Ulrici, and other commentators, in regard to the moral of the Tragedy, lead the student to an essential misunderstanding of the Play and also of the Shakespearian treatment of passion, in general. Shakespeare is not a moralist, in the small sense of the word; and he hadn't a drop of missionary blood in his veins; in the composition of his Plays, he always had higher business in hand than playing the part of a moralist or missionary; but he exhibits everywhere the profoundest moral spirit. It cannot, indeed, be said that Shakespeare ever has a direct moral purpose. His direct purpose is always a dramatic one. He is the dramatist- the dramatist transcendently and exclusively. His morals are morals in the flesh, and the interpretation or formulation of them, by critics, must vary according to the great variety of individual attitudes, of individual modes of thinking— of individual modes of feeling. Shakespeare in his treatment of passion, of every kind, however violent that passion may be, always exhibits it under the condition of Eternal Law! It is in this that the moral proportion which so characterizes his Plays, from the earliest to the latest, consists. That Eternal Law cannot be run against with impunity. But this is exhibited concretely, implicitly, not explicitly. Shakespeare was wholly taken up, in Romeo and Juliet, with the dramatic exhibition of the passion of pure youthful love. He is the naturalist who traces for us its inception, its progress, its final triumph over all obstacles; and finally its regenerating power over those who endeavored to obstruct its clear and rapid current. KING JOHN. S HAKESPEARE wrote ten English historical Plays, in eight of which the historical connection is preserved ; namely, Richard II., Henry IV., Parts 1 and 2 Henry V., Henry VI., Parts 1, 2, 3, and Richard III., which includes the reigns of Edward IV. and Edward V., and ends with the death of Richard, and the proclamation of Henry, Earl of Richmond, as king. After Richard is slain by Richmond, Lord Stanley says to the latter : 66 Courageous Richmond, well hast thou aquit thee. Lo, here, this long-usurpéd royalty, From the dead temples of this bloody wretch, Have I pluck'd off, to grace thy brows withal; With the accession of Richmond, as Henry VII., ended the Wars of the Roses. Henry's reign is passed over by the dramatist, as wanting, perhaps, in dramatic interest. The next, and the last in historical order, is the play of Henry VIII., in the conclusion of which, Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, in a long speech, at the baptism of the Princess Elizabeth, prophesies the prosperity, and happiness, and glory of her reign. The play is thus brought down quite as near to the poet's own time as was perhaps permissible. The break in the series of the historical plays between the earliest, King John, and Richard II., is partly supplied by some events of the intervals which are referred to in the play of Henry V. King John and Henry VIII. may be regarded, as Schlegel remarks, as the Prologue and the Epilogue to the other eight. King John strikes the keynote of the whole series, that keynote being, nationality. And Shakespeare wrote these historical plays at a period in English history, when the sense of nationality was deeper than it had ever been before, or, perhaps, has ever been since; and when the national genius had reached its greatest intensity, as is sufficiently shown by the wonderful literary products of the period alone. Shakespeare appeared at the most favorable time in England's history, at the most favorable time, indeed, in the world's history, for the production of a great drama. It is questionable whether there will ever again come a time as favorable. King John was first printed, so far as is known, in the Folio of 1623. It was composed in 1595 or 1596. There was an earlier play, entitled "The Troublesome Raigne of John King of England, with the discovery of King Richard Cordelions base son (vulgarly named The Bastard Fawconbridge): also the death of King John at Swinstead Abbey, London, 1591." The "Troublesome Raigne " was reprinted in 1611, with "written by W. Sh.," on the title-page, and again in 1622, by a different bookseller, with "written by W. Shakespeare" on the title-page. Its author is not known. Pope supposed it to be the work of Rowley; but there are no grounds for such supposition. When it was first printed, in 1591, Shakespeare was 27 years of age, and had not yet come into notice. But in 1611, when the play was reprinted, his plays were in great demand, both on the stage and in print; and the bookseller, it may be supposed, in order to help the sale, slyly put "written by W. Sh." on the title-page, and the bookseller who got out the next edition, in 1622, took advantage of this, and filled out the name. Dr. Ingleby, in his "Shakespeare, the Man and the Book," Part 2, p. 190, says that Shakespeare's King John "is the result of filling in a skeleton taken from the 'Troublesome Reign,' some of the infilling being but a recast or revision of the old phraseology." This does not give a fair idea of the relation of Shakespeare's play to the old play. It is more correct to say that Shakespeare went to the old play for his history, instead of going to Holinshed's "Chronicles," whence, it appears, he derived most of his knowledge of English and Scottish history. The whole life and spirit of his King John was original with himself. The old play was written in the service of the Reformation, the reign of King John affording abundance of material, when moulded by a strong partisan spirit (which the author, whoever he was, certainly had), for emphasizing what he regarded as the evils of papal rule, and its antagonism to a vital nationality. Its violent partisan spirit, though entirely inconsistent with a true artistic spirit, and its appeals to the vulgar antagonisms of the groundlings, must have secured for it a great popularity at the time when it first appeared. Of this violent partisan spirit there's not a trace in Shakespeare's play. In the old play, the ransacking of the monasteries by Faulconbridge is brought dramatically forward, and the scene in which it is presented is the most scurrilous in the play. Philip enters leading a friar, and ordering him to show where the Abbot's treasure lies. The poor friar, after some pathetic entreaties, shows Philip the Abbot's chest, "That wanteth not a thousand pound Philip commands, "Break up the coffer, Friar." The friar does his bidding, and fair Alice, the nun, is found in the chest, who prays Philip to spare the friar, adding that A not very elegant colloquy follows, which ends with Philip's ordering the nun to show him to the other chest. "Nun. Fair sir, within this press, of plate and money is Philip orders the friar to pick the lock. The result is that Friar Laurence is found within. Another not very elegant colloquy follows. The nun cries "Peccavi, parce me." A friar entreats Philip : 66 Absolve, sir, for charity, She would be reconciled. Phil. And so I shall: sirs, bind them fast, This is their absolution, Go hang them up for hurting them, Haste them to execution." Then the poor Friar Laurence interposes a speech, interlarded with very bad Latin. He concludes: "Exaudi me, Domine, sivis me parce A hundred pounds sterling, for my life's sparing." Now, for all this dramatization of the ransacking of the monasteries of which I've given the merest outline, Shakespeare substituted four lines of statement only. Cardinal Pandulph, the Pope's legate, in his speech counselling the Dauphin to invade England, says: "The bastard Faulconbridge Is now in England, ransacking the church, And in the 2d Scene of the 4th Act, the Bastard enters to King John, and, to the King's inquiry, "Now, what says the world to your proceedings," replies, "How I have sped among the clergymen, The sums I have collected shall express." 99 66 * For hurting them, i.e., as a protection against hurting them. So in Chaucer's "Sir Thopas," 'an habergeoun for percinge of his herte," i.e., as a protection against the piercing of his heart; and in "Piers the Plowman," Passus VI. 62, "for colde of my nailles," as a remedy against cold of my nails; Passus I. 24, "for myseise," as a remedy against misease or discomfort. |
