Diocletian: Difference between revisions
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
<br> | <br><br> | ||
==Theatrical Provenance== | ==Theatrical Provenance== | ||
Revision as of 11:50, 2 July 2015
Historical Records
Performance Records (Henslowe’s Diary)
F. 10v (Greg I.20)
ye 16 of November 1594 ………. ne Res at deoclesyan ………. liiijs ye 22 of November 1594 ………. Res at deoclesyan ………. xxxxiijs
Theatrical Provenance
Performed as a new play by the Admiral's Men at the Rose on Saturday 16 November 1594. Performed again on Friday 22 November.
Probable Genre(s)
Classical history (?) (Harbage), tragedy (?) (Wiggins).
Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues
<Enter any information about possible or known sources. Summarise these sources where practical/possible, or provide an excerpt from another scholar's discussion of the subject if available.>
References to the Play
None known; information welcome.
Critical Commentary
Harbage (following Fleay) suggests Thomas Dekker may have been the author of the play. His hypothesis rests on the fact that The Virgin Martyr (1620) by Dekker and Philip Massinger features Diocletian as a character. However, there is no evidence that The Virgin Martyr is a revision of the earlier play.
George Kirkpatrick Hunter (102) argues that the play was presumably a story 'of Christian triumph and pagan wickedness (like Ben Hur and The Sign of the Cross)'.
Jean MacIntyre (102) contends that the play is "likely to have featured 'paynim' characters" probably using the same costumes used by "Persians, Turks, Egyptians, and Arabians" in plays such as the two parts of Tamburlaine and the lost "Tamar Cham".
For What It's Worth
Under construction; information welcome.
Works Cited
Site created and maintained by Domenico Lovascio, University of Genoa; updated 02 July 2015.