{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01327433628318584, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010619469026548672, 'mean_word_length': 4.984126984126984, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Brief Interlude of Vice

Bridging from the dialectic of action explored in the previous chapters to the dialectic of figuration and appearance considered in those which follow, this chapter sketches a triangular historical relationship between plays of revenge, the professionalisation of theatre, and the figure known as the ‘Vice’. The common player became the Vice when that figure disappeared from English plays in the 1570s and 1580s. Those were the years in which the professional actor emerged and theatre became an object of greater suspicion. In this way the appearance of the actor and his agency within the fictional scene acquired a specific and complex moral value. For revenge tragedy this was significant because the Vice had been the origin and impetus of the revenge narrative since English playwrights had first shown interest in the theme of extra-judicial vengeance, in translations of Seneca in the 1560s. To ask whether revenge was a moral deviation or devilish concoction, as did more famous plays of later decades, was to question the agency of the player and his interest in producing dubious illusions.