Dragons in British Performance: 1400-1600

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 20^th 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 15-17^th 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.

The Fuel of Middle English Drama

ENG331H1S Drama to 1603

Prof. Matthew Sergi

By Jasmine Cornforth 998143940

March 31, 2014

The Fuel of Middle English Drama

Keywords: food, meat, Dorset Cornwall, Lancashire, Devon

This report seeks to explore food as an important element in the production of early drama, based on information found within the Records of Early English Drama (REED). Specifically, it will look at the various ways in which food was used around or during dramatic productions, as well as attempt to explain when and why it was consumed. It will also identify some of the foods that the people involved in drama to 1603 consumed, whether at feasts or as simple subsistence. This information will be retrieved from three REED volumes: Dorset Cornwall, Lancashire and Devon.

To begin with, what was food used for? Obviously, everyone needed to eat regardless of whether or not they were involved in a dramatic production, but we can generally assume that REED provides us with records of food that is used specifically to help make said dramatic productions possible. Please note that while drinks were very important in the middle ages, this essay will try to limit its discussion to food only.

In the Devon volume, there is one record for the town of Plymouth for what appears to be the account for a Corpus Christi dinner. It is said in this record that all diners were to be provided with food and drink, but that a charge would be reckoned for each individual. However, they would be able to pay their providers back at their own leisure. As we know from class, plays (specifically mystery plays) were performed on Corpus Christi. They were apparently put on as entertainment while the audience enjoyed their feast. Corpus Christi meals were one of the main ways in which food was important to dramatic productions; the feasts were accompanied by the plays. The feasts would likely have been quite popular seeing as those who attended were not pressured to pay for their meals immediately, so they would have been able to draw people as diners/audience members in regardless of how much money they had. The amount of people who showed up for these plays was therefore potentially somewhat reliant on the feast that was provided to them.

Corpus Christi is not the only event at which dramatic performances occurred and required food, of course. For example, the Dorset Cornwall volume mentions a more secular custom called Cobb ale, which apparently fostered the community spirit of townsfolk while raising funds for various civic projects. Cobb ale occurred annually in Lyme Regis (located in West Dorset) and lasted between two and three weeks. It seems to have lasted from around 1554 to 1606, according to REED. We know that ample food as well as drink was required for Cobb ale to take place, but this volume of REED does not make it clear whether this food and drink was exclusively that which was consumed by the performers themselves, or by the audiences of the productions as well. The performers are said to have traveled to nearby towns together during the celebration, so they did not remain exclusively local, and would have needed to have been “fueled” by the production company. This is only one very specific example of traveling performers needing to be fed and provided for, but we can easily assume that this was a common practice in many different cases.

Also in the Dorset Cornwall volume, there are several accounts listing food and other items that were apparently purchased for Hocktide or “Hock days” in the Blandford Forum (located in Dorset) in the year 1603. We can probably assume that since Hocktide was a festival, the food mentioned in these records was consumed either by audiences at feasts, or by the performers themselves while traveling.

Food was also apparently given as gifts to those in higher positions or in the place of money. For example, in the Dorset Cornwall volume, eels were supposedly given to an influential political figure named Sir George Trenchard as gifts in an undated record. In the same volume, malt, wheat and even bacon were given in the place of money at a fundraising event.

The Dorset Cornwall and Lancashire volumes are especially helpful in that they list a plethora of different types of food that were consumed, with notable overlap between the two volumes, meaning that the most important types of food are basically guaranteed to make appearances in these records.

It should be noted that a good number of the mentions of food in the Lancashire volume are from the “Household accounts of Thomas Walmesley”, a collection which postdates 1603 by 1-4 decades. There were two Thomas Walmesleys; one was a rich lawyer and the other was his son. The household records belong to the second Walmesley. He and his wife were said to have entertainers visit their manor frequently; that is why these records are relevant. I assume that these records were not written long enough after the 16^th century for the types of food used for entertainment to be radically different than they would have been 40 or less years before.

Apples, pears, lemons, cherries, prunes, raisins, and oranges are all the fruits that are mentioned in these volumes. “Pepper” is also mentioned, but it is implied that this pepper was bought in a condiment form. While most of the fruits are only listed in the aforementioned Hocktide lists, it still seems odd that so many types of them were used, because vegetables seem much less popular than fruits were. There is no mention whatsoever of vegetables in the Dorset Cornwall volume, while the Lancashire volume only mentions leeks and peas.

Animal products, such as eggs, cheese and butter, were consumed. Interestingly, there is no mention of milk. Spices and other condiments, such as vinegar, mustard, honey, jelly, salt and pepper, were used. Grains were important; specifically, malt and wheat. The wheat was needed for bread, cakes and biscuits. Bread was especially commonplace; this is evident by the sheer amount of mentions there are of bread throughout all three volumes of records consulted.

Meat was, of course, consumed often (the word for food itself was generally “meat” or some variation on that spelling). This volume lists bacon, beef, brawn, calves/calves' heads, chicken, capon and many other types of fowl, chitterlings, drippings, fish and many other types of seafood, lamb, mutton, neat's tongues, pigs, suet, tripe, veal and venison as the different animals and meat dishes that were consumed. It is worth noting that, when separated into food categories, an outstanding amount of the food mentioned in these two volumes would fall under the “meat” category. This tells us just how important meat was to the people involved in early English drama.

The reader of this essay should now be familiar with the reasons for which food appears so often throughout the records left behind from Middle English dramatic productions. For the most part, food is found on accounts and inventory lists. Generally, it was needed either in order to feed audiences at the feasts at which the plays would be performed, or to feed the performers themselves as they traveled. Food was also sometimes given as gifts. The Dorset Cornwall and Lancashire volumes provide a decent idea of the kinds of food involved – meat of all kinds were especially important, as well as bread. Logic dictates that food may have also been used and consumed onstage during dramatic productions as props, but there does not seem to be any solid evidence for this in the three REED volumes consulted.

Bibliography

1. Hays, Rosalind Conklin et al. Dorset Cornwall – Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999. Print.
2. George, David F. Lancashire – Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991. Print.
3. Wasson, John M. Devon – Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986. Print.

“for Poules without”: Beards as Costumes and their Sumptuary Restrictions

Evan Kennedy

1000065378

Professor: M. Sergi

Due Date: April 1^st, 2014

Keywords: Beard, Costume, St. Paul’s, Sumptuary, Tudor 

“for Poules without”: Beards as Costumes and their Sumptuary Restrictions

The Ecclesiastical London volume of the Records of Early English Drama (REED) provides unique information on the use of beards, whether real or fake, as an element of costume.  Unlike other volumes, which primarily acknowledge faux beards through the purchase of hair, the records of Ecclesiastical London exhibit multiple manuscripts that designate whether an actor is to be bearded or clean-shaven based on the location of a production.  Specifically, St. Paul’s Cathedral is frequently indicated as a beard-free zone, meriting significant commentary in character lists and stage directions within a script.  In this paper I will attempt to rationalize this remarkable relationship between facial hair and venue by acknowledging its relevance within a country subject to sumptuary law. Furthermore, I will demonstrate how records of faux beards throughout the REED collection are largely exhibitive of the widespread ineffectiveness of these aesthetic restrictions.

Two manuscripts are featured in the records for their reference to this clean-shaven convention.  The first, Arabia Sitiens, dated to 1601, includes a description of the character Mahomet as,

“Mahomet: With Alcoran [under his arme] and Syluer crescent on his Turbant and all in   greene, vicegerent of Heaven, without Mustach if for Poules and bare faced”

(Ecclesiastical London, 283).

Poules, or St. Paul’s Cathedral, is indicated as a location where a beard and moustache would be unsuitable.  This restriction is further enforced within the script itself, as a marginal note in act 1 scene 1 provides the direction, “He held him by the Bearde, or clawd him by the face if for Poules” (Ecclesiastical London, 284).  It is apparent that clean-shaven faces are a significant convention that merits specific changes to performance when at a certain venue. The second manuscript, The Aphrodysial, dated to 1602, also includes a list of characters at the beginning of the manuscript and specifies whether or not they should have a beard.  Among these instructions is the phrase, “for Powles without” (Ecclesiastical London, 288-9).  While it remains unclear whether productions of these manuscripts actually occurred at the cathedral, both texts still clearly designate St. Paul’s as a venue in which beards would not be suitable, though neither contribute satisfactory indication as to why.  I believe sumptuary law provides a possible explanation.

Sumptuary laws were constraints on apparel established by the ruling monarch to differentiate between classes.  These legal restrictions indicated specific class levels and articles of clothing prohibited to each (Hooper, 433).  Monarchs of the Tudor line were not the first to enforce such restrictions, but they may have been unique in their attempts to incorporate facial hair into the law’s jurisdiction.  In 1546, Henry VIII made efforts to include long beards in these regulations, which is notable given his own blond beard in most portraits.  These restrictions continued into the reign of his daughter Elizabeth, who in 1558 attempted to tax beard length “according to the age and social standing of their proprietors” (Reynolds, 218-219).  Those who failed to keep their faces shaved lost the “liberties and freedom of his city as long as he does wear such beard” (Reynolds, 216).  If these aesthetic restrictions were considered essential in the production of a play, the risk of punishment could have major ramifications on the use of costumes throughout all of England.

But were costume beards subject to the jurisdiction of sumptuary law?  Records from various guilds across counties document the longstanding purchase of hair for the construction of faux beards.  In Coventry, the Weavers’ Guild lists the yearly purchase of hair for faux beards from 1570 to 1579 (Coventry, 252), and in Chester the Painters’ Guild lists similar transactions (Chester, 166).  Initial evidence throughout the REED archive seems to support that the costumes were not restricted like their natural counterparts.

Still, the presence of faux beards in such records may instead reveal the notorious difficulty the monarchy had enforcing these restrictions.  Rather than suggest that the use of costume beards was irrelevant to the law, it is possible that most communities outside the immediate influence of central London found sumptuary law to be irrelevant to their every-day life, and so the regulations were largely ignored.  The law itself was continually under revision as fashions were ever changing in an economically stimulated London and administration was difficult to maintain with these shifting regulations (Hooper, 444). In his summation of Tudor Sumptuary restrictions, Hooper acknowledges, “Outside London and the universities, little activity was shown to enforce the dress regime.  Here and there offenders were occasionally presented or prosecuted for infringing the statutes, and a few provincial towns framed by-laws relating to apparel” (Hooper, 447).

Inside London, however, St. Paul’s Cathedral had the location and social environment essential to requisite these aesthetic designations. In the center of London, this highly social space presented a perfect situation for large populations to mingle.  St. Paul’s Cathedral offered a specific opportunity for gatherings that were inclusive of people of many different classes, and so the preservation of clearer distinctions between these classes would remain an imperative.  Furthermore, unlike the counties of Coventry and Chester, St. Paul’s Cathedral was in intimate vicinity to the court and would experience greater pressure to conform to these regulations.  Indeed, shaven faces were not the sole costumes requisite within a performance St. Paul’s Cathedral.  Arabia Sitiens also contains marginal notes designating highly specific angel costumes that, when at other venues, simply require actors to “at your best conformity be” (Ecclesiastical London, 283).

If sumptuary law effectively explains the need to annotate barefaced actors in performances at ‘Poules’, the significance of the Arabia Sitiens and The Aphrodysial manuscripts shifts dramatically.  Instead of only indicating adherence to sumptuary law, these texts also reveal that there were alternative performance venues available in London where these restrictions did not need to be observed.  Thus, the possibility of aesthetic leniency present in these manuscripts dated 1601 and 1602 is predictive of the prompt dissolution of sumptuary law in 1604 (Hooper, 448).  With this, small marginal notes, indicating the details of facial hair, can be seen as symptomatic clues, forecasting much larger legal shifts in the immediate future.

Whether or not they were actually performed, the Arabia Sitiens and The Aphrodysial manuscripts in the Ecclesiastical London volume of the REED display a uniquely specific relationship between costuming restrictions and venue.  While the texts themselves fail to explain the motivation behind these annotations, I believe one possible solution can be found by examining the influence of sumptuary law.  Consideration of this possibility suggests a venue, or at least an unnamed author, still necessarily sensitive to cultural restrictions that, on a broader scale, were quickly becoming ineffective and obsolete.

Work Cited

Hooper, Wilfrid. “The Tudor Sumptuary Laws.”  The English Historical Review, Vol. 30, No. 119. pp. 433-449. 1915.

Records of Early English Drama. Chester. Ed. Lawrence M. Clopper. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press, 1979. Print.

Records of Early English Drama. Coventry. Ed. R.W. Ingram. Toronto: University of

Toronto Press, 1981. Print

Records of Early English Drama. Ecclesiastical London. Ed. Mary C. Erler. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press, 2008. Print.

Reynolds, Reginald. Beards. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1949. Print.

ENG331 Drama to 1603: REED Report - The Economy of Costume

ENG331 Drama to 1603: REED Report - The Economy of Costume
Holly Barnes
University of Toronto

             The celebrations and theatrical presentations examined in the Records of Early English Drama (REED) present the origins of many of the elements that are present in the dramatic sphere of the modern age. One of these elements is the use and maintenance of costumes utilized in the drama of the sixteenth century.  This report seeks to examine some of the key facets of costume and apparel, specifically the economy of costume and the maintenance and keeping of the costumes for the players in the 1500’s.  As the records span a vast geographical space within England, as well as, in some cases multiple centuries, this report will limit its examination of costume to Devon, Dorset/Cornwall, Chester and Wales. Although the inclusion of Wales may be contrary to the inclusiveness of a strictly “English” examination, I feel its inclusion is valuable in order to locate any potential differences in costume usage in an arguably culturally and geographically distinct area which is in close proximity to the rest of the areas being studied.

This report will first focus on Devon, a county in the South of England. Towns within county Devon included Barnstable, Dartmouth and Exeter, and all three area’s chief periods of festivity and dramatic production corresponded to yearly religious holidays, namely Corpus Christi, Michaelmas and Christmas. [1] Secular drama was also highly popular in these areas and the production of Robin Hood plays are recorded variously throughout REED.  What my research has shown is that in Devon, it was the churches, not the guilds which were primarily financially responsible for the production of these folk plays and also the procurement of the costumes. In fact in the sixteenth century the main sources of income based on St. Martin’s and St. Mary’s Church Warden’s accounts were not only the usual church ales but also the Robin Hood plays.[2] In Ashburton, another town within county Devon, the records show multiple entries for the St. Andrew’s Churchwarden’s account between years 1508 and 1557 which contain references not only to the payment for costumes themselves but also for the mending and keeping of them. As the entries do not specify which plays the costumes were acquired for, there can only be conjecture that the apparel was for both folk and biblical or cycle productions. In the accounts of 1508-09, St. Andrew’s Churchwarden enters that vij s vijd was “payed for the mending of player clothys.”[3] The next significant entry in relation to the economy of costuming is dated 1532-33, again from St. Andrew’s parish where “viij s iiij d payd to John Wyndyett Tayler for ‘the belles coliers and for kepying of the playing clothys’”.[4] Interestingly, there are other entries over the next four years to the same man at the same rate for the keeping of the costumes.  It is therefore apparent that in Ashburton, there was no natural rate of increase for these services. Evidence also suggests that there was a certain tradition in the keeping of the player’s clothes, as one man served that role for many years. It was not until ledgers for 1554-55 that the records show a new keeper of the costumes, William Bound, who was paid iiij s iiij d for the “keeping of players clotheyng” in 1555-56. Mr. Bound was still in his post in 1556-57, but at an apparent lower rate of ij s.[5] In Exeter, the records make no specific mention of costumes or their acquisition.  The nearby county of Dorset/Cornwall, also in the South West of England appears to have similar interests in its theatrical engagements, as “entries in Cornish records also document the performance of Robin Hood plays during the last half of the sixteenth century and may help to confirm the belief that interest in Robin Hood grew during the 1500’s.”[6] Additionally, “the accounts confirm that within a period of six years, five different performances of a Robin Hood play were held in the same location.”[7] Just as in Devon, folk plays then, as well as biblical cycle plays were being performed throughout the century and it was the Parishes, rather than the guilds that were responsible for many of the financial transactions entailed in the acquisition of costumes: “Costumes for Robin Hood plays are mentioned in the church warden’s accounts for St. Columb major, which indicated ownership of various sorts of costumes that the church apparently rented to performers.”[8] In 1587-88, the Churchwarden’s account for the parish of St. Columb major specified that it “received payment for the lont (loan) of the Robin Hoodes clothes xviij d.”[9] Proving that the church used these costumes as a source of income, this entry also shows that it was less expensive to rent costumes from the church on a yearly basis then to maintain the same trove of costumes through the use of a paid keeper. That being said, the record above stipulates that the costumes were to be rented for the production of one specific play, therefore the accrual of payments for costume rental for various costumes over multiple seasons for different plays, may in fact have been less economical.

Looking to the North of England, we will now turn our attention to Chester. This county is known for The Chester Cycle Plays, which were performed throughout the sixteenth century. The popularity of these plays speaks to the influence of religion in the area as the documents within REED make no mention of the Robin Hood plays which were so popular elsewhere. Conversely, while it was the Church in the southern counties which retained much of the fiscal responsibility surrounding the costumes for the players, in Chester, it was the guilds which were in charge of the production of these cycle plays, including costuming. The guilds though, appear to have spent many more resources on the carriage (wagon) used for the cycle plays. Dressing the wagon it seems, may have been more important at that time than dressing the actors. Though it was primarily the function of the guilds to facilitate production, the church was not wholly uninvolved and I was able to find an entry dated 1569-70 for the Trinity Churchwarden’s accounts which stated that it: “sold 3 course vestments and a course stremer to make players garments viiij s.”[10] Here, we see that like in the southern counties, the church was using costume as an income earning endeavour; in this case the church was selling material to be used for costumes at a much higher rate than that of costume rentals.

Under the reign of Henry VIII, the Tudor monarchy officially extended its power over Wales.[11] As Wales did not share a long historical national identity with England in the sixteenth century, it is not surprising then that we see substantial differences in their handling of costume and dramatic performance. There is actually no mention of costumes in the Wales REED Index. Indeed the REED for Wales state that “[o]ther common English performance traditions, such as Robin Hood plays, appear to have found no home in Wales.”[12] Additionally, REED continues that “[c]ostume tradition varies regionally and there does not appear to be any national standard or tradition.”[13] As there is no specific reference to costumes in the entries or ledgers, we have little insight in this region as to the economy of the player’s dramatic wardrobe. However, another method of disguise, cross-dressing, is referred to several times in the documents, in reference to performance: “[c]ross dressing was commonly a feature of midsummer dancing activities in North East Wales, especially after the Reformation.”[14] A specific example tells of two performers, “William Arrowsmyth and Richard Stubbs bothe of them in disguised apparel with naked swords in theire hands daunsing with those that were in womens apparel…”.[15] Cross dressing was not limited to dancing or other dramatic presentations, but was also engaged in during public executions[16] further adding to the spectacle for the crowd during these highly charged occasions.

Though the scope of this report did not allow for an examination of costume usage throughout the whole of England, certain valuable insights have been ascertained; there was a distinct tradition of costume keeping in the southern counties we have looked at, and while it is important to note that these posts were long standing, yearly incremental gains did not accompany those posts. Additionally, costume rental and fabric sales were of importance to the church for parish fundraising, though it may have been more economically feasible for the producers, namely the guilds, to maintain their own costume collection and have it maintained and mended over the years as opposed to newly purchased or rented apparel from the church. Genre of play and corresponding costume tradition varied regionally and not surprisingly, we see the greatest differences in Wales.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

Clopper, Lawrence M., ed., Records of Early English Drama: Chester. Toronto: University of        Toronto Press, 1979.

 

Conklin Hays, Rosalind and C.E. McGee, eds., Records of Early English Drama: Dorset. Toronto: Brepols Publishers and University of Toronto Press Inc., 1999.

 

Joyce, Sally L. and Evelyn S. Newlyn, eds., Records of Early English Drama: Cornwall. Toronto: Brepols Publishers and University of Toronto Press Inc., 1999.

 

Klausner, David N., ed., Records of Early English Drama: Wales. Toronto: The British Library and University of Toronto Press Inc., 2005.

 

Merriman, John. A History of Modern Europe: Vol. 1. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010.

 

Wasson, John M., ed., Records of Early English Drama: Devon. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986.

---

[1] John M. Wasson, ed, Records of Early English Drama: Devon (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), 17.

[2] Ibid. 39.

[3] John M. Wasson, ed., Records of Early English Drama: Devon (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), 19.

[4] Ibid. 19.

[5] Ibid. 28.

[6] Rosalind Conklin Hayes et al., eds., Records of Early Modern Drama: Dorset/Cornwall (Toronto: Brepols Publishers and University of Toronto Inc., 1999) ,399

[7] Ibid. 400.

[8] Rosalind Conklin Hayes et al., eds., Records of Early Modern Drama: Dorset/Cornwall (Toronto: Brepols Publishers and University of Toronto Inc., 1999) ,400.

[9] Ibid. 508.

[10] Lawrence M. Clopper, ed., Records of Early English Drama: Chester (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979), 91.

[11] John Merriman.  A History of Modern Europe: Vol. 1. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010), pg. 179-80.

[12] David N. Klausner, ed., Records of Early English Drama: Wales (Toronto: The British Library and University of Toronto Press Inc. 2005), xxvii.

[13] Ibid. xxvii.

[14] Ibid. 419.

[15] David N. Klausner, ed., Records of Early English Drama: Wales (Toronto: The British Library and University of Toronto Press Inc., 2005), 419.

[16] Ibid. 413.