Records Of Early English Drama Research Articles

Review: Jahn A. Geck, ed. "Records of Early English Drama: Cambridgeshire"

Review: Jahn A. Geck, ed. "Records of Early English Drama: Cambridgeshire"

Perambulation and Performance in Early Modern Festive Culture

This essay examines the performative aspect of observances and festivities associated with Rogationtide, or ‘perambulation day’, in early modern England. After considering pre- and post-Reformation Rogationtide traditions, it identifies how these occasions were an opportunity for communities and parishes to reflect upon and consolidate local boundaries and identities. It also explores how documentary evidence for perambulations broadens critical understandings of the mimetic, musical, and festive activities recorded in the Records of Early English Drama (REED) project, posing methodological questions about using performance as well as mimesis as a characteristic determining a record’s inclusion in a REED collection.

Introduction: Rethinking Performance in Early Modern England

This Early Theatre ‘Issues in Review’ explores concepts of ‘performance’ in late medieval and early modern England. Responding to current work on drama, festivity and spectatorship, and to the ongoing editorial project Records of Early English Drama (REED), essays address questions such as: what constitutes performance in pre-modern contexts? where, and in what types of texts, can evidence of medieval and early modern performance be located? and what can rethinking ideas of performance and sources do for critical understanding of medieval and early modern culture and drama?
 [Please note this Abstract and Title are for the whole 'Issues in Review'.]

MacLean, Sally-Beth, and Alan Somerset, co-directors. Records of Early English Drama: Patrons & Performances (REED: P&P). Other

MacLean, Sally-Beth, and Alan Somerset, co-directors. Records of Early English Drama: Patrons & Performances (REED: P&P). Other

The Earls of Derby and the Early Modern Performance Culture of North-West England

The Earls of Derby and the Early Modern Performance Culture of North-West England Elspeth Graham This issue of Shakespeare Bulletin is concerned with the 3rd to 7th Earls of Derby, their patronage roles, and other involvements in performance cultures in the early modern period. This forms one central strand of research into the early modern theatrical history of the small town of Prescot (now in Liverpool City Region's Borough of Knowsley; formerly in south Lancashire). It is this history, and the connections between Knowsley and Shakespearean theatre which it evidences, that inform the current Shakespeare North Playhouse Project, a major, heritage-based, urban regeneration initiative that has been developing for over a decade and which is now coming to fruition. The project commemorates Knowsley's early modern theatrical heritage by building the Shakespeare North Playhouse, a replica of Inigo Jones's/John Webbs's Cockpit-in-Court theatre enclosed in a modern wraparound building housing community and education activities, and surrounded by a performance garden. Construction of the Playhouse began in 2019 and it will open in 2022 with a program of retained and associated companies performing both Shakespeare's plays and other forms of drama in the Cockpit-in-Court theatre, as well as educational programs based in the surrounding modern building but extending into the wider community and its schools, colleges, and universities. The project overall takes its impetus from knowledge of the littlerecognized—and perhaps surprising—level of Knowsley's Elizabethan and Jacobean dramatic activity and interests. Retrieval of historical understanding of theatrical activity in Knowsley has, over recent decades, revealed two centrally-intertwined stories. There is, firstly, that of the Lancashire-based Earls of Derby: courtiers, local magnates and theatrical patrons, one of whose major residences, Knowsley Hall, bordered the [End Page 311] town of Prescot (as it still does today, as the Merseyside home of the 19th Earl and Countess of Derby). Then, secondly, there is the history of the "play howse," "lusorium," or "theatrum" in Prescot itself—the earliest known Elizabethan, purpose-built playhouse outside London. The intersection of these two narrative strands also brings north west England, as a specific regional locality, into dialogue with the royal courts of the period and London as England's burgeoning metropolis, embodying national concerns and cultures. A similar dialogue between region and metropolis also relates to our contemporary world and the Shakespeare North project. While the significance of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Earls of Derby, for whom dramatic patronage was, as Sally-Beth MacLean has put it, "a family tradition," has been relatively well established in the past, recent research has enriched, extended, and reconfigured perception of their roles (MacLean, "Family"; Manley and MacLean). Such research informs the articles included in this issue. The story of the Prescot playhouse is perhaps less generally-recognized than that of the Earls of Derby. But it has been known since the 1950s, when the local historian, F. A. Bailey, brought its existence to light, that a purpose-built theatre existed from the 1590s to the early 1600s in the small (both today and in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries) town of Prescot (Bailey, "Playhouse"). While David George, both in his work as editor of the Lancashire volume of Records of Early English Drama, and in a separate essay, has directly considered the significance of this early theatre, and others have mentioned the Prescot playhouse in passing, little dedicated research into its existence, other than that related to the Shakespeare North project, has been published (REED. Lancashire; George, "Playhouse"; Graham and Tyler). Knowledge of the existence of this Prescot playhouse derives largely from town records: the Prescot Court Leet records; the accounts of its Grammar School; and some miscellaneous letters and notes. And, since a particular feature of Prescot's history was (and still is) its relationship to King's College, Cambridge—as the town's advowson was held by the College—further information is found in its archives. (Henry VI had gifted the Manor and Rectory of Prescot to King's College as part of its endowment in 1447, so that the town was under the College's governance and paid rents to it both in...

They Got it Wrong: How the Misunderstanding of the Nature of the Creation to Judgment Manuscripts of the English Biblical Drama Distorted our Knowledge of the Genre

Biblical drama performed in the late medieval period all over England was condemned and largely destroyed by the religious and political struggles of the mid to late sixteenth century. What little was saved by seventeenth-century antiquarians came to the attention of nineteenth-century protestant scholars in Britain and America whose prejudice against Roman Catholicism and their misunderstanding of the nature of the few surviving manuscripts led them to imagine a form of dramatic presentation that never existed. Since the twentieth century the public and professional production of this drama, the creation of new scholarly editions and the availability of hitherto unknown external evidence of performance practice through Records of Early English Drama has created a new understanding of the dramatic tradition from which Shakespeare grew.

Who Performed at Newington Butts in May 1586?

While recent studies offer new information about companies that used the Playhouse at Newington Butts from 1575 to 1594, mystery remains about the identity of the company that performed there in contravention of a restraint in May 1586. Using evidence related to the movements of companies active in 1586, particularly from the Records of Early English Drama (reed), this article offers an answer based on a process of elimination. After ruling out other options, the article explains why a fragment of Leicester’s Men likely performed at Newington for a short time before joining the earl on his diplomatic campaign in Europe.

Trumpeters from China in Bristol in 1577?

This note corrects the impression given in the Bristol Records of Early English Drama (REED) that five trumpeters from China performed for the mayor, aldermen, and common council of Bristol in November 1577. Rather, the note points out that the trumpeters were likely English and were associated with the return of Martin Frobisher’s second northwest passage expedition that fall.

Records of Early English Drama: Civic London to 1558, ed. Anne Lancashire

Records of Early English Drama: Civic London to 1558, ed. Anne Lancashire

Shakespeare's Medieval Craft: Remnants of the Mysteries on the London Stage by Kurt A. Schreyer

Reviewed by: Shakespeare's Medieval Craft: Remnants of the Mysteries on the London Stage by Kurt A. Schreyer Ruth Morse (bio) Kurt A. Schreyer. Shakespeare's Medieval Craft: Remnants of the Mysteries on the London Stage. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2014. Pp. xviii + 258. $49.95. This is a first book, with all that that implies: the courage of discovery, wide reading, an assurance about putting past (and not so past) scholars right while approving the methodologically congenial, as well as confidence in its argument. The risk is always that in the search for support in like-minded books, scholars fail to consider the assessments of and reactions to those books; it is difficult not to believe what we want to be true, and perhaps we don't talk enough with people from other disciplines. The title is clear: it belongs to the growing chorus that insists upon continuity between an undemarcated "Middle Ages" and a "Renaissance" that focuses on Shakespeare in order to claim for him immediate experience of the Mystery Plays, those cycles that made summer holidays attractive for pageantry. Although Schreyer certainly knows that he should be careful, he cannot help slipping into making Shakespeare the center. Writing about how theatre audiences might have learned to recognize the below-stage trap as a door to Purgatory, he claims that "before and during Shakespeare's boyhood, the teachings, objects, and practices associated with Purgatory underwent a profound repudiation" (114), using Shakespeare as a proxy for a period of confusion as well as change. He forgets the huge variety of the population. His major success is to have used the succeeding announcements known as the Chester Banns, official documents now available in the REED (Records of Early English Drama) volume for Cheshire, which supported the continuation of cycle plays for the civic pride of Chester, their guilds, and people who came to watch them. That is, they resisted attempts to suppress old-fashioned religious plays in order to support a complex and popular civil activity based on tradition and historical precedent. It is amusing to find Ranulph Higden, the fourteenth-century translator of Bartholomeus Anglicus as well as a certain amount of historiography, being referred to as one of the Ancients of the city. But it must be [End Page 116] understood that Schreyer's title begs the question and reproduces the narrowing of view which is the name "Shakespeare." The book is not mainly about Shakespeare, but Shakespeare serves as a proxy for proof. The core of his work lies in the three central chapters of examination of the material continuities from the cycle plays to early modern London drama: the ass's head prop, Purgatory, and the Harrowing of Hell. His three rather different examples say much about the research that has gone into the making of the book but are, perhaps necessarily, diffuse. In chapter 3 (the "Ass's Head" chapter) he tells us a lot about anti-Catholic mockery of the Pope, but does not seem to know what to do with what he's found. The ass is a protean trope for many things, not least a huge phallus, but—like the dunce, mumming, and mummery—the sexual importance of the Ass and its Bottom make no clear contribution. He jumps past other manifestations of popular drama in the Middle Ages to construct a line of descent from the Mysteries to the death of Shakespeare. The REED series has, as time has gone on, performed a phoenix-like self-destruction and reconstruction, demonstrating how many false starts there were in the project that have been self-corrected by the evidence as it has accrued. But problems continue to arise. Not least is the usual problem of assuming that the documents in the REED volumes were read by numerous people, believed by many, or likely to represent widespread current views. It is the same mistake often made about the polemics against the London theatre and its actors. Right at the beginning he chides E. K. Chambers for glorifying Shakespeare at the expense of a little-studied Middle Ages, but many of the documents we now take for granted were unavailable, though Chambers and Bentley...

Anne Lancashire and David J. Parkinson (eds.), Records of Early English Drama: Civic London to 1558. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2015. 3 vols., cciv + 1591pp. Select bibliography. Maps. Symbols. Translations. Glossaries. £195.00; US $340.00 hbk.

Anne Lancashire and David J. Parkinson (eds.), Records of Early English Drama: Civic London to 1558. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2015. 3 vols., cciv + 1591pp. Select bibliography. Maps. Symbols. Translations. Glossaries. £195.00; US $340.00 hbk. - Volume 42 Issue 4

The Queen’s Dumbshows: John Lydgate and the Making of Early Theater by Claire Sponsler (review)

Reviewed by: The Queen’s Dumbshows: John Lydgate and the Making of Early Theater by Claire Sponsler Emma Lipton Claire Sponsler. The Queen’s Dumbshows: John Lydgate and the Making of Early Theater. The Middle Ages Series. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014. Pp. vii + 308 + 7 plates. $65.00. Claire Sponsler’s admirable new book is a corrective to the vision of John Lydgate as a writer of court, monastery, and city that puts his dramatic entertainments at the center of inquiry. This focus is an alternative to the centrality of urban religious drama in recent medieval criticism and to the frequent omission of Lydgate from histories of early theatre, but Sponsler also has a more ambitious agenda. “Attending to theater history,” she argues, calls for a “rethinking of the development of vernacular literature in England” (4) and acknowledging a “conflict between poetry and performance as forms of cultural prestige in late medieval England” (5). The “London-based, secular, and Chaucer-centered canon,” she claims, represents “only a slim segment of the corpus of imaginative writings in Middle English” and does not account for the “many other works that were widely heard and seen—in mimetic performances, viva voce recitations, processional tableaux, wall hangings, or on the page of manuscript books” (4). Through analysis of Lydgate’s mixed-media productions, Sponsler puts “theatricality” rather than poetry “at the hub of public culture” (11). The Records of Early English Drama (REED) project has for decades encouraged and facilitated the expansion of archival work on the drama beyond the play texts themselves to consider a range of records documenting performance. Building on the research for her recent TEAMS edition of Lydgate’s mummings and entertainments, Sponsler employs a dazzling array of records and also theorizes the ways that “the materiality of both performances and their [End Page 381] written residue” (15) shapes drama studies. Ultimately, Sponsler uses the archive to produce not a history of performance but a cultural history of the meanings of performance. As Sponsler notes, Lydgate’s dramatic works are by a known author and a known compiler, John Shirley, who often added rubrics that spoke to details of performance, audience, and occasion, providing a unique and underutilized resource for studying early English theatre. In her first chapter, Sponsler observes that Shirley did not include markers of performance within the body of the text (such as costumes, gestures, staging), tending to emphasize the “literariness” of Lydgate’s dramatic works, rather than their theatricality, perhaps converting them into texts for private reading that could have been produced specifically for the Beauchamp household in the 1420s. She notes that the mise-en-page of Lydgate’s plays and poems in Shirley’s anthology are the same, suggesting the “flexibility of texts in this period” (25) and the fact that “the generic definition of a play was in flux throughout the premodern period” (30). While the book begins by emphasizing the unique archive of Lydgate’s performance pieces, the last chapter, “On Drama’s Trail,” by contrast, addresses the practical difficulties of drama research through a case study of A Mumming of Seven Philosophers, a moralistic poem contained in a miscellany (Cambridge, Trinity College Library MA R.3.19) along with selections from several works known to be by Lydgate. Through a study of scribal hand, language, style, thematic content, and records of court entertainments, Sponsler makes a tentative case for attributing this poem to Lydgate and for locating the performance venue in the court of Henry VI. Her larger purpose is to demonstrate the simultaneously essential and inconclusive nature of documentary research on the drama. The penultimate titular chapter is characteristic of the book’s movement among astute detailed readings of Lydgate’s texts, contextual documents, and large claims about dramatic history. For example, Sponsler quotes from the Parliamentary statute of 1427–28 stating that anyone marrying the dowager queen Catherine without the king’s permission would forfeit his land and possessions during his lifetime. This statute also established that the infant king could only give permission to marry his mother after he came of age. Similarly, at the end of the “Hertford Mumming,” the King defers judgment on a...

Records of Early English Drama: A Retrospective

The Records of Early English Drama, founded in 1976, remains a productive humanities research project, with thirty-three volumes in print and two open access research and educational websites to date. This retrospective essay reflects on the individuals who contributed to its founding and evolution; the establishment of systematic research and editorial principles for an international team of contributors; the challenges of funding a collaborative enterprise with long term goals; some of its key contributions to the field of theatre history; and the transition from a print-based series to REED Online, a multi-faceted digital enterprise. In summary, while the re-envisioning of REED as an interoperable research and educational online resource represents a major shift in editorial and publication processes, the core values of the project remain intact: to work together in interdisciplinary collaboration with like-minded partners to deliver the results of systematic research in early theatre to as wide an audience as possible in the twenty-first century.
 Le Records of Early English Drama, fondé en 1976, consiste toujours en un projet fructueux de recherche en sciences humaines, totalisant à ce jour 33 volumes imprimés et deux sites web ouverts de recherche et d’éducation. Cet article rétrospectif se penche sur les personnes ayant contribué à sa fondation et son évolution, l’établissement d’une systématique de recherche et de principes éditoriaux à l’intention d’une équipe internationale de contributeurs, les défis de financer un projet collectif avec des objectifs à long terme, quelques unes de ses principales contributions dans le domaine de l’histoire du théâtre, et la transition d’une publication imprimée vers le format REED Online, un projet numérique polyvalent. En effet, bien que la transformation du projet en une ressource collaborative REED de recherche et d’enseignement en ligne représente un changement majeur dans les processus éditoriaux et de publication, les valeurs centrales du projet demeurent inchangées : le projet vise toujours la collaboration interdisciplinaire avec des partenaires ayant la même approche afin d’obtenir des résultats de recherche systématique en histoire du théâtre, et à les rendre disponibles à un public aussi large que possible en ce vingt-et-unième siècle.

Shared Borders: The Puppet in Ben Jonson’s <em>Bartholomew Fair</em>

The Records of Early English Drama from Kent, Somerset, and Cambridge reveal connotations of vagrancy, transgressive sexual behavior, and theft associated with both puppets and puppeteers. Puppets had been commonplace for over 300 years before Jonson features them in his 1614 Bartholomew Fair . From the puppets’ first appearance in the list of the ‘Persons of the Play’ to the puppets’ triumph in the final scene, puppets-as-props and puppets-as-players are conflated with actors, exposing the tensions along shared material borders. The puppets both mimic and parody the social construction of the self. Theatrical props such as handkerchiefs and gloves materialized value, power, and sexual availability. They represent and often commodify the absent human character, becoming extensions of the human body.

:Records of Early English Drama: Inns of Court

:<i>Records of Early English Drama: Inns of Court</i>

Preface

Preface DAVID MILLS University of Liverpool Medieval Drama first knew it was medieval in the late sixteenth century and it betrayed itself into painting a picture of itself as peasant drama in the Later Chester Banns: By Craftes men and meane men these Pageanntes are played And to Commons & Contrymen accustomablye before.1 This view was readily adopted by antiquarians and picked up in scholarly histories. For E. K. Chambers, in 1903, this drama had its roots in church liturgy and only became drama as such when it left the church and became fully secularized.2 Here was an example, it seems, of truly popular drama from the people, by the people, for the people. So this view prevailed up to the midtwentieth century when a sudden renaissance of early drama scholarship came about. Surprisingly, very little attention had, up to that time, been given to these plays and the evidence for their production. It is true that the censorship of the Lord Chamberlain, preventing God from being acted on a stage by a human being, also precluded performance experiments, but in 1951 the ban was ignored when the government urged a number of cities to celebrate the Festival of Britain by putting on their plays as examples of their and the country’s heritage. Although these productions were on fixed sets and for paying audiences , the attention of the citizens was drawn to the quality of their texts and stagecraft, especially at York. There had also been individual scholars who were not convinced of the validity of the critical framework established by Chambers, though he was still regarded as the great authority, to the degree that I was told by Glynn Wickham that his Early English Stages was initially turned down by an academic press because Chambers had said all that was needed on the subject.3 But it was the 1965 book by Hardison that fully exposed the pre-suppositions 1 Chester’s later Banns are found in REED: Chester, ed. by Lawrence M. Clopper (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1979), pp. 285–95. 2 E. K. Chambers, The Mediaeval Stage (London: Oxford University Press, 1903). 3 Glynne Wickham, Early English Stages,  to  (London: Routledge and Paul; New York, Columbia University Press, 1959). Yearbook of English Studies, 43 (2013), 1–3© Modern Humanities Research Association 2013 and short-comings of Chambers’ approach and, in a way, cleared the path for a new look at the evidence for the production of these early plays.4 Additional impetus resulted from the growth of departments of drama in universities and colleges with their focus on performance and the gradual shift of emphasis in English departments from a focus purely on the words of the text to a concern to develop a language for exploring the visual as well. By now, individuals had begun to produce new, accurate editions of all categories of the early plays, not just the large cycles, and were looking at the contexts for their performance through the exploration of contemporary documentary evidence and modern productions both in academic and civic and community centres. Many younger scholars were drawn to the study of early drama by the fascination of what was not known and waiting to be discovered and, perhaps too, by the fact that this ‘new’ subject had no scholarly hierarchy. Informal, friendly meetings between people of shared enthusiasms and like minds were soon formalized on both sides of the Atlantic (Medieval English Theatre (METh), Leeds Medieval Congress, and Records of Early English Drama (REED)) and slightly more recently in Europe (Société Internationale pour l’étude du théâtre médiéval (SITM)) into regular conferences where ideas were and are shared and debated, accompanied by performances that trigger yet more ideas. By far the most ambitious project undertaken is that of REED which has broken the boundaries between the plays and other kinds of entertainment , medieval and renaissance, and has broken too the monopoly among scholarly priorities that were, in the past, given to Shakespeare and the London theatres. A teacher of the renaissance revival of medieval drama has, since the midtwentieth century, been concerned not only for what the text means but also how the...

The Early English Passion Play

This discussion challenges the common understanding that biblical drama in England was dominated by ‘mystery plays’, narrowly understood to be cycles of short pageants, by drawing attention to the evidence for large-scale Passion Plays comparable with those better known from France and Burgundy. In so doing, it makes no apology for standing on the shoulders of Peter Meredith's work on the N-Town manuscript, and with John Tailby on the texts and documents illustrating the variety of staging of religious drama across Europe, as well as Meg Twycross's work on devisor Felsted of London, all of which demonstrate that this material has been available in the public domain for some years. Just as the N-Town Plays were still believed in some quarters to come from Coventry as late as the mid-twentieth century, although Francis Douce knew they did not almost 150 years earlier, so too the domination of modern understandings about English mystery plays has remained wedded to the model of four ‘cycles’ promulgated in the 1970s, despite the accumulation of evidence to the contrary. Peter Meredith's edition of The ‘Passion Play’ from the N. Town Manuscript is now all but unobtainable, and the volumes of Records of Early English Drama are the chosen bedtime reading of few, so here we revisit some texts and records to explore afresh one aspect of an already shifted paradigm.

Inns of Court: Records of Early English Drama (review)

Alan H. Nelson and John R. Elliott, Jr., eds. Inns of Court: Records of Early English Drama. 3 vols. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2010. Pp. xcix + 1064 + maps and illustrations. $340.00. Inns of Court was prepared by two of REED's veteran editors. John R. Elliott, Jr., to whose memory the collection is dedicated, also edited REED's Oxford records, and Alan H. Nelson, who co-edited the collection after Elliott suffered a stroke, also edited REED's Cambridge records. Twenty-second in the REED series, this new collection provides access to a wealth of records and texts from one of London's most significant cultural institutions. The Inns of Court are residential law societies located just West of London near the royal courts of justice in Westminster. Since the Middle Ages they have been the principal sites for legal education, having the right to admit individuals to practice at the bar. Sir George Buck (d. 1622) referred to them as the third university of England, and there are similarities. Like Cambridge and Oxford, the sites of the Inns were walled enclosures that included chambers, chapels, yards, walks, gardens, and great halls, and like university students, the gentlemen who resided at the Inns were pursuing an education. But, as Alan Nelson points out (xiv), important differences stamped the Inns with a distinct character. They had no founders or royal charters, no endowments, and little land other than their individual sites. They operated on annual dues charged to members, admissions fees, rents, and fines. Since there were no scholarships, entry was ordinarily limited to the upper social ranks, and the average age of admission was older because many of the residents were university graduates before entering. R is a measure of the seriousness afforded legal education that barristers were supposed to return to the Inns to participate in reading exercises and disputations at regular intervals. But not who resided at the Inns aspired to practice. Many came to learn about the law better to manage their own family estates or simply to enjoy the pleasures of London. At the turn of the seventeenth century it has been estimated that there were over a thousand members residing at the Inns, which made them the largest single group of literate, cultured men in London (xv), a group that would be of interest in almost any study of the culture, but one of particular interest to historians of drama and theater, because the Inns were noted for their extravagant festivals and entertainments. Lawyers were encouraged to incorporate theatrical activities into the rhythm of their annual training not simply because they developed facility and poise in public speaking, but also, as Henry VIII's royal commission on the Inns reported (62), because they made familiar traditional practices in the houses of the nobility and at court. Elliott and Nelson's collection presents evidence of a rich array of entertainments at the Inns from music to dance to revelry, as well as to plays and masques, some of which had a significant impact on the development of those forms. In volume 1 Nelson surveys the historical background of the Inns and the music, drama, festivals, and entertainments produced there. The earliest records to survive date from 1407-8 and they continue to 1642, arranged throughout under the four Inns of Court in alphabetical order--Gray's, Inner Temple, Lincoln's, Middle Temple--followed by Furnival's Inn (1-362), the single Inn of Chancery included. The editors' object was to select from the archival sources all references to dramatic, quasi-dramatic, and secular entertainment, including revels, interludes, disguisings, plays, comedies, tragedies, masques, orations, processions, secular music, dancing as well as the shooting of cannon and other quasi-military activities such as barriers within the halls of the several Inns themselves. Also included are processions through London, attendances at royal jousts, and performances at court (lxxxiii). …

ALAN H. NELSON AND JOHN R. ELLIOTT, JR (Eds). Records of Early English Drama: Inns of Court

ALAN H. NELSON AND JOHN R. ELLIOTT, JR (Eds). Records of Early English Drama: Inns of Court

Alan H. Nelson and John R. ElliottJr ., eds. Inns of Court. 3 vols. Records of Early English Drama. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2010. xcix + 1,066 pp. $340. ISBN: 978–1–84384–259–0.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.