, half sulkily suspicious of Popery and Paganism, and think, apparently, that Art is very well when it means nothing, and is merely used to beautify drawing-rooms and shawl patterns; not to mention that, if there were no painters, Mr. Smith could not hand down to posterity likenesses of himself, Mrs. Smith, and family. But when 'Art' dares to be in earnest, and to mean something, much more to connect itself with religion, Smith's tone alters. He will teach 'Art' to keep in what he considers its place, and if it refuses, take the law of it, and put it into the Ecclesiastical Court."

The closing of the theatres by Parliament in 1642 is perhaps the best-known fact in the history of English drama. As the Parliamentary Puritans were then in power, it is easy to assume that all opponents of the theatre were Puritans, and that all Puritans were hostile to the drama. The reality was more interesting and more complicated. Margot Heinemann looks at Thomas Middleton's work in relation to the society and social movements of his time, and traces the connections this work may have had with radical, Parliamentarian or Puritan groups or movements. In the light of the recent work of seventeenth-century historians we can no longer see these complex opposition movements as uniformly anti-theatre or anti-dramatist. The book suggests fresh meanings and implications in Middleton's own writings, and helps towards rethinking the place of drama in the changing life of early Stuart England.

The concept of the public sphere, as first outlined by German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, refers to the right of all citizens to engage in debate on public issues on equal terms. In this book, Christopher B. Balme explores theatre's role in this crucial political and social function. He traces its origins and argues that the theatrical public sphere invariably focuses attention on theatre as an institution between the shifting borders of the private and public, reasoned debate and agonistic intervention. Chapters explore this concept in a variety of contexts, including the debates that led to the closure of British theatres in 1642, theatre's use of media, controversies surrounding race, religion and blasphemy, and theatre's place in a new age of globalised aesthetics. Balme concludes by addressing the relationship of theatre today with the public sphere and whether theatre's transformation into an art form has made it increasingly irrelevant for contemporary society.

For over four centuries, "Puritan" has been a synonym for dour, joyless, and repressed. In the tenth anniversary edition of Puritans at Play, Bruce Daniels reappraises the accuracy of this grim portrait by examining leisure and recreation in Colonial and Revolutionary New England. Chapters on music, dinner parties, dancing, sex, alcohol, taverns, and sports are presented in a lively style that makes this book as entertaining as it is illuminating.