Difference between revisions of "Machiavel"

Line 44: Line 44:
 
== Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues ==
 
== Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues ==
 
<br>
 
<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).  
+
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).  
 
<br><br>
 
<br><br>
 
[[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."
 
[[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."

Revision as of 16:29, 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."

Manley and MacLean offer the possibility that "Machiavel" had a connection with the Marprelate controversy based on Thomas "Nashe's frequent pamphlet jibes against apes, Machiavels, and the 'Good munckie face Machiuell' Martin" (127).


References to the Play


None known.


Critical Commentary


Knutson assumes that the subject of "Machiavel" is the same figure Christopher Marlowe had in mind as speaker of the Prologue to The Jew of Malta. She points to the fact that Strange's men played "Machiavel" in tandem with Marlowe's play at the Rose in 1592 on the 3rd and 4th of April and 29th and 30th of May. She considers the pairing and order ("Machiavel" was scheduled first) an indication that "the company recognized and capitalized" on the shared character (28). Noting that Strange's men also paired "Muly Molocco" with The Jew of Malta, she sees further evidence of repertorial commerce in the company schedule when "Machiavel" made a threesome with those two plays (May 29, 30, 31).

Manley and MacLean add a performance of The Spanish Tragedy on May 27 to the threesome of "Machiavel," The Jew of Malta, and "Muly Molocco" as evidence that the repertory of Strange's men in 1592 had a "modern flavor" (170).


For What It's Worth




Works Cited


Knutson, Roslyn L. "Marlowe Reruns." In Marlowe's Empery. Ed. Sara Munson Deats and Robert A. Logan. Cranbury, NJ: Univeristy of Delaware Press, 2002. 25-42.



Site created and maintained by Roslyn L. Knutson, Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; updated 11 July 2020.