Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T18:18:59.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Literary Management in the Lord Admiral's Company, 1596–1603

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2009

Neil Carson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Theatre Research International , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , May 1977 , pp. 186 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © International Federation for Theatre Research 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Bentley, G. E. in The Profession of Dramatist in Shakespeare's Time (Princeton, 1971)Google Scholar touches on many of these questions, but in dealing with the entire period 1590–1642 he makes generalizations which over-simplify, and occasionally distort, the facts.

2. Fleay, F. G., A Chronicle History of the London Stage (London, 1890), pp. 117–18.Google Scholar

3. Greg, W. W., ed., Henslowe's Diary, II (London, 1908), 112, note 1.Google Scholar

4. ibid., pp. 111, 119, 124.

5. ibid., p.112.

6. Miller, Edwin H., The Profession of Writer in Elizabethan England (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), p. 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Simpson, Percy, ‘Actors and Acting’. Shakespeare's England, II (London, 1916), 242Google Scholar; Gurr, Andrew, The Shakespearean Stage, 1574–1642 (London, 1970), p. 51.Google Scholar

8. Sheavyn, Phoebe, The Literary Profession in the Elizabethan Age (Manchester, 1909, revised 1967), p.92Google Scholar; Bentley, G. E., The Profession of Dramatist, p. 205.Google Scholar

9. Wickham, Glynne, Early English Stages, II, Part 1 (London, 1963), 129.Google Scholar

10. Foakes, R. A., ‘Henslowe and the Theatre of the 1590s’, Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama, VI (1963), 4–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Henslowe's Diary, II, 122.Google Scholar

12. Alleyn had at this time retired from the stage and seems not to have played an active role in the management of the company then under Robert Shaw.

13. Dulwich MS I, 106, reprinted in Chambers, E. K., The Elizabethan Stage, II (London, 1923) 248–9.Google Scholar

14. Greg, W. W., ed., Henslowe's Papers (London, 1907), p. 23.Google Scholar

15. The exact nature of the relationship between Henslowe and the Admiral's men at this time is impossible to ascertain since Henslowe's method of book-keeping between January 24 and 5 November 1597, has not yet been satisfactorily interpreted.

16. Henslowe's sub-totals are entered on folios 48v, 50v, and 52 of the diary.

17. If we assume that the usual fee for a new play at this time was between £5 and £7, then payments of less that £4 probably represent money paid for unfinished plays or shorter writing assignments such as revision.

18. The attempts to bind Chettle and Porter to write only for the companies financed by Henslowe indicate the need to guarantee a supply of scripts.