Eva Griffith. <i>A Jacobean Company and its Playhouse: The Queen’s Servants at the Red Bull Theatre (c. 1605-1619)</i>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Pp 305.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eva Griffith's new repertory study presents a painstakingly detailed and illuminating account of the Queen's Servants and their operations at the Red Bull Theatre, an account that is engaging throughout while deeply grounded in rigorous scholarship and archival research.This hitherto-neglected company operated under the patronage of Queen Anna of Denmark and performed primarily in its Clerkenwell playhouse between 1605 and 1619, a date span which incorporates the vibrant period of Jacobean drama usually dominated by discussion of the King's Men.Here, Griffith makes a decisive and welcome attempt to redress the balance and correct the 'lopsided' picture of early modern drama that we have inherited from accounts that privilege Shakespeare's company and (implicitly) the genius of his authorship (26).The move away from Shakespeare-centric narratives has carried influence for some time now, but Griffith's study demonstrates the specific rewards of attention to lesser-studied companies and foregrounds the importance of such attention.In many ways, the Queen's Servants at the Red Bull provide a fascinating counterpoint to the King's Men, not least because critical accounts consistently invoke the former in opposition to the latter in a dichotomy which has affirmed and legitimized the importance of the dominant company.As Griffith articulates, it 'has, perhaps, been an important part of the development of Shakespeare studies to ensure that more marginal companies to that of Shakespeare were perceived as worse in order to privilege the material conditions of that centrally important author' (26).This binary, and the extant narratives already attached to the Queen's Servants and the Red Bull, has traditionally made it hard for critics to talk about
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".