Between 1660 and 1720, there were remarkably over fifty tragedies depicting rape and/or attempted rape produced on the London stage. These scenes of sexual violence flourished in each of the patent theatrical companies; they were written by members of both of the major political parties; and they were authored by male and female dramatists alike. Never before in English dramatic history were there so many representations of sexual violence, and never before were representations of sexual violence so successful with audiences.

Despite this abundance, recent scholars have reached little consensus as to how, specifically, theatregoers responded to these scenes of sexual violence: whether viewers understood them as pathos-driven spectacles of female victimization, as topical political allegories and/or as titillating displays of sexual scenarios. The last of these possibilities – that audiences (rather perversely) enjoyed tragic scenes of rape as erotic spectacles – has been a matter of scholarly debate over the last decade and a half, and to date this issue remains unresolved.

Jean Marsden and Elizabeth Howe have argued that rape depictions of the Restoration were interpreted as titillating erotic performances, made popular by the advent of professional actresses (and the sexual potential associated with them) on public stages in 1660. Marsden argues that, ‘As the joint appearance of actresses and scenes of rape indicates, rape becomes possible as theatrical spectacle only when visible signs of the female are present: breasts, bare shoulders, and loosened or “ravished” hair’.