THE LIFE AND DEATH OF KING JOHN KING JOHN is the only undoubtedly Shakespearean play not entered in the Stationers' Register, nor is there any trace of its having been printed before there appeared in the First Folio the text on which the present edition is based. A mention in Meres's list in 1598 gives a later limit for the date of production; and an earlier limit is approximately fixed by the date of its source, which was published in 1591, and cannot have been written earlier than about 1587. Within this range of ten years we have no good external evidence. Attempts to find allusions to current politics are negatived by the existence of the supposed allusions in the source also. Modern critics vary in their judgments between 1593 and 1596, and considerations of metre and style point rather to the earlier of these dates, and make it probable that the play was written between Richard III and Richard II. About the middle of the sixteenth century Bishop Bale had made the reign of John the subject of an historical morality with a virulently Protestant purpose; but it does not appear that this piece was used in any of the later dramatic treatments of the theme. In 1591 was published The Troublesome Raigne of John, King of England, an anonymous historical play in two parts, written in blank verse of considerable power. On this Shakespeare founded the present drama, without seeking either to corroborate or to correct, by reference to the chronicles, the very legendary history of his source. The earlier author not only disregarded chronology, but invented, altered, or ignored the facts with the greatest freedom. Like Bale, though to a less degree, he gave his work an anti-Papal bias. He invented the part played by the Bastard Faulconbridge; he combined in one person the Archduke of Austria, who had imprisoned Richard I and was dead at the time of the play, with the Viscount of Limoges, before whose castle Coeur-de-lion had received his mortal wound; he made Arthur younger than he was, and kept Constance a widow, for purposes of dramatic effectiveness; and he omitted all mention of Magna Charta, and with it of the constitutional element in the quarrel between John and his barons. Such are only a few of the violations of historical accuracy which mark almost every scene. Shakespeare's method of treating the work of his predecessor was peculiar. He re-wrote practically every line, and he condensed the two parts into five acts of moderate length. He selected some scenes and rejected others, but to the action he added almost nothing. On several occasions he economized by representing an action as just completed (e. g., the second coronation), instead of showing it on the stage. He cut out the long comic scene in which Faulconbridge exposes the immorality of the monasteries; and in general he gave up the attempt to picture John as a Protestant hero. With much gain in compactness and rapidity of action, these changes involved also some loss. The play was left without a leading motive or a truly central character, and some details are not wholly intelligible. Thus the reasons of the Bastard's hatred of Austria, and of his illnatured speech on the betrothal of Lewis and Blanch (11. i. 504 ff.), are not clear without the prominence given in The Troublesome Raigne to the legendary view of Coeur-de-lion's death at Austria's hands in the one case, and in the other to Eleanor's scheme for marrying Faulconbridge himself to Blanch. More serious is the loss of motive in the poisoning of the King by the monk, a deed easily intelligible in the older play on account of the prominence given throughout to the hostility between John and the Church. Shakespeare's additions consist chiefly in the elaboration of character. Most notable are the cases of Constance and the Bastard. The speeches of both are greatly increased in number and length; and the passion of Constance is developed from a slight indication in The Troublesome Raigne, to a representation, which, though verging on the sentimental and hysterical, has been taken as the supreme utterance of motherly love in literature. Faulconbridge is made more consistent and more important, being given the rôle embodying the sturdy sense and patriotism of the loyal Englishman, and voicing, especially in his last speech, what comes as near being a central theme as the play possesses. THE LIFE AND DEATH OF KING JOHN KING JOHN. PRINCE HENRY, son to the king. [DRAMATIS PERSONÆ ARTHUR, duke of Bretagne, nephew to the king. The Earl of PEMBROKE. The Earl of ESSEX. The Earl of SALISBURY. The Lord BIGOT. HUBERT DE BURGH. ROBERT FAULCONBRIDGE. PHILIP the BASTARD, his half-brother. JAMES GURNEY, servant to Lady Faulconbridge. PETER of Pomfret, a prophet. PHILIP, king of France. LYMOGES, duke of Austria. CARDINAL PANDULPH, the Pope's legate. MELUN, a French Lord. CHATILLON, ambassador from France to King John. QUEEN ELEANOR, mother to King John. CONSTANCE, mother to Arthur. BLANCH of Spain, niece to King John. LADY FAULCONBRIDGE, widow to Sir Robert Faulcon. bridge. Lords, Citizens of Angiers, Sheriff, Heralds, Officers, Soldiers, Messengers, and other Attendants. But for the certain knowledge of that truth And wound her honour with this diffidence. 65 Bast. I, madam? No, I have no reason for it. That is my brother's plea and none of mine; 70 K. John. A good blunt fellow. Why, being younger born, Doth he lay claim to thine inheritance? Bast. I know not why, except to get the land; 75 But once he slander'd me with bastardy. Compare our faces and be judge yourself. And were our father, and this son like him, 80 I give heaven thanks I was not like to thee! K. John. Why, what a madcap hath heaven lent us here! El. He hath a trick of Coeur-de-lion's face; 85 The accent of his tongue affecteth him. Do you not read some tokens of my son In the large composition of this man? K. John. Mine eye hath well examined his parts And finds them perfect Richard. Sirrah, speak, 90 What doth move you to claim your brother's land? Bast. Because he hath a half-face, like my father. With half that face would he have all my land, father A half-fac'd groat five hundred pound a year! Rob. My gracious liege, when that my liv'd, 95 Your brother did employ my father much, Your tale must be how he employ'd my mother. 100 Between my father and my mother lay, 115 K. John. Sirrah, your brother is legitimate. Your father's wife did after wedlock bear him, And if she did play false, the fault was hers; Which fault lies on the hazards of all husbands That marry wives. Tell me, how if my brother, This calf bred from his cow from all the world; In sooth he might; then, if he were my brother's, And like thy brother, to enjoy thy land, 140 And I had his, Sir Robert's his, like him; And, to his shape, were heir to all this land, El. I like thee well. Wilt thou forsake thy fortune, Bequeath thy land to him and follow me? |