DOCSLIB.ORG

The Anchor Public House, Bankside, London Borough of Southwark

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Anchor Public House, Bankside, London Borough of Southwark The Anchor Public House, Bankside, London Borough of Southwark An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment for The Spirit Group by Steve Preston Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd Site Code ABS07/86 July 2007 Summary Site name: The Anchor Public House, Bankside, London Borough of Southwark Grid reference: TQ3244 8040 Site activity: Desk-based assessment Project manager: Steve Ford Site supervisor: Steve Preston Site code: ABS07/86 Area of site: c. 850 sq m Summary of results: The site is in an area of considerable archaeological potential and is occupied by a listed building. Previous evaluation trenching on the site exposed elements of 17th-century building (made ground layers, a cobbled surface and a cess pit) and later (18th- to 20th-century) works interpreted as possibly part of a waterworks, but nothing from any earlier period. This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford9 31.07.07 Jennifer Lowe9 02.08.07 i Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email [email protected]; website : www.tvas.co.uk The Anchor Public House, Bankside, London Borough of Southwark An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment by Steve Preston Report 07/86 Introduction This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of approximately 850 sq m of land located on Bankside in Southwark (TQ 3244 8040) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Mark Thackeray of Cliff Walsingham and Company, Bourne House, Cores End Road, Bourne End, Buckinghamshire SL8 5AR on behalf of The Spirit Group, and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by redevelopment of the area. A planning application has been submitted to Southwark Borough Council for redevelopment of the site to remodel the rear of the building, to provide a new kitchen and new trolley lift. Site description, location and geology A site visit on 16th July 2007 showed that the site currently consists of The Anchor Public House, a Grade II listed 18th-century brick building with some later alteration, including extensions to the rear and to the west. Much of the interior is not original. There is a small car park, with temporary cabin. The site is located on alluvium, with an outcrop of Kempton Park gravel mapped just on the far side of the railway to the east (BGS 1994). It is at a height of approximately 3m above Ordnance Datum. Planning background and development proposals Planning permission is to be sought for the development of a new rear extension to the existing building on the site, for kitchen and storage space, and including a lift pit, and some internal alterations. Archaeology and Planning (PPG 16 1990) provides guidance relating to archaeology within the planning process. It points out that where a desk-based assessment has shown that there is a strong possibility of significant archaeological deposits in a development area it is reasonable to provide more detailed information from a field evaluation so that an appropriate strategy to mitigate the effects of development on archaeology can be devised. Paragraph 21 states: ‘Where early discussions with local planning authorities or the developer’s own research indicate that important archaeological remains may exist, it is reasonable for the planning authority to 1 request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out...’ Should the presence of archaeological deposits be confirmed further guidance is provided. Archaeology and Planning stresses preservation in situ of archaeological deposits as a first consideration as in paragraphs 8 and 18. Paragraph 8 states: ‘...Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation...’ Paragraph 18 states: ‘The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining planning applications whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled...’ However, for archaeological deposits that are not of such significance it is appropriate for them to be ‘preserved by record’ (i.e., fully excavated and recorded by a competent archaeological contractor) prior to their destruction or damage. Paragraph 25 states: ‘Where planning authorities decide that the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains is not justified in the circumstances of the development and that development resulting in the destruction of the archaeological remains should proceed, it would be entirely reasonable for the planning authority to satisfy itself ... that the developer has made appropriate and satisfactory provision for the excavation and recording of remains.’ Further guidance is provided by the London Borough of Southwark’s Unitary Development Plan (1995, still applicable). Objective E.5 is “To ensure the preservation, protection, investigation, recording and display of the archaeological heritage”. Policy E.5.1 states: ‘The council will seek to conserve and protect the Borough’s archaeological heritage and to enhance the knowledge of its historical development. The policy will apply to sites of potential archaeological importance where ancient remains are threatened by development. 2 ‘(i) The Council will expect the applicant to provide information to enable an assessment of the impact of a proposed development on the potential archaeology of the site. This would usually be desk-based information and would be expected prior to determination of a planning application. ‘(ii) Where there is potential for important remains on a site, which may merit preservation in situ, then the results of an archaeological field evaluation will, if feasible, be required prior to determination of a planning application. ‘(iii) Where the evaluation reveals important remains their protection and preservation will be the primary objective. This can be achieved by redesigning the proposed development and by foundation modification. ‘(iv) Where important archaeological remains cannot be preserved, or where remains do not merit preservation, then the Council will use planning conditions to ensure excavation and recording of the remains prior to redevelopment, i.e., preservation by record. ‘(v) Archaeological investigations are to be undertaken by a recognised archaeological field unit to a written specification. These will need to be approved by the Council prior to the commencement of any work.’ Southwark also has Supplementary Planning Guidance relating to archaeology, including the wording of the proposed new Policy 3.7 for the Draft Southwark Plan (2002, but not yet adopted): ‘Planning applications affecting sites of archaeological potential shall be accompanied by an archaeological assessment and evaluation of the site, including the impact of the proposed development. ‘Development proposals will be required to preserve in situ, protect and safeguard scheduled ancient monuments and important archaeological remains and their settings, and where appropriate, provide for the permanent display and/or interpretation of the monument or remains. ‘The local planning authority will ensure the proper investigation, recording of site and publication of the results by a suitably qualified archaeological contractor, as an integral part of a development programme where a development incorporates archaeological remains or where it is considered that preservation in situ is not appropriate.’ Further policies cover Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Historic Parks and Gardens, Listed Buildings, and other structures of architectural or historic merit, none of these is specifically relevant here. The site lies within one of the Borough’s Archaeological Priority Areas. Methodology The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of sources recommended by the Institute of Field Archaeologists paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, the Greater London Historic Buildings, Sites and Monuments Record (GLSMR), geological maps and any relevant publications or reports. Archaeological background General background The lower stretch of the Thames Valley is rich in finds of many periods (Williams and Brown 1999). Many archaeological deposits, covering extensive tracts of the gravel terraces north of the estuary, have been 3 discovered by aerial photography but the nature and extent of occupation and use of lower-lying areas has only come to light in more recent times. River margins, creeks and inlets, including those of the Thames, were preferred areas of settlement in earlier periods, but study of this use is hampered by subsequent inundation due to a rise in sea level and the deposition of deep alluvium. Fieldwork has, nevertheless, located areas of occupation with good preservation of organic remains typified by the examples of wooden trackways laid down to cross low-lying ground in the Bronze Age and earlier (Meddens 1996). The areas of higher ground (e.g. gravel terrace margins) overlooking lower-lying, seasonally-flooded land are a preferred topographic location for occupation. In this context, it should be noted that the site lies on the alluvial and tidal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Library of 'Flesh': a Return to Bodily Perception
    The Library of 'flesh': A return to bodily perception Amy Lam, B AS. A thesis submitted to The Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture (Professional) Azrieli School of Architecture and Urbanism Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada Amy Lam © 2009 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Library and Bibliotheque et 1*1 Archives Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-51989-9 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-51989-9 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives and Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par Nntemet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans loan, distribute and sell theses le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, worldwide, for commercial or non­ sur support microforme, papier, electronique commercial purposes, in microform, et/ou autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. this thesis. Neither the thesis Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de nor substantial extracts from it celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement may be printed or otherwise reproduits sans son autorisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Palace-House-Brochure-FINAL-Mar
    PALACE HOUSE 3 CATHEDRAL STREET SOUTH BANK SE1 Prime long let freehold investment opportunity Contents INVESTMENT Summary 04 / 05 Location 06 / 13 Connectivity 14 / 15 Local Occupiers 16 / 19 Local DEVELOPMENT pIPELINE 20 / 21 Description 24 / 25 Specification 26 Accommodation 27 Floor Plans 28 / 29 Tenure and TENANCY 30 / 31 Covenant Information 32 Asset Management 33 SOUTH BANK MARKET 34 / 35 Contact & FURTHER INFORMATION 36 / 37 01-02 INVESTMENT SUMMARY Freehold. Located in the thriving South Bank district adjacent to Borough Market. London Bridge station is within a five minute walk from the property. Currently under refurbishment by Kaplan, the property comprises 45,012 sq ft (4,182 sq m) of accommodation arranged over ground and five upper floors. The accommodation includes 43,083 sq ft (4,002 sq m) of office and ancillary accommodation and a retail unit at part-ground and part-first floor extending to 1,929 sq ft (179 sq m). The office space is single let to Kaplan Estates Limited guaranteed by Kaplan UK Limited, a 5A1 rated company, for a term of 15 years expiring 31st August 2032, with a tenant option to determine on 31st August 2027. The overall passing rent of the office accommodation is £2,453,165.50 per annum (£57.76 per sq ft). The retail unit is let to Nero Holdings Limited t/a Caffè Nero for a term of 15 years from 11th June 2007 expiring 10th June 2022. The rent payable is subject to a minimum base rent of £150,000 per annum and an additional turnover rent (if applicable).
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Architecture in Tudor and Stuart London Transcript
    The Politics of Architecture in Tudor and Stuart London Transcript Date: Thursday, 11 February 2010 - 12:00AM Location: Museum of London The Politics of Architecture in Tudor and Stuart London Professor Simon Thurley Visiting Gresham Professor of the Built Environment 11/12/2010 Tonight, and again on the 11 March, I will be looking at the interrelation of architecture and power. The power of kings and the power of government and how that power has affected London. On the 11th I will be looking at Victorian and Edwardian London but tonight I'm going to concentrate on the sixteenth and seventeenth century and show how Tudor and Stuart Monarchs used, with varying degrees of success, the great buildings of the City of London to bolster their power. The story of royal buildings in the City starts with the Saxons. Before 1052 English Kings had had a palace in London at Aldermanbury, but principally to avoid the instability, turbulence and violence of the populace Edward the Confessor, the penultimate English King, had moved his royal palace one and a half miles west to an Island called Thorney. On Thorney Island the Confessor built the great royal abbey and palace of Westminster. And it was here, that William the Conqueror chose to be crowned on Christmas day 1066, safely away from the still hostile inhabitants of the city. London was too big, powerful and independent to be much influenced by the Norman Conquest. Business continued unabated under a deal done between the city rulers and their new king. However William left a major legacy by establishing the metropolitan geography of the English monarchy - the subject of my talk this evening.
    [Show full text]
  • The Charter Quay Site, Kingston, Documentary Research Report
    THE CHARTER QUAY SITE, KINGSTON, DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH REPORT Dr Christopher Phillpotts, BA, MA, PhD, AIFA The Saxon period The topography of Kingston in the Saxon period consisted of low islands of gravel capped with brickearth, standing proud of the alluvial marshland of the Thames floodplain. The central Kingston island lay between the course of the Thames to the west, two branches of the River Hogsmill to the south and east, and the Downhall/Latchmere Channel to the north. Trench 3 of the site lay on the western edge of this island at the confluence of the Thames and the southern branch of the Hogsmill. To the south lay a series of smaller gravel islands running parallel with the course of the Thames. Trenches 1 and 2 of the site lie on the north- west part of the northernmost of these islands, adjacent to the Hogsmill (Hawkins 1996, 4.2; Hawkins 1998, 271-2). The evidence of recent excavations suggests that early Saxon settlement in the area was concentrated on the island to the south of the Hogsmill. Occupation evidence of the sixth and seventh centuries was found here at South Lane, including at least one substantial hall building. Other activities were taking place on the higher ground to the east of the central Kingston island, although these may have been of an agricultural character. The central island was probably unoccupied at this period (Hawkins 1998, 273, 275-6, 278). By the eighth century the focus of settlement had shifted to the central Kingston island. The excavated evidence of the late Saxon period here is characterised by ditches dug into the brickearth to drain the low-lying island and mark out property boundaries (Hawkins 1996, 5.3.4, 5.3.5; Hawkins 1998, 276-8).
    [Show full text]
  • BANKSIDE, BOROUGH & LONDON BRIDGE Characterisation STUDY
    APPENDIX 8 BANKSIDE, BOROUGH & LONDON BRIDGE CHARACTERISATION STUDY JULY 2013 Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study page 2 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 6 2. StrategiC CONTEXT 10 3. TOWNSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS 22 3.1 BLACKFRIARS ROAD NORTH 23 3.2 BLACKFRIARS ROAD SOUTH 33 Limitations 3.3 BANKSIDE CULTURAL 43 URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“URS”) has prepared this Report for the sole use of Southwark Council (“Client”) in accordance with the 3.4 BANKSIDE COMMERCIAL 53 Agreement under which our services were performed [3117681. 19 October 2012]. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by URS. This 3.5 BOROUGH MARKET 61 Report is confidential and may not be disclosed by the Client nor relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of URS. 3.6 THE BOROUGH 70 The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has 3.7 BOROUGH HIGH STREET 79 been requested and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by URS has not been independently verified by URS, unless otherwise stated 3.8 LONDON BRIDGE 89 in the Report. The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by URS in 3.9 BERMONDSEY 104 providing its services are outlined in this Report. The work described in this Report was undertaken between [insert date] and [insert date] and is based on the conditions encountered and the information available during the said REFERENCES 115 period of time.
    [Show full text]
  • Redating Pericles: a Re-Examination of Shakespeare’S
    REDATING PERICLES: A RE-EXAMINATION OF SHAKESPEARE’S PERICLES AS AN ELIZABETHAN PLAY A THESIS IN Theatre Presented to the Faculty of the University of Missouri-Kansas City in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS by Michelle Elaine Stelting University of Missouri Kansas City December 2015 © 2015 MICHELLE ELAINE STELTING ALL RIGHTS RESERVED REDATING PERICLES: A RE-EXAMINATION OF SHAKESPEARE’S PERICLES AS AN ELIZABETHAN PLAY Michelle Elaine Stelting, Candidate for the Master of Arts Degree University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2015 ABSTRACT Pericles's apparent inferiority to Shakespeare’s mature works raises many questions for scholars. Was Shakespeare collaborating with an inferior playwright or playwrights? Did he allow so many corrupt printed versions of his works after 1604 out of indifference? Re-dating Pericles from the Jacobean to the Elizabethan era answers these questions and reveals previously unexamined connections between topical references in Pericles and events and personalities in the court of Elizabeth I: John Dee, Philip Sidney, Edward de Vere, and many others. The tournament impresas, alchemical symbolism of the story, and its lunar and astronomical imagery suggest Pericles was written long before 1608. Finally, Shakespeare’s focus on father-daughter relationships, and the importance of Marina, the daughter, as the heroine of the story, point to Pericles as written for a young girl. This thesis uses topical references, Shakespeare’s anachronisms, Shakespeare’s sources, stylometry and textual analysis, as well as Henslowe’s diary, the Stationers' Register, and other contemporary documentary evidence to determine whether there may have been versions of Pericles circulating before the accepted date of 1608.
    [Show full text]
  • A HISTORY of LONDON in 100 PLACES
    A HISTORY of LONDON in 100 PLACES DAVID LONG ONEWORLD A Oneworld Book First published in North America, Great Britain & Austalia by Oneworld Publications 2014 Copyright © David Long 2014 The moral right of David Long to be identified as the Author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 All rights reserved Copyright under Berne Convention A CIP record for this title is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-78074-413-1 ISBN 978-1-78074-414-8 (eBook) Text designed and typeset by Tetragon Publishing Printed and bound by CPI Mackays, Croydon, UK Oneworld Publications 10 Bloomsbury Street London WC1B 3SR England CONTENTS Introduction xiii Chapter 1: Roman Londinium 1 1. London Wall City of London, EC3 2 2. First-century Wharf City of London, EC3 5 3. Roman Barge City of London, EC4 7 4. Temple of Mithras City of London, EC4 9 5. Amphitheatre City of London, EC2 11 6. Mosaic Pavement City of London, EC3 13 7. London’s Last Roman Citizen 14 Trafalgar Square, WC2 Chapter 2: Saxon Lundenwic 17 8. Saxon Arch City of London, EC3 18 9. Fish Trap Lambeth, SW8 20 10. Grim’s Dyke Harrow Weald, HA3 22 11. Burial Mounds Greenwich Park, SE10 23 12. Crucifixion Scene Stepney, E1 25 13. ‘Grave of a Princess’ Covent Garden, WC2 26 14. Queenhithe City of London, EC3 28 Chapter 3: Norman London 31 15. The White Tower Tower of London, EC3 32 16. Thomas à Becket’s Birthplace City of London, EC2 36 17.
    [Show full text]
  • An Article in Southwark Magazine
    Attractions Attractions powered Universal Testing Machine he built with the place. It’s astonishing that it’s still is preserved. here, and it’s so important that it survives. It’s This pioneering machine was historically a crucial part of the legacy of why buildings used for testing the suitability of building and bridges stand up, and underpins the materials for major infrastructure projects world’s standard of engineering established in that include Hammersmith Bridge and this building in Southwark Street.” Wembley Stadium. Museum trustee Sarah Jarvis says: “What OLD OPERATING THEATRE David was doing was very controversial at the When visitors head up the narrow 52-step time, as he was going against the way people staircase in the Old Operating Theatre, they were working. He was saying the only way to will be rewarded with a unique chance to ensure building and construction materials learn about the history of medicine. are safe is to test them rigorously and The oldest surviving surgical theatre in objectively, and to basically build on fact – Europe is tucked away next to the iconic not opinion.” Shard building, and is housed in the attic The volunteer-run museum opens on of the old St Thomas Hospital’s 18th the first Sunday and the third Wednesday of century church. every month, and regularly features as part of Sarah Corn is a year into her role as events such as Open House, London History director of this popular venue that opens Day and the Thames festival. seven days a week and annually has around Jarvis says Kirkaldy Testing Museum is 40,000 visitors.
    [Show full text]
  • Preservation and Innovation in the Intertheatrum Period, 1642-1660: the Survival of the London Theatre Community
    Preservation and Innovation in the Intertheatrum Period, 1642-1660: The Survival of the London Theatre Community By Mary Alex Staude Honors Thesis Department of English and Comparative Literature University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2018 Approved: (Signature of Advisor) Acknowledgements I would like to thank Reid Barbour for his support, guidance, and advice throughout this process. Without his help, this project would not be what it is today. Thanks also to Laura Pates, Adam Maxfield, Alex LaGrand, Aubrey Snowden, Paul Smith, and Playmakers Repertory Company. Also to Diane Naylor at Chatsworth Settlement Trustees. Much love to friends and family for encouraging my excitement about this project. Particular thanks to Nell Ovitt for her gracious enthusiasm, and to Hannah Dent for her unyielding support. I am grateful for the community around me and for the communities that came before my time. Preface Mary Alex Staude worked on ​Twelfth Night​ 2017 with Alex LaGrand who worked on ​King Lear​ 2016 with Zack Powell who worked on ​Henry IV Part II ​2015 with John Ahlin who worked on ​Macbeth​ 2000 with Jerry Hands who worked on ​Much Ado About Nothing​ 1984 with Derek Jacobi who worked on ​Othello ​1964 with Laurence Olivier who worked on ​Romeo and Juliet​ 1935 with Edith Evans who worked on ​The Merry Wives of Windsor​ 1918 with Ellen Terry who worked on ​The Winter’s Tale ​1856 with Charles Kean who worked on ​Richard III 1776 with David Garrick who worked on ​Hamlet ​1747 with Charles Macklin who worked on Henry IV​ 1738 with Colley Cibber who worked on​ Julius Caesar​ 1707 with Thomas Betterton who worked on ​Hamlet​ 1661 with William Davenant who worked on ​Henry VIII​ 1637 with John Lowin who worked on ​Henry VIII ​1613 with John Heminges who worked on ​Hamlet​ 1603 with William Shakespeare.
    [Show full text]
  • See a Full List of the National Youth
    Past Productions National Youth Theatre ​ ​ '50s 1956: Henry V - William Shakespeare, Dir: Michael Croft @ Toynbee Hall 1957: Henry IV Pt II - William Shakespeare, Dir: Michael Croft @ Toynbee Hall 1957: Henry IV Pt II - William Shakespeare, Dir: Michael Croft @ Worthington Hall, Manchester 1958: Troilus & Cressida - William Shakespeare, Dir: Michael Croft @ Moray House Theatre, Edinburgh 1958: Troilus & Cressida - William Shakespeare, Dir: Michael Croft @ Lyric Theatre, Hammersmith '60s 1960: Hamlet - William Shakespeare, Dir: Michael Croft @ Tour of Holland. Theatre des Nations. Paris 1961: Richard II - William Shakespeare, Dir: Michael Croft @ Apollo Theatre, Shaftesbury Avenue 1961: Richard II - William Shakespeare, Dir: Michael Croft @ Ellen Terry Theatre. Tenterden. Devon 1961: Richard II - William Shakespeare, Dir: Michael Croft @Apollo Theatre, Shaftesbury Avenue 1961: Henry IV Pt II - William Shakespeare, Dir: Michael Croft @ Apollo Theatre, Shaftesbury Avenue 1961: Julius Caesar - William Shakespeare, Dir: Michael Croft @ British entry at Berlin festival 1962: Richard II - William Shakespeare, Dir: Michael Croft @ Italian Tour: Rome, Florence, Genoa, Turin, Perugia 1962: Richard II - William Shakespeare, Dir: Michael Croft @ Tour of Holland and Belgium 1962: Henry V - William Shakespeare, Dir: Michael Croft @ Sadlers Wells 1962: Julius Caesar - William Shakespeare, Dir: Michael Croft @ Sadlers Wells1962: 1962: Hamlet - William Shakespeare, Dir: Michael Croft @ Tour for Centre 42. Nottingham, Leicester, Birmingham, Bristol, Hayes
    [Show full text]
  • 25, Playhouses and Other Early Modern Playing Venues Leslie Thomson, University of Toronto
    Audiences at the Red Bull: A Review of the Evidence Recently, the view that the Red Bull audience consisted largely of “unlettered” members of the lower classes has been challenged by several scholars, notably Marta Straznicky, Tom Rutter and Eva Griffith. On the other hand, Mark Bayer seems to confirm the traditional view, though he rejects the assumption that this meant the performances were of low artistic value. In this paper I look carefully at the very limited amount of evidence that survives about the patrons of the Red Bull, focusing especially on the period prior to 1625. This evidence consists essentially of a few contemporary references and a group of extant plays believed with varying degrees of certainty to have been performed there. My thesis is that all the above-mentioned scholars are partially right. Early modern theatre companies had to appeal to several different audiences at the same time; while there certainly were apprentices and artisans in the yard, the higher-paying, more numerous, and more socially-prestigious audience in the galleries was likely the main focus of the company’s attention. This audience may have contained a higher proportion of “citizens” than at the Globe, but its main distinguishing feature was a more conservative world view and theatrical taste. Douglas Arrell, University of Winnipeg ******************** Catherine Clifford SAA 2015: Playhouses and Other Early Modern Playing Venues University of Texas at Arlington [email protected] Anne of Denmark’s Temporary Courtyard Theatre and the Consecration of a New Court at Somerset House in 1614 On February 2, 1614, upon the near-completion of extensive renovations at Somerset House, soon to be known as Denmark House, Anne of Denmark hosted a wedding celebration for one of her ladies-in-waiting at her palace.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Introduction by Grace Ioppolo in 1619, the Celebrated Actor Edward
    Introduction by Grace Ioppolo In 1619, the celebrated actor Edward Alleyn founded Dulwich College, a boys’ school originally called ‘God’s Gift of Dulwich College’, as part of his charitable foundation, which also included a chapel and twelve almshouses.1 As part of his estate, Alleyn left thousands of pages of his personal professional papers as well as those of his father-in-law and business partner, the entrepreneur Philip Henslowe, to the College in perpetuity. Some of the papers, including the invaluable account book of theatrical expenses now known as Henslowe’s Diary, suffered minor damage over the centuries. Yet these papers recording playhouse construction, theatre company management, the relationships of actors and dramatists with their employers, and the interaction of royal and local officials in theatre performance and production remained largely intact. Although Henslowe’s Diary and other original volumes such as the play-text of The Telltale retained their original bindings, thousands of loose documents, including muniments, deeds, leases, indentures, contracts, letters, and receipts remained uncatalogued and in their original state (included folded into packets, as in the case of letters). Scholars and theatre professionals such as David Garrick, Edmond Malone, John Payne Collier and J. O. Halliwell made use of Dulwich College’s library in the 18th and 19th centuries, sometimes borrowing and then not returning bound volumes and loose manuscripts to use in their research on the theatre history of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. In the 1870s, the governors of Dulwich College accepted the offer of George F. Warner, a keeper of manuscripts at the British Museum, to conserve and catalogue this collection of the single most important archive of documents relating to 16th and 17th century performance and production.
    [Show full text]