And bid me tell my tale in express words,

Deep shame had struck me dumb, made me break off, And those thy fears might have wrought fears in me; But thou didst understand me by my signs,

And didst in signs again parley with sin :

Yea, without stop, did let thy heart consent,
And, consequently, thy rude hand to act

The deed which both our tongues held vile to name.'

Warburton and Malone* consider Shakspeare as paying his court to Elizabeth by a covert attempt to throw upon poor Secretary Davison the death of Mary Queen of Scots.

As Holinshed affords a sufficient foundation for both these fine passages, it is doubtless unnecessary to have recourse to any courtier-like or political motive in the poet. But from the unbounded love of flattery and personal attention which characterized our celebrated Queen, I attribute much probability to this opinion of the critics.

The circulation of the report of Arthur's death, and the contradiction of it, are taken from the Chronicle; as is also the Prince's loss of life in an attempt to escape, though this is only stated doubtfully as one of many rumours.† Other reports made John the murderer of his nephew with his own hand. Considering how essential to the plot is John's cruel treatment of Arthur, I am surprised * Bosw. 327. + Hol. 286. See Lingard, iii. 8.

that Shakspeare did not rather adopt one of these. He has, however, followed the old play. I do not offer any decided opinion upon the manner of Arthur's death.*

I do not find that about the time of the battle of Mirabeau (August 1202), the French fleet suffered any damage to justify the commencement of the fourth scene of this act

"King Phil. So by a roaring tempest on the flood, A whole armada of convicted sail

Is scatter'd and disjoined from fellowship."

The remainder of this scene is occupied with the grief of Constance for the capture of her son. The

* I know not what to infer from the following, which I take from Mr. T. Hardy's Patent Rolls, p. 36:-"The King to Alan Fitz Court and others, and to all those whom they wish to bring with them. Know ye that Furmie, servant of Arthur our nephew, came to us and told us on your part, that you were desirous of speaking with us, provided ye could easily obtain secure and safe conduct to come to us. We therefore inform you that we have granted unto you, and unto all those who may accompany you, safe and secure conduct, in coming to us and in returning, for eight days from Sunday next after the feast of St. Bartholomew; and in testimony hereof, &c. Inform us, however, of the day and place when and where you wish to come, and we will send letters of safe conduct to you thither. We command you, however, that you do naught whereby evil may befal our nephew Arthur. Witness ourself at Chinon, this 24th day of August [1202."]-Mackintosh apparently believed John to be the murderer.-See his Hist. i. 200.

hint upon which Shakspeare has wrought one of the finest scenes in the acted play was afforded by some very bad lines in the old play. I should be well contented to believe that the Princess answered to the Pope's legate, when attempting to console her

"He talks to me who never had a son!"

But I am afraid that the balance of testimony goes to show that Constance, whom the play keeps alive until the year in which John submitted to the Pope,* did in fact die before the battle of Mirabeau: all French historianst place her death in 1201; whereas this battle was not fought till the summer of 1202; and I can find no authority for Holinshed's statement, that Philip cited John to answer such charges as CONSTANCE should bring against him. Malones corrects Shakspeare, who lets Constance style herself a widow, and says that she was, at this time, married to her third husband. There certainly was a period in which she was husbandless, but the dates are far beyond correc

* Act iv. Sc. 2.

L'Art de vérifier les Dates, i. 900 (fol.) Daru, Hist. de Bretagne, i. 407.-Sismondi, vi. 211, Elinor died in 1203. P. 287.-See Sismondi, vi. 209-219. The only well supported summons was for robbing Hugh le Brun of his wife.

§ Bosw. 260.

tion. The third husband, when a widower, allied himself with the supposed murderer of his step-son.*

I do not find that any of the English lords interfered, as in the play, on behalf of Arthur. One sentence in the passage quoted from Holinshed, in which he speaks of the prince's death in England, as well as France, is the only authority for the interest excited in England, of which Shakspeare has drawn a picturesque description:

"Hub. Old men and beldams in the streets

Do prophesy upon it dangerously;

Young Arthur's death is common in their mouths,
And when they talk of him they shake their heads,
And whisper one another in the ear;

And he that speaks doth gripe the hearer's wrist,
Whilst he that hears makes fearful action,
With wrinkled brows, with nods, with rolling eyes.
I saw a smith stand with his hammer, thus,
The whilst his iron did on the anvil cool,
With open mouth swallowing a tailor's news,
Who with his shears and measure in his hand,
Standing on slippers (which his nimble haste
Had falsely thrust upon contrary feet,)
Told of a many thousand warlike French
That were embattled and rank'd in Kent;
Another lean, unwash'd artificer

Cuts off his tale and talks of Arthur's death."†

* Daru, i. 442; Hol. 294.

† Act iv. Sc. 2.

In the passage of Matthew Paris, from which Holinshed takes his statement, the rumour is said to prevail only per totum regnum Francorum and per partes transmarinas.*

Nor can I trace to any authority, not even to the old play, the objection made by the peers to a repetition of the ceremony of the coronation.† However, it has given Shakspeare an opportunity of writing lines which are still quoted, sometimes, perhaps, not more appropriately than when applied to the coronation :

"To be possess'd with double pomp,
To guard a title that was rich before,
To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw a perfume on the violet,

To smooth the ice, or add another hue
Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light

To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish,
Is wasteful and ridiculous excess."

These words are put into the mouth of William Longsword, Earl of Salisbury, natural son of * Page 208.

+ Steevens says that the coronation mentioned in Act iv. Sc. 2, was the fourth in this reign. It was probably the ceremony mentioned in Holinshed (p. 285) as taking place at Canterbury, on the 14th of April, 1202. The king and queen had each been crowned separately, and they both sat crowned" when entertained by the Archbishop of York; but I think that this was only the third coronation, and of John the second only.-See Hol. 275, 280, 282, 285.

66