Earlier in this study I argued against seeing the Renaissance playhouse as a marginal institution, suggesting that such a dichotomy misapprehends the fluidity of the market and the city, and overestimates the ideological difference of the Elizabethan and Jacobean playhouses. I posited, in its place, a material theater, a theater revolving around profit and closely connected with a dynamic market and the exigencies of urban life. A final objection to the idea of London as a stolid, unapproving entity whose Liberties are exploited by the playhouses might be lodged on the grounds that such a portrait engages the euphemistic sense of the phrase “taking liberties,” calling up a paradigm in which the City, here gendered male (cf. “City Fathers”), is cuckolded in the (female) suburbs and outskirts by lawless (male) players and playhouses. Although poets of the period frequently employed these gendered topographies – here one might point to Rosalind's remark on dwelling “in the skirts of the forest, like fringe upon a petticoat” (As You Like It 3.2.335–37), or any of the many examples of the topoi of a city's sack as “rape” (the city here gendered female) – such anthropomorphic depictions, I would suggest, can limit our critical understanding of real social situations. In segmenting different areas of the city, I want to argue, conceptualizations like this tend to exaggerate the differences between margin and center – differences which, significantly enough, scenes and characters in the plays often work to contradict.