Lucy Munro. Shakespeare in the Theatre: The King’s Men. London: Bloomsbury, 2020. Pp 239.

Review of Lucy Munro's Shakespeare in the Theatre: The King’s Men by Eoin Price.

The King’s Men and His Kinsmen

Politics of patronage based on primordial identity is not a new phenomenon in Nigeria. The impact of such patterns of politicking has been obviously untoward. This study interrogates the apparent manifestation of ethno-clannish patronage in the politics of political appointments under Muhammadu Buhari’s civilian administration (2015-date). Relying on a descriptive analysis of secondary data, as well as a selective application of prebendal theory, the study observes that members of Buhari’s ethno-communal grouping tend to have been favored rather disproportionately in terms of the allotment of political appointments at the federal level. The study posits that such an ethno-clannish posture smacks of the politics of exclusion, which negates the spirit of national integration. The study further contends that not only had President Buhari favored his kinsmen and tribesmen in his appointments, but he has also appointed many of his family relations into strategic positions, thus entrenching nepotism in the process of statecraft. The study submits that such an approach to statecraft holds negative implications for good governance and national integration in Nigeria.

John Fletcher’s Collaborator on The Noble Gentleman

Although John Fletcher is recognized as one of the most influential dramatists of the early modern period, many of the theories concerning the divisions of authorship in his collaborative plays continue to present insoluble difficulties. For instance, according to the soundly based chronology developed by Martin Wiggins, many plays attributed in part to Francis Beaumont appear to have been written after Beaumont had ceased writing (c. 1613), or even after he died in 1616. A prime example would be The Noble Gentleman (1626), which E. H. C. Oliphant and Cyrus Hoy attributed in part to Beaumont. Modern scholarship holds that this was Fletcher’s last play and that it was completed by another hand after Fletcher died in 1625. This article offers the most comprehensive analysis yet undertaken of the stylistic qualities of the “non-Fletcher” portions in this play in relation to dramatists writing for the King’s Men at the time, thereby opening up several new lines of enquiry for co-authored plays of the period. Seeking to broaden our understanding of the collaborative practices in plays produced by that company in or around 1626, through a combination of literary-historical and quantitative analysis, the article puts forth a new candidate for Fletcher’s posthumous collaborator: John Ford.