Reign the introduction of Faulconbridge as a compensation for the loss of Sedition, an allegorical character that supplied the comic element of the elder piece. He is no more like Shakespeare's Faulconbridge than a practical joke is like wit; but in his scenes with the monks he fulfilled the jester's function, and made the sport needful for the people.* For in The Troublesome Reign the The following extracts from the old play will give the reader a notion of its general style, as well as of the Bastard as he there appears, both in his jocose and in his sober moods. "Essex. Philip, who was thy father? Phil. Mas my lord, and that's a question: and you had not taken some paines with her before, I should have desired you to aske my mother. John. Say, who was thy father? Phil. Faith (my lord) to answere you, sure hee is my father who was neerest my mother when I was begotten, and him I thinke to be Sir Robert Faucon bridge. John. Essex, for fashions sake demand agen, And so an end to this contention. Robert. Was ever man thus wrongd as Robert is? Essex. Philip speak I say, who was thy father? John. Young man, how now, what art thou in a trance? Phil. Phillipus atavis ædite Regibus. What saist thou Philip, sprung of auncient kings? What winde of honour blowes this furie forth? Or whence proceede these fumes of majestie? Me thinkes I heare a hollow eccho sound, That Phillip is the sonne unto a king: The whistling leaves upon the trembling trees The bubling murmur of the waters fall, Records, Phillipus Regius Filius. Birds in their flight make musicke with their wings, Filling the aire with glorie of my birth: Birds, bubbles, leaves, and mountaines, eccho, all Ring in mine eares, that I am Richards sonne." The following passage is from the scene in the Abbey: "Philip. Come on you fat Franciscan, dallie no longer, but shew me where the abbots treasure lies, or die. Frier. Benedicamus Domine, was ever such an injurie? Sweet S. Withold of thy lenitie, defend us from extremitie. And heare us for S. Charitie, oppressed with austeritie. In nomine domini make I my homily, Gentle gentilitie grieve not the cleargie. Philip. Gray gown'd good face, conjure ye, Nere trust me for a groat 1 attacks upon the church of Rome take the form of acted satire, and the Bastard, when sent by King John to extort money from an abbey, after a scene of ludicrous expostulation on the part of a friar, finds a nun hidden in the abbot's chest where he expected to find "a thousand pound in silver and in gold." It need hardly be said that Shakespeare could have retained this laughable incident with advantage, had he chosen to do so; but patriotism, not fanaticism, animated his play; and he avoided here, as, indeed, he always did, the offence of holding one body of Christians up to the malicious ridicule of another. He continued the Bastard, however, in his office of mirth provider, by his masterly development of the braggart of the old play, (who is only Pistol without his cowardice and his ridiculous absurdity,) into a matchless embodiment of that kind of manhood whose fulness of animal life and boundless good humor, joined to a sturdy common sense and a downrightness of disposition which often becomes impudence, always turn the momentary laugh against the feeble propriety of men like "old Sir Robert's son," and the noisy assumption of pompous pretenders like the Archduke of Austria. Though there is no likeness between the characters or the poetry of the old play, and those of Shakespeare's, the dramatis persona and the course of events are nearly the same in both. In both we have King John, Queen Elinor, Constance, Arthur, Hubert, the Faulconbridges, Philip of France, Louis, Blanch, Chatillon, Pandulph, Melun, and other minor characters;· -even Peter of Pomfret is not forgotten. In both the action opens with the threatening interview between Chatillon and King John, which is succeeded by the introduction of the Faulconbridges: in both the action is next transferred to France before Angiers, where the same contention with the same hymencal termination takes place, the rejoicing being in both interrupted by the entrance of Pandulph to break the new-knit bonds asunder and provoke the battle which costs Austria his head. In both Arthur is committed to the care of Hubert, who undertakes to kill him, or fut If this wast girdle hang thee not Say Philip he had words enough To put you downe with riming." out his eyes, but relents.; Arthur being killed in his attempt to escape, and his death precipitating the revolt of the nobles: in both the King yields to Rome, receives his crown from the Pope's legate, and is poisoned by a monk. The changes which Shakespeare made in the composition of the play are the result of omission and condensation. He compressed all the essential action of a long, tedious dramatic story in two parts into an ordinary five act piece, in which, although there is less of bustle and incident than is crowded into Richard III., events of importance and scenes of interest succeed each other so rapidly that the attention is kept constantly awake. Although not even the germ of any thought, or scene, or character, (except, perhaps, Queen Elinor) that gives Shakespeare's King John its value, is to be found in The Troublesome Reign, that play is not without some poetical and dramatic merit, which, indeed, is considerable for a drama produced in its period of the Elizabethan era; and, what is far more important to the subject in hand, there is evidence in the former that the language of the latter was much in Shakespeare's mind, even if its text were not constantly before his eyes, while he was writing the new play. Numerous instances of parallel passages in which the thought is similar and the words sometimes the same are cited in the Notes, and will show the reader that Shakespeare worked with the old play in his head if not in his hand; nevertheless in no degree diminishing our admiration of the greatness and fecundity of the genius, which, having conceived by such a play as that, could bring forth such a play as this. The Troublesome Reign was first published in 1591, or it is perhaps better to say that that is the date of the earliest edition known. The title page of that edition is without an author's name; but one subsequently published, in 1611, has the timid and uncandid announcement that the play was "written by W. Sh.," evidently with the intention that "W. Sh." shall be taken to mean William Shakespeare; and finally "W. Shake-` speare" appears on the title page of a third quarto edition, published in 1622. Hence some English editors in the last century, and some German commentators in this, have thought that The Troublesome Reign was an early work of Shakespeare's; but it shows no trace even of his prentice hand: it is not only inferior in every respect to his poorest and earliest work, but its merits, such as they are, are not at all like the merits of his It is not only acknowledged works at any period of his life. unequal, but its parts are dissimilar in style. It is chiefly in verse; but it contains specimens of nearly every variety of rhythm and rhyme known to English versifiers of the Elizabethan period; and the conclusion that, according to a common practice of the time, it is the production of more than one playwright, perhaps of three or four, must force itself upon the mind of every sufficiently observant reader who is familiar with our early dramatic literature. It was probably produced two or three years before the date of the first edition known; as at that date it was a new play, and in 1587-8 the English hatred of Rome and Spain was stimulated to renewed activity by the approach of the Armada. It has been conjectured with great probability that Greene, Peele, and Marlowe were concerned in the composition of this old History; and it is barely possible that Shakespeare, who seems to have begun his career as their humble co-laborer, contributed something to it, as like in style to what they wrote as he could make it. Shakespeare's King John was first printed in the folio of 1623; and we know nothing of its earlier existence, except from Meres' Palladis Tamia, where it is mentioned in the passage so often referred to. It was therefore produced between 1591 and 1598; and its style of expression and tone of thought, which are marked by somewhat more of maturity than appears in The Merchant of Venice, for instance, while they are not yet those of Shakespeare's later period, indicate 1596 as about the date of its production. The folio, the only source of the text, gives it in a state very nearly approaching purity. As to the period of the action of Shakespeare's historical plays, there can of course be no doubt: the events represented in King John took place between 1199 and 1216. For the costume of the historical plays, authorities are numerous, and within the reach of almost every person who is desirous of particular information on the subject. Mr. Fairholt's excellent work on Costume in England is the most desirable and accessible book of the kind for the general reader.. DRAMATIS PERSONE. KING JOHN. PRINCE HENRY, his Son. ARTHUR, Duke of Bretagne, his Nephew. GEFFREY FITZ-PETER, Earl of Essex. WILLIAM LONGSWORD, Earl of Salisbury. ROBERT BIGOT, Earl of Norfolk. HUBERT DE BURGH, Chamberlain to the King. ROBERT FAULCONBRIDGE, Son to Sir Robert and Lady Faulcon bridge. PHILIP FAULCONBRIDGE, Bastard Son to King Richard I. and Lady Faulconbridge. JAMES GURNEY, Servant to Lady Faulconbridge. PETER of Pomfret, a pretended Prophet. PHILIP, King of France. LOUIS, the Dauphin. ARCHDUKE of Austria. CARDINAL PANDULPH, the Pope's Legate. MELUN, a French Lord. CHATILLON, Ambassador from the King of France to King John. ELINOR, the Queen Mother, Widow of King Henry II. CONSTANCE, Mother to Arthur. BLANCH, Daughter to Alphonso, King of Castile. LADY FAULCONBRIDGE. Lords Ladies, Citizens of Angiers, Sheriffs, Wells, Officers, Soldiers, Messengers, and Attendants. SCENE: Sometimes in England, and sometimes in France (16) |