Areas of Interest
Early Modern English Literature; Professional Drama in London, 1567-1737; History of the Book
Selected Recent Publications
Book
Marketing the Bard: Shakespeare in Performance and Print, 1660–1740. Columbia: U Missouri P, 2006.
Articles
------ and Robert D. Hume, “The Dissemination of Shakespeare’s Plays Circa 1714,” Studies in Bibliography 56 (2003–2004): 261–79.
"Philip Chetwind and the Shakespeare Third Folio,” Harvard Library Bulletin n.s. 14.1 (2003): 29–46.
“The London Book Trade in 1709 (Part Two),” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 95.2 (2001): 157–72.
“The London Book Trade in 1709 (Part One),” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 95.1 (2001): 31–58.
“Elizabethan Appropriation of Irish Culture: Spenser’s Theory vs. Lee’s Practice,” Mosaic 32.3 (1999): 1–24.
“The Legitimization of Royal Power in Chaucer’s Man of Law’s Tale,” Modern Philology 95.1 (1997): 27–43.
“The Significance of ‘Lord Rochester’s Monkey,’” Studia Neophilologica 69.1 (1997): 11–20.
“‘Such Heav’n-taught Numbers should be more than read’: Comus and Milton’s Reputation in Mid-Eighteenth-Century England,” Milton Studies 34 (1996): 137–57.
Book Chapter
“Elkanah Settle, John Crowne, and Nahum Tate,” A Companion to Restoration Drama, ed. Susan J. Owen (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), 378–95.
Book Reviews and Review Essay
Ronan Deazley, On the Origin of the Right to Copy: Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteenth-Century Britain (1695–1775). (Oxford: Hart, 2004), The Scriblerian 39.2 (2007): 194–96.
Cynthia Lowenthal, Performing Identities on the Restoration Stage (Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois UP, 2003), The Scriblerian 36.2 (2004): 186–87.
Heidi Hutner, Colonial Women: Race and Culture in Stuart Drama (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001), The Scriblerian 36.2 (2004): 187–88.
“Producing Playwrights: Constructing Authorship and Authority in the Playtexts of Early Modern England,” review essay of Douglas A. Brooks, From Playhouse to Printing House: Drama and Authorship in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000), Review 24 (2002): 49–60.