DRAMATIC MISCELLANIE S. King John. CHAPTER I. Three plays written on the subject of K. John. When Shakspeare's K. John was first published.-Shakspeare indebted to the Troublefome Reign of K. John.- Colley Cibber's Fatal Tyranny. Cibber's arrogance. Theatrical progress of the Fatal Tyranny. Line in Pope's Dunciad upon it. Revival of Shakspeare's K. John by Rich. Its fuccefs, and an account of the actors; particularly Walker, Hale, and Mrs. Hallam.-Sarcasm of Quin. Miftake of Mr. Steevens and Mr. Theobald. Scene of Baftardy. Queen Eleanor's logic in favour VOL. I. B of of the Baftard Falconbridge.-Explanation of the word trick.—Mr. Garrick puzzled to procure a contraft.-Barry's perplexity. N the fubject of King John three plays have been written. That, which is called the Troublesome Reign of King John, was attributed to Shakspeare and Rowley by Mr. Pope, and by Mr. Steevens to Shakspeare alone; but, on mature confideration, this gentleman has retracted his opinion; Mr. Malone has, with great appearance of probability, ascribed it to Marlow. Our author's K. John was first published, of his works, in 1623. mentators have juftly obferved, that many of Shakspeare's beft pieces are formed on the ground-work of others. He seems more indebted to the author of the Troublesome Reign of K. John, for his plot and characters, and even his fentiments, than to any other writer. Colley Cibber's Papal Tyranny was taken from Shakspeare's K. with the rest The late com John John, but he was not fo happy in his alterations of this tragedy as in his King Richard the Third. In this laft play, Colley very dextrously made up a very pleafing pafticcio from a diligent perufal of all Shakspeare's hiftorical plays, fcarcely making use of a line or thought which was his own. His Papal Tyranny he pretends was written to fupply Shakspeare's deficiencies, but more especially the want of warm resentment in a king of England when infulted by a pope's nuncio; and, his play being acted in 1744, when the nation was alarmed with the threats of an invafion by a popish pretender, the popular fentiments, against the encroachments of papal influence, met with applaufe. Colley's vanity fo far transported him, that, in his Dedication, he told Lord Chesterfield, he had endeavoured to make his play more like one than what he found it in Shakfpeare.' But Cibber lived long enough to fee his Papal Tyranny entirely neglected, and, what must have been more mortifying to a man of his extreme vanity, the original play revived with great fuccefs. His bouncing, though well-meant, declamation against the infolent pretenfions of papal power, could not make amends for his mutilations of Shakspeare: and especially for his murdering two characters of our inimitable poet, not inferior perhaps to any which fell from his pen; Lady Constance and the Bastard Falconbridge. However, it is to Cibber, I believe, we owe the revival of this tragedy, which had lain dormant from the days of Shakspeare till 1736. The Fatal Tyranny had been offered to Mr. Fleetwood, the manager of Drurylane theatre, about nine or ten years before it was acted. This was no fooner known to the public than Cibber was most severely attacked by the critics in the newspapers ; Fielding wrote a farce upon the subject, which was played at the little theatre in the Haymarket, though I do not believe it is printed amongst his works. However, the parts in the Fatal Tyranny were distri buted, |