The Discourse of Legitimacy is a wide-ranging, synoptic study of England's conflicted political cultures in the period between the Protestant Reformation and the civil war.

McBride provides new perspectives on the roles of the country house discourse she identifies, linking it with a number of larger historical shifts during the time period. Her interdisciplinary focus allows her to bring together a wide range of material - including architecture, poetry, oil painting, economic and social history, and proscriptive literature - in order to examine their complex interrelationship, revealing connections unexplored in more narrowly focused studies.

This study considers the figure of the bastard in the context of analogies of the family and the state in early modern England. The trope of illegitimacy, more than being simply a narrative or character-driven issue, is a vital component in the evolving construction and representation of British national identity in prose and drama of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century. Through close reading of a range of plays and prose texts, the book offers readers new insight into the semiotics of bastardy and concepts of national identity in early modern England, and reflects on contemporary issues of citizenship and identity. The author examines play texts of the period including Bale's King Johan, Peele's The Troublesome Reign of John, and Shakespeare's King John, Richard II, and King Lear in the context of a selection of legal, religious, and polemical texts. In so doing, she illuminates the extent to which the figure of the bastard and, more generally the trope of illegitimacy, existed as a distinct discourse within the wider discursive framework of family and nation.

My dissertation draws on recent methodological and theoretical developments in social history in order to rethink the political significance of formal experimentation in early 17th century English theater. Specifically, I argue that formal experiments in four Jacobean plays should be read as participating in a process whereby early modern rulers and the people they ostensibly commanded negotiated and struggled over the meanings of dominant political discourses and the legitimate uses of governing institutions. Recent social historical work on "popular politics" has drawn attention to the fact that local officials and private citizens both manipulated tropes of authority and obedience and appropriated governing institutions - including the militia, the jury trial and the public execution - in order to meet their own political needs rather than those of the court. By focusing on popular political activity, I reconsider the new historicist claim that, "Power in early modern England was performative," in order to emphasize the participatory, contested nature of performance as a social activity, and the overdetermined, negotiated nature of the period's political hegemony. The plays that I analyze not only include characters and images drawn from popular political life but also actively participate in this negotiation by appropriating dominant governing discourses and institutions for the benefit of the players and playwrights and the entertainment of diverse audiences. In each chapter, I engage in an intertextual analysis that reads a single, experimental play in conversation with different historical texts - including pamphlets, chronicle histories and trial records - that record and respond to the appropriation of authority. The first chapter reads Beaumont and Fletcher's Philaster in relation to divine right treatises, political rumors and popular protests. The second chapter reads Shakespeare's Measure for Measure as a manipulation of the dominant legal discourse surrounding justice and mercy. The third chapter places John Webster's The White Devil into conversation with legal rituals like trials and public executions. The final chapter reads Ben Jonson's Bartholomew Fair alongside various texts describing the demographic changes to the early modern London metropolis and the struggles of the city government to manage these changes.

The Stage and Social Struggle in Early Modern England is a ground-breaking study of a controversial period of English literary, cultural, and political history. In language that is both lucid and theoretically sophisticated, Jean Howard examines the social and cultural facets of early modern theatre. She looks at the ways in which some theatrical practices were deemed deceptive and unreliable, while others were lent legitimacy by the powerful. An exciting and challenging work by one of the leading writers in the field, The Stage and Social Conflict in Early Modern England is important reading for anyone interested in the period.

Suggests that public interest was vital to early modern state legitimacy and political reform in Western Europe and East Asia.

A radical reappraisal of the character of moral and political theory in early modern England.