[Page numbers of the printed text appear at the right in bold.]

page 11

Notes 1. I am indebted to John Mowatt's observation that symbolic objects are "constructs of the interaction between a signifying practice and a methodological field," and that we bear a particular obligation to the question of "how what eludes us in our interpretation has to do with the limits imposed upon our construction by the field in which it is executed." See Mowatt, Text: The Genealogy of an Antidisciplinary Object (Durham, NC, 1992), pp. 45-46.
2. Intelligently surveying the origins of practice-theory, and critiquing some of its assumptions, is Sherry B. Ortner, "Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties," Comparative Studies in Society and History 26 (1984), 126-66.
3. Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge, 1977), p. 54. Unless otherwise indicated, Bourdieu references are to this work.
4. A corollary is that not all knowledges are discursive; that people know more than they can say they know. See Giddens on the distinction between discursive and practical consciousness, in Central Problems in Social Theory (London, 1979), p. 25 and passim.
5. See "Theory in Anthropology," in Culture/Power/History: A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory, ed. Nicholas B. Dirks et al. (Princeton, 1994), pp. 400-1. Ortner and Sahlins here anticipate Judith Butler's emphasis on the possibility (even the inevitability) of the "swerve," the sense in which a sub-

page 12

version of identity becomes possible "within the practices of repetitive signifying." See Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York, 1990), p. 145.
6. Unless otherwise specified, page references to medieval coronation documents are to English Coronation Records, ed. Leopold G. W. Legg (Westminster, 1901).
7. Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, ed. Henry Thomas Riley, Rolls Series 28.1, 2 vols. (London, 1863), 2:332-39.
8. Adam of Usk, Chronicon, ed. E. M. Thompson (London, 1904), p. 34. 9. Westminster Chronicle, ed. L. C. Hector and Barbara Harvey (Oxford, 1966), pp. 414-17, with minor alterations. These same points are made in the Liber Regalis, a coronation ordo of Westminster provenance, of which the fourth recension may have been followed in the coronation of Richard II. There, the king is to be divested of his principal regalia immediately after the service, and, taken to a closed place near the altar, he is divested of his tunic and shoes and sandals ("caligas regales et sandaria" p. 106), the latter to be delivered to the Abbot of Westminster. Then, clad in other vestments, he is to exit the Abbey through the choir (English Coronation Records, ed. Legg, p. 127).
10. Certainly, Richard was made to feel his omission, since in March 1390 (his first regnal year of majority) he sent to the monks of Westminster a new pair of sandals or sotularia blessed by Pope Urban VI. (This act, in turn, triggered the chronicler's tirade.)
11. See Strohm, "Saving the Appearances," Hochon's Arrow (Princeton, 1992), pp. 75-94.
12. "Nothing that goes before, and nothing which follows, can approach the anointing in significance. Without it the King cannot receive the royal ornaments, without it, in a word, he is not King . . . the King is vested and adorned with the regalia because he is anointed; . . . he is not anointed in order that he may receive the regalia" (Legg, English Coronation Records, p. xxxiv).
13. As printed in Chronicles of London, ed. Charles Kingsford (Oxford, 1905). Possibly corroborative of the suggestion that Henry's anointment was open to view is the early fifteenth-century Forma et Modus, which omits mention of the pallium and says only that "surgat Rex de cathedra et vadat ad altare et deponet vestes suas . . . vt recipiat vnccionem" (Legg, English Coronation Records, p. 175).
14. Legg translates the phrase "recuperabit sine vi" as "shall recover by force," on the apparent assumption that Henry IV wanted to represent himself as a conquering king. In fact, the Lancastrians proposed to effect this recuperation as an easy and beneficent side-effect of their ascent to the throne. Before and during Richard's negotiation of the peace treaty of 1396, the English feared the alienation of Aquitaine through its reversion to the duchy of Lancaster; with the crowning of Henry IV, Aquitaine would once again become Crown land.

page 13

15. The manipulation of Richard as unsuccessful claimant is carried one step farther in the Eulogium Continuation, which first relates his discovery (in the "stripped," Lancastrian version), then passes on to other subjects, then returns to it in recounting Henry's coronation with the previously mentioned oil ("cum oleo aquilae innotatae" pp. 380, 384). The oil here functions as a prophetic object, carried around unwittingly by Richard II until its meaning is retrospectively conferred. Opening a temporal and narrative division between the oil's discovery and its use, this account preserves the innocence of its own corroborative scheme.
16. Language and Symbolic Power (Harvard, 1991), p. 115.
17. Frederick Devon, Issues of the Exchequer (London, 1837), p. 296.
18. Annales Henrici Quarti, ed. H. T. Riley, Rolls Series 28.3 (London, 1866), p. 350.
19. A good reproduction may be viewed in Pageant of the Birth, Life and Death of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, K. G., 1389-1439, ed. Viscount Dillon and W. H. St. John Hope (London, 1914). On the ramifications of these symbolic inflections, see John Carmi Parsons, "Ritual and Symbol in the Medieval English Queenship to 1500," Women and Sovereignty, ed. Louise O. Fradenburg (Edinburgh, 1992), pp. 61-66.
20. Gui Lobineau, Histoire de Bretagne, 2 vols. (Paris, 1707), 2:878.
21. Guillaume Gruel, Histoire d'Artus III, Duc de Bretaigne, ed. Th‚odore Godefroy (Paris, 1622), pp. 11-12.
22. See A. R. Myers, "The Captivity of a Royal Witch," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 24 (1940), 263-84.
23. As daughter of the notorious and well-heeled Charles le Mauvais, king of Navarre, Joanne did bring a dowry to a marriage, when her father promised the remarkable sum of 120,000 gold livres and 6,000 livres annually in rents for her 1386 marriage to the elderly, headstrong, and truculent John IV, Duke of Brittany. John, for his part, responded with an equally munificent dower, including the rents of the city of Nantes, and other substantial properties (Pierre-Hyacinthe Morice, Histoire Eccl‚siastique et Civile de Bretagne, 20 vols. in 10 (Paris, 1750-56), 1:395). The duke dying in 1399, Joanne served as regent of Brittany until 1401, when her twelve-year-old son was enstated in office. Negotiations for marriage with Henry IV were begun in March, 1402, and consummated with considerable rapidity, considering that the marriage required a papal dispensation on consanguinity, a 3 April 1402 proxy ceremony in England, a further dispensation from the pope to live among schismatics, and arrangements for the bestowal and governance of her lands. On 20 December 1402 Joanne set out from Nantes, with the marriage finally occurring at Winchester on 8 February 1403 and a ceremony of coronation on 26 February at Westminster. Speculation about Henry IV's interest in marriage to Joanne cannot avoid the subject of this wealthy widow's dower from the duke of Brittany. The chronicler of Saint-Denys says that first awareness of the marriage negotiation sparked a rumor to the effect that she had shipped her treasure and

page 14

jewels abroad (Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Denys, ed. M. L. Bellaguet, 6 vols. (Paris, 1839-52), 3:40.) Writing at the end of the seventeenth century, Lobineau lists an interest in the dower prominently among possible considerations: the likelihood of her continuing influence in duchy affairs, the possibility of an English-Breton alliance against France, access to continental ports, and "le gros douuaire qu'elle avoit en Bretagne, auquel le feu Duc avoit adjoust‚ trois ou quatre ans avant que de mourir" (Chronicon Briocense, in Lobineau, Histoire de Bretagne, 1:cols. 500-1.) If this was indeed Henry's list, he must have been a disappointed man. Joanne left the young duke and her other sons under the hostile guardianship of the duke of Burgundy, the Bretons were in arms against the British within months after the wedding, and Joanne was thwarted in her attempt to raise ready cash by selling the governorship of Nantes to Olivier de Clisson for 12,000 crowns. The dower and its disposition appear also to have eluded whatever hopes Henry might have entertained.
In fact, the ever financially hard-pressed Henry IV was to endure a squadron of monetary disappointments in his alliance with the wealthy countess, at least when the financial aspects of his marriage are compared with generally accepted medieval norms. First, no record exists of any dowry that came to Henry as a result of the marriage. A second area of more promise would seem to be the large dower from her previous marriage which Joanne brought with her to England, and to which medieval precedents would have granted Henry administrative control and enjoyment during his lifetime (Sir Frederick Pollock and Frederic William Maitland, The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I, 2nd ed., 2 vols. [Cambridge, 1968], 2:407-8, 427. On dower in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, see Judith M. Bennett, Women in the Medieval English Countryside (Oxford, 1987), pp. 110-14, and Diane Owen Hughes, "From Brideprice to Dowry," Journal of Family History, 3 [1978], 282.) Henry, however, seems to have achieved no control whatever over his wife's inherited revenues and funds. Rather, in another costly decision, he followed a different medieval precedent, acting promptly to assure Joanne of a second dower, from the English treasury and from lands under his control, together with certain guarantees from the income of the Lancaster estates: on 8 March 1403, a month after the marriage, a sum of 10,000 marks annually was granted to the queen, to be paid from the exchequer, pending satisfaction of the sum by rents from possessions later to be assigned (Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1401 5, p. 231). This massive sum, amounting to some ten per cent of the annual income of the royal government, was roughly half again as large as the œ4500 granted to English queens in dower over the preceding two centuries.
24. Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1401-5, p. 473.
25. (incomplete) London and New York, 1990.