Master Henslowe's Diary
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
From Sidney to Heywood: the Social Status of Commercial Theatre in Early Modern London
From Sidney to Heywood: the social status of commercial theatre in early modern London Romola Nuttall (King’s College London, UK) The Literary London Journal, Volume 14 Number 1 (Spring 2017) Abstract Thomas Heywood’s Apology for Actors (written c. 1608, published 1612) is one of the only stand-alone, printed deFences of the proFessional theatre to emerge from the early modern period. Even more significantly, it is ‘the only contemporary complete text we have – by an early modern actor about early modern actors’ (Griffith 191). This is rather surprising considering how famous playwrights and drama of that period have become, but it is revealing of attitudes towards the profession and the stage at the turn of the sixteenth century. Religious concerns Formed a central part of the heated public debate which contested the social value oF proFessional drama during the early modern era. Claims against the literary status of work produced for the commercial stage were also frequently levelled against the theatre from within the establishment, a prominent example being Sir Philip Sidney’s Defence of Poesie (written c. 1579, published 1595). Considering Heywood’s Apology in relation to Sidney’s Defence, and thinking particularly about the ways these treatises appropriate the classical idea oF mimesis and the consequent social value of literature, gives fresh insight into the changing status of drama in Shakespeare’s lifetime and how attitudes towards commercial theatre developed between the 1570s and 1610s. The following article explores these ideas within the framework of the London in which Heywood and his acting company lived and worked. -
A Noise Within Study Guide Shakespeare Supplement
A Noise Within Study Guide Shakespeare Supplement California’s Home for the Classics California’s Home for the Classics California’s Home for the Classics Table of Contents Dating Shakespeare’s Plays 3 Life in Shakespeare’s England 4 Elizabethan Theatre 8 Working in Elizabethan England 14 This Sceptered Isle 16 One Big Happy Family Tree 20 Sir John Falstaff and Tavern Culture 21 Battle of the Henries 24 Playing Nine Men’s Morris 30 FUNDING FOR A NOISE WITHIN’S EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS IS PROVIDED IN paRT BY: The Ahmanson Foundation, Alliance for the Advancement of Arts Education, Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, Employees Community Fund of Boeing California, The Capital Group Companies, Citigroup Foundation, Disney Worldwide Outreach, Doukas Family Foundation, Ellingsen Family Foundation, The Herb Alpert Foundation, The Green Foundation, Kiwanis Club of Glendale, Lockheed Federal Credit Union, Los Angeles County Arts Commission, B.C. McCabe Foundation, Metropolitan Associates, National Endowment for the Arts, The Kenneth T. and Eileen L. Norris Foundation, The Steinmetz Foundation, Dwight Stuart Youth Foundation, Waterman Foundation, Zeigler Family Foundation. 2 A Noise Within Study Guide Shakespeare Supplement Dating Shakespeare’s Plays Establishing an exact date for the Plays of Shakespeare. She theorized that authorship of Shakespeare’s plays is a very Shakespeare (a “stupid, ignorant, third- difficult task. It is impossible to pin down rate play actor”) could not have written the exact order, because there are no the plays attributed to him. The Victorians records giving details of the first production. were suspicious that a middle-class actor Many of the plays were performed years could ever be England’s greatest poet as before they were first published. -
"A Sharers' Repertory." Rethinking Theatrical
Syme, Holger Schott. "A Sharers’ Repertory." Rethinking Theatrical Documents in Shakespeare’s England. Ed. Tiffany Stern. London: The Arden Shakespeare, 2020. 33–51. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 26 Sep. 2021. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350051379.ch-002>. Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 26 September 2021, 08:28 UTC. Copyright © Tiffany Stern and contributors 2020. You may share this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. 2 A Sharers’ Repertory Holger Schott Syme Without Philip Henslowe, we would know next to nothing about the kinds of repertories early modern London’s resident theatre companies offered to their audiences. As things stand, thanks to the existence of the manuscript commonly known as Henslowe’s Diary , scholars have been able to contemplate the long lists of receipts and expenses that record the titles of well over 200 plays, most of them now lost. The Diary gives us some sense of the richness and diversity of this repertory, of the rapid turnover of plays, and of the kinds of investments theatre companies made to mount new shows. It also names a plethora of actors and other professionals associated with the troupes at the Rose. But, because the records are a fi nancier’s and theatre owner’s, not those of a sharer in an acting company, they do not document how a group of actors decided which plays to stage, how they chose to alternate successful shows, or what they, as actors, were looking for in new commissions. -
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. -
Hamlet (The New Cambridge Shakespeare, Philip Edwards Ed., 2E, 2003)
Hamlet Prince of Denmark Edited by Philip Edwards An international team of scholars offers: . modernized, easily accessible texts • ample commentary and introductions . attention to the theatrical qualities of each play and its stage history . informative illustrations Hamlet Philip Edwards aims to bring the reader, playgoer and director of Hamlet into the closest possible contact with Shakespeare's most famous and most perplexing play. He concentrates on essentials, dealing succinctly with the huge volume of commentary and controversy which the play has provoked and offering a way forward which enables us once again to recognise its full tragic energy. The introduction and commentary reveal an author with a lively awareness of the importance of perceiving the play as a theatrical document, one which comes to life, which is completed only in performance.' Review of English Studies For this updated edition, Robert Hapgood Cover design by Paul Oldman, based has added a new section on prevailing on a draining by David Hockney, critical and performance approaches to reproduced by permission of tlie Hamlet. He discusses recent film and stage performances, actors of the Hamlet role as well as directors of the play; his account of new scholarship stresses the role of remembering and forgetting in the play, and the impact of feminist and performance studies. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS www.cambridge.org THE NEW CAMBRIDGE SHAKESPEARE GENERAL EDITOR Brian Gibbons, University of Munster ASSOCIATE GENERAL EDITOR A. R. Braunmuller, University of California, Los Angeles From the publication of the first volumes in 1984 the General Editor of the New Cambridge Shakespeare was Philip Brockbank and the Associate General Editors were Brian Gibbons and Robin Hood. -
TITUS ANDRONICUS: Know-The-Show Guide
The Shakespeare Theatre of New Jersey 2018 TITUS ANDRONICUS: Know-the-Show Guide Titus Andronicus by William Shakespeare Know-the-Show Audience Guide researched and written by the Education Department of Artwork by Scott McKowen The Shakespeare Theatre of New Jersey 2018 TITUS ANDRONICUS: Know-the-Show Guide In this Guide – The Life of William Shakespeare ............................................................................................... 2 – Titus Andronicus: Director’s Note .............................................................................................. 3 – Titus Andronicus: A Synopsis .................................................................................................... 5 – Who’s Who in the Play ............................................................................................................. 7 – Sources and History .................................................................................................................. 8 – The Peacham Drawing .............................................................................................................. 9 – Titus Andronicus: A Play for Our Time? ................................................................................... 10 – Commentary & Criticism ........................................................................................................ 11 – Theatre in Shakespeare’s Day .................................................................................................. 12 – In this Production .................................................................................................................. -
Pembroke's Men in 1592–3, Their Repertory and Touring Schedule
Issues in Review 129 22 Leland H. Carlson, Martin Marprelate, Gentleman: Master Job Throckmorton Laid Open in his Colours (San Marino: Huntington Library, 1981), 72–81; Donald J. McGinn, John Penry and the Marprelate Controversy (New Bruns- wick, NJ, 1966), 134. 23 John Laurence, A History of Capital Punishment (New York, 1963), 9; see also Naish, Death Comes to the Maiden, 9, and Frances E. Dolan, ‘“Gentlemen, I have one more thing to say”: Women on Scaffolds in England, 1563–1680’, Modern Philology 92 (1994), 166. Pembroke’s Men in 1592–3, Their Repertory and Touring Schedule Some years ago, during a seminar on theatre history at the annual meeting of the Shakespeare Association of America, someone asked plaintively, ‘What did bad companies play in the provinces?’ and Leeds Barroll quipped, ‘Bad quartos’. The belief behind the joke – that ‘bad’ quartos and failing companies went together – has seemed specifically true of the earl of Pembroke’s players in 1592–3. Pembroke’s Men played in the provinces, and plays later published that advertised their ownership have been assigned to the category of texts known as ‘bad’ quartos. Even so, the company had reasons to be considered ‘good’. They enjoyed the patronage of Henry Herbert, the earl of Pembroke, and gave two of the five performances at court during Christmas, 1592–3 (26 December, 6 January). Their players, though probably young, were talented and committed to the profession: Richard Burbage, who would become a star with the Chamberlain’s/King’s Men, was still acting within a year of his death in 1619; William Sly acted with the Chamberlain’s/King’s Men until his death in 1608; Humphrey Jeffes acted with the Admiral’s/Prince’s/Palsgrave’s Men, 1597–1615; Robert Pallant and Robert Lee, who played with Worcester’s/ Queen Anne’s Men, were still active in the 1610s. -
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. -
So We Are Talking Roughly About Twenty‐Five Years of Theatre. Roughly, Because the Tendencies That Characteriz
So we are talking roughly about twenty‐five years of theatre. Roughly, because the tendencies that characterize Jacobean theatre started before James I came to the throne (1603, died 1625) around the year 1599 – the year when the Lord Chamberlain’s Men relocated their theatre from Shoreditch to Southwark (on the southern bank of the Thames) and called it “The Globe”, the year when the private theatre of Paul’s boys was reopened, and a little later the Lord Chamberlain’s Men got hold of the Blackfriars theatre. These developments brought about an unprecedented avalanche of play‐writing and dramaturgical innovation that made the Jacobean period one of the most dynamic and spectacular periods in theatre history as we know it. The period also established a new generation of playwrights: the most prominent of whom are Ben Jonson, John Marston, George Chapman, Thomas Middleton, John Webster, Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher – who worked alongside, competed with, collaborated and learned from William Shakespeare – the major figure that continued to sway the English stage from the Elizabethan well into the Jacobean period. 1 Of course, at the beginning of the period the most successful playwright in London was Shakespeare. So far, his fame rested mainly on the series of history plays: the two tetralogies (Henry VI, Parts I‐III and Richard III; and Richard II, Henry IV, Parts I‐II and Henry V) and King John; and his witty romantic comedies that Queen Elizabeth reportedly liked so much: e.g. Love’s Labour’s Lost, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Much Ado About Nothing, As You Like It. -
University of Nevada, Reno a New Critical Edition of Shakespeare's
University of Nevada, Reno A New Critical Edition of Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus . A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English by Matthew Trey Jansen Dr. Eric Rasmussen/Dissertation Advisor August, 2013 UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA RENO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL We recommend that the dissertation prepared under our supervision by MATTHEW TREY JANSEN entitled A New Critical Edition of Titus Andronicus be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Eric Rasmussen, Ph.D., Advisor James Marcock, Ph.D., Committee Member Dennis Cronan, Ph.D., Committee Member Kevin Stevens, Ph.D., Committee Member Rob Gander, Ph.D., Graduate School Representative Marsha H. Read, Ph. D., Dean, Graduate School August, 2013 i Abstract In Shakespeare’s first tragedy, Titus Andronicus , the blank spaces are filled by necessary action and constant visual representations of limbless bodies on the stage, which are easily lost on the pages of the text. It is my contention that an edition must offer the best possibility to bridge this gap between the stage and the page, by presenting a text based on the early modern text that is most influenced by the theater. Based on my evaluation of the most recent scholarship, this text is the 1623 First Folio. This choice is a clear break from the editorial tradition of Titus Andronicus , which has been to use the First Quarto as copy text and to insert the stage directions and the “fly scene” from the First Folio. While the First Quarto may represent something closer to what Shakespeare first wrote, the long success of Titus Andronicus on the stage, the addition of the theatrically based directions, and the number of hands involved in the preparation of the text for the Folio offer a more tangible connection to the effects of performance on early modern texts. -
Before Shakespeare: the Drama of the 1580S Andy Kesson (University of Roehampton)
Before Shakespeare: The Drama of the 1580s Andy Kesson (University of Roehampton) Beioley "Who is it that knowes me not by my partie coloured head?": Playing the Vice in the 1580s Abstract: The 1580s is a significant decade for the Vice tradition, as it is conventionally regarded as the period in which allegorical drama declined, and therefore as heralding the decline of the “proper” Vice figure. As Alan Dessen has noted, “Most scholars accept Bernard Spivack’s formulation that, except for an occasional throwback, the period after 1590 ‘marks the dead end and dissolution of the allegorical drama, at least on the popular stage’” (Allegorical Action and Elizabethan Staging 391). In the conception of those who follow Spivack's thinking, then, the 1580s can thus be seen as the crossroads between the more allegorical Vices of Tudor drama, and later characters like Richard of Gloucester who embody or evoke some of the Vice's characteristics, often while drawing attention to this influence as Richard himself does: “Thus, like the formal Vice, Iniquity, / I moralize two meanings in one word.” Such borders, however, are never neat, and in this paper I will challenge this somewhat teleological portrayal of the Vice's development through an examination of the 1581 play The Three Ladies of London, and its 1588 “sequel” The Three Lords and Three Ladies of London, and consider the ways in which the 1580s affected the expression of the Vice figure as it continued to develop and change. Dessen, Alan C. "Allegorical Action and Elizabethan Staging." Studies in English Literature, 1500- 1900. -
The Case of John Fletcher and Philip Massinger's Love's Cure
This is a repository copy of What the Quills Can Tell: The Case of John Fletcher and Philip Massinger’s Love’s Cure. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/113584/ Version: Accepted Version Book Section: Perez Diez, JA orcid.org/0000-0003-0227-8965 (2017) What the Quills Can Tell: The Case of John Fletcher and Philip Massinger’s Love’s Cure. In: Holland, P, (ed.) Shakespeare Survey 70: Creating Shakespeare. Shakepeare Survey, 70 . Cambridge University Press , Cambridge, UK , pp. 89-98. ISBN 9781108277648 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108277648.010 (c) Cambridge University Press 2017. This material has been published in Shakespeare Survey 70, edited by Holland, P This version is free to view and download for personal use only. Not for re-distribution, re-sale or use in derivative works. Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ What the quills can tell: the case of John Fletcher and Philip Massinger’s Love’s Cure José A.