sequently says, that no great stress was laid upon Magna Charta, even by constitutional writers, before the days of Coke; but that, nevertheless, "Magna Charta ought to have been the prominent feature of the play." He says this, upon Coleridge's definition of an historical play, which is, at the best, not to understand Coleridge. Colley Cibber, in 1744, altered King John, and he says, in his dedication, that he endeavoured "to make his play more like one than what he found it in Shakspere" He gave us some magnificent scenes between John and the pope's nuncio, full of the most orthodox denunciations of Rome and the Pretender. He obtained room for these by the slight sacrifice of Constance and the Bastard. We have no doubt that upon the same principle, an ingenious adapter, into whom the true spirit of "Historical Plays considered historically" should be infused, might give us a new King John, founded upon Shakspere's, with Magna Charta at full length, and if Arthur and Hubert were sacrificed for this end, as well as Constance and Faulconbridge, the lovers of poetry might still turn to the obsolete old dramatist,—but the student of history would be satisfied by dramatic evidence, as well as by the authority of his primer, that "Magna Charta we gain'd from John, Which Harry the Third put his seal upon." # The end and object of the drama, and of the Shaksperean drama especially, is to maintain that "law of unity, which has its foundations, not in the factitious necessity of custom, but in Nature itself, the unity of feeling." In Shakspere's King John this object is attained as completely as in Macbeth. The history at once directs and subserves the plot. We have shewn this fully in our Supplementary Notice; and we think, therefore, that the omission of Magna Charta in King John may find another solution than that which Mr. Courtenay's theory supplies. SOURCES OF THE HISTORY' OF KING JOHN. IN the "Historical Illustrations" which we have subjoined to each Act, we have followed out the real course of events in the life of King John, as far as appeared to us necessary for exhibiting the dramatic truth of the poet, as sustained by, or as deviating from, the historic truth of the chroniclers. But to understand the Shaksperean drama, from this example,-to see the propriety of what it adopted, and what it laid aside,—we must look into less authentic materials of history than even those very imperfect materials which the poet found in the annalists with which he was familiar. It is upon the conventional "history" of the stage that Shakspere built his play. It is impossible now, except ou very general principles, to determine why a poet, who had the authentic materials of history before him, and possessed beyond all men the power of moulding those materials, with reference to a dramatic action, into the most complete and beautiful forms, should have subjected himself, in the full vigour and maturity of his intellect, to a general adherence to the course of that conventional dramatic history. But so it is. The King John of Shakspere is not the King John of the historians which Shakspere had unquestionably studied; it is not the King John of his own imagination, casting off the trammels which a rigid adoption of the facts of those historians would have imposed upon him; but it is the King John, in the conduct of the story, in the juxta-position of the characters, and in the catastrophe,-in the historical truth, and in the historical error,-of the play which preceded him some few years. This, unquestionably, was not an accident. It was not what, in the vulgar sense of the word, is called a plagiarism. It was a submission of his own original powers of seizing upon the feelings and understandings of his audience, to the stronger power of habit in the same audience. The history of John had been familiar to them for almost half a century. The familiarity had grown out of the rudest days of the drama, and had been established in the period of its comparative refinement, which immediately preceded Shakspere. The old play of King John was, in all likelihood, a vigorous graft upon the trunk of an older play, which “occupies an intermediate place between moralities and historical plays," that of 'Kynge Johan,' by John Bale, written probably in the reign of Edward VI. Shakspere, then, had to choose between forty years of stage tradition, and the employment of new materials. He took, upon principle, what he found ready to his hand. But none of the transformations of classical or oriental fable, in which a new life is transfused into * Coleridge's Literary Remains, vol. ii., . ". an old body, can equal this astonishing example of the life conferring power of a genius such as Shakspere's. Whoever really wishes thoroughly to understand the resources which Shakspere possessed, in the creation of characters, in the conduct of a story, and the employment of language, will do well, again and again, to compare the old play of King John, and the King John of our dramatist. Bale's "pageant" of 'Kynge Johan' has been published in the series by the Camden Society, under the judicious editorship of Mr. J. P. Collier. This performance, which is in two parts, has been printed from the original manuscript in the library of the Duke of Devonshire. Supposing it to be written about the middle of the sixteenth century, it presents a more remarkable example even than "Howleglas," or "Hick Scorner" (of which an account is given in Percy's agreeable Essay on the Origin of the English Stage),* of the extremely low state of the drama only forty years before the time of Shakspere. Here is a play written by a bishop; and yet the dirty ribaldry which is put into the mouth of some of the characters is beyond all description, and quite impossible to be exhibited by any example in these pages. We say nothing of the almost utter absence of any poetical feeling,-of the dull monotony of the versification,-of the tediousness of the dialogue,-of the inartificial conduct of the story. These matters were not greatly amended till a very short period before Shakspere came to “reform them altogether." Our object in mentioning this play is to shew that the King John upon which Shakspere built, was, in some degree, constructed upon the 'Kynge Johan' of Bale; and that a traditionary King John had thus possessed the stage for nearly half a century before the period when Shakspere wrote his King John. We must, however, avail ourselves of an extract from Mr. Collier's Introduction to the play of Bale : : "The design of the two plays of 'Kynge Johan' was to promote and confirm the Reformation, of which, after his conversion, Bale was one of the most strenuous and unscrupulous supporters. This design he executed in a manner until then, I apprehend, unknown. He took some of the leading and popular events of the reign of King John, his disputes with the pope, the suffering of his kingdom under the interdict, his subsequent submission to Rome, and his imputed death by poison from the hauds of a monk of Swinstead Abbey, and applied them to the circumstances of the country in the latter part of the reign of Henry VIII. * * * * This early application of historical events, of itself, is a singular circumstance, but it is the more remarkable when we recollect that we have no drama in our language of th date, in which personages connected with, and engaged in, our public affairs are introduced. In 'Kynge Johan' we have not only the monarch himself, who figures very prominently until his death, but Pope Innocent, Cardinal Pandulphus, Stephen Langton, Simon of Swynsett (or Swinstead), and a monk called Raymundus; besides abstract impersonations, such as England, who is stated to be a widow, Imperial Majesty, who is supposed to take the reins of government after the death of King John, Nobility, Clergy, Civil Order, Treason, Verity, and Sedition, who may be said to be the Vice, or Jester, of the piece. Thus we have many of the elements of historical plays, such as they were acted at our public theatres forty or fifty years afterwards, as well as some of the ordinary materials of the old moralities, which were gradually exploded by the introduction of real or imaginary characters on the scene. Bale's play, therefore, occupies an intermediate place between moralities and historical plays, and it is the only known existing specimen of that species of compo. sition of so early a date." That the Kynge Johan' of the furious Protestant bishop was known to the writer of the King John of 1591, we have little doubt. Our space will not allow us to point out the internal evidences of this; but one minute but remarkable similarity may be mentioned. When John arrives at Swinstead Abbey, the monks, in both plays, invite him to their treacherous repast by the cry of "Wassail." In the play of Bale we have no incidents whatever beyond the contests between John and the pope,the surrender of the crown to Pandulph,—and the poisoning of John by a monk at Swinstead Abbey. The action goes on very haltingly :-but not so the wordy war of the speakers. A vocabulary of choice terms of abuse, familiarly used in the times of the Reformation, might be constructed out of this curious performance. Here the play of 1591 is wonderfully reformed;--and we have a diversified action, in which the story of Arthur and Constance, and the wars and truces in Anjou, are brought to relieve the exhibition of papal domination and monkish treachery. The intolerance of Bale against the Romish church is the most fierce and rampant exhibition of passion that ever assumed the ill • Reliques of English Poetry, vol. i. 1 assorted garb of religious zeal. In the John of 1591 we have none of this violence; but the writer has exhibited a scene of ribaldry, in the incident of Faulconbridge hunting out the "angels" of the monks; for he makes him find a nun concealed in a holy man's chest. This, no doubt, would be a popular scene. Shakspere has not a word of it. Mr. Campbell, to our surprise, thinks that Shakspere might have retained "that scene in the old play where Faulconbridge, in fulfilling King John's injunction to plunder the religious houses, finds a young smooth-skinned nun in a chest where the abbot's treasures were supposed to be deposited." When did ever Shakspere lend his authority to fix a stigma upon large classes of mankind, in deference to popular prejudice? One of the most remarkable characteristics of Shakspere's John, as opposed to the grossness of Bale, and the ribaldry of his immediate predecessor, is the utter absence of all invective or sarcasm against the Romish church, apart from the attempt of the pope to extort a base submission from the English king. Here, indeed, we have his nationality in full power;-but how different is that from fostering hatreds between two classes of one people. It may amuse such of our readers as have not access to the play of Bale, or to the King John of 1591, to see an example of the different modes in which the two writers treat the same subject-tho surrender of the crown to Pandulph: THE KYNGE JOHAN OF BALE. "P. This owtward remorse that ye show here evydent THE KING JOHN OF 1591. I rew and pitty thy distrest estate : John. From bad to worse, or I must loose my realme, A miserie more piercing than the darts That breake from burning exhalations power. K. J. How now lord Cardinal, what's your best aduise? These mutinies must be allaid in time, By policy or headstrong rage at least. O John, these troubles tyre thy wearied soule, So are thy thoughts and passions for this newes. Well may it be, when kings are grieued so, The vulgar sort worke princes ouerthrowe. Card. K. John, for not effecting of thy plighted vow, This strange annoyance happens to thy land: But yet be reconciled vnto the church, And nothing shall be grieuous to thy state." We would willingly furnish several similar parallels between the King John of 1591, and the King John of Shakspere, if our space would permit, and if the general reader would not be likely to weary of such minute criticism. But we may, without risk, select two specimens. The first exhibits the different mode in which the two writers treat the character of the Bastard. In the play of 1591 he is a bold, mouthing bully, who talks in "Ercles vein," and somewhat reminds one of "Ancient Pistol." There is not a particle in this character of the irrepressible gaiety,-the happy mixture of fun and sarcasm-the laughing words accompanying the stern deeds-which distinguish the Bastard of Shakspere. We purposely have selected a short parallel extract; but the passages furnish a key to the principle upon which a dull character is made brilliant. Our poet has let in the sun-light of prodigious animal spirits, without any great intellectual refinement, (how different from Mercutio!) upou the heavy clod that he found ready to his hand : * Remarks on Life and History of Shakspere, prefixed to Moxon's edition, 1838. THE KING JOHN OF 1591. Lym. Methinks that Richards pride and Richards fall, Should be a president t' affright you all. Bast. What words are these? how do my sinews shake? My fathers foe clad in my fathers spoyle, A thousand furies kindle with reuenge, This heart that choller keepes a consistorie, Searing my inwards with a brand of hate: How doth Alecto whisper in mine earesDelay not Philip, kill the villaine straight, Disrobe him of the matchlesse monument Thy fathers triumph ore the sauages, Base heardgroom, coward, peasant, worse than a threshing slaue, What mak'st thou with the trophie of a king?" Bast. One that will play the devil, sir, with you, An 'a may catch your hide and you alone. You are the hare of whom the proverb goes, Whose valour plucks dead lions by the beard. I'll smoke your skin-coat, an I catch you right; Sirrah, look to't; i'faith, I will, i' faith. Blanch. O, well did he become that lion's robe, That did disrobe the lion of that robe! Bast. It lies as sightly on the back of him, As great Alcides' shoes upon an ass: But, ass, I'll take that burden from your back: Or lay on that shall make your shoulders crack." The second extract we shall make, is for the purpose of exhibiting the modes in which a writer of ordinary powers, and one of surpassing grace and tenderness, as well as of matchless energy, has dealt with the same passion under the same circumstances. The situation in each play is where Arthur exhorts his mother to be content, after the marriage between Lewis and Blanch, and the consequent peace between John and Philip : THE KING JOHN OF 1591. "Art. Madam, good cheere, these drooping languishments Adde no redresse to salue our awkward haps: If heauen haue concluded these euents, To small auaile is bitter pensiueness: Seasons will change, and so our present greefe Const. Ah boy, thy yeares I see are farre too greene Art. Yet ladies teares, and cares, and solemn shewes, To fence thy right, and check thy fo-mans pride: SHAKSPERE'S KING JOHN. "Art. I do beseech you, madam, be content. Const. If thou, that bid'st me be content, wert grim, I would not care, I then would be content; Pardon me, madam, I may not go without you to the kings. Const. Thou may'st, thou shalt, I will not go with thee: I will instruct my sorrows to be proud: For grief is proud and makes his owner stoop. SCENES AND COSTUMES. In this play the scene of the first Act is in John's palace in Eugland. Of a Room of State of John's period, Mr. Poynter has furnished a sketch. The view of Angiers in Act II. is from an old print. The prison in Act IV. is from a drawing, by Mr. Poynter, of a vaulted strong-room of the time. Of Swinstead Abbey there are no remains, nor is any representation preserved that we can discover. Mr. Poynter's sketch exhibits a conventual building of the period, with the orchard and ite characteristic fish-pond. The authorities for the COSTUME of the historical play of King John are chiefly the monumental effigies and seals of the principal sovereigns and nobles therein mentioned. Illuminated MSS. of this All that we have seen of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries appear exact period are unknown to us. Fortunately, however, there are few to be either of an earlier or later date than the reign of John. The nearest to his time, apparently, is one in the Sloane Collection, Brit. Mus., marked 1975. personages in the play beneath the rank of those for whose habits we have the most unquestionable models in the authorities above alluded to, and written descriptions or allusions will furnish us with the most essential part of the information required. The enamelled cup said to have been presented by King John to the Corporation of Lynn, and from the figures on which the, civil costume of his reign has hitherto been designed, is now, by a critical examination of those very figures, and a comparison of their dress with that depicted in MSS. of at least a century later, proved to be of the time of Edward II. or III. We subjoin a group in which the dress of the burghers and artificers is collected from the authorities nearest to the period. The effigy of King John in Worcester cathedral, which, by the examination of the body of the monarch, was proved to present a fac-simile of the royal robes in which he was interred, affords us a fine specimen of the royal costume of the period. A full robe or supertunic of crimson damask. An under tunic of cloth of gold descends embroidered with gold, and descending to the mid leg, is girdled round the waist with a golden belt studded with jewels, having a long end pendent in front. to the ankles, and a mantle of the same magnificent stuff, lined with green silk, depends from his shoulders; the hose are red, the shoes black, over which are fastened gilt spurs by straps of silk, or cloth, of a light blue colour, striped with green and yellow or gold. The collar and sleeves of the supertunic have borders of gold studded with jewels. The backs of the gloves were also jewelled. A kneeling effigy of Philip Augustus, engraved in Montfaucon, shews the similarity of fashion existing at the same tine in France and England. The nobles, when unarmed, appear to have been Cloth, silk, velvet, and attired in the same manner, viz., in the tunic, supertunic, and mantle, with hose, short boots, or shoes, of materials more or less rich according to the means or fancy of the wearer gold and silver tissues, with occasionally furs of considerable value, are mentioned in various documents of the period. A garment called a bliaus (from whence probably the modern French blouse), appears to have been a sort of supertunic or surcoat in vogue about this time; and in winter it is said to have been lined with fur. The common Norman mantle used for travelling, or out of door exercise, had a capuchon to it, and was called the capa. A curious mistake has been made by Mr. Strutt respecting this garment. In his Horda Augel Cynan, vol. ii., p. 67, he states that "when King John made Thomas Sturmey a knight, he sent a mandamus before to his Sheriffs at Hantshire to make the following preparations :-"A scarlet robe, certain close garments of fine linen, and another robe of green, or burnet, with a cap and plume of feathers, &c." The words in the mandamus |