Difference between revisions of "Mack, The"

 
(16 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 26: Line 26:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|}
 
|}
 
+
<br>
<br><br>
 
  
 
== Theatrical Provenance ==
 
== Theatrical Provenance ==
  
 
"The Mack" enjoyed a single performance by the Admiral's men at the Rose (its debut, according to Henslowe's "ne"); it appears in no other extant theater records.
 
"The Mack" enjoyed a single performance by the Admiral's men at the Rose (its debut, according to Henslowe's "ne"); it appears in no other extant theater records.
 
 
<br><br>
 
<br><br>
  
Line 43: Line 41:
  
 
Information welcome.
 
Information welcome.
 
 
<br><br>
 
<br><br>
  
Line 49: Line 46:
  
 
None known.
 
None known.
 
 
<br><br>
 
<br><br>
  
 
== Critical Commentary ==
 
== Critical Commentary ==
  
[[WorksCited|Malone]] observed that "The Mack," like "The Set at Maw," named a card game (p. 296).
+
[[WorksCited|Malone]] observed that "The Mack," like [[Set at Maw, The|"The Set at Maw"]], named a card game (p. 296, n.5). [[WorksCited|Collier]] repeated Malone's observation, then added his own guess that it "was perhaps written in consequence of the success of the Maw, already many times represented" (p. 49).
  
  
[[WorksCited|Collier]] repeated Malone's observation, then added his own guess that it "was perhaps written in consequence of the success of the Maw, already many times represented" (p. 49).
+
[[WorksCited|Fleay, ''BCED'' (1.136)]], as he had for [[Set at Maw, The|"The Set at Maw"]], identified "The Mack" with a much later play: ''Come see a Wonder,'' 1623, by John Day. He believed that Day's play was the second generation of Thomas Dekker's ''The Wonder of a Kingdom'' (1623), and that at some deeper level it was the lost "Mack": "The original Dekker play was a "Card play" (see the last nine lines), probably ''The Mack'', an Admiral's play of 1595." Fleay further surmised a revival "at the Bull," by which he apparently meant not "The Mack" but the Dekker play, with bits of "The Mack" incorporated.
  
  
[[WorksCited|Fleay, ''BCED'']], as he had for "The Set at Maw," identified "The Mack" with a much later play by John Day, ''Come see a Wonder,'' 1623. He believed that Day's play was the second generation of Thomas Dekker's ''The Wonder of a Kingdom'' (1623), and that at some deeper level was the lost "Mack": "The original Dekker play was a "Card play" (see the last nine lines), probably ''The Mack'', an Admiral's play of 1595" (1.136). Fleay further surmised a revival "at the Bull," by which he apparently meant not "The Mack" but the Dekker play, with its incorporated bits of "The Mack."
+
[[WorksCited|Greg II]] dutifully considered Fleay's lumping of "The Mack" with John Day's ''Come See a Wonder,'' which was published under authorship of Thomas Dekker and the title of ''The Wonder of a Kingdom''. Although he thought the case "better" than Fleay's for linking [[Set at Maw, The|"The Set at Maw"]] with ''Match Me in London,'' he believed that ''The Wonder of a Kingdom'' was only "possibly" the Admiral's play called "The Mack."
[[WorksCited|Greg II]]
 
  
  
Line 67: Line 62:
  
  
[[WorksCited|Wiggins, ''Catalogue'' (#990)]] resurrects the suggestion of [[WorksCited|Collier]] that "The Mack" was "probably a follow-up to the previous year's ''Set at Maw''. Addressing the possible story of the play, he suggests that the script might have "followed the structure and process of the game; but in this case the rules are unknown" (#990). He is therefore thinking of a card game other than "Maw," the rules of which ''are'' known (See [[#For What It's Worth|For What It's Worth]], below).
+
[[WorksCited|Wiggins, ''Catalogue'' (#990)]] resurrects the suggestion of [[WorksCited|Collier]] that "The Mack" was "probably a follow-up to the previous year's ''Set at Maw''. Addressing the possible story of the play, he suggests that the script might have "followed the structure and process of the game; but in this case the rules are unknown" (#990). He is therefore thinking of a card game other than "Maw," the rules of which ''are'' known (see [[#For What It's Worth|For What It's Worth]], in the entry for [[Set at Maw, The|"The Set at Maw"]]).
 
 
 
<br><br>
 
<br><br>
  
 
== For What It's Worth ==
 
== For What It's Worth ==
  
(repeat here Cash's description of "maw")
+
As [[WorksCited|Wiggins]] observes (''Catalogue'' #990), the rules of the game of Mack are unknown. For the rules of the game of Maw, see the entry for "The Set at Maw" in this database.
 +
<br><br>
  
 +
== Works Cited ==
 +
<div style="padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em;">Gurr, Andrew. ''Shakespeare's Opposites: The Admiral's Company 1594-1625''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.</div>
 
<br><br>
 
<br><br>
  
== Works Cited ==
+
Site created and maintained by [[Roslyn L. Knutson]], Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; updated 8 January 2021.
 
[[category:Solo performance]][[category:Admiral's]][[category:Rose]][[category:Roslyn L. Knutson]][[category:Card games]]
 
[[category:Solo performance]][[category:Admiral's]][[category:Rose]][[category:Roslyn L. Knutson]][[category:Card games]]
 +
[[category:Duplicate plays]][[category:Serial/Sequel plays]]

Latest revision as of 11:45, 17 February 2022

Anon. Play Titles A (1595)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

Playlists in Philip Henslowe's diary

Fol. 11v (Greg I.22)
ye 21 of febreary 1594 . . . . ne . . . . Rd at the macke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iijll


Theatrical Provenance

"The Mack" enjoyed a single performance by the Admiral's men at the Rose (its debut, according to Henslowe's "ne"); it appears in no other extant theater records.

Probable Genre(s)

Comedy? Harbage

Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues

Information welcome.

References to the Play

None known.

Critical Commentary

Malone observed that "The Mack," like "The Set at Maw", named a card game (p. 296, n.5). Collier repeated Malone's observation, then added his own guess that it "was perhaps written in consequence of the success of the Maw, already many times represented" (p. 49).


Fleay, BCED (1.136), as he had for "The Set at Maw", identified "The Mack" with a much later play: Come see a Wonder, 1623, by John Day. He believed that Day's play was the second generation of Thomas Dekker's The Wonder of a Kingdom (1623), and that at some deeper level it was the lost "Mack": "The original Dekker play was a "Card play" (see the last nine lines), probably The Mack, an Admiral's play of 1595." Fleay further surmised a revival "at the Bull," by which he apparently meant not "The Mack" but the Dekker play, with bits of "The Mack" incorporated.


Greg II dutifully considered Fleay's lumping of "The Mack" with John Day's Come See a Wonder, which was published under authorship of Thomas Dekker and the title of The Wonder of a Kingdom. Although he thought the case "better" than Fleay's for linking "The Set at Maw" with Match Me in London, he believed that The Wonder of a Kingdom was only "possibly" the Admiral's play called "The Mack."


Gurr has nothing to say about "The Mack" beyond its having received one performance marked "ne" in Henslowe's records (p. 94).


Wiggins, Catalogue (#990) resurrects the suggestion of Collier that "The Mack" was "probably a follow-up to the previous year's Set at Maw. Addressing the possible story of the play, he suggests that the script might have "followed the structure and process of the game; but in this case the rules are unknown" (#990). He is therefore thinking of a card game other than "Maw," the rules of which are known (see For What It's Worth, in the entry for "The Set at Maw").

For What It's Worth

As Wiggins observes (Catalogue #990), the rules of the game of Mack are unknown. For the rules of the game of Maw, see the entry for "The Set at Maw" in this database.

Works Cited

Gurr, Andrew. Shakespeare's Opposites: The Admiral's Company 1594-1625. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.



Site created and maintained by Roslyn L. Knutson, Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; updated 8 January 2021.