Mulmutius Dunwallow
Historical Records
Henslowe's Diary
F. 50 (Greg I.96):
- Lent vnto the company the 3 of october 1598
- to by a boocke of mr Ranckenes called mvl
- mvtius donwallow the some of ………………………… iijli
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 (Giles, ch. 17)
Holinshed
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 20th and 27th 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
Site created and maintained by Roslyn L. Knutson, Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; updated 21 September 2012.