Machiavel: Difference between revisions
No edit summary
Line 43: Line 43:


== Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues ==
== Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues ==
 
<br>
Scholarly guesswork on the sources of "Machiavel" depend upon the identification of the title character. [[WorksCited|Malone]] did not offer an opinion, but [[WorksCited|Collier]] implied the historical Machiavelli by suggesting that this play might have been revived "with additions and alterations" in 1613 as "[[Macchiavel and the Devil|Machiavel and the Devil]]", a work-in-progress that Robert Daborne mentioned in correspondence (p. 22). That play too is lost. [[WorksCited|Fleay, ''BCED'']] repeated Collier's association of the two "Machiavel" plays (2.#105, p. 298). [[WorksCited|Greg II]] , citing Fleay, thought the 1592 play might have been "the foundation of Daborne's tragedy" (#10, p. 152). [[WorksCited|Wiggins, ''Catalogue'' #899]] ignores the Daborne link; further, he invites consideration that the title character was not the famous Italian Machiavelli, observing that "the Elizabethan imagination found Machiavels everywhere."
<br><br><br>


== References to the Play ==
== References to the Play ==

Revision as of 13:28, 11 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")


Fol. 7 (Greg I, 13)

Res at matchavell the 2 of marche 1591 ………………. xiiijs
Res at matchevell the 3 of aprell 1591 ………………. xxijs

Fol. 7 v (Greg I, 14)

Res at matchevell the 2[0]9 of maye 1592 .................................... xxvjs



Theatrical Provenance


Lord Strange's men offered "Machiavel" in the second week of their run at the Rose (as recorded by Philip Henslowe). Its prior provenance is unknown.


Probable Genre(s)


Foreign History (?) Harbage


Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues


Scholarly guesswork on the sources of "Machiavel" depend upon the identification of the title character. Malone did not offer an opinion, but Collier implied the historical Machiavelli by suggesting that this play might have been revived "with additions and alterations" in 1613 as "Machiavel and the Devil", a work-in-progress that Robert Daborne mentioned in correspondence (p. 22). That play too is lost. Fleay, BCED repeated Collier's association of the two "Machiavel" plays (2.#105, p. 298). Greg II , citing Fleay, thought the 1592 play might have been "the foundation of Daborne's tragedy" (#10, p. 152). Wiggins, Catalogue #899 ignores the Daborne link; further, he invites consideration that the title character was not the famous Italian Machiavelli, observing that "the Elizabethan imagination found Machiavels everywhere."


References to the Play

Critical Commentary

For What It's Worth

Works Cited



Site created and maintained by Roslyn L. Knutson, Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; updated 10 July 2020.