It is the argument of this book that the perception of the intelligencer permeates both early modern dramatic production and its reception, and generates the self-conscious metadrama which is often found in the plays of the period. This connection between intelligencing and metadrama expresses a shift in the conceptual and moral landscape of the time, instancing an ‘articulation … of changes in consciousness’, as Raymond Williams might say, operating at the boundaries of social structures and perceptions. The social arrangements and physical situations that intelligencers might exploit in order to get their hands on useful information are replicated in the metadramatic structures of plays which use multiple hidden eavesdroppers and overlookers to advance their plots and storylines. In narrative or dramatic form this may well give a frisson of pleasure to an audience, but it also carries an alarming reminder in an early modern context that the intelligencer's often unseen presence portends mischief of some kind. It may be no surprise in this context that popular cultural metaphors for the intelligencer revolve around imagery of the demonic or the devilish. Besides its various dramatic functions, early modern metadrama registers an increased perception of the debasement of intelligence systems upon which the authorities of the time are so dependent. The fact that intelligencers are not only perceived as inherently mercenary but also that their testimony is typically regarded as tainted with sulphurous associations inevitably calls into question the moral legitimacy of those that rely on these insidious agents. The problematic perceptions of the intelligencing community in early modern England are rooted in questions of both systemic moral ideology and individual probity; their appearance in the metadramatic forms of the theatre shows just how public these issues had become.

In the history of theatrical interpretation, metadramatic modes and structures have been understood in various ways, but a dominant perspective has been that the primary impetus for the use of metadramatic forms is artistic experimentation. Sometimes this facility for dramatic experiment has been offered as evidence of the superiority of one artist over another. Another recurring suggestion is that authors are using metadrama to explore the relationship of drama with ‘truth’ or ‘illusion’, perhaps with reference to the workings of what are described as ‘levels of illusion’.