Search

The connection between theatre and the law has been much explored, and especially the theatricality of the courtroom, which developed in the late Georgian era. This article seeks to look beyond the law to a wider culture of dispute settlement, of which legal proceedings were only a single subset, and in some ways a deeply unpopular one. The business of theatre provides a window onto this culture, not least because theatre proprietors were extremely disputatious, both due to their personality and for a range of structural and legal reasons, including the monopolistic regime of theatre patents. The resolution of disputes was often performative, requiring a repertoire including legal threats and suits, but mediation and arbitration might provide cheaper and quicker resolution, with less reputational damage. Indeed, arbitration was so familiar to theatre folk that it featured in plays, which explored its wider cultural meaning. Managing theatre arbitrations was also politically charged, because of the political language used, the involvement of the political and aristocratic elite, and the immediate need to resolve disputes with audiences and even pacify riots. This article thus seeks to affirm the importance of arbitration in the interconnected areas of Georgian theatre, law, business and politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the 1580s, Queen Elizabeth I intervened in a marital dispute between two of her foremost subjects, George Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury and his wife, commonly referred to as Bess of Hardwick. The Queen appointed several of her Privy Councillors to negotiate a reconciliation. These events provide a case study of the use of arbitration and mediation in resolving familial disputes among the elite of Elizabethan England, and their particular application by the Queen and her closest advisers. This article also highlights the importance of contemporary conceptions of gender and honour to dispute resolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]