Transactions made to Prohibit Performances by Travelling Performers in Bristol, Cambridge and Norwich

            Francesca Bianchi

998288357

            Professor Sergi

            Tuesday April 1^st, 2014

ENG331H1

Transactions made to Prohibit Performances by Travelling Performers in Bristol, Cambridge and Norwich

Dramatic performance was a common asset in England throughout the sixteenth century that offered entertainment to communities and citizens in a variety of English cities. The records of Early English Drama record several instances in which numerous English cities witnessed the entrance of travelling performers from various Patronage and Travelling companies throughout the sixteenth century. However, the travelling performers experienced performance restrictions and opposition by civil authorities of the city. The Records of Early English Drama span across numerous centuries and geographical areas of England; in such, this report will outline and discuss the practice and emergence of travelling performers to the cities of Bristol, Cambridge and Norwich.. Moreover, this report will provide insight on the transactions and restrictions made to prevent travelling performers from performing in the stated English cities throughout the span of the sixteenth century. In addition, this report will also comment on the progression of travelling performers’ restrictions into the early seventeenth century.

            Bristol, located in the South West of England reaching a population of 12,000 by the end of the century was considered “the chief principle town of England after London”[1], due to the cities wealth and economic importance. Bristol has a long and distinguished history of local drama and public ceremony, during which its civic year, special ceremonial events include Michaelmas, Swearing in of the Mayor, All Saints Day and All Souls[2]. As a central trading centre, Bristol continued to support trade fairs, most common being St. James Fair, thus this encouraged entertainers to visit this English city such as the Queen’s players on twelve different occasions during the St. James tide[3]. Due to Bristol’s development as a hub for good roads, economic and regional importance is was considered as “a mecca for such entertainers”[4]. However, although there is little surviving evidence for locally produced drama in Bristol, the records of touring entertainers in the sixteenth century were extensive and detailed in relation to the Mayor Audit [5].  However there is a lack of evidence of touring entertainers in the medieval period due to the fact that the Mayors’ Audits do not survive before 1531. However in the sixteenth century, as records show one hundred and twenty-seven named companies of players visited Bristol (Appendix 1). According to the information outlined in Appendix 1, it illustrates that there was a high interest in the theatre and rapid increase in visiting companies of players during the Elizabethan period. However, due to the high popularity of travelling performers, throughout the sixteenth century there are records of several transactions made to performers in order for them not to play. The first transaction recorded in the Mayors’ Audits occurred in 1540-1541, Lord Russel’s players on St. James Eve were paid iijs. iiijd d for not playing because “tyme was busy they dyd not pleye”[6]. In addition, between the years of 1579-1580, the mayor who had no “leisure to see the game”[7] commanded Lord Derby’s bearward be paid and in 1585-1586 the queen’s players were paid xx s. by the Mayor “for that they played not before Master Mayor and his Bretheren and others of the Cominaltie”[8]. Nevertheless, in the spring of 1586 the Earl of Essex players were paid to perform, but yet in July of that same year the queen’s players were paid 20s to not play[9].Subsequent to the lattr part of the seventeenth century, only ten companies of players are known to have performed (Appendix 2), however the Records of Early Drama of Bristol state records for certain years have not survived. Moreover, in the early seventeenth century the expression ‘not to play’ was reformed to as “to send them out of the city”[10] . Many travelling performers throughout the mid-seventeenth century were paid to not play or were forced out of the city (Appendix 3). Moreover, the Mayors’ Audits the REED volume of Bristol outline records of numerous transactions made that prohibited players from performing within the city of Bristol.

            The modern reputation of the city of Cambridge was a “breeding ground’ for musicians and dramatists[11]. The purpose of this collection is to make known and available records of the nature and scope of drama and secular music in Cambridge[12]. During the fifteenth and sixteenth century more specifically the reigning period of the Tudor monarchs, frequent visits occurred by travelling companies into Cambridge thus attracted many royal visitors such as Elizabeth I, James I, his son Charles and later Prince Charles II.  The most persistent traveling company into Cambridge was the Queen’s players, with a total of a dozen visits between the years of 1558 and 1559. As the REED document of Cambridge explicates, in order for the university to maintain control outside of the city, it played an active role in suppressing professional players and other forms of popular entertainment. Therefore, the leading instrument that encouraged this repression of visiting professional players was an “Item for a Messinger to our Chancellor to obtayne an order, to prohibit players”[13], in turn a letter of prohibition from the Privy Council dated 30 October 1545 granted the university the power to guarantee “public order, suppress distractions that might entice students from their studies and protect the community for the plague”[14]. However, as early as 1568-169, the university’s Vice-Chancellor, along with encouraged support by the crowns of the monarch, enforced a prohibition of professionals within a five-mile limit of the city. Therefore, the actions taken by the university suggests a growing hostility towards professional entertainers in Cambridge. During the years 1579 -1580 and onwards, performers were paid for not performing and others were threatened with jail time if they did not leave the city[15]. Consequently, the REED documents of Cambridge explicate that the prohibition was felt by numerous companies in particular the Queen’s players. According to the University Audit Book of Cambridge, various records illustrate several transactions made to the Queen’s men to be sent away without being permitted to play but nevertheless collected a fee. On one account, the University Audit Book of 1583-1585 outlines the Queen’s players being paid L s, that forbade them to perform in the town[16]. In addition, between 1590-1591, the University Audit Book states xx s was paid to the Queen’s servants for being debarred from playing by the vice-chancellor and xx s were given in 1591-1592 to the “hir Maiesties” servants on June 10^th by being debarred from playing[17]. Furthermore,Moreover, the later part of the sixteenth century more specifically the years between 1579 and1580, visiting companies were often sent away with or without payment, thus there is no evidence recorded of performers visiting companies into Cambridge after 1596-1597.

            Norwich is considered either as “a city in an orchard, or an orchard in a city…the pleasure of the country and the populousness of the city meet here together”[18]. During the Tudor period and during the reign of James I, “Norwich was a world in itself; urban unrest was limited, the city was capable of handling its own affairs, and communications…”[19]. In 1565 Norwich experienced a wave of Dutch, Flemish and Walloon weavers and by 1579, there were 6,000 in a total population of 16,000. As a result, Norwich captured much of the export market, thus the expansion in trade in the latter part of the sixteenth century contributed to Norwich’s wealth and population[20]. Although there is numerous amounts of evidence about the various kinds of entertainment in Norwich, only a minimal amount explicate the nature of entertainment is ‘local’[21]. The progression of the sixteenth century saw more frequent visits from travelling companies, therefore making Norwich a popular stopping-place for companies on tour. However, prior to 1589 there had been civic unrest due to the presence of the travelling companies. As recorded in the Chamberlain Accounts VII of 1549-1550 x s. were paid to the King’s players for the reason that it was not “mete for them to playe as the tyme than requeryd by reason of the late commocion”[22]. Records portray evidence of increasing transactions made to players on the condition that they do not perform due to disputes between players and civic authorities from 1583 onwards[23]. The Chamberlain Accounts VII accounts several transactions made during 1582-1583 in order for travelling players to not play; xl s was given to the Queen’s players, xl s. given to the Earl of Leicester’s players as a reward by the Mayor and the court of Alderman that the players should not play in the city and xx s. given to the Oxford players to not play in the city[24]. Thus, due to the civil unrest in Cambridge, on February 10^th, 1589 the assembly passed an act ordering “no ffreeman of this citie shall go to or be present at any play…”[25]. Therefore records show that after 1603 and into the early years of the seventeenth century, several accounts are documented in the Chamberlain Accounts that companies were paid without playing, the 15^th of October 1609 xxx s. was paid to the Queen’s players, the 3^rd of May 1610 xl s. was paid to lord Abnes’ men and xx s. was paid to Lord Bortletts men for they should not play, the 5^th of June 1616, xl s. was paid to Lady Elizabeth’s servants[26]. Moreover these payments made during the early years of the seventeenth century were based on the promise “to detist from playing within the libertye of this Cytty As by warrant”[27].

            Overall, several English cities witnessed numerous dramatic performances throughout the sixteenth century and early seventeenth century by various travelling companies. This report offers insight on the various transactions recorded within the REED documents made to travelling performers in the cities of Bristol, Cambridge and Norwich. However, the commonality of these cities discussed throughout the report implies that several payments were given to travelling companies in order for them to not play within the cities. Furthermore, although these English cities witnessed a wide vast of performers and entertainment, paying travelling performers to not play was a frequent occurrence throughout the sixteenth and early the seventeenth century.

Works Cited

David Galloway. Records of Early English Drama: Norwich. University of Toronto Press. Canada. 1984

Alan H. Nelson. Records of Early English Drama: Cambridge. University of Toronto Press. Canada. 1989

Mark C. Pilkinton, Records of Early English Drama: Bristol. University of Toronto Press. Canada. 1997

Number of Companies	Year
14	1530s
8	1540s
9	1550s
27	1560s
28	1570s
17	1580s
26	1590s

Appendix 1[28]

Number of Companies	Year
2	1600s
3	1610s
3	1620s
2	1630s
0	1640s

Appendix 2[29]

Appendix 3[30]

Year	Reason & Payment
1629-1630	Players were dismissed
1630-1631	ij li. was paid to the King’s players by order of the mayor and the Alderman
1632-1633	Mayor gave Company of players 20s to rid them
1633-1634	Mayor gave a Company of players £1 10s to rid them out of town
1634-1635	Mayor paid certain players two pounds because they should not play

---

[1] Mark C. Pilkinton, Records of Early English Drama: Bristol. University of Toronto Press. Canada. 1997. p. xiv.

[2] Ibid xiv.

[3] Ibid xxxi.

[4] Ibid xxxiii.

[5] Ibid xxxiii.

[6]Ibid 51.

[7] Ibid 120.

[8] Ibid 128.

[9] Ibid 128.

[10] Ibid. 176.

[11] Alan H. Nelson. Records of Early English Drama: Cambridge. University of Toronto Press. Canada. 1989. p. 4.

[12] Ibid 5.

[13] Ibid 680.

[14] Ibid 723.

[15] Ibid 725.

[16] Ibid 311.

[17] Ibid. 332,338-339

[18] David Galloway. Records of Early English Drama: Norwich. University of Toronto Press. Canada. 1984. p.xv

[19] Ibid xvii.

[20] Ibid xvii.

[21] Ibid xxx.

[22] Ibid, 26.

[23] Ibid xxxiv.

[24] Ibid 65.

[25] Ibid xxxiii.

[26] Ibid  134.

[27] Ibid 144.

[28] REED xxxiv (intro)

[29] REED 128

[30] REED 232-239