Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Legal play : the literary culture of the Inns of Court, 1572-1634 Whitted, Brent Edward 1999

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1999-464466.pdf [ 14.23MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0099459.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099459-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099459-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099459-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099459-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099459-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099459-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

LEGAL PLAY: THE LITERARY CULTURE OF THE INNS OF COURT, 1572 - 1634 by BRENT EDWARD WHETTED B.A. Baylor University, 1993 M.A. University of Durham, 1995  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of English  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1999 © Brent Whitted, 1999  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives.  It is understood that copying or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  j\S l/\  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  11  ABSTRACT  This thesis examines the social politics of literary production at London's Inns of Court from 1572 to 1634. Pierre Bourdieu's concepts of cultural production are widened beyond his own French academic context so that the Inns may be located as institutions central to the formation of literary and, in particular, dramatic culture in early modern London. A significant part of Bourdieu's research has concerned the establishment of a foundation for a sociological analysis of literary works. The literary field, Bourdieu argues, is but one of many possible fields of cultural production—social networks of struggle over valued economic, cultural, scientific, or religious resources. As a historically constituted arena of activity with its own specific institutions, rules, and capital, the juridical field of early modern London was a competitive market in which legal agents struggled for the power to determine the law. Within this field, the Inns of Court served as unchartered law schools in which the valuable cultural currency of the common law was transmitted to the resident students, whose association with this currency was crucial for their pursuit of social prestige. Focusing on the four Inns of Court as central institutions in the juridical field and their relationship with the larger political and economic forces of London, that is, the field of power, the thesis demonstrates how the literary art associated with these institutions relates to the students' struggle for social legitimation, particularly in their interaction with the City and the Crown. By demonstrating how the structures of literary texts reflect the structures of the relationship between the Inns and other centers of urban power, this analysis examines the pivotal role(s) played by law students in the development of London's literary culture.  CONTENTS Abstract  page ii  Contents  iii  Table of Figures  v  Acknowledgments  vi  Preface  1  1 "A New Social Topography of London's Juridical Field  13  The juridical field, its agents and capital, and the field of power  14  The rules of the game  31  The habitus of a law student  36  2 Recognizing the Convertibility of Legal Capital Transforming the (common)place Edward Coke's reading on fines Francis Beaumont's Grammar Lecture William Browne's Ulysses and Circe Maintaining autonomy through symbolic violence The making(s) of Gesta Grayorum 3 Staging Exchange: the Inns and the Blackfriars Playhouse "Certaine Observations"  48 52 52 58 63 72 74  87 94  George Chapman, Ben Jonson, and John Marston's Eastward Ho  100  Thomas Middleton's A Trick to Catch the Old One  114  Francis Beaumont's The Knight of the Burning Pestle  120  iv 4 Converting Capital: the Crown, the Inns, and the City, 1633-34 Positions King Charles and Queen Henrietta Maria William Prynne The "younger sort" of lawyers The Lord Mayor Position-takings William Prynne's Histriomastix James Shirley's Triumph of Peace The politics of gift-giving King Charles, the Corporation of London, and the lawyers Francis Lenton  129 134 134 136 140 145 147 149 153 159 160 166  Figures 1-9  171  Bibliography  180  V  T A B L E O F FIGURES  171  Detail from engraving in Michael Drayton's Poly-Olbion (1622 ed.) Courtesy Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library  172  The legal quarter c.1563, detail from Ralph Agas's engraving of London From Six Lectures on. the Inns of Court and of Chancery, W. B. Odgers, ed., p. 278  The legal quarter c.1570, detail from Ralph Agas's engraving of London  173  From J. H . Baker's The Legal Profession and the Common Law, p. 44  The City of Westminster, detail from Ralph Agas's engraving of London  174  From Ian Wilson's Shakespeare: The Evidence, plate 6  Michal Kobialka's drawing of Gray's Inn Hall  175  BromTheatre History Studies 4 (1984): 74  Lawyer at client's deathbed, painting dated 1607  176  From Ian Wilson's Shakespeare: The Evidence, plate 48  The Forum of Peace, by Inigo lones  177  From A Book.of Masques, R. F. Hill, ed., plate 17  The proscenium border of Triumph of Peace; by Inigo lones YromA  178  Book of Masques, R. F. Hill, ed., plate 15  Imaginative reconstruction of the Blackfriars Playhouse From Irwin Smith's Shakespeare's Blackfriars Playhouse, p. 307  179  In memory of Lola Beth Ferguson and Anna Doretta Gamboe  I wish to thank:  Edward, Dora, Craig, and Becky Whitted for their support, Gretchen Minton for her devotion, Paul Yachnin, Paul Stanwood, and Patricia Badir for their guidance, Mark Vessey for his encouragement and inspiration, Bill Gaines for his wisdom and advice, Kate Collie for her humor and patience, Jennifer Raguz for her wit and energy, Gudrun Dreher for her style and aesthetic sense, and Green College for its culture.  1 PREFACE  I was aware from the outset that my task involved not simply telling the truth of this world, as can be uncovered by objectivist methods of observation, but also showing that this world is the site of an ongoing struggle to tell the truth of this world. —Pierre Bourdieu, In Other Words, 35.  When John Donne was admitted to Lincoln's Inn on 6 May 1592, he was twenty years old. For around two-and-a-half years, he studied the common law, then left his legal studies for voyages to Italy and Spain. While he was at the Inns, Donne apparently wrote his five Satires, each of which targets a particular object of his contempt. In Satire II, Donne concentrates on the people he encounters in his legal community. The worst of these, he claims, are lawyers who believe their poetry is original: . . . hee is worst, who (beggarly) doth chaw Other wits fruits, and in his ravenous maw Rankly digested, doth those things out-spue, As his owne things; and they are his owne, 'tis true, For if one eate my meate, though it be knowne The meate was mine, th'excrement is his owne.  (1.25-30)  Donne isolates one lawyer in particular, Coscus, and castigates his new habit of using the power of the law for seductive purposes, a habit that Donne believes is a shameful crime: . . . the insolence Of Coscus onely breeds my just offence, Whom time (which rots all, and makes botches poxe, And plodding on, must make a calfe an oxe) Hath made a Lawyer, which was (alas) of late But scarce a Poet; jollier of this state,  2 Then are new benefic'd ministers, he throwes Like nets, or lime-twigs, wheresoever he goes, His title of Barrister, on every wench, And wooes in language of the Pleas, and Bench  (1.39-48)  1  Donne is irritated that lawyers such as Coscus pretentiously use their association with the Inns (and the prestige of the common law) to fashion themselves as members of the cultural elite when in fact, "men which chuse / Law practice for meere gaine . . . repute / Worse then imbrothel'd strumpets prostitute" (1.62-64). Donne maintains that while lawyers like Coscus rely on the culture of the Inns as the source of personal prestige, "amateur gentlemen" at the Inns (like himself) seek connections with the court and are offended by the successful "self-interested diligence" of their professional colleagues (Corthell 28) .  2  Geoffrey Bullough suggests that Satire II mocks the anonymous author of Zepheria (1594), a lyric sequence consisting of forty canzons (61). Margaret R. Christian of Pennsylvania State University, Lehigh Valley, is completing an edition of Zepheria i n w h i c h she elucidates the poems' use of legal imagery as a poetic device that d r a w s attention t o the self-deceptive nature of romantic love. I n the sequence, the lover A m p h i o n fantasizes about the various illegal maneuvers whereby he could violate the letter of h u m a n legal codes that w o u l d govern his pursuit of Zepheria. Ronald Corthell observes that while Donne resided at Lincoln's Inn, legal and courtly studies were "causing an increasingly sharp d i v i s i o n between the serious l a w students, o n the one hand, and the students of civility, . . . the 'gentlemen' [ w h o ] were especially anxious to cultivate courtly postures and activities that w o u l d set them apart from the lawyers and l a w students w i t h w h o m they were associated and whose social status was not high. A s a coterie of wits Donne and his circle were defining themselves by opposition to a professional group w h i c h , as 'Satire IF makes clear, Donne regarded as a threat to h i m s e l f a n d to the traditional order of society" (25). I n Donne's eyes, this order consisted of the men w i t h w h o m Donne was competing for t h e attention of the court; the "extravagant w i t and manners" exhibited by Donne's circle were "manipulations of the courtly codes, linguistic and behavioral, w h i c h they w o u l d have to master i n order to enter the Elizabethan system of preferment and privilege" (Corthell 26). The prospect of gaining the attention of the court was an extremely competitive one, and Donne's Satires illustrates the simultaneous impulses of devotion a n d d i s d a i n that he felt towards a desirable institution whose rules of entry were inexplicit and largely based on one's social connections. "Except for the select few w i t h influential relatives," R. M a l c o l m Smuts observes, "entry into the court almost always required a long and expensive apprenticeship, spent cultivating the favor of the great and haunting the antechambers of Whitehall, w i t h no guarantee of ultimate success" (56). A l f r e d Harbage claims that one cannot read the Satires w i t h o u t sensing that Donne is "tasting the society a n d perhaps the pleasures of  3 After his journeys on the Continent and his ordination, Donne returned to Lincoln's Inn in October 1616 as its divinity reader, a post he filled until he was appointed dean of St. Paul's Cathedral in February 1621. Both as reader and dean, Donne finally acquired a position and language of authority, which allowed him to acknowledge the power of the common law and its role in his establishment of a successful career in the church. Geoffrey Bullough observes that the "twenty-five surviving sermons which we know or suppose were given at Lincoln's Inn show Donne's awareness of that particular congregation. Flis prodigal youth was well known there, so he occasionally refers to it, as when he declares that 'their sin, that shall sinne by occasion of any wanton writings of mine, will be my sin, though they come after'" (qtd. in Bullough 76). Donne's Lincoln's Inn sermons offer carefully constructed antidotes to the subversive writings of his youth, when his "hat[red]" for "all this towne" (Satire II, 1.1-2) masked his real envy of Coscus's unapologetic ability to play the "game of advancement" according to the clear rules of professional success rather than the mysterious rules of courtship (Corthell 29). Donne uses the authority of his position as a preacher in the Temple Church in order to encourage the law students' professional ambitions, citing the law as a worthwhile, demanding pursuit. The ability to make this judgment about the legal profession—to have the authority to claim what is worthwhile and to have this authority respected— appears to have been a significant goal throughout his life. As a law student of the lowest rank, he was frustrated that his "words none drawes / Within the vast reach of th'huge statute lawes" (Satire II, 1.111-12). As a successful churchman, his words finally carry the power he desires. [London's leisure class] w i t h a consequent revulsion of feeling. A n audience of Donne might seem good enough for anyone, but we may guess that i n and about the Inns of Court were many who shared Donne's mood" (53-54).  4 This brief assessment of Donne, his institutional affiliations, and the different kinds of authority associated with the various positions he held is inspired by Pierre Bourdieu's interpretive model for understanding the correlation between culture and social class. According to Bourdieu, cultural "resources"—such as "verbal facility, general cultural awareness, aesthetic preferences, scientific knowledge, and educational credentials" (Swartz 43)— serve as "markers of underlying class distinctions" (143). As a court-aspiring 3  law student, for example, Donne was keenly aware of how his accumulating knowledge of 'high' court culture should set him apart from Coscus's 'lower' pursuit of credentially-based prestige. "When cultural producers pursue their own specific interests in fields," as David Swartz explains in his book on Bourdieu, "they unwittingly produce homologous effects in the social class structure" (134). Bourdieu's model of this relationship is based on the idea that social space contains afield of power composed of institutions and agents that indirectly exert political and economic forces on fields of production,  cultural  which are relatively independent social networks that operate  according to their own rules and value-systems. Each of these fields (literary, 4  Swartz observes that this view distinguishes Bourdieu f r o m "many contemporary postmodern voices w h o stress the uncertain, contingent, and socially diverse character of cultural life" (143). Bourdieu's science is composed of i n d i v i d u a l fields—each distinct yet linked to one another, and each corresponding to a specific level of social reality: the field of cultural production, the field of power, and the field of social space. Afield, as Bourdieu uses the term, is "a separate social universe h a v i n g its o w n laws o f f u n c t i o n i n g " (1993: 162-63). "Laws o f functioning" are rules or value systems that are unique to specific institutions, disciplines, or art forms. A n academic department, f o r example, regards itself as h a v i n g a special knowledge about h o w its discipline should be taught and arranged. The art of w r i t i n g has its o w n rules, which one must follow i n order to succeed as a writer. I n a f i e l d , artists of all kinds compete for the ability to determine the rules of cultural production. Bourdieu's concept of field "reflects the metatheoretical dimension of [his] thought. Bourdieu sees it as an 'open concept' designed to counteract the various forms of subjectivism and objectivism he criticizes i n other prevailing ways of conceptualizing the relationship between social and cultural structures and practices" (Swartz 119). There can be many kinds of cultural fields, i n c l u d i n g those of philosophical, scientific, literary, and j u r i d i c a l production. These distinct fields exist as the direct result of "the  5  juridical, scientific, religious, civic, among others) has its own properties and its own object of interest (capital) for which its members compete, such as literary prestige, the authority to interpret the law, a reputation as an expert scientist, and the power to determine public policy. Like any other 5  institution in a cultural field, the Inns gain in their capacity to manage the progressive invention of a particular social game" that governs each f i e l d ; the invention of this game is inseparable from the invention of the artist or scientist and is entirely dependent on the relative autonomy of the field (measured by the exclusivity of its rules and terms of entry) w i t h i n the field of power. Fields of economic and political power are commodity markets f o r m e d t h r o u g h "relations of force between agents or between i n s t i t u t i o n s [governments, patrons, kings] having i n common the possession of the capital necessary to occupy the dominant positions i n different fields (notably economic or cultural)" (1992: 215). The rules that direct the field of power are political and economic. These rules affect those that operate i n the field of cultural production, so the autonomy of cultural fields is only r e l a t i v e — i t is never absolute: I n spite of its autonomy, the realm of culture remains subordinate to the economy. Bourdieu considers that 'economic capital is at the root of a l l the other types of capital,' such as cultural capital, social capital, and symbolic capital, and that there are i n fact 'transformed, disguised forms of economic capital.' It is after a l l economic capital that makes possible the investment i n cultural capital by making possible the investment i n time needed to accumulate cultural capital. Economic structures shape decisively cultural arenas though Bourdieu seldom sees that causal connection as direct. (Swartz 80) Bourdieu emphasizes that "to think i n terms of field is to t h i n k relationally" (Swartz 119); "as a spatial metaphor," Swartz explains, the concept of a field "suggests rank and hierarchy as w e l l as exchange relations between buyers and sellers. Interactions among actors w i t h i n fields are shaped by their relative location i n the hierarchy of positions" (120). A field is simultaneously a site of resistance and domination, "one being relationally linked to the other" (121). Swartz describes fields as "arenas of struggle for control over valued resources" (122). These resources exist as "particular forms of capital: economic, cultural, scientific, or religious. . . There are . . . as many fields as there are forms of capital" (122-23). Economic capital, of course, pertains to money. C u l t u r a l capital can be embodied (as a sensitivity to c u l t u r a l distinctions one accumulates through the "pedagogical action" of one's f a m i l y ) , objectified (books, w o r k s of art, and scientific instruments that require specialized cultural abilities to use), or institutionalized (the educational credential system) (76). Social capital refers to one's social rank. Cultural and social capital are forms of symbolic capital, w h i c h is defined by social prestige and recognition. Bourdieu recognizes a "broader range of types of labor . . . that constitute p o w e r resources" than Marx acknowledges i n his "dynamic of p r i m i t i v e accumulation" (Swartz 75). Bourdieu's significant contribution beyond Marx is his notion that "culture ( i n the broadest sense of the term) can become a power resource," and w i t h varying degrees of difficulty, and "under certain conditions and at certain times" (75), i t is possible to convert one f o r m of capital into another. Craig C a l h o u n observes that " [ i ] t is this n o t i o n of m u l t i f o r m , convertible capital that underpins [Bourdieu's] richly nuanced account of class relations i n France" (69). This idea of the convertibility of kinds of capital also shaped both the struggle of London's law students to locate and advance their social rank, and the literary production that this struggle inspired.  6  distribution of their prized capital as a valuable cultural resource, and thereby to legitimate existing social arrangements, as a result of their increasing independence from more powerful political and economic forces. Donne's discerning sense of institutional arrangements enables him to understand how the growing autonomy of the Inns enables upstarts like Coscus to mistake professional success for cultural fluency.  6  According to Bourdieu, the fields that constitute the social world are "structured spaces of dominant and subordinate positions based on types and amounts of capital" (Swartz 123). In his Satires, Donne recognizes London's legal community as such a structured space (similar to Bourdieu's juridical field), and the focus of his concern is the contingency of advancement through and beyond this and other cultural communities on the legitimate accumulation of cultural capital. The positions that individuals and groups struggle to occupy in a given field are determined by the distribution of capital; it is the unequal distribution of this capital (objectified and institutionalized) across social classes that is the root of social inequality (77). Within this hierarchically structured social space, agents struggle to maintain or enhance their relative positions within their fields through the acquisition (or conversion) of capital (123, 145). What frustrates Donne as a law student is his growing understanding that the rules for succeeding at the Inns are determined by senior barristers, whose strategy of conserving the systems of advancement through the ranks of the legal profession privileges new entrants who proceed according to the established routines. The young Donne  Swartz explains that the "purely economic cannot express itself autonomously but must be converted into symbolic form. There is, therefore, 'symbolic power: as well as material or economic power. Individuals and groups who are able to benefit from the transformation of self-interest into disinterest obtain what Bourdieu calls 'symbolic capital.' Symbolic capital is 'denied capital'; it disguises the underlying interested relations as disinterestedpursuits" (90).  7  prefers his success to be determined not by his ability to conform to newly developing professional codes but by his cultural fluency—an attribute that the legal profession (as a profession) only nominally valued. The Satires exhibit Donne's strategy of subversion, whereby he challenges the legitimacy of lawyers like Coscus to use their legal authority as a basis for making aesthetic judgments. His complaint is that legal capital, or the cultural capital 7  acquired through one's association with the Inns, cannot get him where he wants to go (the court), and Coscus's use of this capital to exhibit courtly airs irritates Donne even more. The Bourdieusian concepts that help us to understand Donne's relationship to the Inns and its legal culture (and the place of his Satires in this relationship) can also help us to understand, on a larger scale, the role of the Inns in the formation of London's literary culture. This role is defined by the law students' struggle for social legitimation through their association with the Inns, and Bourdieu's "theory of the social uses of culture" (Swartz 250), rather than a theory of culture per se, aids this investigation because it embraces sociology and history in a way that invites critics to expose "through research arbitrary mechanisms that maintain power relations" in societies past and present (261). The organization of this thesis is based on Bourdieu's 8  Bourdieu identifies three kinds of field strategies: conservation, succession, and subversion: Conservation strategies tend to be pursued by those who hold dominant positions and enjoy seniority in the field. Strategies of succession are attempts to gain access to dominant positions in a field and are generally pursued by the new entrants. Finally, strategies of subversion are pursued by those who expect to gain little from the dominant groups. These strategies take the form of a more or less radical rupture with the dominant group by challenging its legitimacy to define the standards of the field. (Swartz 125) Bourdieu claims that "all sociology should be historical and all history sociological. In point of fact, one of the functions of the theory of fields that I propose is to make the opposition between reproduction and transformation, statics and dynamics, or structure and history, vanish" (Wacquant 37; this quotation from Bourdieu is from his 1989 interview with Loic Wacquant). Bourdieu's position runs counter to the "dialogue of the deaf" that Peter Burke claims plagues the relationship between sociologists, who "have long viewed historians as amateurish, myopic fact-collectors without system or method," and historians, who regard  8 concepts of field relations and the convertibility of cultural capital. I identify the City of London (the office of the Lord Mayor and its subordinate constituencies) and the Crown as the primary institutions that possessed the economic and symbolic forms of capital necessary to occupy dominant positions in the field of power. The Inns of Court were primary institutions in the field of juridical production, institutions in which the symbolic capital of the common law was transmitted to students in a relatively "closed" system devoted to the reproduction of its own capital. As the example of Donne suggests, literature was a very uncertain investment for students; at the same time, it was part of a more open field than that of the law, a field that provided some students somewhat easier access to the kind of prestige they desired than the kind offered by the common law. Conveniently close to London and its material and cultural markets—markets that were quickly becoming more complex—the Inns' students became increasingly aware of the interconvertibility of cultural (specifically legal) and economic capital. Literary and dramatic activity expanded the opportunities for the students both to gain and use this awareness to their social advantage. Literature was both an educational tool for understanding the social utility of the law-as-prestige and a form of cultural capital the students could try to use as an alternative (however risky) source of prestige.  The specific concept of capital that Bourdieu has derived from his sociological research does not recognize the distinction between capitalist and noncapitalist social relations (Swartz 80); in Bourdieu's world, "all are capital sociologists as "people who state the obvious in a barbarous and abstract jargon, lack any sense of place and time, squeeze individuals without mercy into rigid categories and . . . describe these activities as 'scientific'" (3).  9 holders and investors seeking profits" (82) in a complex system wherein the "transmutation of the different kinds of capital into symbolic capital" produces symbolic power (93). According to Bourdieu, culture is a "freely available and all-purpose knowledge that you acquire in general at an age when you don't yet have any questions to ask. You can spend your life increasing it, cultivating it for its own sake. Or else, you can use it as a sort of more or less inexhaustible toolbox" (Bourdieu 1990: 29). Movements between cultural fields necessitate the interconvertibility of kinds of capital, and this thesis explores this phenomenon through a series of sociological analyses of Inns-related texts produced during the reigns of Elizabeth I, James I, and Charles I. Some of these texts relate to specific places of performance while others are connected to political circumstances involving several institutions. It is within these institutional settings and contexts that specific kinds of symbolic capital are made, identified, and exchanged. By focusing each chapter on a specific institution (or kind of institution), my effort is to provide clear, localized examples of how the dramaturgical culture of the Inns—a culture that I reimagine through the examination of literary and non-literary texts associated with these societies— was driven by the circulation of cultural capital between the juridical field and the field of power. I have limited the scope of this thesis to the period between 1572, when the (in)famous barrister Edward Coke entered the Inner Temple as a student, and 1634, when the Inns of Court staged two performances of James Shirley's Triumph of Peace. The structure of the cultural field's relation to the field of power (and to other fields of production), Bourdieu maintains, is homologously related to the structure of relationships among cultural works produced within the field. Accordingly, a work of literature, for example, "supplies all the tools  10  necessary for its own sociological analysis," but to make these links between text and context, the analyst must acquire a thorough knowledge of the sociopolitical conditions in which the work was produced. Drawing from Inns-ofCourt records, engravings, maps, and the research of legal historians, I construct in the first chapter a new social topography of London's juridical field. By explaining the relationships between the Inns, the Crown, and the City of London, this topography serves as a contextual field structure for the analyses in the last three chapters. I introduce the broad institutional 9  landscape that this thesis covers by first outlining the competing institutions that constitute the juridical field (focusing on the Inns' place within it) and then by assessing how this field was situated within the field of power of early modern London. I next concentrate on the Inns by explaining the varieties of rules that members had to follow in order to ensure their ability to make the most of their time at the Inns. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the various dispositions and values that new law students acquired through their experiences at home and school/university, and explains how the  Toril M o i observes that "Bourdieu grounds any literary analysis on an immense mass of social and cultural data." By investigating, for instance, the w a y people chew their food, look at photographs, and b y assessing their musical, l i t e r a r y / a n d cinematic preferences, he is able to compile a set o f data that permits h i m to make the "'thick' phenomenological a n d sociological descriptions that Bourdieu[s]ian sociology promises literary criticism" (505). The concepts that derive f r o m Bourdieu's program of research are part of an intellectual t r a d i t i o n composed o f other twentieth-century thinkers w h o share his "painstaking attentiveness to the particular case, a w i s h to take the concrete manifestations of h u m a n behavior as the starting point for thought" (498). These thinkers include Freud, Heidegger, Sartre, Beauvoir, Merleau-Ponty, J. L. A u s t i n , a n d W i t t g e n s t e i n — a l l "philosophers o f subjectivity, understood as an embodied locus of action and choice." M o i explains that a " l i t e r a r y theory based o n their insights w i l l have to take the f o r m of a concrete, historically grounded speech-act theory" (504). Bourdieu's requirement for amassing cultural data, M o i argues, "causes huge problems for critics studying American or British literature" because "[tjhere is no existing body of B o u r d i e u [ s ] i a n analyses of the relevant fields or institutions. O n l y the most intensive research can rectify this situation" (505). The first chapter of this thesis is a synthesis of the research necessary for the Bourdieusian readings of Inns-related literature that f o l l o w i n the subsequent three chapters.  11 institutional culture of legal commons influenced these dispositions and values. In light of the first chapter's revised perspective of the place of law students in London, chapter two concentrates on four Inns-of-Court texts: a legal lecture by Edward Coke, Francis Beaumont's Grammar Lecture, William Browne's masque of Ulysses and Circe, and Gesta Grayorum. Except for Browne's masque, these texts are Elizabethan, and they demonstrate in different ways the lawyers' recognition of the convertibility of legal capital at a time when the common law was quickly becoming more complex in order to meet the demands of a more prosperous and litigious society. I explain how the transformation of the Inns' halls from places of formal legal exercises into places of revels enabled law students to understand the social magic of legal capital and to recognize its convertibility. In chapter three, I examine how this recognition operates in an institution that is intimately tied to the market. Here I discuss playgoing at the Blackfriars playhouse by relating the social competition among the members of the audience to the conversion of capital that is staged in plays that were performed there. Three Jacobean city comedies are the subject of this analysis: George Chapman, Ben Jonson, and John Marston's Eastward Ho (1605), Thomas Middleton's A Trick to Catch the Old One (1604-6?), and Francis Beaumont's The Knight of the Burning Pestle (c.1607). In the final chapter, I study the circumstances surrounding the publication of William Prynne's Histriomastix James Shirley's The Triumph  of Peace  (1633) and the performance of  (1634)—situations in which the  interconvertibility of various kinds of capital had real political consequences for the Crown, the Inns, and the City. Here I suggest that Charles I's downfall  12  can be explained in part by conditions in which symbolic and economic capital were too closely interconnected.  Up to this point, studies of the relationship between law and literature in early modern England have typically focused on illuminating the crossover between legal and literary discourses in specific legal and literary texts. By exploring the close relationship between the conflicting social forces at work among the Inns, the City, and the Crown and the manifestation of these conflicting forces in a variety of Inns-of-Court texts, this project examines how the movements of lawyers (law students especially) through London's institutions enabled literary and legal discourses to converge. In Ambition and Privilege, Frank Whigham uses such an sociological approach in order to question the status of Renaissance courtesy literature as a subjugated or marginal body of knowledge in studies of early modern culture. Historians, he claims, have dismissed it as frivolous, while literary scholars have habitually reduced it to '"the poetry of conduct,' erasing the traces of struggle by a familiar reification of the poetic" (4). Whigham claims that what this body of texts needs is "a sociological criticism that assembles and codifies the lore of courtesy as a repertoire of strategies, tools for such tasks as 'selecting enemies and allies, for socializing losses, for warding off the evil eye, for purification, propitiation, and desanctification, consolation and vengeance, admonition and exhortation, implicit commands or instructions'" (4). This kind of criticism Whigham calls for would help us to explain the importance of much Inns-of-Court literature that is routinely ignored by literary critics and historians alike, perhaps because this literature is often regarded as doggerel by the former, historically insignificant by the latter.  13  CHAPTER 1  A New Social Topography of London's Juridical Field  We must repel any unilateral, unidimensional, and monomaniacal definition of sociological practice, and resist a l l attempts to impose one. — P i e r r e Bourdieu, In Other Words, 54.  A detail from an engraving published in the 1622 edition of Michael Drayton's Poly-Olbion  (see figure 1) depicts feminine personifications of  Westminster and the City of London. London embraces the spires of St. Paul's Cathedral in the City's west and St. Peter's Church in the City's east. London, majestic and statuesque, significantly overshadows her western counterpart, a disparity that underlines the City's topographical dominance over Westminster, where the Parliament was held at Westminster Hall and where the more studious law students at the Inns went to hear fully practicing barristers argue their cases. It is interesting to note the engraving's imposition of a narrow blank space between London and Westminster. This void sharpens the distinction between these separate cities. The Inns of Court were the primary institutions that occupied the fissure between Westminster and London, and their absence in the map illustrates the somewhat anomalous qualities of their existence.  10  Neither belonging to the City of London nor to Westminster, the Inns, and the legal quarter of which they were a part, nevertheless had strong ties to  1° D a v i d Evans observes that the "history of London is i n many ways the story of these t w o cities, a tale inscribed i n the border between the Strand a n d Fleet Street," a threshold that "serves to emphasize the relationship between the autonomous commercial affairs of the City of London and the w i d e r authority represented by Westminster, Parliament, a n d the sovereign." "The Inns of Court," Evans concludes, "occupy, i f not define, the meeting of these t w o realms" (153).  14  both. By presenting a new social topography of London's legal quarter, this 11  chapter, in a manner of speaking, attempts to fill the gap in the engraving. The first section assumes a broad view of London's legal community (and the Inns' place within it) and the relation of this community to the larger political and economic communities that, to an extent, dominated it. The last two sections focus on the legal culture of the Inns, its (re)production of symbolic (legal) capital, and the backgrounds of those who came to the Inns in order to benefit from this circulation of prestige.  The juridical field, its agents and capital, and the field of power  England's juridical field was a site of struggle for the right to determine the law. The Crown, the various courts of the common law, and the Parliament confronted one another over who had the authority to determine  [  The early modern Inns were situated just outside the western perimeter of the City limits i n what were k n o w n as the "liberties," or those areas l y i n g outside the City walls. The legal quarter (see figure 2) was located between L o n d o n a n d Westminster i n "a t h r i v i n g a n d expanding legal community very conscious of its independent life and pride" (Lehmann 33). The western portion of the City w a l l separated L o n d o n f r o m the legal q u a r t e r — s o u t h w a r d f r o m Greyfriars to Blackfriars, then westward f r o m Ludgate to Fleet Bridge. The quarter (see figure 3) was roughly confined to a narrow cross-section bordered to the south by the Thames and t o the n o r t h by Gray's Inn. Gray's I n n Lane, Chancery Lane, and Temple Bar roughly delineated the western border. The eastern side of the district was bordered by a stream called the "Holeborn," w h i c h was k n o w n as the "Fleet" as i t neared the Thames. B r i d e w e l l Palace, built b y the Normans and rebuilt by Henry V I I I , marked the south-east corner of the district. Lincoln's I n n was centrally positioned west of Chancery Lane, w h i l e the Inner and M i d d l e Temples were located at the southern end of the quarter close to the Thames. Westminster (see figure 4) was the home of Whitehall and the Star Chamber. The region had once been the home of the Knights Templar, a p o w e r f u l religious order that occupied the area between Chancery Lane a n d the River Fleet u n t i l its fall at the end of the thirteenth century. The maps of the legal quarter f r o m 1563 and 1570 illustrate the gradual development of what had once been a monastic region into a legal precinct. A matrix of intersecting pathways and boundaries gradually imposes a geometrical structure u p o n a generally pastoral environment. Mostly parallel east- and west-bound pathways l i n k i n g the C i t y a n d Westminster ( H o l b o r n Road a n d Fleet Street) are crossed b y n a r r o w e r meandering north- and southbound pathways (Water Lane, Fetter Lane, Chancery Lane, Gray's I n n Lane) that partition the region between these major thoroughfares into smaller exclusive properties.  15 a legitimate vision of the social world. The Inns of Court were part of the juridical field, but they were neither courts nor institutional extensions of the Crown. They were prestigious legal institutions where learned barristers reformulated the common law and where typically well-to-do sons of English gentry observed and associated with this interpretive process. They were also places where these young men, as students, could associate themselves with the prestige of the Inns in an attempt to advance into London's more exclusive cultural circles. In order to acquire the skills necessary to "find" the law, a student had to learn the culture of his Inn rather than a legal text. His ability to access the prestige of the common law, in other words, was determined more by his extended affiliation with the routines of commons than his demonstration of legal knowledge per se.  12  The common law itself was a unique system of  jurisprudence in early modern Europe primarily because it was built upon unwritten concepts derived from a continuous, fluid process of judicial decision-making rather than a Corpus Iuris, or a single written text (Rodgers 154). The procedure for learning the law was envisioned as a kind of art. In The Lawyers Light  (1629), Dodderidge contends that the lawyer is  The law student w h o desired to proceed to the bar was expected to participate i n commons for seven years and undertake a termly routine of legal exercises that i n v o l v e d readings, moots, bolts, and commonplacing. Readings consisted of a series of lectures based o n an eight to ten year sequence of royal statutes; the sequence was designed, at least i n theory, to offer "every student a comprehensive review of all the important statutes d u r i n g his period of study at the I n n . " Moots were f o r m a l "oral p l e a d i n g exercises" whereby the inner- and utterbarristers applied their learning to questions set b y the benchers b y pleading opposing sides of the question i n law French (Baker 1990: 13). Benchers judged the exercises and commented on them i n English. I n bolts, the inner barristers w o u l d independently participate i n informal conversational arguments, w h i c h were more elementary kinds of moots h e l d i n private (e.g. not before the whole society). D u r i n g the terms i n w h i c h l a w court was held at Westminster H a l l , students were also expected to record their observations of the cases argued there i n commonplace books.  16 most beholding to Inference and Application, wherewith hee is instructed and taught, that Cases different in circumstance, may be neverthelesse compared each to other in equalitie of Reason; so that of like Reason, like law might be framed. And by how much Application and inference doth more depend upon wit and Art, th[a]n the producing the expresse Authoritie; by so much the more it excelleth the same. (93) According to Dodderidge, the essential tools in law-making—"wit and Art"— enable the lawyer to employ his legal capital in an instant of given circumstances determined by the mood of the auditors, the time of day, and current political and social events. Bourdieu observes that "customary law always seems to pass from particular case to particular case, from the specific misdeed to the specific sanction, never expressly formulating the fundamental principles which 'rational' law spells out explicitly" (1977: 16). Students and non-students alike perceived the common law as a practice devoid of a clear principle or theory; it often appeared "archaic in substance," "cumbersome in procedure," "chaotic and arcane," as well as "disorderly and unmethodical" (Hall 13; Simpson 14). Lawyers and their critics were fully aware of this perception of 13  the common law, despite Sir Edward Coke's contention that it was "the bedrock of liberty and the perfection of reason" (Hall 14). Coke's affirmation 14  13 I n 1622, three years into his period of legal study, Simonds D'Ewes still found the study of law "difficult and unpleasant." I n his essay Of Judicature, Francis Bacon admits that "there is no worse torture than the torture of laws." 1 4  The only son of Robert Coke, a prosperous and respectable barrister of Lincoln's Inn, E d w a r d entered Clifford's I n n (an I n n of Chancery attached to the Inner Temple) i n 1571 after leaving T r i n i t y College, Cambridge, w i t h o u t a degree. The f o l l o w i n g year, on 24 A p r i l , he progressed to the Inner Temple at the age of twenty, w h e n he began to attend the courts at Westminster and record the cases and decisions he heard there i n scrupulous detail. These transcripts of cases gradually amounted to a wealth of case-notes, reports, and commentaries. The thoroughness of Coke's recordings reveal his "relentless appetite f o r common l a w learning" (Keeton 44) and his "outstanding jurisprudential talents" (Prest 1972: 62), both of which led h i m to be called to the Inner Temple bar on 20 A p r i l , 1578, after only six years as a  17 of the law's logic underlines the exclusive and rigorous nature of its transmission, for "in so far as the law essentially was embodied in oral tradition preserved and transmitted by those who practiced in Westminster Hall, only long years of direct involvement could produce the belief that the system really was rationally coherent" (Simpson 14). Literature provided an 15  alternative field of competition and mastery for students who were frustrated by the slow process of culturation they encountered in commons. The social trajectory offered by the Inns was largely professional; the literary field (although a more anomalous construction, lacking at this time an institutional structure as complex as that which constituted the juridical field), however, was perceived as an easier means of gaining the court's attention, primarily because literature offered the kinds of elite expressions that students could master in shorter time.  16  student. Soon after his call to the bar, Coke was chosen as the reader of Lyon's I n n (another Inn of Chancery attached to the Inner Temple), a n d i t was i n this capacity that Coke's reputation as a barrister first spread throughout the legal c o m m u n i t y and the royal court (Pearce 245). For the uninitiated, however, the l a w remained largely confounding, and few students seem to have shared the patience w i t h w h i c h E d w a r d Coke learned the law, despite the efforts of learned lawyers, such as Francis Bacon, to organize, codify, redefine, and consolidate the statutes and their accompanying laws i n order to make the law as certain as possible. W i l l i a m Bouwsma observes that England's "rapid social and institutional change and the accompanying g r o w t h i n legal business" compelled certain members of the legal profession "to take a fresh look at the common law, to adapt a legal system based o n the needs of an older agrarian society to new social and political uses, and to reduce that legal system to some k i n d of order" (317). I n The Elements of the Common Lowes (1630), Bacon offers "expositions" of the common l a w that are designed to show the l a w student the m i d d l e way between arguing the l a w "upon generall grounds" and p u t t i n g cases " w i t h o u t laying any foundation." I n A Summary of the Common Law of England . . . digested into certain Tablets for the help and delight of such Students, as affect Method (published i n 1654), Sir Henry Finch (d. 1625) attempts to overcome the seeming impossibility of reducing the "abstruse and intricate" common law to a straightforward method. I n Law, or a Discourse Thereof (originally published i n law-French i n 1613 and translated i n 1627), Finch provides more than five hundred pages of definitions, rules, and statute references for the student's review. The interpretive skills a student acquired i n commons could i n fact aid his creative endeavors: he might apply his techniques of assessing the details of a legal case t o w a r d his role i n a play (a more " f u n " m e d i u m than the law), w h i c h is a k i n d of case study of h o w people act under given conditions.  18  Whether or not their students vied for success in the literary field, the Inns were entirely structured around the transmission of legal knowledge; the students' aspirations depended, to some degree, on the common law's reputation, which was not necessarily stable. The Inns were but one of several interpretive communities competing for the authority to determine the law. The division of labor within the juridical field is determined, without any conscious planning, through the "structurally organized competition" between the institutions that constitute the field (Bourdieu 1987: 818). In early modern England, these institutions were the prerogative courts (whose judges were appointed by the monarch) and the common law courts (including the House of Commons), each of which vied for the authority to determine the law. Prerogative courts were separate from the common law and were not bound by precedent; lawyers who enjoyed the favor of the monarch—both the chief executive and the "fount of justice"—were appointed to the King's Bench, the Court of Common Pleas, the Privy Council, the Court of Chancery, and the Star Chamber.  17  These courts  The King's Bench and the Court of C o m m o n Pleas were the "two greatest courts"; their task was to maintain some sense of order and coherence i n the legal system b y determining the jurisdiction of England's numerous courts (Lockyer 53). The Crown's routine administration was carried out by the Privy Council, w h i c h fulfilled a similar function as the cabinet of the American Presidency (257). The Court of Chancery w a s the "dispenser of the King's Conscience" (I. Smith 2 1 4 ) — a court of equity composed of university-trained c i v i l lawyers w h o mixed mercy w i t h justice by tempering the strict rules of l a w i n cases where judicial rigor might undo a subject (Fortier 1278). Roger Lockyer notes that common lawyers often "distrusted Chancery as a threat to the autonomy of their o w n system, a n d although the L o r d Chancellor w h o headed the court was usually chosen f r o m among their ranks he suffered f r o m being too closely identified w i t h its operations" (57). The most formidable and popular prerogative court was the Star Chamber, i n w h i c h the monarch often sat as "judge over a l l his judges" (Fortier 1276). The jurisdiction of Star Chamber judges was a "national equivalent t o that exercised locally b y the justices of the peace"; many of the judges were not professional lawyers, and the procedures they used to decide cases were "less technical than those of the common-law courts" (Prest 1972: 131), mostly because these procedures were based on "common sense" rather than the precedents of commonlaw. The Star Chamber typically heard the most intrinsically interesting cases of the d a y — c a s e s b r o u g h t mostly b y private i n d i v i d u a l s , cases s u r r o u n d i n g events that  19 ensured that the border between the government and the judicature remained fluid to a certain degree; one consequence of this overlapping institutional power was that judges in non-prerogative courts (the commonlaw judges) also served as administrative agents of the crown (Lockyer 260). The House of Commons was a fashionable venue for lawyers trained in the common law; this is where the precedents and technicalities that determined English property law were assessed and debated (Prest 1972: 131). Membership in Parliament was based on one's affiliation with the Inns—the primary institution in which one could compete for the "monopoly of pleading in the High Court and, by association with that institution, of places on the bench (i.e. judges)" (Macdonald 76). The careers of students aspiring to become lawyers of the common law depended entirely on the students' ability to cultivate the spirit of independence inspired by a model of jurisprudence that was defined in relation (and often opposition) to the relatively extemporaneous character of royal prerogative. At the forefront of political controversy during the reigns of Elizabeth I, James I, and Charles I was the complex relationship between English common law and the authority of the Crown. During this period, the common lawyers began to recognize that the jurisprudence of the increasingly important mercantile legal system offered the best protection to property owners. "The Crown's difficulty with this conception of the common law," Stephen Cohen explains, "was that the very same principles which facilitated the new economic activity could also be—and increasingly were—employed to protect the profits of that activity from royal exploitation" (38). As the growing organization and jurisdiction of the prerogative courts  threatened state security, and cases regarding the enforcement of royal proclamations (Prest 1972: 64; Lockyer 259-60).  20 threatened the integrity of the common law system (Bromham 336), the lawyers at the Inns became increasingly vital agents in resolving this controversy while still upholding the strength and growth of the common law. During her reign, Elizabeth struggled to redefine a dominant constitutional theory for England "based on principles enshrined in the law of God, nature, and reason, however these might be defined," that safeguarded certain inalienable rights possessed by both the Crown and its subjects (A. Smith 164). Yet the common law, as the nominal means of ensuring these rights, could not guarantee protection against the Crown's encroachments on a subject's property rights or always successfully negotiate between a disputing monarch and Parliament; it was often, in practice, merely a political tool that could be "used for whatever advantage it might give by whoever could exploit it" (Prest 1972: 229-30). While James nominally abided by the English constitution he had inherited (though never completely understood), his self-perception as a divinely appointed king, sharing in the power of God's law over the law of human creation, significantly complicated his dealings with the common law courts.  18  Before he became K i n g of England i n 1603, lames wrote his True Law of Free Monarchies (1598), i n w h i c h he bases h i s personal c l a i m to absolute m o n a r c h y o n B i b l i c a l representations o f k i n g l y power; lames's preference for the c i v i l law, w h i c h honored royal prerogative over j u d i c i a l l a w , also i n f o r m e d his political disposition. I n James's eyes, Christian kings need answer to no one but God, and the institution of monarchy i n the Bible is the only just pattern for kingly authority over the people (Fortier 1268). James's theoretical beliefs were somewhat mediated b y the practical demands o f h i s role i n England's political scene as the reigning monarch (Fortier 1275), and he made great effort to "maintain the balance between the powers of the crown and the rights of i n d i v i d u a l subjects that was the defining characteristic of the English system of government"; i n 1610, he claimed that he had "least cause of any m a n to dislike the common law, for no law can be more favourable and advantageous for a k i n g and extendeth further his prerogative than it doth. A n d for a K i n g of England to despise the common law, it is to neglect his o w n crown" (qtd. i n Lockyer 59). A t the same time, James was bewildered by the complexity of the juridical field, and i n 1610 he exclaimed t o the members of Parliament that he had "often w i s h e d that every court h a d its o w n true l i m i t and j u r i s d i c t i o n clearly set d o w n and certainly k n o w n . . . " (qtd. i n Lockyer 55).  21 James resisted attempts to define the scope of his authority too specifically, for his primary aim was to "retain in widest possible measure his freedom of action" (Lockyer 60). For members of the Inns who were noblemen or gentrymen, like Francis Bacon, this flexibility was a good thing, for they had "a vested interest in upholding the royal authority since it was the linchpin of the social order from which they benefited. They also gained both profit and prestige from their share of royal patronage" (253). Other 19  lawyers at the Inns insisted on the primacy and antiquity of the common law and challenged royal prerogative at every turn (42). As the chief spokesman for the common law, Edward Coke maintained that the monarch should not interfere with jurisprudence and that judges, "by virtue of their training and years of experience of legal practice, were more qualified than the king to decide matters of law" (Bromham 337-38).  20  Coke's considerable power and persistence caused him to become a thorn in the Crown's side that neither James nor Charles was able or willing to tolerate indefinitely (Lockyer 51). Upon hearing in 1631 that a legal treatise by Coke was about to be published, Charles ordered that it be suppressed: "The king fears," wrote Lord Holland to Secretary Dorchester, that Coke "is held too D u r i n g his reign, however, James's sympathies for divine authority at times took center stage; i n his speech i n 1607 to Parliament, he declared that the k i n g was v i r t u a l l y l a w itself: "Rex est Iudex, for he is Lex loquens, and is to supply the L a w , where the L a w wants" (qtd. i n Bromham 337). I n 1616, he made a controversial move b y intimidating the common law judges and "coercing them into agreeing to consult h i m i n d i v i d u a l l y before rendering judgment i n any case i n v o l v i n g his prerogative" (Fortier 1256). But despite these and other "rhetorical flourishes," Lockyer argues, James "held the monarchy to the course prescribed by common law" (217). 1 9  Francis Bacon imagines the w r i t i n g (or r e w r i t i n g ) of the l a w as belonging essentially to the monarch, whose prerogative is law, and w h o is also above the law, h o l d i n g , at least f r o m Bacon's perspective, the right to consult w i t h the judges of the Star Chamber about any case before it came to trial (Helgerson 1990: 231; Bromham 337; Lockyer 65).  ^ A c c o r d i n g to Coke and his followers at the Inns, England's monarch is limited by the common law; while not subservient to any person, he or she is subject to the authority of God and the law (Bromham 337). Moreover, Coke argues, the monarch can neither make law nor interpret or apply it. I n the preface to his Fourth Reports, Coke claims that the "law makes the k i n g . . . Where w i l l and not law doth sway, there is no king."  22 great an oracle amongst the people, and they may be misled by anything that carries such an authority as all things that he either speaks or writes" (qtd. in Helgerson 1990: 237). Only a few days before Coke's death in 1634, Charles arranged for Coke's manuscripts to be seized. Despite the Crown's fervent attempts to keep Coke under its thumb, however, it was not able to hinder the growing strength of the common law to which Coke had devoted his professional career. This strength was due in no small part to the institutional culture of the Inns of Court—a culture which had its own obscure relationship to royal authority, characterized by a delicate, ever-shifting balance between resilient independence and cowering subservience. Like the theatres on the South Bank, the Inns were self-governing institutions whose geographical location outside the City limits and lack of a royal charter had helped to cultivate their collective intellectual freedom, a history of relative independence from external power, and a deep-rooted "professional and personal comradeship" (Cowper 55-56). At the same time, 21  There were no professional teachers or fellows as such at the Inns; rather the system of tutelage resembled more o f a n apprentice-practitioner arrangement. Yet t h i s system operated w i t h i n buildings that resembled the opulence of Oxford and Cambridge colleges that attracted men keen to associate themselves w i t h the prestige of the Inns. The notion of the Inns as a k i n d of collective university was not n e w to their T u d o r and early Stuart residents, f o r i n the fifteenth century Sir John Fortescue, i n De Laudibus Legum Angliae (cl470), had first imagined the Inns as a legal academy. But Fortescue's vision of a unified university of legal studies failed to materialize, f o r "there never was any general cooperation among the Inns for governmental purposes as i n a University . . . Each I n n had its o w n founder or founders, generally an administrator, a Judge or other legal official, w h o provided houses for students of their following" (Williams 28). J. H . Baker argues that this lawyers' university or studium publicum was "unusual, if not unique, i n having virtually no existence as a [unified] body. Its constituent colleges were autonomous and f o r m e d a university only i n the sense that they p e r f o r m e d similar functions, i n close geographical proximity, under the general supervision of the king's council or the judges" (1986: 45). While many of London's livery companies since the mid-fifteenth century c l a r i f i e d their i n s t i t u t i o n a l status b y i n c o r p o r a t i n g themselves u n d e r r o y a l charter, thereby c o m i r m i n g their "powers of self-regulation a n d their monopolistic control" of particular trades a n d trade regulations (Baker 1986: 47, 54-55), the Inns never sought r o y a l incorporation. If incorporated, the Inns w o u l d not have been able to acquire land w i t h o u t license f r o m the Crown. The onerous process of seeking exemptions from royal legislation was prohibitive, and corporate bodies were forever r i g i d l y tied to their inaugural constitutions (54-55). The Inns already had the privileges they required, w h i c h mainly concerned t h e i r  23 these societies had always been subject to mandates from the Crown, so their flexibility as unchartered societies beyond the immediate scope of City authority was under constant royal check, particularly concerning religious matters. The Inns were unswervingly loyal to Elizabeth, for example, except on a few occasions. The propensity for popish priests to seek refuge in the legal houses was naturally a cause for Elizabeth's concern. John Hambley was executed in 1587 for violating a statute making it "treason for a priest ordained by the authority of the See of Rome to be within the Queen's dominions and felony to help such a one." In 1591, Edmund Genings was executed in Gray's Inn Fields, along with his gentleman protector Swithin Wells, for "saying Mass in the house of his host in Gray's Inn Lane" (Cowper 57-58). In 1559, Elizabeth ensured that the Inns' chaplaincies were "financed by the Crown from the exchequer," thereby preserving the "medieval continuity of the mastership" and the Crown's right to appoint clergy (R. M. Fisher 71-73). Such an imposition by the sovereign inspired the Inns' governing benchers—determined "to control their own property and personnel"—to request Elizabeth to give up her control of the chaplaincies "for the master's allowance in return." R. M. Fisher notes that "even when 22  professional freedom to teach l a w and to control the membership of the bar w i t h m i n i m a l disturbance f r o m the outside (Baker 1986: 59). The fluidity of the common l a w — p e r p e t u a l l y defined and r e d e f i n e d — r e q u i r e d the institutions of legal education t o be flexible as w e l l . Baker argues that the Inns' c o n s t i t u t i o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y "illustrates one of the m a i n advantages of avoiding incorporation, and contrasts strikingly w i t h the position of O x f o r d and Cambridge colleges, whose constitutional wrangles were constantly being taken to court" (70). "In relation to external control," W . C. Richardson explains, "the Inns of Court were zealous guardians of their v i r t u a l autonomy and, though orders of [royally appointed] judges or council regularly suggested changes or improvements i n procedure, they were usually i n the form of recommendations. Seldom established w i t h o u t Inns' approval, outside regulations were enforced only i f it suited the interest of the houses to do so; superficial compliance seems to have been all that was expected" (280).  24 the societies finally gained their property by charter in 1608, the mastership and rectory were emphatically withheld by the Crown" (73).  23  Between 1617 and 1640, the Inns encountered further impositions from the Crown concerning religion. In 1633, William Laud was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. A letter dated 16 December 1633 from Laud to the benchers urges that "because verie many of the gentrie spend some part of their time in one or other of the Innes of Court, and afterwards returning to live and governe as Justices of Peace or otherwise in their severall countries," the maintenance of church and kingdom would depend on having preachers at the Inns who were "conformable" (Black Books, vol 2, 317-18). Wilfrid Prest argues that Laud's intervention "was part of a movement throughout the 1630s towards closer control and supervision of the [I]nns by the state" (1972: 204). More broadly, this act conveys the Church of England's desire to maintain some degree of control over English society by more closely supervising the religious life of the Inns—institutions that housed many of the nation's future lawyers and judges. The means by which Laud could ensure the peace and unity he desired for the Church and the people of England rested in his "support for royal proclamations forbidding disputes" that might isolate people from the Church of England. As a training ground for the country's future lawyers and governors, and as a kind of finishing school for the sons of country nobility, the Inns, in Laud's eyes, served as important institutions in which to inculcate the church's authority over England. Laud's insistence on "conformable" preachers at the Inns exhibits  Even today, the Temple Church is a "royal peculiar," an i n s t i t u t i o n "exempt f r o m the jurisdiction of all except the monarch as Head of the Church of England" (Evans 155).  25 his strategy of reinforcing the bonds and rituals of community and national integrity at the institutional level.  24  The Crown was also concerned about London's rapid population growth, which was significantly affecting the legal quarter. Numerous pamphlets and royal proclamations identified the legal quarter as a site of social, economic, and legal contestation resulting from the socio-demographic effects of the westward expansion of London's population beyond the City walls. This literature establishes a direct correspondence between the increasing numbers of law students and landed gentry who were moving into this fashionable area and the increasing numbers of vagrants—"the very scumrne of England, and the sinke of iniquitie" as Lord Chief Baron William Periam of the Middle Temple called them (Manningham 113)—that reputedly shared this once-isolated sector of the western liberties  2 5  The rapid  growth of London was closely related to the strong temptation of the country gentry and the wealthier London merchants to own land in and around the City in order to build a family residence. However, while such land investments likely elevated a family's social status, they did not generate the kind of business that would employ the City's laborers (F. J. Fisher 1968: 78). The Crown was concerned that real estate development of this kind further stratified the social space of the City and its liberties primarily because this Since June 1557, Crown-appointed judges had also been regularly imposing restrictions on the k i n d of apparel that students at the Inns of Court (and Chancery) should wear. I n 1559, 1614, 1627, and 1630, Judges' Orders ruled on student dress and fashions; students, for example, were not supposed to wear study-gowns i n the City or velvet caps, shoes, double cuffs, feathers, "great hose," and ribbons at any time. Swords, bucklers, and like weapons were also never to be donned. Specific fines were supposedly imposed for violations of these codes (Richardson 483), b u t they apparently d i d not stop l a w students f r o m wearing luxurious clothing. The uniformity of attire demanded by the regulations was designed to enforce discipline. Roger Lockyer observes that " f r o m the mid-sixteenth century onwards there was a pronounced d r i f t f r o m the poorer uplands of the north and west to the more urban areas of southern England," especially the suburbs of London, w h i c h "attracted some 7,000 migrants annually. . . Speculative landholders took advantage of population pressure to jerry-build new houses and f i l l existing ones to bursting p o i n t . . . " (273).  26 "progress" gathered together wealthy families into small exclusive communities from which the poor were excluded, thereby creating a situation in which "the country's elite lived in close proximity to humble folk" (Supple 134; Power 180-82). The legal quarter, which was quickly becoming a fashionable neighborhood for England's elite, exhibits this intimate convergence of property owners and vagrants. On the banks of the Fleet and Thames, the "majority of the country gentry were spending the most impressionable years of their lives . . . tasting the pleasures of both the City and the Court" and enjoying the close proximity of the Strand, "one of the grandest [streets] in the capital" (F. J. Fisher 1948: 42; Power 172). Further north was High Holborn, a broad handsome street bordered by the salubrious Great Queen Street and Lincoln's Inn Fields. Yet these streets were immediately adjacent to much humbler residences in Newton Street and Little Turnstile—indicating the extent to which the legal quarter contained radically distinct social environments (Power 174, 182). As the undeveloped areas of the legal quarter were purchased and partitioned, they became topographical marks of social exclusivity, and the problematic manner in which the corresponding elite spaces closely overlapped with the spaces of the economically disadvantaged aroused the attention of Elizabeth, James, and Charles, each of whom encouraged the country gentry to stay out of the City environs by enacting a series of proclamations prohibiting the further construction of buildings in and around the City.  26  Related proclamations also demanded London's  James I s 1615 "Proclamation for Buildings," one of a steady stream of proclamations against the continued construction of new buildings under his reign, pleadingly resolves that since "Our Citie of L o n d o n is become the greatest, or next the greatest Citie of the C h r i s t i a n w o r l d , i t is more then time that there bee an utter cessation of further New-buildings, lest the surcharge and overflow of people doe b r i n g u p o n our said Citie infinite inconveniences, Which have bene so often mentioned" (Proclamations 345-46).  27 landed gentry to leave the City during certain periods of the year. In February 1633 alone, 248 men and women were subpoenaed for remaining in London, though their cases were never heard in court (Heal 222). For the legal quarter, the implications of these royal concerns about the growth of London's population were significant. James's and Charles's efforts to preserve parcels of land (such as Lincoln's Inn Fields) against development were designed to discourage "covetous and greedy" opportunists from building "squalid tenements" near newly-built manor houses in the area (Brett-James 151-54, 109-14).  27  The Crown was not the only dominating force that challenged the autonomy of the Inns; the City's commodity and entertainment markets— the theatres, shops, and bear-baiting pits, for example—also encroached upon legal commons. The benchers of the early seventeenth-century Inns, who 28  Both James I (on 29 May 1603) and Charles I (on 20 June 1632) issued proclamations that sought to curtail the great numbers of gentlemen f r o m the counties w h o were flocking to London, b u i l d i n g houses, and, as the proclamations suggest, contributing to the hardship of the country's poor. James's p r o c l a m a t i o n , p u b l i s h e d i n the f i r s t year of his r e i g n i n anticipation of his coronation, calls this hardship a breeding "sicknesse," w h i c h was spreading t o w a r d the City and threatening to m a r the solemnity of the upcoming royal event. Charles's p r o c l a m a t i o n r e m i n d s the gentry of its o b l i g a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the hospitality of the country's poor, as previous royal decrees had done, b u t i t more b o l d l y enumerates the urban problems generated by the growing numbers of country gentry w h o were r e s i d i n g i n the C i t y , namely that "the city was becoming d i f f i c u l t to g o v e r n , was increasingly vulnerable to dearth and disease, and was intolerably burdened by the cost of maintaining the poor, including those w h o followed the rich into t o w n " (Heal 211). Resistance to the development of the area around Lincoln's I n n came f r o m w i t h i n the Inns as well. I n 1604 there was a Chancery suit regarding the nuisances associated w i t h b u i l d i n g construction near the Inn. This suit served as a precedent for Clement's Inn v. Ford (1632), resulting i n a w r i t to prohibit building near an I n n of Chancery "if i t w o u l d happen that the students of the inn, incumbent i n the same i n the study of o u r laws, w o u l d be so m u c h disturbed w i t h the clamours and noise of m e n resorting to that place that they could not follow their studies" (qtd. i n Manley 1995: 61). " W i t h theatres on both sides of the river, [and] Alsatia, Ram A l l e y and the Savoy o n their door steps," Prest observes, "young men at the [I]nns, often w i t h money i n their purses and swords b y their sides for the first time i n their lives" were easily l u r e d away f r o m the regimen of legal study (1972:141). Francis Lenton, i n The Young Gallant's Whirligigg (1629), provides an interesting snapshot of the w a y w a r d young l a w student: His Tutor was the man that kept h i m i n , That hee ran not into excesse of Sinne. H i s literature f i l l ' d his Parents hearts  28 were in control of the law students under their jurisdiction, were constantly faced with the disciplinary problems involving the increasing numbers of "disobedient ambitious gentlemen" who were flocking to the Inns as part of what Mark Curtis has called a London-bound migration of "alienated intellectuals" from Oxford and Cambridge (Curtis 25). The dialogue between Westminster and London in Thomas Dekker's pamphlet The Dead Tearme (1608) illustrates the problems that the legal profession, represented by Westminster, encountered as a result of London's alluring luxury market. Westminster laments how the attractions of the City entice the gatherings of lawyers away from the court of law and toward the haunts of drunkenness,  W i t h joy, and comfort, hoping his deserts Might purchase credit and a good report, A n d therefore send h i m to the Innes of Court, To study Lawes, and never so surcease, T i l l he be made a Justice for the peace. N o w here the ruine of the Youth begins, For when the Country cannot finde out sinnes To fit his humour, London d o t h invent Millions of vices, that are incident To his aspiring minde; for now one yeare D o t h elevate h i m to a higher sphere; A n d makes h i m thinke he hath atchieved more, Then all his fathers auncesters before. (3-4) Just one year of a gentleman's exposure to the City's corrupting influences w h i l e he was at the Inns was enough, according to this and other accounts, to undermine the natural course of his professional success. Sir John Davies, an established barrister at the M i d d l e Temple, tells the story ( i n his f o r t y - t h i r d epigram, entitled " I n Publium") of the l a w student w h o prefers to spend his time at the bear-baiting pits across the Thames than at his desk: Publius student at the common law, Oft leaves his bookes, and for his recreation: To Paris Garden doth himselfe W i t h d r a w e , Where he is ravisht w i t h such delectation As downe amongst the dpgges and beares he goes, Where whilst he skipping cries To head, To head, Flis satten doublet and his velvet hose, A r e all w i t h spittle f r o m above be-spread. Then he is like his Fathers cuntrey hall, Stinking w i t h dogges, and muted all w i t h haukes. A n d rightly too on h i m this f i l t h doth fall, W h i c h for such filthie sports his bookes forsakes, Leave olde Ployden, Dier and Brooke alone, To see olde Harry Hunkes and Sacarson.  29  quarreling, and pride across the Fleet during the "dead terme[s]"—the four "mean vacations" that separated term time and the learning vacations.  29  Westminster yearns for the abolition of these vacations, which disturb the smooth course of the law: When thou (O thou beautiful, but bewitching citty) by the Wantonness of thine eye, and the Musicke of thy voyce allurest people from all the corners of the Land, to throng in heapes, at thy Fayres and thy Theatres: Then, (even then) sit I like a widdow in the middest of my mourning. . . . Yea, in the open streets is such walking, such talking, such running, such riding, such clapping of windows, such rapping of chamber doores, such crying out for drink, such buying up of weate, and such calling uppon shottes, that at every such time, I verily believe I dwell in Towne of Warre. London's matronly response to her upstart sister's complaint is that "deade" terms supply a necessary release from the arduous labors of the English common law—necessary for the manner in which they enable the law to operate in a harmonious relationship with the market.  30  London  understands how the rhythms of law and the marketplace, represented by Westminster and London respectively, have, over time, caused the two jurisdictions to resemble each other so closely that they have become indistinguishable. The Inns were the institutional links between these two harmonizing sisters. As such, they offered places in which students could learn the rules of 2  9  "Mean vacations" were periods w h e n the l a w court at Westminster was held. "Learning vacations" were t w o twenry-four-day-long periods i n the spring and autumn w h e n readings took place i n the Inns' halls.  3  0  London argues that i f "foure Tearmes should be w i t h o u t tearme and never come to an end, those feastes w h i c h they incite thee to, w o u l d be their incurable surfeits, a n d so consequently thy destruction. I f the sounde of Lawyer's tongues were but one whole twelve m o n t h i n t h i n earse, then t h y selfe w o u l d s t even loath it, t h o i t were unto the never so delicate sicke."  30 the law and the market simultaneously. A student could learn the common law only by participating in commons because it was the one system that could bestow this capital. When residing at his Inn, however, the student was also exposed to London's luxury market, an infamous source of distraction from study. It is interesting that a student's ultimate success in the legal 31  profession—devoted as it was to the (re)formation of codes that governed primarily civic relationships concerning property—was determined largely by his ability to disassociate himself from the City's markets, which, as a future barrister, he might eventually have to interrogate. Even while, as Dekker's London claims, the law and the market were closely integrated in practice, legal theory stressed their independence, an emphasis that had everything to do with maintaining the integrity of the Inns. J. H . Baker's work on the legal culture of early modern England supports a configuration of the Inns' relationship to London in terms of relative autonomy: "Law schools," Baker argues, "are not indifferent to real life; but they do give law an intellectual life of its own, and their logic is sometimes stronger than pressures from the changing world outside" (1986: 465). The strength with which the Inns maintained their intellectual life against the pressures of the City and Crown depended entirely on the extent  A variety of books written by barristers advised students on ways to steer clear of distracting activities associated w i t h the City so they could more effectively immerse themselves i n commons culture. I n his Direction or Preparative to the Study of the Lawe (1600)—a guidebook for the l a w student w r i t t e n at Gray's I n n i n 1 5 9 9 — W i l l i a m Fulbecke stipulates that "the w i l l , counsel, and decree of the citie is contained i n the lawes, as the bodie can doe n o t h i n g w i t h o u t the soule: so a citie w i t h o u t L a w cannot use her actions, p o w e r , or authority" (9). Fulbecke is certainly aware of the apparent t e d i u m of legal study that propelled many young termers to urban distractions and away f r o m their l a w books, yet his insistence that "surely there is n o t h i n g of w e i g h t or w o o r t h , w h i c h m a y be compassed w i t h o u t paine and travaile" indicates the urgent need to address openly the challenges that the termers faced i n their long journey to the bar. The copy of Fulbecke's book i n the B r i t i s h L i b r a r y (shelf-mark 1130.D.14) was once owned b y one George Chalmers, w h o dutifully underlined Fulbecke's pronouncements as if he were memorizing facts f r o m a textbook.  31  to which they could claim sole authority over the internal logic of the English common law and the manner in which this logic was taught in the hierarchical social structure of legal commons. This hierarchy was recognizable in every aspect of the Inns' organization and daily life, including their ranking system, routines of training, and rituals of commons.  The rules of the game  There were multiple reasons for going to the Inns. One could learn the art of legal disputation and proceed to the bar, take advantage of London's cultural opportunities, or engage in a mixture of these pursuits. The primary attraction seems to have been their prestige, which had everything to do with the social magic of the common law, even if only some of the students managed to take the time to learn the tricks of the profession. The Inns retained this magic through institutional practices that were designed at every stage to compel students to respect the authority of the practicing barrister. This authority was manifested in every aspect of the Inns' organization— from the clothes worn by its residents to the nomenclature, physical setting, seating arrangements, and social formalities that regulated daily behavior in commons. Commons was centered in each of the four Inns' halls, and the material arrangement of the hall's furnishings reflected and confirmed each society's hierarchical social structure. In each hall, the inner- and utterbarristers sat in rows at the back of the hall. A central fireplace separated the students from the ancients and governing benchers, who sat at the high table on a dais located at the upper end of the hall (see figure 5). On the wall above the dais of the Inner Temple was a large window filled with coats of arms—of  32  William Herbert, Henry Carey, Queen Elizabeth, King James, as well as Lord Chancellors, Earls, Dukes, and Barons (Hart 17). It was in this formal, aristocratically-inspired environment that students took notes from readings of statutes given by practicing barristers, engaged in the Inn's legal exercises, and ate meals together.  32  New students entered the Inns as "clerks" or "punies"; they wore plain, sleeveless black gowns with a flap collar, topped by a round black cloth cap.  33  During meals they all had to sit apart from the rest of the membership at tables marked "Clerks' Commons." After two years, each member could proceed to the "Masters' Commons," which were also divided into sections for inner-barristers, outer (or "utter") barristers, and benchers. Stipulated among thirty-two rules governing commons at Gray's Inn (listed at the end of  W. C. Richardson observes that since the Halls at the Inns of Court were used for the legal exercises of mooting and b o l t i n g they were arranged as closely as possible to resemble a courtroom, w h i c h always contained a physical barrier, called the Bar, separating the judges f r o m the attorneys, court officials, and general public. A l t h o u g h originally there may have been an actual barricade at the Inns, it came to be replaced by an imaginary or symbolic "Bar," represented by . . . an oblong table . . . [that] d i v i d e d the membership of the society between Benchers and [student] barristers, the latter as pleaders standing outside the Bar. (note, 16) Institutional rank was physically delineated by the placement of the tables, chairs, a n d other f u r n i s h i n g s ; the intimate arrangement of the furnishings was also designed to encourage students to discuss legal problems w i t h colleagues of the same rank. I n The First Part of the Institute of the Lawes of England (1628), Coke states that "conference w i t h others . . . is the life of studie" (qtd. i n Prest 1972: 117). I n "Eating L a w : Commons, Common Land, Common L a w " (1991), Peter G o o d r i c h discusses the relationship between the monastic routine of commons a n d the exclusivity of the c o m m o n l a w . By i m p o s i n g hierarchical seating arrangements, m i r r o r i n g collegiate d i n i n g halls, a n d s u r r o u n d i n g its inhabitants w i t h visual reminders of the Inns' royal connections t h r o u g h coats-of-arms, the Inns of Court hall contains a n d regulates the transmission of this tacit knowledge by structuring the social order t h r o u g h w h i c h these feats of meaning are circulated. In The Rules of Art, Bourdieu speaks of the value of court dress ( i n this sense, an aristocratic court) i n terms of its ultimate dependence o n the self-perpetuation of the court and its associated habitus; the "court cloak," i n other words, is "valid only for a court w h i c h , i n producing itself and i n reproducing itself as such, reproduces . . . the whole system of agents and institutions charged w i t h producing and reproducing the habitus a n d the 'habits' of the court." I t is the court's process of (re)producing both itself and its habitus that b o t h satisfies and generates a "desire" for a court cloak (172).  33 Gesta Grayorum,  351-52) is the strict order of seating arrangements in the hall  and the chapel during term. Alongside rules pertaining to the fortnightly installments of fees, terms of actual residence, and notices of absence were regulations disallowing "Fellows of the Society, under degree of a Barrister, [to] sit at the Barr table in Term time," forbidding anyone to "stand with his back to the fire," and designating the placement of non-barristers among chapel congregations to seats well away from the most senior members of the society. Rules such as these were designed to enforce the Inns' hierarchical system at every level of daily practice. The inner barristers were still regarded as students and not as full barristers, but their continuous attendance at commons for two years warranted them some degree of privilege, though not much. The majority of the Inns' membership from 1590-1640 fits this status; inner barristers often greatly outnumbered the utter barristers, since only about one in six students was called to the bar (Baker 1986: 136). A student who had made it this far 34  had devoted around seven years to the diligent study of the common law, and thereby had been recommended by the governing benchers of his Inn to be called to its bar, an event that was "judicially recognized as a mark of [his] legal training" and that signified his status as a barrister and thus a fully practicing member of his Inn. A student's call to the bar signified his ability to speak the law with authority—to discern from the amorphous background of the English common law a clear logic that he could convincingly articulate in court. Prest notes that a barrister's full membership in his Inn did not  Only members of the Inns could be admitted to the bar, and only those w h o were admitted to the bar could eventually advocate the l a w i n Parliament. Prest observes that b y 1590, "the four Inns had each laid d o w n a broadly similar set of qualifications for call to the bar. The m a i n academic elements were attendance at either f o u r or six l e a r n i n g vacations immediately before call and participation i n a given number of moots both abroad at the Inns of Chancery and w i t h i n the parent house of court" (1972: 54).  34 necessarily mean he had more material privileges than the students; his privileges seemed to be symbolic (seating and clothing). Although the barristers sat at separate tables in hall (wearing long black grogam robes with two velvet welts on the long hanging sleeves), they "ate the same food, paid for their wine (which the benchers received free) and took no part in the government of the house except during vacations, when they ruled as delegates of the bench" (1972: 48). Every four or five years, and in order of seniority, a group of barristers was elected to serve on the Grand Company of Ancients. It was from among the Company that benchers appointed readers, who were charged with leading the Inn's instruction of law during term. A reader normally undertook fourteen or fifteen years of training before he was assigned his first reading in the autumn vacation, after which he was likely appointed as a bencher, and thus charged with the duty to serve in the Inn's parliament, which handled the society's governance (Richardson 105). Members of the 35  Company wore knee-length gowns tufted with silk and velvet; these conspicuous signs of authority were meant to inspire the civility and respect of all members. By restricting mobility and by delineating the various ranks of membership, the material furnishings in the Inns' halls physically manifested the ways in which the societies produced and reproduced their systems of social rank. The intimate relationship between physical space and 3  ^ When an Inn's parliament needed new members, the benchers selected '"the chieftest a n d best learned' of the senior barristers, basing their choice u p o n standing and qualifications. Consequently, since the Inns tended to be socially exclusive, i t is not surprising that t h e selection was frequently f r o m a rather restricted g r o u p of distinguished families. This feature was particularly noticeable i n the Inner Temple where candidates f o r a call to the Bench were required to prove their 'gentle blood' for at least three generations. A s a result, Bench vacancies there were commonly filled f r o m a few prominent Inner T e m p l e families" (Richardson 476). The Treasurer was an Inn's highest administrative office, equivalent t o a Master of a college at Oxford and Cambridge (Elliott 198).  35 power was manifested in every aspect of commons, primarily because legal learning was determined more by community involvement than anything else. William Fulbecke, in his Direction or Preparative to the Study of the 36  Law (1600), noted above, teaches the law student how best to thrive in commons. He informs the student that he must restrain his "minde from all voluptuousness and lust," maintain a healthy diet, and study in the morning rather than late into the evening, for the bodie in the night time wareth more dulle, so that the minde cannot use it as a convenient instrument. For when the stomacke is full and stuffed with meate, the thicke aire being round about us, stopping the poores, the great store and abundance of humors is carried, as Aristotle saith to the head, where it stricketh for a time, and layeth as it were a lumpe of leade upon the braine, which maketh us drowsie and proane to sleepe. (13-19) Fulbecke's concern for the health of law students at the Inns suggests that, in his eyes, the healthy state of the common law depends upon the healthy state of the lawyer's own body as much as a disciplined commons. Having mastered the legal word within the hall of his Inn, this body would have to speak and represent the law. The rules that directed the space of commons were conceived as a manifestation of the allegedly systematic order of the common law—an order that was difficult for many to discern. As perpetuators of this order, the students were the tangible link between the order of commons and the order of the law, for the law's logic could not be made apparent but through the art  3 6  Richardson observes that "student life i n commons conformed to a general pattern, w i t h minor differences i n each society. When l i v i n g i n , students normally shared quarters, t w o to a chamber, Benchers only being privileged to have rooms to themselves. Each d a y at the sound of the horn members regularly assembled i n H a l l for the t w o main meals, dinner and supper, around which the major activities of the house were centered" (481).  36 of oral interpretation. Thus the rules of commons focused on the appearance and health of the student's body; the success of the law depended in part on the able bodies of its practitioners. The degree to which a student could 37  master  these rules was greatly determined by the social acculturation that his  family and educational background afforded him.  The habitus of a law student  Bourdieu contends that the "embodied cultural capital of the previous generations" of a privileged family transmits to the family's offspring a model for making cultural preferences in such an "unconscious and impalpable way" that it functions as an advance, head-start, or credit for their acquisition of "legitimate" culture (1984: 70-71). He argues that educational 38  institutions are the primary places of cultural transmission and that one's "success" in these institutions "is better explained by the amount and type of cultural capital inherited from the family milieu than by measures of individual talent or achievement" (Swartz 76). Students at the Inns in this period included gentry and those who were seeking membership in the elite. The Inns offered different kinds of cultural currency to each of these categories of students. Many of them (Edward Coke I am grateful to D r . Patricia Badir f o r her help w i t h this analysis and f o r her specific attention to similar discussions o f material and conceptual space that are central t o m y arguments i n the second chapter. Habitus refers to a set of deeply-ingrained rules, acquired dispositions, and patterned ways of understanding, perceiving, and acting that arise f r o m an individual's position i n a cultural f i e l d a n d the particular social trajectory that has l e d this i n d i v i d u a l to occupy t h i s position. The concept "implies a 'sense of one's place' but also a 'sense of the place of others'" (Bourdieu 1989: 19)—a "sense of place and out-of-place i n a stratified social w o r l d " (Swartz 106). D a v i d Swartz defines this concept as "a deep-structuring c u l t u r a l m a t r i x t h a t generates self-fulfilling prophecies according to different class opportunities" (104). These opportunities create an agent's disposition that predisposes h i m / h e r to "select forms of conduct that are most likely to succeed according to anticipated consequences" (106)—to "behave i n a certain way i n certain circumstances" (Bourdieu 1990: 77).  37 is an extreme example) wanted to transform legal capital into economic or social capital. Other students, like John Donne, regarded the Inns' prestige 39  as a means to position themselves strategically in cultural fields beyond London's legal domain. The dispositions that distinguished Coke and Donne's rank in the juridical field were greatly informed by the different social trajectories that directed them to the Inns in the first place. Coke was the son of a prominent barrister, while Donne, born into a Catholic family, was the son of a prosperous London citizen who was the Warden of the Company of Ironmongers. The variety of family and institutional backgrounds that students like Coke and Donne brought to commons culture had much to do with the markedly different ways of perceiving the social utility of the common law and the Inns. Bourdieu argues that, i n contemporary societies, individuals and groups use cultural resources "to perpetuate their positions of privilege and power" (Swartz 190). To a great extent, he maintains, the educational system reproduces social class relations by reinforcing a n d p r o t e c t i n g , rather t h a n r e d i s t r i b u t i n g , c u l t u r a l capital (191). By " r e p r o d u c i n g the hierarchies of the social w o r l d i n a transformed f o r m , " educational institutions "inculcate the dominant systems of classification t h r o u g h w h i c h symbolic capital is expressed" (203; 189). Bourdieu's assessment of the academy's situation w i t h respect to the field of p o w e r illuminates h o w the Inns offered an institutional setting for the p r o d u c t i o n of symbolic capital i n the f o r m of legal art. The barrister, as the maker of the common l a w through his specialized language, very m u c h recognized the p o w e r of his craft and h o w his legal training at the Inns set h i m apart f r o m the public. A t the Inns, the legal art occupied a p o s i t i o n i n the f i e l d of p o w e r governed b y Bourdieu's principle of internal hierarchization; lawyers spoke to lawyers and gained their power f r o m the system of legal commons. The Inns' educational system perpetuated the "insular traditions of the common law" (Rodgers 143) b y creating w h a t Bourdieu calls a n antimimetic market, a place where "symbolic capital refuses to be assessed i n economic terms." Ideally, legal commons was designed to present the common l a w as a discipline removed f r o m economic concerns. Between this cultural market and the commodity market (e.g. the field of power), "a long and complex game is played . . . i n w h i c h the tactic of delaying convertibility may y i e l d the best profits i n the end" (386). Fulbecke shares this vision i n his argument that the law student should focus his energy on his studies, not on his other desires. I n close dialogue w i t h the Inns' antimimetic market was its mimetic market, i n w h i c h "there is no attempt to conceal the m u t u a l convertibility of cultural and material capital; o n the contrary, agents are deliberately and even enthusiastically interested i n reconstructing cultural spheres as practices of rational accumulation and assured convertibility" (Guillory 388). Plays, revels, and masques were the forms that these reconstructions assumed at the Inns, whereby their participants thought t h r o u g h their relationship to commons and the common law, and considered the extent to w h i c h they could profit f r o m this relationship.  38 The conditions for entering an Inn were nominally determined by one's family background. Even though the membership did not actually 40  share a homogeneous social background, the imposing facade of the Inns' gates, walls, and crest-decorated halls gave the appearance of containing an exclusive class of future statesmen  4 1  The students' need to appear to possess  the qualities associated with an aristocratic background is underlined by the frequency with which new entrants to the Inns seem to have misrepresented their family's status upon matriculation. C. W. Brooks explains that the large numbers of students who identified themselves as gentlemen upon their admission in fact were of "bourgeois or plebeian stock" (1981: 56). While students entering a college at Oxford or Cambridge often understated their position in order to pay lower fees, some of the Inns' entrants "styled themselves as gentlemen" in order to meet the expected status category and then felt privileged to spend beyond their means and to behave in ways that were perceived as unbefitting the dignity of their professional calling (Stone  Demographic studies of the Inns' students suggest that the balance between gentry and nongentry shifts over time, perhaps because of the different reasons for going to the Inns. Entry to an Inn, at least theoretically, was reserved largely f o r the eldest sons of gentlemen w h o had "enjoyed the ministrations of private tutors at home, followed by the Grand Tour and attendance at one of the French academies" (Stone 1964: 58). W i l f r i d Prest's research into the social origins of students w h o were actually called to the bar f r o m 1590 and 1639, however, shows that only half of these students came f r o m "substantial landed families of gentry rank or higher." The rest, Prest observes, consisted of "at best bourgeois or professional 'pseudo-gentry'" (1981: 81). Combined, this evidence suggests that, at least f r o m 1631 to 1635, around half of the Inns' students w e r e not gentrymen, and half of these d i d not stand to inherit their family fortunes. The acquisition of legal capital was therefore the p r i m a r y means of assuring their o w n financial prosperity. The aspiring entrant to an I n n might have perceived a need to appear as a qualified member of what Bourdieu calls an objective class: a set of agents w h o are placed i n homogeneous conditions of existence i m p o s i n g homogeneous conditionings and producing homogeneous systems of dispositions capable of generating similar practices; and w h o possess a set of common properties, objectified properties, sometimes legally guaranteed (as possession of goods a n d p o w e r ) or properties embodied as class habitus (and, i n particular, systems of classificatory schemes). (1984:101)  39 1964: 60-61). Francis Lenton's description of "A young Barrester" in his Characterismi  (1631) stereotypes this tendency:  . . . His very calling writes him Esquire, though his Scutchion sometimes cannot speak him Gentleman, except by way of admittance. Hee is very openhanded till his fee hath clutcht it, and then he's open mouth'd, and will be sure to speake more than toth' purpose, whilest his silly Client rejoyceth as much in the very tone of his tongue, as the substance of his talke, being both coequall to his capacity. The pressure to conform to the standards of expenditure set by the wealthier residents created financial problems for many of the Inns' newest members. Prest notes that the "accepted minimum cost of maintaining a student at the [I]nns was about £40" a year during our period, compared to a minimum of around £10 to £15 at the universities (1972: 28). The social 42  pressure to spend extravagant amounts of money on fashionable clothes, dinners and suppers in town, lessons at dancing and fencing academies, and miscellaneous expenses for gaming, drinking, plays, and a personal servant exacerbated the financial problems of the new termers. These ostentatious - " W i t h no scholarships and no opportunities for service," A n n Cook observes, "anyone w h o entered the Inns, either directly or f o l l o w i n g a university stint, simply had to have m o n e y . . . . A stay at the Inns of Court not only l e d to the most lucrative of all the professions but also carried such immense social prestige that i t became the natural choice for those w h o could afford to educate their sons alongside nobles' and gentlemens' sons. The number of such rich aspirants was small—certainly no more than a quarter and perhaps fewer than a tenth of the total membership" (38-39). Though their number was apparently small, their impact on the Inns' culture of conspicuous consumption was significant, as Cook describes: [L]etters home constantly requested money, no matter what the size of their allowances. Thomas Archer begged funds for clothes, 'for w h a t I have is almost past wearinge.' Some notion of the sort of expense he h a d i n m i n d was revealed by the £24 E d w a r d Heath's father laid out i n 1630 for a new cloak and suit, i n addition to £13 f o r a length of green velvet. Rooms cost money too. After several weeks of temporary lodging, George Radcliffe wrote, 'If y o u can provide me 20 pounde I can buy a fair chamber therewith, together w i t h what m y good friends w i l l lend me.' A m o n t h later, he reported, 'I a m n o w about a chamber: it is a faire chamber, butt w i l l coste me much. Send me worde w h e n I shall have money towardes it, and h o w m u c h y o u can w e l l provide. I have already taken uppe of m y quarteradge 9 pounde, and I shall neede more this quarter 3 pounde.' (69)  40 displays were part of a larger culture at the Inns that was centered on the appearance  of having the cultural advances associated with an aristocratic  upbringing. W. C. Richardson notes that "special banquets and suppers at 43  mooting time at Gray's Inn had grown so excessive [and costly] by 1613 that they were prohibited altogether; almost simultaneously Lincoln's Inn took similar action, though the order was not strictly enforced" (485). "Frequently," Richardson observes, "those of less able circumstances took rooms in town to avoid social competition with the more fortunate" (487). Some members of the profession eventually became exhausted by this culture of excess. "Good God, what a world is this? What an age doe wee now lyve in?," exclaims Abraham Fraunce to his fellow "learned lawyers" at Gray's Inn in The Lawyer's Logicke (1588). A Cambridge rhetorician, poet, and  I n The Mastive, or Young-Whelpe of the Olde Dogge (1615), H e n r y Parrot provides a characterization of a l a w student w h o sneaks his w a y f r o m the Inns to Westminster H a l l along the Thames i n order to avoid his creditors o n the Strand: Tassus f r o m Temple Stayres by water goes To Westminster, and back to Temple rowes: Belike he loves not trot too much the streete, Or surbait on the stones his tender feete: Tut come, there's something in't must not be knowne: But Sir, beleev't, The debt is not his owne. Francis Cowper remarks o n the "small w o n d e r that some d i d shrink f r o m the ordeal" of residency at the Inns, for the "sustained intellectual effort of subtlety i n disputation before an audience w h i c h spent all its time sharpening its wits i n the same sort of argumentation, was matched by the financial strain of a munificent hospitality w h i c h a l l the o f f i c i a l discouragement i n the w o r l d could not keep w i t h i n bounds, w h e n sociable impulses a n d gargantuan appetites set the standards for the public opinion of the table" (29). I n his Alarum Against Usurers (1584), a w o r k of prose fiction addressed to his "courteous friends, the gentlemen of the Inns of Court," Thomas Lodge tells the story of a prodigal s o n — stereotypically "a university m a n w i t h a considerable inheritance, w h o is connected w i t h the Inns of Court, whose loving mother has died, whose father's patience wears t h i n , a n d w h o serves a term i n prison" (Helgerson 1976:108)—who i n the end succumbs to the forces of usury that have corrupted h i m . Even as his protagonist becomes a maker of prodigals, Lodge w a r n s his readers against f o l l o w i n g the hero's example. H e laments the p e r p e t u a l indebtedness arising f r o m a y o u n g termer's unscrupulous l i v i n g once he leaves home a n d arrives at the Inns: Lorde what rioutousnesse passeth i n apparell, what lavishnesse i n banketting, w h a t looseness i n l i v i n g , and i n verie short space, our y o u t h . . . comes to his ungratious Broker, w h o m w i t h faire tearmes he desireth, and w i t h humble suites more earnestlye beseecheth to further his credite i n what he may. (3)  41 logician, Fraunce went to Lincoln's Inn in the 1580s; by attempting to link law to scholastic knowledge, he hoped to undermine the use of the common law's mystique as a tool for social superiority. In Logicke, he laments the antics of "newfangled, youngheaded, hairebrayne boyes," who "will needes be Maysters that never were Schollers; prate of Methode, who never knew order; rayle against Aristotle as soon as they are crept out of a shell." Fraunce also condemns the continual development of a tenacious arrogance among the younger law students, who, having secured a place at the Inns, thought themselves worthy of the title "Gentlemen." Londoners both inside and 44  outside the legal quarter saw the ill effects of the Inns' preoccupation with social status on the impressionable termer. Fraunce insists that if "lawyers [were] to become better schollers, . . . there would not bee so many upstart Rabulx  Forenses,  which under a praetence of Lawe, become altogeather  lawlesse, to the continuall molestation of ignoraunt men, and generall overcharging of the countrey." According to Fraunce, arrogance was the worst quality that students cultivated at the Inns. Many entrants worked their way to the Inns from humble backgrounds, and embarked upon successful legal careers; even so, their success at the Inns was dependent to a degree on their ability to demonstrate the kind of advances associated with their more socially privileged peers  4 5  In  Anton-Hermann Chroust suggests that [i]t was at the Inns that young men became permeated w i t h a sense of the greatness o f their calling. This mode of t r a i n i n g , acquired i n close association w i t h people of identical pursuits and ideals, fostered a h i g h sense of professional honour and professional competence. The control over legal education no less than over the practice of the English Common Law was entrusted to the Inns of Court. By the manner i n w h i c h they taught the l a w of the Realm they cast themselves i n the i m m o r t a l role of guardians of the Common Law. (122) I n 1598, Francis Crawley, the son of a maltster, went to Gray's I n n f r o m Bedfordshire, and became the Justice of the Common Pleas i n 1632: H i s career, together w i t h that of t w o other local men w h o rose f r o m yeomen origins to become Benchers of the I n n , is a useful corrective to the usual stereotype of the profession three or four hundred years ago. What were these factors i n Crawley's case?  42 Roome for  a  Gentleman  (1609), the soldier Barnabe Riche criticizes the  "general controversie" among "the inferior sort of those that would faine be reputed to be Gentlemen, but likewise amongst the better sort of those that be knowne to be Gentlemen by birth, and others by their places and professions are gentelized, and worthy to be esteemed" (2-3). For Riche, becoming a professional is the best means of "gentelization," and he distinguishes "professional" gentlemen from those who attain this status merely through the "enjoying of wealth & riches." Riche, however, adds that it "skills not what their Fathers were, whether Farmers, Shoomakers, Taylers or Tinkers, if their names be inrolled in any Inne of Court, they are all Gentlemen" (12-13). This caveat highlights the consciousness of rank that was so much a part of commons culture; aristocrats, who went to the Inns for fashion's sake, were in close quarters with students who depended on professional development as a means to elevate their standing in English society. For Riche, the student who diligently prepared for his calling to the bar was a gentleman, for he acquired his status through worthy actions. Riche condemns students who 46  Clearly innate ability must come first, to which can be added family prosperity, based on his father's occupation, which w o u l d have enabled h i m to send his son to Cambridge and the Inns of Court. Marriage too may have been of assistance and influenced his choice of I n n , since Crawley's wife was the daughter of Sir l o h n Rotheram o f L u t o n , who entered his son there. (Lee 41) Crawley's successful rise f r o m humble origins into a "gentlemanly pattern of l i f e " was l i k e l y a crucial decision for his family. H u g h Kearney suggests that "[f]or those i n the half w o r l d of yeoman, agriculture, and trade, the decision whether to become a gentleman or not was one w h i c h affected the future life-chances of a family. A t issue was a question of status rather than power, though of course an acceptable social status d i d mean the general opening of possibilities i n politics and elsewhere" (26). John Tonge, son of W i l l i a m Tonge of Bredgar, Kent, exemplifies this k i n d of gentleman. The Tonge family was part of the minor landed g e n t r y — p e o p l e w i t h "more education than the yeoman and thought of by. themselves and their neighbours as gentlemen" but w h o d i d not have familial ties to the aristocracy: W i l l i a m Tonge was a w e l l educated man w h o treasured his books w h i c h he left to l o h n his eldest son. He had bought more land to provide for the education and schooling of all his children. He wished John to be a lawyer and from 16 to 24 years there was £20 a year to support h i m at the Inns of Court 'which is m y desyre if it please god to blesse him.' (Allinson 47-48)  43 went to a particular Inn perhaps because it was convenient to London, or because as inheritors of estates they were expected to know something about the law, or just because their peers did the same.  47  Bourdieu suggests that whereas in the literary field the "rules of the game" are themselves at stake (these rules being the determining factors for one's "success" as a writer), in non-literary fields (like the juridical field) the rules of the game are largely based on social class and wealth—the advances afforded by one's habitus. In other words, the struggle to become a writer is open to a more diverse array of players than struggles associated with more institutionalized arenas of cultural expertise. Success at the Inns, for instance, appears to have been largely based on the appearance of possessing the social advantages of an aristocrat. Like all educational institutions devoted to the transmission of knowledge, the Inns tacitly perpetuated this system of class hierarchies in the way they implemented—through their rules and ranking systems—socially constituted taxonomies,  which are in general the  William's emphasis on education and the l a w as the key to his son's professional success suggests that, i f indeed John went t o the Inns, he w o u l d have been prepared for the rigors of the common law; his yearly bursary, however, w o u l d not have matched even the m i n i m u m financial expectations of his Inn, much less those of his more wealthy peers. Louis Knafla comments o n the g r o w i n g tendency f o r L o n d o n - b o u n d m e n i n particular geographical regions to recognize a specific I n n as their society of choice (244). Ross Lee observes that i n A u g u s t 1620, "no fewer than seventeen men of Bedfordshire o r i g i n were admitted to Gray's Inn. Most were the sons of local g e n t r y . . . " (39). Lee notes the tendency for the "binding texture" of intermarried families to compel their male offspring to head f o r the same Inn. H e also observes that of the seventeen w h o joined the I n n that August, only t w o are k n o w n to have become practicing lawyers (40). Most returned to Bedfordshire, i t seems. Gray's I n n was traditionally regarded as the most prestigious of the Inns, so i t is likely that these entrants were attracted more to the possibility of associating w i t h an Inn's commons culture than the prospect of actually engaging i n its professional regimen of legal study. This culture was a desirable environment for gaining u p w a r d social mobility, for courtiers often "paused briefly at one of the Inns before their translation to higher realms." The Inns were eager to admit such gentlemen as honorary members because the coats of arms that they placed i n their Inn's hall served as "visible evidence of the society's honourable connections" (Prest 1972: 224-25).  44  interiorization of jurisdictional oppositions existing in the juridical and social fields (Bourdieu 1990: 16) 48 It was not unusual for Inns' entrants to have left one of the universities without a degree. For those who desired to practice the common law at Westminster, Oxford and Cambridge had nothing to offer in terms of practical training, despite Dodderidge and Fraunce's insistence on a symbiotic relationship between the arts and sciences and the logic of the common law, with the light of reason as their common source. Civil and canon law were taught at the universities but, at the same time, a student's previous attendance at Oxford or Cambridge did not necessarily assist him at the Inns. The wide variance between the skills that a university education offered its students and the professional skills the Inns demanded of these students generated many complaints by barristers regarding the pedagogical deficiencies of university learning. Many of these barristers were also concerned that the status of the common law was being undermined by the glorification of the arts and sciences at the universities. Lisa Jardine argues that while the art of dialectic in Tudor Cambridge was "the universal, indispensable basis for training in all professional fields," Based on his studies of h o w i n d i v i d u a l s and groups use cultural resources—"especially e d u c a t i o n a l credentials, selection mechanisms, a n d c o g n i t i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s " — t o "perpetuate their positions of privilege and power" (Swartz 190), Bourdieu concludes that educational systems reinforce (rather than redistribute) the "unequal distribution of cultural capital" across a society (191). Institutions of learning reproduce and retransmit this inequality through the imposition of a "curriculum content and style [that offers] advantages to those w h o possess the 'educationally p r o f i t a b l e l i n g u i s t i c capital' o f 'bourgeois language.'" The tendency of this language t o w a r d '"abstraction, formalism, intellectualism, and euphemistic moderation' reflects a literary and cultured disposition that is f o u n d most often among the dominant classes" (199). Bourdieu's assessment is based on his studies of the modern academy i n France, but his conclusion also helps to explain the w a y i n w h i c h the Inns attracted a class of students for w h o m the study of the common law, at least i n theory i f not i n practice, was perceived as a fashionable pursuit, principally because of the social prestige of the I n n s — a prestige t h a t was especially attractive to a f a m i l y that recognized the advantages of having their sons at least appear to possess some knowledge of the common l a w because of the social 'magic' and power that this knowledge represented.  45  it was at the same time "purged of its more specialist aspects" in the universities, especially in the early seventeenth century, when the preoccupations of intellectuals generally veered away from "the quibblings of formal logic" in favor of "the felicities of Latin and vernacular style" and the "problems of the foundations of natural knowledge" (31-62). While these "felicities" cultivated a core of scholars gifted with rhetorical figures at ready hand, they did not serve the specific kind of legal rhetoric that the Inns demanded of the successful barrister. In a letter regarding one of his students who is making his way from Cambridge to Lincoln's Inn, a Cambridge don admits that he does "not remember to have heard any man in [his] life, discourse more substantially, indifferently [impartially], and with less passion, more love and fidelity, then [he has] heard him: Which was the cause that he tooke singular delight to be in his company, and refused no occasion to enjoy the same" {Leycester's Commonwealth).  Such a student would have likely found that his  university-cultivated eloquence would not have impressed a barrister as much as it had his teacher; mooting exercises demanded the very "quibblings of formal logic" to which Jardine refers. These were the tools by which the lawyer gained his power to interpret and clarify the complexities of royal statutes in light of precedents established through the common law tradition. Instead of meticulous logicians, the universities seem to have been producing a steady stream of Inns-bound aesthetes whose "high" tastes in arts and letters were often perceived at the Inns as dilettantish, especially by the barristers, who generally deemed the language of humanism and scholasticism to be incompatible with the language and logic of the common law. This attitude 49  M a n y students w h o left O x f o r d and Cambridge, such as Simonds D'Ewes, saw their arrival at the Inns as a prime o p p o r t u n i t y to develop further the humanist education they h a d already begun. A study o f D'Ewes's l i b r a r y has led A n d r e w Watson t o conclude that  46 typified the general animosity among students perceived as yearning professionals and those associated with letters. This arrogance, based on the perceived value of legal and intellectual capital, afflicted the entire culture of the Inns. Peter Goodrich observes that the lawyers regarded the university men with disdain, and they "explicitly denied that a good scholar could ever make a good lawyer or, even more irrationally, that an historian could ever understand the history of the law or that a philologist could lay bare its languages" (1990: 22). The character of "A Fantastic Inns of Court Man" in Sir Thomas Oyerbury's New  and  Choice  Characters  (1615) expresses this  sentiment: He is distinguished from a scholar by a pair of silk stockings and a beaver hat, which makes him contemn a scholar as much as a scholar doth a schoolmaster. By that [because] he hath heard one mooting and seen two plays, he thinks as basely of the university as a young D'Ewes's "period of study at the [ M i d d l e ] Temple saw the beginning of his . . . first largescale acquisition of books" (4). D u r i n g his residency, D'Ewes acquired more than t w o hundred printed books; contemporary history (and not just English history) and p o l i t i c a l theory "held the place of honour," but heraldry books, classics, t w o dozen Bibles, works by Erasmus, sermons by Lancelot Andrewes, and some poetry (Barclay, Tasso, D r a y t o n , Sidney) also shared the shelves w i t h his legal materials. W i l l i a m S m i t h , the eldest son a n d heir of an East A n g l i a n l a n d e d f a m i l y , was admitted to Gray's I n n f r o m Cambridge i n June 1608. U p o n his death the f o l l o w i n g year, he left at Gray's I n n w o r k s by Catullus, Cicero (De Oratione), L i v y , Plutarch (The Lives), Seneca (F/ores), Suetonius and Tacitus; he also possessed a copy of Spenser's Faerie Queene, and Gerard Mercator's Atlas. The sixth son of a Dorset squire, W i l l i a m Freke entered the M i d d l e Temple f r o m Oxford i n 1622 and immediately began to amass a large library, w h i c h included such works as Christopher Sutton's Godly Meditations upon the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper (1601), Robert Record's The Ground of Artes (1542), Thomas Hill's The Art of Vulgar Arithmeticke (1600), Lodge's Rosalynde, Samuel Daniel's The Collection of the Historie of England (1612-17), a French b i b l e , Shakespeare's Othello, and Thomas Thomkins's academic play, Lingua or the Combat of the Tongues (Prest 1972: 160-61). The breadth of scope exhibited b y the book collections of D'Ewes, Smith, and Freke illustrates not only the possibilities that the Inns offered (as post-Oxbridge academies of social fashion) to m e n of financial means w h o could patronize the booksellers that lined Fleet Street, but also the extent to w h i c h their n e w f o u n d p r o x i m i t y to the City of L o n d o n — w i t h its multi-faceted cultures, its social v a r i e t y — p e r h a p s stimulated their desire to acquire a greater scope of reading materials than university culture probably encouraged.  47 sophister doth of a grammar school. He talks of the university with that state as if he were her chancellor; finds fault with alterations and the fall of discipline with an 'It was not so when I was a student,' although that was within this half-year . . . Some university-educated students (like Donne, who studied at both Oxford and Cambridge before he entered Lincoln's Inn) regarded the professionalism of their peers with equal contempt, having "imbibed the prejudices of clerical, classicist, dons," who predisposed their students to view the common law as "harsh and barbarous." From Oxford and then Cambridge, Richard Brathwaite entered Gray's Inn in 1609, having been urged by his parents to pursue a more practical course of study than the "sweet academical exercises" he enjoyed while at university. Brathwaite, however, found the "thorny plashes and places of the law" to be thoroughly distasteful after "the fresh fragrant flowers of divine poesie and morall philosophy." He apparently was among many who shared his ambivalence: "Nor was I the only one . . . who ran deeply into areers with time and gulled the eyes of opinion with a lawgowne. For I found many in my case who could not recompense their parents many years charge with one book-case" (qtd in Prest 1972:142). Such distaste for legal study seems to have increased the value of literature at the Inns, yet this value, for most students, was closely determined by its relation to the prestige of the law. Law and literature were part of the same community. As a more open means of expression than the discourse of common law, literary "performance" served both as a tool and product of the students' collaborative effort to recognize the law as a convertible form of powerful capital (chapter 2), to observe how this capital functioned when staged (chapter 3), and to use it as a political tool (chapter 4).  48 CHAPTER 2  Recognizing the Convertibility of Legal Capital  But now our Principality is determined, which although it shined very bright i n ours and others' darkness, yet, at the Royal Presence of her Majesty, it appeared as an obscured shadow . . . —Gesta Grdyorum, 320.  Standing near the mouth of an open grave, compelled to know what secrets it might contain, Hamlet beholds a skull filled with dirt (5.1). He imagines that the skull once belonged to a lawyer, and marvels that the tricks that had served the lawyer when he lived can now do nothing to defend himself against the careless actions of the gravedigger—the "rude knave" who "knock[s] him about the sconce with a dirty shovel." Hamlet contemplates the ironic fate of this battered skull: its owner once controlled the transaction of property, including land, and now it is full of earth. We need not look very far in the popular literature of the period to find similar attacks against lawyers. In his unexpected encounter with Lussurioso in 4.2 of Thomas Middleton's The Revenger's Tragedy (1607), the revenger Vindici, rather than revealing to his enemy the real source of his visible discontent, identifies twenty-one years of legal study as the source of his melancholy—an experience of toil that has made him privy to the demise of "too many old, rich men" who have died "poisoned with the affectation of law words" and obsessed by the dispossession of their property, even on their deathbeds (see figure 6). John Day's comic play, Law Tricks (1608), parodies the bewildering qualities of legal discourse through the conniving character of Lurdo, a malicious lawyer who perverts the law and its language in order to  49 manipulate his fellow characters in his quest to rule Genoa. At the beginning of the play, Lurdo claims that "knowledge i' the law" brings "[p]ublique applause" and also enables one to profit from the manipulative use of legal language—"to speake in distance." Polymetes, the Duke of Genoa's financially careless son, claims that the lawyer's "vultur Avarice / Devours men liuing: they of all the rest, Deale most with Angells, & yet prove least blest." Many pamphleteers also criticized the legal profession (and the Inns in particular) for its "vested interest in complex and obscure law and legal proceedings" (Macdonald 74). They warned the public of the dire financial ramifications of resorting to the lawyer's verbal machinery as a source of justice. In Roome for a Gentleman (1609), Barnabe Riche advises wise men to avoid lawyers at all costs. Should there "bee no remedy" outside the law, however, the wayward litigant should arm himself with patience and store his purse with crowns, "for the Lawyer . . . sels wind" (25). In The CurtaineDrawer of the World (1612), W. Parkes advises the lay person not to be deceived by the lawyer's "gravity" nor his "lookes of authority" that together, under the "pretence of law and equity," make him to "bee reputed an honest man, a profitable member to the common-wealth." "Under the Curtains of this grave and honest seeming," Parkes warns, "may bee piled up much deceit and wrong," for which he will suffer at the time of his own "inditement." The most obvious reason for this popular resentment of lawyers is the perception that the legal profession authorizes a certain privileged few to feed on human misery. Outside the legal quarter, the law was seen as a mysterious system of deception in which words of dubious etymological origin functioned as costly traps to ensnare those who turned to the law in search of justice. While the legal profession was recognized as an institution that could  50 somehow stabilize society's chaotic change, its methods of doing so were nevertheless mysterious. A more complex reason for the popular hostility towards lawyers lies in the Inns' forward-looking and pragmatic institutional culture, which is what made the legal profession so successful. Located within the general domain of London, but at the same time not wholly part of it, the Inns enjoyed the benefits of their simultaneous (and relative) freedom from and close proximity to the centers of England's power, and this condition enabled the younger members of these societies to look at power ironically. Their ability to do so was largely determined by their awareness of how the public perceived the prestige they were accumulating at the Inns. The strength of the collegial loyalty exhibited by the Inns' residents was maintained largely because this loyalty was regarded with such skepticism by laypeople. This allegiance depended on the preservation of the Inns' identity as houses "entrusted with the sacred duty of preserving the special coinage of law" by "keeping [this coinage] within the legal institution and subject to the singular techniques of its interpretive tradition," such as the transcription of cases and moots in Latin and Law-French (Goodrich 1990: 66, 88) .  5 0  Legal professionals make the public depend on their services by translating the language used to explain conflicts and transactions between agents into legal code. Legal institutions "produce their own problems and their own solutions according to a hermetic logic unavailable to laypeople" (Bourdieu 1987: 834). Like any cultural field, the juridical field's relative autonomy is determined by "theriseof a corps of specialists who are progressively able to develop their own organizations and professional interests, which may deviate significantly from external interests. With growing autonomy comes the capacity to retranslate and reinterpret external demands" (Swartz 127). This process "often runs contrary to the simple counsels of common sense" and renders the non-specialists' sense of fairness and his/her "view of the case" as immaterial (Bourdieu 1987: 828). Even King James, in 1610, wished that the common law "were written in our vulgar language; for now it is in an old, mixt and corrupt language [i.e. "law-French"], only understood by lawyers, whereas every subject ought to understand the law under which he lives ..." (qtd. in Lockyer 62). The "official language" of a professional field enables its members to sanction and impose the concepts it regards as worthwhile, "thereby contributing towards the maintenance of the symbolic order from which it draws its authority" (Bourdieu 1977: 2122). According to Bourdieu, law is the "quintessential form of the symbolic power of naming  51  Hamlet acknowledges that the supposed lawyer whose skull he holds was powerful in his day; yet from the heights of a successful professional life, the lawyer has come to dust just like everyone else. This chapter examines the spatial and discursive practices by which the Inns invited their newer members both to reach such heights and to understand the contingencies of their position. Commons culture enabled the creation of fictions that helped law students understand the systems of domination that determined their subservient position both within and outside the legal quarter. These fictions were constructed as occasional entertainments (or revels), whereby lawyers articulated a certain self-awareness by manipulating and burlesquing the power structure of commons in a manner that stressed the relationship of this structure to London's more powerful political field and commodity markets. These festive rituals were more than a manifestation of the social cachet associated with professional self-ridicule; they were a form of reflexive social criticism whereby the students' seemingly playful rendering of the entire legal enterprise as an object of critical investigation supported a more complex project of recognizing their own collective investment in the authority of the common law.  51  that creates the things named, and creates social groups i n particular" (1987: 838-39). As long as the Inns could "maintain the mentality and closure of an esoteric guild whose mysteries were to remain hidden i n a foreign language, whose concepts were to continue to be insular and defined i n artistic terms, and whose method was to remain inaccessible to the order of reason" (Goodrich 1990: 47), its members could enjoy the ability to convert their legal capital into money. "For Bourdieu," David Swartz maintains, "reflexivity means subjecting the position of the observer to the same critical analysis applied to the object of sociological investigation" (276). Reflexivity also "means developing a critical awareness of the class lens through which one views the social world" (272).  52 Transforming the (common)place  The structure of power relations in commons was designed to channel the transmission of knowledge from an authoritative speaker to subordinated auditors. The hall (as the central place of commons, the place of legal commonplacing) was arranged to reflect this power relationship. The speaker's authority was enforced not only by the hall's arrangement but also by the mystery behind his legal knowledge and discourse, derived as it was from "time immemorial." The dynamic imposed by these relationships structured the meaning of all formal verbal exchanges or performances that took place in the hall both in and out of term. Much of the literature directly associated with the Inns demonstrates that the barristers and students alike were keenly aware of how this dynamic constructed and transmitted legal authority.  Edward Coke's reading on fines The increasing complexity of English society—its rapid growth in population, its flourishing wealth, and London's accompanying role in this development as the center of land transfer—caused London's legal community to become a vital resource for the elite (Cook 61). The legal profession was well aware of its newfound importance, and the career of Edward Coke exemplifies this awareness. For Coke, an insular approach to the common law was an "ideological necessity," and his "self-presentational strategy" was designed to uphold his considerable authority over the law at every turn (Helgerson 1990: 229). Part of this strategy was to associate himself with the ancient legal thinkers and their English descendants. William Fulbecke claims that Littleton's Tenures (which Littleton based on Justinian's  53 Institutes) is "of such singularitie, that Littleton is not now the name of a lawyer, but of the law itself" (Direction 71). Coke modeled his First Institute on Littleton's Tenures, and his commentary on Littleton came to be regarded as the law, just as Justinian's Institutes had once been regarded as the law (Helgerson 1990: 237-38). In turn, Coke included himself among the venerable lawyers who were, by virtue of their legal texts, regarded as personifications of the law. Another part of this strategy was to use his position at the Inns in order to construct a particular reading of legal history, one that would reinforce his own authority and the mystique of his profession. William Hawkins's Three Law Tracts (1764) is an odd edition of three legal texts by Coke. It includes an undated tract entitled "Lord Coke's Reading on 27 Ed. I. called the statute of Finibus levatis." It is interesting to consider why—out of all Coke's readings—Hawkins chose this particular one to include in his printed edition. On the whole, the reading is a routine expostulation of the procedures by which a court can levy a fine for the settlement of land titles. What is noteworthy, however, is the way Coke 52  I w o u l d date this reading to the early part of Coke's career w h e n he was a reader at Lyon's Inn (1578 to possibly around 1589) because i t concerns a legal procedure normally undertaken by "common attorneys," who were not barristers but rather served as officers of the courts w i t h chiefly clerical duties, w h i c h they performed as agents or representatives of persons w h o had legal business i n the King's Courts of the Common Law. Attorneys d i d not "enjoy t h e right of audience [ i n the Courts], but they were competent to take all steps i n such business prior to the exchange of pleadings" i n court (Keeton 8). A t the Inns of Chancery, such as Lyon's Inn, student-attorneys learned the less glamorous mechanics of the l a w — p r o c e d u r e s , fees, writs, rules, and the like. Students copied writs of the Clerks of Chancery, listened to readers sent over b y their corresponding I n n of Court to give lectures, and undertook r u d i m e n t a r y legal exercises (Gayley 30). "Recognized as separate professional groups distinct f r o m the barristers," attorneys were disparagingly regarded as careless p r o f i t seekers w h o rested their entire careers on the ability to transfer rapidly the c u l t u r a l capital of the common law into economic capital. Such a sentiment is evident i n W i l l i a m Dugdale's characterization of attorneys as students w h o , "lacking other means of support, looked p r a g m a t i c a l l y to lucrative practice rather than to the p u r s u i t of legal competence" (Richardson 300-1). Attorneys were i n charge of preparing the documents that recorded fines and recoveries, or Finalis Concordia, "which were, i n essence, fictitious records of actions compromised (that is, ended by a "fine") or prosecuted to judgment, w h i c h were long used as devices for the transfer of l a n d " (Keeton 9). I n 1581, Parliament passed an act that " p r o v i d e d for  54  expands the reading's formal structure to include a digression on how the words of the law are bound to a distinctively English authorial tradition uncorrupted by the "barbaric inferiority" (Helgerson 1992: 101) commonly associated with the country's ancient past. In the first lecture in this reading 53  on fines, Coke explains his central faith in the common law of England as a body of immemorial custom ("custom," in this sense, refers to the idea of an unchanging law being beyond the limitations of history and customized to fit the demands of specific cases, each of which serves as a precedent for the next). The lawyer's job is to access immemorial antiquity in order to discover the law in each particular case. Thus the law itself never really changes, only its application in court. To remedy the paradox between the common law as ever-changingwith-each-application and as a stable jurisprudential code, Coke designates the source of law as part of an exclusively English—almost divine—secular tradition. The common-law method of making history serves to demonstrate that the ancient leaders of England, as far back as Arthur and Brutus, were, when giving legal judgments, "merely giving expression to already existing laws"—there was no original mortal legislator, yet all legislators and rulers of England have benefited from the same source of legal knowledge (Rodgers 138). Coke's argument was part of his larger project to maintain both the 54  r e g i s t r a t i o n o f a l l [ l a n d ] t r a n s a c t i o n s b y f i n e a n d r e c o v e r y " ( D e a n 196). F u r t h e r b i l l s i n t h e 1584-85 a n d 1586-87 p a r l i a m e n t s l e d t o a s t a t u t e i n 1 5 8 9 " r e d u c i n g t h e n u m b e r o f p r o c l a m a t i o n s m a d e o n f i n e s i n C o m m o n Pleas f r o m s i x t e e n t o f o u r . " These d e l i b e r a t i o n s i n W e s t m i n s t e r H a l l l e a d m e t o d a t e Coke's r e a d i n g t o t h e 1580s. U p o n o f f e r i n g f o r d i s c u s s i o n d i f f i c u l t cases d e r i v i n g f r o m a l e g a l t e x t — c a s e s t h a t w o u l d o f t e n s t r a y s o m e d i s t a n c e f r o m t h e t e x t ( B a k e r 1986: 3 3 ) — t h e r e a d e r ' s e l o q u e n c e m i g h t w e l l h a v e t a k e n f l i g h t , e s p e c i a l l y i n cases i n v o l v i n g v e x a t i o u s q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e C r o w n a n d t h e C h u r c h ( K n a f l a 252-53). C. P. R o d g e r s argues t h a t i n The Law of the Britons, C o k e " w a s n o t s e e k i n g t o d e r i v e t h e l a w f r o m s o m e m y t h i c a l f o u n d e r " (138), o n l y t o d e r i v e t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e l a w as i t h a s b e e n m a n i f e s t e d i n t h e a n c i e n t p a s t i n s u c h d o c u m e n t s as t h e Domesday Book a n d t h e Magna Carta, a n d i n t h e w r i t i n g s o f B r a c t o n , B r i t t o n , a n d F l e t a ( H e l g e r s o n 1990: 242-43). A n t h o n y A . B r o m h a m o b s e r v e s t h a t " C o k e d r e w h i s p r e c e d e n t s f r o m v e r y o l d sources, as h e b e l i e v e d  55 insularity of the common law as English and its autonomy within the juridical field. He saw his role in jurisprudence as that of upholding the legal institution—and not the king—as the proper voice of English law. In Forms of Nationhood, Richard Helgerson explains that in order for Coke to ground his case, he had to assert the national importance of his project into every aspect of his legal practice. Thus what begins in Coke's first lecture as a discussion of the antiquity of fines quickly develops into an extended digression on the ancient Englishness  of the common law.  55  Coke begins by referring to a commentary in which Edmund Plowden reports an argument that one "lord Catlyn" made in "Stowell's case." Catlyn's argument apparently included citations of "many fines of antiquity; some touching the abbot of Crowland before the conquest." This case evidence leads Coke to conclude that "the Common laws of England at this day . . . were not brought in and established by William  the Conqueror, as many do affirm, and  one hath lately committed to writing, but were long time, no man knows how long time before" (223). To discredit further the claim "that the Conqueror brought in Common law," Coke maintains the following: For if the Normans have any laws that do resemble the laws of England, out of doubt, when the Conqueror had subdued the kingdom, perceiving the equity and excellency of the laws of England, never attempted to alter or change the same; but to the end that his own country-men, the Normans, might know the laws of England, under which from thenceforth he resolved they should live. And therefore for their benefit and safety, he caused some of the laws and ordinances  5 5  that the oldest [English] sources revealed the purest laws" (336). According to Coke, A r t h u r and Brutus were part of the same custom i n w h i c h Coke and his contemporary lawyers were engaged. By including mythic figures such as these i n the common l a w tradition, Coke and his contemporary antiquarians "clung to [an] . . . historically inaccurate version of the history of English law i n order to bolster [their] profession's position" (Rodgers 140). Rodgers contends that the "eyes of the common lawyers were turned inwards on their o w n nation, w h i c h had made its o w n law i n a process w i t h no identifiable beginning" (138).  56 of England to be written in the Norman tongue. And afterwards seeing and well perceiving the happy success, where such laws were observed, abolished his old laws out of Normandy, and established part of our English laws there. And it cannot be truly said, that the English laws are in the Norman  tongue; for the laws of England are unwritten  laws,  but divinely cast into the hearts of men, and built upon the irremovable rock of reason. (224-25) All of this in a lecture about fines. Coke's digression demonstrates the common lawyer's dependence on legal texts as the only reliable sources of evidence for the writing of English history. According to C. P. Rodgers, this is because the common law tradition was not interested in resorting to historical research to interpret the past; Coke's approach to history instead served to "find authority for views already held . . . it was not a theory of history so much as an extension of the lawyer's technique of seeking precedents and authority" through the creation of a fictional case-history of the common law that resorted entirely to its own carefully selected materials for its corroborating evidence (139, 145-46). In his digression, Coke uses the power of his position as lecturer/reader to construct a version of legal authority that legitimates his association with a higher, national (though not fully accessible) power.  56  The position Coke  holds in the juridical field affords him the capacity to gain an audience—to make people listen to him. At the same time, his language is a means of producing a form of power, which depends for its efficacy on the dynamic of commons within the hall. His discourse also serves a legitimating function by using the art of recording history or precedent as a means to inscribe his own  I n the second chapter of Forms of Nationhood: The Elizabethan Writing of England, Richard Helgerson provides a thorough account of Coke's project of " w r i t i n g against w r i t i n g " i n order to preserve his vision of the English constitution.  57 identity politics into the hallowed forum of English jurisprudence. Coke's power is not derived from his words per se but is dependent on the students' belief in the legitimacy of the words and of Coke himself. Symbolic power, Bourdieu explains, "resides not in the force of ideas but in their relation to social structure"—in the "determinate relationship between those who exercise this power and those who undergo it" (Swartz 88) .  5 7  The force of  Coke's ideas derives as well from their relation, in his eyes, to a broader nationalist sentiment (Helgerson 1992: 101), which is at once legitimizing of the Inns and legitimized by them because of the way people like Archbishop Laud recognized these societies as institutionalized consolidations of England's future leaders. The social magic of the common law, and the contribution of this magic to the relative autonomy of the juridical field, depended on the benchers' maintenance of a clear division in commons between those who had legal power (readers and benchers) and those who did not (students). Like many institutions devoted to the transmission of knowledge, the Inns had a tradition of undermining this relationship through the occasional subversion of commons—revels were carnivalesque reversals of the normal structure of institutional authority. It was during revels especially that the law students were able to consider the potential utility of the legal capital they were amassing.  Bourdieu asserts that "grammaticality is n o t the necessary and sufficient condition of the production of meaning" (Wacquant 46): Even the simplest linguistic exchange brings into play a complex and ramifying web of historical p o w e r relations between the speaker, endowed w i t h a specific c u l t u r a l authority, and an audience, w h i c h recognizes this authority to varying degrees> as w e l l as between the groups to w h i c h they respectively belong. . . . [ A ] very important part of w h a t goes on i n verbal communication, even the content of the message itself, remains unintelligible as long as one does not take into account the totality of the structure of power relations that underlay the exchange. (47)  58 Francis Beaumont's Grammar  Lecture  During revels, which also took place in the Inns' halls, the furnishings that normally maintained a certain formal order—the tables, chairs, fireplace, and other partitions—were either rearranged or removed altogether. Students probably spoke on the benchers' side of the bar, a place normally offlimits to them; they crossed the line into the reader's place of privilege and authority. Revels created a festive environment in which the law students could freely fashion themselves as dominant agents in a cultural field of their own construction. The revels were, in fact, essential tools for the cultivation of their collective self-identity as future holders of positions in the royal court, in the professional legal sphere (in London or back home), or in other institutions. The cycles of legal education in commons provided a means for a student to gain professional success; the cycles of revels provided a means for a student to play the part of one who has achieved success. The effectiveness of revels, however, depended on the students' memory of the established order they had rearranged.  58  The third son of a Justice of the Common Pleas, a member of an old distinguished Leicestershire family, and a matriculant of Broadgate Hall, Oxford, Francis Beaumont (c.1584-1616) became a member of the Inner Temple (where his two brothers also resided) on 3 November 1600 around the age of eighteen, apparently because his father arranged for his admission (Inner Temple Records,  vol 1, 435). Soon after his admittance, he delivered  his mock oration, the Grammar Lecture, at one of the Inn's Christmas Revels (c.1601-5) in the Inner Temple H a l l  5 8  5 9  5 9  In this lecture, Beaumont describes  I am grateful to Gretchen Minton for her help with this concept and for the invaluable advice she has provided on different aspects of this entire thesis. Beaumont's provision of entertainment for his fellow law students did not end here; on 20 February 1613, his Masque of the Inner Temple and Gray's Inn was performed as part of a  59 three types of law students at the Inns: the "young student," the "reveller," and the "plodder." The young student is a naive "soft imytating peece"; new to his Inn, he is just beginning to learn how to engage in mooting exercises and how to purchase a satin suit "on trust." Because he quickly runs into debt, he writes home for money—not to pay for books, but to see plays and puppetshows.  60  The reveller, with his pompous behavior and eccentric clothes,  resides at the Inns solely for the sake of fashion. The plodder, wearing a "treble ruff and capacious cap," spends his time recording cases at Westminster Hall and reading legal yearbooks (Eccles 414); he is the diligent reader whom Coke claims will eventually enjoy a more complete understanding of the law than his less driven peers (Helgerson 1992: 100). Beaumont concentrates his oration on the four "grammatical" elements that he claims an Inns' student must master in order to enjoy the festivities of revels: orthography, etymology, syntax, and pronunciation. He explains how each of the three types of law students cultivates a distinctive legal grammar. By cultivating an impressive script (orthography), the young student, for example, can sign his bills with flair; etymology affords him the skills to gather funds for his expenditures (his "compound"); with a command of syntax, he can efficiently spend this compound; his proper pronunciation enables him to match his eloquence with his habiliments. Beaumont engages his auditors in a mock lecture in the style of an imaginary reading on the elements of the various legal dispositions or styles  series of celebratory performances at W h i t e h a l l i n honor of the w e d d i n g of Princess Elizabeth and the Elector Palatine. ' He also replenishes his wardrobe, as Francis Lenton notes i n his Whirligigg: He spends much money, and they send h i m more. He ruffles now i n Sattin, Silke, and Plush, A n d oftentimes soliciteth the blush, Imbroydred suits, such as his father ne'er Knew what they m e a n t . . . (5)  60  of being a student at the Inns. Standing in the place of a reader in the Inner Temple Hall, he holds a place of authority in relation to his fellow students, and he explains what he sees in front of him. Beaumont is simultaneously one of these students and, in his role as the festive orator in the hall, also momentarily above his rank as student; he speaks in the powerful place normally occupied by the practicing barrister, and manipulates the anchored power dynamic that governs commons in order to legitimate a revised understanding of their relationship both to this dynamic and to the common law. The anchored state of the hall—its organization during term—marks a clear division between those who have access to the mysterious domain of legal knowledge through the medium of the spoken word (like Coke and other readers) and those who have not yet gained this power (the students). The conditions under which Beaumont delivered his lecture were characterized by the temporary dismantling of the hall's anchored state, which would not have been forgotten by the students who were enjoying the new possibilities offered by its transformation. In these conditions, Beaumont invites his auditors to join him in examining the different ways that they can use their association with the law as a power resource—as a form of convertible cultural capital. The success of Beaumont's examination depends on the students' awareness of what diversions London has to offer them. In the early decades of the seventeenth century, the competition between market forces and institutional identities became a focus of primary concern—particularly at the Inns, where it conjured issues of personal and moral accountability. Beaumont understands that in such an environment as London, no man who remains honest, sincere, and upright can prosper; deception and  61 manipulation are the rules of the game. In a verse epistle written to his friend Ben Jonson "from the country," he acknowledges that we want subtlety to do The City tricks, lie, hate and flatter too: Here are none that can bare a fained show, Strike when you wink, and then lament the blow. In Skialetheia  (qtd. in Smuts 78)  (1598), Everard Guilpin, who attended Gray's Inn from 1591  until at least 1598, claims that the law student (he calls him "Naeuia" in epigrams 40, 41, and 42), "scarce honest, Hue he how he can," enjoys two "engrossing occupations," for "He is a Lawyer, and a Merchant to[o]": Nxuia  is one while of the Innes of Court,  Toyling in Brooke, Fitzherbert, and in Dyer:  Another while th'Exchange he doth resort, Moyling as fast, a seller, and a buyer: Will not he thrive (think yee) who can deuise, Thus to vnite the law and merchandise? Doubtlesse he will, or cosen out of doubt; What matter's that? his law will beare him out. Guilpin's past experience as a law student enables him to understand the function of the law as a device that benefits those who understand it; by assuming the power of the reader during revels, Beaumont can take Guilpin's understanding a step further. Beaumont uses the format of a legal reading to explain how students can either employ their membership in commons to learn how to transform legal capital into other forms, or to maintain it in its symbolic form (as  62 Fulbecke encouraged) by continuing the diligent study of the common law.  61  Toril Moi observes that in Bourdieu's science of fields, "the question of the exchange value of different forms of symbolic capital arises every time an agent attempts to move from one field to another" (507)  6 2  Beaumont  recognizes that in order for the law student to interact with other cultural fields in London, he must continuously assess the potential exchange value of his legal capital. It is just this sort of movement between fields that Fulbecke condemns in his Directions, for in order to amass the legal capital necessary eventually to become a reader like Coke, the student should avoid moving into other fields entirely; he should remain exclusively in the confines of commons and experience its rigorous rituals of cultural transmission. Beaumont assesses the social conditions at the Inns that enable the production of such a reader. By unmasking the various uses that his fellow students make of their leisure/reading time, he also uses his lecture as an attempt to undermine the self-deception typically associated with one's membership in a hierarchical institution. Basically, the plodding student's 63  C r a i g C a l h o u n observes that "Bourdieu's k e y o r i g i n a l insights are that there are i m m a t e r i a l forms of c a p i t a l — c u l t u r a l , symbolic, a n d social—-as w e l l as m a t e r i a l a n d economic forms and that w i t h varying degrees of difficulty it is possible to convert one of these forms into the other" (69). Bourdieu's a i m i n constructing a science of practices that recognizes all actions as "oriented toward the maximization of material or symbolic p r o f i t " is, according to Swartz, to "unite w h a t has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been thought of as economic (interested and material) and noneconomic (disinterested and symbolic) forms of action and objects. Thus, symbolic interest and material interest are v i e w e d as t w o equally objective forms of interest. Actors pursue symbolic as w e l l as material interests and exchange one for the other under specified conditions" (42). M o i reminds us that "[w]hat constitutes a field is the fact that there are agents who compete for specific stakes: ' A field defines itself b y (among other things) d e f i n i n g specific stakes and interests, w h i c h are irreducible to the stakes and interests specific to other fields ( y o u can't make a philosopher compete for the prizes that interest a geographer) a n d w h i c h are not perceived by someone w h o has not been shaped to enter that field'" (507). Bourdieu argues that "every sociological inquiry requires a simultaneous critical reflection on the intellectual a n d social conditions that make the i n q u i r y possible" (Swartz 270). Reflexive inquiry of this k i n d demands the observer to "develop a critical awareness of the class lens through w h i c h [he or she] views the social w o r l d " (272)—to subject one's position  63 diligence will eventually lead him to the bar; this is a straightforward correlation, but one that would operate most effectively under controlled conditions. Beaumont's point is that such conditions do not exist, and he sees his task as one of clarifying the place of the law student between the competing influence of London's luxury market and the rules of commons— rules that a character in Henry Parrot's The Mastive  (1612) is loathe to follow:  Come; What shall's.doe (qd. Ned) this afternoone? That hath at Noddy neither lost nor wonne: Theres not a Play (saith hee) worth looking on, And Mistris  Moll from Clarkenw\ell is gone.  Troth let's doo once what no man would conjecture, Turne honest for an houre, and heare a Lecture. In the early decades of the seventeenth century, the effort of cultural institutions to maintain their autonomy against the encroachment of market forces became a focus of primary concern—particularly at the Inns, where this conflict was associated with personal and moral accountability.  William Browne's Ulysses and Circe Like Beaumont's Grammar  Lecture, William Browne's Inner Temple  masque of Ulysses and Circe depends on the conversion of the hall from a place of commons to a place of misrule and on the participants' awareness of this conversion's significance. In the same way that the transformed physical and social arrangement of the Inner Temple Hall allowed Beaumont to tell his version of the truth, the performance of Browne's masque likely freed the  i n the field of criticism (and society more generally) to the "same critical analysis applied to the object of sociological investigation" (276).  i  64 space for the lawyer-masquers to examine collectively their relationship to the law and the City of London. In April 1616, the chief cook of the Inner Temple registered the complaint that his chamber in the Inn's cloisters was damaged. More than a year before, numerous people had climbed the chimney in order to view a masque that was taking place inside the Inner Temple Hall by clinging to the hall's window sills (Inderwick, vol 2, xiii). The available evidence suggests that the popular masque in question was William Browne's Masque of the Inner Temple, which was performed by the law students in the packed hall on 13 January 1615 during the fourth and final week of the Inn's Christmas festivities.  64  Ulysses and Circe is a myth about transformation. In Book 14 of Ovid's Metamorphoses, Circe transforms twenty-two of Ulysses' men into swine— not to be restored to human shape until Ulysses, under the protection of magic moly flowers, threatens to cut her throat. In Book 10 of Homer's Odyssey, Circe is described as a subtle witch—"dire beauty and divine" (1.150)—who lives in a "woodland hall" (1.166). After discovering Ulysses' 65  identity, Circe swears not to trick him with her potions. However, not until Ulysses threatens to starve himself does Circe restore his men and warn him about the travails that lie ahead in his voyage back to Ithaca. In Book 12, Circe warns Ulysses of the Sirens and other dangerous perils that he will encounter in the next several years. In these and other stories, Circe is presented as an alluring, jealous temptress, who only becomes a source of goodness when her magic is undermined by a violent confrontation. 6  4  6  5  Browne, who also wrote a collection of poetry entitled Britannia's Pastorals, was admitted to the Inner Temple i n November 1611 after leaving Exeter College, O x f o r d , w i t h o u t a degree. H e was a poet, scholar, and antiquary, and maintained friendships w i t h Michael Drayton, Ben Jonson, John Davies, George Chapman, and John Selden. I refer here to Robert Fitzgerald's translation.  65  In his masque, Browne presents the Sirens as Circe's handmaidens who have the upper bodies of women and the lower bodies of hens. Circe controls all creatures and natural phenomena in her domain, and she summons the Sirens to entice Ulysses' men to her enchanted island. After waking Ulysses from his sleep under a tree, she tells him that it is with love, not anger, that she has guided him on his journey. Circe asks Ulysses what he thinks of her magical powers, which have transformed Ulysses' men not into pigs but into a dancing troop of stags, wolves, baboons, and one hog. Ulysses says that "[m]ost abject baseness hath enthrall'd that breast / Which laughs at men by misery opprest" (1.307-308). Circe is quick to defend herself, however, by claiming that she is not to blame for the transformation of his men into beasts: . . . Some, I confess, That tow'rds this isle not long since did address Their stretched oars, no sooner landed were, But, careless of themselves, they here and there Fed on strange fruits, invenoming their bloods, And now like monsters range about the woods. If those thy mates were, yet is Circe free For their misfortunes have not birth from me; Who in th'apothecary's shop hath ta'en, Whilst he is wanting, that which breeds his bane, Should never blame the man who there had plac'd it But his own folly urging him to taste it.  (1.321-32)  The misfortunes of Ulysses' men, according to Circe, are directly the result of their lack of restraint in the face of tempting "strange fruits," and her  66 reference to the apothecary's shop associates these pleasurable commodities with a distinctively urban luxury market.  66  Browne's masque provides a set of roles for law students to assume. Performing Ulysses' men at sea, under the spell of Circe's charms, they have been placed in a position of subjection within an imaginary institution. If we consider here Bourdieu's notion that "the space of symbolic stances and the space of social positions are two independent, but homologous, spaces" (1990: 113), we can interpret the lawyer-masquers' imaginary subservience to Circe as a symbolic expression of their homologous subservience to London and her burgeoning luxury market. Browne's adaptation of the Ulysses and Circe myth, particularly his unique portrayal of Circe as a defensive governor, enables the law students to examine their own accountability in the face of the temptations afforded by the feminine City of London. Like the character of London in Dekker's The Dead Tearme (and unlike the Circe of Homeric and Ovidian legend) Browne's Circe explicitly defends herself against Ulysses' accusation that she is guilty of tempting his men; she is, "as lilies, or the new fall'n snow . . . spotless yet" (1.231-32). Circe comments on the entrancing qualities of far-off things and the free will of those who choose to become distracted by them: . . . What though the bow Which Iris bends appeareth to each sight In various hues and colours infinite? The learned know that in itself is free And light and shade make that variety. Tilings far off seen seem not the same they are,  Ben Jonson's The Alchemist (1610) and Thomas Middleton's The Roaring Girl (1611) both depict L o n d o n apothecaries (Abel Drugger and Mistress Gallipot respectively) dealing i n tobacco, a p r i m a r y l u x u r y . A b e l Drugger also sells fucus, a substance used as a cosmetic whitening powder.  67  Fame is not ever truth's discoverer; For still where envy meeteth a report 111 she makes worse, and what is good come short.  (1.310-18)  Circe is aware that it was the distant sight of the tempting fruits that bound Ulysses' men to their sleep-inducing spells; this distance has enabled light, shade, hues, and colours to affect their perception of the things they have seen. Circe, however, says she is not to blame for the actions of Ulysses' men, for they were free to take and eat, or to resist that which "[f]ame . . . makes worse." Who is in control here? In the masque world, Circe is a dominant force, though she admits that Ulysses' men have the freedom to do as they please; even so, they are under her spell, at least until the masque's conclusion. At the same time, in the "real" world of revels, which contains this imaginary dynamic, it is the student-masquers who are in control. Circe, as a masque-character, was likely performed by a law student in the very space in which the students were normally subservient to the authority of the benchers. A complex of power relationships is at play in this scenario. The students' roles as Ulysses' men in Browne's masque-world offers them an opportunity to examine their own position at the Inns and, more broadly, in the field of power. However, they also enjoy the momentary power that Beaumont enjoyed in his role as the orator when he gave his  Grammar  Lecture almost a decade before. Again, the effectiveness of this power is 67  6  7  This interpretation is modeled o n Bourdieu's analysis of the homologous positions o f Flaubert and Frederic (from Sentimental Education) i n their respective cities of P a r i s — Flaubert's Paris being "real," Frederic's imaginary. B o u r d i e u argues that "the space of symbolic stances a n d the space of social positions are t w o independent, b u t homologous, spaces" (1990: 113). The successful " w r i t i n g " of Fr£d£ric i n t o a fictional Paris, argues Bourdieu, establishes f o r Flaubert a sense of his o w n agency and success i n the Parisian literary field i n w h i c h he struggles to make a mark, even if his creation (Frederic) fails to distinguish h i m s e l f — t o choose a s i d e — i n the political machinery of the fictional Paris he  68 contingent on the manipulation of one's community and the place it inhabits. Accounts of masques indicate that these private entertainments were designed to transform the place of their performance into an imaginary world of swiftly shifting and inter-enveloping visual landscapes. The spectacle positioned the audience at the center of a magical show whereby they could join the masquers in a communal process of being translated, or momentarily conjoined in the world of the masque. The mechanics of this participation, this confluence of real and fictional worlds, rested in the device of the antimasque (when the audience members and the antic masque characters joined in a dance in front of the playing space) and the unifying power of the lavish images that formed the background of the masque's mostly rhetorical action. Browne's descriptions of the scenes that envelop his revision indicate the extent to which the 70' x 29' x 23' hall had to conform to the demands of Browne's wonderland, likely obscuring the coats of arms englazed in the east window just as the scaffolding perhaps concealed those arms that lined the hall. Towards the left of the set was the cliff of Circe's island, and to the right was a composite sea-shore and pastoral setting: of the latter, Browne says that it was "so near imitating nature that I think had there been a grove like it in the open plain birds would have been faster drawn to that than to Zeuxis' grapes" (1.134-36). One sense of verisimilitude replaces another—a pastoral order governed by Circe is superimposed over the normal order of legal  inhabits. Bourdieu argues that the creation of Frederic's symbolic stance, as inconclusive as it may be, functions as a sign of Flaubert's o w n success or social position i n the Parisian literary f i e l d . The status of the author is admittedly quite different i n Flaubert's Paris of the 1840s and Browne's L o n d o n of the early 1600s; even so, w e can still acknowledge a s t r i k i n g relationship between the refusal of the lawyer-masquers to lose the battle i n their mimetic experience w i t h Circe and their simultaneous refusal to misunderstand the economic forces of London that cause them to surrender their pocketbooks.  69  commons. Circe's magic in her woodland hall takes hold over the magic of the common law in the real Inner Temple Hall. This usurpation depends on the simultaneous inscription and interplay of civic and legal identities in the same physical space. The magic of the common law, as I have mentioned, depended on the relation of commons to the economic and political influences imposed by the City of London, whose possibilities for entertainment were (naturally) often more attractive to law students than the common law. I suggest, therefore, that Circe's representation in this masque invited law students to examine their own accountability in the face of London's luxury market. Just as Ulysses' men are attracted to Circe's alluring but poisoned island fruits, the men who migrated from the country to the Inns of Court were mesmerized by London's material pleasures.  68  Upon a closer experience with urban vice,  Satyre V i n E v e r a r d Guipin's Skialetheia voices the complaint of a l a w student frightened by the charms of London: Let me alone I prethee i n this Cell, Entice me not into the Citties hell; Tempt me not forth this Eden of content, To tast of that w h i c h I shall soon repent: Prethy excuse me, I am not alone Accompanied w i t h meditation, A n d calme content, whose tast more pleaseth me T h a n a l l the Citties lushious vanity . . . (1-8) I w i s h to thank Jessica Winston (who shares m y interest i n early modern legal culture and is w r i t i n g a doctoral thesis on the literature of the Inns i n the Department of English at the U n i v e r s i t y o f California, Santa Barbara) for p o i n t i n g out passages i n Inns-of-Court d r a m a that "depict the city as an e f f e m i n i z i n g a n d transformative place." I n George Gascoigne's The Supposes (1566, Gray's Inn), Erostrato, feigned master and suitor to the young Polynesta, "goes to the city to start at the University and instead w i n d s u p i n a love affair that turns h i m into a servant" (private communication f r o m Winston). Also, the t h i r d chorus after Act I I I of Wilmot, Noel, and Hatton's Tancred and Gismund (1592), "suggests that bad things happen to idle men i n the cities" (Winston): Whil'st Paris kept his heard on Ida downe C u p i d nere sought h i m out, for he is blinde. But w h e n he left the field to live i n towne, He fel into his snare, and brought that brand From Greece to Troy, which after set on fire Strong I l i u m , and all the Phryges land. Such are the fruits of love, and such his hire.  70  many students found themselves in debt (as the numerous accounts of usury attest), so the civic identity represented by Circe is both alluring and threatening.  69  Circe's denial of accountability echoes the refusal of Dekker's personification of London to accept Westminster's accusations. But while Dekker's London claims that the luxuries of the City maintain a vital reciprocity between the law and the marketplace, Browne's Circe insists that temptation itself does not destroy Ulysses' men; rather, it is their habit of misperceiving the objects of vice that leads to their enchanted slumber. In both cases, a misperception of magical places (of London and Circe's island) directs the actions of the tempted. The double subservience of Ulysses' men (in the masque-world) and the law students (in legal commons as well as London), however, leads to a double refusal. Circe's voice and those of her sirens are brought to life by the male voices and bodies of the student-masquers. A gender reversal of a kind occurs at the end of the masque, when Circe gives her magic wand—the source of her enchanting spells—to Ulysses, who assumes her power, waking the sleeping men while singing a song before they proceed down the Inner  Roger Fenton's A Treatise of Usurie (1611) and Thomas Lodge's Alarum Against Usurers (1584) are among the more prominent published warnings against usury. Richardson notes that the Inns "had no j u r i s d i c t i o n outside their o w n precincts, except f o r a s u m m a r y authority over the entrances and exits through w h i c h these undesirables [forgers, debtors, highwaymen, perjurers, and probably also somewhat more dangerous characters] found their way into the yards of the Inner and M i d d l e Temples, where they preyed upon the younger students, incited the w i l d e r youths to riot or rebellion, and generally upset discipline" (287). I n his "Fifty Apples of A d m o n i t i o n , Bestowed o n . . . Gentlemen of Furnivall's I n n " (1576), George Whetstone warns impressionable students against associating w i t h these characters and spending beyond their means: Beware of tailors' curious cuts for they w i l l shake your bags; The merry mean I hold for best 'tween roist'ring silks and rags. The t i p p l i n g tavern, and such like, to haunt have small desire; Of all reports it is the worst to be a drunken squire . . . Out of the merchants' journals keep, buy seldom ware on trust; Such usury bites above the r e s t . . .  71  T e m p l e H a l l to d a n c e w i t h the w o m e n i n a t t e n d a n c e . T h i s transaction symbolizes L o n d o n ' s willingness to negotiate her m a g i c w i t h the p o w e r of the l a w , a d i s p o s i t i o n also c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y L o n d o n ' s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h Westminster i n Dekker's The Deade Tearme. B r o w n e ' s m a s q u e enables the l a w students to u n d e r s t a n d their vulnerable position i n c o m m o n s a n d , simultaneously, to use this k n o w l e d g e as a tool of self-criticism. This process of self-confrontation, intricately staged as a f o r m of dramatic art i n controlled conditions, d e p e n d e d o n the students' ability to write themselves into roles that B r o w n e created for them. In his dedicatory letter to the "honourable society of the Inner Temple," he tells his peers, 70  I give y o u but y o u r o w n ; if y o u refuse to foster it I k n o w not w h o will; b y y o u r means it m a y live. If it degenerate i n k i n d f r o m those other o u r society h a t h p r o d u c e d b l a m e yourselves for not seeking to a h a p p i e r m u s e . . . W h a t is g o o d i n it that is y o u r s , w h a t b a d m i n e , w h a t indifferent b o t h , a n d that w i l l suffice, since it w a s d o n e to please ourselves i n private b y h i m that is All yours W. Browne. (1.1-10) T h e uncertainty w i t h w h i c h the l a w students r e g a r d their ability to m a k e use of their legal art i n L o n d o n ' s marketplace is m o m e n t a r i l y t e m p e r e d b y their certain p o w e r to revel i n the halls of c o m m o n s 71  W . C. Richardson notes that " [ t ] h o u g h w o m e n were n o t officially a d m i t t e d to I n n membership before 1919, ladies as guests were often invited on gala evenings to come f r o m the spectator's gallery to join the revellers i n social dancing" (477). See m y analysis of Browne's masque i n Theatre History Studies 19 (June 1999): 151-66.  72 M a i n t a i n i n g autonomy through symbolic violence  Where could the law students go from the Inns' halls? The task of extending their collective self-understanding beyond the Inns' halls and into the City had to be managed carefully. The legal profession was at once honored for its utility and despised for its insularity, so any attempt by the Inns to represent its identity depended on a careful process of determining exactly what this identity was, what made it unique, and how it related to more powerful institutions. Because a significant portion of this profession consisted of men who yearned to be associated with the aristocracy, rank was central to this process of institutional definition. Such individuals, Frank Whigham explains, were in the market for a "repertoire of rules" that would substitute for the aristocratic habitus they lacked (4-5). By "imitating the style of life of a group higher in the social scale," they could use conspicuous consumption and property as tools in their struggle to distance themselves from economic necessity (Burke 1992: 67-68). Bourdieu observes that legal spaces are "organized around the conversion of direct conflict between directly concerned parties [physical or verbal violence] into juridically regulated debate between professionals acting by proxy [symbolic violence]" (1987: 831). Legal power depends on the willingness of people to channel what might otherwise be a physical challenge through an elaborately mediatory and coded form of conflict based on the construction of names and labels, social groups and categories (838). As "the gentle, hidden form which violence takes when overt violence is impossible" (1977: 196), symbolic violence is a power of legitimation monopolized by the ruling class, which seeks to gain the most through the imposition of a reserved language system on dominated groups, which "are  73 forced to recognize the ruling elite as legitimate and their own culture as illegitimate" (Burke 1992: 86). Through their association with the Inns, the law students themselves became representatives of the common law, which served as a kind of cultural property they could use to wage their own kind of symbolic violence through the medium of drama. Gesta Grayorum is a prose account of how law students used the symbolic violence of the common law to construct an aristocratic identity and to parade this identity through the City streets. Just as Coke's creation of his own version of legal history legitimates his power as reader, the law students' construction of the State of Graya, wherein they act as the state and its nominees simultaneously, sanctions their appropriation of the rank on which their new roles depend. By mirroring royal processions, the law students portray themselves as close companions of the court. While this portrayal does not challenge the court's dominance (it in fact acknowledges the students' subservience to the Crown), it does fashion the students as part of a dominant culture by using their association with the common law as a tool of cultural violence against London's citizenry. The Christmas Revels at Gray's Inn Hail began on 20 December, 1594, and ended on Shrove Tuesday, 1595. Margaret Knapp and Michal Kobialka provide a thorough summary of the events that are recorded in Gesta Grayorum; the highlights of these were the preliminary formalities that took place on 20 December, the "tumult" surrounding the performance of The Comedy of Errors (28 December), the conciliatory Masque of Amity (3 January), the procession through London to the Lord Mayor's for dinner (4 January), the trip by barge to the Tower of London (via Greenwich) and back to Gray's Inn through the City (1 February), and the performance of the Masque of Proteus before Elizabeth at court (Shrovetide).  74  The making(s) of Gesta Grayorum In preparation for the revels, the gentlemen of Gray's Inn, having named themselves the "Honourable State of the Grayans," cordially invited by letter a representative of their "foreign" neighbor state, the legal society of the Inner Temple, to join them in their yearly Christmas revels. The letter, recorded in the text of Gesta Grayorum, asks that this representative "resort to the Court [Gray's Inn] there holden, to assist the proceedings with [his] person" (263). The Inner Temple records include an order of 1594 that 72  stipulates "the treasurer of this House shall deliver unto the ambassador to be sent from the state of this House to Gray's Inn, towards his expenses, the sum of twenty marks" (vol 1, 401). What followed this amicable correspondence was a twelve-day-long series of festivities that celebrated the short reign of the "Prince of Purpoole."  73  The Prince was played by Henry Holmes, a student from Norfolk, who was "honourably inthroned" as the leader of a "flourishing estate" delineated by the soke of Portepool. The Prince's full title acclaims him as the "Arch Duke of Stapulia and Bernardio, Duke of High and Nether Holborn, Marquis of St. Giles and Tottenham, Count Palatine of Bloomsbury and Cler kenwell,  • First published b y W i l l i a m Canning i n 1688, the two-part text of Gesta Grayorum was a result of the efforts of several lawyers of Gray's I n n , w h o wished to remember the "State of Purpoole" of 1594. It was dedicated to "the M o s t H o n o u r a b l e M a t t h e w Smyth, Esq. Comptroller of the Honourable Society of the Inner-Temple." I refer to John Nichols's 1823 edition of three manuscripts and t w o fragments i n his Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth, v o l 3, p p . 262-352. I n Three Revels from The Inns of Court, Desmond S. Bland includes an edition of the second part of Gesta, preceded by an i n t r o d u c t i o n that explains the complex textual history of the entire account (71-115). Nichols regards Gesta Grayorum's second part as a later parody of the original first part, w h i c h was possibly written around 1615-1617 (320). The name purpoole is a prankish corruption of "Portepool," w h i c h was i n the time of Henry I I I a pool located at the western extremity of the wards of Newgate and Ludgate. The name later referred to a northern district or judicial soke i n what is n o w the north-eastern part of Holborn.  75 Great Lord of the Cantons of Islington, Kentish Town, Paddington, and Knights-Bridge, and the Knight of the Most Heroical order of the Helmet and Sovereign of the Same." The rites of the Inns-at-revels create the Prince 74  both by "forging his social image" as the Inns' spokesperson and by giving him a name and title that "defines, institutes, and constitutes him" so that he can "fulfill his function, to take his place in the game, in the fiction, to play the game, to act out the function" (Bourdieu 1990: 195). The Prince's social function is part of the social fiction of revels—devoted in this case to the construction of a mock State that, like the imaginary world created by Browne's masque, depended on the transformation and memory of legal commons for its ability to serve as an effective tool in the students' game of symbolic warfare. Gesta exhibits the students' keen understanding of the social politics involved in group formation; while the students ridicule these politics for the sake of entertainment, their creative work ventures beyond the typically efficient scope of burlesque entertainment.  75  Much of Gesta concerns the  formation of the Prince's illustrious group of governors and the technicalities of its social hierarchy, policies, and customs. Bourdieu maintains that the  The first part of the Gesta tract lists the Prince's f u l l title no less than seven times (and once i n Latin). Stapulia a n d Bernardio referred to Staple I n n a n d Bernard's I n n — t w o Inns of Chancery under the jurisdiction of Gray's I n n . H o l b o r n was and is the area of t h e l e g a l quarter (particularly the northern p o r t i o n of the quarter extending w e s t w a r d f r o m St. Andrew's Church to D r u r y House). St. Giles and Tottenham were located at the western extreme of the legal q u a r t e r — j u s t n o r t h of Covent Garden ( n o w just n o r t h of Soho). Bloomsbury was at the n o r t h w e s t e r n extreme of the legal quarter, C l e r k e n w e l l the northeastern. Islington is northeast of Holborn, Kentish T o w n is north, Paddington is west, and Knightsbridge is southwest (north of Kensington). Gesta is characterized by a spirit of excess. Before the Prince's newly assembled court, t h e Solicitor reads a "General and Free Pardon" to "all and every public person and persons, whether they be strangers or naturals, w i t h i n O u r dominions." This pardon lists nearly one hundred offenses (including over-thwartings, inhibitions, washings, clippings, shavings, pluralities, formalities, deformalities, and the like) for w h i c h his people "be by v i r t u e hereof excused, suspended, and discharged." Immediately f o l l o w i n g this extensive pardon is a list of twenty lengthy exceptions that effectively negate all of the pardons (272-76).  76 ability to make groups—"the symbolic struggle for . . . the monopoly over legitimate naming"—is the form par excellence of symbolic power (1989: 21). Through their own struggle to form an imaginary cast of illustrious 76  governors, the law students enact the legal capital they have acquired through their association with the Inns—a capital associated with those who, in real life, are able to construct groups that achieve specific goals in society (Swartz 187). While this group identifies itself as aristocratic, its labor is directly associated with the legal profession and, in particular, the jurisdiction of the common law over land transactions and property. After detailing the Prince's "inthronization" and the appointments of the "Officers and Attendants" of "His Highness's Government" (Gesta 265), the first part of the Gesta tract lists ten "Names of such Homages and Tributaries as hold any Signiories, Lordships, Lands, Privileges, or Liberties, under his [the Prince's] Honour, and the Tenures and Services belonging to the same" (269). These are the individuals whom the Prince had appointed as governors of the wards of London under his newfound jurisdiction.  77  'David Swartz explains that a key dimension of Bourdieu's notion of class relations is "the struggle to legitimate particular definitions and classifications of the social world" (119): Class power is nomination power. The classification struggle among groups centers around the capacity to appropriate and impose as official and legitimate group names and categorizations.... Processes of group formation require the delegation of symbolic powers as well as the creation of group identity. There must be agents capable of imposing themselves as legitimate spokespersons and delegates for the class . . . It is through the symbolic labor of specialized agents that class identity and hence action become possible. (186-87) These appointments are accompanied by eccentric duties that the "Homagers" must undertake in tribute to the Prince. The "Moratto Marquarillo de Holborn," for example, "holdeth the manors of High and Nether Holborn by coinage in capite of the Prince of Purpoole, and rendring on the day of his Honour's coronation, for every of the Prince's pensioners, one milk-white doe, to be bestowed on them by the Prince, for a favour, or Newyear's-night-gift: and rendring yearly two hundred millions sterling" (269-70). "Lucy Negro, Abbess deClerkenwell," the tract explains, "holdeth the nunnery of Clerkenwell, with the lands and privileges thereunto belonging, of the Prince of Purpoole, by night-service in Cauda, and to find a choir of nuns, with burning lamps, to chaunt Placebo to the Gentlemen of the Prince's Privy Chamber, on the day of his Excellency's coronation" (270).  77  The participants were not parodying legal commons and its discourse in order to feel superior to their institution; rather, they were acknowledging the sources of legal power and playing the part of the powerful in order to appear to have control over these sources. Before describing how the students "performed" their power, the text records, in scrupulous detail, how they fashioned this power through the formation of a mobile political body (the Prince and his court). Rhetorically, this body is composed of a series of loosely linked episodes that proceed according to a pattern of conflict and resolution, each episode contributing a new dimension to the State of Graya. The performance of Shakespeare's A Comedy of Errors is the most familiar aspect of Gesta Grayorum, perhaps because of its allegedly disruptive involvement in the revels and the creative manner in which the students resolved this conflict. The tract informs us that the play's performance on Holy Innocents' Day (28 December) at Gray's Inn was a planned part of the revels; the State of Graya had invited the State of Templaria to see the play as its guest. Shakespeare's Lord Chamberlain's Men were the likely players. Yet before the play even began there arose such a "disordered tumult and crowd upon the stage" that the Inner Temple's Ambassador and his train left "discontented and displeased." The next night, an arraignment was held during which the Clerk of the Crown "read publickly" a confession that he had purposefully caused the "confused inconvenience" of the previous evening by erecting the stage and arranging for "scaffolds to be reared to the top of the house, to increase expectation." He had then invited "divers ladies and gentlemen,  and others of good condition" to the  evening's  entertainment only to be disgraced by "throngs and tumults, crowds and  78 outrages" that he himself had "caused."  78  "And lastly," concludes his  indictment, "he had foisted a company of base and common fellows, to make up our disorders with a play of Errors and Confusions" (278-80). Regardless of the legitimacy of this confession, it seems clear from this last point that there was some question, at least in retrospect, as to the appropriateness of the play for the occasion. The play is about a father OEgeon, a merchant of Syracuse), under bond, looking for his lost twin sons (Antipholus of Ephesus and Antipholus of Syracuse) in a foreign city (Ephesus) inhabited by citizens arresting and being arrested for debt. Legal audiences were accustomed to the use of twins in plays performed at the Inns, but in the presentation of hierarchical relationships in Errors, [w]eno sooner consider ourselves superior in awareness to the twin Antipholi than we recall that these "masters" imagine themselves superior to their wives, who in turn enjoy superiority over their servants, who in turn feel superior to "their" women. Yet at any one level, superiority over another is accompanied by a limitation in awareness implied by the level above it. As a result, superiority and inferiority, master and bondage, knowledge and errors occupy the same site. (Freedman 86) The two Dromios (the twin clownish servants of the two Antipholi) especially "convey the sense of helplessness that accompanies the futile attempts to live in mutually exclusive worlds and to meet their contradictory demands" (88). Like the Dromios, the Inns' students live both as dominators and as the dominated; while they have some claim to the prestige of the  7  8  I t appears that the revels had attracted a c r o w d of "disordered persons" w h o , taking advantage of the Inns' slackened surveillance, entered i n at the "court-gates" and basically crashed the party w i t h their "great disorders and misdemeanours, b y hurly-burlies, crowds, errors, confusions, vain representations, and shews, to the utter discredit of . . . state and policy" (279-80).  79 common law, this claim is severely challenged by their subservient position in both commons and the field of power. The play's presentation of ambiguous power reflects the instability of the students' position at the Inns and, more broadly, in London. "The specific property of symbolic power," Bourdieu explains, "is that it can be exercised only through the complicity of those who are dominated by it" (1987: 844); at the Inns, Errors forces the entire community of the Inns to acknowledge its complicity in the ever-shifting balance between the power of the law and the power of masses. Whether or not the play's "Errors and Confusions" themselves contributed to the disturbances of that evening, it is interesting to consider the relationship between the play's dramatization of "a court of equity where the ruler suspends law, taking the nature of the circumstances into consideration" (Knight 1979: 79), and the structure of the mock arraignment that occurred immediately after the play's performance (29 and 30 December). The reconciliation between the two states exemplifies what Martin Butler regards as the key to the fascination of the termers' revels—that is, a "covert dialogue between jest and earnest" (1990: 153). The student organizers of the revels had to ensure that the vandalism and trespassing that allegedly took place just before the performance of Errors did not continue to displease the benchers; however, these disciplinary measures—part real and part theatrical—could not demystify the magic of the revels in progress. The solution was to incorporate the resolution into the theatrical world of revels they had created. Again, this amalgamation drew its power from the common law. For the reinforcement of discipline, the Prince imposed a tax on all those—"from the highest to the lowest"—whose failure to perform his duty had "suffered so many disordered persons to enter in at the court-gates," the prisoner was "arraigned at the bar," and "the Sheriff impannelled a jury of  80 twenty-four gentlemen, that were to give their verdict upon the evidence given" (280). Like Pigeon's plea to the Duke of Ephesus that begins Errors, the "prisoner" in Gesta appeals to the Prince of Purpoole for justice and convinces him "to understand the truth of the matter" (280). The prisoner's petition offers a disclosure of all the knavery and juggling of the Attorney and Solicitor, which had brought all this law-stuff on purpose to blind the eyes of his Excellency and all the honourable Court there, going about to make them think that those things which they all saw and perceived sensibly to be in very deed done, and actually performed, were nothing but vain illusions, fancies, dreams, and enchantments, and to be wrought and compassed by the means of a poor harmless wretch, that never had heard of such great matters in all his life. (280) The prisoner proves his case by listing undeniable "absurdities" committed by associates of the Attorney and Solicitor, who had used the prisoner's name "for means of quittance with them in that behalf." Upon hearing this evidence, the Prince "freed and pardoned" the prisoner and "the Attorney, Solicitor, Master of Requests, and those that were acquainted with the draught of the petition, were all of them commanded to the Tower" (280). Presiding over his court of Graya, both as ruler and judge, the Christmas Prince models his resolution of the matter on Solinus' standard of equity. By suspending the law of Graya (that would punish the prisoner for his mere association with the offending trespassers) and by considering the circumstances that point to his own court as the source of strife between the States of Graya and Templaria, he exhibits the whimsical qualities of royal prerogative in a way  81 that mocks Coke's high standard of juridical autonomy, especially because the Prince's decision seems to yield a swift, just sentence. The mishaps that unite the sets of twins in Errors, together with those associated with the bizarre circumstances of the play's performance, are balanced in the Gesta revels by the reconciliatory Masque of Amity,  which  was attended on 3 January by "great and notable personages." Two revelers, 79  identified as "Graius" and "Templarius," follow arm-in-arm four other revelers dressed as pairs of mythical friends (Theseus and Perithous, Achilles and Patroclus, Pylades and Orestes, and Scipio and Lelius), all of whom pledge their undying friendship before a sacrificial altar erected to the Goddess of Amity. Graius and Templarius offer additional vows of pacification in order to make the smoky altar flame burn clearly as a sign of their perpetual "true and perfect" friendship, but the Goddess does not accept their vows of service until after they are blessed by "hymns of pacification to her deity," the singing of which causes the flame to burn "more clear than at any time before" (282). The masque's restoration of the political body is echoed in Gesta with a return to the continued development of the State of Graya. After annexing nineteen "rules of arms, and civil government, religiously to be observed by all those [Knights] that are admitted to this . . . honourable Order" (283-87), the tract includes six Gorbuducian speeches to the Prince by six different counselors, who advise him on the exercise of war, the study of philosophy, "etermzement and fame" by buildings and foundations, absoluteness of state  Gesta lists the f o l l o w i n g guests: "the Right Honourable the L o r d Keeper, the Earls o f Shrewsbury, Cumberland, Northumberland, Southampton, and Essex; the Lords Buckhurst, Windsor, Mountjoy, Sheffield, Compton, Rich, Burleygh, Mounteagle, and the L o r d Thomas H o w a r d ; Sir Thomas Henneage, Sir Robert Cecil; w i t h a great number of knights, ladies, and very worshipful personages: all which had convenient places, and very good entertainment, to their good l i k i n g and contentment" (281).  82 and treasure, virtuous and gracious government, and pastimes and sports.  80  These speeches stipulate how lawyers should cultivate the cultural capital associated with aristocratic rank. The counselor who urges the study of philosophy, for example, advises the prince to cultivate not only a "perfect and general library" but a "spacious and wonderful garden," each of which serves as an "eye of the world" through learning and an appreciation of nature.  81  On 4 January, the Prince, accompanied by the Ambassador of Templaria and the trains of both houses, progressed from the Court of Graya (Gray's Inn) to the Lord Mayor's house to attend a "very sumptuous and costly dinner" (296) After the dinner, the two states "returned again the same way, and in 82  The reference to Knights refers to the ancient religious and m i l i t a r y Order of the Knights Templar, who occupied the area that later became the legal quarter f r o m around 1124 u n t i l their prosecution around 1309 (by Philip I V , Pope Clement V, a n d E d w a r d I I ) f o r their allegedly subversive rites. Their mission was to protect the H o l y Sepulchre and the roads for pilgrims en route to the H o l y Land, but their growing influence and wealth over time soon became an object of royal and ecclesiastical jealousy. Francis Bacon of Gray's I n n is reputed to have w r i t t e n the six speeches, and their structure, style, and syntax—reflecting the condensed expressive style and Senecan curtness of Bacon's Essays Civil and Moral (first edition, 1597)—support this conjecture. M u c h to his mother's dismay, Bacon was w i d e l y i n v o l v e d i n Inns' revels throughout his l i f e t i m e . I n 1587-88, he helped write and acted i n the d u m b shows of The Misfortunes of Arthur before Elizabeth at Greenwich, a n d , as the "chief contriver," he also superintended Francis Beaumont's Masque of the Inner Temple and Gray's Inn on 20 February 1613, the last of three masques given i n honor of the marriage of James's daughter Elizabeth to the Count Palatine i n the Banqueting House at Whitehall. There are several extant records of several libraries of Inns' m e n , i n c l u d i n g that of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, w h o , w h e n he entered the M i d d l e Temple i n 1620, began his first largescale acquisition of b o o k s — m u c h legal material, of course, b u t also books of history, theology, political theory, Bibles i n a variety of languages, the classics, geology, a n d literature (see A n d r e w Watson's The Library of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, 1966). While a bencher at Gray's I n n , Francis Bacon oversaw the planting of elm trees i n rows i n the Inns' Fields, w h i c h imposed a striking visible order o n the once disarrayed patches of grass (Cowper 1985:11). The parade through L o n d o n . . .was very stately, and orderly performed; the Prince being mounted upon a rich footcloth, the Ambassador likewise r i d i n g near h i m ; the Gentlemen attending, w i t h the Prince's officers, and w i t h the Ambassador's favourites, before; and the other coming behind the Prince; as he set it d o w n i n the general marshalling i n the beginning. Every one had his feather i n his cap, to distinguish of whether State he was; the Grayans using a white, a n d the Templarians using ash-coloured feathers; to the number of  83 the same order as he went thither, the streets being thronged and filled with people, to see the Gentlemen as they passed by; who thought there had been some great Prince, in very deed, passing through the City" (296-97). Having fully manifested the State of Graya—both in body and in word—in the privacy of Gray's Inn Hall, and having "recover[ed] their lost credit" resulting from "the disgrace that the former night of Errors had incurred," the students were finally able to brandish their political identity in symbolic warfare against the people of London—over whom they asserted cultural dominance. The epistle dedicatory of the 1688 edition of Gesta admits that the "strict Alliance which ever was betwixt your States . . . as the only Person in whom are revived the ancient Honours of both Houses" had behooved the students to make "a publick Sense of the same personal Abilities (which made that Prince so conspicuous) that gives us all a publick View of those Vertues, so much admired in private." On 6 January, a series of ambassadorial engagements was initiated between the Prince of Purpoole and an appointed Ambassador from the Emperor of Russia and Muscovy, who requested the Prince's help with his wars at home. The Prince agreed to help the Russian Emperor by sending an army. The next day, the Prince departed for Russia with the Ambassador on an extended mission that the text implies was the students' attempt to avoid the beginning of term—a ruse which the "Readers and Governors [of Gray's Inn] made frustrate" by forbidding them to rearrange the hall for more revels (305). This administrative hindrance did not stop the festivities, for, on the 83  fourscore i n a l l , very w e l l appointed, and p r o v i d e d of great horses and foot-cloths, according to their places. (296) Flamboyant accessories are a mainstay of the students' documented display of conspicuous consumption as a means of distinguishing themselves f r o m others. 8  3  A n entry o n 23 November 1632 i n the Middle Temple Records indicates that benchers occasionally intervened when the spirit of revels went beyond the bounds of decorum:  84 first of February, the Prince and his train floated eastward on the Thames on fifteen barges, "bravely furnished with standards, pendants, flags, and streamers," from Blackwall to Greenwich (306). A series of written exchanges upon the stairs to the Queen's palace at Greenwich between the Prince and Queen Elizabeth (via Sir Thomas Heneage) led to the invitation of Graya to a court entertainment during Shrovetide; this was the Masque of Proteus, which concludes the first part of Gesfa. The Prince and his train then landed 84  at the Tower of London, whose Lieutenant welcomed them with a "volley of great ordnance" and one hundred "gallantly appointed" horses for their westward parade back to Gray's Inn via Tower Street, Fenchurch Street, Gracechurch Street, Cornhill, Cheapside, St. Paul's Church Yard, Ludgate, and Fleet Street, "where, as all the way else, the streets were so thronged and filled with people, that there was left but room for the horsemen that were to pass" (307-309). The tract twice mentions that the parades were witnessed by crowds all along their east and west-bound routes, which included wards in the City's "fayre" west and "unsavery" east, as John Stow says in his Survey of London (1598). The mock estates of Graya and Templaria proceeded from the seat of 85  I n the presenting and performance of revels, no gentleman of the House shall make use of the gallery over the screen, or b r i n g d o w n any lady or gentlewoman to see t h e i r ordinary revels, or dance w i t h them i n the H a l l i n the absence of the Bench, or use of the Reader's Chair or any other preeminence for the master of the revels, o n p a i n of censure. M a r t i n Butler proposes that these acts of royal homage to the Christmas Prince illustrate "one ambiguous aspect of this interaction between game and earnest" (1990: 154). It appears that the rules of the game i n this case, however, are rather clear: a n estate of p o w e r - i n suspension receives its motivation and d r i v e f r o m the possibility of royal f a v o u r — o f the eventual performance of power. "By 1598," Butler notes, "the former Christmas Prince was himself a Gentleman Pensioner to the Queen" (154), so it seems that the repartee between the t w o rulers was envisioned as one step f o r w a r d i n the development of an extended relationship between the Inns and the C r o w n . M . J. Power observes that i n London's west, "parliament and the Inns of Court were d r a w i n g great numbers of gentry, lawyers, government servants and men of affairs, and a large service p o p u l a t i o n of shopkeepers a n d the like to support them. I n the east w e f i n d a more homogeneous society of mariners, craftsmen, sailors' victuallers, almost a l l moderately  85  their "principalities" based at the Inns, through its mock kingdom (London), and arrived at the houses of real political authority (the Queen at Greenwich and the Lord Mayor's house). Voyaging on horseback in full regalia through 86  these wards, having cast themselves as the aristocracy of the law, the law students brandished the prestige of the legal profession, by land and water, to London society, from ordinary citizens to the Queen. Between the Inns and the houses of monarchical and civic authority—institutions representing the cultural, political, and economic forces that dominated the students—was an intermediary zone where the students could use the spectacle of public performance to play the part of power without threatening the agents that actually retained this power. Aesthetic warfare, a form of symbolic violence, was the means by which the students converted this potential into action. At the Inns, the students promoted social cohesion "by acting rhetorically upon themselves and one another" (Whigham 185). Outside the legal quarter, this rhetorical action assumed an even more stylized form, whereby "the continuous display of inimitable nuance and manner" served to maintain a vivid sense of distinction based on the typical indicators of group solidarity: conspicuous clothes, arcane language, and eccentric rituals (Whigham 36; Burke 1993: 70)  87  Such ingredients were the mainstays of the law students' effort to  humble w o r k i n g people... The impact of these distinct communities o n the physical aspect of the t w o suburbs was evident f r o m an early date. The tone of John Stow's description of them i n 1598 changes sharply as he moves f r o m east to west. I n the east his description is f u l l of censure: tenements are 'small a n d base,' cottages 'filthy,' streets 'pestered w i t h tenements.' . . . I n sharp contrast is his attitude to the west end. Houses are invariably 'fayre,' often 'for gentlemen'" (1978: 183). Very soon after Elizabeth died i n March 1603, l o h n M a n n i n g h a m observed that "[u]pon the death of a king or Qfueen] i n England the Lford] maior of London is the greatest magistrate i n England. A l l corporations and their governors continue, most of the other officers authority is expired w i t h the princes breath" (208). I n Epigram 83, " O f a Precise Lawyer," l o h n H a r i n g t o n portrays these qualities i n his description of a law student w h o has just been called to the bar: A Lawyer call'd vnto the Barre. but lately, . . .  86 recognize the utility of the legal capital they were amassing, and to use this recognition to define and redefine their position at the Inns and in London's field of power. Up to this point, I have focused on how these related processes operated within the legal quarter—at a distance from the centers of urban power that dominated the cultural fields in its purview. The Inns, however, were but one place where the law students could understand the relationship between their identity as bearers of legal capital and the external political and economic forces that shaped this identity. Institutions more closely connected to these forces, such as the commercial theatres, naturally yielded different kinds of mimetic experiences for the students than the Inns' halls allowed.  . . . hapt to be a bidden ghest, W i t h divers others to a Gossips feast. Where though that many d i d by entercourse, Exchange sometimes f r o m this, to that discourse: Yet one bent brow, and frowne of h i m was able, To gouerne all the talke was at the table. His manner was, perhaps to help digestion, Still to D i u i n i t i e to d r a w each question: I n w h i c h his tongue extrauagant w o u l d range, A n d he pronounced Maxims very s t r a n g e . . .  87  CHAPTER 3  Staging Exchange: the Inns and the Blackfriars Playhouse There, boy! kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, Rafe. —Nell, Francis Beaumont's Th e Knight of The Burning Pestle, 3.364.  We have seen how legal and dramatic performances in the Inns' halls created an environment in which law students could recognize and understand the convertibility of legal capital. These environments were located in the space of legal commons, so they facilitated a specific kind of understanding that depended on the fabrication of an imaginary field of power nominally under the students' control. In this chapter, I discuss the conversion of economic and cultural capital in an environment that was managed, not by the students' manipulation of commons, but by the pressures of London's competitive theatre market. I agree with Douglas Bruster's claim that the playhouses of Renaissance England were centrally tied to London's economic market, rather than marginal to the relatively "stable" culture of the City as Steven Mullaney has proposed. As places of commercial exchange, the playhouses "regularized and normalized carnival" in a manner that was "both responsive and responsible to the desires of their play going publics" (Bruster 10). The theatres were central institutions in London's culture industry. Their proprietors were intimately familiar with the City's dynamic political scene and had their fingers on the pulse of its economic and cultural markets; this awareness of  88  outside influences was an important component of the theatres' success (29)88  Bruster describes the early seventeenth-century theatre as "a ludic platform upon which London explored the social implications of the market" (64). A significant part of this investigation concerned the place of law and lawyers in London's burgeoning economy, and this chapter proposes that performances at the Blackfriars playhouse offered law students the chance to engage in a cultural experience different from the kind they could encounter in the more regulated halls of the Inns—different because London's political and economic pressures had a more direct impact on the production of culture at the Blackfriars than at the Inns. Part of this chapter's project is to provide a more focused assessment of the students' patronage of the Blackfriars, and the social environment of this patronage, than the perspective allowed by Alfred Harbage and Ann Cook's respective analyses of this theatre's reputedly more elite audience in comparison to the public theatres. The Blackfriars playhouse was located at the southwest edge of the City in an eclectic neighborhood. Like all of the commercial theatres, it was 89  Thomas Dekker, i n The Young Gallant's Academy (1674; a r e p u b l i c a t i o n o f his Guls Hornbooke of 1609), describes the theatre as the "Poets Royal Exchange, u p o n w h i c h their Muses (that are n o w turned to Merchants) meeting, barter away that l i g h t C o m m o d i t y of words, for a lighter ware than words, Plaudities, and the breath of the great Beast, w h i c h (like the threatenings of t w o Cowards) vanish into A i r " (55-56). I n December 1602, fohn Manningham noted that Stephen Egerton (C.1555-C.1621), a zealous and popular Puritan divine, served as minister of St. Anne's, a "little church or chappell u p stayres" i n B l a c k f r i a r s that h a d a "great congregacion, specially of w o m e n " (152). Apparently, Egerton's Wednesday morning sermons were so popular that people w o u l d come f r o m all across the City and the Inns of Court to hear them (367-68). A t this time, Blackfriars was a fashionable suburb f o r politicians because the h i g h demand for t o w n houses drove London's expansion westward towards Westminster. Robert Cotton's house was "a meeting place of poets and antiquaries" (Sharpe 202-203). Robert Sorlien, the editor of Manningham's diary, informs us that i n 1612, "Sir Henry Savile, his lady, and his whole household went to keep Christmas . . . and to spend most of the winter" at Sir E d w a r d Hoby's home i n Blackfriars. H o b y (1560-1617) was a p a r l i a m e n t a r i a n ,  89  socially suspect. While there is little evidence to support any specific claim about the demographics of this theatre's audience, it is clear that patrons paid a higher entrance fee than at other theatres, a disparity that suggests that the theatre's proprietors were offering clients the experience of feeling a part of an "elite" cultural experience—even if this experience was only a dim reflection of court culture. During the early years of James's reign, the Blackfriars was 90  a place in which London's wealthier playgoers, including law students, paid for the privilege of wasting time—an activity that was associated with the social elite. Attending a play at the theatre demonstrated one's engagement in a contest for prestige based on the appearance of having time and money to waste. The students' position in this playhouse was complex. As students, they were part of the "bottom of a hierarchical structure [of legal commons] to which [they were] ideologically or pragmatically committed" (Shapiro 52). By attending a performance at the Blackfriars, they entered an intimate and socially competitive environment composed of other privileged playgoers, who perhaps perceived this environment as a duplication of the exclusive social network centered at Whitehall. In the close company of patrons possessing varying amounts of economic, social, and cultural capital, the students encountered a range of people to meet, flatter, criticize, or perhaps even avoid. London was becoming a playground for a rapidly growing leisure class (Neill 344), and the theatres were places "where the gentry who would normally have been at Westminster might associate and cultivate their  9  0  translator, and author k n o w n f o r his "proficiency i n logic, w i d e reading, and love of the arts" (Manningham 382). C. W. Wallace notes that i n general, "the admission fee so far as k n o w n seems to have been f r o m t w o to twelve times as great as at any other theatre of the p e r i o d " (112). Harbage claims that after 1600, the price range "seems to have been six times that of the onepenny, twopenny, threepenny range of the public theatres" (45).  90 connections" (Butler 1984: 110, 133). The City was also England's purgatory for its "alienated intellectuals" (Curtis 28), many of whom found their way to the Inns, and the combination of these elements of London society in the more expensive theatres—those who had social prestige and those who sought it— created an environment in which competitive displays of conspicuous consumption among the members of a Blackfriars audience were as central to the experience of attending a play as the play's performance itself. Norbert Elias and Eric Dunning contend that "what people seek in their mimetic leisure activities is not release from tension but, on the contrary, a specific type of tension, a form of excitement often connected, as Augustine clearly saw, with fear, sadness and other emotions which we would try to avoid in ordinary life" (82). With this hypothesis in mind, I think that the performance conditions of the Blackfriars created for the law students a kind of tension that both challenged and assuaged their concern for social status—a status that, at least for the more professionally-minded students, would eventually depend on their ability to apply their Inns education towards a profitable legal career. A seat in the Blackfriars afforded law students a chance to perform the status associated with the aristocracy. The students were low-ranking members of the legal community, however, so this advance was only temporary, and what we know about their involvement in the playgoing experience indicates that they constituted a somewhat marginalized group within the audience. Their continued patronage depended significantly on the ability of the plays to appease their psychic need for a sense that they were part of London's social elite, for the other members of the audience could not necessarily provide this need. The city comedies of George Chapman, John Marston, Thomas Middleton, Ben Jonson, and Francis Beaumont staged the exchange of capital (money for  91 social prestige) in a manner that addressed this requirement. The plays dramatize, among many other things, the function of law and the legal profession in London's economic and social market, a project that depends on the playwrights' awareness of the legal constituencies of their audiences at the Blackfriars. Between 1604 and 1606, Chapman, Jonson, and Marston's Eastward Ho, Thomas Middleton's A Trick to Catch the Old One, and Francis Beaumont's The Knight of the Burning Pestle were  performed as part of the Blackfriars'  repertory. Plays such as these celebrate the ability of the protagonist—often a 91  After the theatre's first period of court-sponsored performances under the entrepreneurship of Richard Farrant (lasting f r o m 1576 u n t i l 1584), the property came into the ownership of Richard Burbage, w h o rented the hall to Henry Evans o n 2 September 1600. Evans started a new boy company designed to compete w i t h the recently resurrected Children of Paul's, a boy company associated w i t h St. Paul's Cathedral (Gair 49), as w e l l as the King's M e n at t h e Globe. H a v i n g f o r m e d an alliance w i t h Nathaniel Giles, Master of the Chapel Royal, Evans continued the tradition of i n c l u d i n g royal choristers among his company, b u t this strictly commercial venture nevertheless led to the ruthless recruitment of non-chorister boys such as Henry Clifton's thirteen-year-old son and heir, Thomas, w h o i n 1601 was kidnapped and i n v o l u n t a r i l y "comitted . . . amongst a companie of lewde & dissolute mercenary players" (qtd. i n Leinwand 60). W h e n James acceded to the throne i n 1603, court supervision of the theatres " w a s consolidated b y transferring the acting companies to direct royal patronage" (Yachnin 71); accordingly, the company at Blackfriars was renamed the Children of the Queen's Revels. D u r i n g a serious outbreak of plague i n 1603, the playhouses were closed, then were reopened i n 1604. Records indicate that it was i n this period of the Blackfriars' history (around 16041606) that Eastward Ho (1605), A Trick to Catch the Old One (1604-6?), and The Knight of the Burning Pestle (1606-1607?) were included i n the company's repertory ( I . Smith 214 and Price 131). The conjectural dating of these performances is of some importance, since i n November 1606 K i n g James declared that the boys of the Chapel Royal were no longer a l l o w e d to p e r f o r m at Blackfriars, thus severing the theatre's official ties to the court. James's action regarding the Blackfriars was fueled by the complaints of Puritans and other appalled auditors against w h a t they saw as the demoralizing (effeminizing) effects of having boy actors perform women's roles i n plays (a subject w h i c h Stephen Orgel eloquently discusses i n Impersonations: The Performance of Gender in Shakespeare's England). Consisting of apprentices and ex-choristers, the company at Blackfriars survived f o r t w o more years, n o w under the name "Children of the Revels." I n 1608, the company changed its name again, this time to the C h i l d r e n of Blackfriars. Sentiments against boy companies were still b r e w i n g ; i n his Sermon Preached at the Crosse (14 February 1607), W i l l i a m Crashaw claimed the companies were g r o w i n g "worse and worse," and i n 1608 the French Ambassador de la Boderie expressed shock at what he saw at the Blackfriars. A f t e r a stream of ineffective libel statutes, fames banned all boy companies f r o m London i n August of 1608—an event that allowed the King's M e n to take over the theatre. The boy companies evidently d i d not completely disband, however, for there are records of performances by the "Revels" company i n country towns after 1608 (Harbage 55).  92 disinherited young gentleman, or "prodigal son"—to use his wit and knowledge of the ways of the world in order to profit from the failures of the citizens around him. Prodigal-son plays performed by the boy companies parodied those performed by the adult companies, in which the protagonist rebels against established society, experiences a genuine conversion, and returns to the society he once fought.  92  His rebellion usually involves the  waste of his wealth in the City and the rejection of conventional social relationships, usually by deserting his wife or rejoicing at his father's (often feigned) death. Prodigality  93  Plays such as The Contention  between Liberality  and  (1602) and The London Prodigal (King's Men, c.1604) conclude  with the prodigal son's "miraculous conversion, sudden repentance, and instantaneous contrition" (Shapiro 121). The prodigal sons in city comedies, however, approach their circumstances with a cynical disposition. Certain aspects of the prodigal son plays stand out when we consider both the law students' concern about their ability to exchange the legal capital they were acquiring and how the contest for prestige in the Blackfriars manipulated this concern. These aspects include the frustrated and comical attempts of London's citizens to profit, symbolically and/or materially, from  Between 1604 and 1606, w h e n the three plays under discussion i n this chapter were performed, the playhouse at Blackfriars was at the peak of its success under the regime of court-sponsored boy companies. The plays that were staged at this time d r e w together wealthy citizens, members of the court, lawyers, l a w students, a n d other p r i v i l e g e d playgoers into one audience, and the fact that these plays were performed by a company composed partly of choristers of the King's Chapel Royal could only heighten the l a w student's sense of his outing at the Blackfriars as an opportunity to be as close to court culture as his money could buy. I n The Elizabethan Prodigals, Richard Helgerson provides a t h o r o u g h account of the Elizabethan prose fiction that uses the theme of the prodigal s o n — a theme that the w r i t e r s of prodigal-son plays tailored for the Jacobean theatre. Alexander Leggatt observes that the son then "retires to an outlaw w o r l d of d r i n k i n g , dicing, and w h o r i n g , a w o r l d that preys o n h i m and then leaves h i m helpless . . . But there are agents of salvation at w o r k [a l o y a l servant, brother, disguised father, deserted w i f e ] , balancing the agents of destruction, as i n a morality play. . . A s the hero repents, society moves to reclaim h i m , and the social bonds he broke are restored" (34).  93 the exchange of capital, the particular means by which the prodigal son manipulates these failed attempts for his own benefit, and the plays' conservative claims about the kinds of people who are able to benefit from this system of exchange. In order to understand how these characteristics enable the various members of the audience to engage in a game of socialcompetition-as-entertainment (a game officiated by the players on the stage), we need to explore more specifically the distinction between the social capital associated with the Blackfriars and the Inns. Bourdieu argues that explicit aesthetic choices among groups who regard themselves as elite are "often constituted in opposition to the choices of the groups closest in social space, with whom the competition is most direct and most immediate" (1984: 60). The decision of how to "waste one's time" is one such aesthetic choice, for one of the privileges of the elite is the unencumbered time directly associated with the freedom from economic necessity. One of the distinguishing qualities of an aristocratic gentleman in early modern London was his manner of time-wasting. In the Blackfriars 94  playhouse, London's privileged playgoers flaunted their time-wasting as a sign of social prestige, and by attending plays in their company, the law students could, in their own way, participate in this performance of "aristocratic" dalliance by wasting their own time in fast company and by critiquing the attempts of others to do the same. Just as the physical arrangement of the Inns' halls naturalized the social hierarchies of commons, the physical structure of the Blackfriars was conducive to the kinds of social competition the playhouse attracted. The various seating options in the theatre offered patrons the chance to express a  A m o n g a set of paradoxes listed at the end of Gesta Grayorum is the stipulation that i t is "better to be idle than industrious: for the grass-hopper lives merryer than the ante."  94  kind of aesthetic disposition—different seats, above and below, yielded unique vantage points from which to both view the action in the playhouse and be viewed by other patrons (see figure 9). What Sir John Davies describes as the preference of the "clamorous fry of Innes of court [men]" to "[fill] up the private roomes of greater price" in the theatre constitutes an explicit choice whereby the students could position themselves above the other playgoers. In his third epigram (1593?), Davies makes it clear that the gallants—who "[d]oth either to the stage himselfe transferre, / Or through a grate, doth shew his double face"—"in his singularity doth despise" the places in the theatres "where all may have resort," such as the private rooms the students allegedly occupied in the Blackfriars. By sitting on the stage, the gallants asserted their performance of superior social status; by occupying the private rooms, the students attempted to violate (symbolically) this status. Davies's epigram suggests that the question of seating contributed to the competitive dynamic in the playhouse—a dynamic in which the law students responded to the gallants' stage-sitting in the form of scathing social criticism.  95  "Certaine Observations"  Little is known about Henry Fitzgeoffrey other than that he was a student at Lincoln's Inn when he wrote his Satyres and Satyricall Epigrams: with Certaine Observations at the Black-fryars (1617) Consisting of 289 lines 96  9 5  9 6  1 am indebted to Dr. Paul Yachnin for the careful attention he has given to this chapter (as w e l l as to the entire thesis). I n the Black Books, Fitzgeoffrey's name is mentioned three times: once i n relation to a financial dispute w i t h one Mrs. Wythins i n Ian./Feb. 1618, once concerning h i s chamber, w h i c h was "disposed of f o r the payment of duties to the House" (25 June 1618), and once regarding his call to the bar on 14 June 1621. We can therefore assume that Fitzgeoffrey was  95 of unrhymed pentameter and divided into eleven parts of varying lengths, Fitzgeoffrey's Notes from Black-Fryers appears at the end of his collection. Not even aware of what play is on that day, Fitzgeoffrey meets his friend "Philemo" in one of the theatre's upper viewing boxes. Rather than smoking, they decide to "deceive Time . . .till the second sound" by observing who else is attending the performance. What follows is a series of unflattering 97  portraits of the patrons they see in the theatre; in each portrait the students criticize the dress, speech, demeanor, and behavior of the playgoers. Fitzgeoffrey describes the Blackfriars as a world of unabashed conspicuous consumption. He wonders, for example, if a man whom he calls a "world of fashions"—donning Spanish boots, Scottish spurs, a French-cut suit, and a Holland shirt, with "His Haire like to your Moor's or Irish Lockes"—has just wandered in from a "Countrey may-game." After "A Woman  of the masculine Gender" proceeds to sit "into the Gallants Row,"  Fitzgeoffrey notices that a "plumed Dandebrat" appears to enjoy the ladies' high demand because of his ability to dance "skipping too and fro." A "Spruse Coxcombe,  yon Affecting Asse," who "never walkes without his Looking-  a student at the time he w r o t e his observations of the gallants' r o w at the B l a c k f r i a r s around 1617. His book was entered i n the Stationers' Register on 9 October 1617. The conditions of playgoing at the Blackfriars must have varied to some extent between 1617, w h e n Fitzgeoffrey wrote his Notes, and i n 1604-6, w h e n the plays under discussion i n this chapter were performed. However, contemporary references regarding playgoing at the Blackfriars i n the f i r s t decade of the seventeenth century e x h i b i t s i m i l a r k i n d s o f "observations" that Fitzgeoffrey makes one decade later. Jonson's verses f o r Fletcher's pastoral tragicomedy Faithful Shepherdess (c.1608) describe the Blackfriars audience as a "wise and many-headed Bench ... Compos'd of Gamester, Captaine, Knight, Knight's man, / Lady, or Pusil," all "rank'd i n the darke . . ." The Induction to John Day's He of Guls (1606) dramatizes the pickiness w i t h w h i c h three gallants make their contradictory demands on the Blackfriars c o m p a n y — t h e first wants a satire, the second prefers a b a w d y play, and the t h i r d orders a "bombastic history." The a u d i t o r i u m and the stage at the Blackfriars were l i t equally, so i n a sense the entire theatre was a place of performance. "Second sound" either refers to a trumpet that indicated the beginning of the play or perhaps the second of m a n y intervals that d i v i d e d each performance. These intervals featured popular musical performances b y an outstanding ensemble of professional instrumentalists and boy choristers.  96  glasse," is obsessed with the tidiness of his apparel. This "witlesse Noddy" fasts on "Oattneale, Milke, and crums of Barly-bread" and avoids the taverns just so that he can fit into his tight, tailored suits. What is most interesting about Fitzgeoffrey's survey of the Blackfriars' clientele is its concluding description of the playwright John Webster, who appears in the theatre accompanied by a young foppish singer:  98  But h'st! with him Crabbed (Websterio) The Play-wright,Cart-wright: whether? either! ho— No further. Looke as yee'd bee look't into: Sit as ye woo'd be Read: Lord), who woo'd know him? Was euer man so mangl'd with a .Poem? See how he drawes his mouth awry of late, How he scrubs: wrings his wrests: scratches his Pate. A Midwifel helpe! By his Braines coitus,  Some Centaure strange: some huge Bucephalus,  I n 1617, John Webster (1580-1634) was thirty-seven. Little is k n o w n about h i m . H e m i g h t have studied l a w for a time at the M i d d l e Temple, though the Inn's records do not support this conjecture. E d w a r d , his father, hired out coaches and hearses (or " c a r t s " ) — a trade that Fitzgeoffrey ridicules i n his character p o r t r a i t . Webster collaborated w i t h several playwrights associated w i t h Philip Henslowe's company. By 1617, he had already w r i t t e n The White Devil (1612) and The Duchess of Malfi (c.1614, Blackfriars) under his o w n name, so he was a k n o w n figure i n the theatre business. Webster was engaged i n an on-going w a r w i t h a group of m i n o r poets and playwrights at Lincoln's Inn. Early i n 1615, John Stephens (Cynthia's Revenge, 1613), one of Fitzgeoffrey's friends at Lincoln's Inn, issued his Satirical Essays, Characters, and Others, w h i c h included a strongly derogatory portrait by his friend the lawyer J. Cocke (a pseudonym), entitled 'The Character of a Common Player," to w h i c h Webster took offense (Forker 546; Bradbrook 168). The "Character of an Excellent Actor" appears i n the sixth e d i t i o n of the late Sir Thomas Overbury's ( M i d d l e Temple) ever-expanding Characters, drawn to the Life of Several Persons in Several Qualities (1615), w h i c h Webster probably edited (Forker 121; B r a d b r o o k 167). I n this character, Webster retaliates against Stephens i n a vicious digression, later removed i n subsequent editions (Forker 546). Otherwise, the character "is surely one of history's noblest and most eloquent defenses of the thespian's art" (127). Subsequently, i n a second edition of his book, Stephens refers to Webster's w r i t i n g as b e i n g "dressed ouer w i t h oyle o f sweaty Post-horse" a n d as e m p l o y i n g "hackney similitudes" (qtd. i n Forker 24). Here Stephens includes more raillery b y "Cocke" and the law student George Greene against the "nameless Detractor before mentioned" (qtd. i n Forker 546). Cocke claimed that three characters i n the sixth edition of Overbury's Characters were his o w n , and that an " v n k n o w n botcher," w h o m he identifies as the author of " A n Excellent Actor" (e.g. Webster), had crudely tampered w i t h them (Forker 121).  97  OrPallas (sure) ingendred in his Braine, Strike Vulcan with thy hammer once againe."  What begins as a string of personal insults and sexual puns turns into an assessment of Webster's reputation for convoluting the source material of his plays: This is the Crittick that (of all the rest) I'de not haue view mee, yet I feare him least, Heer's not a word cursivelyl  have Writ,  But hee'l Industriously examine it. A n d in some 12. monthes hence (or there about) Set in a shamefull sheete, m y errors out... But what care I it will be so obscure, That none shall understand him (I am sure.)  This final ad hominem  attack against Webster illustrates the extent to which  law students perceived themselves as judges  of the  entire  theatrical  institution. The backbiting assessments of the Blackfriars gallants are also a part of this cultural p o w e r - p l a y .  100  Fitzgeoffrey's reaction to the flagrant displays of  wealth reads as arrogant aestheticism, a response that Bourdieu, in his o w n  Charles Forker observes that "Crabbed (Websterio)" is probably, a jibe at the dramatist's attraction to Italian subject matter, or possibly a reference to a physical deformity of,some sort, Webster's reputedly cantankerous personality, and/or his "knotty and contorted style." Fitzgeoffrey's reference to Bucephalus, Alexander the Great's .bull-headed horse, appears to "ridicule the unnaturally mixed or hybrid quality" of Webster's plays. "Pallas," the goddess of wit or intelligence, was conceived in Jove's forehead after Vulcan had split it open; the reference "suggests not only the labored nature of Webster's style but also the junction of sexuality and violence so thematically central to his greatest dramas" (59). In The Young Gallant's Whiligigg (1629), Francis Lenton admits that In Court and City there's no small adoe With this young Stripling, that [upbraids] the gods, And thirtked twrxt them, and him, there is no ods:, A haughty look, a more superbious minde, And yet amongst his equalls too-too kinde. (12)  98 research, claims is characteristic of Parisian bourgeois adolescents, who, because they "are both economically privileged and (temporarily) excluded from the reality of economic power, sometimes express their distance from the bourgeois world which they cannot really appropriate by a refusal of complicity whose most refined expression is a propensity towards aesthetics and aestheticism" (1984: 55). Bourdieu's conjecture offers a convincing explanation of the environment Fitzgeoffrey describes in his Notes— especially when we consider his concluding assessment of his project as the product of his leisure-time: Others may chance (that know me not a right,) Report (iniuriously) all my delight, And strength of studdy I doe wholly bend To this Losse-labour other end. To these I wish my scandald Muse reply In as plaine tearmes as may bee 'Tis a lye. Heer's but Pate-pastime: Play-house  Obseruation,  of the vacant howers of a Vacation. Then (say all what they can) I am sure of this, That for Play-time it is not spent amisse. Fruits  Here Fitzgeoffrey presents the playgoing law student as a critic of fashion, someone who prides himself on his ability to dissect the complex system of personal display at the Blackfriars.  101  More importantly, he makes it clear that  "Objectively and subjectively," Bourdieu argues,, "aesthetic stances adopted in matters like cosmetics, clothing, or home decoration are opportunities to experience or assert one's position in social space, as a rank to be upheld or a distance to be kept" (1984: 57). Like Fitzgeoffrey s Notes, the character of "A Fantastic Inns of Court Man," published in one of the many editions of Overbury's Characters, illustrates how the law student uses his proclivity to criticize the stances of others as an expression of his own social position: [He] laughs at every man whose band fits not well or that hath not a fair shoe-tie, and he is ashamed to be seen in any man's company that wears not his clothes well. His very essence he placeth in his outside, and his chief prayer is that his revenues may hold out for taffeta cloaks in the summer and velvet in the winter. . .  99 his role as social critic is an integral part of his competitive time-wasting— criticism is his most adept weapon in the competition because it is the basis of commons culture. The authors of the Blackfriars plays demonstrate their awareness of the law students' place in the social order both within and outside the theatre. The plays are also demonstrations of the playwrights' ability to balance this awareness against the need to entertain a wider critical audience of nonlawyers. In his discussion of London's theatre market, Paul Yachnin has argued that playwrights such as Marlowe, Shakespeare, and Middleton "developed the possibilities of indeterminacy inherent in drama's dialectical production of meaning so that their plays could be staged both at Court and in the public theatres, and so that the plays would please both the orthodox and the heterodox"  (66).  Entertaining a narrower,  wealthier market,  the  playwrights who wrote citizen comedies for the Blackfriars (and St. Paul's) also took advantage of these "possibilities of indeterminacy" so that their plays would appeal to a cross-section of London's privileged residents and visitors—an audience composed of men and women enjoying varying degrees of cultural, social, and economic capital. Entertaining audiences of this kind presented a different set of challenges to the playwright than attracting patrons to the public theatres, for while a Blackfriars audience might have been more socially homogeneous than an audience at the Globe, it also contained a spectrum of London society competing for social status.  102  In order to entertain such an audience, the playwrights had to understand the kinds of competition that drew it together.  After taking over the Blackfriars playhouse in 1609, Shakespeare's King's Men performed individual plays, such as Cymbeline, both at the Globe and Blackfriars.  100 G e o r g e C h a p m a n , B e n J o n s o n , a n d J o h n M a r s t o n ' s Eastward Ho  The disparity between economic and cultural capital that afflicted the law students' sense of social affiliation in London is reflected, to a degree, in the predicament of Quicksilver, the protagonist in Eastward Ho, who is the younger son of a gentleman, and therefore does not stand to inherit his father's estate. He is apprenticed to a thrifty, virtuous Cheapside goldsmith, Touchstone, against whom he rebels by affecting the fashionable tastes and vices of a young gallant. To the dismay of Golding, an industrious fellow apprentice, Quicksilver uses Touchstone's profits to pay for his lavish expenditures until he is banished from the household—two years before his apprenticeship should expire. By the end of the play, Golding is married to Mildred, Touchstone's daughter, and has become the deputy alderman; in this role, he sentences Quicksilver to jail for his crimes, though he later decides that Quicksilver's melodramatic conversion at the end of the play is sincere and threatens to put himself in prison unless the stubborn Touchstone agrees to pardon Quicksilver. Moved by Golding's sacrifice, Quicksilver forgives Touchstone and reclaims him. Touchstone also has a daughter, Gertrude, who scorns her family's middle-class status and yearns to be a gentlewoman. She abhors the marriage of her sister to Golding, though she does not know that he is in fact a gentleman. Gertrude marries a disenfranchised knight, Sir Petronel Flash, because she thinks he is rich and will remove her from Cheapside and take her to his enchanted castle east of London. Sir Petronel is only interested, however, in Gertrude's inheritance, which he plans to invest in a voyage-forriches to Virginia with the assistance of Security, a usurer, who draws up a document permitting the sale of her lands to Sir Petronel. Believing that the  101  document allows for the sale for a "poor tenement" that would fund the purchase of furniture for the castle, Gertrude, now "Lady Flash," signs it (3.2.190-93). In the meantime, the "egregious pander" Security (2.2.227) schemes to use his daughter Sindefy (Quicksilver's mistress) to manipulate Gertrude into ceding her lands to Sir Petronel; Sindefy will pretend to be a gentlewoman recently arrived from the country. Leaving Gertrude destitute and aimlessly looking for his non-existent castle, Sir Petronel heads eastward on the Thames for the New World, where he will eventually wed Winifred, Security's wife, who is smuggled to Cuckold's Haven, a tavern east of London, where she will be taken aboard Sir Petronel's ship. The whole eastward enterprise falls to pieces in a fierce storm that lands everyone on the Isle of Dogs. The arrogant children of Cheapside, who have rejected the City and its values of thrift and hard work, are brought to justice by the violent Thames, which returns them to Cheapside and the Counter prison, poverty, or both.  103  Though this disaster identifies the  characters' pursuit of higher social status as unnatural, it is never clear that we should trust the claims of repentance and moral conversion that bring the play to a close. In this "subtlest and most elaborate parody of the standard prodigal story" (Leggatt 47), behaviors that seem "natural" are in constant competition. While the human desire to excel is natural, the hasty pursuit of social advancement, Mildred claims, is not; at the same time, this moral perspective is juxtaposed with Security's description of usury as the life and breath of his existence:  Ralph Cohen describes Eastward Ho as a "topographical comedy" (85); the play "abounds with allusions to places with infamous associations and mentions, among others, the disreputable precincts of Whitefriars and St. Katherine's; prisons such as Bridewell, the Fleet, King's Bench, and the two city prisons, the Counters; and even Tyburn and Wapping, notorious as places of execution" (88).  102 Mildred  [to Golding]. These hasty  advancements are not natural. Nature hath given us legs to go to our subjects, not wings to fly to them. Security.  (2.1.74-77) Where we that trade  nothing but money are free from all this, we are pleased with all weathers.  (2.2.134-36)  [to Quicksilver]..How I do hunger and thirst to have the honour to enrich thee . . . (2.2.164-65)  Security  Security later tells Quicksilver again that he "do[es] hunger and thirst to do you good, sir" (3.1.76), emphasizing the treacherous environment of feeding and preying in which the aspiring characters must pursue their social advancement. The condition of Quicksilver, Gertrude, and Sir Petronel is complex. While the degree of social status for which they each aspire depends upon the achievement of a lifestyle unburdened by the need for money, they must nevertheless rely on the likes of Security in order to secure the funds that this lifestyle demands. Gertrude and Sir Petronel are most especially caught in a hopeless cycle of unaffordable dreams because they have the most to lose (Gertrude, her lands; Sir Petronel, his reputation) and because they are the most gullible. Touchstone, Golding, and Mildred function as a kind of control group against which the efforts of Gertrude and Sir Petronel are measured. Quicksilver, however, stands apart from this crowd because he understands the subtle ploys and motivations involved in the social and economic transactions that occur around him, and he is able to manipulate these transactions, in the end, for his own benefit. Though he is cast in prison like the rest of the Virginia-bound entrepreneurs, he knows that the key to  103 his freedom is a polemical display of piety (he sings a song called "Repentance") that will pull the heartstrings of Golding and Touchstone. While most of the play is focused on Gertrude and the Virginia expedition, Quicksilver remains relatively in the background; he observes the actions of others more than he acts himself, and it is for this reason that he is able to gain his freedom with a song. Throughout the play, we are reminded of Quicksilver's reputation as "the royallest fellow that ever was bred up i' the / city" (5.3.47-48): Prisoner. He would play you his thousand pound a  night at dice; keep knights and lords company; go with them to bawdy houses; had his six men in a livery; kept a stable of hunting horses, and his wench in her velvet gown and her cloth of silver.  (5.3.48-53)  The primary occupation of a gentleman in this play, at least as thrifty Touchstone perceives it, is to throw money away.  104  What makes Touchstone  so angry is that Quicksilver so explicitly identifies Touchstone's money as that which funds his "pedigree" (1.1.124)—his inherited cultural capital. In Quicksilver's eyes, Touchstone's earnings function as the inheritance he will never receive (Quicksilver is a second son): Quick. Why, 'sblood, sir, my mother's a gentlewoman,  and my father a justice of the peace and of quorum; and though I am a younger brother and a prentice, yet I hope that I am my father's son; and by God's lid, 'tis for your worship and for your commodity that I keep company.  (1.1.26-31)  Richard Horwich observes that Touchstone's obsession with thriffiness "reveals itself in a willingness to utilize human and emotional resources to the utmost; to accept human imperfection in a husband or wife; to find contentment with simple and unornamented people as well as possessions'" (226).  104  Well, I am a good member of the City if I were well considered. How would merchants thrive, if gentlemen would not be unthrifts? How could gentlemen be unthrifts if their humours were not fed? How should their humours be fed but by whitemeat and cunning secondings?  (1.1.36-42)  Quicksilver understands that the "humours" of English gallants depend on London's luxury market. As a successful goldsmith in the fashionable Strand, Touchstone also understands this relationship (he depends on it for his livelihood), but only to a certain extent. At the beginning of the play, it is clear that he does not fully recognize the relationship between his craft and the conspicuous consumption it supports: Touch.  Did I gain my  wealth by ordinaries? no! By exchanging of my gold? no! By keeping of gallants' company? no! I hired me a little shop, bought low, took small gain, kept no debt book, garnished my shop . . .  (1.1.52-56)  Touchstone is naturally angry that Quicksilver is squandering his profits, which is what forces him to banish the young prodigal from his home. During the trial scene in Act 4, Touchstone's position is unchanged: [M]y prentice, Master Quicksilver here . . . when he had two year to serve, kept his whore and his hunting nag, would play his hundred pound at gresco, or primero, as familiarly (and all o' my purse) as any bright piece of crimson on 'em all; had his changeable trunks of apparel standing at livery, with his mare, his chest of perfumed linen,  Touch.  105 and his bathing tubs, which when I told him of, why he—he was a gentleman, and I a poor Cheapside groom.  (4.2.254-63)  But what seems to anger Touchstone even more is that Quicksilver identifies his trade so closely with the stereotypical vices of gentlemen—conspicuous consumption and wasteful idleness: [to Golding]. Why do nothing, be like a gentleman, be idle; the curse of man is labour. Wipe thy bum with testons, and make ducks and drakes with shillings. (1.1.138-40)  Quick  105  Sirrah, sirrah, y' are past your hiccup now; I see y' are drunk. Quick. 'Tis for your credit, master. Touch. And hear you keep a whore in town. Quick. 'Tis for your credit, master. Touch. And what you are out in cash, I know. Quick. So do I. My father's a gentleman. Work upon that now. Eastward Ho! Touch. Sir, 'Eastward Ho' will make you go Westward Ho! I will no longer dishonest my house, nor endanger my stock with your licence. There, sir, there's your indenture; all your apparel—that I must know—is on your back; and from this time Touch.  my door is shut to you. . .  (2.1.125-38)  During the trial scene, Quicksilver learns how to reopen the door. With his newfound authority as deputy alderman, Golding condemns Quicksilver's prodigality in a speech tinged with the rhetoric of puritanical sermons: Go Id. It is a great pity: thou art  "Testons" are coins. "To make ducks and drakes with shillings" is a proverbial saying referring to the game of skipping coins (squandering money) over water like stones.  106 a proper young man, of an honest and clean face, somewhat near a good one—God hath done his part in thee—but thou hast made too much, and been too proud of that face, with the rest of thy body; for maintenance of which in near and garish attire, only to be looked upon by some light housewives, thou hast prodigally consumed much of thy master's estate . . .  (4.2.297-305)  Taking his cue from the tone of Golding's speech, Quicksilver composes his "Repentance," whose five stanzas "ravish" Touchstone (5.5.115) and bring him to his knees with joy. In the penultimate stanza, Quicksilver exclaims his desire to "cut off the horse-head of Sin, / And leave his body in the dust / Of Sin's highway and bogs of Lust" (5.5.104-106). Quicksilver's success with his wit is set against Gertrude's failed pursuit of a title. Both characters are dissatisfied with their respective social rank: But alas, Frank, how will all this be maintained now? Your place maintained it before. Quick. Why, and I maintained my place. I'll to the court, another manner of place for maintenance I hope than this silly city. Sindefy.  Gert.  I must be a lady, and I will be a lady.  (2.2.60-64) (1.2.21)  Unlike Quicksilver, however, Gertrude is consistently foiled by her naive understanding of the ways of the world and the social protocols of the rank to which she aspires. Quicksilver's inherited cultural capital has afforded him a certain understanding of the intricate layers of English society; Gertrude's more humble social background misguides her into thinking that her  107 marriage to Sir Petronel can automatically reverse the cultural effects of her family upbringing. The disparity between the situations of Quicksilver and Gertrude is conveyed by the different manner in which they articulate their frustrations. Quicksilver fights his way with wit and observation, ultimately with success. Just as Donne can see through Coscus's unconvincing use of courtly discourse in Satire II, the Blackfriars audience can amuse themselves with Gertrude's unskilled articulation of a language and decorum she claims is rightfully hers—a performance that her citizen background gives away. At the beginning of the play, she explains the ridiculous logic of her social aspirations: Gert. O sister  Mil, though my father be a low-capped tradesman, yet I must be a lady; and I praise God my mother must call me medam.  (1.2.3-6)  Gert. Ay, mother, I must be a lady tomorrow; and by  your leave, mother—I speak it not without my duty, but only in the right of my husband—I must take place of you, mother. M  Touch. That you shall, lady-daughter, and have a  coach as well as I, too. Gert. Yes, mother. But by your leave, mother—I speak  it not without my duty, but only in my husband's right—my coach horses must take the wall of your coach horses.  (1.2.120-29)  Gertrude's interactions later in the play are no less comical. She can no longer stand to be in the presence of Mistress Fond and Mistress Gazer, whom she calls "good people"—she runs for her coach soon after she encounters them  108 (3.2.29-32). Having been told by Quicksilver that Golding and M i l d r e d are married, Gertrude crudely suggests that the mis-matched newlyweds should be "pebble[d] / . . . with snowballs as they come from church" (3.2.69-79). Even after Sir Petronel leaves her, she will not heed her mother's advice a n d respect her father's livelihood: M  Touch. Speak to your father, madam, and kneel down.  Gert. Kneel? I hope I am not brought so low yet; though my knight be run away, and has sold my land, I am a lady still.  (4.2.132-36)  A t the end of the play, Gertrude still believes that money can serve as an easy substitute for the social graces of an aristocratic upbringing: Gert [to Sindefy]. I'm sure I remember the time when I would ha' given a thousand pound, if I had had it, to have been a lady; and I hope I was not bred and born with that appetite alone: some other gentleborn o' the city have the same longing, I trust.  (5.1.73-77)  Gertrude's yearning for social capital fuels Sir Petronel's greed; he is a knight, but financially insolvent, and he mortgages her dowry in order to bankroll the Virginia voyage, leaving Gertrude with a worthless title of Lady Flash and a castle "built with air" (2.2.247). Surprisingly, Sir Petronel at one point wonders what people will think of his deed. Quicksilver tells him this sort of thing happens all the time, and Sir Petronel quickly changes his tune: Sir Pet. Nay, 'tis no matter, I care little what they think; he that weighs men's thoughts has his hands full of nothing. A man in the course of this world should be like a surgeon's instrument, work in the wounds of others, and feel nothing himself. The  109 sharper and subtler, the better.  (3.2.214-19)  Sir Petronel's final observation here is a crucial point to the play—achieving success depends on the sharpness of one's wit. Yet Quicksilver is the only character clever enough to take advantage of this fact: No, I say still, he that has wit, let him live by his wit; he that has none, let him be a tradesman. Security. Witty Master Francis! 'Tis pity any trade should dull that quick brain of yours. Quick.  (2.2.146-49)  Quicksilver stands aside and observes as Security helps Sir Petronel prepare the scheme to gain control of Gertrude's dowry. They call upon an old lawyer, Bramble (a name suggesting the tangles of the law), to tailor the contract that Gertrude must sign. Security clearly resents his reliance on the law to achieve his goals, and he speaks viciously about lawyers when "prickless" (3.3.150) Bramble is not present: "A lawyer is ambitious, and his head / Cannot be praised nor raised too high, / With any fork of highest knavery" (3.2.278-80). Security is thrilled when Sir Petronel informs him of his. plan to sneak Bramble's wife away to Virginia in order to free her from her husband's "tyrannous jealousy" (3.2.263), and he enthusiastically agrees to distract the old lawyer while they carry out the plan: Who would not strain a point of neighbourhood, For such a point-device, that, as the ship Of famous Draco went about the world, Will wind about the lawyer, compassing The world himself: he hath it in his arms,  Security.  And that's enough, for him, without his wife. Security.  'Tis a trick rampant! 'Tis a very quiblin!  (3.2.272-77)  110 I hope this harvest to pitch cart with lawyers, Their heads will be so forked.  (3.2.295-97)  Quick. O my dad!  He goes as't were the devil to fetch the lawyer; And devil shall he be, if horns will make him.  (3.2.337-39)  In the end, however, Security is ridiculed and not Bramble; after Security finally departs, Sir Petronel asks Quicksilver to bring Security's wife, Winifred: Sir Pet. So, so. Now, Frank, go thou home to his house, Stead of his lawyer's, and bring his wife hither, Who, just like to the lawyer's wife, is prisoned With his stern, usurous jealousy, which could never Be overreached thus, but with overreaching.  (3.2.282-86)  Like Quicksilver, Sir Petronel later faces the authority of the law under Golding, but the shrewdness he so highly praises in 3.2 escape him at the end of the play (when it really counts), and he remains silent while Quicksilver sings their way out of prison. Criticism frequently points to the play's lack of precise objects of social censure. Alexander Leggatt, for example, argues that the play's "comic form is broad enough to support a wide range of sympathies, and the happy ending can be a triumph for the social bond and the responsibilities that go with it, or . . . for the witty individual who is concerned only with his pleasures" (53). This degree of ambivalence can be explained in part by the play's collaborative authorship. Each playwright's idiosyncracies—Jonson's costive earnestness and sense of entertainment, Marston's notorious social satire and grandiloquence, and Chapman's contentiousness  and scholarship—are  evident throughout the play. The quarto of 1605 may well have been screened  Ill  of its more pointed wit, for Jonson and Chapman were imprisoned for at most twenty weeks because the play's satire on the Scots offended James I.  106  The interactions between Gertrude, Sir Petronel, Quicksilver and their fellow characters represent systems of capital exchange among various sectors of London society. But only Quicksilver, representing the disenfranchised sons of gentry, stands out as one who recognizes how these systems operate and how they can be manipulated. When we consider the staging of this recognition in light of Fitzgeoffrey's account of the ways law students engaged in the competition for prestige in the Blackfriars, specific aspects of Quicksilver's understanding stand out: the facility with which he manages his pseudo-redemption by understanding the institutions of which he was a part (Touchstone's household, London's luxury market, and prison), his position within each of them (a goldsmith's apprentice on the Strand, a dandy, and a prisoner), and the behaviors he must assume in order to use these positions to his own advantage. Chapman, Jonson, and Marston are careful not to portray Quicksilver as a prodigal obsessed by his lack of money; he never lets his situation divert him from his daily pleasures. The thought of gainful employment appalls him, and his tangential involvement in the Virginia expedition seems to be perpetuated more by thoughts of adventure than-by any financial profits the trip might bring.  107  1  0  6  Remnants of this satire remain in Seagull's monologue about the Virginia expedition in 3.3.39-59, where he suggests that the New World is populated by "a few industrious Scots'' (3.3.44), a remark that tacitly associates the race with the thieves arid outcasts who were sent to the New World. In the quarto, Seagull welcomes the possibility of living freely with his "friends''—T would a hundred thousand of em were there, for we are all one countrymen now" (3.3.49-50)—but we can imagine that the references to the Scots were much less gracious in the version that was actually performed! Letters that Chapman and Jonson wrote in prison indicate that Marston was responsible for the offending remarks against the Scots,...  1  0  7  In his exchanges with his mistress, Sindefy, in 2.2, Quicksilver expresses his desire to proceed "to the / court, another manner of place for maintenance I / hope than this silly city" (60-64). He also chastises Sindefy for thinking that ' "[t]is but to / learn to live; and  112 As a form of private entertainment, these performances of power relationships, generated by staging failed exchanges of different kinds of capital, fulfill several mimetic functions at once, but they do so subtly because they were marketed for an audience in which the variations in symbolic and economic capital of its members were confined to a narrower margin of London's privileged society than might have been found in other theatres. In an environment in which social distinctions among the members of the audience were defined more by degrees of symbolic capital than by money (admission to the playhouse was relatively costly for everyone), city comedies like Eastward Ho present a society whose citizens are so caught in a cycle of economic necessity that they fail to enjoy, or even recognize, aesthetic pleasures. Only Quicksilver, with his art of observation, manages to beat the system, and even then his feigned creativity merely serves as an empty escape strategy. Eastward Ho typifies the parody of capitalism characteristic of citizen comedy. The sub-genre presents a London-based society whose members, struggling for the means (money, rank) either to gain leisure time or to appear to have the ability to enjoy it, are unaware of how the logic of the market dominates and undermines their struggle. While the citizens devote all of their energies to the procurement of luxuries, the economy in which these luxuries circulate does not make available the time necessary either to enjoy the fruits of the luxury market or to learn how best to enjoy these fruits. There is a perpetual lack of free time because the capitalist market thrives on the mechanics of acquisition rather than the culture of appreciation. The entire monetary society, obsessed by the pursuit (rather than enjoyment) of  does that disgrace a man?" (95-96); in response, Sindefy's father, Security, informs her that "all trades complain of / inconvenience, and therefore 'tis best to have none" (102-103).  113 luxuries and the social rank associated with them, becomes a source of the audience's entertainment—a "pageant," Quicksilver informs the audience at the very end of the play, that he hopes will continue to attract them "hither once a week" (5.5.7-10). Quicksilver's concluding aside clearly acknowledges Eastward Ho's function as a desirable commodity in London's entertainment market, which the play, at the same time, parodies, functioning, in performance, as both an expensive waste of time and a critique of the cultural ignorance associated with the feverish pursuit of the signs of social prestige— signs that this waste ironically represents. The cultural illiteracy that this spectacle  stages stands in  contradistinction to the reflexive understanding of the use of culture promoted by the Inns' masques and revels, which resisted political ignorance by inscribing symbols of dominant agents in the field of power into the very fabric of performance. The success of revels hinged on the students' ability to create an environment in which they could imaginatively position themselves in relation to the forces that dominated them. The success of the market-driven Blackfriars playhouse, on the other hand, depended on the perpetual reconstruction of an "elite" social space, the attractiveness of which was determined by the space's ability to make playgoers feel a part of high culture. Together, legal commons and the Blackfriars provided law students an institutional circuit in which they could experience for themselves an impression of how legal capital might eventually serve them as a convertible form of prestige: revels enabled the students to understand their pursuit of social prestige, while performances at the Blackfriars appeased this pursuit by staging failed capital exchange as entertainment.  114 Thomas Middleton's A Trick to Catch the Old One  While Quicksilver achieves his ends through passive observation and subsequent action, Theodorus Witgood, the disreputable young prodigal and Leicestershire gentleman of Middleton's A Trick to Catch the Old  One,  exhibits a more consistently assertive approach in his endeavor to reclaim his estate from his greedy usurer uncle, Pecunius Lucre, and to reestablish himself in respectable London society. Witgood has many creditors in the city, and he is wary of encountering them until he feels able to pay his debts. With the help of a tavern host, Witgood passes his mistress (a courtesan) off as a "rich country widdow" (1.1.61) under his care in the City so that he can manipulate Lucre into marrying her—a match that would fuel the jealousy of Walkadine Hoard, a competing usurer and Lucre's sworn enemy. Witgood's plan is to trick Lucre into releasing his lands, then to marry Joyce Hoard, Walkadine's niece. Joyce, however, is also sought after by other suitors. Out of spite for Lucre, Walkadine upstages Lucre by marrying the "rich" widow himself. Furious with Walkadine for stealing his intended bride, Lucre hopes that the "widow" will avoid consummating her marriage to Walkadine until he has restored Witgood's lands; however, he is too late. In the meantime, Witgood is arrested for his debts, and again his exmistress aids him by convincing her new husband that only he can save Witgood by drawing up a contract that would put Witgood into Walkadine's dependency, thereby tricking him into having to pay Witgood's debts. After these transactions are made, Witgood and Joyce Hoard elope. With their trick successfully executed, Witgood and the courtesan are each reclaimed by society—he regains financial solvency, she attains the security and respectability of marriage. Lucre must relinquish his mortgage on his  115 nephew's lands, and Walkadine must reconcile himself to the fact that he has married a courtesan; each, however, accepts his defeat gracefully. As an "excellent schemer as well as an architect" of his success, Witgood "engag[es] the other characters in a game" of wit and strategy "whose rules only he knows" (Covatta 111). While Quicksilver tends to observe, then act, Witgood is more completely involved in the action that surrounds him. The play associates Witgood's ability to anticipate and prevent crises with his past experiences in the City as a "prodigall, a dayly Rioter, and a / Nightly vomiter" (4.3.19-20). Like Quicksilver, Witgood has been denied access to the family fortune; Quicksilver is a second son, while Witgood has been cheated by his uncle of his lands. Quicksilver and Witgood are both disenfranchized social outcasts caught in an endless cycle of debt. Witgood's reputation comes before him; throughout the play he is described in derogatory terms by those who perceive him as a possible threat to their own aspirations. Monylove, a poor "scholler" (1.1.127) who desires to wed Joyce Hoard for her "thousand good / Pound" (1.1.138-39), and Onesiphorus Hoard (Joyce's uncle) both detest Witgood, possibly because his marriageable status is threatening:  108  Mony. Now sir you know this yong Wit-good is a spendthrift—dissolute fellow. Hoard. A very Raskall. Mony. A mid-night surfetter. Hoard. The spume of a Brothel-house.  (2.2.32-36)  Witgood, however, understands the forces that have led him to his current condition of poverty, and he also knows that he can use his wit to reverse the course of his depraved life:  We could interpret Monylove's pursuit of Joyce as his attempt to marry her money, for his status as a scholar has afforded him only cultural capital.  116 Wi t. I perceive there's nothing conjures up wit sooner then poverty, and nothing laies it downe sooner then wealth and lecherie? this has some savour yet, oh that I had the morgage from mine Uncle as sure in possession as these trifles, I would forsweare Brothel at noone day, and Muscadine and eggs at midnight. (3.1.69-74) In the character of Lucre's stepson, Sam, a "pompous citizen" whose mother encourages his "class pretensions" (Mount 263) in order to spite her husband, we find echoes of Gertrude's yearning to escape her station in life through a wealthy marriage: Sam [aside]. I am a Gentleman now too, by my fathers occupation, and I see no reason but I may kisse a widdowe by my Fathers Coppy, truely I thinke the Charter is not against it, surely these are the wordes, the Sonne once a Gentleman, may revell it, tho his father were a dauber . . . (2.1.312-16) Set against this dynamic is Witgood's good-hearted desire to see his mistress (the courtesan) socially initiated into the institution of marriage—not for his own good, but for hers: Wi t. Wench, make up thy owne fortunes now, do thy selfe a good turne once in thy Dayes, hees rich in money, moveables, and lands,—marry him, he's an old doting foole, and thats worth all, marry him, twould bee a great comfort to me to see thee do well ifaith,—marry him, twould ease my conscience well to see thee well bestowed, I have a care of thee ifaith. (3.1.95-101) His primary task, however, is to use his wit to cut through the adversarial relationship between Walkadine and Lucre and thereby carve from it his  117 rightful estate—wit that "costs nothing" and that will "serve as a picklock of the law to free his land, so that, the trick once successful, the law will stand behind Witgood as it stood behind his cunning uncle when Witgood was being gulled" (Messina 111). Feeding off each other, Witgood and Lucre both work within the law (which seems the real whore in this case) to achieve their respective goals, and in the first act of the play we are introduced to a world where retributive acts of potentially physical violence are symbolically channeled through the institution of the law. Having been struck by Monylove for expressing his interest in Joyce, Sam Freedom claims that he will "bring this boxe into the Chancery" (1.3.78). Sam's exclamation first articulates the legal motif that is concentrated in three famous scenes involving Harry Dampit at the conclusion of Acts 1, 3, and 4. Critics have described Dampit in a variety of ways.  109  The play makes it  clear that Dampit either lives near or perhaps even has some association with Barnard's Inn, an Inn of Chancery, where attorneys and solicitors were trained how to undertake the more menial tasks and transactions of the common law.  110  Dampit's self-portrait in 1.4, in which he describes himself to  Witgood as "now worth ten thousand pound my Boye" (1.43) and as having had his "feet stincke about / Westminster hall and come home agen" (1.46-  Rick Bowers, Joseph Messina, David Mount, and Richard Levin have considered the purpose of Dampit in the play and what "psychological effect he [was] intended to have" (Messina 116). 1  As I m e n t i o n e d in the first chapter, a t t o r n e y s and s o l i c i t o r s f o r m e d thelower ranks o f the common law profession, and they congregated at the churchyard of St. Paul's Cathedral, one of the m a j o r places in London where "scriveners and notaries, attorneys and solicitors, court officials of many kinds, even tradesmen . . . familiarized themselves with legal documents," and where barristers, in the early years o f their career, could enjoy ready access to potential clients among the steady s t r e a m o f public traffic (Keeton 9). As a career, the law "was a gamble, for lawyers as well as litigants; while a few barristers or Serjeants could perhaps d e m a n d £ 1 0 for a single appearance in Westminster Hall and expect to clear £400 in three weeks of term, there were also professional failures supported from the poorbox of their Inn and 'solicitors and pettifoggers an infinite number,' whose incomes and mode of life kept them at the level of yeomanry, or even below it" (Prest 1972: 22).  118 47), appropriates all of the derogatory stereotypes of early modern attorneys such as those exhibited i n John Feme's The Blazon  of Gentrie (1586).  Characterizing "[o]ne Lawyer of gentle linage" as more vigilant,  well-  intentioned, couragious, generous, and honorable than "tenne Aduocates, of base and vngentle stock" (qtd. i n Whigham 70), Feme expresses the socioprofessional snobbery driven by the profession's division into several castes, the lowest of which was occupied by attorneys. A Trick shares Feme's distaste for the attorneys' use of the law for money-making; our last glimpse of Dampit occurs when he is on his deathbed—an epitome of the pettifogging attorney. This disdainful attitude fuels Dampit's rage,  w h i c h he has  channeled throughout his career by flaunting the intermingling of law and money—an association that established barristers nominally despised because it tainted the prestige of their profession with economic necessity:  Dampit.  . . . Tramplers of time,  Motions of Fleete-streete, and Vision of Holborne, here I have fees of one, there I have fees of another, my clients come about me . . .  (1.4.59-62)  111  The Dampit scenes entangle the entire play i n the traditionally seedy part of London's legal culture. Middleton thereby associates the entire social dynamic among the characters on the problematic relationship between the law and money. By explicitly manifesting this relationship i n terms of the distinction between the proper uses of wit (the lawyer's primary  tool),  The song sung by a boy and Dampit's maid Audry in 4.5 enhances this image of a conniving attorney scavenging his way through the streets and institutions of the legal quarter in order to profit from his rudimentary legal skills: Let the Usurer cram him, in interest that excell, There's pits enow to dam Him, before he comes to Hell. In Holborne, some: in Fleete-street some, Where ere he come, there's some there's some. (1-4)  119  Middleton constructs an opposition between legitimate and illegitimate applications of the language of law. suspicion because of his wit.  113  112  Like Dampit, Witgood is the target of  But considered in relation to Dampit's  conniving exploits, Witgood's use of wit to reclaim his wealth and social status appears noble. This distinction has everything to do with the respective fields in which each struggles for legitimacy. While Dampit contends with professional snobbery, Witgood must battle the forces of legally-sanctioned economic power, personified by Hoard and Lucre, whom he regards not so much as personal enemies, but as faceless agents in London's commodity market. The differentiation between respectable and gauche methods of exchanging legal capital that A Trick stages is intimately linked to the parallel social discriminations that were being made by the members of the Blackfriars audience, drawn together as they were by the excitement of social possibilities and intrigue and by the power to exercise judgment in such a setting. Just like the characters portrayed on the stage, the playgoers were channeling their  Fulbecke (Direction or Preparative . . . ) and Dodderidge (The English Lawyer) articulate the reasons for the lawyer's crucial possession of an excellent and dexterous w i t , w h i c h they directly associate w i t h the higher orders of the profession. Fulbecke urges that "hee w h o is not onely wise b u t eloquent, is w i t h o u t comparison the best i n a l l professions." Dodderidge explains h o w the natural gift of w i t renders the lawyer "readily to invent, and fitly to apply his proofes and arguments to the point i n question" (7). Witgood's creditors want his money, not his words: 'Wit. W i l l y o u but here me speake? Creditor 2. You shall pardon us for that sir, we k n o w you have too faire a tong of your owne, y o u over-came us to lately, a shame take y o u , w e are like to loose all that for want of witnesses, wee dealt i n policy then, alwaies when w e strive to bee most politique we prove most cockscombs, Non plus vltra. I perceive by us, were not ordaynde to thrive by wisdome, and therefore wee must be content to be Tradesmen. (4.3.31-38) I n the next scene, an exchange between Witgood and H o a r d makes it clear that Witgood's rhetorical polish is threatening to the other characters: Hoard. W h y are not debts better then words sir? Wi t. Are not words promises, and are not promises debts sir. Hoard. H e plaies at back-Racket w i t h me. (4.4.194-96)  120 pursuit of social prestige through the psychological devices of symbolic warfare. As Fitzgeoffrey depicts in his Notes, the law students in the audience were affected by their affiliation with the Inns, which they used as a basis for passing judgement on those whom they perceived as competitors in the pursuit of the more valuable prestige associated with court culture. Witgood's wit associates him with this culture, however peripherally, and through the consistent juxtaposition of respectful (Witgood) and inferior (Dampit) means of exchanging kinds of capital, A Trick establishes legitimate grounds for making distinctions between individuals based on their different uses of culture. The parody of legal culture on the stage reinforces, rather than upsets, the efforts of the students to evaluate the consumption of culture among the people in the Blackfriars audience.  Francis Beaumont's The Knight of the Burning Pestle  Consciousness of rank pervades all of Middleton's plays, and this obsession is sometimes conveyed in terms of the characters' aesthetic tastes. In A Trick, the would-be gentleman Sam Freedom appropriates the language of chivalric romance. Mount argues that it is possible to read Sam's new vocabulary as a "sign that Middleton is involved in some way in the kind of mockery of citizen tastes in literature and drama so prominent in [Beaumont's] The Knight of the Burning  Pestle" (264), a play in which the  relationship between rank and taste is the focus of an intricately constructed dramatic burlesque. Just after a member of the Children of the Revels announces that the company is about to perform The London Merchant, two citizens, George (a substantial freeman and a grocer in the Strand) and his wife Nell, climb onto  121 the stage to join the gallants sitting on stools and inform the boy that they would prefer to see something more to their taste. They insist that their apprentice (and amateur actor), Rafe, should improvise and take the lead role in a play that derives its plot from chivalric romance and that celebrates their rank and guild. George and Nell audaciously suggest that the play should be titled The Grocers' Honour, and the boy belligerently retitles their "play" The Knight of the Burning Pestle in response. The intruders refuse to back down,  and the actors are forced to allow the citizens' play to be staged "in an impromptu fashion" between the scenes of The London  Merchant  (Bliss  34).ll4  The play was likely performed several times between 29 June 1607 and 1 April 1608 (Gayley 313)—only a few years after Beaumont gave his Grammar  Lecture at the Inner Temple (c.1601-5). If Beaumont were not a law  student at the Inner Temple when he wrote The Knight, then he had only recently given up his legal studies in order to begin writing plays for the theatres. As a professional playwright, Beaumont creates a performance  :  The London Merchant is another parody of the genre of prodigal son plays. At the beginning of the play, Jasper Merrythought, son of Charles and Mistress Merrythought, is expelled from his apprenticeship to the rich London merchant Venturewell, a social climber who wishes his daughter Luce to marry the rich and pompous gentleman Humphrey, whom Jasper calls'an "arrant noddy." Honest and faithful Jasper has already stolen Luce's heart, however, and Venturewell therefore dismisses him, even though he is otherwise an exemplary apprentice. Jasper returns to his parents' home in the country for support, but his mother refuses to help him because she is devoting her entire attention to his recalcitrant brother, Michael; so that he might attract a wealthy wife. Charles Merrythought, a misfit who sings songs all day and eats luxuriously, decides not to support his wife's prodigious plans for Michael, and the son and mother leave the household in disgust, only to come begging for readmittance later. In the meantime, Luce and Humphrey are about to be married, and Jasper sends a letter to Venturewell confessing his wrongs and requesting that his dead body be brought to Luce in a coffin so that she will know how much he loved her. With this request granted, Jasper smuggles Luce away in his coffin, then appears before Venturewell as his own ghost, condemning his hardheartedness towards him and Luce's planned marriage to Humphrey. In the end, Luce and Jasper marry with Venturewell's blessing. At various points, Rafe interferes with the performance, while George and Nell boldly interject their ongoing commentary at every opportunity.  122 condition in which the close proximity of citizen and elite tastes, personified by George and Nell's placement among the gallants sitting on the stage, commands the two-way game between the players and the audience—a game in which "the sacrilegious reuniting of tastes which taste dictates shall be separated" serves as a vehicle for provoking the aesthetic sensibilities of those who regard themselves as the possessors of legitimate culture. Bourdieu observes that "[a]esthetic intolerance can be terribly violent" and that "perhaps one of the strongest barriers between the classes" is the learned "[ajversion to different life-styles" (1984: 56-57).  115  The Knight  constructs this  violence by setting the players' intention to perform The London  Merchant  alongside George and Nell's desire to see their apprentice perform in a romance. The violence of competing tastes that Beaumont stages is itself an exhibition of the fierce social dynamics contained within the Blackfriars playhouse. This exhibition, in which the players articulate the kind of aesthetic intolerance against the gallants that is voiced in Fitzgeoffrey's Notes, is Beaumont's means of appropriating the institutional culture of the Inns for the theatre. This clever synthesis is structurally driven by a steady stream of interruptions and inside jokes. This "framing fiction of audience disruption" (Bliss 55) breaks the theatrical illusion in order to expose the socio-cultural politics that make the Blackfriars playhouse function as a fashion-house of elite culture—a place where London's privileged playgoers, like Fitzgeoffrey's characters, competitively displayed their social status through the clothes they  l  l  5  Bourdieu sees lifestyle differences as "perhaps the strongest barriers between the classes.' Taste implies distaste. Symbolic distinctions are simultaneously conceptual and social. Our practical everyday preferences are organized around primary forms of conceptual classifications such as high/low, brilliant/dull, unique/ordinary, and important/trivial. These primary conceptual classifications are simultaneously social classifications that serve to rank individuals and groups in the stratification order" (Swartz 185).  123 wore, the stories they told, and the seats they chose. The citizens' violation of the play's "privileged space" (44), and their presentation as intruders, invites the audience to consider that they too are intruders, and the play focuses this twist of perspective on the gallants on the stage—they are the real trespassers, not the citizens, who are part of the play. The cast's affiliation with the court—a company of boys wearing "periwigs" (1.471)—may well have enhanced this motif of invasion. The boyprologue's announcement i n the induction makes it clear that his company has brought the play from "all that's near the court, from all that's great" (1). The immediate invasion of George a n d N e l l into the "gallants' row" implicates  the stool-sitters  i n their encroachment o n the "courtly"  entertainment. Nell's scripted conversation with the gallants emphasizes the sense that she has embraced their company a n d i n v o l v e d them i n her trespassing into a courtly space: Nell. By your leave, gentlemen all, I'm something troublesome; I'm a stranger here; I was ne'er at one of these plays, as they say, before; but I should have seen Jane Shore once; and m y husband hath promised me, any time this twelvemonth, to carry me to The Bold Beauchamps, but i n truth he did not. I pray you; bear with m e .  1 1 6  (53-59)  This intimate dynamic is further complicated when we consider that Nell and George were performed by members of the boy company, who represent the court (as Children of the Revels) and the citizenry (in their roles as George and Nell) simultaneously. The dialogue between the grocers a n d  lane Shore was the bourgeois mistress of Edward IV and the subject of Thomas Hey wood's play Edward IV (1594). The Bold Beauchamps is perhaps a lost play by Heywood about a legendary hero.  124 the players on the stage (all performed by members of the company) was thus part of an elaborate system of inside jokes whereby the boys both ridiculed citizen tastes and celebrated their own status as professional players.  117  Beaumont brings this intricate duplicity and interiority to the forefront before the play's concurrent plots become complex. In the induction, the boyprologue implies that George's musical expectations are misplaced: What stately music have you? You have shawms? Prol. Shawms? No. George. No? I'm a thief if my mind did not give me so. George.  (110-12)  Other jests focus on the gallants' habits of luxury: Fie, this stinking tobacco kills me! would there were none in England.—Now, I pray, gentlemen, what good does this stinking tobacco do you? Nothing, I warrant you: make chimneys o' your faces!  Nell.  (1.210-14)  Beaumont's more subtle technique, however, is to interrogate the gallants' aesthetic disposition by intruding citizen tastes into their tight elite circle. He reserves these maneuvers for the intermissions. Between the first and second acts, for example, a boy dances to "fiddles":  118  Hark, hark, husband, hark, fiddles, fiddles; now surely they go finely. They say 'tis present death for these fiddlers, to tune their rebecks before  Nell.  It is clear that Beaumont was very familiar with the business of playgoing at the Blackfriars and the social status associated with it. The intermissions are part of the burlesque. Plays at the Blackfriars were broken into short segments, between which the orchestra played music and boys danced or sang on the stage. By incorporating the intermissions themselves into the play, Beaumont includes the entire theatrical experience—audience, stage, backstage, and the business aspects of playgoing— in his burlesque.  125 the great Turk's grace; is't not, George? But, look, look! here's a youth dances.—Now, good youth, do a turn o' the toe.—Sweetheart, i' faith, I'll have Rafe come and do some of his gambols. . .  (1.460-66)  Nell and George's dialogue between the second and third acts accentuates their unfamiliarity with the practices, protocols, and vestments of the Blackfriars: Nell. The fiddlers go again, husband. George. Ay, Nell, but this is scurvy music. I gave the whorson gallows-money, and I think he has not got me the waits of Southwark. If I hear 'em not anon, Til twinge him by the ears.—You musicians, play "Baloo." Nell. No, good George, let's ha' "Lachrymae." George. Why, this is it, cony. Nell. It's all the better, George. Now, sweet lamb, what story is that painted upon the cloth? the Confutation of St. Paul? George. No, lamb; that's Rafe and Lucrece.  (2.556-67)  Abstracted from the play as a burlesque, comments such as these would possibly have triggered a similar sense of disgust with which aficionados of classical music concerts regard those in the audience who applaud between movements; this disgust derives from their unwilling association with the distasteful act and with the lack of cultural knowledge it represents.  119  Within the burlesque, the grocers' comments seem to be designed to create an environment that thrives on the perpetual waging of this kind of  1  1  9  The extent of the grocers' complete misunderstanding of the theatrical profession is made evident again in the fourth act, when they suddenly demand that Rafe court the daughter of a Polish king, that the king's house be "covered with black velvet" (36), and that his daughter should stand in her window wearing "beaten gold" (38). This scene, they exclaim, should be "done quickly" (43).  126 aesthetic  warfare—to  make  this  conflict  explicit.  During  the  third  intermission, for example, N e l l indicates her inability to appreciate a dancing boy's artistry, then further exemplifies her bad form by throwing money at him so he can buy new tumbling shoes: Nell.  120  . . . Begin,  brother, N o w 'a capers, sweetheart.—Now a turn o' the toe, and then tumble. Cannot you tumble, youth? Boy. N o , indeed, forsooth. Nell.  N o r eat fire?  Boy. Neither. Nell.  Why, then, I thank y o u heartily: there's two-  pence to buy you points withal.  (3.614-21)  The staging of citizen tastes by a company of boys nominally associated with the court was perhaps meant to mock the tastes of the gallants, and not those of the citizens—or even to mock both by revealing the symbolic violence of taste difference. These conjectures are supported by the play's epilogue, wherein N e l l implies that the gallants' luxurious expenditures on wine and tobacco are as conspicuous as their proclivity for masking their opinions:  George. Nell.  Come, Nell, shall we go? The play's done.  Nay, by my faith, George. I have more  manners than so; I'll speak to these gentlemen first.— I thank y o u all gentlemen, for your patience and  The play includes another financial exchange of this kind. In the induction, George offers the boy-prologue two shillings so that he might hire the "waits of Southwark"—a city band that George would prefer to hear far more than the pit orchestra at the Blackfriars (118-20). At other points in the play, George and Nell display what Bourdieu describes as the "naive exhibitionism of conspicuous consumption,' which seeks distinction in the crude display of ill-mastered luxury" (1984: 31). Nell offers Rafe candy (T.71 74); George gives him money as well—-once to pay the twelve shillings Rafe owes to avoid arrest (3.183), and once to purchase something nice that will grace the home of the King of Gracovia (4.112114). L  127 countenance to Rafe, a poor fatherless child; and if I might see you at my house, it should go hard but I would have a pottle of wine and a pipe of tobacco for you; for truly I hope you do like the youth, but I would be glad to know the truth. . .  (1-9)  By including the entire audience—the stool-sitting gallants most directly—in the performance world, the play creates a situation in which high and low tastes can be isolated, juxtaposed, and compared. The grocers offer the players money for their demands; they reduce the complex association between money and culture to a simple series of financial transactions, illustrating the extent to which they depend on the economy for their existence. By becoming part of the gallants' row, the grocers associate the gallants with this dependency, thereby subverting the "precondition[s] for all learning of legitimate culture . . . characterized by the suspension and removal of economic necessity and by objective and subjective distance from practical urgencies, which is the basis of objective and subjective distance from groups subjected to those determinisms" (Bourdieu 1984: 54). By collapsing the imagined disassociation between the status of the Blackfriars as a fashion-house of culture and the economic realities on which this status depends, Beaumont's technique of disruption challenges the gallants' sense of power over a dominated necessity (in this case, time) with which they claim their "superiority over those who, because they cannot assert the same contempt for contingencies  in gratuitous luxury and conspicuous  consumption; remain dominated by ordinary urgencies" (55-56).  121  1 2 1  According to Bourdieu, the "dominant-class taste for freedom is defined in opposition to the working-class taste for necessity" (Swartz 167). While dominated (popular) classes are "homogeneous in their habitus, driven by material necessity, lacking in cultural capital, and hence dominated by dominant culture," they are still "inseparably tied to dominant culture" because their identity is defined in terms of their relationship to this culture (170).  128  Beaumont traps the gallants into a situation in which their "claim to a legitimate superiority" is denied and ridiculed through the imposition of a performance condition that exposes the fiscal machinery on which their investment in cultural capital depends. The careful and sophisticated manner in which the play stages this system of exchange identifies the entire Blackfriars audience, including the law students, as a class of actors "pursuing, consciously and unconsciously, social reproduction strategies that maintain or improve their positions in the stratification order" (Swartz 180). The law students enter this game of distinction but they, like the petite bourgeoisie of Bourdieu's Paris, have "neither the capital nor the corresponding habitus to appropriate fully dominant-class lifestyles," so they attempt to "emulate the standards set by the dominant class." In doing so, they betray an "awkward pretension where the dominant aesthetic displays ease and familiarity in the world of culture" (177). In the next and final chapter, I explore a political situation that arose during the reign of Charles I in which the law students had to learn quickly how to overcome this awkwardness in order to alleviate a situation in which the dominant culture imposed by the Crown seriously threatened the autonomy of the cultural fields in its domain.  129 CHAPTER 4  Converting Capital: the Crown, the Inns, and the City, 1633-34  For, knowing men will all conclude in this, Where one proves fortunate, a hundred misse. —John Goysh, "To my friend, Master Francis Lenton, upon his Anagrams," in Francis Lenton's Innes of Court Anagrammatist.  The circumstances that led to the most spectacular and expensive masque witnessed in England, James Shirley's The Triumph of Peace, began with a puritan's dream of an England free of playhouses, a dispute between the Soapboilers of Westminster and the Soapboilers of London about who could legitimately claim to produce the best soap, and the desperate need for Inns' students to help soothe the conflicts arising from these disagreements. In the four-and-a-half months between the publication of William Prynne's anti-theatrical tract Histriomastix in early November 1633, and the death of the Lord Mayor, Ralph Freeman, on 16 March 1634, these political conflicts became a crisis, and this chapter argues that the law students played a central role both in mediating relations between London and the Crown and identifying the Inns of Court before the citizens of London and Charles I himself, as institutions fundamental to England's peace and success. My endeavor here is to reconsider the circumstances surrounding Shirley's masque by taking advantage of a greater fund of historical evidence than that which has been available to critics in the past (Stephen Orgel, Lawrence Venuti, and Martin Butler in particular)—evidence that sharpens the understanding of how the City of London, the Inns, and the Crown were individually involved. By introducing new material from City archives into  130 scholarly discussion of the masque, the research of C. E. McGee (1991) increases our understanding of the interaction between the contending forces of institutional power in London at this time, and invites us to reconsider the lawyers' commitment to the masque's production in relation to that of the City rather than merely that of the Crown. John R. Elliott Jr.'s article (1992) includes a complete, annotated transcription of Folger MS Z.e.l (item 25), entitled "The Manner of the Progression of the Masque," which Jerzy Limon discovered in 1988 and which records the identities of many of the Inns' participants. Finally, N. W. Bawcutt's 1996 edition of the Records of Sir Henry Herbert  (Herbert was the Master of Revels from 1623-73) provides a thorough  account of Charles's and Henrietta Maria's involvement in dramatic performances. Drawing largely from Bulstrode Whitelock's substantial recollections of the masque, which he recorded in his Memorials  of the English  Affairs  (1682) some thirty years after its two performances, Orgel, Venuti, and Butler discuss the masque's intervention in the tenuous relationship between the Inns and Charles in terms of the masque's ability to disguise criticism as compliment. While the "nature of the medium" may well have convinced "the royal solipsist" to see "nothing . . . but adulation" in episodes of the masque that read as the lawyers' critique of royal prerogative and Charles's policies regarding monopolies (Orgel 1975: 80-81), I contend that the new evidence recently presented by McGee, Elliott, and Bawcutt, as well as my closer examination of the Inns' records themselves, compels us to understand the masque's "success" as an inevitable outcome of its production.  122  The  masque was but one part of an elaborate system of symbolic exchange between 1 2 2  After viewing The Triumph of Peace at Whitehall on 3 February, 1634, Charles and Henrietta Maria asked to see the masque repeated, this time in the City. The repeat performance took place on 13 February in Merchant Taylors' Hall.  131 the Inns and the City. The lawyers and the City aldermen each had an important investment in approaching the ultimate source of power embodied in the "mystical person" of the king, who alone "could fulfill or frustrate ambition" (Sharpe 160-64). The problem was that the social magic that continued to make this "source" so desirable was, more than ever before, dependent on the money that Charles derived from monopolies to support his newly organized court. With Charles's power so closely tied to money, the ritual of gift exchange between the monarch and his subjects had, by Charles's reign, evolved into a recurring pattern of exorbitance whereby groups and individuals were forced to convert money into cultural capital in the form of costly masques and entertainments in order to have even a remote chance of winning the favor of the Crown. In James's and especially Charles's movement towards autocracy, the Elizabethan game of collective flattery, whereby the Queen took strategic advantage of the "ties of suspense, uncertainty, ambivalence, and . . . power" created by the "temporal structure of gift exchange" (Bates 157; Bourdieu 1977: 5), had been transformed into an arrangement in which "[ajccess and proximity to the king's person were the goals of political ambition, and access was determined by the arrangement of the newly reorganized and cloistered institution of Whitehall" (Sharpe 148). Elizabeth's myth of interdependency had become a more routine process of converting cash into ostentatious displays in which the total dependency on the court for access to power was made explicit. The "consensual basis of Charles's personal government" (Butler 1987: 120), characterized by the delegation of authority among the various levels of court, served also to increase the steps to the monarch. The process of alienating the Crown from London's various cultural fields forced  132 interactions between these fields and the Crown to be waged in economic terms more than ever before. In order to be able to compete for Charles's favor, institutions had to invest an amount of money that could support the mounting of an entertainment whereby they could converse with the Crown in symbolic terms. The events between November 1633 and April 1634 exemplify a situation in which the stakes involved in the conversion of capital were higher than London had yet seen. With access to the King as the common goal of inter-competition among occupants of differing fields, and with this access complicated by the imposition of an elaborately micromanaged system of institutional barriers to the throne, agents found that their negotiations with the Crown were increasingly frustrated by the miscommunication and misunderstandings associated with a monarch more "aloof, alien, and English" (Sharpe 312) than his two immediate predecessors. The following chronology is designed to illustrate how two lines of conflict that I discuss in this chapter—that between the Inns and the Crown (regarding a dispute over an anti-theatrical tract) and between the Crown and the City (regarding the dispute among the soapboilers of London and Westminster)—converged  into a stream of interdependent political  circumstances that led to two performances of The Triumph of Peace:  123  1633 early Nov.  Having taken several years for William Prynne to write, the tome Histriomastix, a lengthy anti-theatrical tract, is published in its complete form.  124  An inquisition, led by Archbishop Laud,  In this chapter, I have derived most of the dates pertaining to publications and performances from the records of Sir Henry Herbert. In cases where Inns' records and State Papers offer slightly varying dates from those Herbert provides, I have sided with Herbert. There is much discrepancy of dates among scholars. Though it is unclear precisely when Histriomastix appeared in the booksellers' stalls, the records of Herbert indicate  133 brings a case against Prynne in order to convince the King and Queen that his book is an act of treason against the Crown. Because Prynne dedicates his book to his own Lincoln's Inn, where he was a barrister, the entire Inns of Court are associated with Prynne's political blunder; members of the court hint that a gesture of apology by the Inns is in order. 7 Nov. Nov.  6 Dec. 24 Dec.  1634 3 Jan. 26 Jan.  Feb. 3 Feb.  5 Feb.  The benchers of Lincoln's Inn approve funds to support a masque; the other Inns follow close behind. Preparations begin. London's soapboilers register a complaint against the notorious monopoly enjoyed by the Soapboilers of Westminster by virtue of their charter under Charles; they also complain that the soap from Westminster damages cloth and the laundresses' hands (McGee 313). An intense dispute develops. A test of the soap is ordered by Charles. Lord Mayor Freeman endorses the soap produced by the Westminster company, admitting that their soap, "with very small difference," indeed cleansed cloth marginally better than the London soap (McGee 314).  Prynne is sent to the Tower. Charles reinstitutes the Westminster monopoly, and Freeman begins to mediate on behalf of the London soapboilers, who continue to complain. Charles angrily condemns Freeman, who falls ill from the ensuing anxiety and remains bed-ridden for a month (McGee 314-16). Prynne is prosecuted in the Star Chamber. At tremendous expense, The Triumph of Peace is performed at Whitehall following a procession westward from the Inns. Charles requests another performance—this time in the City. Temporarily relieved by this gesture, Freeman begins expensive preparations. Charles proclaims the Westminster soap monopoly as law;  N o v e m b e r 1633 as t h e m o n t h o f i t s p u b l i c a t i o n , a n d t h e r e c o r d s o f L i n c o l n ' s I n n i n f o r m us t h a t o n 7 N o v e m b e r 1633 t h e benchers w e r e r e a d y t o b e g i n p r e p a r a t i o n s f o r t h e c o n c i l i a t o r y m a s q u e t h a t w o u l d t a k e place i n F e b r u a r y o f t h e f o l l o w i n g year.  134 the London soapboilers are imprisoned. 6 Feb. 13 Feb. 18 Feb. 21 Feb. 16 Mar.  Queen Henrietta Maria performs in The Shepherd's Pastoral at Somerset House. The Triumph of Peace is restaged at Merchant Taylors' Hall. Upon Charles's invitation, a group of lawyers participate in Thomas Carew's masque Coelum Britannicum. The London soapboilers are released from Fleet prison. Ralph Freeman dies.  This chapter examines how the King and Queen, the Inns' lawyers, the Lord Mayor and his aldermen—agents who are each conditioned by the specific interests and constraints associated with their positions in their respective fields—formulate private desires or grievances, transform these desires into social problems, and then organize the means to act on these problems (publications, performances, decrees). I begin by assessing the positions these agents occupy in their respective fields. In the remainder of the chapter, I show how these positions correspond to those between the cultural works (or position-takings) within their own independent system of competition.  Positions  King Charles and Queen Henrietta Maria In 1634, Charles's government decided to impose a levy (ships or, preferably, money) on all of the counties for the replenishment of England's ships in response to an "emergency situation created by the depredations of 'certain thieves, pirates, and robbers of the sea'" (Lockyer 265). These and other contentious levies were actually part of Charles's effort to meet the growing expenses caused by his consolidation of the court at Whitehall, where he built a banqueting house expressly for the purpose of housing the  135 twenty or thirty performances he hosted each year. Charles's process of isolating the social magic of the Crown within a tightly controlled court culture, distanced from many of its people, reached new heights. Drama was very much a part of this interiorizing process. The number of plays that Charles and Henrietta Maria attended was considerable and, because the queen loved to act, their own private banqueting house allowed for the ready participation of the court in performances of masques.  125  Orgel  suggests that Charles's involvement in the staging of masques likely included the composition of the masque itself. "To take the stage was a royal prerogative," as long as the entertainment "argued the royal case" (1975: 43). Like Charles, Henrietta Maria also "saw in plays a didactic medium, a forum in which her philosophical position might be thoroughly argued" (20). In January 1634, she commissioned one of her courtiers, Walter Montague, to write a pastoral about Platonic love that would involve herself and her ladies. At Somerset House, on a set designed by Inigo Jones involving nine scene changes, they staged an elaborate, eight-hour production of The Pastoral  Shepherd's  (19).  Entertainments such as these exhibit the high standard set by the Crown for engaging in a conversation with the court. As the reigning monarchs, Charles and Henrietta Maria were the primary sources of social prestige. What became clear in the 1630s, however, was the increasing extent to which this prestige depended on the Crown's pressing financial needs. These needs placed legal institutions and City markets in the monetary service of the Crown in ways that demystified its symbolic capital, which loses 1  2  5  Herbert's records indicate that in the month of fanuary 1634 alone, the King and Queen attended a performance of Cymbeline at court on the 1st, Twelfth Night at Denmark House on the 6th, The Guardian at court on the 12th, The Tale of the Tub at court on the 14th (this play was "not likt" by Charles), The Winter's Tale on the 16th, The Witts on the 28th, and The Night-Walkers on the 30th.  136 its prestige when it becomes too closely tied to economic necessity. Charles's downfall stemmed to a great extent from this correlation, most especially because of the way it bound the court masque—a form serving as "an extension of the royal mind" (Orgel 1975: 43)—to a dependent relationship with London's trade and legal markets.  William Prynne The legal profession had never been particularly sympathetic to the puritan cause; in the 1630s, however, a marginal group of lawyers formed an alliance with a growing number of puritan clergy who, either by installation as chaplains or by invitation, were preaching sermons regularly in the Inns' chapels (Prest 1972: 210-11): Wilfrid Prest observes that, "with a few notable 126  exceptions, the puritanism of the [I]nns and their common-lawyer members  A sermon preached in Lincoln's Inn chapel by the divinity student Thomas Ailesbury in 1624 exemplifies the aggression of puritan preachers in the Inns' chapels. Ailesbury, who was likely invited to preach his sermon, entitled Paganisme and Papisme: Parallel'd and Set forth in a Sermon at the Temple-Church, upon the Feast day of All-Saints," as a one-time guest, based his virulent anti-papist thesis on 1 Cor. 10. 19, 20: "But Isay, the thing which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to Devils, and not to God: arid I would not that you should have fellowship with devils." The Inns' barristers and law students sitting in the pews of the Temple Church (Prynne was likely among them) heard a irtasterpiece of rhetoric, wherein the precocious Ailesbury extracts Truth" from "Error" by systematically exposing how "[m]en on earth" have intermingled godly virtues and human vices toward the creation of a grossly paganized notion of the "Rulers of Heaven": What Religion may that bee which is adored in the Temples, and flouted at in Theatres? . . . Iupiter was an Adulterer; Mercury, a thiefe; Venus a wanton; Quirinus a murderer; Flora a Curtizan. . . .What folly is it to admit them for Rulers of Heaven, who are not worthy to live upon this earth? (11-12) In order to avoid the temptations of the "Jezabel of Rome," whose crafty "superficiall glosses" and "painted delusions oft-times robs Truth of probability," the lawyers (whom Ailesbury is addressing) must side with the "Spouce of Christ." The true believer must not let his "vaine curiositie" lead him to believe that he can "rake the dung for gold," or "dip his hand into a fiery Crucible to pull out gold," or ''hazard his soule for acquaintance with all Religions." "Hee that will be safe from the act of evil," Ailesbury concludes, "must wisely prevent the occasions" (17-18). Warnings such as this speak forcefully to the successful lawyer, who was "as much a selfmade man as could be found in seventeenthcentury England," and therefore would "very likely find the puritan emphasis on a direct relationship between individuals and their god and the necessity of labouring in one's calling attractive" (Prest 1972: 210).  137 was conservative, erastian, and moderate (differing little from the typical cast of thought among the country gentry, with whom the lawyers predominantly identified themselves)" (214). One of these exceptions was the radical William Prynne, whose puritanism, articulated in his Histriomastix, was aggressively shunned by his contemporaries at the Inns, particularly because he involved the whole legal community in his obsessive vilification of the entire enterprise of drama.  127  Histriomastix caught the immediate attention of the Crown. Under the impetus of Archbishop Laud, a group of prelates sought to undermine Prynne, whose prolific publications were attracting a growing readership.  128  Prynne graduated from Oriel College, Oxford, in 1621; that same year, he went to Lincoln's Inn, where he was called to the bar in 1628 (Elliott 200). Prynne's contemporaries claimed he learned his religious radicalism from Dr. lohn Preston, who, succeeding Donne, was a radical preacher in the chapel of Lincoln's Inn from 1622 to 1628 while Prynne was a law student there (Lamont 12-13). InHistridmastix (the title translates "the player's scourge"), Prynne laments that "the Inns of Court men were undone but for playes; that they are their chiefesf guests and imployment, and the sole business that makes them afternoons men: that this is one of the first things they learne as soone as they are admitted, to see stage-playes," whereby they "lose their souls" (27). Prynne labels playhouses as "the Schools, Playes the Lectures, which teach men how to cheate, to steal: to plot and execute any villainy: how to conceale it, to evade it being executed" (515). Orgel explains that, according to Puritans, roles in plays were "impostures and lies" that required men to present themselves in a manner that falsified their true selves. The implications of role-playing at court were, then, inordinately significant; "[t]he very act of imitation, in drama as in art, usurped a divine prerogative, and theatrical productions were therefore often seen to be at the heart of the court's degeneracy and impiety" (1975: 60). Even more importantly, playgoing diverts the colloquium in which ideas are exchanged from the legitimate houses of law and God to the unstable domain of the playhouse, where this colloquium is subverted. The Laudians had long feared Prynne's criticisms of the "genres in which the court read itself" (Patterson 171)—genres that Prynne found decadent and unchristian—and were intent on humiUating him by exposing the seditious implications of his arguments, despite his protestations of loyalty to the Crown. In his Memorials, Whitelock notes that the day after the Queen performed in her pastoral, Archbishop Laud and other prelates ("whom Prynne had [already] angered" with his books against Arminianism and the jurisdiction of bishops) "shewed Prynne's Book against Plays, to the King, and that place of it, 'Women actors notorious Whores,' and they informed the King and Queen, that Prynne had purposely written this Book, against the Queen, and her Pastoral, whereas it was published six weeks before that Pastoral was acted." "Though thus exasperated" with Prynne, Whitelock continues, the King and Queen "did direct nothing against him, t i l l Laud set Doctor Heylin (who bare a great malice to Prynne, for confuting some of his  138  One Royalist said that Prynne's books were more prevalent than ministers' sermons (Lamont 4)—not because of any intellectual substance they might contain but because of the impassioned vehemence of his anti-theatrical rhetoric. During his nine months in the Tower, Prynne reaffirmed, as he had always done, his loyalty to the Crown, but the prelates were intent on seeing their grievances against him fully resolved in the Star Chamber in February 1634. Despite Prynne's claim that Histriomastix  was the result of years of  extended contemplation and that its coincidental publication before the Queen's performance of The Shepherd's Pastoral  had no direct bearing on the  Queen herself, the prosecution chose to interpret his statements about the inappropriateness of plays in a well-ordered, Christian state as condemnations of the Caroline government, and his comments about Nero, Caligula, and women actors as ad Queen.  hominem  attacks against the King and  129  For these allegedly treasonous offenses, Prynne suffered substantial losses. His fine of £5000 and the benchers' decision in April to expel him from Lincoln's Inn and to disbar him from future legal practice served to discredit permanently both his financial and social status.  130  The cropping of his ears  Doctrines) to peruse Prynne's books, and to collect the scandalous points out of them; which Heylin did, though (as Prynne affirms) not at all warranted by the text of his book." As the chronology at the beginning of this chapter indicates, the Queen's performance took place a little more than three months after the time I have conjectured for the publication of Prynne's treatise. Annabel Patterson observes that Prynne argued before his judges "that he had begun his work as early as 1624, when he first arrived in London and was shocked by the tone of the theatres; that he had obtained a license for its publication in 1630, and seen it through the press in 1632; in other words, that it should have been read as an orthodox Puritan treatise of moral and religious intent" (105). By a unanimous vote of the benchers, Prynne was expelled from Lincoln's Inn on 24 April 1634: Whereas Mr. William Prynne, one of the Utter Barresters of this House, on the xvij day of Febr: last was censured in his M a High Court of Starr Chamber for the contriveing, frameing, writing, and publishing of an infamous, scurrilous, and seditious booke and libell, by him intitled 'Histrio Mastix, the Player's Scourge and Actor's Tragedie' being indeed no other then a rayleing invective against his M a , his dearest Consort the Queene, the Lords of his Councell, the Magistrates, and the whole present tn  t s  t i e  139 on the pillory was designed to humiliate him in public. The objectified forms and credentials that determined Prynne's cultural capital—his Oxford degree, his books, and his personal papers—were revoked, confiscated, and /or burnt by the common hangman. Annabel Patterson interprets these punishments as desperate acts of institutions struggling to "preserve the illusion of power" to the extent that they were willing to sacrifice "the power of allusion, the saving grace of indeterminacy, the principles of authorial intention, and of the reader's responsibility" (107). The wide variety of these punishments also shows that the Inns' benchers had anticipated the extent to which they would have to recuperate the great degree of royal favor they themselves had lost through their association with Prynne in order to respond to the Crown's intimations that a joint "expression of [the Inns'] love, and duty to their Majesties" would be "well taken from them" (Whitelock).  131  state and governm* of the kingdome; conteineinge not only scandalls to a l l his M a people i n generall, b u t alsoe divers incitements of his people to sedition, and to infuse dangerous opinions into them that there are just causes for w h i c h they may lay violent hands upon Princes; conteineing alsoe personall aspertions and contumelies of her M a * , and excessive rayleing, uncharitable and unchristian censures of a l l sorts df people except the factious and disobedient contemners of the present governem*, w h o are therein by h i m commended. For w°h said offences it was by the said H o n b ' Court ordered a n d decreed that the said W i l l i a m Prynne (being expelled out of this Societie of Lincolne's Inne) should, beside his fyne and y m p r i s o n m , suffer and undergoe such corporall p u n i s h m as i n the said sentence is expressed. I t is therefore ordered att this Counsell/with an unanimous consent of all the Masters of the Bench n o w present, that the said W i l l i a m Prynne bee utterly expelled out of this Societie, and hee is expelled out of the same accordinglie. A n d this Order to bee f o r t h w i t h fixed u p o n the skreene i n the Hall. (Black Books, vol 2, 317-18) t s  16  b  e  1  1  This entry also further exemplifies the benchers' awareness of the tactics that were being used against Prynne; [T]hough not i n expresse tearmes, yet b y examples and other implicite meanes, hee laboures to infuse an opinyon into the people, that for acteinge or being spectatours of playes or maskes it is just and l a w f u l l to laye violent hands u p o n Kings and princes. Yf hee h a d positively named his M a ^ i n theis places his meanynge w o u l d have been to playrtne, therefore he names other princes, and leaves the application to the reader. I am grateful to Dr. Paul Stanwood for his assistance w i t h this section and the entire thesis.  140 The "younger sort" of lawyers The Inns lavishly complied with the royal hint. Committees of barristers were formed to collect funds and appoint the artists and performers who would be involved in "the most glorious and splendid shew that ever was beheld in England" (Whitelock). Since the subject of The Triumph Peace  of  was the relationship between Charles and the law, there was no room  for failure. No corners were cut, and the Inns' records fully demonstrate the care with which the benchers, in consultation with the Lord Chamberlain, supervised the preparations, which gradually demanded more and more money as the winter progressed;  132  Simon Ivy and William Lawes were hired  for nearly £1000 to write the music (Whitelock); the King's Musick, the Gentlemen of the Chapel, and the organist of Winchester Cathedral were recruited to sing and play it (Elliott 212); either the King's Men or the Cockpit players were hired for £80 to perform the roles in the antimasque (Elliott 200); and James Shirley composed the text in consultation with a committee of barristers. These expenses/ along with payments to Inigo Jones and his staff 133  '- On 7 November 1633, the parliament of Lincoln's Inn "unanimouslie approved that a Maske should some time this winter be presented unto his Mastie from the said four Houses and Societies of the Innes of Court and in their name" (Black Books, vol 2, 312). One week later, the same parliament itemized by rank—bencher, barrister of seven years standing, barrister under seven years standing, and students—how much everyone in the Inn should contribute to meet''the "proportion of moneys fitt to be expended uppon the said Maske . . .to be raised by fdwer equal contributions or parts of the said fower Houses" (312). As the preparations continued, the organizing committees quickly discovered that they had underestimated the costs of the masque. A n entry in the benchers' minutes of the Middle Temple records the admission of one Mr. Thorpe "that 6001. more was wanted from each House . . ." The Masters of the Bench ordered that "6001. be borrowed on security" (vol 2, 814). Even after the performance of the first masque, one Mr. Willis had to inform the Inner Temple's benchers that the costs of the masque had in the end exceeded "the moneys taxed upon all the gentlemen" the previous November by "so great a sum" that a significant disbursement from me ''stock" of the house was essential (Inner Temple Records, vol 2, 212). Payments continued as late as November 1635. ^Shirley's intriguing relationship with the Crown and the Inns is worth mentioning here. A prolific playwright, he was popular with Charles even while he "was not in his other writings exactly an uncritical admirer of kings" (Butler 1987: 127). The king apparently provided outlines of plays to Shirley on a regular basis; Herbert's records indicate that on 6 February, The Gamester, a play "made by Sherley," was performed "out of a plot of the  141  of carpenters for the construction of the set in the Whitehall Banqueting House, disbursements for costuming the sixteen Grand Masquers (four from each Inn) and several hundred accompanying masquers, horsemen, musicians, dancers, and torchbearers, and fees for three thousand copies of the text (printed before the masque was staged), brought the total cost to the staggering sum of around £21,000 (Whitelock).  134  Almost every known contemporary account of the masque emphasizes the acclaim with which the lawyers' triumphant procession at night from the Inns to Whitehall—complete with "Torches and flaming huge Flamboys" that "made it seem lightsom as at Noon-day"—was received by the "multitude" of "Spectators in the streets," who "seemed loth to part with so glorious a Spectacle" (Whitelock). The cover-leaf of the British Library's copy of Francis Lenton's collection of poems (shelf-mark C.30.e.ll.), entitled The Innes of Court Anagrammatist: or, the Masquers  Masqued  in  Anagrammes,  features an undated hand-written account of the enthusiastic reception of the masque by London's citizens: In 1634 a masque was presented at Whitehall by the members of the Four Innes of Court to the King and Queen. . . Nothing could have been got up with greater magnificense; . . . the masquers went in grand procession from Ely House to Whitehall and the population of London accompanied them through the streets. King's given him by mee [Herbert]; and well likte. The king sayd it was the best play he had seen for seven years." Shirley was also highly sought after by the benchers of the Inns in 1633 even while (or perhaps especially because) he ridiculed Prynne in his preface to his play The Bird in a Cage, which was published the same year. Though Shirley's "early residence in London was near or at Gray's Inn," it was not until after the success of the Triumph of Peace that Shirley's status at the Inns was clarified through his admission as an honorary member of Gray's (Butler 1988:.204). 134 The "habits" of the Grand Masquers, observes Whitelock, included "Doublets, Trunk-hose, and Caps, of the most rich cloth of Tissue, and wrought as thick with silver Spangles as they could be placed, large white silver Stockings up to their Trunk-hose, and rich Sprigs in their Caps."  142  King Charles was also impressed, for he demanded to see the cavalcade three times, once at Salisbury House and twice at Whitehall. One wonders whose strength and glory this pageant was meant to signify—the Inns' or the King's? Martin Butler suggests that the answer to this question likely depends upon the spectator. A poem in the State Papers Domestic, described as a "briefe expression of the delight apprehended by the [anonymous] Author att the seeing of the solemne triumphs of the gent, of the Innes of Court, riding with the Masque presented before his Ma ," depicts the lawyers as warriors in tie  defense of Charles: So full of joy, that I was confident, When I first saw this goodly Regiment And all the glitteringe of this comely traine, The Silver Age was now returned againe... Theis are the Sonnes of Charles his peacefull Raigne, Whome yet if warr's rude accents shall constraine To put on armes, will quickly understand The Lawes of Armes, as well as of the Land, And be as valiant in the midst of fight As they seemd glorious in the Masque of night.  135  Having asked to see this procession not once but three times, the King, like the delighted author of the poem, seems to have received the procession as the lawyers' complimentary willingness to identify, before the public, their own cultural capital as inherited from his own. The implication here is that, in the King's eyes, the Inns were institutional extensions of the Crown rather than important agents within a relatively autonomous juridical field.  State Papers, Domestic, Charles I, vol 260, no. 15; the poem also appears as note xii in the appendix of Black Books, vol 2, pp. 456-57.  143 Butler proposes that the multitude of citizens lining the Strand, on the other hand, likely interpreted the lawyers' parade "as a statement of the wealth and importance of one section of the gentry, England's  parliamentary  (1987: 137; my italics). Evidence offered by Whitelock offers a finer-  class"  grained classification of the actors Butler identifies. Whitelock, who was on the Middle Temple's sub-committee, observes that "the younger sort" among the Inns' membership was particularly eager to follow the barristers' lead and bring the masque to fruition through weeks of rehearsals. The list of students performing the roles of the Grand Masquers confirms Whitelock's observation.  136  The signs of wealth on display, according to the Inns' records,  were financed mostly by the higher ranking members of the Inns. What the citizens saw, however, was this wealth in the hands of young students, who, as "proper and beautiful young gentlemen" (Whitelock), were deemed best able to embody and display the Inns' prestige. This situation exemplifies how the Inns' task of maintaining its appearance of permanent dominance within the juridical field, afforded by its seemingly "endless reconversion of economic capital into symbolic capital," could not have succeeded without the involvement of the entire legal community, for "the work of denial which is the source of social alchemy is, like magic, a collective undertaking" (Bourdieu 1977: 195). The Folger manuscript indicates that at least some of the Inns incorporated the full extent of their community in the masque—from the most illustrious benchers to the lowest-ranking servants. The chariot containing the Middle Temple's masquers was led by the Inn's porter; the Inn also recruited its turnspit, cook, and washpot as flambeaux bearers (Elliott 212-13). The chariot  These names are listed in Frances Lenton's Innes of Court Anagrammatist and in Folger MS Z.eA.  144  of Gray's Inn was led by the Inn's cook and the keeper of the boghouse (213). "Once a system of mechanisms has been constituted capable of objectively ensuring the reproduction of the established order by its own motion," Bourdieu argues, "the dominant class have only to let the system they dominate take its own course  in order to exercise their domination; but until  such a system exists, they have to work directly, daily, personally, to produce and reproduce conditions of domination which are even then never entirely trustworthy" (1977: 190). The need for the benchers to reinforce the identity of the Inns as dominant agents in the juridical field is exhibited by their fullscale recruitment of the entire community of the Inns—from top to bottom— in the parade. This strategy would bolster the image of the Inns as hierarchical communities and also enhance the representation of the students on horseback as dominators of institutional culture. Under Charles, the autonomy of the common law was already being contested by the Crown, and the political blunder caused by Prynne's treatise directed this challenge more precisely at the Inns. Charles's rebuff not only threatened the Inns' status in the juridical field—it challenged the common law itself. Because of the Inns' institutional identity as England's "ancient schools of priviledge" (Buc), the royal disfavor placed the future of England's gentry, represented in the masque by the Inns' "younger sort," into some doubt. Thus a great deal more was at stake in mounting the "most important spectacle to be staged publicly in [Caroline] London" (Butler 1987: 137) than counteracting Prynne's polemics with ceremonial apologetics. The entire efficacy of the common law as a source of authority, and the security of those who would depend on this cultural currency as a source of income, depended on  the manner in which the carefully choreographed spectacle  simultaneously appeased the royal eye and mystified the public one.  145  The Lord Mayor The government of London was in the hands of the Lord Mayor and aldermen, who were elected from among the City's wealthy "merchant oligarchs" (Lockyer 9). These officials constituted the Corporation of London; while in office, they interacted closely with the royal government (10). On occasion, their allegiance to the City conflicted with royal objectives. Having risen to the peak of the textile trade before becoming Lord Mayor, Ralph Freeman was sympathetic to the textile guilds' need for affordable, high quality soap for the production of clean fabrics. Because Freeman's loyalty to London's craft-based companies (including the London Soapboilers) posed a potential threat to Charles's monopolies, which were enacted through royal proclamations and therefore protected by threat of Star Chamber prosecution, the Soapboilers' dispute became one more element that exacerbated the already strained relationship between the City and the Crown (McGee 314). So, oddly enough, the law students' second performance of The Triumph of Peace was initiated in part by a dispute about soap. The Crown had already summoned the Inns to produce a second run of the parade and masque; the soap extravaganza drew the City authorities into this spectacle, which was, as a result of the Lord Mayor's involvement, magnified in scale. Under Freeman's firm direction, the Corporation of London contributed substantial sums of money toward the construction of an elaborate material infrastructure designed to prepare the City for the logistical nightmare of the parade, and the aldermen under Freeman's authority were charged with enforcing the citizens' compliance. One may well speculate that Freeman perceived his role in the masque as an opportunity to assuage Charles's discontent towards him after their disagreement regarding the Crown's soap monopoly. The masque itself also offered a chance for Freeman to manifest  146 the City's ability to afford a conversation with the Crown with as much pomp and circumstance as the lawyers had just displayed, regardless of the financial burden it would bring to London. The compassion with which Freeman deliberated on behalf of the London Soapboilers suggests that the City's burden was his own. His valiant effort during the ten-day interval between the first and second performances of Triumph  was a civic-minded enterprise  whereby he could establish London as a forum in which the City and the Crown might resolve their conflicts in a language that Charles understood.  The means by which the four agents I have identified—the King and Queen, William Prynne, the Inns' lawyers, and the Lord Mayor—vie for an advancement (or suffer a diminishment) of their positions in their respective cultural fields is based on the exchange of symbolic capital. As "the unrecognizable, and hence socially recognizable, form of the other kinds of capital," symbolic capital (costly as it is in economic terms) is the only form in which economic capital can be accumulated, and thus the only form of capital with which agents can durably exert power (Bourdieu 1977: 195). That Charles understood this correspondence is clear through his demands for elaborate entertainments; this same correlation also explains the panoply of punishments suffered by Prynne, the massive cooperative effort undertaken by the Inns towards the masque, and the stress of Ralph Freeman's political battle with Charles that allegedly ended his life. The concept of the interconvertibility of forms of capital helps us to understand the bizarre events I have introduced in this chapter—events that exhibit a tightly integrated network of symbolic exchanges between agents occupying (or attempting to occupy) dominant positions in their respective fields of production. The tense political conditions in which these events  147 occurred had the effect of increasing exponentially the economic expenses necessary for agents to acquire the volume of symbolic capital with which they might engage in fruitful negotiations with the Crown. In the next section, I explain how the two primary works located at the center of this controversy—Prynne's Histriomastix  and Shirley's Triumph  of Peace—  occupy, within the system of literature (or "space of works," as Bourdieu describes it), competing positions whose relationship to each other corresponds to that of their producers (that is, Prynne, along with his colleagues at the Inns who collaborated with Shirley) within the juridical field.  Position-takings  Prynne's incarceration in the Tower and conviction in the Star Chamber during the first two months of 1634 were part of the combined plot of the Crown and the Inns to label formally both Prynne and his book as aberrations from legitimate court and legal culture. The enthusiasm with which the Inns printed and sold thousands of copies of Shirley's masque served to counteract further the popularity of Prynne's pamphlets and to distance the legal community from its alleged traitor. The competition between Prynne and his colleagues at the Inns is based on a struggle for the power to determine not only what the members of the legal profession collectively stand for, but also what institutions (and their members) outside the profession represent. According to Prynne, the Inns should join the church and state in a collective attack against playhouses. Soon after Prynne's magnum  opus (dedicated to  the Inns) was available in the bookseller's stalls,  the Inns' benchers quickly needed to revise and rearticulate the convictions of  148  the Inns and the entire profession of the common law—convictions  that  Prynne had presumed to formulate on their behalf—before the King and the citizens of London. At issue in the struggle between Prynne and the barristers are questions regarding the place and identity of the individual within the institution: who can decide (or nominate) the desirable qualities associated with institutional membership? who speaks for the institution? and how might an individual use the power of nomination itself as a source of cultural capital within the institution? This struggle for dominance within the juridical field is manifested, in the space of works, as a system of oppositions among texts (Histriomastix and The Triumph of Peace), spectacles (the street parade and  the Queen's performance of The Shepherd's Pastoral), and political acts (Laud's intervention, Charles's decrees, and Prynne's prosecution). Conflict within the realm of art is contingent upon factors outside the direct control of agents within the field of production; at some level, the realm has a life of its own. Nevertheless, the ability of a work to affect the desires of its producer— to maintain or enhance the producer's position within his cultural field—is dependent on its capacity to change the literary system. This capacity is determined by many factors including timing, predominant fashions, and, most of all, the form of the work itself. One of Prynne's aims in his nearly one-thousand-page treatise is to use his position as barrister as a source of power for making authoritative claims about the relationship between virtuous institutions (the law, the church, the Crown) and the theatres. The particular state of literature when Histriomastix was published, however, served to undermine his position because his selfappointed power of nomination, in this instance, was interpreted as an affront to the Crown. Shirley's Triumph of Peace is the textual result of his  149 colleagues' attempt to reclaim their usurped position within the juridical field while still repairing the damaged status of the Inns and the law in the eyes of the Crown. In the masque, the relationships among institutions that Prynne had liberally defined in Histriomastix are reconceived and rearranged in a manner that takes full advantage of the structure of masque performance in Whitehall—a structure that places the King and Queen at the center of power, around which all invited guests must maneuver.  William Prynne's Histriomastix Throughout Histriomastix, Prynne is obsessively devoted to the authority of "old stories, other men's words" (Patterson 106); he regards this kind of authority as the source of the "bare and naked Truth" about plays— that is, that they are "the very Pompes of the Divell" (Prynne 5-6). Prynne's concern about illuminating Truth through his work was derived in part from his early exposure to puritan preaching in the chapel of Lincoln's Inn, and Prynne accordingly emphasizes in his text the institutional conditions that might permit or disallow one to know the truth. In other words, Prynne consistently locates the individual's pursuit of truth within a larger institutional framework. Institutions provide roles for their members to play, but if, in performing these roles, the members misrepresent their true selves, the institution and its members are sinful because they spread the disease of falsity throughout society at large. Prynne is particularly concerned about the situation of impressionable young gentlemen in London: [M]anny godly Citizens, and well-disposed Gentlemen of London, considering that Play-houses and Dicing-houses were traps for young Gentlemen and others; and perceiving the many inconveniences, and great damage that would ensue upon the long suffring of the same, not  150 ortely to particular persons, but to the whole Citty: and that it would also be a great disparagement unto the Governors, and a dishonour to the government of this honourable Citty: if they should any longer continue . . . desiring them to take some speedy course for the supression of common play-houses and Dicing-houses within the Citty of London and the Liberties thereof. (491-92) Prynne depicts the plight of the law student in London as a battle between good and evil on which the entire future of the City depends. The tone of urgency that fuels Prynne's relentless truth-finding in Histriomastix  is not, however, substantiated by evidence from his own  surroundings. Prynne does not construct his institutional framework with details that refer to the specific conditions of London playgoing in his day (this is too risky), even though these conditions are at the center of his concern. Rather, he packs his treatise with the voices of the ancient past in order to speak to the present institutional conditions that so disgust him. To substantiate his argument against the dressing of boy actors in women's clothing, for example, he paraphrases the record of the "learned Jew" Philo (from Philo De Fortitudine), who argues that the effort of law to "confirme mens mindes to fortitude" includes the prohibition of attire that might "stamp some blemish on the masculine sex" (Prynne 186). The implication here is that cross-dressing on the London stage tempts law students into a dangerous landscape of "Lascivious dancing, Amorous obscene songs[, and] Effeminate lust-exciting Musicke" (156). In Prynne's eyes, the act of witnessing the art of role-playing and disguise not only hinders the viewer's ability to carry out his proper institutional obligations—it also corrupts his selfknowledge.  151 Some evidence, such as Richard Brathwaite's The English  Gentleman  (1633), suggests that a few members of the Inns (or at least some who had once been students there) had anticipated the publication of Prynne's treatise, and were prepared to challenge the position of Prynne and his puritan followers at the Inns. The shock with which Histriomastix was received suggests that the political climate at the Inns in the 1620s was marked by a slowly brewing contest between various factions of the Inns' membership regarding the question of who possessed the authority to determine the most appropriate institutional affiliations for England's future parliamentary class. Once a student at Gray's Inn, Brathwaite offers one strand of evidence for this conjecture. He argues that playgoing, when i37  used in Moderation, is not altogether to be disallowed . . . But for as much as diverse objections have beene, and worthily may be made against them, we will here lay them downe, being such as are grounded on the sacred word of God: and, with as much perspicuity and brevity as we may, clear and resolve them. (183-84) Brathwaite tacitly targets Prynne as the figure most responsible for the gradually declining status of playgoing lawyers, and he describes the antitheatrical thesis as a vehicle of Prynne's pursuit of personal glory at the expense of the reputation of the entire legal profession: Yea, but our stage-stingers, or Poet-scourgers will again object, that these Theatres, which were at first erected for honest delight and harmlesse merriment, grow manie times busie with states, laying asperations on men of eminent ranke and government; and in briefe,  Brathwaite entered Oriel College, Oxford in 1604, and then went to Cambridge, but being urged by his parents "to tune [his] course of studies from these sweet academical exercises," entered Gray's Inn in 1609 (Prest 1972: 142). At Gray's, Brathwaite began to pursue his literary ambitions, and he wrote fifty or more books between 1611 and 1662.  152  will spare none; so they may gaine by themselves by disparaging others. But I will answer thus much for them, albeit . . . that such as imploy their pens in taxing or tainting any noble or meriting person in this kinde, deserve no better, than as they whipt, so to be whipt themselves for their labour: for they must know . . . that some things are privileged from jest, namely Religion, matters of state, great persons, any man's business of importance, and any case that deserve th pity. Brathwaite regards the playhouse as an honourable diversion that can grace Crown and country, provided that this diversion does not take the place of a gentleman's "better imployment." Aside from its inordinate length, there is nothing especially noteworthy about Prynne's Histriomastix—like  most puritan tracts of its  kind, it is laboriously earnest, repetitive, and poorly written. But the violence of its reception is indicative of the specific conditions that made its particular form and content ideally suited for triggering further displays of retaliatory excess on the part of the Inns, the Crown, and the City.  138  If Prynne's book  These retaliations took the f o r m of direct refutations as w e l l as p l a y f u l tricks. The most thorough contemporary refutation of Prynne is theatrum Redivivum, or the Theatre Vindicated By Sir Richard Baker in Answer to Mr. Pryns Histrio-Mastix (1662). Regarding Prynne, Baker (d. 1645) professes: I wrestle not w i t h h i m , as he is i n his o w n Person, for I k n o w h i m not; and he may be better, then he seems to me: but I wrestle w i t h h i m , onely as he appears i n his Book; w h i c h cannot be fuller biwords, arid emptier ofreason, then i t is. (4) The anonymous authors of Mr. William Prynn; His Defence of Stage-Plays, or A Retraction of a former Book of his called Histrio-Mastix (1649) sought to undermine Prynne's credibility by composing, i n his name, a public acknowledgment of the errors of his thoughts and an apology for his condemnation of the K i n g ; "Prynne" concludes that "good Plays, which are not profane, l e w d , bad, blasphemous, o r ungodly, may be acted" (8); This scandalous publication was quickly met w i t h The Vindication of William Prynne, Esquire, From some scandalous Papers and Imputations, newly Printed and Published, to traduce and defame him in his Reputation (10 January 1649): Whereas A scandalous Paper have been n e w l y printed and published i n m y Name by some of the imprisoned Stage-Players, or Agents of the Army, i n t i t u l e d M r . William Prynne his Defence of Stage-Playes . . . of purpose to traduce and defame me: I do hereby publikely declare to all the w o r i d , the same to be a meere Forgeryandimposture, and that m y judgement and opmiofrconcerrring Stage Playes and the Common Actors of t h e m , and their intollerable mischeivousness i n any Christian state, is still the same, as I have more amply manifested i t to be i n m y Histriomastix.  153 had been published at any other time, it would have been ingloriously ranked among the countless other anti-theatrical tracts that lined the booksellers' stalls.  Tames Shirley's Triumph of Peace The misunderstandings wrought by the appearance of Histriomastix required the Inns quickly to renew the lines of communication between the legal quarter and the Crown. To this end, the Inns' significant financial investments were devoted—besides the street procession—to  the  construction of a highly ordered performance space within the Banqueting House at Whitehall in which the discursive pathways between the Inns and the Crown could be directly channeled and contained. The text of Shirley's masque makes it clear that the lawyers endeavored to prepare a forum in which the lawyers could "instruct the King on what they took to be the proper relationship between his power and the law" (Butler 1993: 122) without directly challenging his authority. What I hope to make more evident is the complex strategy of this instruction—a two-part scheme whereby the Inns' lawyers, represented by the character of Fancy, locate themselves at the center of a quickly shifting series of antimasques involving an exchange of capital between actors representing different social classes. Then, upon this foundation, they stage a masque that clarifies the broader interdependent relationship between the lawyers' role in the exchange and the Crown that makes this exchange possible. Despite the masque's themes of interdependence between the King and the law, however, the performance conditions in which these themes are voiced make it clear from the very beginning that the Crown is still the primary source of all forms of power. These conditions impose an order of  154 monarchical dominance on any representation of power within the masque itself. Whitelock points out that a gallery, located at the end of the banqueting house behind Charles's and Henrietta Maria's central seats, "was reserved for the Gentlemen of the Inns of Court, who should come thither to see their Masque, that there they might sit together, and none else to be admitted with them into that place." Such seating arrangements, along with Inigo Jones's magnificent perspective settings, were designed to make available only one focal point, one perfect place in the hall from which the illusion achieves its fullest effect. At court performances this is where the king sat, and the audience around him at once became a living emblem of the structure of the court. The closer one sat to the monarch the "better' one's place was, an index to one's status. (Orgel 1975: l l ) 1 3 9  The Whitehall portion of Triumph  begins with a meeting of  Confidence (a fashionable London gentleman) and a family from the country (Opinion, Lady Novelty, and their daughter Admiration) who have been ' The masque's dazzling display of scene changes, dances, and costumes, w h i c h Shirley describes i n detail, occurs at the center of a backdrop of civic splendor and perpetual order suggested by Jones's "Forum of Peace" (see figure 7), i n front of w h i c h the entire masque was performed. The ornate Italian architecture situates the events of the masque i n a foreign urban setting—the implication being that a mutual understanding between the Inns and the C r o w n necessitates the transformation of the banqueting house (in which this peace is being negotiated) into a f o r u m that transcends the social and political realities of L o n d o n arid t h e legal quarter. Per*Palme's study o f the architectural evolution of the W h i t e h a l l Banqueting House enlightens our sense of the intricacy w i t h w h i c h the material-technical components of the performance space created this imaginary landscape. A symmetrical arrangement of interenveloping vistas—produced b y optical effects i n v o l v i n g the proscenium, the backdrops, and the descending stage—perfectly synthesized their proportions f r o m the v i e w p o i n t of the K i n g , whose v i e w i n g position enables h i m to witness the f u l l effect of this marvelous integration of technical mastery a n d m y t h - m a k i n g . "The action of the d r a m a , " Palme explains, "proceeded towards a goal w i t h i n the illusion as circumscribed b y the boards and the scenery. The action of the masque proceeded towards a goal outside these bounds" (142). Thus the action of t h e Caroline masque finds itself i n a p e r p l e x i n g state of crosspurposes, for its status as a masque, as a royal entertainment, b y d e f i n i t i o n confines the pathways of its persuasive u t i l i t y through the imposition of a n a r r o w l y delineated set of optical illusions, thereby enabling the masquers only t o gesture t o w a r d s the political situations that have created the need for the masque i n the first place.  155 invited to attend a court masque. Upon arriving, they call upon Fancy, who arrives with his friends Jollity and Laughter, to "help the Masque" (1.222). Opinion informs Fancy of a rumor that the court has expected Fancy to furnish antimasques for the royal entertainment, but it is clear that a series of miscommunications and short timing have complicated this undertaking. Unabashed, Fancy assures Opinion that because it is "a time of peace" (1.291), he will instantly conjure representations of the effects of peace to please him. Lady Novelty, Admiration, Confidence, Jollity, and Laughter rush into a tavern to get drunk, leaving Fancy and Opinion to observe the antimasques. Lawrence Venuti describes Fancy as "the lawyers' offspring" (1.195); Confidence refers to him as a "prince of th' air" (1.188), "a bird of night" (1.189), and "a quaint hermaphrodite" (1.192). Indeed Fancy is a personification of the Inns in that his role is to stage, in short order, a performance at court that fashions political corrective as entertainment. Venuti argues that the lawyers' creation of Fancy exhibits their "Machiavellian strategy" of using a legal figure "as an anticipation of the [masque's] later attack on the gentry," thereby "criticizing a social group with whom [the lawyers] were closely associated in order to save face with the king" (195). Fancy's role in the antimasques, however, is more assertive than Venuti allows, for when one antimasque fails to convince Opinion that he is witnessing images of social peace, Fancy almost magically conjures another. Serving as "an immortal spring" from which all "Invention flows" (1.444-45), Fancy functions as both a scapegoat for the Inns and a grand mediator—as both a liminal figure between "An owl and a bat" (1.193) and a "Strong" character who can "crack a halbert with his wit" (1.179) and "[Break] his way / Thorough the guard" (1.174-75).  156  Fancy's assertiveness and imagination allow him to explain to Opinion the multifacetedness  of the chicanery that develops throughout the  antimasques; he describes the exchange of capital between classes as a crucial part of a peaceful social regime. In the fourth episode, for example, a gentleman "bestows his charity" on crippled beggars who dance for him in a tavern. After the gentleman departs, the beggars discard their prosthetic legs and dance. Sensing Opinion's discomfiture with the "corruption" he has just witnessed, Fancy assures him that the beggars in fact "show / The benefit of peace" (1.329-30). The implication of Fancy's rebuttal is that the beggars' trickery should not be interpreted as an affront to the gentry but rather a sign of social stability, for exchanges of economic capital between the gentry and the poor maintain the social order by ensuring that beggars will not become thieves. Thus what appears as corruption is actually a system of social security. Unwilling to hear more, Opinion nonetheless complains that "such base and sordid persons" (1.335) are not becoming at court.  140  Fancy's solution is to present six "projectors" with ludicrous inventions on their heads: a jockey "who has designed a . . . bridle Opinion's objection introduces into the masque's narrative a theme of intrusion that weaves its way t h r o u g h the masque-world as i t metatheatrically gestures towards the conditions of the masque's performance i n the banqueting house. Towards the end of the masque, sixteen masquers (performed by lawyers) enter and arrange themselves i n a " p y r a m i d a l figure" as the sons of the celestial goddesses Peace, L a w , and fustice. This geometrically arranged fraternity resists the i n t r u s i o n of a g r o u p of mechanicals, introduced b y a carpenter exclaiming, "D'ye t h i n k to keep us out?" (679). We soon discover that these i n t r u d e r s — t h e carpenter, along w i t h a painter, guard, and tailor, as w e l l as the wives of a property-man, feather-maker, and e m b r o i d e r e r — a l l represent artisans whose craftwork has made the masque possible, and whose desire it is to "challenge a privilege" (694) b y observing the fruits of their labor. While the intrusion that interrupted the 1594 Christmas revels at Gray's I n n appears to have been incorporated into the account of these revels after the fact, the i n t r u s i o n of this antimasque w i t h i n the masque of Triumph is a scripted event that suggests an underlying unease among the lawyers that they too were intruders i n a private space. The i n t r u s i o n of the mechanicals into this rarefied setting also points to the g r a v i t y of a situation outside the masque i n w h i c h the increasing dependence of the Crown's symbolic capital on the profits of City monopolies stifled social f l u i d i t y b y i n f l a t i n g the rate of exchange between forms of capital to a prohibitive degree.  157 containing] a hollow iron tube through which a 'vapour' could pass to cool off his horse" (Elliott 211), a country fellow with a wheel that enables him to thresh corn all day without using his hands, a gowned philosopher with a furnace that boils beef efficiently, a black leather suit with glass eyes that permits one to walk underwater all day to find gold, a physician who has given up his practice in order to invent a new way of fattening poultry with carrot scrapings, and a seaman with a ship that can sail against the winds and melt rocks. It would seem that this display was the lawyers' effort to criticize Charles's monopolies; Butler contends that the lawyers used this and other antimasques "to censure the monopolies on which Charles's finances depended" (1990: 155). But Fancy's role in the antimasques indicates that the art of interpretation and the need for proper perspective was even more at issue than censure. The antimasque of projectors, in particular, places less significance on the projectors themselves and what they represent than the manner of Fancy's efficient mediation in their encounter with Opinion. The mediatory function of the Inns that Fancy introduces in the antimasques is, in the main masque, affirmed and cemented by a "pyramidal figure" formed by the Inns' sixteen Grand Masquers. Strategically located at the center of Jones's visual regime suggesting themes of ancient heritage and civic order, the lawyers fashion themselves as holders of the new codes of taste and judgment. Their presence is legitimated and inspired by the songs 141  sung just before their entrance by their heavenly "parents": the sisters Irene (Peace), Eunomia (Law), and Dice (Justice)—roles performed by singers of the  O n the sides of the proscenium, the lawyer-masquers are bordered by t w o statuesque images representing ancient deities of s c h o l a r s h i p — N u m a w i t h a sceptre and scroll, and Minos w i t h a diadem and w r i t i n g instruments. These images appear i n Jones's proscenium border (see figure 8) and b r i n g to m i n d the lawyers' preoccupation w i t h the ancient foundation of the common law. The backdrop of the "Forum of Peace" (see figure 7) contextualizes this concern by locating it i n a contemporary, though foreign, urban setting.  158  Chapel Royal. Having acknowledged their interdependence in the first four songs, the sisters conclude by together "Singling] / The triumph of Jove's upper court abated" (1.568-69): To you great King and Queen, whose smile Doth scatter blessings through this isle, To make it best And wonder of the rest, We pay the duty of our birth, Proud to wait upon that earth Whereon you move, Which shall be nam'd, And by your chaste embraces fam'd, The paradise of love. Irene, plant thy olives here, Thus warm'd, at once they'll bloom and bear; Eunomia, pay thy light, While Dice, covetous to stay, Shall throw her silver wings away To dwell within your sight.  (1.587-602)  Venuti argues that it is "possible to see Eunomia, the personification of law, as a symbol of Parliament" and to "read the song as an assertion that the King's peace (Irene) should not have prerogative over the MPs' contribution to the legislative process" (202). A perspective that more directly links these characters to the primary agents involved in the circumstances of the masque's production reveals Eunomia as a symbol of the Inns of Court and her song as the lawyers' clear indication to Charles that the peacefulness of his reign is dependent on their continuous payment of the common law's "light." Yet the lawyers carefully articulate this argument in a manner that avoids forthright or arrogant rhetoric that might offend the Crown, for they  159 cast Charles and Henrietta Maria as power and law, thereby designating themselves as the grandchildren of the king and queen and maintaining the Crown's relation to the divine powers of the three heavenly sisters. The lawyers depict their relationship to the Crown as that between grandparents and their grandchildren, each receiving different strengths from the other in an interdependent alliance. Eunomia, after all, must "pay" her light to the Crown—a rhetorical gesture that acknowledges the subservient nature of their legal wisdom. The entire spectacle was carefully structured in order for the. lawyers simultaneously to offer an apology to the Crown and to clarify both the position of the Inns within the juridical field and the symbolic force of the common law. Flattered by the lawyers' display, the Queen "did the honour to some of the Masquers to dance with them her self, and to judge them as good Dancers as ever she saw" (Whitelock). Because of the circumstances outside the masque involving the Lord Mayor, however, this compliment turned out to be the first of a series of recuperative exchanges among the Crown, the Inns, and the City that even further drained London's financial resources and tested even further the lawyers' ability as interveners.  The politics of gift-giving  Courtship is a social transaction involving a "complex interplay of giving and receiving, offering and responding, asking and replying" (Bates 12). Designed to maintain a relationship of suspense between givers and receivers of gifts, the behaviors that make courtship work are organized as a formal process of strategic exchanges among the monarch and her subjects. The suspense is created by the temporal configuration of gift exchange,  160 whereby the "lapse of time that intervenes between the receiving of a gift and giving in return [functions as] a deliberate oversight," a pretense of incertitude that both avoids the semblance of rudeness and forces the benefactor to "wait and see" how the recipient will undertake his or her obligation to reciprocate the gift (Bates 12-13). "In every society," Bourdieu contends, "it may be observed that, if it is not to constitute an insult, the counter-gift must be deferred and different, because the immediate return of an exactly identical object clearly amounts to a refusal (i.e. the return of the same object)" (1977: 5). The events that drew together the Inns, the Crown, and the City of London from November 1633 to April 1634 reveal a set of circumstances in which the temporal structure of gift exchange was fundamentally awry. The gifts and countergifts among the lawyers, the King and Queen, and the Lord Mayor—extravagant and stunning—were clearly given in the name and spirit of courtship, but in fact what the records of the Inns and the City, along with other contemporary accounts, reveal is a struggle for power in which the exchange of cultural currency between these agents was so directly tied to money that the mystery of royal power was itself in an urgent struggle to maintain its dominance. With the Crown under attack, the very fabric of privileged society was beginning to unravel.  King Charles, the Corporation of London, and the lawyers The conventional reward for a masque presented at court was, at the very least, a banquet for the masquers (Prest 1972: 224). Through their strategic scheme of integrating the throne within a system of alliance based on gracious exchanges between Crown and subject, both Elizabeth and James had refined the process of rewarding such services to an art. In the case of Charles,  161 however, this art gradually served to isolate the Crown from its subjects by creating between them ties of dependence that more explicitly identified the King himself as the source of all forms of capital. The lawyers were evidently concerned about the impression that Triumph  made on Charles and  Henrietta Maria; on 6 February 1634, only four days after the performance, the benchers of Lincoln's Inn included in the Black Books a letter from Philip Herbert, the King's Lord Chamberlain, to Lord Coventry, the Lord Keeper, indicating Charles's willingness to continue his conversation with the Inns by inviting one hundred and twenty lawyers to a performance of Thomas Carew and Inigo Jones's masque Coelum  Britannicum  at court.  142  By  performing a central role in the masque, Charles presents "his own view of his place in the commonwealth" in what Orgel describes as "the greatest theatrical expression of the Caroline autocracy" (1975: 83). Charles's invitation was less an exchange of favors than an opportunity to locate himself at the center of action just as the lawyers had done in Triumph.  This was an act of  competition—an affirmation of royal prerogative—rather than a felicitous reward for a job well done. The Queen also expressed her admiration for the masque—she was in fact "so taken with this Show and Masque, that she desired to see it acted over Like those of the other Inns, the records of Lincoln's I n n rarely include m u c h beyond the minutes of decisions made b y the benchers r e g a r d i n g appointments to the b a r a n d disciplinary actions taken against offending members, sp the transcription of a letter f r o m an outside authority into the records is an exceptional occurrence that likely reflects an important development i n the Inn's relation to higher powers. The letter i n question, dated one day before its receipt at Lincoln's Inn, reads: The K i n g is so much taken w i t h the noble entertainment w h i c h hath been brought unto h i m by the gentlemen of the Innes of Court that, being not satisfied w i t h the many expressions Which he hath hither to made of "his gracious acceptance, his M a is further pleased to favour them w i t h a soleme invitacion of one h u n d r e d and twentie gentlemen of their companie unto the Masque w h i c h is to be danced by his M a * i upon Shrove Tuesday next; A n d his M a ^ hath made choice of y o u r LoPP to convey this information unto them. W h i c h I assure myself y o u r LoPP w i l l perfourme w i t h that civilitie and grave direceion w h i c h m a y expresse the bountie of his M a t i intentions; A n d so I take m y leave and rest. (vol 2,315) n e  e  es  162 again: wereupon an Intimation being given to the Lord Mayor of London, he invited the King and Queen, and the Inns of Court Masquers to the City, and entertained them with all state and magnificence, at Merchant-taylors  Hall"  on 13 February—only ten days after the performance of Triumph Whitehall (Whitelock; McGee 339).  143  at  While the civic records suggest, as  McGee observes, that Freeman regarded Charles's "Intimation" as an open door to repairing the City's (as well as his own) damaged relationship with the Crown, they also show that the gesture was less an invitation to a diplomatic rapprochement than a demand for more of the same kind of expenditures that would maintain the facade of courtship on which Charles's reign was increasingly depending—less an appeal for reconciliation than a continuation of the increasingly expensive masquerades that depicted the King as a commander, rather than negotiator, of subservience. The King's hint, in fact, was a demand to affirm in public the sovereignty of the Crown that his performance in Coelum  Britannicum  would articulate in private.  The City authorities had little time to meet this demand, and the pressure to reproduce the street procession (this time, east-bound from the legal quarter) and masque performance at the Merchant Taylors' Hall was financially taxing on everyone, especially the Corporation of London, which had to postpone the event for two days in order to handle the logistics of ensuring both a safe passage for the King and Queen through the City and a means by which the  Orgel and Strong have transcribed a letter, dated 27 Feb. 1634 and written by Mr. Garrard to the Lord Deputy of Ireland, that describes the royal "Intimation" in more explicit terms: This riding Shew took so well, that King and Queen desired to see it again, so that they invited themselves to Supper at my Lord Mayor's within a Week after, and the Masquers came in a more glorious Show with all the Riders, which were increased to twenty, to Merchant-Taylors Hall, and there performed it again. The largest of the livery companies' halls and conveniently close to the Lord Mayor's house in St. Michael's parish (McGee 340), the Merchant; Taylors' Hall in the ward of Cornhill had for centuries been owned by the "Guild of Taylors and linnen armourers" (Stows Survey, vol 1,181).  163 royal couple, power and law, could be easily seen by the people (McGee 309-10, 313).  144  Rather than an invitation for the City to engage in a courteous routine of courtly exchange, the King's demand for more elaborate festivities was  :  The Inns incurred expenses for new torches, silk stockings, and an additional speech by fames Shirley; the Merchant Taylors h a d to contribute moneys t o w a r d s p r e p a r i n g their h a l l (McGee 311); a n d the City Cash Books include payments, t o t a l i n g a r o u n d £1300, to "carpenters, drapers, uphol[s]terers, grocers, waxchandlers, confectioners, butchers, painters, plaisterers, glasiers, bricklayers, brewers, trumpettors" (McGee 329-33). McGee's study of the City records reveals that r e p a i r i n g the streets along the route of the t r i u m p h a l procession, [ a n d ] clearing, cleaning, a n d l i g h t i n g them not only enhanced the b r i l l i a n c e of the g l i t t e r i n g cavalcade, but also demonstrated to the K i n g and the court that the city fathers were capable of providing 'the good government of this Cittie.' The double watch and w a r d , especially f n that i t closed off cross-streets along the parade route, helped define that route and to exclude disorderly persons; i t dramatised at the same time the allegiance of L o n d o n whose citizens stood, armed w i t h halberds, ready to defend K i n g Charles. Similarly, w h i l e o u t f i t t i n g Merchant Taylors' H a l l w i t h scaffolding, f u r n i t u r e , a n d lighting w a s necessary for the performance of the masque, a d o r n i n g it w i t h a clothcovered w a l k w a y , tapestries, the king's arms, and his picture were ways of m a k i n g a statement . . . of the City's affection and respect for the monarch. T h e practicalities had to be w e l l taken care of if an edifying i d e a l — t h e harmony of a l o v i n g and gracious monarch a n d an obedient and l o v i n g c i t y — w e r e to be acted out convincingly and efficaciously. (312) Freeman's fastidious execution of these practicalities is evidenced by seven orders he made to the various aldermen around the City demanding their maintenance of order along t h e procession route. T o the chief alderman of the w a r d of Cornhill, he stipulated that every householder aswell duringe a l l the time of passage of theier Majesties & the said gentlemen f r o m Temple barre to m y said house & Merchantailours hall & f r o m thence backagaine to Temple Barre be streightly commanded to have at his doore a Torche lighted and soe to be renewed if need require to give p l e n t i f u l l light unto theier Majestes and the said Gentlemen i n that theier passage to & froe and alsoe to hange f o r t h Lanthorne and Candle l i g h t d u r i n g e a l l the time aforesaid A n d that every householder himselfe be then present before his doore w i t h a faire halbert or other weapon readie to suppresse an[y] disorder or tumult that may happen there. (580) A gallery of scaffolding and broadcloathes was constructed i n front of the L o r d Mayor's gate and served as a stand where Charles a n d Henrietta M a r i a could v i e w the lawyermasquers and also be clearly seen by the people: Besides i m p r o v i n g the sight lines of the royal party, the gallery made Charles and his consort the 'observed of all observers.' I n the account of the entertainment i n the minutes of the Court of Alderman, n o t h i n g is more important than this privileged v i s i b i l i t y ' of the royal couple; not the author of the masque, nor the architect (Inigo Jones), nor the title, nor the antimasque's portrayal of seedy features of u r b a n life, nor the m a i n masque's critique of royal prerogative are mentioned. The thread r u n n i n g through the account of the event i n the Repertory of the Court of A l d e r m e n is that the K i n g and Queen allowed themselves to be seen . . . ' i n their open Chariott' [as] they proceeded . . . to Merchant Taylor's H a l l ' i n publique view . . . of the Aldermen their Ladies and wifes and many others of the Cheife Citizens men and women . . . ' (313)  164 instead a call for the City to produce in short order an entertainment that would top the Inns' previous offering. The evidence suggests that this situation had unnerving effects on both the Corporation of London and the Inns, for they each had to determine how best to negotiate a monarchical system that seemed to operate according to new rules. Under this new regime, the Corporation, on 12 February, proposed to give the King and Queen each a velvet purse filled with gold, but the Lord Chamberlain apparently advised its members that such a gift was inappropriate (McGee 309-10). Two days later, 145  they decided instead to give the King a diamond valued at £4000 for "the great and extraordinary favour and love of their Ma[jes]tys herein declared and manifested unto this Citty" (McGee 311-12). What the laudatory rhetoric of the City records illustrates is that the presence of the royal couple was supposed to be regarded as itself a gift, one that the City could not match in terms of symbolic capital, especially since they had no masque of their own with which to honor them, so money and jewels were deemed the best alternative counter-gift. Whitelock's account shows that the Inns' barristers needed assurance that the Crown had favorably received their gift of the twice-performed masque. The organizing committee ordered one barrister from each Inn (including Whitelock) to "attend the King and Queen . . . to return their humble thanks for their Majesties gracious acceptance of the tender of their service in the late Masque." They were first taken to the King, whose hand  The records of the Court of Aldermen, "takeing into their mature consideracion the espetiall favour and love of their Royall Majestys herein demonstrated unto this City here in great honor unto the same doth agree and soe order that the King shall at that tyme be presented with a faire Velvett purse and in it one Thousand pounds in gould and alsoe the Qiieene with afaire purse of Velvett and in it five hundred pounds in gould as aplege of the Cittyes true and harty affeccion and dutifull obedience unto their Royall Majestys" (McGee 322).  165  they each kissed before Sir John Finch, speaking for all of them, conveyed their thanks: Sir, by the Command of your Majestie's most affectionate and loyalsubjects, the Readers and Gentlemen of the Four Inns of Court, we are here to attend you with their most humble thanks, for your great Favour to them, in your gracious acceptance of the tender of their Service and Affections to your Majesty, in the late Masque presented to you, and for vouchsafing your Royal Presence at it. With "great affability and pleasingness," Charles responded: Gentlemen, pray assure those from whom you come, that we are exceeding well pleased with that Testimony which they lately gave us, of their great respect and affection to us which was very acceptable, and performed with that Gallantry, and in so excellent a manner, that I cannot but give them thanks for it, and shall be ready upon all occasions, to manifest the good opinion I have of them, and to do them and you in particular any favour. The same routine was next undertaken with Henrietta Maria, who again told them she had never seen "any Masque more noble, nor better performed than this was, which she took as a particular respect to her selfe, as well as to the King her Husband, and desired that her thanks might be returned to the Gentlemen for it." With the City significantly cash-strapped and the Inns' committee beset with bills for months to come, the Queen's compliment was a costly sign of a small triumph of peace that had been gained between the Crown, the Inns, and the City—a peace that would prove to be short-lived.  166  Francis Lenton The enthusiasm with which the Inns' members received the Queen's frank compliments and thanks is conveyed in an eccentric collection of epigrams written by Francis Lenton entitled The Innes of Court Anagrammatist: or, the Masquers Masqued in Anagrammes. Unlike  the  masque that inspired it, the collection was written in explicit celebration of the Inns (and not the Crown). Frank Whigham observes that a subject who has received "positive feedback" from the Crown in response to a gracious gesture might discard (however reluctantly) the acclaim as mere "flattery or self-delusion," either out of a sense of cynicism or paranoia. "As the theoretical force of the audience response becomes increasingly valorized," Whigham argues, "so the need grows for reactive and self-protective (and paranoid) interpretation" (42). By fashioning the Grand Masquers who led the street procession as symbols of the Inns' spirit of independence, Lenton's epigrams demonstrate this very tendency. Dedicated to "the Foure Honourable Societies, and famous Nurseries of Law, the Innes of Court," the collection articulates a sense of fraternal solidarity with a purpose as brazen as Prynne's is earnest. It thereby enables the "younger sort" of lawyers to strengthen even further their stake in the struggle for a dominant position in the juridical field—a struggle that Prynne's treatise significantly hindered and that their role in the masque only began to facilitate. The collection is divided into four parts, one for each Inn. Each part contains four (sometimes five) epigrams; every one is "in the name of" a barrister of the respective Inn who served as one of the Grand Masquers  167  in the street procession of Triu tripft . ' Every epigram is preceded by one or 1 1  46  two anagrams of the barrister's name. Both the epigrams and the anagrams exhibit the young barristers' developing awareness of both the honorable virtues and remunerative rewards of their profession—the epigrams by emphasizing the stereotypes of a lawyers' behavior, the anagrams by cleverly equating these stereotypes with each lawyer-masquer's name. The bawdy twist that Lenton sometimes brings to this theme reflects the tawdry side of this market of exchange. His three anagrams and two epigrams on John Crawley (Gray's Inn) most clearly exemplify these characteristics. Spelling Crawley's name as "lohn Crawley" in order to simplify the reorganization of the letters of his name, Lenton concocts "I Valu Her Coyn," "I Valu Her Cony," and "Con Hie Lawyer." The two related epigrams expand upon these playful linkages between the law, money, and seduction. The first relates the economics of the legal profession to the negotiations between a man and a "handsome woman," and the second casts into a traditionally paternal light the lawyers' duty to maintain the high standards of his profession: Lawyers (although they use not to purloyne Like Usurers) yet by instinct, love coyn, And though distracted Clients doe him curse, If the cause crosse them, he's nere.the worse, Valuing his or hers, if his due fee: Or else his tongue will very silent be, Because each I n n contributed four Grand Masquers, the expected count of poems w o u l d be sixteen, but the total number comes to nineteen. For some reason, Lenton wrote two epigrams for the "hopefull Barrister, . . . the courteous and w e l l spoken, l o h n Crawley, Esq" (Gray's Inn) and t w o for "that loved Gentleman, Master A r t h u r Baker" (Inner Temple), whereas he wrote one f o r everyone else. Lenton also introduces the collection w i t h an a d d i t i o n a l epigram i n honour of Thomas Dayrell(Lincoln's Inn), w h o served as the M a r s h a l l of the procession—a role for w h i c h he was knighted "the day after the masque was performed at Whitehall, i n r e w a r d for his services" (Elliott 200).  168  But if faire vertue in her soule doth shine, (Which makes a mortal creature halfe divine) If coyn hee values more than that, his Name Himselfe and Anagram, shall beare the blame, Nor dare I thinke it, cause I know his merit In that great Masque spoke his more noble spirit. No, no, brave Masquers, all marke your lov'd Brother, Values a little of the one, and other. I heard some Lawyers, tho their fees be comon, Will take but small fees of a handsome woman: But tell you truely, he may value either, So that his valuation wrongeth neither, Which his mature judgement can decide, And safe twixt Scylla and Caribdis ride. Thus you may value both, but (rul'd by me) Nor Coyn nor Cony should have masterie. Exalt thy honour, Con, apply thy way In Law, that thou in Justice seate may sway The righteous Cause, and make the quarrell even, By which faire vertue, you aspire to heaven. Goe on then worthy Barrister, and be Thy Fathers equall in sincerity: Nor may the fallacies of time, nor age, Ecclipse thy glory on this terrene Stage. Con then, and higher rise in the Lawes lore, Comfort the rich, timely relieve the poore; Then shall your vertuous parts, & honour live, Till I can lave the Ocean with a sieve. The last anagram and epigram in the collection is written on "the courteous Gentleman, Master Stephen Jay" (Lincoln's Inn). The anagram of Jay's name, "A Hie Step In," introduces a theme of aspiration that the  169  epigram expands into an account of a law student's climb from the Inns to a position at court: the nature of the soule t'aspire, And upwards flie, like sparks or flames of fire, As not contented with this lower frame, But seeking still the place from whence it came, Which may the reason be as I suppose, Why higher spirits doe not here repose, And set their rest up with a competence, But strive for honour and magnificence. Thus by or wealth, or friends they favour win And to the height doe climbe, a hie step in; So this brave spirit by his resolv'd endeavour, Which in a vertuous path did still persever, By person, parts, and graces of the minde, The Fates to him a higher place assign'd, Fro Innes of Court (great'st Gentryes education) Unto the Royall Court in neare relation; And that I must account a step in [...p Which doth approach such twi[...] [...] lofty step indeed, where I desire [...] deserts may flourish, and grow higher, And that each Noble sparke of this brave train, May serve those Dieties without disdaine. Set on as this your Brother doth begin, From Innes of Court, to Court, a hie step in. 47  Here the Inns enjoy, at least in theory, the last word in the power-struggle that had destabilized many of London's institutions since the publication of Prynne's treatise. The image of the "hie step" that structures the epigram refers as much to the high culture of the court as to the increasing difficulties Certain words i n this line and the f o l l o w i n g three are illegible because a portion of the last page i n the original printed edition is missing.  170  involved in moving from legal commons to positions of influence outside the juridical field. The concluding line of Lenton's collection—"From Innes of Court, to Court, a hie step in"—grounds the generally jovial tone of his epigrams on a gentle hint of warning. We detect here a careful reference to the increasing frustration, felt both inside and outside the legal quarter, with the growing austerity of the Crown. The masque (s) that initiated these epigrams had everything to do with the new order of expensive mitigation demanded by Charles, and the grossly self-congratulatory tenor of the epigrams illustrates the desperate measures to which the Inns had to resort in order to preserve any sense of proprietorship of the common law. That even the Inns— traditionally one of London's most obstinate sets of institutions—were forced to be so overtly amiable in their dealings with Charles during this period was a vivid indicator of the not-so-symbolic violence that would face the Crown in years to come.  171  FIGURE 1  Detail from engraving in Michael Drayton's Poly-Olbion (1622 ed.) Courtesy Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library  172 FIGURE 2  THE  L E G A L QUARTER O F LONDON inihe Reign, of QUEEN ELIZABETH, 1563.  The legal quarter c.1563, detail from Ralph Agas's engraving of London From Six Lectures on the Inns of Court and of Chancery, W. B. Odgers, ed., p. 278  173 FIGURE 3  The legal quarter c.1570, detail from Ralph Agas's engraving of London From J. H. Baker's The Legal Profession and the Common Law, p. 44  The City of Westminster, detail from Ralph Agas's engraving of London From Ian Wilson's Shakespeare: The Evidence, plate 6  FIGURE 5  P L A N OF G R A Y ' S I N N HALL D U R I N G THE TERM 34'8"  4'7"  o  JJ  '6'"  W  8 1 Dais (Half-pace) 2 High Table 3 Bay Window  8'4" 4 Ancients' Table 5 Abacus 6 Fireplace  7 Students' Tables 8 Hall Screen  Michal Kobialka's d r a w i n g of Gray's I n n H a l l From Theatre History Studies 4 (1984): 74  Lawyer at client's deathbed, painting dated 1607 From Ian Wilson's Shakespeare: The Evidence, plate 48  177 FIGURE 7  The Forum of Peace, by Inigo Jones From A Book of Masques, R. F. Hill, ed., plate 17  178 FIGURE 8  The proscenium border of Triumph of Peace; by Inigo Jones From .4 Book of Masques, R. F. Hill, ed., plate 15  Imaginative reconstruction of the Blackfriars Playhouse From Irwin Smith's Shakespeare's Blackfriars Playhouse, p. 307  180 BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources Ailesbury, Thomas. Paganis?n and Papism: Parallel'd and Set Forth in a Sermon at the Temple-Church, upon the Feast day of All-Saints. London, 1624. Anonymous. "Lectura Richards Keble Arm:" Bodleian MS Rawlinson c.207. f.209. . Leycesters  Common-wealth.  London, 1641.  Bacon, Francis. The Elements of the Common Lawes of England. London, 1630. Beaumont, Francis. Grammar Lecture. Ed. Mark Eccles. Review of English Studies 16 (1940): 402-414. . The Knight of the Burning Pestle. London, 1607.  Bland, Desmond S., ed. Three Revels from the Inns of Court. Amsterdam: Avebury, 1984. Brathwaite, Richard. The English Gentleman. London, 1633. Browne, William. "The Masque of the Inner Temple [Ulysses and Circe]:" In A Book of Masques, ed. R. F. Hill, 179-206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Buc, George. "The Third Universitie of England. Or, a Treatise of the foundations of all the colledges, ancient schools of priviledge, and of houses of learning, and liberall arts, within and about the most famous cittie of London." In John Stow's Annales, or, A General Chronicle of England. London, 1631.1063-87. Chapman, George, Ben Jonson, and John Marston. Eastward Ho. Ed. R.W. Van Fossen. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1979. Coke, Edward. "A Reading on 27 Edward the First, called the Statute De Finibus levatis." In Three Law Tracts, ed. William Hawkins, 221-78. Abingdon: Professional Books Ltd., 1982. Le Second Part des Reportes. London, 1602.  181 . Le Quart Part des Reportes.  London, 1604.  . The First Part of the Institutes.  London, 1628.  . The Second Part of the Institutes. London, 1642.  Davies, John. The Poems of Sir John Davies. Ed. Robert Krueger. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. Day, John. Law-Tricks. London, 1608. Dekker, Thomas. The Dead Tearme. London, 1608. . The Seven Deadly Sinnes of London.  London, 1606.  . Warres, Warres, Warres. London, 1628. . The Young Gallant's Academy.  London, 1674.  D'Ewes^ Simonds. The Autobiography and Correspondence of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, Bart., during the Reigns of James Tand Charles I. 2 vols. Ed. James Orchard Halliwell. London: Richard Bentley, 1845. Dodderidge, John. The English Lawyer; Describing a Method for the Managing of the Lawes of England. London, 1631. . The Lawyer's Light: or, A Due Direction for the Study of the Law.  London, 1629. Donne, John. Donne: Poetical Works. Ed. Herbert J.C. Grierson. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991 [1929]. Drayton, Michael. Poly-Olbion.  London, 1622.  Dugdale, William. Origines Juridiciales. London, 1666. Fenton, Roger. A Treatise of Usurie. London, 1611. Feme, John. The Blazon of Gentrie. London, 1586.  Finch, Henrie. Law. Or, a Discourse Thereof in Foure Bookes. London, 1627. . A Summary of the Common Law of England. London, 1654.  Fitzgeoffrey, Henry. Satyres: and Satyricall Epigrams: with Certaine Observations at the Black-fryers. London, 1617.  182 Flaubert, Gustave. Sentimental  Education.  London: Penguin, 1964.  Fraunce, Abraham. Lawiers Logike, exemplifying the precepts of Logike by the practise of the common Lawe. London, 1588. Fulbecke, William. A Direction or Preparative to the Study of The Lawe. London, 1600. Gascoigne, George. The Complete Works of George Gascoigne. Ed. John W. Cunliffe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907. Gesta Grayorum. London, 1688. [Reprinted in The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth, ed. John Nichols, 262-353. New York: Burt  Franklin, 1823.] Gray's Inn. The Pension Book of Gray's Inn. Ed. Reginald J. Fletcher. London: Gray's Inn, 1901. Guilpin, Everard. Skialetheia. Or, A Shadowe of Truth in Certain Epigrams and Satyres. London, 1598.  Harington, John. The Letters and Epigrams of Sir John Harington. Ed. Norman Egbert McClure. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1930. Heath/John. The House of Correction, or, Certayne Satyricall Epigrams. London, 1619. Herbert, Henry. The Control and Censorship of Caroline Drama: The Records of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels, 1623-73. Ed. N. W. Bawcutt. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Homer; The Odyssey. Trans. Robert Fitzgerald. New York: Vintage, 1990 •[1961]. Inner Temple. Admissions to the Inner Temple to 1659. London: Inner Temple, 1954. . A Calendar of the Inner Temple Records,  vols!and 2. Ed. F. A.  Inderwick. London: Henry Sotheran, 1896. James I. Stuart Royal Proclamations. Ed. James F. Larkin and Paul L.Hughes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973. Legh, Gerard. Accedens of Armory. London, 1568.  183 Lenton, Francis. Characteismi: or, Lentous Leasures. London, 1631. . The Innes of Court Anagrammatist.  Anagrammes.  Or, the Masquers Masqued in  London, 1634.  . The Young Gallant's Whirligigg: or Youths Reakes. Demonstrating the inordinate affection, absurd actions, and profuse expences, of unbridled  and affectated youth. London, 1629.  Lincoln's Inn. The Records of the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn: The Black Books, vols 1 and 2. Ed. W. P. Baildon and R. F. Roxburgh. London: Lincoln's Inn, 1897. Lodge, Thomas. Alarum Against Usurers. London, 1584. . Wits Miserie, and the World's Madnesse: Discovering the Devils  Incarnat of this Age. London, 1596.  Manningham, John. The Diary of John Manningham of the Middle Temple, 1602-^1603. Ed. Robert Parker Sorlien. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, 1976. Middle Temple. Middle Temple Records, vols 1 and 2. Ed. Charles Trice Martin. London: Butterworth, 1904. . Register of Admissions to the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple. 2 vols. Ed. H. A. C. Sturgess. London: Middle Temple, 1949. . The Middle  Temple Bench Book.  Ed.J.Bruce Williamson. London:  Butterworth, 1937. Middleton, Thomas. Michaelmas Term and A Trick to Catch the Old One: A Critical Edition. Ed. George R. Price. Paris: Mouton, 1976. Nomotecnia: The arte of Lawe or the Lawyers Logique.  Bodleian MS Eng.  Misc. e.476. Parkes, W. The Curtaine-Drawer of the World, or, the Chamberlaine of that Great Inne of Iniquity. London, 1612.  Parrot, Henry. The Mastive or Young Whelpe of the Olde Dogge, Epigrams and Satires. London, 1615.  Prynne, William. Histriomastix. . The Vindication  London, 1633.  of William Prynne. London, 1648.  184 Riche, Barnabe. Faultes, Faultes, and Nothing Else but Faultes. London, 1606. . Roome for a Gentleman; or, the second part of faultes collected and gathred for the meridian of Dublin in Ireland. London, 1609. Saltern, George. Of the Ancient Lawes of Great Britaine. London, 1605. Selden Society. Readings and Moots at the Inns of Court in the Fifteenth  Century. 1990.  Ed. Samuel E. Thorne and J. H. Baker. London: Selden Society,  Shirley, James. The Triumph of Peace. London, 1633. Stow, John. Annales, or, A General Chronicle of England. London, 1631.  . A Survey of London. 2 vols. Ed. Charles Lethbridge Kingsford. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908. Whitelock, Bulstrode. Memorials of the English Affairs, London, 1682.  Secondary Sources Allinson, Helen. Bredgar: The History of a Kentish Parish. London: Synjon Books, 1997. Baker, J. H. "The English Legal Profession, 1450-1550." In Lawyers in Early Modern Europe and America, ed. Wilfrid Prest, 16-41. New York: Holmes and Meier, 1981. . The Legal Profession and the Common Law. London: Hambledon,  1986. . "The Original Inns of Court Law School." GRAY A 94 (1990): 13-15. .The Third University  of England, the Inns of Court and the Common  Law Tradition: Selden Society Lecture Delivered in the Old Hall of Lincoln's Inn, July 4, 1990. London: Selden Society, 1990. Ball, William. Lincoln's Inn: Its History and Traditions. London: Stevens  and Sons, 1947. Barton, D. P. Links between Shakespeare and the Law. London: Faber and Gwyer, 1929.  185 . The Story of our Inns of Court.  London: G. T. Foulis, 1924.  Bates, Catherine. The Rhetoric of Courtship in Elizabethan Language and Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Bellot, Hugh H. L. Gray's Inn and Lincoln's Inn. London: Methuen, 1925. . The Inner and Middle Temple: Legal, Literary, and Historic Associations. London: Methuen, 1902.  Billington, Sandra. Mock Kings in Medieval Society and Renaissance Drama. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Bland, Desmond S. A Bibliography of the Inns of Court and Chancery. London: Selden Society, 1965. . "Rhetoric and the Law Student in Sixteenth-Century England." Studies in Philology 54 (1957): 498-508. Bliss, Lee. Francis Beaumont. Boston: Twayne, 1987. Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984. . The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Ed. and  Trans. Randal Johnson. Cambridge: Polity, 1993. . "Flaubert's Point of View." Critical Inquiry 14 (1988): 539-62. , "The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field." Hastings Law Journal 38 (July 1987): 805-53. . In Other Words: Essays,Towards a Reflexive Sociology. Trans. Matthew Adamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. . Outline of a Theory of Practice.  Ed. Richard Nice. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1977. . The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field.  Trans.  Susan Emanuel. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992. . "Social Space and Symbolic Power." Sociological Theory 7 (1989): 14-25. Bourdieu, Pierre and Loic J.D. Wacquant. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992.  186 Bouwsma, William J. "Lawyers and Early Modern Culture." Historical  American  Review 78 (1973): 303-27.  Bowers, Rick. "Middleton's A Trick to Catch the Old One" The Explicator 51 (1993): 211-14. Bradbrook, M. C. John Webster: Citizen and Dramatist. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1980. Brand, Paul. The Origins of the English Legal Profession. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992. Brett-James, Norman G. The Growth of Stuart London. London: London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 1935. Bromham, Anthony A. "The Contemporary Significance of The Old Law." Studies in English Literature 24 (1984): 327-39.  Brooks, C. W. "The Common Lawyers in England, c.1558-1642." In Lawyers in Early Modern Europe and Am\erica, ed. Wilfrid Prest, 42-64. New York: Holmes and Meier, 1981. . "Litigants and Attorneys in the King's Bench and Common Pleas, 15601640." In Legal Records and the Historian, ed. J. H. Baker, 41-59. London: Royal Historical Society, 1978. Bruster, Douglas. Drama and the Market in the Age of Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Bullough, Geoffrey. "Donne: the Man of Law." m Just so Much Honor, ed. Peter A. Fiore, 57-94. University Park, PA: Perm State University Press, 1972. Burke, Peter. The Art of Conversation. Cambridge: Polity, 1993. . History and Social Theory.  Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992.  Burkhart, Robert E. "The Playing Space in the Halls of the Inns of Court." South Atlantic Review 56 (1991): 1-5. . "The Surviving Shakespearean Playhouses: The Halls of the Inns of Court and the Excavation of the Rose." Theatre History Studies 12(1992): 173-96. Butler, Martin. "Politics and the Masque: The Triumph of Peace." The Seventeenth Century 2 (1987): 117-41.  187 . "Private and Occasional Drama." In The Cambridge Companion to ed. A. R. Braunmuller and Michael Hattaway, 127-59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. English Renaissance Drama,  . "Reform or Reverence? The Politics of the Caroline Masque." In ed. J. R. Mulryne and Margaret Shewring, 148-56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Theatre and Government under the Early Stuarts,  . Theatre and Crisis, 1632-1642. Cambridge: Cambridge  University Press,  1984. Calhoun, Craig. "Habitus, Field, and Capital: The Question of Historical Specificity." In Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives, ed. Craig Calhoun, Edward LiPuma, and Moishe Postone, 61-88. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993. Caputi, Anthony. John Marston, Satirist. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1961. Cassidy, Brendan. "Telling Stories about Law." Law and Critique 2 (1991): 6384. Chakravorty, Swapan. Society and Politics in the Plays of Thomas Middleton. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Chroust, Anton-Hermann. "The Beginning, Flourishing, and Decline of the Inns of Court: The Consolidation of the English Legal Profession after 1400." Vanderbilt Law Review 10 (1956): 79-123.  Cohen Ralph Alan. "The Function of Setting in Eastward Ho." Renaissance Papers (1973): 83-96. r  Cohen, Stephen A. "The quality of mercy': Law, Equity and Ideology in The Merchant of Venice." Mosaic 27 (1994): 35-54.  Cook, Ann. The Privileged Playgoers of Shakesperare's London, 1576-1642. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981. Corthell, Ronald J. "'Coscus onely breeds my just offence': A Note on Donne's 'Satire II' and the Inns of Court." John Donne Journal 6 (1987): 25-31. Covatta, Anthony. Thomas Middleton's City Comedies. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1973. Cowper, Francis. "The Ancients of Gray's Inn." GRAYA  94 (1990): 11-12.  188 . A Prospect of Gray's Inn.  London: GRAYA, 1985.  Curtis, Mark H. "The Alienated Intellectuals of Early Stuart England." Past and Present 23 (1962): 25-43. Dean, D M . Law-Making and Society in Late Elizabethan England: The Parliament, 1584-1601. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Doebler, John. "Beaumont's The Knight of the Burning Pestle and the Prodigal Son Plays." Studies in English Literature 5 (1965): 333-44. Dutton, Richard. "Ben Jonson and the Master of the Revels." In Theatre and Government under the Early Stuarts, ed. J. R. Mulryne and Margaret Shewring, 57-86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Elias, Norbert. The Court Society. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983. Elias, Norbert and Eric Dunning. Quest for Excitement: Sport and Leisure in the Civilizing  Process. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.  Elliott, John R., Jr. "Drama at the Oxford Colleges and the Inns of Court, 15201534." Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama 31 (1992): 64-66. . "The Folger Manuscript of The Triumph of Peace Procession." English Manuscript Studies, 1100-1700, ed. Peter Beal and Jeremy  In Griffiths, 193-215. vol 3. London: The British Library and University of Toronto Press, 1992. Elton, G.R. "The Rule of Law in Sixteenth-century England." In Tudor Men and Institutions: Studies in English Law and Government, ed. Arthur J. Slavin, 265-94. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1972. Evans, David. "The Very Peculiar Inns of Court." In The Inns of Court, ed. Helene Binet, 153-60. London: Black Dog, 1996. Finkelpearl, Philip J. John Marston of the Middle Temple: An Elizabethan Dramatist in his Social Setting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969. . '"The comedian's liberty': Censorship of the Jacobean stage Reconsidered." English Literary Renaissance 16 (1986): 123-38. Fisher, F. J. "The Development of London as a Centre of Conspicuous Consumption in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries." Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 30 (1948): 37-50.  189 . "The Growth of London." In The English Revolution, 1600-1660, ed. E.  W. Ives, 76-86. London: Edward Arnold, 1968. Fisher, R. M. "The Reformation of Clergy at the Inns of Court 1530-1580." Sixteenth Century Journal 12 (1981): 69-91.  Foakes> R. A. "Playhouses and Players." In The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama, ed. A. R. Braunmuller and Michael Hattaway, 1-52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Forker, Charles R. Skull Beneath the Skin: The Achievement of John  Webster. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1986. Fortier, Mark. "Equity and Ideas: Coke, Ellesmere, and James I." Renaissance Quarterly 51 (1998): 1255-81. Fowler/Bridget. Pierre Bourdieu and Cultural Theory: Critical Investigations.  Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1997. Freedman, Barbara. Staging the Gaze: Postmodernism, Psychoanalysis, and Shakespearean Comedy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991. Gair, Reavley. The Children of Paul's: the Story of a Theatre Company, 1553-  1608. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Gayley, Charles Mills. Beaumont, the Dramatist: A Portrait. New York: Russell and Russell, 1914.  Goodrich, Peter. "Eating Law: Commons, Common Land, Common Law." The Journal of Legal History 12 (1991): 246-67. .Languages of Law: From Logics of Memory to Nomadic Masks.  London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1990. . Law in the Courts of Love: Literature and Other Minor Jurisprudences.  London: Routledge, 1996. . Legal Discourse: Studies in Linguistics, Rhetoric and Legal Analysis.  London: Macmillan, 1987. .Reading the Law: A Critical Introduction to Legal Method and Techniques. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.  - . "Specula Laws: Image, Aesthetic, and Common Law." Law and Critique 2 (1991): 233-54.  190 Grasdert, J. H. College Life in the Time of James the First, as Illustrated by an Unpublished Diary of Sir Simonds D'Ewes. London: John W. Parker, 1851. Green, Ad win Wigfall. The Inns of Court and Early English Drama. New  Haven: Yale University Press, 1931. Guillory, John. "Bourdieu's Refusal." Modern Language Quarterly 58 (December 1997): 367-98. Gurr, Andrew. Playgoing in Shakespeare's London. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Hall, Clifford. "Francis Bacon and Law Reform." GRAY A 90 (1986): 13-20. Hartley, Lawrence. "Proverbs, Epigrams, and Urbanity in Renaissance London." English Literary Renaissance 15 (1985): 26.  Harbage, Alfred; Shakespeare and the Rival Traditions. New York: Macmillan, 1952. Hart, E. A.P. The Hall of the Inner Temple. London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1952. Hattaway, Michael. "Drama and Society." In The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama, ed. A. R. Braunmuller and Michael  Hattaway, 91-126. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Heal, Felicity. "The Crown, the Gentry, and London: The Enforcement of Proclamation, 1596-1640." In Law and Government under the Tudors, ed.  Claire Cross, David Loades, and J. J. Scarisbrick, 211-26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Heinemann, Margot. "Political Drama." In The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama, ed. A. R. Braunmuller and Michael  Hattaway, 161-206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Helgerson, Richard. The Elizabethan Prodigals. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976. . Forms of Nationhood: The Elizabethan Writing of England. Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1992. . "Writing against Writing: Humanism and the Form of Coke's Institutes." Modern Language Quarterly 51 (1990): 224-48.  191 Hirst, Derek. Authority and Conflict: England, 1603-1658. London: Edward Arnold, 1986. Holmes, Martin. Elizabethan London. London: Cassell, 1969. Horwich, Richard. "Hamlet and Eastward Ho." Studies in English Literature  11 (1971): 223-33. Hudson, Roger. Fleet Street, Holborn, and the Inns of Court. London:  Haggerston, 1995. Ives, E. W. The Common Lawyers of Pre-Reformation England. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1983. . "Law, History, and Society: an Eternal Triangle." In Law, Litigants, and the Legal Profession, ed. E. W. Ives and A. H. Manchester, 3-10. London: Royal Historical Society, 1983. . "Social Change and the Law." In The English Revolution, 1600-1660,  ed. E. W. Ives, 115-30. London: Edward Arnold, 1968. Jardine, Lisa. 'The Place of Dialectic Teaching in Sixteenth-Century Cambridge." Studies in the Renaissance 21 (1974): 31-62. Kearney, Hugh. Scholars and Gentlemen: Universities and Society in Pre-  Industrial Britain, 1500-1700. London: Faber and Faber, 1970. Keeton, George W. Shakespeare's Legal and Political Background. London:  Pitman and Sons, 1967. Knafla, Louis A. "The Matriculation Revolution and Education at the Inns of Court in Renaissance England." In Tudor Men and Institutions: Studies in English Law and Government, ed. Arthur J. Slavin, 232-64. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1972. Knapp, Margaret and Michal Kobialka. "Shakespeare and the Prince of Purpoole: the 1594 Production of The Comedy of Errors at Gray's Inn Hall." Theatre History Studies 4 (1984): 70-81. Knight, W. Nicholas. "Comic Twins at the Inns of Court." Publications of the Missouri Philological Association 4 (1979): 74-82.  Knowles, James. "The Spectacle of the Realm: Civic Consciousness, Rhetoric and Ritual in Early Modern London." In Theatre and Government Under the Early Stuarts, ed. J. R. Mulryne and Margaret Shewring, 157-89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.  192 Lamont, William M. Marginal Prynne, 1600-1669. London: Routledge, 1963.  Lee, Ross. "Family, Neighbourhood and Opportunity: Bedfordshire Entrants to Gray's Inn, 1590-1640." GRAYA 90 (1986): 39-41. Leggatt, Alexander. Citizen Comedy in the Age of Shakespeare. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1973. Lehmann, John. Holborn: An Historical Portrait of a London Borough.  London: Macmillan, 1970. Leinwand, Theodore B. "Redeeming Beggary/Buggary in Michaelmas Term." English Literary History 61 (1994): 53-70. Lemmings, David. Gentlemen and Barristers: The Inns of Court and the English Bar, 1680-1730. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Levin, Richard. The Multiple Plot in English Renaissance Drama. Chicago:  The University of Chicago Press, 1971. Limon, Jerzy. "Neglected Evidence for James Shirley's The Triumph of Peace" Records of Early English Drama Newsletter 13 (1988): 2-9.  . The Masque of Stuart Culture. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1990. Lockyer, Roger. The Early Stuarts: A Political History of England, 1603-1642.  London: Longman, 1989. Loftie, William J. The Inns of Court and Chancery. London: Seeley, 1895. Macdonald, Keith M. The Sociology of the Professions. London: Sage, 1995. MacKinnon, Frank Douglas. Inner Temple Papers. London: Stevens and Sons, 1948. Maitland, F. W. English Law and the Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1901. Manley, Lawrence. Literature and Culture in Early Modern London.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. McGee, C. E. '"Strangest consequence from remotest cause': the second performance of The Triumph of Peace." Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England: An Annual Gathering of Research, Criticism, and Reviews 5 (1991): 309-42.  193 Messina, Joseph. "The Moral Design of A Trick to Catch the Old One." In "Accompaninge the players": Essays Celebrating Thomas Middleton, 15801980, ed. Kenneth Friedenreich, 109-32. New York: AMS, 1983.  Moi, Toril. "The Challenge of the Particular Case: Bourdieu's Sociology of Culture and Literary Criticism." Modern Language Quarterly 58 (December 1997): 497-508. Mount, David B. "The '[Unjreclaymed forme' of Middleton's A Trick to Catch the Old One." Studies in English Literature 31 (1991): 259-72.  Neill, Michael. '"Wits most accomplished senate': The Audience of the Caroline Private Theatres." Studies in English Literature 18 (1978): 341-60. Odgers, W. B., ed. Six Lectures on the Inns of Court and of Chancery.  London: Macmillan, 1912. Orbison, Tucker. "Research Opportunities at the Inns of Court." Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama 20 (1977): 27-33. Orgel, Stephen. Impersonations: The Performance of Gender in Shakespeare's England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. . The Illusion of Power: Political Theatre in the English Renaissance.  Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975. Orgel, Stephen and Roy Strong. Inigo Jones: The Theatre of the Stuart Court.  Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. Palme, Per. Triumph of Peace: A Study of the Whitehall Banquetting House.  Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell, 1956. Parry, Graham. The Trophies of Time: English Antiquarians of the Seventeenth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Patterson, Annabel. Censorship and Interpretation: The Conditions of Writing and Reading in Early Modern England. Madison: University of  Wisconsin Press, 1984. Peck, Linda Levy. Court Patronage and Corruption in Early Stuart England.  Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1990. Phillips, O. Hood. Shakespeare and the Lawyers. London: Methuen, 1972.  194 Power, M. J. "The East and West in Early-Modern London." In Wealth and Power in Tudor England: Essays Presented to S. T. Bindoff, ed. E. W. Ives,  R. J. Knecht, and J. J. Scarisbrick, 167-85. London: Athlone, 1978. Prest, Wilfrid R. "The English Bar, 1550-1700." In Lawyers in Early Modern Europe and America, ed. Wilfrid Prest, 65-85. New York: Holmes and Meier, 1981. . The Inns of Court under Elizabeth I and the Early Stuarts, 1590-1640.  Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1972. . "Legal Education of the Gentry at the Inns of Court, 1560-1640." Past and Present 38 (1967): 20-39. Raffield, Paul. "The Separate Art Worlds of Dreamland and Drunkenness: Elizabethan Revels at the Inns of Court." Law and Critique 8 (1997): 16388. Richardson, W. C. A History of the Inns of Court: with Special Reference to  the Period of the Renaissance. Baton Rouge: Claitor's Publishing Division, 1975. Rodgers, C. P. "Humanism, History, and the Common Law." The Journal of Legal History 6 (1985): 129-56. Ross, Trevor. '"Pure poetry': Cultural Capital and the Rejection of Reason." Modern Language Quarterly 58 (December 1997): 437-56. Schoeck, R. J. "The Elizabethan Society of Antiquaries and Men of the Law." Notes and Queries 199 (1954): 417-21. . "Rhetoric and Law in Sixteenth-Century England." Studies in Philology 50(1953): 110-27. Shapiro, Michael. Children of the Revels: The Boy Companies of Shakespeare's Time and their Plays. New York: Columbia University  Press, 1977. Sharpe, Kevin. Politics and Ideas in Early Stuart England: Essays and Studies.  London: Pinter, 1989. Sheppard, Francis. London: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Sigalas, Joseph G. "Sailing Against the Tide: Resistance to Pre-colonial Constructs and Euphoria in Eastward Ho!" Renaissance Papers (1994): 8594.  195 Simpson, A. W. B. "The Legal Treatise and Legal Theory." In Law, Litigants, and the Legal Profession, ed. E. W. Ives and A. H. Manchester, 11-38. London: Royal Historical Society, 1983. Smith, Alan G. R. "Constitutional Ideas and Parliamentary Developments in England, 1603-1605." In The Reign of James VI and I, ed. A. G. R. Smith, 160-76. London: Macmillan, 1973. Smith, Irwin. Shakespeare's Blackfriars Playhouse: Its History and Its Design.  New York: New York University Press, 1964. Smuts, R. Malcolm. Court Culture and the Origins of a Royalist Tradition in  Early Stuart England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987. Stone, Lawrence. The Crisis of the Aristocracy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. . "The Educational Revolution in England, 1560-1640." Past and Present 28 (1964): 41-80. Stone, Lawrence and Jeanne C. Fawtier Stone. An Open Elite? England 15401880. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. Supple, Barry. "Class and Social Tension: the Case of the Merchant." In The English Revolution, 1600-1660, ed. E. W. Ives, 131-43. London: Edward Arnold, 1968. Swartz, David. Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu.  Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997. Venuti, Lawrence. "The Politics of Allusion: The Gentry and Shirley's The Triumph of Peace." English Literary Renaissance 16 (1986): 182-205.  Wacquant, Loic J. D. "Towards a Reflexive Sociology: a Workshop with Pierre Bourdieu." Sociological Theory 7 (1989): 26-58. Wallace, C. W. Children of the Chapel at the Blackfriars, 1597-1603. Lincoln:  University of Nebraska Press, 1983. Watson, Andrew G. The Library of Sir Simonds D'Ewes. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1966. Wharton, T. F. The Critical Fall and Rise of John Marston. Columbia, SC:  Camden House, 1994.  196 Whigham, Frank. Ambition and Priviledge: The Social Tropes of Elizabethan Courtesy Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.  Whitted, Brent. "Transforming the (Common)place: The Performance of William Browne's Ulysses and Circe in Inner Temple Hall." Theatre History Studies 19 (1999): 151-66. Williams, Elijah. Early Holborn and the Legal Quarter of London, A Topographical Survey of the Beginnings of the District Known as Holborn and of the Inns of Court and of Chancery. 2 vols. London: Sweet and  Maxwell, 1927. Wilson, Ian. Shakespeare: The Evidence. London: Headline Book Publishing, 1993.  Winn, Peter A. "Legal Ritual." Law and Critique 2 (1991): 207-32. Yachnin, Paul. "The Powerless Theatre." English Literary Renaissance 21 (1991): 49-74.  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items