Shakespeare And The Admiral S Men

This book examines the two-way influence between Shakespeare and his company's main competitors in the 1590s, the Admiral's Men. Providing a valuable addition to the thriving field of repertory studies, it offers new insights into Shakespeare's development as well as readings of important, sometimes neglected plays by his contemporaries.

Modern Language Association Of America, Monograph Series, No. 5.

... [The author pictures] the dramatist against a background of contemporary theatrical life. -Preface.

IT is due to the reader of a new work on a subject already so often handled as the Life of Shakespeare to tell him the reasons for which I have thought it worth while to devote nearly ten years to its production.

The Admiral's Men is the acting company that staged Christopher Marlowe's plays while its companion company was giving the first performances of Shakespeare. Unlike the Shakespeare company, there is plenty of evidence available telling us what the Admiral's company did and how it staged its plays. Not only do we know far more about the design of its two playhouses, the Rose and the Fortune, than we know of any other playhouse from the time, including the Globe, but we have Henslowe's Diary. This recorded everything the Admiral's company performed from 1594 to 1600 and after, what the company bought to stage its plays, who performed which parts, who wrote which plays and even how much they were paid. The first history to be written of the Admiral's Men, this book tells us not only a great deal about the company's own work, but also how the Shakespeare company operated.

Focusing on a period (c.1577-1594) that is often neglected in Elizabethan theater histories, this study considers Shakespeare's involvement with the various London acting companies before his membership in the Lord Chamberlain's Men in 1594. Locating Shakespeare in the confusing records of the early London theater scene has long been one of the many unresolved problems in Shakespeare studies and is a key issue in theatre history, Shakespeare biography, and historiography. The aim in this book is to explain, analyze, and assess the competing claims about Shakespeare's pre-1594 acting company affiliations. Schoone-Jongen does not demonstrate that one particular claim is correct but provides a possible framework for Shakespeare's activities in the 1570s and 1580s, an overview of both London and provincial playing, and then offers a detailed analysis of the historical plausibility and probability of the warring claims made by biographers, ranging from the earliest sixteenth-century references to contemporary arguments. Full chapters are devoted to four specific acting companies, their activities, and a summary and critique of the arguments for Shakespeare's involvement in them (The Queen's Men, Strange's Men, Pembroke's Men, and Sussex's Men), a further chapter is dedicated to the proposition Shakespeare's first theatrical involvement was in a recusant Lancashire household, and a final chapter focuses on arguments for Shakespeare's membership in a half dozen other companies (most prominently Leicester's Men). Shakespeare's Companies simultaneously opens up twenty years of theatrical activity to inquiry and investigation while providing a critique of Shakespearean biographers and their historical methodologies.

Focusing on a period (c.1577-1594) that is often neglected in Elizabethan theater histories, this study considers Shakespeare's involvement with the various London acting companies before his membership in the Lord Chamberlain's Men in 1594. Locating Shakespeare in the confusing records of the early London theater scene has long been one of the many unresolved problems in Shakespeare studies and is a key issue in theatre history, Shakespeare biography, and historiography. The aim in this book is to explain, analyze, and assess the competing claims about Shakespeare's pre-1594 acting company affiliations. Schoone-Jongen does not demonstrate that one particular claim is correct but provides a possible framework for Shakespeare's activities in the 1570s and 1580s, an overview of both London and provincial playing, and then offers a detailed analysis of the historical plausibility and probability of the warring claims made by biographers, ranging from the earliest sixteenth-century references to contemporary arguments. Full chapters are devoted to four specific acting companies, their activities, and a summary and critique of the arguments for Shakespeare's involvement in them (The Queen's Men, Strange's Men, Pembroke's Men, and Sussex's Men), a further chapter is dedicated to the proposition Shakespeare's first theatrical involvement was in a recusant Lancashire household, and a final chapter focuses on arguments for Shakespeare's membership in a half dozen other companies (most prominently Leicester's Men). Shakespeare's Companies simultaneously opens up twenty years of theatrical activity to inquiry and investigation while providing a critique of Shakespearean biographers and their historical methodologies.