‘O ye soverens that sytt and ye brothern that stonde ryght uppe’ and ‘ffrom ye highest vnto ye lowest degree’: Performative Peacemaking in Cambridgeshire during the Wars of the Roses

In 1479 John Morton (c1410–1500), the Oxford-educated doctor of civil law, was installed as bishop of Ely. The 1470s marked a period of relative and long-absent peace in the realm, following twenty-four years of the civil war now known as the Wars of the Roses. The brief readeption of Henry VI in 1470–1 ended with the death of the Lancastrian king, and Edward IV returned to the throne for twelve years of unchallenged rule.

Included as an appendix to Cambridgeshire is a copy of the menu for Morton’s installation feast, found in an untitled incunabulum (STC: 782) published in Antwerp in 1503. Here, along with the dishes served, are other often-overlooked and obscure elements of medieval feasts: the menu includes descriptions of so-called ‘subtleties,’ models of animals, buildings, or other things, which are presented to the guests with an accompanying verse. The last stanza, introducing the sixth and final subtlety (the Cathedral Church of Ely, in brass), which welcomes the guests, refers to those ‘ffrom ye highest vnto ye lowest degree,’ and is especially interesting to me.

Service at the Installation of John Morton, Bishop of Ely (STC: 782; EEBO).

After the upheaval earlier in the decade it is perhaps surprising that Edward would support Morton as bishop. Morton had old ties to Lancastrian factions,and had acted as keeper of the privy seal under Henry VI. He was excluded from the general pardon of Lancastrians in 1461 and pardoned only in 1471, after a period of exile on the Continent. Soon after the pardon, nonetheless, Edward named Morton master of the rolls (1472–9), ambassador to France (1477) and, finally, bishop of Ely (1479). Royal support for Morton extended into the Tudor reign, with Henry VII seeing Morton’s elevation to archbishop of Canterbury in 1486 and naming him lord chancellor in 1487.

Anne Brannen, who first presented a transcription and analysis of the menu, notes that the guest list ‘shows the same careful planning exhibited by other aspects of the feast,’ bringing together former adversaries.[1] The guests included both churchmen and nobles, as well as Yorkists such as Sir Thomas Howard (a member of the king’s household), Sir John Donne, and Sir Robert Chamberlain, but also Sir William Brandon, banner bearer to Henry VI, and John Fortescu, a Lancastrian pardoned with Morton. Further, the food choices provide three courses of both meat and fish dishes to respect the lay and ecclesiastical guests, but transition slowly from almost wholly meat (secular) to fish (spiritual). Similarly, six subtleties are presented, two for each course, reflecting a parallel transition. Brannen has already discussed this aspect of the feast, so I will note only the endpoints here: the first subtlety is a white lion, an emblem from Edward IV’s coat of arms, and the accompanying poem references ‘the habundant grace/ Of king Edward in al his actes wise.’ The sixth subtlety is the church itself, in brass, accompanied by a poem to welcome all of high and low degree therein, and enjuring them to yield to God. As Brannen notes, the feast — food, subtleties, poems, and even the guests — work together to produce a symbolic performance and enactment of ‘a well-knit society, well-governed and impervious to, though aware of the possibilities of, rebellion.’[2] The message enacted is this: turn away from the corrupting influence of the world, reject sin, seek reward through both secular and spiritual loyalty and steadfastness.

This was not the first time that public performance was used in East Anglia during the civil wars to present such a message. The Macro Manuscript (Folger Shakespeare Library MS V.a.354) contains two earlier examples of the same: Wisdom and Mankind. Both poems were copied by a monk — likely Thomas Hyngham of Bury St Edmunds, East Anglia’s other preeminent abbey and shrine — within a decade of each other: Wisdom in the early 1460s and Mankind in the early 1470s. Mankind’s transcription took place at a date close to its first performance, during Shrovetide in 1471 at either Bishop’s Lynn or Cambridge. Wisdom’s performance date and location have yet to be discovered, but the play was at least copied during the first decade of Edward IV’s rule. Gail McMurray Gibson has argued that ‘[t]here is little wonder that fifteenth-century texts seem obsessed with the wheel of fortune and the mutability of man—or that a play such as Wisdom would contrast the chaos and turbulence of worldly kingdoms with the serenity of the enthroned, contemplative Wisdom who is Christ.’[3]

Internal evidence suggests an audience that is likely wealthy, educated, and theologically-minded, for whom this play likely serves two functions. The first is to advise any Christian to turn away from the corrupting influence of the world, to reject new or presently ubiquitous forms of sin such as maintenance, and perennial sins such as lechery. The second, as John Marshall notes most explicitly, is to present to an East Anglian audience a series of symbols, carefully described in the stage and costume directions, that would bear special and particular reference to William de la Pole, first duke of Suffolk.[4] William, acting in a number of administrative roles, supported Henry VI’s kingship while allowing a number of lawless retainers to trouble Suffolk. Finally, despite Henry’s efforts to protect him through banishment, he was executed in 1450. William’s son John, eight at the time of his father’s death, realigned his house with York in 1458 by marrying Edward IV’s sister Elizabeth. Although many of the heraldic images in Wisdom could be seen to apply to John as easily as his father, both John’s youth and some of the more specific critiques of maintenance and perjury apply more directly to William and his wife Alice, who retained a large degree of influence over John into the early 1460s. As such, Wisdom can be read as a play that is highly critical of maintenance and abuses of local authority under William, operating under the weak rule of Henry VI.

Wisdom, Washington DC, Folger MS V.a.354, f. 99r. LUNA: Folger Digital Image Collection 31516. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Mankind, Washington DC, Folger MS V.a.354, f. 122r. LUNA: Folger Digital Image Collection 31540. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).

The copying of Mankind in the same hand adds strength to this argument. Mankind was, as I have argued elsewhere in agreement with Marshall, very likely performed or composed in 1470–1, during the time of the Lancastrian readeption, which saw the dismissal of Yorkist sympathizers in East Anglia from positions of local authority.[5] Mankind lacks stage directions; lines 500–15, however, present the worldly vices (or worldlings) of New Guise, Nowadays, and Nought sent out either to trouble or avoid a number of real East Anglian individuals. The three individuals to be avoided are, notably, the only ones on the list that appear in records of appointments to local commissions during the first decade of Edward IV’s reign.

Likely performance spaces for these plays are difficult to determine. Since both seem to support Yorkist rule, the abbey at Bury St Edmunds might seem at first an unlikely option. During the administration of Abbot Curteys (1429–46), William de la Pole and his wife were admitted to the chapter fraternity of the abbey, alongside Henry VI. Curteys referred to Suffolk as his ‘grete lord.’ The abbey also enjoyed considerable royal favour under the early reign of Henry VI. As a boy of twelve, Henry spent a number of months in residence at the abbey, from Christmas to Easter 1433/4, and visited again in 1436, 1446, and 1448. John Lydgate, famous Bury resident, composed the Life of St Edmund specifically to honour Henry for his first visit.

The abbey’s Lancastrian sympathies may not, however, have lasted long after Edward’s rise to power. The years 1460 to 1462 were marked by the firm if not brutal elimination of Lancastrian supporters. both in court and in the provinces: 1462 alone saw the arrest of six and the execution of five Lancastrian leaders and long-time patrons of Bury. The abbot and the convent as a whole were charged with suspected treason. The one Lancastrian leader not executed, John Clopton, also a lay brother of the abbey, returned home and financed ‘the rebuilding of the spectacular parish church at Long Melford in which his stained glass portrait still survives — conspicuously decorated with Edward IV’s Yorkist white roses.’[6] Similarly, in a later manuscript of Lydgate’s Life of St Edmund the references to Henry’s 1433/4 visit are removed. It is not then unreasonable to assume that a public performance critical of a weak king with lawless favourites might suit a new Yorkist leaning within the abbey. It is in this context that Gibson suggests Edward IV’s 1469 visitation to the abbey as a potential performance date.

Wisdom and Mankind might seem two very different sorts of plays, performed by different casts, and presumably presented to very different audiences. While the arguments for Mankind’s creation as a travelling play are feasible in consideration of its small cast size and apparent (but likely tongue-in-cheek) request for payment, the Latinate humour and Latin quotations may also gesture to an educated audience such as Bury might have. This position, however, is highly conjectural; equally strong arguments support a Cambridgeshire performance, for which there are no records.

The two plays are nonetheless still linked together in their shared political themes. That both plays are at the least closely affiliated with Bury St Edmunds presents us with a number of intriguing hypotheses. The Abbey at Bury St Edmunds was, despite its long institutional memory, nonetheless sensitive to contemporary political demands. Shown a large degree of royal favour under Henry VI and closely allied with William de la Pole through the 1430s and 1440s, it underwent hasty but profound political realignment in the first decade of Yorkist rule, and seemed most importantly to maintain that loyalty during the readeption. The reasons for this realignment can of course be attributed to Edward’s rigorous rooting out of Lancastrian sympathizers in East Anglia, but may also have been an effect of Edward’s favour shown to those who accepted the new way of things.

It is then all the more interesting and perhaps compelling to look at Morton’s installation feast in a larger East Anglian context. A region marked by a wealthy and well-educated gentry and long-standing powerful institutions such as Bury St Edmunds, the bishopric of Ely, and the university, offers a population ready to engage with and critique such political issues and their theological implications. We see in all three performance documents a manifest resistance to instability of the Wars of the Roses, a direct, active, political, and spiritual response to the precarity and vexations of the time, perhaps motivated by a lingering fear that such upheavals might come again.

Header: Wisdom, Washington DC, Folger MS V.a.354, f. 99r. LUNA: Folger Digital Image Collection 31516. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).

[1] Anne Brannen, ‘Intricate Subtleties: Entertainment at Bishop Morton’s Installation Feast,’ REED Newsletter 22.2 (1997), 5. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/reed/article/view/10000.

[2] Brannen, ‘Intricate Subtleties,’ p 3.

[3] Gail McMurray Gibson, ‘The Play of “Wisdom” and the Abbey of St. Edmund,’ Comparative Drama 19.2 (Summer 1985), 131.

[4] John Marshall, ‘”Fortune in the Worldys Worschyppe”: The Satirising of the Suffolks in Wisdom,’ Medieval English Theatre 14 (1992), 37–66.

[5] John A. Geck, ‘”On Yestern Day, in Feverere, the Yere Passeth Fully”: On the Dating and Prosopography of Mankind,’ Early Theatre 12.2 (2009), 33–56, https://earlytheatre.org/earlytheatre/article/view/816/879; John Marshall, ‘”O ye Souerens that Sytt and ye Brothern that stonde ryght wppe”: Addressing the Audience of Mankind,’ European Medieval Drama 1 (1997), 105–119.

[6] Gibson, ‘Play of “Wisdom”,’ p 129.

‘A great prophanacion made both of day & place’: Animal Cruelty as Performance?

CW: The following post discusses animal cruelty & death (cat)

In preparing the REED: Cambridgeshire records, I was drawn to an event that demanded explanation beyond what the record provided. The diocesan court proceedings for 10 April 1639 list five men, William Smith, William Wade, Thomas Barkinn, Bartholomew Scott, and a ‘Reynolds,’ a servant of Thomas Draper, who tortured a cat, presumably to death, on New Year’s Day:

Willelmus Wade: [it is reported against him thus] that he was present and an Actor on Newyeares day att ye tyme of divine seruice in the Quire when a great noise & disturbance was made neere the Quire of the Cathedrall Church of Ely by the Roasting of a Catt tyed to a spitt by one William Smith & there a fire made about it. whereby much people were gathered together & a great prophanacion made both of day & place. [He appeared and confesses] that [he did so] at ye common greene where sports use to be the in the time of diuine service at Night.

The likeliest place for this event seems to be what is now called ‘Palace Green,’ mentioned in VCH: Cambridgeshire in respect to the location of the Bishop’s Palace (now the King’s School Ely).[1] ‘The Park,’ the open space between Ely Cathedral and Cherry Hill, where Ely Castle once stood, is perhaps another possibility.

Although the record is left unfinished, we know that all five men confessed and were ordered to do penance before the minister, the churchwardens, and three parishioners. They faced no charges, it would seem, for animal cruelty. The crimes for which the men were found guilty were, as Bruce Thomas Boehrer notes, ‘examples of vandalism and profanation rather than cruelty.’[2] Boehrer connects the example of William Smith and company to another case, five years later, in which ‘the parliamentary troopers who overran Lichfield Close used hounds to hunt cats through the cathedral on successive days,’ a means to register Puritan contempt for the spiritual practices associated with high-church Anglicanism.’[3]

In my discussion of performance traditions in the Cambridgeshire records, I tentatively suggest that this act of cat immolation could be a demonstration of anti-Catholic sentiment associated with a New Year’s celebration. It may well also, however, be a Puritan critique of the services held at Ely. Or it may be entirely unconnected to religious sentiment. It may be a seasonal festivity, a dramatic act, or a case of animal cruelty with no deeper meaning, all possibilities with historical attestation. For remainder of this discussion, I would like to consider some of these further possibilities and the contexts in which they appear.

Cat Immolation as Puritan Critique of High-Church Anglicanism

In 1639, the bishop of Ely was the newly-raised Matthew Wren, a notorious anti-Puritan and anti-Calvinist who appears elsewhere in the records (see especially his 1638 Visitation Articles and the 1640 Petition against Bishop Wren), and whose religious and political positions led to Parliamentary censure and imprisonment in the Tower of London in 1642.[4]

Wren was not the first bishop of Ely to harry Cambridgeshire’s Puritans and Calvinists. Both John Buckeridge (c 1562–1631), bishop of Ely from 1628 to his death, and his successor, Francis White (1563/4–1638), were adherents of a distinctly moderate Protestantism, specifically the English Arminianism of the ‘Durham Circle’ under Richard Neile, bishop of Durham.[5]

Like Wren, Francis White was closely tied to William Laud, whose ‘chief target[s]’ were ‘puritan nonconformists,’ and whose ‘ecclesiastical policy’ relied on ‘ceremonial conformity.’[6] Indeed, White even dedicated his A treatise of the Sabbath-day. Containing, a defence of the orthodoxall doctrine of the Church of England, against sabbatarian-novelty (1635) to Laud.[7] Further, White had died February 1638, making New Year’s Day (1 January) 1639 a significant moment to mark out or protest ‘a new reformation.’[8] Thus it could be argued that William Smith and the rest of the accused were deliberately profaning the church service in support of Puritanism. That said, while the court proceedings do refer to the act as ‘a prophanacion,’ noise and disturbance seem here to be the primary concern, aligning the crime more with conventional charges of public disturbance, such as singing, dancing, or playing games during the time of service.

Cat Immolation as Seasonal Festivity

Robert Darnton and Bruce Boehrer each observe that both continental Catholics and English Protestants could engage in cat torture or cat burning as a season festivity.[9] In France this practice may have been tied either to Lent or Midsummer celebrations, although Boehrer also notes that ‘cats were tortured throughout early modern Europe on numerous occasions that do not bear any clear relation to seasonal holidays,’ and cites the ‘nonseasonal practice of whipping a cat to death [which] proved lastingly popular in some parts of the realm.’[10] Boehrer also points out that cat immolation seems not to have been a part of English Midsummer festivals, but that the practice may have featured more regularly from the early 1600s in the carnivalesque festivals of Bonfire Night (5 November) and Elizabeth Day (17 November), where the Pope was often burned in effigy. There seems to be no evidence, however, for a similar form of celebration at the new year.

Cat Immolation as an Element of Dramatic Performance

Boehrer’s work identifies a few dramatic and literary presentations of cruelty towards cats during our period. Almost a century before the crime at Ely, Gammer Gurton’s Needle, the famed student play of Christ’s College, Cambridge, featured Gib (perhaps played by the college cat), ‘who is held aloft—no doubt squirming—for a full scene while the bumpkin Hodge, convinced that Gib has swallowed the play’s lost needle, first threatens to kill her and then prepares to probe the animal’s rectum.’[11] As the college cat, Gib would have been kept to chase away or kill vermin, and would not have been seen as a pet. Inasmuch as ‘Gib figures as a major source of disorder,’ the cat did not in fact eat the needle, and is certainly undeserving of Hodge’s curse: ‘Now a vengeance on Gib light, on Gib and Gib’s mother, / And all the generation of cats both far and near!’ (Gammer Gurton’s Needle, I.5, ll 46–78).

A ryght pithy, pleasaunt and merie comedie: intytuled Gammer gurtons nedle played on stage, not longe a go in Christes Colledge in Cambridge (London, 1575). Title-page.

William Baldwin’s Beware the Cat (1570), though it is long prose rather than a dramatic work, contains a description of a cat being placed on a spit much like the unfortunate cat at Ely in 1639. Here, the narrator writes on the ‘loue and fellowship and a desire to saue their kinde is amang Cats’:

For there was one that hired a friend of mine in pastime to roste a Cat aliue, and promised him for his labor twenty shillings, my friend to be sure; caused a cooper to fasten him into a hogshead, in which he turned a spit, whereupon was a quick Cat, but ere he had turned a while; whether it was the smel of the Cats wol that singed, or else her cry that called them: I cannot tell, but there came such a sorte of Cats that if I and other hardy men (which were well scrat for our labor) had not behaued us the better: the hogshead, as fast as it was hooped, could not have kept my cousin from them.[12]

William Baldwin. A maruelous hystory intitulede, beware the cat Conteyning diuers wounderfull and incredible matters. Very pleasant and mery to read (London, 1570; STC 1244). Title-page.

As Boehrer points out, regardless of the point of the anecdote, ‘the reference to cat roasting as “pastime”—like playing the piano or a game of cards—can be chilling to twenty-first-century ears, and the sum of twenty shillings paid for the entertainment—four crowns or two angels or a pound sterling—can seem alarmingly steep.’[13]

While there is certainly contemporary evidence for cat immolation as sport or pastime, and while a cat does feature prominently in at least one play from the period, there is no evidence to suggest that the 1639 cat burning was meant to serve such a purpose.

Cat Immolation as Animal Cruelty

Regardless of motive, the act performed by Smith and his companions was a form of a casual cruelty that has become considerably rarer as cats have come to be seen as pets. While the forms of cat torture discussed above should engender disgust, we should also remember that the human relationship with cats was in the 1600s not as affectionate as it can be today. As Keith Thomas observes, although dogs could be ‘treated with much indulgence’ in the period, cats retained a more distant symbiotic relationship for longer: they were ‘kept in houses [or institutions] for protection against rats and mice,’ and ‘only occasionally do they appear as companions and objects of affection.’[14] While casual demonstrations of animal cruelty continued into the 1700s, the 1600s also marked a time when attitudes were changing and the affectionate treatment of cats, and accepting them as household pets, was on the rise.

John A. Geck is Associate Professor in the Department of English at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada. His research focuses on transmissions of high and low culture in later medieval and early modern England, including romance, hagiography, and drama. He is the editor of REED Cambridgeshire.

Header: William Topsell. ‘The historie of foure-footed beastes’ (London, 1607; STC 24123), p 103. LUNA: Folger Digital Image Collection, image 78052. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).

[1] ‘The BISHOP’S PALACE stands quite close to the west end of the cathedral, from which it is separated by the street called the Gallery, and on the south side of what was the village green of the original settlement at Ely.’ (T.D. Atkinson, Ethel M. Hampson, E.T. Long, C.A.F. Meekings, Edward Miller, H.B. Wells and G.M.G. Woodgate, ‘City of Ely: Introduction’, in A History of the County of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely: Volume 4, City of Ely; Ely, N. and S. Witchford and Wisbech Hundreds, ed R.B. Pugh (London, 2002), pp 28–33. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/cambs/vol4/pp28-33 [accessed 20 October 2022].)

[2] Bruce Thomas Boehrer, Animal Characters: Nonhuman Beings in Early Modern Literature (Philadelphia, 2010), 117, citing Katherine M. Rogers, The Cat and the Human Imagination: Feline Images from Bast to Garfield (Ann Arbor, 1998), 39.

[3] Boehrer, Animal Characters, p 117.

[4] Nicholas W.S. Cranfield, ‘Wren, Matthew (1585–1667), bishop of Ely,’ ODNB, accessed 19 October 2022.

[5] P.E. McCullough, ‘Buckeridge, John (d. 1631), bishop of Ely,’ ODNB, accessed 19 October 2022; Timothy Wadkins, ‘White, Francis (1563/4–1638), bishop of Ely,’ ODNB, accessed 19 October 2022; Timothy H. Wadkins, ‘The Percy-“Fisher” Controversies and the Ecclesiastical Politics of Jacobean Anti-Catholicism, 1622–1625,’ Church History 57.2 (1988): 153–69.

[6] Wadkins, ‘White, Francis,’ ODNB, accessed 19 October 2022

[7] STC 25384.5.

[8] Alec Ryrie, Being Protestant in Reformation Britain (Oxford, 2013), 459, citing Calvinist theologian Daniel Featley.

[9] Robert Darnton, The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes In French Cultural History (New York, 2009).

[10] Darnton, Great Cat Massacre, pp 83–5; Boehrer, Animal Characters, pp 111, 113.

[11] Boehrer, Animal Characters, p 107.

[12] William Baldwin, A maruelous hystory intitulede, beware the cat conteyning diuers wounderfull and incredible matters. very pleasant and mery to read [Beware the cat] (London, 1584) (STC1244), 19-20.

[13] Boehrer, Animal Characters, p 125.

[14] Keith Thomas, Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500-1800 (London: Penguin Books, 1984), 49.

‘Immodestly in Mans Apparrell’: Queer Possibility and Tagging Gender in the Cambridgeshire Records

REED’s Cambridgeshire records present various instances of potentially queer gender performance and dress. Each example provides a window into examining early modern gender, as well as a case studies for REED to explore tagging criteria for gender in its online editions.

In a record from the diocesan court in 1602, Anne Petigall is ‘vehemently suspected for an incontinent liuer, who did goe vpon a time immodestly in mans Apparrell.‘  Petigall confesses to wearing men’s clothing, but denies any ‘incontinence,’ or implied sexual misconduct.  Petigall’s trial is characteristic of many such court proceedings, where the conflation of these two charges – dressing in men’s clothing and sexual liberality – is common. Indeed, this conflation is the caustic refrain of Hic Mulier, a seventeenth-century treaty which argues that masculine-expressing AFAB (assigned female at birth) individuals ‘thrust virtue out of doors, and giue a shamelesse libertie to euery loose passion.’[1]

Hic mulier, or, The man-woman : being a medicine to cure the coltish disease of the staggers in the masculine-feminines of our times : exprest in a briefe declamation (London, 1620; STC 13374). LUNA: Folger Digital Image Collection.

Similar charges appear in a document from 1609, in which the dean of Ely gives his reasons for firing Headmaster Pamplyn. These include complaints about Pamplyn’s daughter:

She beinge Suspected to be of very loose behaviour, as the Carriage of her Selfe did pertely shewe, for She would not Stick to put one boyes apparell, & lett boyes putt one hers, & Com into the Schoole, in his Absence & daunce amongeste the boyes. And moreover where their Should be a teachinge Schoole in the day tyme for the boyes, by her meanes it was made a dauncinge Schoole at xij a Clock in the Night, & Sometimes all the Night longe. Whither did resorte (& by her meanes sometimes were Called) Mennes Wives, Womens husbands, Mennes, seruaunts & Children to be disordered.

This complaint (though later redacted by the dean) shows gender play in a lived context outside of a courtroom: Anna Pamplyn is seen here wearing ‘boys’’ clothes, dancing, teaching, and causing joyful disorder.

In studying the various iterations of such charges throughout the Cambridgeshire records, I feel particularly intrigued by a set of diocesan court documents from 1599, which present the following charge:

Presentatur Iohanne Biggs singlewoman for that lately she did weare mans apparell, and also in time of harvest laste in vilde manner turned vp her cloathes & shewed those partes that should be hidden, willinge the company to loke what a clocke it was if they had any skill of the Dyall.

The court’s language simultaneously rejects and reaffirms the gender fluidity and sexual freedom at stake in the charge against Bigges, an ambiguity apparent in the record’s clock metaphor.

In some contemporary sources, ‘reading the clock’ meant reading sexual promiscuity into feminine-coded bodies, as the courtroom does here. In Middleton’s A Mad World My Masters, Master Penitent Brothel says that ‘woman’ will ‘strike to ten when they should stop at one’[2]; here, the body’s clock reveals how many lovers it has taken.[3]  In Middleton and Dekker’s The Roaring Girl, conversely, Moll Cutpurse – famous for wearing masculine apparel – uses the clock/body metaphor to proclaim a lack of sexual interest by saying, ‘I keep my legs together; a watch, what’s o’clock here.’ Because Moll’s legs are together, she says that her body’s dial reads ‘between one and two.’[4] Moll reclaims the clock, and her sexual desires.[5] To complicate the metaphor further, the hand of a clock, and reading it through a pair of trousers, was a common masculine-coded sexual metaphor for an erection.[6] Thus, though the clock metaphor seeks to denounce Biggs’s masculine attire, it partially reaffirms the masculine identity that such attire assumes. Even as the trial seeks to deny Joan’s masculinity and sexual freedom, the very language of the trial inadvertently relents to Biggs’s ability to express gender and sexual interest in queer ways.

Moll Cutpurse (Mary Frith) standing full-lenght facing front, carrying a sword and smoking a pipe; frontispiece to “The Roaring Girl” by Thomas Middleton and Thomas Dekker. Woodcut © The Trustees of the British Museum. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

As REED continues publishing records online, these three documents ask an important question of historians and editors: how should we tag the gender of Petigall, Pamplyn, and Biggs?  Gender is one of the primary tags for ‘person’ entities within humanities coding standards (TEI).  In REED records, each ‘person’ is given an online ‘entity’ that allows users to see the class, gender, and dates associated with them. Tagging gender has historically been important to various gendered projects; in REED, for example, gendered tagging can help scholars identify understudied theatrical contributors from historically marginalized genders. But these three instances call attention to the implicit problem with gendered tagging: it is impossible to ascertain the gender of any of these three figures. All three could be, in equal measure, trans men, cis women who enjoy wearing trousers, or individuals who are genderfluid or nonbinary.

TEI has been critiqued for its need to concretely categorize gender, which leaves out the inherent fluidity of lived gender.[7] This issue can be even more difficult for historical gendered experiences, which are already difficult to categorize. Moreover, the act of tagging gender imposes a reading of bodies and identities without their input, and therefore can be violent and reductive, especially in cases like these, where individuals seek a ‘queer turn’ from cisgendered gender performance.[8]

Ultimately, we have tagged all three with multiple genders for now: ‘Gender Male,’ ‘Gender Female,’ and ‘Gender Unknown.’ We have started to open up queer possibilities of gender in each case, so that users can explore multiple interpretations of the records, and it is my hope that future iterations of our tagging label system will also include further, less binary gender categories we can add to these tagging clusters.  

Jenna McKellips (she/her) is a digital indexer for REED and a PhD Candidate at the Department of English, University of Toronto.  Her research focuses on queer virginities, asexualities, and genders in the context of late medieval English drama.

Header: Detail, Mal Cut Purse. 1662 Etching and engraving © The Trustees of the British Museum. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

[1] Hic mulier: or, the man-woman and Haec-vir: or, the womanish-man (Exeter, 1973), https://archive.org/details/hicmulierormanwo00exetuoft/page/14/mode/2up, 14.

[2] Thomas Middleton, A Mad World, My Masters; Michaelmas Term; A Trick to Catch the Old One; No Wit, No Help Like a Woman’s, ed. Michael Cordner, Peter Holland, and Martin Wiggins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 4.1.18-24.

[3] Deann Valrae Armstrong, ‘”Strange Times”‘: English Renaissance Literature and the Erotics of the Clock,” PhD dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 2018, 51.

[4] Thomas Middleton and Thomas Dekker, The Roaring Girle OR Moll Cut-Purse (Washington, DC, nd), accessed September 15, 2022. https://emed.folger.edu/sites/default/files/folger_encodings/pdf/EMED-Roaring-orig-3.pdf, wln 1966-7, 1969.

[5] I cautiously chose to use ‘her’ pronouns here because the play does, although I simultaneously acknowledge that it is problematic and difficult to excavate historical pronouns without input from the person in question.

[6] Gordon Williams, Shakespeare’s Sexual Language: A Glossary (London, 2006), 150.

[7] Pamela L. Caughie, Emily Datskou, and Rebecca Parker. ‘Storm Clouds on the Horizon: Feminist Ontologies and the Problem of Gender,’ Feminist Modernist Studies 1.3 (2018): 6-7, 10.

[8] Sara Ahmed, Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, and Others (Durham, NC, 2006), 13.

The Plague and the Hope

By now we are all familiar with the experience of walking into a crowded place and worrying whether it is safe to be there, whether the number of people breathing in that space correlates to the higher possibility of infection and disease. Finally, we decide that the pleasures of social interaction or entertainment are not worth the risk, and we despondently leave the premises.

How might early modern Londoners have felt when walking into a newly reopened playhouse which had been shut down for months because of the escalating numbers of plague victims? How might the audience of a 1594 performance of Hamlet, for instance, have engaged with it when the pestilence had raged through London for much of 1592–1593, and theatres were repeatedly ordered to close?

This line of speculation might be addressed by considering some of the more physically concrete features of early modern playhouses. These spaces took very different shapes. Some of them were circular, open-air arenas (such as the Globe or the Rose), while others boasted an indoor stage (Blackfriars). Some were converted from inns into stages (Boar’s Head, Red Bull), while others were purpose-built to serves as playhouses (like the Swan).

In 1613 a contract between the co-owners of an animal baiting arena known as the Bear Garden, and a carpenter named Gilbert Katherens, set out the plans for building a new playhouse—later known as the Hope—on the same site. This enterprise was intended to provide a space ‘bothe for players to playe In, And for the game of Beares and Bulls to be bayted in the same.’ According to the Annales of Edmund Howes, this arena was used as a ‘Play House for Stage Playes on Mundayes, Wedensdayes, Fridayes, and Saterdayes, and for the baiting of the Beares on Tuesdayes and Thursdayes, the stage being made to take vp and downe when they please.’ Although this ambitious, dual-function feat of architecture may initially have appeared to be an efficient and profitable use of space, ultimately it proved unsustainable and unpopular. Players and animals co-existed in an uneasy union that caused no small degree of complaint.

Around 1614, for instance, Lady Elizabeth’s Men, contested the amount they should have been paid for the days the Hope was used for bearbaiting instead of plays. A few months later, Prince Charles’ Man abandoned the Hope after they were forced to give up one of the days allocated to playing to bearbaiting.

A more explicit testimony to the unsatisfactory state of the Hope comes from a character in the induction to Ben Jonson’s Bartholomew Fair, which premiered at the Hope in 1614, who furtively describes the playhouse as ‘as durty as Smithfield, and as stinking every whit.’

The stench of the Hope clearly affected the experience of the audience as well as the players. This odour, however, may not have been a deterrent for performers and playgoers merely because of its olfactory offence. It could also have been the bearer of more sinister things, such as the pestilence.

As early as the first appearance of the plague in Europe in 1348, one of the major medical explanations for the pestilence was founded on Hippocrates’ theory of miasma, which saw noxious and polluted air as the cause of disease. A parallel—and often indistinguishable—understanding of the pestilence involved its observed transmission from one person to the next, ie contagion. This latter theory was the basis for the Elizabethan quarantining orders of 1578.[1]

By the late sixteenth century, these two theories had morphed into one overarching view that connected the spread of disease to large gatherings of people as the breeding ground for foul, infectious air. Playhouses clearly fell within these parameters. As a 1593 Privy Council order for the suppression of all plays and ‘such like unnecessary assemblies’ attests, the ‘heat’ produced by large gatherings of people in playhouses was considered a major risk factor in infecting ‘sound’ people.

Given these contemporary theories on the pestilence, the Hope playhouse was in an unfavourable position compared to other London theatres. The infamous stench from animal cages and the remains of their baiting games was a perfect example of the putrid and corrupt airs that could ‘infect the blood and the spiritual members of man.’[2] Added to this was the perceived correlation between animal remains and pestilence. As early as the first plague outbreak and much before the establishment of public playhouses, ordinances sought to regulate butchery and prevent offal, blood, and entrails from piling in the streets, as their abominable stench poisoned the air and caused sickness.[3]

We may now be able to understand more clearly why ‘the Hope failed to establish the sort of consolidated tradition that could have challenged the Globe, the Fortune and the Red Bull.’[4] We can now imagine—and perhaps empathize with—an early modern Londoner who, despite having been starved of entertainment for months, might not have been too keen on going to the Hope, not just because it was foul but also because it was plagued.

Sara Ameri is a PhD Candidate at the Department of English, University of Toronto. Her primary research focus is the Black Death and its function in late medieval English devotional writing. More broadly, she is interested in the place of the plague in the Global Middle Ages and the literary culture of the early modern period. Her research has appeared on digital platforms through such pieces as ‘A Plague Saint in Print’ and ‘Intolerable Mystics: The Cases of al-Hallāj and Marguerite Porete.

[1] See Rebecca Totaro, The Plague in Print: Essential Elizabethan Sources, 1558–1603 (University Park, 2010), 179–196.

[2] Totaro, Plague in Print, p 10

[3] Ernest L. Sabine, Butchering in Mediaeval London, Speculum 8.3 (July 1933), 344.

[4] Alexander Legatt, Jacobean Public Theatre (Abingdon, 1992), 23.

The Drama of Recusancy in Yorkshire’s North Riding

Recusancy – the refusal to attend regular services of the newly-founded Church of England (usually in favour of attendance at the celebration of a Catholic mass) – was prohibited by the 1559 Act of Uniformity, with harsh penalties for non-compliance. The fines could be crippling: an initial fine of twelve shillings for non-attendance was soon increased to twenty pounds a month. Queen Elizabeth’s principal secretary, Sir William Cecil, and his son and successor, Sir Robert Cecil, kept extensive lists of recusants, and it is clear from these lists that recusancy was concentrated in the North Riding deaneries of Cleveland and Richmond.

The eastern part of the Cleveland deanery is of particular interest, for it housed the country’s only known company of recusant players. Based in the village of Egton or the nearby vill of Westonby, the company was largely drawn from the Simpson family, who (outside of their performing) were, at least nominally, shoemakers. The Simpsons spent much of their time avoiding the bailiffs, since their performances transgressed two statutes: the recusancy laws and the poor laws, which required performing companies to operate only under gentry patronage. The redoubtable Sir Thomas Posthumous Hoby of Hackness accused his neighbour, Sir Richard Cholmeley, of acting as patron to the Simpson company, but there is no clear evidence that this was the case.

Lying a scant 6 miles inland from the port of Whitby, Egton was also a central stopping point on one of the principal routes for Catholic priests to join the mission for the reconversion of the country.

Photo: Mark Chambers.

Following study at one of the continental seminaries, like Douai in northern France, or Valladolid in northern Spain, newly ordained English priests would sail from France or the Netherlands to Whitby, whose convenience as an English port avoiding large urban areas was later recognized by Bram Stoker, when Dracula used the route for his return to England.

Photo: Mark Chambers

From Whitby, it was walking distance to Egton, where they would be welcomed by an extensive Catholic community.

Photo: Mark Chambers

From Egton they would cross the slow-moving river Esk at the hamlet of Egton Bridge.

Photo: Mark Chambers.

From here they followed the riverside path towards the former Grandmontine priory of Grosmont on the river’s left bank.

Photo: Mark Chambers.

The priory was a Catholic safe house recognized by the Cecils as a centre of recusant activity.

Photo: Mark Chambers.

Grosmont was farmed by John Hodgson and his wife, staunch Catholics both. Nothing of the Priory remains above ground today; the path on the right side of the picture leads to the present town of Grosmont and the Moors railway.

Photo: Mark Chambers

Travel over the short distance from Whitby to Grosmont would have meant crossing the river, likely at a set of stepping stones.

Photo: Mark Chambers.

Aside from government raids on Grosmont, life in Egmont must have been relatively quiet, as it is today.

Photo: Mark Chambers.

From its position high above the Esk valley, the village boasts beautiful views of the surrounding moorlands.

Photo: Mark Chambers

Today, Egton and Egton Bridge are served by two churches, an Anglican church dedicated to St Hilda of Whitby, and a Catholic church dedicated to St Hedda, a Whitby monk of the seventh century, who had been a student of Hilda. The Catholic church would not have existed in the period covered by these records, and only a few stones incorporated into the fabric of the church of St Hilda remain today, including the zig-zag arch over the south doorway.

Photo: Mark Chambers.

The remainder of the church of St. Hilda and the whole of the church of St. Hedda date from the later nineteenth century, though Hadfield, the Victorian architect, incorporated perpendicular features indicating the style of the earlier building.

Photo: Mark Chambers.

Want to know more?

Hugh Aveling. Northern Catholics: The Catholic Recusants of the North Riding of Yorkshire, 1558–1790 (London, 1966).

G.W. Boddy. ‘Catholic Missioners at Grosmont Priory,’ North Yorkshire County Record Office Journal 4 (1976), 65–76.

G.W. Boddy. ‘Players of Interludes in North Yorkshire in the Early Seventeenth Century,’ North Yorkshire County Record Office Review 3 (1976), 95–130.

J.T. Cliffe. ‘Chapter 10: The Cost of Recusancy,’ The Yorkshire Gentry from the Reformation to the Civil War, University of London Historical Studies 25 (London, 1969), 210–230.

Real-life drama in Yorkshire’s North Riding: Sir Thomas Hoby and the Protestant North

It is a commonplace that Tudor and Stuart societies were among the most litigious in history, and that the courts were regularly used to settle scores, advance personal wealth, and control relationships.

Sir Thomas Posthumous Hoby (1566–1640) is a particularly egregious example of this mindset; his name appears frequently in the court records of the North Riding, as well as those of the nation’s highest court, Star Chamber, largely in the context of disputes with his Yorkshire neighbours.

Detail from the Wasse deposition in Sir Thomas Hoby’s Star Chamber case against Sir William Eure (TNA: STAC 5/H50/4). Photo: David Klausner.

I. Sir Thomas Hoby against the Recusants

Hoby was born in October 1566, shortly after the untimely death in July 1566 of his father Thomas, Elizabeth’s ambassador to France. His mother, the formidable Elizabeth Hoby (née Cooke), who became Lady Elizabeth Russell on her second marriage in 1574 to John, Lord Russell, attempted with limited success to control all aspects of her son’s life, sending him off to Oxford at the age of 8. Her intention was that he would attend the Inns of Court at 16, but Thomas refused to go, though in 1586 he was admitted to Gray’s Inn.

Hoby spent much of the late 1580s as a soldier in Ireland, distinguishing himself sufficiently to attract a knighthood in 1594. His marriage to Margaret Dakins in 1595 not only brought him the estate of Hackness, but also a close association with the Cecil family, since his mother was sister-in-law to William Cecil, first Baron Burghley, Elizabeth’s secretary of state, and Hoby himself was first cousin to Burghley’s son, Robert Cecil, first earl of Salisbury. A staunch Protestant, Hoby became a significant participant in Cecil’s plans to eliminate recusancy in the North.

Lady Russell described her son as a diminutive child, and it is clear that Hoby had an advanced case of what has come to be known as ‘short-man syndrome’. He was party to a number of Star Chamber cases brought against his neighbours, one of whom described him as ‘the little knight who useth to draw up his breeches with a shooing-horn,’ and ‘the sauciest little Jack in all the countrie, and wold have an oar in everybody’s boat.’ Hoby did an extraordinarily successful job of making himself disliked by practically all the Yorkshire gentry. Jack Binns describes him as a contemptible foreign southerner and carpetbagger, deliberately and offensively planted in the North to spy on his neighbours.

There is almost certainly a measure of truth in these accusations. Hoby’s career in the North likely owed something to the patronage of the earl of Huntingdon, in whose manor house Hoby’s wife Margaret had been brought up. Huntingdon had been lord president of the Council of the North since 1572; his particular concern was the influence of Catholic families, many of whom, such as the Cholmleys of Whitby and the Eures of Malton, regularly sheltered missionary priests and facilitated their movement from the continental seminaries to the major landing at Whitby and cross-country to the safe house at the former Grandmontine priory of Grosmont. Huntingdon clearly planned for Hoby’s manor at Hackness as a Protestant stronghold in the midst of a large Catholic population. In the same year as his move to Hackness, Hoby was appointed a JP for the East Riding, and for the North in 1601. Scarborough sent him to parliament in 1597. Over the next forty years, Hoby was elected to all but one, sitting regularly for Ripon, Appleby, and Scarborough.

The large surviving archive of quarter sessions records gives extensive evidence of Hoby’s prosecutions of the local recusancy in his position as magistrate. In addition to his ruthless prosecution of recusants, Hoby attempted to use his position as magistrate to bring to court the Catholic playing company led by Christopher Simpson of Egton, near Whitby, claiming that Sir Richard Cholmley was acting as their gentry patron to circumvent the Poor Laws. Although the Simpson company did appear before the magistrates of the quarter sessions on several occasions, Cholmley was never convicted of supporting the recusant players.  

It was inevitable that Hoby would attract enemies, and on 5 September 1600 a cohort of mostly younger gentry undertook what can only be called a home invasion at Hackness. Claiming to be a hunting party, they demanded hospitality from Sir Thomas, disrupting the household’s routine as far as possible, singing ribald songs and a ‘black Sanctus’ when the family attempted to sing psalms and recite prayers. When the invaders left the following morning, windows were broken, and Sir Thomas immediately complained to Cecil and initiated a case before the court of Star Chamber that would carry on for several years, resulting eventually in the leader, Sir William Eure, being fined £100 a year. Public feeling over the so-called ‘Hackness scandal’ may be indicated by the fact that in 1601 Hoby’s election to parliament for Scarborough was unsuccessful, the seat going instead to the leader of the home invasion, the recusant Sir William Eure. He also failed to secure membership on the Council in the North in 1603.

Sir Thomas died on 30 December 1640, and was buried with Margaret in Hackness parish church.

II. Lady Margaret Hoby and the Hackness estate

A Yorkshirewoman by birth, Margaret Dakins (1571–1633) was the daughter of Arthur and Thomasin Dakins of Linton, fourteen miles west of Scarborough, the area in which she spent most of her life. The young Margaret was placed in the household of Henry Hastings, the third (or twentieth) earl of Huntingdon, whose wife undertook the training of a number of young gentry women. The Hastings family’s strong Protestantism provided the foundation for Margaret’s Calvinism, chronicled in detail in her daily journal, kept from 9 August 1599 to 21 July 1605. Training in the Huntingdon’s household included household skills, including music, reading, as well as a daily regimen of church attendance and private prayer.

As heiress to her father’s estate at Linton, Margaret was clearly a highly marriageable young woman, and in 1588 a union was negotiated between her and Walter Devereux, the younger son of the first (or eighteenth) earl of Essex and a ward of the earl of Huntingdon. When the negotiations proved fruitful, a coalition of Arthur Dakins, the earl of Essex, and the earl of Huntingdon arranged to purchase the estate of Hackness for the young couple. A short two years later Walter followed his brother to France to support Henry IV in his campaign against the Catholic Holy League. Shortly after the army’s arrival in France, Walter was killed in the siege of Rouen on 8 September, leaving his wife Margaret a widow with a large estate. In order to protect both Margaret and the estate, her parents and her protectors the Huntingdons agreed to a swift remarriage, selecting again a ward of the earl of Huntingdon. Thomas Sidney, nephew to the Huntingdons, was the younger brother of the courtier and poet Sir Philip Sidney. They were married on 22 December 1591, but on 26 July 1595, Sidney died, leaving Margaret again a widow. 

Sir Thomas Hoby, likely pressed on by his formidable mother, made representations to Margaret, but was turned away until the end of the year, when a death-bed letter from Margaret’s guardian, the earl of Huntingdon, convinced the young widow to accept Hoby’s proposal. They were married on 9 August 1596 at Lady Russell’s Blackfriars house in London, celebrating with a dinner followed by a sermon. They took over the Hackness estate, now very large, and remained there for the rest of their lives.

Margaret’s journal gives a detailed picture of their life at Hackness, with Margaret involved in local philanthropy and good works, while her husband increased his legal and political status as a justice of the peace and magistrate. She remained a staunch Protestant all her life, frequently reflecting on religion in the journal. She died on 6 September 1633 and was buried in the chancel of the parish church. In 1634 her husband fulfilled one of her promises, building a chapel of ease at Harwood Dale on the Hackness estate, but at a considerable remove from the parish church. The chapel is dedicated to St Margaret.

III. The Hackness home invasion

Since taking up residence at Hackness in 1596, Sir Thomas Hoby had done very little to endear himself to his neighbours. His appointment as a JP gave considerable power to a man already of a litigious nature. Hoby’s firm Protestantism and his legal standing made him an ideal candidate to pursue the government’s policy of prosecution and fines for unrepentant Catholics who refused to conform to the requirement of weekly church attendance. The fact that a significant number of the North Riding gentry were Catholic guaranteed that there would be substantial disagreement with the new southern JP.

 It didn’t take long.

On 26 August 1600 a footboy representing a cohort of young men — mostly sons of the gentry — claiming to be a hunting party, arrived at Hackness demanding lodging for the night. Hoby said that his wife was not well and that the house was not well provisioned to receive guests. The reply was that the hunting party was in the woods and the message could not be got to them. The party arrived about two hours later and were admitted by Sir Thomas. Cards were soon produced and supper was found.

Presently after this Sir William Ewres footeboy tooke forth Cardes and layde them vpon the table wherwith some of the gentlemen were excersized vntill supper./

In the beginninge of Supper tyme (Mr. Ewre pretending that he Came to hunte although he had noe howndes or greyhowndes with him) Sir Thomas sente for his servante that had moste Chardge of his deare whoe dwelte three myles from him; to be at Hacknes howse the next morninge to attende Mr Ewre: and soe Contynued at the table with them all the tyme of supper which was spente by the gentleman fyrst named (Mr Dawny excepted) partly in discoorsinge of Horses and dogges sportes whervnto Sir Thomas never applied himselfe; partly with lascivious talke wherin euerye sentence was either begone or ended with a grevous Oath yll beseeminge either the place or persons; And partly in inordynate drinkinge vnto helthes; abuses never practyzed in Sir Thomas his howse but once when Mr Ewre came vnto his howse whch was in ye yeer before./

In supper tyme Came in a foote boy whome the gentlemen had sente for Mr William Dawny and brought worde that he woold Come vnto them in the morninge./

After supper Sir Thomas willed to have their Chamberes made readye: And soe soone as they wer readye, Sir Thomas Came himselfe and offered to bringe them vnto their lodginges; but they beinge at Dyse with the moste parte of their Company abowte them towld Sir Thomas that they woold play a while And soe they refusinge to goe vnto their Chambers; Sir Thomas did leave them for that night; and wente downe and sett his howshoulde to prayers as they were accustomed./

When Sir Thomas his famyly had begone to sing a psalme (as they are accustomed to doe before prayers) The gentlemen and their Company beinge but a little before lefte by Sir Thomas busye at dyse in the dyninge Chamber which ys over the Hall; presently soe soone as the psalme was begone belowe; the Company aboue made an extraordynary noyse with their feete and some songe and some laughed & were much lowder then those that were singinge in the hall and Certeyne of their Company stoode vpon they stayres at a wyndowe that opened into the Hall and laughed all the tyme of prayers./

At least two recusant members of the North Riding gentry, Sir William Eure and his son William, were among the party. William Jordan, a Hackness resident, described the tumult in his deposition to the court:

[They] did stampe & trample with their |ffeete in extraordinarie manner making great noyse ouer the heddes of the said Complainantes servantes And did likewise make very extraordinary outcries with singing in some confused manner thene laughing thother crying with that confusing which is commonlie called the Black sanctus. And he saithe that the famelie of the plaintif wer gretelie disturbed and disquieted in their praiers with the extraordinary cryes and demenors of the defendantes but whether then did singe any prophane songes or no this defendant dothe not knowe.

Eure demanded to see Lady Margaret, who finally consented and requested that he depart peaceably, though on leaving he broke four window panes by throwing stones, and remarked to one of Sir Thomas’ servants:

Tell thy Master he sente me a scurvy messadge and the next tyme I meete him I will tell him soe yf he be vpon the bench (and offeringe to take the man by the bearde sayde) And will pull him by the beard.

Hoby retaliated immediately (5 September) by writing to Cecil with a full narrative of the invasion and lodging a formal complaint to the Council in the North, who heard the complaint on 26 September. By November the complaint had moved on to the court of Star Chamber, where it was finally settled in Hoby’s favour on 17 February 1601/2 with an annual fine levied on the Eure family of £100, which was still being paid in the twentieth century. Margaret noted with delight the outcome of the suit in her Journal entry for 29 May 1602:

This day Came the Lord Ewry his men to Hacknes to pay 100li: wch was appointed them and others to pay, by the Lordes of the priue Counsill in the starr Chamber, for their riott Comitted and vnsiuill behauour at Hackenes: and so it fell out that, as it was done in the sight of our tenantes, so many of the tenants were bye when the mony was brought: wch I note, as seeinge the Iustice and mercie of god to his seruants in manifestinge to  the world, who litle regardes them, that he will bringe downe their enemes vnto them.

Want to know more?

Jack Binns, ‘Sir Thomas Hoby: A Missing Person,’ Transactions of the Scarborough Archaeological and Historical Society 41 (2008), pp 6-15.

Simon Healy, ‘HOBY, Sir Thomas Posthumous (1566-1640), of Hackness, nr. Scarborough, Yorks. and Blackfriars, London; later of Twickenham, Mdx.’ History of Parliament Online, https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/hoby-sir-thomas-1566-1640, accessed 17 May 2022.

Hoby, Margaret. Diary of Lady Margaret Hoby, 1599–1605. Dorothy M. Meads (ed)(London, 1930).

The Private Life of an Elizabethan Lady: The Diary of Lady Margaret Hoby 1599–1605. Joanna Moody (ed) (Stroud, 1998).

Playing Companies in Yorkshire’s North Riding

The North Riding collection of documents provides evidence of playing companies on a number of levels, ranging from local companies based in the Riding to touring companies from London.  London companies would have travelled under the patronage of a member of the aristocracy or gentry, avoiding the severe penalties under Elizabeth’s Poor Laws of 1572 which required such patronage for permission to tour.

An acte for the punishment of rogues, vagabonds and sturdie beggars (1598). STC: 8261.7.

Patronized players in the provinces

Touring companies were of course dependant on the hospitality of the North Riding gentry for subsistence as well as for playing space, and household accounts of the gentry often provide information on the touring practices of those who stop to entertain the family and their guests. Sir Thomas Bellasis of Newburgh Priory attended fourteen performances by professional companies during the period from 1610 to 1616. These included performances by Lord Mounteagle’s Men in 1611 and by the Queen’s Men in 1615 and 1616.  The King’s Men appeared at Sir Richard Cholmeley’s manor of Brandsby during the Christmas season of 1622, while Lord Berkeley’s players appeared for the Fairfax family at Gilling Castle in 1581, and the earl of Worcester’s players performed at Gilling in 1571, just as the Fairfaxes were beginning extensive renovation of the Great Hall.

The Great Hall at Gilling Castle. Photo: David Klausner.

Lord Wharton’s Men on tour

Travel from London to Yorkshire was no small matter, and some smaller companies remained based at their patron’s estate within the Riding.  Lord Wharton’s company played primarily at his manor at Healaugh Park Priory (West Riding), but toured locally as well, appearing at Cholmeley’s manor of Brandsby in January of 1615/16 and two years later in 1617/18.  Provincial touring was also a means of avoiding the dangers of plague flare-ups which occurred with some frequency in the larger urban centres and were endemic in London.


The North Riding was also the home of two semi-professional companies.  Both of these performed regularly without gentry patronage, although Sir Thomas Posthumous Hoby accused Sir Richard Cholmley (unsuccessfully) of serving as the company’s patron. The documentation of their frequent brushes with the law provide extensive information on the company’s touring practices.  The company of recusant players led by shoemaker Christopher Simpson and his family was based in the village of Egton, just inland from Whitby, while the non-sectarian company was led by Richard Hudson, weaver, of Hutton Buscel.

The Simpson company was based in the North Riding village of Egton. Photo: Mark Chambers.

Recusancy in performance: the Simpsons at Gouthwaite

Information on the Simpson company appears primarily in the documents relating to the Star Chamber prosecution of Sir John Yorke of Nidderdale who hired them during the Christmas to Candlemas season in 1609/10.  Yorke was offered his choice of several plays, including ‘King Lere’, ‘Perocles, Prince of Tire’, and ‘The Travels of the Three English Brothers’ of John Day, William Rowley, and George Wilkins. This list was provided to the court by William Harrison, who played the Fool in ‘King Lere’.  It is likely that both ‘Lere’ and ‘Perocles’ are Shakespeare’s, both published in 1607/8, though the possibility that the reference may be to the anonymous ‘King Leir’ (1605) cannot be entirely discounted.  Harrison’s Star Chamber deposition emphasizes that the company only played from printed texts, implying that this was for all purposes equivalent to the required patronage. 

Yorke, a staunch recusant, turned down these offerings in favour of an anti-protestant St Christopher play in which a clergyman is bested in argument by a Catholic priest (unfortunately, the play has not survived). The documentation of the resulting Star Chamber case as well as their appearances before the magistrates of the local quarter sessions gives extensive information on the touring practices of a small local company. 

Simpson company tour, Christmas to Candlemas 1609–10. Cartography: Byron Moldofsky.

Quarter sessions records also give extensive information on the Hutton Buscel company who, during the winter of 1615/1616 played at thirty-two gentry houses until a prosecution at the sessions led to their withdrawal from performing. The court documents provide a complete list of those who hosted performances by the Hutton Buscel company, since the hosts were also brought before the court and fined.

Hutton Buscel company tour, 29 December 1615–18 February 1615/16. Cartography: Byron Moldofsky.

Both the Simpson company and the Hutton Buscel players included a number of boys in their membership, and the quarter sessions records are careful to indicate that the boys were all over the age of seven, the youngest age to be subject to the Poor Laws.

Want to know more?

Douglas H. Arrell, ‘King Leir at Gowthwaite Hall,’ Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England 25 (2012), pp 83–93.

G.W. Boddy, ‘Players of Interludes in North Yorkshire in the early Seventeenth Century,’ North Riding Yorkshire Record Office Review 4 (1976), pp 95–130.

Phebe Jensen, ‘Recusancy, Festivity, and Community: the Simpsons at Gouthwaite Hall,’ Region, Religion, and Patronage, Richard Dutton et al (eds) (Manchester, 2003), pp 101–20.

Siobhan Keenan, ‘The Simpson Players of Jacobean Yorkshire and the Professional Stage,’ Theatre Notebook 67.1 (2013), pp 16–35.

David Klausner, ‘Travelling Players on the North Yorkshire  Moors,’ Early Performers and Performance in the Northeast of England, Diana Wyatt and John McKinnell (eds) (Amsterdam, 2021), pp 39–50.

Paul Whitfield White, Drama and Religion in English Provincial Society, 1485–1660 (Cambridge, 2008).

Playing Places in Yorkshire’s North Riding

Gouthwaite Hall

Gouthwaite Hall. Anonymous engraving. William Smith, Old Yorkshire, ns (London, 1891), title-page.

Gouthwaite Hall in Nidderdale was likely built by Sir John Yorke in the early seventeenth century, and was the site of the notorious performance at Candlemas in 1609 of an anti-Protestant play performed by the North Riding company of Christopher Simpson of Egton.  

Gouthwaite Hall as it was in the early seventeenth century no longer exists; the valley was flooded in 1893–1901 to make way for the construction of Gouthwaite Reservoir, though a new Gouthwaite Hall was constructed nearby using, largely, building materials from the old hall. It is clear that the new hall was not a replica of the earlier structure, since the replacement was built as two houses, replacing the single dwelling. 

Although it is not possible to reconstruct the floor plan of the original hall, depositions before Star Chamber indicate that the St Christopher play attracted an audience of more than 100, suggesting a performance space of considerable size.

Newburgh Priory

Entry for Newburgh from Thomas Langdale’s A Topographical Dictionary of Yorkshire (Northallerton, 1822).

Newburgh Priory was purchased from the Crown by the Bellasis family following the dissolution of the Augustinian priory in 1539, for the sum of £1062. Anthony Bellasis and his brother Richard had been responsible for the dissolution not only of Newburgh, but of eight other monastic houses. Anthony’s nephew, Sir William Bellasis (1524–1604), converted the monastery’s buildings to a private residence in 1546, but little of the family home survives in the present building of around 1600, though there is evidence of a great hall to the left of the entrance porch.

The Bellasis family attended performances of plays on a regular basis, often in their own hall. These included a visit in 1611 by Lord Mounteagle’s Men, and two visits by the Queen’s Men in August 1615 and July 1616. It is likely that Bellasis saw Queen Anne’s Men on those occasions. Newburgh Priory is in the parish of Coxwold, where Laurence Sterne was vicar from 1760 until his death in 1768.

Gilling Castle

Gilling Castle, Great Hall, high end. Photo: David Klausner.

The original tower block of the late fourteenth century was built for Sir Thomas Etton; the fine Hall was largely rebuilt by Sir William Fairfax, with work begun in 1571. The result is a particularly splendid example of Elizabethan workmanship, with two bays decorated with painted windows featuring the arms of the Yorkshire gentry. The pendant ceiling is a masterpiece of Italian workmanship, and a painted frieze of musicians may represent the family’s resident players. 

Gilling Castle frieze, left panel. Photo: David Klausner

While the reconstruction was in progress in 1571 the Fairfaxes were host to the earl of Worcester’s players; ten years later, in 1581, they welcomed Lord Berkeley’s players.

Healaugh Park

Healaugh Park Priory was established as an Augustinian priory in 1218 and remained a monastic house until its dissolution in 1535.  By the end of the 1540s the former monastery had become the family home of the barons Wharton.  By the end of the century it would have become the home of a company of professional players under the patronage of Philip Wharton (1555–1625), third Baron Wharton. Wharton’s Men visited Sir Richard Cholmeley at Brandsby Hall (see below) twice, in January of 1615/16 and two years later in 1617/18.

Brandsby Hall

Although Sir Richard Cholmeley acted as host to two companies of royal performers at Christmas of 1622, there is little information about his hall at Brandsby, which was demolished and rebuilt in the mid-1740s.

Plays in Yorkshire’s North Riding

Detail from folio 128 of the accounts of Sir Henry and Sir Thomas Bellasis at Newburgh Priory. North Yorkshire Country Record Office ZDV V 10. Image: David Klausner.

Perhaps the most exciting discovery for a REED editor is a document that not only identifies a company of performers, their patron, their fee, and the date of their performance, but also the play they performed.  Most of these records lie in household accounts, which were kept by the steward of the gentry estate that hosted the performance. These were practical documents recording monies spent and, occasionally, distinguished guests, but without much interest in the content of the entertainment.

There are a few exceptions.

Wharton’s Men and The Dumb Knight at Brandsby Hall

On 21 January 1617/8, a local company under the patronage of Philip, Lord Wharton, of Healaugh Park Priory near Richmond, were paid 6s for their performance of Gervase Markham’s play The Dumb Knight (1608) for the entertainment of Richard Cholmeley and his guests at Brandsby Hall.  If the annotation on the title page of the Bodleian Library’s copy is to be believed, The Dumb Knight was a collaborative effort between Markham and Lewis Machin.

The Bodleian’s Library’s annotated copy of The Dumb Knight, attributed to Gervase Markham, implicates Lewis Machin as a co-author. Image: Gervase Markham, The Dumb Knight (London, 1608), sigs A1v-A2. STC: 17398.

Markham (c 1568–1637) is best known as a minor poet, primarily for his English Huswife (published 1615).

Markham’s English Housewife went through several editions from its first publication in 1615 to the end of the seventeenth century. Image: Gervase Markham, Countrey contentments, or The English Huswife (London, 1623), sigs π1v–A1v. STC: 17343.

Less is known about Machin (fl. 1607–9), who may also have been responsible for Every Woman in her Humor (published 1609; see further Joseph Quincy Adams, ‘”Every Woman in Her Humor” and “The Dumb Knight”,’ Modern Philology 10.3 (1913): 413–432).

The Children of the King’s Revels flourished briefly at the Whitefriars between 1607 and 1609. Internal evidence suggests that Every Woman in her Humour – like The Dumb Knight – may have been written for the boy company. Image: Everie Woman in Her Humor (London, 1609), sigs π1v–A1v. STC: 25948.

Quincy argues that the play was written for the Children of the King’s Revels; the title page of The Dumb Knight indicates that it was intended for the same company, although Lord Wharton’s company was not a children’s ensemble.

The Dumb Knight is an odd choice for a (presumably) small provincial playing company. It has twenty-three speaking parts and at least nine non-speaking ones. We do not know how many actors appeared in the January 1617/8 performance, but when the same company played at Londesborough Hall (East Riding) in 1600, the company numbered eight and their fee was 13s 8d. Their reward of 6s for The Dumb Knight, compared with the 13s 8d they received at Londesborough, would suggest a company of no more than four players. How then did they cover the twenty-three speaking parts of the play? Doubling would be the traditional solution but a survey of the text indicates that very little doubling is possible. Wharton’s Men may have co-opted some of Cholmeley’s domestic staff and guests might have participated, but the play presents no obvious solution to its casting problems.

Printed plays and local repertories:

The Simpson company at Gowthwaite Hall

The most interesting information on the repertoire of local companies lies in the answers given in the interrogations of William Harrison, the comedian of the Simpson company of Egton, and Thomas Pant, a member of the company. Pant, fifteen years old at the time of the Star Chamber prosecution, described entering into an apprenticeship agreement in shoemaking with the Simpsons only to discover that he was expected to be a member of the playing company. Harrison, then 35 years old, emphasized in his deposition that the company only played from printed texts, implying that the act of printing provided a sort of license for performance:

One of the plays acted and played… was Perocles, prince of Tire, and the other was Kinge Lere… these plaies which they so plaied were usuall playes And such as were acted in Common and publick places and staiges… and such as were played publiquely… and printed in the bookes. (STAC 8/19/10)

It is usually assumed that both Pericles and Lear refer to Shakespeare’s plays (published respectively in 1609 and 1608), but it is not impossible that the reference is to the anonymous King Leir of 1605 (see further Douglas H. Arrell, ‘”King Leir” at Gowthwaite Hall,’ Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 25 (2012), pp 83–93).

Harrison may have been referring to the anonymous King Leir, first published in 1605. Image: The True Chronicle History of King Leir (London, 1605), sigs π1v–A1v. STC: 15343.

Harrison noted in his deposition that the Simpson’s repertoire also included The Three Shirleys (printed 1607), which had been offered to Sir John on the occasion of their visit to Gowthwaite Hall, Nidderdale.

According to Harrison’s testimony, the recently published Travailes of the Three English Brothers, also known as ‘The Three Shirleys,’ was part of the Simpson company’s repertory. Image: John Day, The Travailes of the Three English Brothers (London, 1607), sigs π1v–A1v. STC: 6417.

His choice, however, was the one play identified that has not survived, a St Christopher play based on the Golden Legend. Yorke’s choice was designed for his recusant audience for – as in Hamlet, the Simpson company could insert a ‘speech of some dozen or sixteen lines’ (act 2, scene 2, ll 517) – in which a Protestant minister is bested in argument by a Catholic priest and is carried off to hell.

Unnamed plays in performance:

The King’s Men at Brandsby Hall and

Lord Mounteagle’s Men at Newburgh Priory

Payments to professional companies under gentry or aristocratic patronage are common, but these only very rarely give information on the content of the entertainment. We can often link such payments to touring patterns: the King’s Men performed three plays at the Cholmeley estate of Brandsby Hall at Christmas of 1622 for a fee of 30s, but the record gives no indication of what plays were in their repertoire. Lord Mounteagle’s Men played at the Bellasis estate of Newburgh Priory in 1611. Documents from Lancashire and Cumberland show that they performed widely in the northwest that year, and it is probably that their appearance in the North Riding was part of the same touring pattern.