Page images
PDF
EPUB

the thrilling horror of King John's veiled hints at murder and death in his instigation of Hubert? Where will be found words of grief and despair equalling those of Constance on the loss of Arthur? What moralist could picture a scene of retribution more complete than John's miserable death by poison in the orchard of Swinstead Abbey? These scenes, be it remembered, written by a dramatist not yet thirty-five years old. How incredulous would have been that young playwright had there stood beside his elbow a seer, who in strange words should inform him, as he finished the last ringing lines of his play, that four hundred years from that time those words should still find a responsive echo in the ears of his countrymen. And that he, the humble playwright, and not all the historians, had placed upon King John's unworthy brows the wreath of immortality.

It is again my pleasant task to return thanks to the Librarian of the Philadelphia Library, Mr. George M. Abbot, and his efficient assistants, Mr. Govan and Mr. Knoblauch, for unfailing courtesy in response to many demands. Also to Mr. H. S. Jones for painstaking research in the Libraries of New York and Boston; likewise to Dr. H. C. Folger and Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan for placing at my disposal their unrivalled collections of Folios for purposes of collation.

June, 1919.

H. H. F., JR.

KING JOHN.

Dramatis Perfonæ

Prince Henry, Son to the King.

Arthur, Duke of Bretaign, and Nephew to the King.

[blocks in formation]

2

4

4. Bretaign] Britaine Ktly. Bretagne Pope et cet.

and...King] his Nephew. Cap. Om. Coll. Wh. i. son of Geffrey, late Duke of Bretagne, the elder brother of King John. Mal. et cet.

2. King John] F. GENTLEMAN: The character of King John, except in two зcenes and a few speeches, lies heavy on the actor; who therefore requires great judgement, with deep and strong expression, to assist the author; dignity of person and deportment are also necessary. [REED, the Editor of Biographia Dramatica, concludes his article on GENTLEMAN with the following: 'He was the author of the Dramatic Censor; and had the discredit of being editor of the worst edition that ever appeared of any English author: we mean Shakespeare, as printed by Mr. Bell, 1774.'-Gentleman's remarks reflect, however, a certain patronising attitude towards Shakespeare that was unfortunately characteristic of the latter part of eighteenth century criticism, and for that reason—not for their intrinsic value—are they here included.—ED.]—OECHELHAÜSER (Einführungen, i, 8) concurs with Gentleman, whom he does not, however, quote, that the part of King John is unremunerative for the actor because 'he must endeavor to arouse antipathy instead of sympathy, antagonism and not agreement in the audience; and yet every artistic effort must be exerted to excite an interest in the part; since John must be shown, in the early scenes, endowed with a strength and energy which later degenerate into cowardice and crime.'-[Estimates of the character of King John as portrayed by Shakespeare and as given by historians will be found in the Appendix.]

3. Prince Henry] FRENCH (p. 5): This Prince was born October 1, 1206, and immediately after his father's death was proclaimed king by the loyal earl of Pembroke, and crowned October 26, 1216; he was therefore only ten years old when he put on 'The lineal state and glory of the land.' [Shakespeare's Henry is, however, a youth of apparently seventeen or eighteen.-ED.]-OECHELHAUSER (Einfürungen, i, 12): The part of Prince Henry may be best represented by a young actress. On account of the importance which this short rôle bears in the closing scene of the play its assignment demands a certain amount of consideration. Princely bearing and youthful modesty, together with deep pity for his father's suffering and death, should characterise the part.

4. Arthur] F. GENTLEMAN (ap. BELL's ed., p. 13): Arthur should be a boy of small size, of tender, insinuating utterance, with sensibility of feeling.-KREYSSIG (i, 391): In the delineation of Arthur Shakespeare had a delicate task to discharge, all

.

[4. Arthur]

the more so since his earlier, masterly portrayal of a situation quite similar must have acted strongly upon his perception. With the simple motive of innocence trampled under foot by all the world, here, if anywhere, it would seem that a repetition was unavoidable. Like the sons of Edward, Arthur became, in fresh and sinless youth, the hapless victim of a question of legitimate succession to the crown. In the present play, as in Richard III, the tragic conflict lies not in the personality of the sufferer, but in his connection with those around him. In both cases there is grave danger of failure to obey that fundamental law of Tragedy which banishes from the realm of æsthetic representation the morally repugnant appearance of wholly unmerited suffering. It is, moreover, both remarkable and instructive to see how excellently the poet, avoiding any repetition, has accomplished this seemingly insuperable task in two totally different ways-and it is doubly instructive, since in both cases the material prescribes that the catastrophe be from without, and allows the poet a free hand only in development of character and motive, as well as peculiarities of execution. In one as well as in the other both renderings are carried out in a manner as masterly as it is original. The two youths themselves are drawn from a somewhat similar pattern, alike in age, situation, and fate, alike also through a passivity demanded by the circumstances.-HUDSON (Life, Art & Characters, etc., ii, 29): As Shakespeare used the allowable license of art in stretching the life of Constance beyond its actual date, that he might enrich his work with the eloquence of a mother's love; so he took a like freedom in making Arthur younger than the facts prescribed, that he might in larger measure pour in the sweetness of childish innocence and wit. Both of these departures from strict historic order are highly judicious; at least they are amply redeemed by the dramatic wealth which comes in fitly through them. And in the case of Arthur there is the further gain, that the sparing of his eyes is owing to his potency of tongue and the piercing touch of gentleness; whereas in the history he is indebted for this to his strength of arm. The Arthur of the play is an artless, gentle, natural-hearted, but high-spirited, eloquent boy, in whom we have the voice of nature pleading for nature's rights, unrestrained by pride of character or place; who at first braves his uncle, because set on to do so by his mother; and afterwards fears him, yet knows not why, because his heart is too full of the 'holiness of youth' to conceive how anything so treacherous and unnatural can be, as that which he fears. And he not only has a most tender and loving disposition, such as cruelty itself can hardly resist, but is also persuasive and wise far beyond his years; though his power of thought and magic of speech are so managed as rather to aid the impression of his childish age. Observe, too, how in the scene with Hubert [IV, i.] his very terror operates in him a sort of preternatural illumination, and inspires him to a course of innocent and unconscious cunning, the perfect art of perfect artlessness. . . . Shakespeare has several times thrown the witchery of his genius into pictures of nursery life, bringing children upon the scene, and delighting us with their innocent archness and sweet-witted prattle; as in the case of Mamilius in The Winter's Tale, and of Lady Macduff and her son; but Arthur is his most charming piece in that line. That his great, simple, manly heart loved to play with childhood is indeed evident enough. Nor is it the least of his claims to our reverence, as an organ of Nature's bland and benignant wisdom.-BOAS (Sh. and His Predecessors, p. 246) compares, as does Kreyssig, the situation of the young Princes in Richard III. with that of Arthur. 'The nephews of Richard,' says Boas, 'were marked

[blocks in formation]

by an ability and spirit beyond their years, and the elder bore himself with a true touch of regal dignity. Arthur is of an essentially different nature. He is a saintly, gentle child, without a touch of worldly ambition.... Arthur escapes the cruel doom of blinding, but we feel instinctively that he is one of the saintly creatures who are not long for this world. Thus Shakespeare showed his usual fine tact in choosing the tradition which represented him as perishing in an attempt to leap from his prison walls.'

5. Pembroke] 'William Marshal, Lord Marshal of England, was created Earl of Pembroke by King John in 1201; and on the accession of Henry III. (then only ten years of age) was declared protector of the realm. Upon coming into power he was fortunate enough to appease the minds of the discontented people, and took the sensible measure of republishing, at this critical juncture, the Magna Charta, in Henry's name. After several engagements, he succeeded in driving the French out of England, and thus restored peace to his distracted country, which had long been torn by faction, the unhappy result of John's pusillanimous reign. Pembroke survived not long the pacification which had been chiefly owing to his wisdom and valour; he died in 1219, lamented by the whole kingdom. This steady and gallant patriot, who saved his country from a foreign yoke, was buried in the Temple Church, in London, where his effigy is still to be seen, clothed in mail, in the centre of the group of antique tombs' (Hist. Dramas of Sh. Illustrated, i, 78).-FRENCH (p. 7): William Marshall obtained the title of Pembroke through his marriage with the great heiress Isabel de Clare, daughter of the potent earl Richard Strong-bow; and his five sons by her . . . were, in succession, lords marshal and Earls of Pembroke. The noble in this play did not fall away, as therein implied, to the French interest; on the contrary, he remained faithful to King John.... His eldest son, of the same name, one of the twenty-five Barons who obtained Magna Charta from John, was among the nobles who joined the Dauphin, and hence the mistake of the poet. [Shakespeare is, however, not singular in this error, as the anonymous author of the older play, The Troublesome Raigne of John, which he closely follows, has made Pembroke the spokesman for the revolting nobles. See Appendix: Troublesome Raigne, Part 2: I, iii, p. 519.—ED.]—Miss NORGATE (p. 177, foot

« PreviousContinue »