We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Theatre is the most ephemeral of art forms. It is a truism that the ephemeral performance text is divorced from the static published play text. This Element is of the eighteenth-century performance history of The Fair Penitent demonstrates the interrelation of print and performance and models how readers can recover elements of performance through close attention to text. Traces of performance adhere to the mediascape in playbills and puffs, reviews and accounts. The printed text also preserves traces of performance in notation and illustration. By analysing traces found in performance trends, casting decisions, publication histories and repertory intertexts, this Element recovers how The Fair Penitent was interpreted at different points in the century and explains how a play that bombed in its first season could become a repertory staple.
This chapter comprises dicussion of both informal and formal arguments against belief in the God of theism. Informal arguments rely on an “anyone-can-see” atheistic intuition about nature, unveiled in Darwinian terms. Formal arguments rely on an atheistic inference made from evidence – from the configuration of evolutionary evils suffered by animals in the natural realm, past and present. A successful God-justifying account will have to weaken the atheistic force of these arguments, if not mitigate them altogether. The author proposes that the prospects for success are poor, so long as we approach the problem of God and evolutionary animal suffering on conventional ethical norms for the moral agency of God in creating species. He looks ahead to proposing that aesthetics will play a major role in his own approach to both the teleological and moral aspects of the Darwinian Problem.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.