Place and space theory has now been applied widely throughout early modern studies to unlock such diverse areas as embodiment, cultural geography, poetry, performance, and politics. Its theoretical application across the disciplines of history, history of art, theater studies, English literature, and geography demonstrates the interdisciplinary potential of the “spatial turn.” 1 At the heart of place and space theory—evident from its genesis in the works of Gaston Bachelard and Yi-Fu Tuan through to its most recent concern with placelessness in the digital age—is an assumption that space is an empty container, while place is a locale. Space is thus normatively constructed as amorphous, changeable, and malleable, while place is seen as fixed, bounded, or nameable. As Tuan puts it,“What begins as undifferentiated space becomes place as we get to know it better and endow it with value”(6). Tim Cresswell points out that the usual distinction between place and space is reversed, however, in Michel de Certeau’s influential work, The Practice of Everyday Life, in which he construes the place of the city turned into space through the tactical maneuvers of its inhabitants. As Cresswell writes,“To de Certeau place is the empty grid over which practice occurs while space is what is created by practice…. Practice is thus a tactical art that plays with the structures of place that are provided”(38–39). However place and space are conceptualized, the way in which practice contributes to their definition is fundamental. As Allan Pred has argued, place must be used by social actors in order to attain meaning and so exists in a continual mode of becoming:“Place is what takes place ceaselessly, what contributes to history in a specific context through the creation and utilization of a physical setting”(279). Performance theorists such as Mike Pearson and cultural geographers such as Tim Ingold unite