{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016563146997929608, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.715277777777778, '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}}
Metadrama and the Murderous Nature of Authority

Since early modern debate about the legitimacy of theatre concerns the question of the author’s authority in relation to that of the licensing authorities, and their informers, the fear of misinterpretation generates a self-conscious metadrama which expresses the ambiguity of authority in dramatic structures that aim to manipulate audiences’ responses. But, moreover, this metadrama often also acknowledges theatre’s own potential for complicity in social control, and is often concerned with the interchangeability of authority figures, informers and author-actors. In Philip Massinger’s The Roman Actor, these tensions and interconnections are embodied in the metadramatic representations of the dramatic productions in the tyrannous court of Domitian Caesar which conflate the act of acting with the murderous nature of authority and finally reflect on the nascent and often theatrical court of Charles I itself.