Printer Friendly

Marlowe, company ownership, and the role of Edward II.

THE company ownership of most of Marlowe's plays, most of the time, is not a problem for theater historians. The problem lies a bit deeper. We know, for example, that the Admiral's Men owned the two Tamburlaine plays because of the title-page advertisement on the 1590 edition, even though it is not entirely clear how stable that company identity had recently been. Similarly, the title pages of three of Marlowe's plays advertised their company owners: Dido, Queen of Carthage, the Children of the Queen's Chapel; Edward II, Pembroke's Men; and The Massacre at Paris, the Admiral's Men. The Jew of Malta and Doctor Faustus (by the early chronology), were probably first acquired by the Admiral's Men also, though there is no specific proof. (1) The Jew of Malta was played by every company at the Rose, 1592-94, but by 1594 both were at the disposal of the Admiral's Men, as documented by Philip Henslowe's playlists. So the interesting question is not, "who were the company owners of Marlowe's plays?" but "how did the Admiral's Men come to acquire so many of them?" I will argue that the key is Edward Alleyn. Marlowe, having developed opinions about the drama of his day by the time he wrote Tamburlaine, saw in Alleyn a man of extraordinary physical size with a dramatic talent to match. I suggest that he still had Alleyn in mind when he wrote Edward II, even though Pembroke's Men ended up with the play. In that company, Richard Burbage, not Edward Alleyn, would have debuted the part of Edward. Building on this conjecture, I suggest further that this nexus of Pembroke's Men, Edward II, and Richard Burbage had an influence on William Shakespeare, whose two plays about the Wars of the Roses had also been acquired by Pembroke's Men. Those plays had parts of moderate size for the major players, but Shakespeare was working on a play with a huge leading role. Seeing Burbage in the part of Edward II, Shakespeare might well have gained assurance that the up-and-coming competitor to Alleyn could handle a part on the scale of Richard III.

In order to address these issues, I begin with what Marlowe might have known about the business of playing at a time when he was thinking of writing plays himself. From his youth in Canterbury, Marlowe had had an opportunity to see performances by the premier companies of the day. Although he was too young at the time to appreciate the quality on display, his fellow Canterburians saw performances in 1573 and 1574 by the earl of Sussex's Men and the earl of Leicester's Men. (2) These companies were rivals at Court through their respective patrons, Thomas Radcliffe, the queen's Lord Chamberlain; and Robert Dudley, her sometimes suitor and staunch supporter of Protestant causes. If the ten-year-old Marlowe missed the 1574 performances by Leicester's Men, he had later chances when he was twelve and fifteen, for the company returned to Canterbury in 1576-77 and 1579-80. (3) Five of the players drafted for the Queen's Men in 1583 were taken from these two companies. We know the membership of Leicester's Men in 1572 and 1574 from two documents: a letter from the players to their patron and a patent authorizing their playing in London and the provinces. (4) The names common to both documents are James Burbage, John Perkin, John Laneham, William Johnson, and Robert Wilson. We do not know the players in Sussex's Men until 1575-76, when John Adams is named as payee for a Court performance; perhaps by that time Richard Tarlton had also joined the company. I specify the names of these players not only because some were known in their own time but also because five of them--three from Leicester's (Laneham, Johnson, Wilson) and two from Sussex's (Adams, Tarlton)--were drafted in 1583 to join the Queen's Men. The one man with a familiar name who was not drafted was James Burbage. He is now most closely identified with the building of a London playhouse in 1576, the Theatre. By the time that the Queen's Men were formed, Burbage, presumably busy with the management of his playhouse, had allied himself with Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon, who would become the patron in 1594 of the Chamberlain's Men.

While Marlowe was at school in Cambridge, he had further opportunity to see the leading companies of the day in performance. The Queen's Men performed in the town of Cambridge in July 1583 and were paid 20s.; on the same tour, they were paid 50s. by the university not to play. (5) They returned to the town sometime in the spring of 1585 and were paid 26s. 8d. (6) They returned yet again in June 1587 and played at Trinity College for a 30s. reward, (7) but by this time Marlowe had probably left for London. It may be, however, that Marlowe did not limit his playgoing during his college years to the venues in Cambridge. John Bakeless credits Tucker Brooke with the suggestion that Marlowe might have seen performances of the Children of the Queen's Chapel at Norwich and Ipswich in 1586-87, and that the children "may then have secured the manuscript from the budding playwright, produced it at once in the provinces, and brought it to London later." (8)

The possibility that Marlowe traveled to towns in East Anglia and saw plays is a particularly appealing notion because it multiplies the dramatic activity he might have witnessed and suggests a provincial influence on his ambition to make money as a playwright. In Norwich, from 1581 to 1586-87, Marlowe could have seen performances by the players of the earls of Arundel, Leicester, Oxford, and Worcester; by those of lords Cecil, Chandos, Derby, Howard, Hunsdon, Morley, and Stafford; as well as the Queen's Men and the Children of the Queen's Chapel. (9) The Queen's Men's famous affray in Norwich at the Red Lion Inn occurred in June 1583. (10) In Ipswich, Marlowe could have seen performances by the Queen's Men; by players of the earls of Arundel, Derby, Essex, Leicester, Oxford, Sussex, and Worcester; by those of lords Chandos, Howard, Morley, Roberts, Stafford, and Windsor; and in July 1587, the Children of the Queen's Chapel. (11) Had he caught a performance by Worcester's Men in Norwich in 1583 or 1584, he might have seen Edward Alleyn at the beginning of his career. Had he been in Ipswich for performances in 1585-86 or 1586-87, he might have seen Alleyn newly affiliated with the Admiral's Men. (12)

It is perhaps unlikely that a scholarship boy might have abandoned his studies to attend plays as far away as Norwich or Ipswich, but one of the Norwich entries includes a detail that may be more to the point. This entry concerns the earl of Essex's Men, who were forbidden to play in 1584-85 even though they had played at the town of Thorpe. (13) What is interesting here is that no records from Thorpe survive, and this is a reminder that the documentary evidence of provincial playing is incomplete. An entry of a performance by Leicester's Men in 1584-85 in the records of Sudbury, (14) which was much closer to Cambridge than Ipswich or Norwich, reinforces the point that the collective records from provincial towns confirm that companies at all levels of talent and variety of repertory were touring in and around Cambridge while Marlowe was in school. He must have heard of, even if he did not see, local performances. And he must have acquired tastes that influenced his own sense of staging when he began writing plays.

And Marlowe did have a choice. In fact, the obvious course would have been to approach the Queen's Men. He must have known of their prestige, if he knew anything at all of the business of playing; and--if he had attended performances at Canterbury, Cambridge, or nearby towns--he is most likely to have seen the Queen's Men in action. In 1587, when Marlowe came to London with Tamburlaine in hand, no one could have foreseen that the Queen's Men were not going to maintain the hegemony in the playhouse world that had begun with their anointment in 1583. (15) Why, then, didn't Marlowe choose to sell his blockbuster-to-be to the Queen's Men? Scott McMillin and Sally-Beth MacLean do not address the point directly in their book on the Queen's Men, but they imply by a discussion of dramaturgy that the acting style of the Queen's Men was derived from the skills of interluders. McMillin characterizes this style in another context as dependent on "an assortment of standard gestures, intonations, costumes, wigs, false noses, dialects, postures, gags, songs, and pratfalls, so as to perform a wide variety of roles in one play." (16) In addition, as McMillin and MacLean put it, "[j]ust when other companies were learning what could be done with blank verse as the dominant mode of dramatic verse, the Queen's Men were busy with the fourteener, with rhyme royal, with rhymed iambic couplets, with prose, and with blank verse, as though all manner of writing had equal place on the stage." (17) I suggest that Marlowe had a strong enough sense in 1587 of how he wanted his plays to be performed to reject the old-fashioned Queen's Men as his medium and choose instead the Admiral's Men, who had recently acquired the physically imposing young player from Worcester's Men, Edward Alleyn.

It is reasonable to believe that Marlowe wanted the same outsized treatment for his main characters in The Jew of Malta and Doctor Faustus; and in 1592-93, when a shuffling of players from Strange's Men and Admiral's Men found Alleyn at the Rose playhouse in the company of Strange's Men, it is not surprising to find Marlowe's latest play, The Massacre at Paris, there too, entered by Philip Henslowe in his diary on January 30, 1593 and marked with his cryptic "ne" (which usually indicates a debut performance). But the next sign of theatrical activity for a new play by Marlowe is July 6, 1593, when Edward II is registered at Stationers' Hall. It was to be printed in 1594 with a title-page advertisement of ownership by the earl of Pembroke's Men. An attempt to explain what happened between the acquisition of The Massacre at Paris and the sale of Edward II brings together conundrums of theater history and biography: the appearance in the winter of 1592 of Pembroke's Men, and Marlowe's apparent shift in allegiance from Alleyn and Strange's Men to Pembroke's.

Andrew Gurr calls the history of Pembroke's Men "a patchwork of holes." (18) One of the holes is their origin, and theater historians have a patchwork of theories to explain their sudden appearance in London, perhaps in the fall of 1592 and at Court twice at Christmas, 1592-93. E. K. Chambers popularized the theory that Pembroke's Men were an offshoot of the company of Strange's Men who were playing at Henslowe's Rose playhouse in 1592-39 and had grown very large in the amalgamation of players from the organizations under the patronage of Lord Strange and the Lord Admiral, 1589-91. According to Chambers's narrative, Strange's Men were too big to tour when plague came in the summer of 1592. Chambers and other scholars have cited the "Platt" of the second part of "The Seven Deadly Sins," (19) which names twenty players as evidence of the size of the company. In the division of the company, Edward Alleyn stayed with Strange's Men, according to Chambers's theory, but other players including Will Sly, John Sincler, Thomas Goodale, Henry Condell, and Richard Burbage formed the company of Pembroke's Men. Andrew Gurr offers an alternative explanation. Gurr dislikes the offshoot theory, and he conjectures that James Burbage sought out the patronage of the earl of Pembroke because he wanted a company at his playhouse in Shoreditch to rival Strange's Men at the Rose. (20) Like Chambers, Gurr conjectures that Richard Burbage was a member of Pembroke's Men. By either theory of origin, therefore, theater historians have assigned Richard Burbage to the company advertised on the title page of the 1593 quarto of Edward II as its company owners.

The second issue is Marlowe's connection with Pembroke's Men. Constance Kuriyama is the most recent scholar to use a letter by Thomas Kyd shortly after Marlowe's death in 1593 as a clue to the switch in allegiance from Strange's Men. In the letter, which is addressed to Sir John Puckering, Kyd claimed that Lord Strange developed a distaste for Marlowe and his reputation. (21) The implication is that Marlowe sought out a company other than Strange's Men for Edward II because of the breech with its patron. Considering the composition of Edward II, Kuriyama reasons that Marlowe actually wrote the play for Pembroke's Men, and she offers as evidence that Edward II has no part for Alleyn comparable to the supersized roles of Tamburlaine and Barabas. (22) I suggest that the size of the role of Edward II is indeed a sign of the performance conditions that Marlowe expected for his play, but that sign points to Strange's Men, not Pembroke's. On the basis of number of lines, the part is similar to the parts of Tamburlaine, Barabas, and Faustus, even though not quite as large. The telling comparison is with the lead roles in The First Part of the Contention of York and Lancaster (The Contention) and The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York (The True Tragedy), the two plays by Shakespeare that were performed by Pembroke's Men.

Before I pursue this comparison, let me explain my assumptions about the texts on which I base my argument. I accept the position of Laurie Maguire that The Contention and The True Tragedy, which used to be considered "bad quartos," are not bad at all, at least not for the reason of memorial reconstruction. (23) I accept Scott McMillin's argument that these quartos were cut down from the folio versions known as 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI to accommodate a company with fewer and less experienced players than Strange's Men had in 1592. (24) Edward II as published, though not considered a "bad quarto" or suspect text, has nonetheless been considered by scholars such as David George as a text shortened for touring. (25) That may be (though McMillin doesn't think so), but if Marlowe's original was once longer, then the parts I want to discuss below were probably also longer, and my point about the role of Edward II having been written with Alleyn in mind is consequently stronger.

To return to Marlowe and his expectations for the performance of Edward II: I suggest that Marlowe had Alleyn's company in mind when he wrote Edward II, and I offer as evidence the size of several major parts in the 1594 edition. The first clue is the number of lines assigned to undoubled characters. Scott McMillin, counting lines of lead characters for his 1987 book on Sir Thomas More, determined that Tamburlaine in the second part of Tamburlaine has 877 lines, and Barabas in The Jew of Malta has 1138. (26) The only parts that McMillin found with comparable line numbers and within five years of these plays were Hieronimo in The Spanish Tragedy (1018 lines), Richard III in Shakespeare's Richard III (1145), and More in Sir Thomas More (over 800 lines). (27) McMillin argues from these facts that in 1592 Alleyn was known to be able to handle such commanding parts and that Burbage was soon known to be able to do so. In his 1972 essay on the provenance of the The Contention and The True Tragedy, McMillin suggested that these texts provide insight into the personnel and capability of Pembroke's Men. He determined that the role of Henry VI is the largest undoubled role in the The Contention, and it carries only 215 lines; the role of York is next with 200; and the role of Warwick, if doubled with that of Jack Cade, is the largest part in the play, with 268 lines. (28) McMillin's math for the quarto of The True Tragedy shows the size of the parts growing larger. The role of Warwick, this time undoubled, has 368 lines, Edward of York has 322, Richard Crookback has 287, and Henry the VI has 198. (29) In comparison, in Edward II (by my own count), King Edward has 749 lines and Young Mortimer 450. (30) The next closest parts are Gaveston and Lancaster, with 149 each (both parts, though, were surely doubled). (31) The part of Edward II, therefore, at 749 lines, looks much closer in size to that of Tamburlaine at 877 and Barabas at 1138 than it does to the roles of King Henry at 215 and 198, and his supporting cast at 200, 268, 368, 322, and 287.

What is perhaps even more significant is the role of Isabella in Edward II. McMillin, in arguing that The Contention and The True Tragedy were created when Pembroke's Men acquired the originals of these texts, points out that one major difference between the folio texts of parts 2 and 3 of Henry VI and Pembroke's versions is the size of the leading female role. Queen Margaret in the folio 2 Henry VI, has 314 lines; she has 281 in the folio 3 Henry VI. In contrast, the parts are cut down by just about half in Pembroke's quarto versions, from 314 to 141 in The Contention, and from 281 to 156 lines in The True Tragedy. McMillin argues that the reduction in the lead female part indicates that Shakespeare wrote the plays for Strange's Men, who had (in McMillin's words) "a leading boy of unusual range," (32) but that the parts were cut down because Pembroke's Men did not have a comparable player. In comparison, the lead female in Edward II, Queen Isabella, has 258 lines (by my count). The size of her part, therefore, is much closer to the roles of Queen Margaret in the folio versions of 2 and 3 Henry VI, which McMillin presumes were made for Strange's Men, than to the scripts made for Pembroke's Men (i.e., The Contention, The True Tragedy).

My argument, then, is that Marlowe knew enough about playing companies in the 1580s from having seen performances in the provinces to know that he wanted the Admiral's Men--with their "modern" style and their physically imposing Edward Alleyn--to stage his plays. He was still designing plays with Alleyn and his company in mind when he composed Edward II. As it happened, though, Pembroke's Men acquired Edward II, and Richard Burbage was there to assume the part. They also acquired the second and third parts of the Henry VI plays at about the time that Shakespeare was writing the fourth play in the serial. (33) It is reasonable to imagine that Shakespeare, observing his new plays in performance by Pembroke's Men (perhaps at the Burbages' theater), saw in Richard Burbage a talent that could match Alleyn's in handling supersized parts such as he was producing with Richard of Gloucester. The set of circumstances that brought together Edward II and Richard Burbage may have further consequence; it may have determined the future company owners of Marlowe's play. Because of Henslowe's playlists for the fall of 1594, we know that The Massacre at Paris, The Jew of Malta, Doctor Faustus, and parts one and two of Tamburlaine remained at the Rose with Alleyn, newly reunited with the constituted Admiral's Men. But the location of Edward II is unknown. The play was published in 1598 and 1612 with a title-page advertisement of its old affiliation, Pembroke's Men. It was published yet again in 1622, and this time the old advertisement was replaced with the new but still outdated information of ownership by Queen Anne's company at its previous location of the Red Bull playhouse. Elsewhere, I have suggested that Edward II might have traveled from Pembroke's Men to the Chamberlain's Men and on to Queen Anne's Men by way of Christopher Beeston. (34) The likelihood that Richard Burbage debuted the role of Edward II makes additionally plausible that Marlowe's play spent its middle years with him and the Chamberlain's Men, where it would have been available to schedule in tandem with another of Shakespeare's history plays, Richard II.


1. The placement of Doctor Faustus with the Admiral's Men assumes an "early" chronology (ca. 1588), as supported by David Bevington and Eric Rasmussen (Doctor Faustus, Revels Edition [Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993], 48-49. A later chronology (ca. 1592) locates the play with Pembroke's Men (W.W. Greg, ed., Marlowe's Doctor Faustus 1604-1616 [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950], 60-62). Scott McMillin makes the argument that Edward Alleyn "owned [The Jew of Malta and The Ranger's Comedy] and carried them with him as he moved from one company to another in the earlier 1590s" ("The Ownership of The Jew of Malta, Friar Bacon, and The Ranger's Comedy," English Language Notes 9 (1972): 249-52, esp. 251). One argument that undercuts the assignment of Doctor Faustus to Pembroke's Men is that no texts are known to have migrated from that company to the Admiral's Men, though Karl Wentersdorf (for one) has theorized that The Massacre at Paris did ("The Repertory and Size of Pembroke's Company," Theater Annual 33 [1977]: 71-85).

2. Giles E. Dawson, ed., "Records of Plays and Players in Kent 1450-1642," Malone Society Collections, VII, ed. Arthur Brown (The Malone Society, 1965), 15.

3. Ibid. Additionally, the players of lord Pembroke played in Canterbury in 1575-76.

4. Andrew Gurr, The Shakespearian Playing Companies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 186; 187, n 8.

5. Alan H. Nelson, ed., Cambridge, 2 vols. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988), 1:311.

6. Nelson, 313.

7. Ibid., 319.

8. John Bakeless, The Tragicall History of Christopher Marlowe, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1942), 2:64. Bakeless himself is skeptical of such an explanation. I omit Dido, Queen of Carthage from futher discussion of company ownership because it was apparently never meant for the public commercial stage. It is possible that Thomas Nashe, not Marlowe, conveyed Dido to the Chapel Children. Andrew Gurr claims that Nashe wrote Summer's Last Will and Testament "for a boy company," specifically, the Children of the Queen's Chapel (261, 228). If he is right, and if those scholars are right who imply that Marlowe had little interest in Dido after he wrote it for Cambridge students, and if Nashe did have an interest as coauthor, then it is plausible that he rather than Marlowe brought Dido to London and sold it to the Children of the Chapel along with his own play.

9. David Galloway, ed., Norwich 1540-1642, REED series (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984), 63, 65, 77-78, 80, 81, 84, 86, 87.

10. Galloway, ed., Norwich, 67-69; 70-76.

11. E. K. Chambers, ed., "The Players at Ipswich," Malone Society Collections, II.3:272-74.

12. Susan Cerasano, "Edward Alleyn: 1566-1616," in Edward Alleyn: Elizabethan Actor, Jacobean Gentleman, ed. Aileen Reid and Robert Maniura (Dulwich Picture Gallery, 1994), 12-13. It is impossible to document the date of Alleyn's move from Worcester's to the Admiral's Men, but most scholars put it in 1586-87, just in time to play Marlowe's Tamburlaine.

13. Galloway, ed., Norwich, 81. Perhaps before being denied (on June 26, 1585), Essex's players were given 10s. "owt of the hanper" on June 12, 1585.

14. David Galloway, ed., "Records of Plays and Players in Norfolk and Suffolk 1330-1642," Malone Society Collections, XI, ed. G. R. Proudfoot (The Malone Society, 1980), 197.

15. Scott McMillin and Sally-Beth MacLean, in The Queen's Men and their Plays ([Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998], 52-53, 155-60), examine closely the fortunes of the Queen's Men at the end of the 1580s, and they attribute the downward spin of their fortune to the deaths of key players, namely John Bentley, William Knell, and Richard Tarlton; to their role in the Martin Marprelate controversy; but also to the rise of the Admiral's Men onstage with Tamburlaine.

16. McMillin, "The Queen's Men and the London Theatre of 1583," Elizabethan Theatre X, ed. C. E. McGee (Port Credit, ON: P. D. Meany, 1988), 1-17, esp. 14.

17. McMillin and MacLean, 143.

18. Gurr, 266.

19. David Kathman raises serious doubts about the use of the Plot as evidence of the size of Strange's Men in 1592; he assigns part two of "The Seven Deadly Sins" to the Chamberlain's Men after 1596 ("Reconsidering The Seven Deadly Sins," Early Theatre 7.1 [2004]:13-44).

20. Gurr, 267.

21. Kuriyama, Christopher Marlowe, a Renaissance Life (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002), 97-98; the salient passage is this: "My [Kyd's] first acquaintance with this Marlowe, rose upon his bearing a name to serve my Lo:[rd] [Lord Strange] although his L[ordshi]p never knewe his service, but in writing for his plaiers, for never cold my L.[ord] endure his name, or sight, when he had heard of his conditions. nor would in deed the forme of devyne praier used duelie in his l[ordshi]ps house, have quadred with such reprobates" (229).

22. Kuriyama, 117.

23. Maguire, Shakespearean Suspect Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 237-38, 319-20.

24. McMillin, "Casting for Pembroke's Men," Shakespeare Quarterly 23 (1972): 141-59, esp. 154.

25. David George, "Shakespeare and Pembroke's Men," Shakespeare Quarterly 32 (1981): 305-23, esp. 306. George considers Pembroke's Men not only an offshoot of Strange's Men but a subsidiary ("someone [i.e., Strange's Men] controlled Pembroke's" [306]). He offers a scenario in which Strange's Men loaned some of the texts, specifically the 2 and 3 Henry VI plays to Pembroke's Men, who made reduced versions, then returned the originals to Strange's; the versions that Pembroke's then sold were these reduced versions. George does not specifically address the textual provenance of Edward II.

26. McMillin, The Elizabethan Theatre and The Book of Sir Thomas More (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), 62.

27. McMillin, Elizabethan Theatre ... More, 62, 61. McMillin's number for Richard III may be based on the folio text. T. J. King counts 1062 lines for Richard in the 1597 quarto (Casting Shakespeare's Plays: London Actors and their Roles, 1590-1642 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992], 162).

28. T. J. King doubles Duke Humphrey with Cade, enlarging that assignment to 369 lines; he doubles Warwick and the Captain, dropping that assignment to 126 lines (144).

29. McMillin, "Casting for Pembroke's Men," 151-52.

30. I am using the text of Edward II in The Plays of Christopher Marlowe, ed. Roma Gill (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971).

31. David Bevington doubles Gaveston with three additional parts: Old Spencer, Trussel, and Burney (From Mankind to Marlowe [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962], 236). This would add, by my count, eighteen, five, and twenty-two lines, respectively. I prefer the doubling of Gaveston and Lightborn, which would add forty-eight lines to the part.

32. McMillin, "Casting for Pembroke's Men," 152.

33. In the Revels edition of Edward II, Charles Forker declares the debt of Marlowe to "Shakespeare's first histories" to be "generally taken as proved" (Edward the Second [Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994], 24). Forker cites as the compelling evidence "eight indubitable parallels of language or idea" put forward by H. B. Charlton and R. D. Waller in a previous edition of Edward II. Forker includes Richard III among those "first histories," but James Shapiro does not; Shapiro implies the chronology presented here of Edward II as earlier than Richard III (Rival Playwrights: Marlowe, Jonson, Shakespeare [New York: Columbia University Press, 1991], 95-96). Although I have not studied the verbal and thematic parallels of Edward II with 2 Henry VI, 3 Henry VI, and Richard III closely, I see no reason why their intertextuality cannot be explained by the coincidence of their ownership by Pembroke's Men. For Richard III, of course, that assignment of ownership is circumstantial, based largely on an assumption that the play was written in 1593-94.

34. Roslyn L. Knutson, "Evidence for the Assignment of Plays to the Repertory of Shakespeare's Company," Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 4 (1989): 63-89, esp. 75-78.
COPYRIGHT 2006 Associated University Presses
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Knutson, Roslyn L.
Publication:Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jan 1, 2006
Previous Article:Marlowe's staging of meaning.
Next Article:Edward Alleyn, the new model actor, and the rise of the celebrity in the 1590s.

Related Articles
Spectacles of Strangeness: Imperialism, Alienation, and Marlowe.
Christopher Marlowe and the Renaissance of Tragedy.
Twenty who made their mark under thirty: a historical look at the great gay and lesbian prodigies in the arts.
The Gift of Fire: Aggression and the Plays of Christopher Marlowe.
His Majesty's desire.
The Irony of Identity: Self and Imagination in the Drama of Christopher Marlowe.
Marlowe's Soldiers: Rhetorics of Masculinity in the Age of the Armada.
Saints and sinners on stage.
Marlowe's staging of meaning.
Shakespeare's Marlowe: The Influence of Christopher Marlowe on Shakespeare's Artistry.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters