Kelsey Bhatia 998244458

ENG331

Matthew Sergei 

EXTENDED April 4 2014

Dishonest Games: The Varying Views on the Sport of Bear Baiting

  Although regularly associated with celebrations, feasts, and festivities, the sport of bearbaiting is present throughout the Records of Early English Drama as both a welcomed and deplored event. While considered a rich and regular form of entertainment in some places, bearbaiting was frowned upon or banned in others. There were certain counties that had records for bearbaiting to a great degree, and certain counties that did not, which led me to believe it was more common or accepted in places where it was documented. What I have found most interesting about these records is the differing opinions on the practice depending on the county or town. Looking particularly at the counties of Cheshire, York, Oxford, and Cambridge, this report will investigate the differing views on bearbaiting and why this might be.

In the Cheshire records bearbaiting is classified as simply an “animal sport”, with references for bearbaiting, bear selling, and bearwards from 1583 to the early 1600s (REED Cheshire lxxiv). In the town of Nantwich there was a man by the name of John Seckerston who kept and sold bears from his inn (REED Cheshire p. 733), which was appropriately named The Bear Inn. The town of Congleton placed such importance on bearbaiting that they would send forth messengers in order to guide a visiting bearward into the town (REED Cheshire p. 639). Regardless of this interest, however, there are also records for Cheshire of complaints against this sport, one of the earliest being made in 1581 during Bishop Chaderton’s visit (REED Cheshire p. 4). He describes it as “unlawfull” and “unseemely”, particularly if it is practiced near or on Church property. “Bearbaiting was increasingly frowned upon by the authorities, and vigorously opposed by the preachers. The authorities saw bearbaits as opportunities for riot, sedition, and the spread of plague"         ( REED Cheshire lxxv ).Therefore, not only is this sport frowned upon by the Church for being “unseemely”, there was also a concern for health and safety. 

While the records from Cheshire show both interest as well as a negativity towards bearbaiting, the records for York show something quite different. There is no record of any complaints or edicts against the sport of bearbaiting, and indeed, York overall seemed quite ready to participate and pay for the entertainment. Bearbaiting in York seems to be a regular part of celebrations or festivities, with multiple payment records from the mid 1500’s to the early 1600’s. In 1559 on St. George’s day there appears a record of payment for the Earl of Darby’s personal rearward (REED York p. 330), who was most likely called in to perform particularly for the celebration. In 1584 there is a record for payment from the City Chamberlain to a Master Atherton, a bearward called upon to perform at Christmas of all times (REED York p. 409). I was intrigued by the fact that a bearbaiting would be allowed at such a holy time when it was so frowned upon by the Church in Cheshire, but again I could find no complaints in the York records for the practice. It is also in the York records that I discovered the first reference to the Queen’s own bearward, a man she kept in employment for the purpose of bearbaiting. There is a record for 1575 that describes a man licensed to lead the Queen’s bears about for the entertainment of the Mayor (REED York p. 378), and the fact that Queen Elizabeth both owned bears and had men capable of caring for them suggests that bearbaiting was perhaps not as unlawful as the Bishop from Cheshire believed.
There are multiple statements for the Queen’s Bearward in the Oxford records, who throughout appears to be either John Dorrington or Ralph Bowes (REED Oxford p. 1113). Similar to York, there are no complaints made against the practice of bearbaiting in Oxford, but there are some of the earliest records for the blood sport. The earliest record of a bearbaiting is c1485 from Magdalen College where a bearward was brought in as dinner entertainment (REED Oxford p. 29). A Magdalen school copy book from c1495 describes a bearbaiting event as extremely popular and entertaining, drawing students as well as townsfolk; even youngsters (REED Oxford p. 37). From 1560 to around 1598 there are multiple records of the City paying for bearbaitings, and most often they reference the Queen’s bearward. Though many of Oxford’s celebrations are paid for by the City accounts, there are examples of the University participating (REED Oxford p.1248 see ‘bearwards’). In 1508 there is a record for a bearward leading a bear into Merton College on the Vice President’s command (REED Oxford p. 50), and above we have examples from Magdalen college very early on. Despite the fact that Oxford as a town was clearly more occupied by bearbaiting than Oxford the University, it is interesting that the practice was even allowed at the school at all.

With this in mind I turned to Cambridge to follow the education connection, or lack thereof, for bearbaiting. Cambridge is incredibly unlike Cheshire, York, and Oxford in the simple sense that every record of bearbaiting is a reference to its being banned. “College and university statutes often prohibited ‘dishonest games’” (REED Cambridge p. 811), and although it was not just bearbaiting that was banned, it is regularly associated with other negative activities. A Royal Injunction from Queen Elizabeth c1569 bans bearbaiting in and around the town of Cambridge (REED Cambridge p. 259). A fine of forty shillings is included in the injunction for anyone caught watching or participating. Though this is directed to Cambridge in general, and though the Queen employs bearwards, the University condemns bearbaiting as well. In 1573 Gonville and Caius College Statutes reinforces the ban by directing it specifically to students and staff: “Members of the college shall not visit wandering entertainers—who put on stupid performances for a stupid rabble for the purpose of gain…they are unsuited for men of liberal studies” (REED Cambridge p. 266). There is a complaint in 1591 to the Privy Council condemning “Bearbaytings and Bulbaytings and such like vaine games” for the fact that they “hinder the quiet of the Universirie, and drawe our Studentes from theire bookes…” (REED Cambridge p. 342), and yet another decree in 1594 that “no scholar of any condition or degree, do use or resort to Bull baytings, [or] Bearbaytings” (REED Cambridge p. 357). For Cambridge it seems the act of bearbaiting is considered both a very low and degrading form of entertainment as well as a vice or distraction. In 1603 a letter from King James reiterates the ban on bearbaiting for the entire town of Cambridge, again with attention paid to the students of the university (REED Cambridge p. 395), and there remains not one sign of bearbaiting being practiced or approved of up to this date in the Cambridge records.

In sum it appears that the act of bearbaiting is met with a particular kind of imbalance, being widely accepted in some cases, and wholly rejected in others. There were no records that condemned the hurting of the animal, but it was still regarded as immoral for its riotous nature and chance of gambling. The areas where there exists both good and bad records of the sport perhaps serve to demonstrate that township or counties ability to choose freely. There is also a sense of what these areas of England deemed proper or important for their style of living. The fact that the Queen owned bears and employed bearwards did not seem to phase Cambridge, nor did Oxford’s lack of bans and general acceptance. Therefore, it seems that from the late 1400’s into 1603, the sport of bearbaiting was not considered purely degrading, or wholly entertaining. These varying opinions perhaps helps to demonstrate the great differences between counties close together in a changing England.

Works Cited

Records of Early English Drama: Cheshire including Chester. Ed. Elizabeth Baldwin, Lawrence M. Clopper, and David Mills. University of Toronto Press: Toronto, 2007. Print. 

Records of Early English Drama: Cambridge. Ed. Alan H. Nelson. University of Toronto Press: Toronto, 1989. Print.

Records of Early English Drama: Oxford. Ed. John R. Elliott, Alan H. Nelson (University), Alexandra F. Johnston, and Diana Wyatt (City). University of Toronto Press: Toronto, 2004. Print.

Records of Early English Drama: York. Ed. Alexandra F. Johnston and Margaret Rogerson. University of Toronto Press: Toronto, 1979. Print.