I think a key part of Beaumont’s play, especially when considering the attitudes of The Knight of the Burning Pestle toward the citizenry, are the characters of the grocer and his wife. While the interpretation that the role these characters play demonstrates an affection toward the middling class is a valid argument, I don’t necessarily agree with this viewpoint. I think that what is more likely is that Beaumont’s critical use of these characters reveals a slightly different idea—that these characters show the rising importance of the middling class in the early modern period. The grocer and his wife together both interject in the middle of the play to make dramatic changes in the plotline, object to what is already going on, and make various demands. For instance, the entire induction is the grocer and his wife deciding which play they would rather see performed. The grocer even requests a play that should be done “notably in the honour of the commons [freemen] of the city.” (Induction, lines 25-26) He is using his power, within the play (a sort of “metatheater”), to make the play more about something he (a middling man) feels is important: the “commons of the city.” Beaumont gives such power to these characters, allowing them to create this metatheater experience, and this control is an excellent example of the rise of the middling class. One might assume that this power within the play is representative of a power these kinds of citizens were beginning to gain in the early modern period. As discussed in class, members of the audience sometimes sat on the stage itself, which was a flaunting of wealth and power. Because Beaumont allows for the grocer and his wife to sit onstage, one can assume that likewise, these characters—the middling class—finally have a bit of wealth and power.