The Merry Devil of Edmonton: Globe Quartos

by Unknown, Nicola Bennett (editor)

The Merry Devil of Edmonton lay unperformed from the early seventeenth century until the 1980s. Dating from around 1604, it was first published in 1608 and was performed at the Globe Theatre by the King's Men. With its scenes of magic, deer poaching, and abduction from a nunnery, The Merry Devil of Edmonton combines romance and comedy in a highly entertaining way, and was a favorite production on the seventeenth century stage.

Genres: Plays, Drama, Classics, Shakespeare, Fiction, Poetry, Literature

124 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1601

About the author

Books can be attributed to "Unknown" when the author or editor (as applicable) is not known and cannot be discovered. If at all possible, list at least one actual author or editor for a book instead of using "Unknown".

Books whose authorship is purposefully withheld should be attributed instead to Anonymous.

Reviews

[Diane · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this to try and make better sense of the frontispiece woodcut on the Q6 edition. Discovered, thanks to the editor, that it is a representation of Smug sitting on the tavern/inn sign, convincing the two onlooking gentlemen that this is the St. George Inn (rather than the White Horse). The play itself reads like a cross between Doctor Faustus and Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, but a sight funnier than FB/FB. Considering that it's only a fragment of the original play (so there are some significant pieces of action alluded to but not extant), it's quite good.

[James F · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Merry Devill of Edmonton is another play whose publisher claimed it was by Shakespeare and which was in the collection I am reading of Shakespeare Apocrypha; various scholars have suggested other more plausible authors, from Drayton or Heywood to Dekker, but there is no real evidence. Today the play is thought to have been written in the early 1600's, although it was earlier thought to have been from about 1592. It was one I had not read before.

This is another light romantic comedy, about a maiden, Milliscent Clare, whose father wishes to marry her to a rich young man, Franke Jerningham (who is in love with someone else, never actually named in the play) and commits her for a time to a nunnery (so the play is apparently set before the time of Henry VIII) to break off her previous engagement to the man she wants to marry, Raymond Mounchensey. Raymond, Franke, and her brother Harry, with the help of a magician, Peter Fabell, the Merry Devill of the title, rescue her from the nunnery and she is married to Mounchensey by Sir John, a priest who is also involved with some other comic characters in a subplot about poaching deer in the royal forest. The play begins with Fabell deceiving the devil to escape a Faustian deal, but otherwise there is nothing supernatural in the play. It is a fun read but nothing deep and nothing in any way suggesting Shakespeare.

[Ruchika Pahwa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Draining!

A bit more energy-draining than the other writings of Shakespeare...I lost interest after a while, even though I enjoyed some of his other plays with more appealing storylines.

[Forked Radish]

The attribution to Shakspeare (sic) is dubious.

[Gill · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love this play; I'd give it five stars if only it was complete. The whole sequence by which the angry father is misled into staying the night at the wrong tavern is missing, which is a great shame; there are probably some other, mostly comic, scenes not there either. It was almost certainly by Dekker, and hugely popular, but the printed versions are all maimed.

In one way it's a parody of Dr Faustus; Henslowe's Admiral's Men had a revival in repertoire. This shows at the start how Faustus should have handled Mephostophilis, but then goes on to show the magician helping a pair of young lovers escape the plans of a harsh father, making fun of nuns in the process.

Read as part of the Shakespeare Institute "Extra Mile" readathon in the lockdown summer of 2020 - on Zoom, but great fun. And again in January 2024 in a re-read of the entire surviving body of work of the company.

[Will Boncher · Rating 1 out of 5]

My original review was going to be:
"Lesser known works of Shakespeare are lesser known for a reason. This sucked."

Then I went to Wikipedia to find out what the hell was up with what I just read. Turns out, not Shakespeare as my Kindle said. Someone (Humphrey Moseley) said Shakespeare wrote it and somehow messed up my Kindle 300+ years later.

My new review is:
"This was dumb. This sucked."

[Irène Wadowski uliasz · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ennuyeux !