The borrowed Maiefty of England heere. 9, 10. borrowed...borrowed] Ff, Wh. i, Cam.+. borrow'd...borrowed Hal. borrow'd...borrow'd Rowe et cet. 10. beginning: borrowed Maiefty?] Ff. beginning; borrow'd Majesty! Rowe, Pope, Theob. Han. Warb. Cap. begin IO ning. Borrow'd majesty! Johns. be- signification that I have never found in any other author. 'The king of France,' says the envoy, 'thus speaks in my behaviour to the majesty of England'; that is, the king of France speaks in the character, which I here assume. I once thought that these two lines had been uttered by the ambassador, as part of his master's message, and that 'behaviour' had meant the conduct of the King of France towards the King of England; but the ambassador's speech, as continued after the interruption, will not admit this meaning.-MALONE: 'In my behaviour' means, I think, in the words and action that I am now going to use. Compare: 'Now hear our English King For thus his royalty doth speak in me.'-V, ii, 134.-KNIGHT: Haviour, behaviour, is the manner of having, the conduct. Where then is the difficulty which this expression has raised up? The king of France speaks, in the conduct of his ambassador, to 'the borrowed majesty of England'; a necessary explanation of the speech of Chatillon, which John would have resented upon the speaker, had he not in his 'behaviour' expressed the intentions of his sovereign.— JOHN HUNTER: That is, in the tone or manner in which I speak.-FLEAY: Not only in my words, but in my bearing and manner; my assumption of superiority to the 'borrowed majesty' of John.-WRIGHT: That is, as represented in my person and by my outward acts and deportment. [For this use of 'in' Wright cites the passage given by Malone, and adds thereto: 'The cunning of her passion Invites me in this churlish messenger.'-Twelfth Night, II, ii, 24.]-MOBERLY: As in German 'das aüssere Behaben' means the outward demeanour, so here 'in my behaviour' means, in the tone and manner which I have assumed.-IVOR JOHN: That is, through my conduct as ambassador. Compare: 'inferior eyes, that borrow their behaviours from the great.'-V, i, 54.-[This chronological arrangement of the interpretations of a passage is, I think, not uninstructive, showing in how many ways the same idea may be expressed in slightly differing words. Were it possible to form a composite sentence from these, as is done with photographs to produce a typical face, we should probably find that the first one given, that of Johnson-the king of France speaks in the character which I here assume' would be the resultant sentence. His introductory remark that the word 'behaviour' here bears a meaning which he had never found in any other author is significant, when it is recalled that the Dictionary antedates his notes on this play by nearly ten years. This statement, furthermore, has not been refuted by later lexicographers.-SCHMIDT (Lex.), after giving numerous examples of 'behaviour' in the sense of 'external carriage and deportment, as it is expressive of sentiments and disposition,' places the present by itself, under the caption 'Remarkable passage,' with the interpretation 'in the tone and character which I here assume,' evidently derived from the German, as Moberly also suggests.— MURRAY (N. E. D., s. v. 1. †c.) quotes the present line as the only example wherein 'behaviour' is used in the sense of 'bearing of the character of another; personifica K.Iohn.Silence (good mother) heare the Embassie. 11. Silence (good mother)] Ff. Silence, good Mother, Rowe, Pope, Han. Silence, good mother; Theob. et cet. Embaliel embassy Johns. et seq. 13. deceafed] deceased Dyce, Huds. Words. brother, brother F, et seq. Geffreyes] Geffrey's Rowe et seq. 14. Plantaginet] Plantaganet F3. Plantagenet F, et seq. II 15 14. mot] Om. Pope, Theob. Han. Warb. Johns. 15. Territories:] territories,— Dyce, Huds. Fle. Words. 16. Aniowe] Anjowe Ff, Ktly. Anjou Rowe et cet. Torayne] Lorayne F.. Loraine FF. Touaine Rowe i. Toraine Ktly. Touraine Rowe ii. et cet. tion, "person."'—The line from Act V, quoted in illustration by Ivor John, is not, I think, a parallel. To 'borrow behaviour' from another is rather to imitate or to adopt the actions and expressions of that other. Chatillon does not, however, mean that he is imitating the king of France, but rather that he is speaking as his representative. Under the foregoing interpretation of borrow Murray quotes this example given by Ivor John.-ED.] 10. Elea. A strange... Maiesty] CALVERT (p. 126): Observe how this opening scene is enlivened by the interruption of Elinor; an interruption which Shakespeare would not have allowed her to make, had she not, in making it, given a strong taste of her quality as a proud, grasping, intermeddling Queen-dowager. While adding life to the scene, the line she utters characterizes herself. Shakespeare thus kills two birds with one stone, and both game birds, a proceeding which he repeats oftener than—I had almost said—all other poets put together. 12-14. Philip... Arthur Plantaginet] COURTENAY (i, 3): I do not find, either in Holinshed or in any other history, English or French, that Chatillon, or any other diplomatic agent, was sent by Philip Augustus to John; or that the crown of England was demanded by the French King on the part of Arthur. Philip apparently, and with reason, disclaimed an interest in the disposal of that crown; whereas, of the transmarine possessions of the Kings of England, as well as of Brittany, he claimed to be lord paramount. 15. the Territories] IVOR JOHN: There is no other case of the use of 'the territories' in this way by Shakespeare. One is tempted to suggest either 'and the territories Of Ireland,' or 'her territories.' In The Troublesome Raigne, ed. 1591, we have 'to England, Cornwall and Wales and to their territories.'-II, iii. 16. Poyctiers, Aniowe, Torayne, Maine] HUDSON: Arthur held the duchy of Brittany in right of his father Geffrey Plantagenet, an elder brother of John. Anjou, Touraine, and Maine, the ancient patrimony of the house of Anjou, were his by hereditary right. As Duke of Brittany Arthur was a vassal of Philip Augustus; and Constance engaged to Philip that her son should do him homage also for Normandy, Maine, Anjou, Touraine, and Poictou, on condition that Philip should support this claim to the English crown. England having declared for John, the Defiring thee to lay afide the fword Which swaies vfurpingly these feuerall titles, 17 play opens with Philip's interference in behalf of Arthur. [See Appendix: Troublesome Raigne, pt. i: I, i, 29-34.] 18. Which swaies vfurpingly, etc.] WARNER (p. 27): There was never any question among Englishmen as to John's right to reign over them until toward the end of his career, when the Barons were exasperated into the attempt of dethroning him as a liar, a slanderer, a breaker of promises, and a bawd of the nation's honor.[John's legal or moral right to the crown during Arthur's lifetime is a question which concerns the student of history more fitly than readers of Shakespeare, for whom King John is a usurper. The following extract from Hallam is, however, interesting as testimony on the other side: 'The succession of John has certainly passed in modern times for an usurpation. I do not find that it was considered as such by his contemporaries on this side of the Channel. The question of inheritance between an uncle and the son of his deceased elder brother was yet unsettled, as we learn from Glanvil, even in private succession. In the case of sovereignties, which were sometimes contended to require different rules from ordinary patrimony, it was, and continued long to be, the most uncertain point in public law. John's pretensions to the crown might therefore be such as the English were justified in admitting, especially as his reversionary title seems to have been acknowledged in the reign of his brother Richard.'-(Middle Ages, ii, 325.)—Roger of Wendover's account of John's installation and coronation is as follows: 'About this time [1199] John Duke of Normandy came over into England, and landed at Shoreham on the 25th of May; on the day after, which was the eve of our Lord's Ascension, he went to London to be crowned there. On his arrival, therefore, the archbishops, bishops, earls, and all others, whose duty it was to be present at this coronation, assembled together in the church of the chief of the apostles at Westminster, on the 27th of May, and there Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury, placed the crown on his head and anointed him king.'-To this account Matthew Paris adds: 'The Archbishop standing in the midst addressed them thus, "Hear, all of you, and be it known that no one has an antecedent right to succeed another in the kingdom, unless he shall have been unanimously elected under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, on account of the superior merits of his character, after the example of Saul the first anointed king, whom the Lord set over his people, not as the son of a king, nor as born of royal ancestry. . . . Thus those who excelled in vigour are elevated to kingly dignity. But, if any relations of a deceased king excel others in merit, all should the more readily and zealously consent to his election. We have said this to maintain the cause of Earl John, who is here present, brother of our illustrious King Richard, lately deceased without heirs of his body, and as the said Earl John is prudent, active, and indubitably noble, we have, under God's Holy Spirit, unanimously elected him for his merits and his royal blood." Now the archbishop was a man of bold character and a support to the kingdom by his steadiness and incomparable wisdom; no one, therefore, dared to dispute what he said as knowing that he had good cause for what he did. Earl John and all who were present acquiesced, and they unanimously elected the earl, crying out, "God save the king!" Archbishop Hubert was afterwards asked why he acted in this manner, to which he replied that he knew John would one day or other bring the kingdom into great confusion, wherefore he determined that he should owe his elevation to election and not to And put the fame into yong Arthurs hand, Thy Nephew, and right royall Soueraigne. K.Iohn. What followes if we difallow of this? Chat. The proud controle of fierce and bloudy warre, To inforce these rights, so forcibly with-held, K. Io. Heere haue we war for war, & bloud for bloud, Controlement for controlement: so answer France. 19. Arthurs] Arthur's F, et seq. 20. Nephew,] nephew Knt, Dyce, Wh. i, Ktly, Sta. Cam.+, Fle. Rlfe. 21. followes] Ff. follows Wh. Cam,+, Glo. Cla. Rlfe. follows, Rowe et cet. 23. To inforce] Ff, Rowe. T'inforce Pope,+, Fle. T' enforce Dyce ii, iii, Huds. ii, Words. To enforce Cap. et cet. 20 25 23. rights,] rights Rowe et seq. with-held,] with-held. Rowe,+, Cap. withheld. Ff et cet. 24. war,&] F,F3. war and Cam.+, Glo. Wh. ii. war, and F, et cet. 25. for controlement] for control Vaughan. hereditary right.'—(Ed. Giles, ii, 181).—See also Hallam, op. et loc. cit., and Stubbs, Constitutional History, i, 578.-ED.] 21. disallow] MURRAY (N. E. D., s. v. 3. b.): To refuse to accept with approval; to reject, disown. [The present line quoted.] 22. controle] JOHNSON: That is, opposition.-M. MASON: I think it rather means constraint, or compulsion. So, in Henry V, when Exeter demands of the King of France the surrender of his crown, and the King answers: 'Or else what follows?' Exeter replies: 'Bloody constraint; for if you hide the crown, Even in your hearts, there will he rake for it.'-[II, iv, 97.] The passages are exactly similar. [So they may be, but only in respect of the similarity of situation; but in one case Shakespeare uses the word 'control' and in the other 'constraint.' The primary meaning of constraint is compulsion, just as the elemental meaning of control is restraint, or opposition, as Johnson gives it. For a parallel use of 'control' compare 'Even where his lustful eye or savage heart Without control lusted to make his prey.'-Rich. III: III, v, 84. And for 'proud' in the sense of vigorous as applied to an adversary compare: 'Our partie may well meet a prowder foe.'—V, ii, 84.-ED.] 24, 25. Heere haue we war... controlement] STEEVENS: King John's reception of Chatillon not a little resembles that which Andrea meets with from the King of Portugal, in the First Part of Jeronimo, 1605: 'And. Thou shalt pay tribute, Portugal, with blood. Bal. Tribute for tribute then; and foes for foes. And. I bid you sudden wars.' [Haz.-Dods., iv, p. 363. This assignment of the date 1605 to Jeronimo was at once questioned by Malone, who asserts that 'Jeronimo was exhibited on the stage before the year 1590.' Steevens replies with a quotation from a poem by Barnabie Googe, written in 1562, containing an apparent reference to the Tragedy of Jeronimo, thus showing it to have been composed much earlier than 1590. Malone returns to the charge and by quoting more of the context than had Steevens, shows that the lines refer to a translation by Neville, a friend of Googe. To this Steevens makes no reply. These quotations fill nearly three-quarters of a page in the Variorum of 1821; they are there produced in a discussion of the date of composition of Jeronimo, and, apart from the fact that the present passage in King John bears a slight resemblance to one in Jeronimo, have Chat. Then take my Kings defiance from my mouth, The farthest limit of my Embassie. 26 K. Iohn. Beare mine to him, and fo depart in peace, Be thou as lightning in the eies of France; 27. farthefl] furthest Steev. Varr. Sing. Dyce, Hal. Words. Craig. 29 28. peace,] peace. Rowe,+, Coll. Wh. i, Ktly. Sta. Del. Fle. Rlfe. 29. eies] eyes F2. but a slight interest in a note on Shakespeare's play; for this reason they are not here repeated.—ED.] 25. Controlement ... France] CAMBRIDGE EDD. (Note III.): This line must probably be scanned as an Alexandrine, reading the first 'controlment' in the time of a trisyllable and the second as a quadrisyllable. [For this note Clark is, I think, solely responsible; in the Clarendon Edition, of which Wright, twenty years later, was editor alone, there is the following: 'The word is spelt "controlement" in the Folios, but this does not imply that it was pronounced as a quadrisyllable, for in Tit. And, we find in the first Folio: "Without controlement, Iustice, or reuenge.”— II, i, 68. In broken lines like the present it is not uncommon to find an unemphatic extra syllable introduced after the pause.'-Wright has, however, retained the note without change in the second Cambridge Edition, also edited by him alone in 1891. Clark died in 1878.-ED.]—HILGERS (2 Abtheilung, p. I.): In Shakespeare's early plays, both those with ryhme and with blank verse, there seldom occur lines with an extra syllable in the regular ten syllable iambic verse, for example, in Tit. And., in Hen. VI., in the Com. of Err., the Two Gentlemen, and Mid. N. Dream. The assertion that no use was made of this jingling casura in the so-called histories is quite erroneous, certainly it is not so frequent in these as in the other plays. [Hilgers quotes the present line with but seven other examples from King John as a proof of this play's early composition, as against nearly two hundred examples from Othello alone. Hilgers's other examples from King John will be referred to as they occur in the course of the play.-ED.] 29. Be thou as lightning] JOHNSON: The simile does not suit well, the lightning, indeed, appears before the thunder is heard, but the lightning is destructive, and the thunder innocent.-RITSON (Remarks, etc., p. 80): The allusion may, notwithstanding, be very proper, so far as Shakespeare had applied it, i. e., merely to the swiftness of the lightning, and its preceding and foretelling the thunder. But there is some reason to believe that thunder was not thought to be innocent in our author's time, as we elsewhere learn from himself. See Lear, III, ii, 4, 5; Ant. & Cleo., II, v, 77; Jul. Cæs., I, iii, 49; and still more decisively Meas. for Meas., II, ii, 110-116.-M. MASON: King John does not allude to the destructive powers either of thunder or lightning; he only means to say, that Chatillon shall appear to the eyes of the French like lightning, which shows that thunder is approaching: and the thunder he alludes to is that of his cannon.-PYE (p. 139): Shakespeare is shown by Ritson to have imputed a destructive quality to thunder in several passages; but this is certainly not one of them, for if it is, he must also impute a destructive quality to the report of the cannon, and not the ball.-FLEAY: That is, be thou the lightning; my cannon shall follow with the thunder. The allusion is to the rapidity with which the thunderclap follows the lightning flash; not to the destructive power of lightning, nor to its telling us that thunder is approaching. [The fol |