The judicial system of seventeenth-century France is often qualified as vitiated and inefficient. Actually, truth and equity are virtually absent from the court. In these conditions, why would one appeal to institutional justice? Montpellier notables use the judicial system to exert pressure on a debtor, to redress the internal familial order, to sidestep customary practices, to take revenge, to cause harm. Indeed, the question of law is rarely something other than a pretext, and it is precisely because it is vitiated that the judicial system can be used in that way. The analysis of the procedural practices and of the judicial system as they are---instead of as they should be---allows us to penetrate the fascinating universe of social, familial and financial practices. Furthermore, the emphasis on the civil procedures reveals an original perspective which goes beyond the points of view of notarial and criminal archives usually preferred by historiography. The petty Montpellier notables studied here are steering a delicate course between customs, laws and procedures. Far from suffering the imperfections of the judicial system, they are adopting them, appropriating and using them as means of meeting their own objectives. The recourse to justice is similar to a game of chess: the judicial system is the chessboard, its defects are the chess pieces and the jousts, always fought inside the same frameworks and with the same weapons, are opposing various opponents displaying different strategies.

Chapter I is a discussion aimed at providing the reader with a basic understanding of the complex system of social classification that was in a place in ancien regime France for centuries. Chapter II outlines the development of a royal system of justice prior to our period and the royal courts, whose form and hierarchy were the result of years of reform. These chapters represent the judical and social extremes that procedure linked. Chapter III is a thorough and complete discussion of the entire possible process in France during our period. This chapter clearly outlines the order of phases that the French courts followed in a typical prosecution and takes into account that these procedures were the result of years of practice and experience. These three chapters are tied together with a review of the major concepts up to that point and presents a transition from France to a series of chapters devoted to understanding the situation in Massachusetts Bay Colongy. Chapter V offers chronological approach to the development of both laws and courts in the colony. Chapter VI consists of discussion of the procedures used in the colonial courts, and attempts to identify the major English and Puritan influences within the colonial process as they arise. Again, these three chapters are tied together with a review of the major conclusions to be derived from the chapters on Massachusetts. This study concludes with Chapter VII, which offers the reader the comparative analysis of the two systems of procedure. This comparative chapter is structured to reflect the three basic functions we ascribed to criminal procedure at the outset of this discussion. / 268 leaves ; 28 cm.

This thesis is an analysis of medical and popular views toward female sexuality in late seventeenth century England (1660-1696), based on the study of learned vernacular medical texts, personal sources and popular literature. In that period, women's subordinate social status to men was largely determined by their 'inferior' biology; "female illnesses" were considered to be a product of women's innate physiological 'weakness' as defined by humoral medical theory, and their reproductive organs were linked to their less restrained (than men's) sexual desires. / This research examines those medical and social ideas that defined the female sex in late seventeenth century England, in conjunction with women's own records of their experiences; it is argued that while their physiology was used to justify their inferior social status, women's degree of self-autonomy in early modern England--particularly in the area of pregnancy and childbirth--was probably far greater than would be thought from an examination of the contemporary printed sources. This thesis also demonstrates how medical and social attitudes toward women mutually reinforced the secondary position of women in that society.

This thesis has two aims: to make an original contribution to knowledge by demonstrating the importance of theatrical rivalry to the development of drama in the Carolean period (the reign of Charles II), and to re-evaluate the managerial career of Thomas Killigrew (1612-1683). This is the first detailed survey of the circumstances in which the King's Company and the Duke's Company competed and an analysis of the troupes' devices of plotting and counter-plotting during their twenty-two years of stage rivalry from 1660 to 1682. As well as charting the stage rivalry between the two companies, my dissertation argues that Killigrew was a competent but unscrupulous and devious playhouse-manager. A close analysis of his managerial career will show how Thomas Killigrew was the central figure in the Carolean stage rivalry in London and how he helped to shape the future of English theatre. The survey starts from Killigrew's beginnings as the manager of the King's Company from 1660 and concludes in 1682 when the King's Company was effectively taken over by its rival, the Duke's Company, to make one United Company, thus ending the span of theatrical competition in the Carolean period. Each chapter is divided in accordance with the beginning and end of significant events of rivalry and are organised chronologically at different phases of the competition. The first chapter provides the historical background of the establishment of the patent grants and the gradual consolidation of the monopoly over dramatic entertainment in London. In charting the initial stages of the development of the King's Company and the Duke's Company from 1660 to 1663, this chapter argues that it was largely due to Thomas Killigrew's underhandedness that the King's Company began the competition in an advantageous position. The second chapter focuses on the theatrical competition from 1663 to 1668. Until 1663 both companies were busy consolidating their duopoly and the competition between the two managers ended abruptly with William Davenant's death in 1668. In the survey of the Killigrew-Davenant rivalry, this chapter's overall aim is to argue for narrowing of the wide chasm often described between the managerial skills of the two managers. Chapter three explores the period from when Mary Davenant, Thomas Betterton and Henry Harris took over the management of the Duke's Company to the burning of the King's Company's playhouse in 1672. It argues that the competition in this period was evenly matched. This chapter also revises the perceived style of management adopted by both Betterton and Killigrew. The chapter argues that Betterton was perhaps less involved in the most audacious project of the Duke's Company during these years: the building of three theatres including the Dorset Garden Theatre. In the case of the latter, this chapter argues that Killigrew continually took risks at other people's expense and was little concerned with the well being of his staff and shareholders as long as the company gained notoriety and retained its success. The penultimate chapter of the dissertation covers the time span from the Bridges Street Theatre's fire to the ousting of Killigrew as the manager by his own son, Charles Killigrew. It argues that this was the crucial period in which the Duke's Company began clearly to surpass its rival. This chapter qualifies the orthodox view that the King's Company simply lost its battle against the Duke's Company by demonstrating that the two companies also had to contend with a large number of foreign troupes and the rising popularity of music concerts. The final chapter explores the period from when Charles Killigrew took over the management of the King's Company to the amalgamation of the two acting troupes in 1682. It demonstrates the negative effects of the political turbulence of the Popish Plot and the Exclusion Crisis on both the troupes' plays and players. The chapter also argues that Charles Killigrew was not as charismatic or manipulative as his father, and that he greatly contributed to the demise of the King's Company. In conclusion, this is strictly a study of theatre history that looks at the importance of management and company rivalry to the development of Carolean drama. At its peak in the 1670s, the Carolean period produced on average twenty new plays per season. The highly competitive nature of the rivalry between the King's Company and the Duke's Company and how the respective managements responded to the success or the failure of the other theatre is the background against which one must read the plays of the Carolean period. Thomas Killigrew, whose managerial career spanned the longest in the Carolean years, was an influential figure in the period and whose innovations and difficulties as a manager had a direct effect not only on theatre history but also on the dramatic traditions of the seventeenth century.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.