Mulmutius Dunwallow

William Rankins (1598)

Historical Records

Henslowe's Diary

F. 50 (Greg I.96):

Lent vnto the company the 3 of october 1598

to by a boocke of m^r Ranckenes called mvl

mvtius donwallow the some of ………………………… iij^li

Theatrical Provenance

The Admiral's players were at the Rose when they bought Mulmutius Dunwallow from Rankins; it was their first recorded purchase of his work. In January through April of 1601, after the Admiral's company had moved to the Fortune playhouse, Rankins, in collaboration with Richard Hathway, took payments from the company for three plays: Hannibal & Scipio, Scogan and Skelton, and The Conquest of Spain by John of Gaunt.

Probable Genre(s)

Harbage calls the play a Pseudo-History, but there is no reason not to think the play treated its narrative seriously, as a history play.

Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues

Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain

In the wake of the civil war between Ferrex and Porrex (sons of Gorboduc, a young warrior named Mulmutius Dunwallow (or Dunwallo Molmutius, and other variations) emerged as a military leader of considerable skill and craft (Geoffrey). He first took over the kingdom of Cornwall, after the death of his royal father, Cloten. He then began to wage a campaign to enlarge his territories. He defeated and killed Ymner (Pinner), King of Loegria; then he attacked Rudauc (Rudaucus), King of Kambria, and Stater (Staterius), King of Albany, who had joined forces against him. The alliance proved to be competent adversaries; they took the battle to Dunwallow's territory and held off his army of 30,000 through a day of heavy fighting. Dunwallow, therefore, employed a ruse to defeat these foes. He chose 600 of his most courageous young fighters and had them dress in the armor of the enemies they had just slain; he similarly disguised himself. Thus he slipped in amongst the invading army, killing numerous of the enemy including the two kings. But, fearing that his own army would likewise mistake him and his men for the enemy, he had the warriors resume their native armor (as did he) and re-join the battle with their countrymen. As a result, Dunwallow's forces won the battle by the end of the day. He then marched into the invaders' lands, taking their cities, fortifications, and people. Thus the entire island came under his control; he fashioned a crown of gold for himself as a sign of victory and rule.

As king, Dunwallow reigned peacefully for 40 years. His most notable achievement was a set of laws called the Molmutine Laws. The singular feature of these laws was a kind of sanctuary, in which guilty men who sought refuge in temples of the gods and cities (even the roads leading to the temples and cities) should be allowed to depart as if forgiven. The laws also protected husbandmen and their ploughs. The laws were so successful that the population of cut-throats and bandits were made impotent. When he died, Dunwallow was buried in the city of Trinovantum near the Temple of Concord, which he had built to celebrate the establishment of his legal code.

Holinshed's Chronicles

Holinshed

Spenser's Faerie Queene

Spenser

References to the Play

None known.

Critical Commentary

Greg thought the play "may have been an old piece" on the legendary first king of Britain (II. 198, Item # 154]). He rejected William Hazlitt's reading of the title as "(Mul) Mucius [Scoevola] done by Marlow."

Chambers referred to Mulmutius Dunwallow as "another old play" like Tristram of Lyons, deciding that "it must be uncertain whether [the Admiral's men] played them" (II.170).

Knutson expands on Greg's and Chambers' suggestion that Mulmutius Dunwallow was not a new play by grouping it with other titles for which payments were less than 80s (160).

Gurr in one context does not list Mulmutius Dunwallow in a group of plays with "incomplete payments," thought he does note Knutson's inclusion of the play in a category of old, or secondhand plays (29, n.42). In another context, Gurr groups Mulmutius Dunwallow with plays he categorizes as "initially paid for but probably abandoned later" (105).

For What It's Worth

On the issue of the £3 payment as an indication that the play was either secondhand (Greg, Knutson) or incomplete (Gurr), Rankins is recorded twice in the diary as receiving what might have been a loan. As there is no entry of repayment, the loan might have been applied to payments for plays.

In the first instance, Rankins is lent 2s on 8 February 1600/1 "in eareste," but in earnest for what the entry does not say. Rankins was at the time collaborating with Richard Hathway on Scogan and Skelton (Greg, 85v; I.134)

In the second instance, Rankins and Hathway are lent 4s between the 20^th and 27^th of April 1601, the purpose of which is not specified (Greg, 86v; I.136). The pair of playwrights had received 29s in the previous weeks for The Conquest of Spain by John of Gaunt, itself a sum far lower than the apparent norm in the Diary of £6 for new plays.

On the £3 payment further, Henslowe's wording is also an issue: when does ""to by a boocke" mean "payment in full"? On this, theater historians will have different opinions.

There is an autograph signature of Rankins in the Diary in conjunction with a payment on Hannibal and Scipio (Greg, 31v; I.6)

Works Cited

Giles, J. A., ed. The British History of Geoffrey of Monmouth in Twelve Books. trans. A. Thompson (http://archive.org/stream/britishhistoryg00geofgoog#page/n8/mode/2up Internet Archive).

Gurr, Andrew. Shakespeare's Opposites: The Admiral's Company 1594-1625. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Knutson, Roslyn L., "The Commercial Significance of the Payments for Playtexts in Henslowe's Diary, 1597-1603," Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 5 (1991): 117-63.

Site created and maintained by Roslyn L. Knutson, Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; updated 21 September 2012.