Constantine: Difference between revisions

Line 42: Line 42:


== References to the Play ==
== References to the Play ==
 
<br>
None known.
<br><br><br>


== Critical Commentary ==
== Critical Commentary ==

Revision as of 13:51, 7 July 2020

Anon. (1592)Property "Paratext" (as page type) with input value "{{{paratexts}}}" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process.Property "Contributor" (as page type) with input value "{{{contributors}}}" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process.Property "Partnering Institution" (as page type) with input value "{{{partneringInstitutions}}}" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process.

Historical Records

Performance Records (Henslowe's "diary")


A single record of performance survives in Henslowe’s accounts for early 1592 (new style):

Fol. 7/ (Greg I, 13)

Res at constantine the 21 of marche 1591 ………………. xijs




Theatrical Provenance


"Constantine" was apparently a feature of the repertory of Lord Strange's men from their offerings prior to the record keeping by Philip Henslowe that survives in the book of accounts popularly known as Henslowe's "diary." The company gave the play a single performance in the stretch from February 19—June 22, 1592.


Probable Genre(s)


History (?)


Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues


The title suggests a biopic of an historical Constantine, but scholars have differing opinions on which of those is the most likely (see Critical Commentary, below).




References to the Play


None known.


Critical Commentary

Wiggins names two best-guess Constantines;

For What It's Worth

Works Cited