Abstract

‘All the world doth practise stage-playing’.1 The reminder comes from Montaigne, whose Essays (in the Florio translation of 1603) the Jacobeans so admired and quarried for their treasures. Montaigne in turn is borrowing from Petronius or other classical writers; the insight is hardly new. Critics have shown how enterprisingly Renaissance drafriatists use this theatrum mundi metaphor to point up connections between play world and real world, with men and women adopting roles in life as actors do on stage.2 They have paid less attention, however, to ways in which Jacobean tragedy explores the existential and psychological consequences of adopting fresh personae — put simply, what happens to dramatic characters when they engage in role-playing.

Keywords

Coherence Assure Posit Sine Ghost 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    ‘How One Ought to Governe His Will’, Montaigne’s Essays, trans. John Florio (1603), introd. L. C. Harmer (London, 1965) vol. Ill, ch. x, p. 262. All subsequent references to Florio’s Montaigne are to this edition. Totus mundus agit histrionem’ (a variation of Montaigne’s ‘Mundus universus exercet histrioniam’) is thought to have been the sign of the first Globe Theatre (1599); see Richard Dutton, ‘Hamlet, An Apology for Actors, and the Sign of the Globe’, ShS, XLI (1989) pp. 35–43.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Some of the critics who have explored the metaphor, its origins and implications, are Ernst Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, trans. Willard R. Trask (New York, 1953; 1963) pp. 138–44; Ann Righter, Shakespeare and the Idea of the Play (London, 1962) pp. 59–62; Herbert Weisinger, ‘Theatrum Mundi: Illusion as Reality’, in The Agony and the Triumph (East Lansing, Mich., 1964) pp. 58–70; Thomas B. Stroup, The World as Stage’, in Microcosmos: The Shape of the Elizabethan Play (Lexington, Ky., 1965) pp. 7– 36; Jackson I. Cope, The Theater and the Dream (Baltimore, 1973) pp. 1–13; and Kent T. van den Berg, Playhouse and Cosmos: Shakespearean Theater as Metaphor (Newark, London, and Toronto, 1985). Curtius argues that the Totus mundus agit histrionem’ idea was revived in the twelfth century by John of Salisbury (p. 139).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Richard Flecknoe, A Short Discourse of the English Stage (1664), quoted in E. K. Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage, vol. IV (Oxford, 1923) p. 370.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Protean Self (New York, 1974) p. 22. Writing as a sociologist, Elizabeth Burns, in Theatricality (London, 1972), comments that ‘It is only gradually that we come to realise the extent to which the role can impose itself upon the “self” which plays it’ (p. 126).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Richard Hornby, ‘Role Playing within the Role’, in Drama, Metadrama, and Perception (London and Toronto, 1986), discerns a similar process: ‘When a playwright depicts a character who is himself playing a role, there is often the suggestion that, ironically, the role is closer to the character’s true self than his everyday, “real” personality’ (p. 67).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The terms are from Maynard Mack’s illuminating ‘Engagement and Detachment in Shakespeare’s Plays’, in Richard Hosley (ed.), Essays on Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama (Columbia, Mo., 1962) pp. 275–96.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    James L. Calderwood, whose Shakespearean Metadrama (Minneapolis, Minn., 1971) has been seminal in pointing out metadramatic concerns, defines the dominant Shakespearean theme as ‘dramatic art itself — its materials, its media of language and theater, its generic forms and conventions, its relationship to truth and the social order’ (p. 5). Other significant studies in this area are Robert Egan, Drama within Drama (New York, 1975); Alvin Kernan, The Playwright as Magician (New Haven and London, 1979); Louis Adrian Montrose, The Purpose of Playing: Reflections on a Shakespearean Anthropology’, Helios, n.s. VII (1980) pp. 51–74; Eileen Jorge Allman, Player-King and Adversary: Two Faces of Play in Shakespeare (Baton Rouge and London, 1980); Sidney Homan, When the Theater Turns to Itself (London and Toronto, 1981); Michael Shapiro, ‘Role-Playing, Reflexivity, and Metadrama in Recent Shakespearean Criticism’, RenD, n.s. XII (1981) pp. 145–61; and Richard Hornby, op. cit.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eugene Paul Nassar, ‘Shakespeare’s Games with His Audience’, in The Rape of Cinderella (Bloomington and London, 1966) pp. 101–19, discusses how the actors in Shakespeare’s plays can ‘deliver lines that modulate between involvement in the core illusion and detached meditation on it’ (p. 101). Robert Weimann, Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition (Baltimore and London, 1978), also shows the importance of ‘Figurenposition’: whether the character gives a mimetic presentation on the locus or stays forward on the platea, in a more frankly theatrical mode ‘modifying’ and ‘criticizing’ the dramatic illusion (p. 278).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    John Webster, The White Devil, John Russell Brown (ed.) (London, 1960).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    John Webster, The Duchess of Malfi, John Russell Brown, (ed.) (London, 1964).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition (London, 1944) p. 81.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    John Greenwood, Shifting Perspectives and the Stylish Style: Mannerism in Shakespeare and His Jacobean Contemporaries (Toronto, Buffalo, and London, 1988), offers helpful analysis of these techniques.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    David Farley-Hills, Jacobean Drama: A Critical Study of the Professional Drama, 1600–25 (New York, 1988), notes that ‘the boys’ theatres favour a detached relationship between the audience and the character’ whereas ‘the adult companies tend to affective theatre, in which the audience is encouraged to share in the feelings of the characters’ (p. 6). For more analysis of how the boys’ style of acting might favour burlesque and alienation, see R. A. Foakes, ‘John Marston’s Fantastical Plays: Antonio and Mellida and Antonio’s Revenge’, PQ, XLI (1962) pp. 222–39, countered by Michael Shapiro, Children of the Revels: The Boy Companies of Shakespeare’s Time and Their Plays (New York, 1977), who argues that the boys’ troupes favoured a broad combination of natural, declamatory and parodic styles (pp. 103–38).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    The Selected Plays of John Marston, Macdonald P. Jackson and Michael Neill (eds) (Cambridge, 1986). Apart from The Malcontent, all subsequent references to Marston’s plays are to this edition.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    See Ronald Huebert, John Ford: Baroque English Dramatist (Montreal and London, 1977).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jacobean Private Theatre (London and New York, 1987) p. 60.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Selected Essays (New York, 1950) p. 97.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    This is the conclusion of Daniel Seltzer, ‘The Actors and the Acting’, in Kenneth Muir and S. Schoenbaum (eds), A New Companion to Shakespeare Studies (Cambridge, 1971) pp. 35–54, p. 37.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Andrew Gurr, The Shakespearean Stage, 1574–1642 (Cambridge, 1970), points to the term ‘personation’, first recorded in 1599–1600, and argues that ‘By 1600 characterisation was the chief requisite of the successful actor’ (p. 74).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    In A New Mimesis: Shakespeare and the Representation of Reality (London and New York, 1983), A. D. Nuttall tackles the proposition, taken from the structuralist critic Todorov, that ‘Verisimilitude is the mask in which the laws of the text are dressed up’ and goes on to defend ‘the new mimesis’ as ‘the reconciliation of form with veridical or probable representation’ (p. 181).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shakespeare: Seven Tragedies: The Dramatist’s Manipulation of Response (New York, 1976) p. 4. Madeleine Doran, Endeavors of Art: A Study of Form in Elizabethan Drama (Madison, Wis., 1964), also comments that ‘Although theories of character, the doctrine of decorum, rhetorical training, and classical models tended to stress the typical in character, Elizabethan dramatists, for whatever reasons of creatiye vitality, were not inhibited by these influences’ (p. 256).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Drama, Stage and Audience (Cambridge, 1975) p. 147.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Radical Tragedy: Religion, Ideology and Power in the Drama of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries (Sussex, 1984) p. 176, p. 179. This is also the approach of Catherine Belsey, The Subject of Tragedy: Identity and Difference in Renaissance Drama (New York and London, 1985).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jean—Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, trans. Hazel E. Barnes (New York, 1965) p. 417.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Michael Goldman, The Actor’s Freedom (New York, 1985) p. 157. Goldman finds intrinsic to the theatre the quest to ‘possess genuine identity, to achieve a free and unbewildered clarity of being, to define oneself through action’ (pp. 156–7), and of course the living actor is a vehicle for transmitting the energies of this dramatic quest. (Peter Holland, ‘The Resources of Characterization in Othello’, ShS, XLI [1989], pp. 119–32, also stresses that ‘coherence of character is marked by the … unity of the physical existence of the actor’, p. 122). Like Goldman, Montrose finds that Shakespeare’s theatre explores ‘the complex, adaptive, or inquiring self, created and discovered in performance’ (op. cit., p. 66), while van den Berg explores the theatre metaphor as a model of ‘the process of individuation’ (op. cit., p. 12). Similarly, James P. Driscoll (a Jungian critic) stresses the importance of self-discovery through conscious role-playing, for which theatre provides a paradigm: ‘Truly, we become real persons, that is, attain fully individuated human consciousness, only when our imaginations are educated to grasp consciously the roles we play and the stage upon which we perform’ (Identity in Shakespearean Drama (Lewisburg and London, 1983) p. 183).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ‘Deciphering ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore’, in Michael Neill (ed.), John Ford: Critical Re—visions (Cambridge, 1988) p. 166. See also Thomas C. Heller, Morton Sosna, and David E. Wellberg (eds), Reconstructing Individualism: Autonomy, Individuality, and the Self in Western Thought (Stanford, Ca., 1986).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. C. Bradbrook, ‘Shakespeare and the Use of Drama in Elizabethan Drama’, EIC, II (1952) pp. 159–68, offers the insight that a character ‘could be really changed by the assumption of a disguise’ (p. 166).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    See, for example, M. Hollis, ‘The Man and the Mask: A Discussion of Role Theory’, in J. A. Jackson (ed.), Role (London, 1972).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York, 1959; Harmondsworth, 1971) p. 245.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    George H. Mead, Mind, Self, and Society, Charles W. Morris (ed.) (Chicago, 1934), was one of the first sociologists to discuss the formation of the self in relation to the generalised ‘other’ (p. xxi). More recently, Terry Eagleton, William Shakespeare (Oxford, 1986), observes that ‘Social relations are not simply the medium within which an individual may choose to express his already well—formed identity, but the very discourse which constitutes that self’ (p. 61).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Encounters (Indianapolis, Ind., 1961) pp. 85–152, p. 152.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Theatricality, p. 137.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Role-Playing in Shakespeare (Toronto, 1978) pp. 40–42.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    ‘Character and Role from Richard III to Hamlet’, in J. C. Maxwell (ed.), Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama (New York, 1974) p. 34. In a helpful chapter on ‘Common Elements’ in English Renaissance Tragedy (Vancouver, 1986), T. McAlindon, too, notes the dramatists’ ‘recognition of the multiple forces which threaten the integrity of the individual’ and how the tragic predicament often lies in the character’s ‘having to exchange a role which harmonises with the conditions of his nature for another or others which do not’ (pp. 47–8).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    G. K. Hunter, ‘The Beginnings of Elizabethan Drama: Revolution and Continuity’, RenD n. s. XVII (1986) pp. 29–52, also points out the ‘unique centrality of individual consciousness’ fostered by church Reformists and subsequently reflected in the drama (p. 37).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Basilikon Doron, in C. H. Mcllwain (ed.), Political Works of James I (Cambridge, Mass., 1918) p. 43. Van Laan expands on this in his discussion of the fourth type of role, ‘that which a character possesses by virtue of his position in a social structure’ (Role-Playing in Shakespeare, pp. 11–19).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    See Chapter V, The Language of Ceremony’, in David Bevington, Action Is Eloquence (Cambridge, Mass., 1984), for a fuller account of this. Two critics (in the tradition of New Historicism) who analyse the relationship between dramatic spectacle and social authority are Leonard Tennenhouse, Power on Display (New York and London, 1986) and Stephen Mullaney, The Place of the Stage (Chicago and London, 1988).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    This is the second type of role Van Laan outlines (Role-Playing in Shakespeare, p. 9).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    For an analysis of the historical circumstances that produced this, see Lawrence Stone, The Causes of the English Revolution, 1529–1642 (London, 1972).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    The phrase comes from vagrancy Acts of the period. For a detailed account, see A. L. Beier, Masterless Men: The Vagrancy Problem in England, 1560–1640 (London and New York, 1985).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    The Selected Plays of Philip Massinger, Colin Gibson (ed.) (Cambridge, 1978). All subsequent references to Massinger’s plays are to this edition.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Thomas Middleton, Michaelmas Term, Richard Levin (ed.) (London, 1967).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Renaissance Self—Fashioning (Chicago and London, 1980) p. 3. Greenblatt also stresses that ‘Self—fashioning is achieved in relation to something perceived as alien, strange, or hostile’, a ‘threatening Other’ (p. 9).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Charles R. Forker discusses this in The Skull beneath the Skin: The Achievement of John Webster (Carbondale and Edwardsville, 1986), noting that at the Jacobean court ‘a concern with the encroachment of the mask and face upon each other was probably inevitable’ (p. 346). In Ambition and Privilege: The Social Tropes of Elizabethan Courtesy Theory (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1984), Frank Whigham nicely captures the combination of enterprise, defensiveness and entrenchment at court, which was ‘simultaneously an arena of conflict and a mart of opportunity as well as a radiant center of order’ (p. x).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    ‘Elizabethan Dramatic Conventions and Elizabethan Reality’, RenD, n.s. XII (1981) pp. 27–49, 41. Stephen Greenblatt, ‘Psychoanalysis and Renaissance Culture’, in Patricia Parker and David Quint (eds), Literary Theory/Renaissance Texts (Baltimore and London, 1986), also stresses the ‘social fabrication of identity’ in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries rather than a selfhood determined by ‘psychic experience’ (pp. 210–24, 223).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Critics have examined both these areas of interest (and the difficulty of separating them) in Montaigne’s Essays. Richard L. Regosin, The Matter of My Self: Montaigne’s ‘Essais’ as The Book of the Self (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1977), discusses the first area; Timothy J. Reiss, ‘Montaigne and the Subject of Polity’, in Literary Theory/Renaissance Texts, focuses on the ‘social and political subject’ in the Essays (op. cit., pp. 115–49, 117.)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    The Book of the Courtier, trans. Thomas Hoby (1561), Drayton Henderson (ed.) (London, 1905) p. 105.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Thomas Greene, ‘The Self in Renaissance Literature’, in Peter Demetz, Thomas Greene and Lowry Nelson, Jr. (eds), The Disciplines of Criticism (New Haven, Conn., 1968) pp. 241–64, gives a helpful overview of many of these writings. Jonas Barish also explores Renaissance attitudes to man as an actor in ‘Puritans and Proteans’, The Antitheatrical Prejudice (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1981) pp. 80–131.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Trans. Elizabeth Livermore Forbes, in Ernst Cassirer, Paul Oskar Kristeller and John Herman Randall, Jr. (eds), The Renaissance Philosophy of Man (Chicago, 1967) pp. 223–54, 225.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Trans. Nancy Lenkeith, in The Renaissance Philosophy of Man, pp. 387–93, 388–9.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Stephen Greenblatt, Sir Walter Ralegh: The Renaissance Man and His Roles (New Haven, Conn., 1973), also notes the implication in Vives that ‘miming is superfluous and even disreputable’ (p. 33).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    It is the tension that Arthur O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being (Harvard, 1936; rpt. New York, 1960), finds between medieval views on God’s nature: ‘The one was an apotheosis of unity, self-sufficiency and quietude, the other of diversity, self—transcendence and fecundity’ (pp. 82–3).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Thomas Greene argues that by the later sixteenth century the humanist belief in ‘the capacity of the self for fashioning’ had eroded and that Montaigne’s work reflects this; in his Essays ‘the renewed circumscription of human potentialities is attended with a growing acceptance of limitation’ (op. cit., pp. 256, 260).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Precise influence is often hard to pinpoint, but it is clear that Marston borrows extensively from Florio’s Montaigne in The Fawn (1604) and The Dutch Courtesan (1605). Webster’s debts to Montaigne are covered in R. W. Dent, John Webster’s Borrowing (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1960) and Richard Bodtke, Tragedy and the Jacobean Temper: The Major Plays of John Webster (Salzburg, 1972). Shakespeare’s most obvious borrowing (from ‘Of the Cannibals’, Essays, vol. I, ch. xxx) is Gonzalo’s speech on the ‘commonwealth’ in The Tempest (II. i. 148–69).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Vol. III, ch. ii, ‘Of Repenting’, p. 23.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Op. cit., p. 225.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Op. cit., p. 112.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Histriomastix (1633), sig. X4, quoted in Barish, p. 92. Jean E. Howard, ‘Renaissance Antitheatricality and the Politics of Gender and Rank in Much Ado about Nothing’, in Jean E. Howard and Marion F. O’Connor (eds), Shakespeare Reproduced: The Text in History and Ideology (New York and London, 1987) pp. 163–87, cogently discusses the ideological interests vested in such tracts.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Timber, or Discoveries, in C. H. Herford and P. Simpson (eds), Ben Jonson, vol. VIII (Oxford, 1947) p. 597.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Philosophers and behavioural psychologists recognise, too, that role-playing can have favourable results. In Beyond Good and Evil, trans. Walter Kaufman (New York, 1966), Nietzsche remarks that a ‘great man’ is ‘only the actor of his own ideal’ (Pt. 4, p. 83). Bruce Wilshire, Role Playing and Identity (Bloomington, Ind., 1982), comments on how ‘a person falls into a pose, say, of being brave; it is accepted by others as reality; it soon becomes the reality — that is, the person is enabled by others’ belief in his bravery to do brave deeds’ (p. 252).Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Essays (1625), Oliphant Smeaton (ed.) (London, 1906) p. 3.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ben Jonson, vol. VII (Oxford, 1941) pp. 301–2. The original spelling has been modernised.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Stephen Orgel, ‘The Masque’, in Christopher Ricks (ed.), English Drama to 1710, Sphere History of English Drama, vol. III (London, 1971) pp. 354–67, 355. In The Illusion of Power (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1975), Orgel further discusses the ideological implications of the masque.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bevington, Action Is Eloquence, discusses how in romantic comedy ‘Unmasking restores … true identity and … proper role’, leading to an affirmation and acceptance of self’ (pp. 62–4). Van Laan also points out how identity loss in Shakespeare’s comedies is a ‘crucial and necessary stage in the process of full self—discovery’, whereas in his tragedies it is the ‘end result of a destructive process that carries its victim into the void’ (Role-Playing in Shakespeare, p. 224).Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Linda Bamber, Comic Women, Tragic Men: A Study of Gender and Genre in Shakespeare (Stanford, Ca., 1982) p. 41.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    The debate continues on precisely what the effects of this convention were. Juliet Dusinberre, Shakespeare and the Nature of Women (London and Basingstoke, 1975), argues that it allowed Shakespeare ‘to explore … the nature of women untrammeled by the custom of femininity’ (p. 271); Linda Woodbridge, Women in the English Renaissance: Literature and the Nature of Womankind, 1580–1620 (Urbana and Chicago, 1984), considers that ‘Transvestite disguise in Shakespeare does not blur the distinction between the sexes but heightens it’. I agree with the analysis of Phyllis Rackin, ‘Androgyny, Mimesis, and the Marriage of the Boy Heroine on the English Renaissance Stage’, PMLA, CII (January 1987) pp. 29–41, on how Shakespeare ‘joins masculine and feminine qualities in the androgynous figures of his boy heroines’ (p. 37). See also James L. Calderwood, Shakespeare and the Denial of Death (Amherst, Mass., 1987), p. 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Memoirs, Denis Donoghue (ed.) (New York, 1973) p. 191.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    The Comic Matrix of Shakespeare’s Tragedies (Princeton, N. J, 1979) pp. 47, 24.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    George Chapman, Bussy D’Ambois, Maurice Evans (ed.), The New Mermaids (London, 1965). For a reading of the play that emphasises Bussy’s ‘delusion of a mythic self’, see Deborah Montuori, ‘The Confusion of Self and Role in Chapman’s Bussy D’Ambois’, SEL, XXVIII (1988) pp. 287–99, 297.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Huston Diehl, ‘Iconography and Characterization in English Tragedy, 1585- 1642’, CompD, XII:2 (Spring, 1978) 113–22, points out how at the end of Women Beware Women characters assume ‘allegorical roles which ironically reveal their true nature’ (p. 117).Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Shakespeare’s Jacobean tragedies obviously break away from this pattern. Although each hero at some phase in the action becomes what Maynard Mack calls an ‘antithesis’ of his noble self, he does (with the possible exception of Macbeth) regain this self by the end of the play. (Maynard Mack, ‘The Jacobean Shakespeare’, in J. Russell Brown and Bernard Harris (eds), Jacobean Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon Studies I (London, 1960) pp. 11–41, 34.)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    ‘Identity and Acting in Elizabethan Tragedy’, RenD, n. s. XV (1984) pp. 93–114, 102–3.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Richard Flecknoe, op. cit., p. 370.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    J. Leeds, Alexander Leggatt, Richard Hosley and Kernan Keman (eds), The Revels History of Drama in English, vol. III, 1576–1613 (London, 1975) p. 247. In The Idea of the Actor (Princeton, NJ, 1984), William B. Worthen provides helpful discussion of how the stage player, with his built-in duplicity, focuses these concerns: ‘the Renaissance actor mirrors both his audience’s attraction to creative feigning and its anxious regard for the deception of histrionic imitation’ (p. 67).Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    John Ford, Perkin Warbeck, Peter Ure (ed.), The Revels Plays (London, 1968). All subsequent references are to this edition.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Joan Lord Hall 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joan Lord Hall
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations