Gary Leggett
Prof. Matthew Sergi
English 331H1S
April 1, 2014
Dragons
in British Performance: 1400-1600
The figure of a dragon can hold
significant affective value for the audience of a play. One of the earlier
accounts of a dragon appearing in the Records
of Early English Drama (REED)
occurs in Bristol in September 1461, when a St. George production was enacted for
King Edward IV (xliii). From extant records of the event, we can see that the
dragon offered a stark contrast between divine and evil, between the heavenly
and the grotesque. The event involves St. George battling a dragon, as a King
and Queen overlook the fight from their castle, and a Princess lays in wait
with a lamb. St. George defeats the dragon, which is followed by a choir of
angels, singing (REED Bristol 8). This
production creates an idyllic position for a dragon in a performance that exists
in a ubiquitously Christian nation; just as the angels hold close ties with the
divine, the dragon holds close ties to the demonic.
The
ornate and symbolic value of a dragon is essential to our understanding of the creature
in performativity. This essay will use extant information gathered in various REED volumes in order to examine the use
of the mythological dragon for performative purposes between the years of
1400-1600. While most appearances of dragons relate to the mythical tale of St.
George battling a dragon, other instances also require examination in order to
determine the contextual functions the creatures served. In this essay, I will consider
the different entities that a ‘dragon’ proposes in the REED volumes, as well as an examination of Medieval depictions of
dragons as they differ from present day representations. Furthermore, this
essay will look at the extant information to see how dragons were most often
used in performance. Interestingly, two of the most prominent events that
involved dragons became barred from exhibition in relation to the injunctions
of top-down moral authority. Finally, this essay directs attention to an unexpected
occurrence of a ‘dragon’ in the records – in what appears to be a Nativity
scene. The use of a dragon in the depiction of the birth of Christ is certainly
unique, and possible reasoning can be found when conflating biblical stories of
the scene.
Before
we look to the REED documents, it is
important to explain exactly what a mention of a ‘dragon’ signifies in the
records. It is imperative to understand that each mention of a ‘dragon’ could
imply a variety of constructions, and it is with evidence outside of a ‘dragon’
notation that we can better infer the creature’s physical form. The recording
of a ‘dragon’ could refer to a dragon in a painting, a tableau, a costume, a physical
construction (such as a statue or model), a Hellmouth (an open jaw used to
signify a gateway to hell on stage), or a man-operated entity that could be worn
(such as a Snap-Dragon pictured in Appendix A). Furthermore, it is equally
important that we understand how dragons
were imagined in the late Middle Ages. The etymology of the word dragon traces back in English to a now
obscure meaning: “A huge serpent or snake; a python” (OED Online “dragon, n.1”).
Apart from a large variation of mixed animal parts, Medieval illustrations of
dragons were considerably smaller in size than we are accustomed to in the present.
In Appendix B, we can see a woodcut by Lucas Cranach that displays St. George
riding over a dragon. In this image, the head of the dragon appears roughly the
same size as a horse’s, which is small in comparison to present day depictions
of the creatures [see popular films such as Sleeping
Beauty (1959), The Neverending Story
(1984), and the Harry Potter
franchise]. Although Medieval depictions certainly vary, Cranach’s representation
of the dragon’s size is typical of Medieval European artwork. Indeed, it is not
until the first publication of Edmund Spenser’s The Faerie Queene (1590) that a dragon becomes depicted in a manner
that is “staggeringly immense” (Humfrey), suggesting the notion that Spenser’s
envisioning has influenced popular imagining of the creatures ever since.
With
an understanding of how dragons were represented in the period, we can now effectively
look to the REED volumes. A great
deal of extant documentation from the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries relating
to dragons suggests that many dragon appearances took place on April 23, the
feast day of Saint George. This date is unsurprising, as St. George became the
patron St. of England in 1349, and the cult of St. George progressively increased
as the Medieval period advanced (Simpson 94-5).
Apart from the St. George battle that
is described in the introduction of this essay, evidence of battles between St.
George and the dragon exist in a multiplicity of areas across England in the
late Middle Ages. Some examples of this performance include those in Coventry
in 1474 and 1498 (54, 90); in Devon between 1531-40 (209); Newcastle upon Tyne
in 1510-11 (xv); in Norwich between 1542-90 (11-13, 21, 29, 70, 99); and in
York in 1554 (York 319).
Significantly, it is noted in the Kent
records that many presentations of this battle took place during the 1500’s;
however, after the royal injunctions of 1538, “St George processions were
curtailed and…eventually suppressed along with the St George guilds” (REED Kent Ixxxix). St. George’s association with the Catholic
religion were strong enough that these events ultimately collapsed under
Protestant rule, and the records suggest that the event never fully recovered
its prominent status after the prohibition of the saint’s image. Regardless, we
can see from the extant records that the depiction of St. George versus the
dragon certainly persisted past 1538 in certain areas of the country. According
to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, “the cult still attracted
devotion, as at Norwich…Perhaps at this
point it helped St George that he had increasingly come to be perceived as a
destroyer of idols, as well as a dragon-slayer” (“George”).
Instances
of dragon appearances also commonly recur in the Midsummer Show in Chester, which
took place between June 21 and June 25. The Midsummer Show coincided with the
Midsummer Fair, which appears to have included “morris dancers and several
large animals, the dragon, the elephant…” (REED
Cheshire Ixxi). The dragon in the Midsummer Show appears in REED alongside a group of seemingly naked
boys that apparently attacked the dragon. These events were secular in nature,
and they recurred until “a godly zealous” mayor disallowed the performances (among
other things) in 1600 (REED Cheshire cxcii,
272). Just as the battle of St. George and the dragon saw prohibition, the
performances of the ‘naked’ boys fighting a dragon was also barred by top-down moral
authority. It remains uncertain what grounds the mayor in 1600 offered for the
closing down of this events, however, it is not likely in relation to the
genuine nakedness of the boys. The REED
evidence suggests that the ‘naked’ boys “wore tight flesh-coloured costumes
representing nakedness” simply because of the fact that they had costumes that
needed repairs from painters (Simpson 98). Because the children were assumingly
fully covered, it is more likely that the ‘godly zealous’ mayor had issue with
the representation of nakedness or the presentation of a dragon on a whole. Ultimately,
these naked battles also reemerge in the extant information, much like the St.
George performances. The top-down ‘moral’ prohibitions against these
performances certainly affected the trajectory of the events; however, it is
unclear whether it created more or less of these spectacles over time.
Outside
of the St. George and Midsummer Show’s relationship with the dragon, the
creature served a variety of roles, including those of outright festive
positions (Simpson 92-93). An interesting anomaly of dragon usage appears in
the Lincolnshire records of 1547 (98).
In an inventory in Holbeach, there are notations for “harod’s coate,” “thapostyls
coats,” “the coats of the iij kyngs of Coloyne,” and “the Dracon” (REED Licolnshire 98). James Stokes notes
these items “indicate that Holbeach had a Nativity play” (REED Licolnshire 425). The possible use of a dragon in a Nativity
scene is a fascinating notion, as it would be a rather unique presentation. Because
a dragon is not associated with any part of the New Testament other than in Revelations,
we are presented with two possibilities of what took place if a dragon was
indeed involved in a Nativity play. The dragon may have been a Hellmouth that
Herod (likely) descended. If this were the case, it would suggest that two
different plays were conflated into one. Alternatively, the production may have
included a dragon if the Gospel of John’s nativity story was conflated with the
scene described in Revelations 12 by John of Patmos. The latter possibility is
particularly interesting because, before the 20th century, biblical
scholars assumed that John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, and John of Patmos
were all the same person. In no other known depiction of a Nativity play is
there a dragon mentioned, and the possibility that a scholarly accident altered
the play is intriguing.
In
extant records from 15-17th century England, the large majority of cases
where a dragon can be found shows how tightly bound they were to their symbolic
association with the devil. In a few cases, dragons served a secular and more
festive role; however, the use of the creatures even then was at risk of being
curtailed by ‘godly zealous’ moral authority.
Works Cited
“dragon, n.1.” Oxford English Dictionary Online. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.
“George [St. George].” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Online ed. 2004. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.
Humfrey, Belinda. “dragon.” The Spenser Encyclopedia. Ed. A. C. Hamilton. London: Routledge, 1990. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
Records of Early English Drama: Bristol. Ed. Mark C. Pilkinton. U of Toronto P: Toronto. 1997. Print.
Records of Early English Drama: Cheshire including Chester. Eds. Elizabeth Baldwin et al. U of Toronto P: Toronto. 2007. Print.
Records of Early English Drama: Coventry. Ed. R.W. Ingram. U of Toronto P: Toronto. 1981. Print.
Records of Early English Drama: Devon. Ed. John W. Wasson. U of Toronto P: Toronto. 1986. Print.
Records of Early English Drama: Kent: Diocese of Canterbury. Ed. James M. Gibson. U of Toronto P: Toronto. 2002. Print.
Records of Early English Drama: Licolnshire. Vol. 1. Ed. James Stokes. U of Toronto P: Toronto. 2009. Print.
Records of Early English Drama: Newcastle upon Tyne. Ed. J. J. Anderson. U of Toronto P: Toronto. 1982. Print.
Records of Early English Drama: Norwich 1540-1642. Ed. David Galloway. U of Toronto P: Toronto. 1984. Print.
Records of Early English Drama: York. Vol. 1. Eds. Alexandra F. Johnston and Margaret Rogerson. U of Toronto P: Toronto. 1979. Print.
Simpson, Jacqueline. British Dragons. London: Batsford, 1980. Print.
Appendix A
Puniks. “Photo of larger 'Snap' - Norwich Museum 2006.”
Photograph. 2006. Dragon Glow. Web.
30 Mar. 2014.
A “fairly common feature in
religious plays and processions of the late Middle Ages” (Simpson 91), a
Snap-Dragon was a construction that a person could fit inside and manipulate
certain elements of the device, such as the wings or jaw.
Appendix B
Cranach the Elder, Lucas. St George and the Dragon. Woodcut.
British Museum, London.
No comments:
Post a Comment