STAAY MUANCHEN KING JOHN. е THIS is the first in chronological order of the historical plays. Steevens* mentions it with others as closely following Hall, Holinshed, Stow, and other chroniclers; but he mentions also an old play, ("The troublesome Reign of King John,")† of which the author is not exactly known. I cannot concur with Steevens in thinking it possible that Shakspeare himself wrote this play; but he certainly took from it the outline of his plot, and some of his scenes. We shall judge, in going through his play, whether he went any further for his history. That old play is itself supposed, upon the slightest possible evidence, to have been taken from a still older performance, which had for its author John Ball, the first Protestant Bishop of Ossory, whose object was to expose, by a reference to the • Boswell's edition, xv. 194. IVOL. + In six old plays, Leacroft, i. 217. VOL. I. B history of the reign of John, the abuses of the Romish church.* But it is very doubtful whether this play was seen by the author of the other. The first impression conveyed by Shakspeare's play is, that the young Prince Arthur had a legitimate claim to the crown of England, that the crown was usurped by his uncle John, and that the King of France, having summoned John, by his ambassador Chatillon, to surrender the crown, forthwith declared war against him, in order to put Arthur in possession of his right. "The succession of John," says Hallam,†“ has certainly passed in modern times for an usurpation. I do not find that it was considered as such by his own contemporaries on this side the Channel;"‡ and the same well-informed author shows, that the preference of a nephew to a brother, in the line of succession, was by no means an established rule of the law of England. Shakspeare himself is mainly responsible for the prevalency of this belief of usurpation. I do not say he created it, because he found it in the old play. Our poet places King John at Northampton, where he is thus addressed by Chatillon, the ambassador of France: * J. P. Collier's preface to King Jòhn, p. vii. + See also Blackstone, i. 200, and Nicolas' Chronology of History, p. 306. Middle Ages, ii. 473. Philip of France, in right and true behalf Arthur Plantagenet, lays most lawful claim Which sways usurpingly these several titles, And put the same into young Arthur's hand.' Now, 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. Commentators have already shewn that the introduction of the Archduke of Austria is a mistake borrowed from the old play. Leopold, the Duke of Austria, by whom Richard was thrown into prison, died in 1195; the Limoges, who in a subsequent scene is confounded with him, was the owner of the castle of Chaluz, before which Richard was slain.+ *Act i. Sc. 1. † See Bosw. p. 221, 270. It appears from the Patent Rolls (Hardy, p. 43) that Limoges was taken at Mirabeau, and that he negotiated with John for a peace. John was beyond seas when his brother Richard died, and sent over to England Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury, and William Marshall, Earl of Striguill (afterwards Pembroke), who assembled at Northampton "the estates of the realm,"* or, as it appears from ancient chroniclers,† the Earls and Barons only; who then resolved to support the claim of John. It is not clear whether the King of France immediately espoused the cause of Arthur, or whether he hesitated a little; but it is certain that his hesitation did not last, as hostilities soon commenced on the French side of the Channel; and within a month of Richard's death, a truce of fifty days was concluded between Philip and John, to terminate on the 15th of August, 1199. Meanwhile, John had come to England, and had been presented t the people at Westminster, after a speech from Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury, in which he is supposed to have said nothing of hereditary right, but to have recommended John for election, on the ground of his personal merits. This speech has occasioned an historical controversy, having been supposed to prove that our monarchy was elective ; Holinshed professes to take it from Matthew Paris; but he leaves out the preface, in which the monk Holinshed, p. 273. + Hoveden, in Script. post Bedam, p. 793, and M. Paris, p. 196. |