Canst thou know grief, and never yet knew'st love?

Many critics of early modern drama have taken an interest in weeping or crying in plays of this period. Semioticians, in particular, look at how the action of weeping comes to represent an absolute failure of language, with tears substituting for words as signifiers of meaning. Often this failure of language is couched in gender terms: crying is a womanish gesture, even if the character weeping is a man. In this context, I am curious as to why Philaster, in particular, is so concerned with tears and weeping? The idea of crying – either in figurative language, as a threat, or through literal action – is woven throughout the play, coming from several characters – Eufiasia (disguised as the male Bellario), Arethusa, and (quite often) Philaster. Or, since our class has taken an interest in explicating the genre identities of these plays: What is the function of tears in a comedy like Philaster?