Playing Companies and Commerce in Shakespeare's Time

Abstract

Playing Companies and Commerce in Shakespeare's Time, first published in 2011, examines the nature of commercial relations among the theatre companies in London during the time of Shakespeare. Roslyn Knutson argues that the playing companies cooperated in the adoption of business practices that would enable the theatrical enterprise to flourish. Suggesting the guild as a model of economic cooperation, Knutson considers the networks of fellowship among players, the marketing strategies of the repertory, and company relationships with playwrights and members of the book trade. The book challenges two entrenched views about theatrical commerce: that companies engaged in cut-throat rivalry to drive one another out of business and that companies based business decisions on the personal and professional quarrels of the players and dramatists with whom they worked. This important contribution to theatre history will be of interest to scholars as well as historians.

Guy of Warwick, Godfrey of Bouillon, and Elizabethan Repertory

“…Knutson argues that the critical tradition of treating plays with titles suggesting the same or similar subject matter as different titles for the same play or revisions of a single play has the effect of glossing over the commercial practice of commissioning plays on similar or the same topics. 24 Knutson also suggests that the development of the two-part play, comparable to the modern day film sequel, was another commercial strategy used by dramatists and that 'godfrey of bullen', like 'Hercules' and 'Tamar Cham', for example, was probably another instance of this principle at work. 25 Like The Tragical History, The Four Prentices uses features from the life of a popular medieval hero to provide a thrilling adventure story that moves from London, across Europe to Jerusalem and back again.…”

Richard Brome's Contract and the Relationship of Dramatist to Company in the Early Modern Period

“…Knutson has suggested of the Henslowe/Porter arrangement that it may have anticipated the imminent move of the Chamberlain's Men to the nearby Maid Lane. 17 The evidence suggests that contracts constituted insurance policies during periods of disruption and uncertainty, and are not to be classified as generally representative. Furthermore, while systems of bonds and contracts amongst players continued to hold currency over the decades, Henslowe's 1597 bonds suggest that it was neither a customary nor an appropriate means of managing relations with playwrights: Thomas Heywood was contracted to the company in the specific capacity of a player, agreeing 'not to playe any where public about London' besides the Rose, and while Jonson returned from prison to Henslowe and wrote five plays for the company in five years, there survives no evidence of a formal agreement.…”

“…Henslowe had commissioned The Arraignment of London from him, but Daborne's suggestions that he might sell it on to the King's Men suggests that the cement that held dramatists to companies was nothing like as strong as Brome's contract might imply. 19 The apparent negotiability of commitments prior to the emergence of the 1640 court depositions might explain the notable discrepancies between the expectations of the Salisbury Court management and Brome himself, who claimed that he had harboured misgivings about the stringent requirements that Gunnell's contract made of him, and had been 'unwilling to undertake … more than he could well perform'. 20 As Ann Haaker notes however, Brome had been assured by the Salisbury Court players that the annual stipulation of three plays was no more than a guarantee of dedication, and that given his loyalty and hard-work for the company, he need not produce more plays than he 'could or should be able well and conveniently to do and perform'.…”

Shakespeare’s Sonnets Dated

“…Below, in the "References", this author lists four books (Ellis, 2012;Knutson, 2001;Marino, 2011;Schoone-Jongen, 2008) which are admirable examinations of many of the issues alluded to here with regard to difficulty of dating Shakespeare's works, and attribution of works to him (e.g., prior to Meres' list, all Shakespeare plays were anonymous, and the first title-page to ever have Shakespeare's name on it was 1598 LLL "good" Q1). Indeed, Marino's general opinion (e.g., 2011, pp.…”