Difference between revisions of "Play marred by an affray at Norwich"

Line 9: Line 9:
  
 
(PRO KB29/219, mbs 150-2* (15-17 June 1583, reproduced in [https://ia600301.us.archive.org/18/items/norwichREED00galluoft/norwichREED00galluoft.pdf REED Norwich], 70-76)
 
(PRO KB29/219, mbs 150-2* (15-17 June 1583, reproduced in [https://ia600301.us.archive.org/18/items/norwichREED00galluoft/norwichREED00galluoft.pdf REED Norwich], 70-76)
 +
<br>
 +
<br>
 +
<br>
  
 
==Theatrical Provenance==
 
==Theatrical Provenance==

Revision as of 22:58, 21 March 2017

Anon. (1583 or earlier)

NB. "Play marred by an affray at Norwich" is a descriptive assignation for this otherwise untitled play. The name is used here for convenience.

Historical Records

Affray at Norwich (15-17 June 1583)

(PRO KB29/219, mbs 150-2* (15-17 June 1583, reproduced in REED Norwich, 70-76)


Theatrical Provenance

This play was performed on the afternoon of Saturday 15 June 1583, by the newly formed Queen's Men (at the time only a month old) in the yard at the Red Lion in Norwich. Players present included John Bentley (in the role of a Duke), John Singer, and Richard Tarlton. When a playgoer (Winsdon) attempted to enter the venue without paying admission, he scuffled with Singer at the gate, causing Singer to spill the contents of his moneybox. An affray followed and another man ("George", claiming to be Winsdon's servant) was killed. Bentley had a rapier with him as part of his role as a duke, and used it in the fight. He chased George out of the playhouse and wounded him; George retaliated by throwing stones at Bentley and injuring him. Singer took a large "Armynge Sworde" from the stage, caught up with the wounded George and struck him. George subsequently died of his injuries. Bentley and Singer were held in prison for two days, and failed to appear at the associated court hearing on Monday 23 September 1583.


Probable Genre(s)

Unknown.


Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues

Unknown. The reference to swords in scabbards and costuming including a beard and a black doublet do not shed any light on the possible subject matter.


References to the Play

See Historical Records above.


Critical Commentary

Wiggins (744), referring to this simply as "Play", notes that "Attempts to identify the play on the basis of the known repertory of the Queen's Men are futile, since most of the extant plays are almost certainly not early enough"; he therefore classifies this as a lost play.

Keenan (104-05) believes the play was The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth, a play whose nationalism may have inspired rowdy behaviour, though she does acknowledge the possibility that "the play was one (now lost) with a duke as its leading role or authority figure" (105)..

Roberts-Smith offers an account of the venue itself, and conjectures that a mistaken assumption about Winsdon's motivations may have sparked the fracas:

Although an inn the size of the Red Lion probably had a spacious indoor hall suitable for entertainments, on a June afternoon, when spectators would not mind being outdoors, the possibility of accommodating a much larger audience while still controlling access through the ‘gate’ made the yard attractive. The gate money that Syngar was guarding could have been a very substantial sum, large enough that when Tarlton and Bentley saw it land on the ground, they might have thought Wynsdon was trying to steal the money rather than merely enter without paying. ("The Red Lion" 115)




For What It's Worth

(Information welcome)


Works Cited

Keenan, Siobhan. Travelling Players in Shakespeare’s England (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002)
Roberts-Smith, Jennifer. "The Red Lion and the White Horse: Inns Used by Patronized Performers in Norwich, 1583-1624". Early Theatre 10.1 (2007): 109-44.




Site created and maintained by David McInnis, University of Melbourne; updated 22 March 2017.