Julie Hale

Professor: Matt Sergi

ENG 331

April 1, 2014

Crowns and Diadems in Early English Drama: Religious Connotations and Functions

            Diadems and crowns are rarely mentioned in the records of early English drama. Yet when they are mentioned they play an integral role in representing and elevating what is sacred and holy, and they reveal some of the practices of the guilds who chose to use them as props. In York, Chester, Kent and Norwich the uses of crowns and diadems are restricted to characters of religious significance. The records of crowns and diadems not only reveal the religiosity behind such props, but they also reveal something about the practices of the guilds with regard to how they maintained and re-used these props. There is mention of storing, painting and repairing diadems and crowns in the records of these counties which gives a glimpse into the functionality of the props. Despite these inferences into the practices of early English drama there is a lack of information in the use of these props in different counties, which may suggest other issues regarding productions and guilds. Crowns, however rarely recorded were a symbol for holiness, and the prop itself was carefully maintained and stored so it could be reused. 

            In York diadems are used as props for the apostles in a production that was listed under the Mercers pageant documents[1]. This establishes the use of crowns in a religious connotation in a York production. This religious association is also reflected within the other counties whose records contain mention of crowns and diadems. In Chester, in the Smiths, Cutlers and Plumbers accounts a crown is described as being used for Mary in a play[2]. The question of which Mary the crown is intended for comes to mind, but a few lines after the indication of the crown there is a mention of “guildinge of little Gods face”, this supports that the Mary they are referring to is Mary the mother of Jesus[3]. With the mother of Jesus being the Mary made reference to in these documents, the religious connotation for crowns as props that were mentioned in York are reiterated. Norwich also uses crowns as a prop in a religious context as angels and a serpent are cited as the wearers of these props[4]. The serpent is of religious context as Adam and Eve are mentioned within the framework of the serpent; this suggests the serpent stems from the biblical story[5]. From these records it is discernible that crowns were often used in religious plays as props for those that are holy. Mary, the apostles, angels and the serpent are all characters which stem from biblical stories. This frequent use of crowns as props in biblical contexts shows the religious connotation of the crown as a prop, and how it is reserved for those that are holy or are of biblical significance. The crown provides another level of elevation to these characters, and therefore plays a significant role in illuminating the function of religion in these plays. The crowns are used as religious markers to draw attention to the significance of the characters that wear them. Another discernible feature of crowns and diadems as props is their maintenance and repair.

            In Chester, one of the more interesting records of crowns is apparent. Crowns are mentioned several times throughout the years under the Smith’s, Cutler and Plumbers accounts. The crown must have been an important prop in their play as they invested their production money on repairing and purchasing crowns for their performances. The records for repairing the crowns suggest the re-use of such props[6]. This idea of re-use is bolstered by the accounts in Kent which mentions the storage of crowns[7]. This storage suggests that these crowns would be used again at a later date, which corroborates the principle of re-use that is established in the Chester records. Similarly in York there are records of painting diadems which could suggest either the acquisition of new crowns and having them painted for the play, or it could also work to support the evidence in Chester and Kent regarding the re-use and maintenance of such props[8]. The painting of diadems in York could have been to refurbish the props. This shows the thrift of the guilds as they upkeep, maintain, store and repair crowns and diadems, this demonstrates how props were reused. The record of the use of crowns and diadems reoccurs over the years in these counties and signs of repair and preservation are evident in the account books of the various guilds that used crowns in their productions. This is significant because this displays possible restrictions in the guild budgets for props as they looked to maintain what they already had. Since the guilds were responsible for raising the funds for their productions money would have been a consideration when buying props[9]. To reduce the expenditure to the guilds the use of repair and careful storing could work to decrease costs. Another interesting point of contrast in the records of crowns and diadems in REED is that these props are mentioned in the records of some counties but not in others.

            A significant number of counties do not have crown or diadems listed in their records at all; this creates interesting questions regarding the use of these props. Somerset, Herefordshire/Worcestershire, Lancashire and Sussex have no records of crowns being used as props. This could be due to a lack of surviving documents, or another way of looking at this would be to assume that crowns and diadems were not a common prop. It is possible that some counties did not think that a crown was necessary to communicate the holiness of some characters, or that their plays were not necessarily religious. As previously mentioned crowns and diadems seem to take up a religious significance which can be seen by the characters they are assigned to; however, maybe a crown was not necessary to convey the holiness of Mary or the apostles in other counties or seen as necessary at all. Another possible explanation for the lack of records on crowns as props in other counties could be related to budget issues. As previously mentioned there was a trend of repair and storage of these props which could be budget related. It is possible that there were not enough funds available to purchase such props at all in these counties, as each guild was responsible for putting on their own productions. With a lack of funds it is possible, that crowns as a prop were left out so that finances could be focused on props that were more central to the play. With characters like angels and apostles already carrying a religious connotation, crowns as props could be left out as they were not necessary to convey the religiosity of the play. Either way it is curious that so few counties have records of these props, which suggests a rarity of use which I have attempted to account for. Even if crowns were not used as a widespread prop when they were in use they were assigned to high profile religious characters that were further elevated by the crowns they wore.

            Through examining the records of crowns and diadems the religiosity, thrift and absence of these props is uncovered. Through the REED documents trends of reusing and repairing props becomes evident, and the distinction of crowns as a religious prop is uncovered. This is all contrasted by the lack of records which permeates other counties and productions. These documents help to display the role that crowns played in English drama in the counties of Chester, York, Kent, and Norwich.

Works Cited

Clopper, Lawrence M, David Mills, and Elizabeth Baldwin. “Records of Early English Drama: Cheshire Including Chester.” Toronto: The British Library and University of Toronto Press, 2007. Print.

Johnston, Alexandra., and Rogerson, Margaret, eds. “Records of Early English Drama: York.”

Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979. Print.

Galloway, David. ed. “Records of Early English Drama: Norwich, 1540-1642.”

Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984. Print.

Gibson, James. Ed.“Records of Early English Drama: Kent: Diocese of Canterbury.”

Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. Print.

---

[1] REED York, volume.1, pg. 55, line 26.

[2] REED York, volume.1, pg. 55, line 26.

[3] REED Chester, volume.1, pg.107, line 23.

[4] REED Norwich, pg.43, 340.

[5] REED Norwich, pg340, line 8.

[6] REED Chester, volume.1, pg.118, line 17.

[7] REED Kent, volume.3, pg.1057.

[8] REED York, volume.1, pg. 309, line 23.

[9] REED York, volume.1, pg xiv.