See Bentley, Profession of Dramatist in Shakespeare's Time, 199.
Samuel Schoenbaum warns that “while recognizing joint-authorship as a fact
of Elizabethan theatrical life, we must guardagainst exaggerating its importance;many
dramatists preferred to work singly” (Internal Evidence, 225).
Streitberger, “Personnel and Professionalization”; Gurr, Shakespearian Playing
For some book-length studies of early modern manuscript cultures, see Peter
Beal, In Praise of Scribes; Marotti, Manuscript, Print, and John Donne; Goldberg, Writing
Matter; Love, Scribal Publication. For criticism on literary communities, see Summers
andPebworth, Literary Circles. For a survey andassessment of these studies as well as
shorter articles, see my bibliographic essay “Early Modern Collaboration, ” esp. 612–
Baldwin, Organization and Personnel, 161. E. A. J. Honigmann andSusan
Brock, in their publication of playhouse wills, reinforce this focus on theatrical “camaraderie. ” These theater wills reveal that men and women associated with the drama
“inevitably marriedinto each others' families …. [They] must have been familiar with
the history of the theatre from the inside over several generations” (Playhouse Wills, 6).
Cox andKastan, intro. to New History, 2.
Gurr, Shakespearian Playing Companies, 15.
Brooks, Playhouse to Printing-House, 1–2.
These critics thus share tendencies with scholars of non-dramatic texts who are
expanding notions of joint work. See, for instance, Stephen Dobranski, who discusses
Milton's associations with printers andpublishers “as a ‘collaboration, ’ by which I
mean a co-laboring or working together. Milton benefitedfrom the advice andassistance of acquaintances both during the imaginative creation of his works and during
the practical process of putting his writing into print” (Milton, 9).
The piecemeal efforts of Robert Daborne in submitting to Philip Henslowe in
installments various scenes andacts for the lost Machiavel and the Devil is only one of