Philipo and Hippolito: Difference between revisions
| Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
==Works Cited== | ==Works Cited== | ||
<br><br> | |||
Revision as of 17:36, 23 August 2020
Historical Records
Performance Records
Playlists in Henslowe's diary
F. 9v (Greg I.18)
ye 9 of Julye 1594 ne Res at <the> phillipo & hewpolyto iijli ijs ye 13 of Julye 1594 Res at phillipo & hewpolyto xxxxs ye 18 of Julye 1594 Res at phillipo & hewpolyto xxxs ye 24 of Julye 1594 Res at phillipo & hewpolyto xxxs ye 3 of aguste 1594 Res at phillipo & hewpolito xxxs ye 7 of aguste 1594 Res at phillipo & hewpolito xxixs ye 15 of aguste 1594 Res at phillipo & hewpolyto xxjs
F.10 (Greg I.19)
ye 24 of aguste 1594 Res at phillipo & hewpolyto xxviijs ye 4 of septmbʒ 1594 Res at phillipo & hewpolito xxijs ye 13 of septmbʒ 1594 Res at phillipo & hewpolito xxs ye 19 of septmbʒ 1594 Res at phillipo & hewpolyto xiiijs vjd ye 7 of octobʒ 1594 Res at phillipo & hewpolito xijs
Notes:
1. the entry on 7 August 1594 is one of several in the diary that shares a calendar date with another play. Following the entry of Philipo and Hippolito for 7 August and The Massacre at Paris for 8 August, Henslowe repeated those dates, assigning The Jew of Malta to the 7th and Cutlack to the 8th.
2. Henslowe added 3 shillings ("iij") to the already recorded 30s. for the receipts of 18 July, making a total of 33s. (Foakes 22).
Theatrical Provenance
The Admiral's men introduced this play as "ne" in the fourth week of their return to the Rose following the 10-day run at the playhouse at Newington with the Chamberlain's men. It stayed in repertory for 12 performances through 7 October, after which it disappeared from records in the diary.
Probable Genre(s)
Tragi-comedy? (Harbage)
Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues
See Critical Commentary, below.
References to the Play
None known.
Critical Commentary
This play is a good example of the critical tendency to identify plays with similar titles as versions of the same play. Collier, Diary thought "Philipo and Hippolito" "may have been" a play putatively by Philip Massinger, "Philenzo and Hippolyta," which he considered "in all probability, revived and altered" from the Admiral's play (p. 55, note). In an additional note, he announced that Massinger's play had been found in manuscript in "the Conway Papers" (xxxi, Google Books). Fleay, BCED followed suit, expanding Collier's identification by ascribing Philipo and Hippolito to Dekker (1.121, Internet Archive). Greg II added a third incarnation by suggesting that Philipo and Hippolito "was the original of Julio and Hyppolita in the German Collection of 1620" (pp. 165-6, #46).
There has been resistance to such chaining as well: Chambers, ES, his patience tested, considered the long life of Philipo and Hippolito through much later (and lost) plays to be a "game ... hazardous" to play (2.145); Bentley, JCS repeated the hypothetical survival of Philipo and Hippolito in Massinger's lost play without endorsement, saying there was "no way of knowing" if the plays were related (4.808).
See also Wiggins, Catalogue #959.
For What It's Worth
"Philenzo and Hippolyta" was registered at Stationers' Hall on 29 June 1660 by Humphrey Moseley with a considerable number of other plays. Moseley there attributed authorship to Massinger and assigned the genre of tragicomedy. It also was listed by John Warburton as one of the plays lost to the fire that baked his cook's pies.
Arthur Freeman and Janet Ing Freeman do not list "Conway Papers" in the index of John Payne Collier: Scholarship and forgery in the Nineteenth Century, 2 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. Nor does Bentley, JCS identify the source (4.808). Since the Massinger play, "Philenzo and Hippolyta," remains lost, one must assume that Collier erred in claiming its survival in the Conway Papers (whatever they are).
Works Cited
Site created and maintained by Roslyn L. Knutson, Professor Emerita; updated 25 July 2010.