Performance Records (Henslowe's Diary)
F. 7/ Greg I, 13
|.9.……….||Res at mvlomvrco the 20 of febreary||……….||……….||xxixs|
|.9.……….||Res at mvlamvlluco the 29 of febreary 1591||……….||……….||xviijs|
|.9.……….||Res at mvlo mvllocco the 17 of marche 1591||……….||……….||xxviijs vjd|
|.9.……….||Res at mvlomvlucko the 29 of marche 1591||……….||……….||iijli ijs|
|.9.……….||Res at mvlo mvloco the 8 of aprell 1591||[J. h-01-10-00]…||……….||xxiijs|
F. 7v/ Greg I, 14
|.9.……….||Res at mvllo mvlluco the 17 of aprell 1591||……….||……….||xxxs|
|Res at mvlo mvloco the 27 of aprell 1592||……….||……….||xxvjs|
|Res li24…||Res at mvlo mvlluco the 30 of aprell 1592||……….||……….||lviijs|
|Res at mvllomvloco the 17 of maye 1592||……….||……….||xxxvjs vjd|
|Res at mvlemvloco the  31 of maye 1592||……….||……….||xxiiijs|
F. 8/ Greg I, 15
|.9.……….||Res at mvlemvloco the 13 of June 1592||……….||……….||xxs|
|In the Name of god Amen 1593||……….||……….|
|beginnge the 29 of desembʒ|
|.9.……….||Res at mvlomulluco the 29 of desembʒ 1592||……….||……….||iijli xs|
|.9.……….||Res at mvlo mulocko the 9 of Jenewarye 1593||……….||……….||xxs|
|.9.……….||Res at mvlomvlco the 20 of Jenewarye 1593||……….||……….||xxs|
"Muly Molocco" was performed at the Rose playhouse by Lord Strange's men in 1592 from 2 February through 13 June; it continued in the repertory for three performances the following winter, 29 December 1592 through 20 January 1593.
Foreign History (Harbage)
Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues
If "Muly Molocco" is a discrete play, now lost
- Its sources are unidentified.
If "Muly Molocco" is The Battle of Alcazar
- It is not a lost play. The definitive summary of sources for the extant play is in The Dramatic Works of George Peele, vol. 2; John Yoklavich, editor of The Battle of Alcazar, provides both a discussion of the sources (227-79) and a "Special Bibliography" of accounts of the historical battle (369-73). In The Stukeley Plays Charles Edelman discusses the sources also (10-16).
References to the Play
If "Muly Molocco" is The Battle of Alcazar
- It is alluded to in the following plays by way of Calipolis, the wife of Muly Mahamet, the villainous Moor: 2 Henry IV, William Shakespeare; Satiromastix, Thomas Dekker; What You Will, John Marston; and Poetaster, Ben Jonson. Shakespeare's Pistol alludes to Calipolis and Hiren (of The Turkish Mahomet and Hiren the Fair Greek) in the same context (II.iv.156, 175); in Dekker's play, the same character (Tucca) alludes to Calipolis and Hiren, but in separate contexts (IV.1.150, IV.iii.243-4).
There are two hang-ups for scholars in determining the identification of "Muly Molocco" to be either a discrete play, now lost, or the extant Battle of Alcazar by George Peele:
By calling the play in the offerings of Strange's men "Muly Molocco" (variously spelled), Henslowe was pointing at one of the elder set of kings in the historical narrative that centers on the battle near Ksar El Kebir in Morocco in August 1578. This king is called Abdelmelec frequently in The Battle of Alcazar but twice he is called "Muly Molocco." According to Yoklavich, "Abdelmelec was almost always called 'Muly Molocco' in a large body of contemporary literature" (222). The issue, therefore, is not who Muly Molocco was as a historical figure but whether Henslowe was calling the play by its title character, in which case "Muly Molocco" is likely a discrete play (now lost), or whether he is calling it by "one of the important characters" in The Battle of Alcazar but "certainly not the most prominent one" (Yoklavich 222). Yoklavich, agreeing with W. W. Greg's inclination in 1908 (Henslowe's Diary, 2.149 [item #2]), leans toward considering it "a rival of Alcazar" (222). Bradley and Edelman, who support the identification of "Muly Molocco" with The Battle of Alcazar, argue that Abdelmelec is more important than Yoklavich grants as evidenced by the fact that his corpse—"set up in a chair on stage"—presides over the battle in Act V (Bradley 139) as well as the fact that his fortunes are at the center of the extant play (Edelman, "Battle," 217). Manley and MacLean also accept the identification of "Muly Molocco" as The Battle of Alcazar (75-78); indeed, they drop Henslowe's title for Peele's in discussions of the play in repertory (e.g., 217-8).
Wiggins (serial number 918) is not persuaded by arguments that lump "Muly Molocco" with The Battle of Alcazar and/or "Mahomet." He conjectures its subject as "broadly the same" as Peele's play "but with a different emphasis." He rejects the argument that the Elizabethan theatrical marketplace could support only one play on a given subject, offering as an example of like-yet-dfferent an alternative episode in "Muly Molocco" on the title character's "exile in Constantinople (to say nothing of the possibility of a substantial helping of fictional matter)."
Edward Alleyn's role
Scholarly decisions about "Muly Molocco" rely on the widespread assumption in theater history that Alleyn would have taken the leading role in any play in which he performed. Presumably, therefore, Henslowe chose to call "Muly Molocco" by this non-major character (rather than call it The Battle of Alcazar) because Alleyn, who was with Strange's men in 1592-3, played that role. Edelman appears to make this assertion in the claim that "by whatever title, it ["Muly Molocco"] was Alleyn's play” ("Battle," 216). Inconveniently for this argument, Alleyn is assigned the role of Muly Mahamet, the villainous Moor and nephew to Abdelmelec, in the extant Plot of The Battle of Alcazar (the role of Abdelmelec is assigned to Thomas Downton). It is certainly possible that Alleyn played the smaller part of the elder king in 1592 yet the larger part of the younger challenger at a later revival, but such a possibility strains conventional wisdom on the casting habits of the adult companies.
In terms of Alleyn's role, Manley and MacLean repeat Greg's "pretty little story" in Two Elizabethan Stage Abridgements and identify both play titles with that of "Mahomet" in the repertory of the Admiral's men in 1594. According to that story, Alleyn, having acquired The Battle of Alcazar during its maiden run with the Admiral's men (c. 1589-90), "would have loaned it to Strange's men in 1592 as Muly Molocco, and on rejoining his own company in 1594 have allowed them to revive it as Mahomet" (12n).
For What It's Worth
Henslowe's habits of assigning titles
- Henslowe did occasionally enter performances of plays by their main characters even though the plays were known in print by another title. Two salient examples are "Jeronymo" and "the tragedey of the gvyes," generally believed to be The Spanish Tragedy by Thomas Kyd and The Massacre at Paris by Christopher Marlowe, respectively. Henslowe used the title, "Joronymo," in January 1597. Scholars have presumed that this entry also was for The Spanish Tragedy, but the entry is attracting fresh scrutiny. After all, Henslowe marked it with an "ne" (later erased). Much more often than not, his "ne" meant "new" (though scholars traditionally have questioned Henslowe's consistency with this enigmatic mark, there is only one solid instance of his marking an old play "ne": the "Tamar Cham" plays in May/June 1596). It may well be that the 1597 "Joronymo" was a new play made out of the narrative complex that supplied also The Spanish Tragedy, The First Part of Jeronimo, and what Henslowe called the spanes comodye donne oracioe. Erasures are hard to date in manuscripts.
- The Battle of Alcazar was published in 1594 with a title-page advertisement of the Admiral's men. In order to identify performances of that play under the title "Muly Molocco" in Henslowe's Diary, scholars must assume that Strange's men acquired the play from the Admiral's men (perhaps via Alleyn) and that it passed again to the Admiral's men in time for the revival for which the Plot was constructed. Not many of the plays in the repertory of Strange's men followed that track, but plays by Christopher Marlowe did: The Jew of Malta and The Massacre at Paris. Strange's men and the Admiral's men each had a Friar Bacon play, but it is not clear which text/s these entries in Henslowe's Diary represent.
Henslowe's Diary and Peele's Battle of Alcazar
- If neither "Muly Molocco" nor "Mahomet" is Peele's Battle of Alcazar as it is known by its 1594 edition and its surviving Plot (1597-8? 1601?), then why is The Battle of Alcazar not in Henslowe's records even though the Plot contains the names of players with the Admiral's men post-1594? Yoklavich bases his skepticism in identifying either "Muly Molocco" or "Mahomet" as The Battle of Alcazar on the observation that "both the quarto and the playhouse document called the 'plot' bear the title The Battle of Alcazar, and there is no evidence the play was known by a nickname" (223).
Bradley, David. From Text to Performance in the Elizabethan Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Edelman, Charles. "The Battle of Alcazar, Muly Molocco, and Shakespeare's 2 and 3 Henry VI," Notes and Queries 49.2 (2002): 215-18.
— — —. The Stukeley Plays. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005. Google Books
Greg, W. W. Two Elizabethan Stage Abridgements: The Battle of Alcazar & Orlando Furioso. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1923.
Manley, Lawrence and Sally-Beth MacLean. Lord Strange's Men and Their Plays. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014.
Syme, Holger, (2013), ‘Shakespeare and The Spanish Tragedy: A Challenge for Theatre History, Dispositio, 31 August.
Yoklavich, John, ed. The Battle of Alcazar. in The Dramatic Works of George Peele, vol. 2. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961.
Site created and maintained by Roslyn L. Knutson, Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; 4 March 2011.