quarto edition of the play, published in 1991, that it had then been "sundry times publikely acted by the Queene's Majesties Players, in the honourable Citie of London." The author in his Prologue, addressed To the Gentlemen Readers," sets forth the intention of his play :— You that, with friendly grace of smoothed brow, A warlike Christian and your countryman. For Christ's true faith endured he many a storm, And set himself against the Man of Rome; Until base treason by a damned wight Read in connection with the changes afterwards made in It Fond man, ah, whither art thou carried? Go lose thy land, and say thyself base-born? JOHN. Philip, that Fauconbridge cleaves to thy jaws; Say I am son unto a Fauconbridge. The resolution itself is one that would have been approved by the Guise and Mortimer of Marlowe; but the process by which it is arrived at is characteristic of the younger poet, who is capable of seeing things on both sides. Marlowe would not have conceived the conflict in the Bastard's mind: he would have brought him into the royal presence with his mind resolved. Again the Prologue to The Troublesome Raigne shows that, apart from this general view of virtù, the poet intended to make the play an historical illustration of the Machiavellian doctrine. John, usurper though he was, was to be treated as a Protestant hero, according to the precedent set in Bale's King Johan, and with the hope of securing the sympathies of an audience still heated with the recent experience of the Spanish Armada. To a certain extent the poet carried out his intention, as may be seen from the following soliloquy of John, when he has been deserted by the Barons after the murder of Arthur: Then, John, there is no way to keep thy crown, But firmly to dissemble with the Pope : That hand that gave the wound must give the salve Thy sins are far too great to be the man T' abolish Pope and Popery from the realm; But in thy seat, if I may guess at all, A king shall reign that shall suppress them all. Yet with thy heart wish their confusion. Practically this speech amounts to a confession of failure on the part of the dramatist. He was trying to combine two incompatible things, Machiavellism and Protestantism. He had announced that John was to be the hero of the play, but when working out his idea he found it equally impossible to represent Lackland as a man of real virtù, or the murderer of Arthur as a good Protestant. Popular as the play was, the poet was dissatisfied with it, and when he recast it obviously in the full maturity of his genius-while he retained the entire historical framework, even to the succession of the original scenes,1 and all the dramatis persona, he completely altered the philosophical aspect of the drama. The process by which he effected this transformation was a miracle of art and judgment. All trace of an intention to illustrate the doctrine of individual virtù was removed; all references to John's anticipation of Protestantism disappeared; the centre of interest was shifted from the King to the person and fortunes of Arthur. By these means the character of John was exhibited in its true light, and the human interest of the action was vastly increased; Constance, who, in The Troublesome Raigne, had appeared merely as a scolding woman, like the rival Queens in Richard III, now appealed with immortal eloquence to the hearts of the audience as a bereaved mother; the comparatively cold and Seneca-like dialogue between Arthur and Hubert was replaced by scenes of infinite pathos; the offensive buffoonery in the scene of the Bastard's visit to the Monastery-inserted to gratify the anti-Papal taste of the audience was omitted; the self-seeking virtù of the Bastard himself was expanded into the energy of resolute and resourceful patriotism. Though King John, even in its present form, cannot be reckoned a 1 See Appendix, p. 463. Fond man, ah, whither art thou carried? Go lose thy land, and say thyself base-born? JOHN. Philip, that Fauconbridge cleaves to thy jaws; Say I am son unto a Fauconbridge. The resolution itself is one that would have been approved by the Guise and Mortimer of Marlowe; but the process by which it is arrived at is characteristic of the younger poet, who is capable of seeing things on both sides. Marlowe would not have conceived the conflict in the Bastard's mind: he would have brought him into the royal presence with his mind resolved. Again the Prologue to The Troublesome Raigne shows that, apart from this general view of virtù, the poet intended to make the play an historical illustration of the Machiavellian doctrine. John, usurper though he was, was to be treated as a Protestant hero, according to the precedent set in Bale's King Johan, and with the hope of securing the sympathies of an audience still heated with the recent experience of the Spanish Armada. Το a certain extent the poet carried out his intention, as may be seen from the following soliloquy of John, when he has been deserted by the Barons after the murder of Arthur :— Then, John, there is no way to keep thy crown, But firmly to dissemble with the Pope : That hand that gave the wound must give the salve To cure the hurt else quite incurable. Thy sins are far too great to be the man T'abolish Pope and Popery from the realm ; |