Difference between revisions of "Madon, King of Britain"
m (→Works Cited)
|Line 63:||Line 63:|
<div style="padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em">
<div style="padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em"></div>
Revision as of 23:45, 7 March 2016
29 June 1660 (SR2, 2.271, CLIO)
|Entred for his copies under the hand of MASTER THRALE warden, the severall plays following that is to say . . . . xiijs
Unknown. If the play really were by Beaumont, it might have belonged to the Children of the Queen's Revels or alternatively the King's Men.
Pseudo-History (Harbage); History (Wiggins).
Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues
<Enter any information about possible or known sources. Summarise these sources where practical/possible, or provide an excerpt from another scholar's discussion of the subject if available.>
References to the Play
Chambers noted that "Madan is a character in Locrine, but even Moseley can hardly have ascribed that long-printed play to Beaumont" (3.233).
This lost play's evident interest in ancient British history led Tristan Marshall to suggest that it may have appealed to audiences who also paid to see Cymbeline, King of Britain (68).
For What It's Worth
Unfortunately Moseley's registration of the title is also the only grounds for ascribing the play to Beaumont, and Moseley's ascriptions are far from certain. In this same batch of entries he registered "King Stephen', "Duke Humphrey", and "Iphis and Ianthe" to Shakespeare, and 6 years earlier he had registered "The Maiden's Holiday" to Marlowe and Day. Moseley seems to have had a number of old playscripts in his possession, one of which may well have actually been by Beaumont -- and as Wiggins (1608) notes, a number of plays dealing with early British history at the end of the first decade of the 17th century -- around the time Beaumont was most active -- makes the existence of a "Madon" play at least plausible.
Site created and maintained by David McInnis, University of Melbourne; updated 08 March 2016.