Shakespeare's Lost Years in London, Arthur Acheson [bookreader .txt] 📗
- Author: Arthur Acheson
Book online «Shakespeare's Lost Years in London, Arthur Acheson [bookreader .txt] 📗». Author Arthur Acheson
John_ intentionally subordinated or distorted the actual facts of history in order to match his dramatic characterisation to the personality of Perrot, and its action to well-known incidents of Perrot's career in France and England. A palpable instance of this is exhibited in Falconbridge's soliloquy in Scene i., when questioned by the King before the Court regarding his paternity. Here the old author reflects a story of Perrot's youth which his biographers state was frequently related by Perrot to his friends. Soon after the accession of Edward VI., Perrot having by his extravagance become deeply involved in debt purposely placed himself in the path of the King's daily walk and, hearing his footsteps and pretending not to know of his presence, indulged in a soliloquy complaining of his misfortunes and lamenting his lack of wisdom and bemoaning the nonage of his half-brother the King, who in endeavouring to help him would probably be overruled by the Lord Protector and the Lords of the Council. He also debated aloud with himself other means of retrieving his fortune, such as retiring from the Court into the country or betaking himself to the wars. His anonymous biographer of 1592 wrote:
"As he was thus sadly debating the Matter unto hymselfe, the Kinge
came behynd hym, and overheard most of that which he sayd, who at
length stepped before him, and asked him, How now Perrott (quoth the
Kinge) what is the matter that you make this great Moane? To whom Sir
John Perrott answered, And it lyke your Majestie, I did not thinck
that your Highness had byn there. Yes, said the Kinge, we heard you
well inough: And have you spent your Livinge in our Service, and is
the Kinge so younge, and under Government, that he cannot give you
any Thinge in Recompence of your Service? Spie out somewhat, and you
shall see whether the Kinge hath not Power to bestow it on you. Then
he most humbly thanked his Majestie and shortly after founde out a
Concealment, which as soon as he sought, the Kinge bestowed it on
hym, wherewith he paid the most part of his Debtes; and for always
after he became a better Husband. This story Sir John Perrott would
sometimes recounte unto his Frends, acknowledging it a greate
Blessinge of God, that had given him Grace in Time to look into his
decaying Estate."
Comparison of this biographical incident with the following passage from _The Troublesome Raigne_ not only reveals the source of the dramatist's inspiration but also accounts for a scene that has appeared peculiar to many critics.
K. JOHN. Ask Philip whose son he is.
ESSEX. Philip, who was thy father?
PHILIP. Mass, my lord, and that's a question: and you had not taken
some pains with her before, I should have desired you to ask my
mother.
K. JOHN.. Say, who was thy father?
PHILIP. Faith, my lord, to answer you sure, he is my father that was
nearest my mother when I was gotten; and him I think to be Sir
Robert Falconbridge.
K. JOHN. Essex, for fashion's sake demand again: And so an end to
this contention.
ROBERT. Was ever man thus wrong'd as Robert is?
ESSEX. Philip! Speak, I say; who was thy father?
K. JOHN. Young man, how now? what! art thou in a trance?
Q. ELINOR. Philip, awake! The man is in a dream.
PHILIP. Philippus, atavis edite Regibus. (_Aside._)
What say'st thou: Philip, sprung of ancient Kings?
Quo me rapit tempestas?
What wind of honour blows this fury forth,
Or whence proceed these fumes of majesty?
Methinks I hear a hollow echo sound,
That Philip is the son unto a King:
The whistling leaves upon the trembling trees
Whistle in concert I am Richard's son;
The bubbling murmur of the water's fall
Records Philippus Regis filius;
Birds in their flight make music with their wings,
Filling the air with glory of my birth;
Birds, bubbles, leaves and mountains, echo, all
Ring in mine ears, that I am Richard's son.
Fond man, ah, whither art thou carried?
How are thy thoughts yrapt in Honour's heaven?
Forgetful what thou art, and whence thou cam'st?
Thy father's land cannot maintain these thoughts;
These thoughts are far unfitting Falconbridge;
And well they may; for why this mounting mind
Doth soar too high to stoop to Falconbridge
Why, how now? Knowest thou where thou art?
And know'st thou who expects thine answer here?
Wilt thou, upon a frantic madding vein,
Go lose thy land, and say thyself base-born?
No, keep thy land, though Richard were thy sire;
Whate'er thou think'st say thou art Falconbridge.
K. JOHN. Speak, man! be sudden, who thy father was.
PHILIP. Please it your Majesty, Sir Robert ...
Philip, that Falconbridge cleaves to thy jaws: (_Aside_)
It will not out; I cannot for my life
Say I am son unto a Falconbridge.
Let land and living go! 'tis Honour's fire
That makes me swear King Richard was my sire.
Base to a King, adds title of more state,
Than knight's begotten, though legitimate.
Please it your Grace, I am King Richard's son.
While it is generally agreed by text critics that Shakespeare's _King John_ was drastically revised in about 1596, the metrical tests and the scarcity of classical allusions denote its composition at about the same period as that of the original composition of _Richard II._; and though the later time revision of both of these plays has no doubt replaced much of Shakespeare's earlier work in them with matter of a later time, an early date for their original composition is very evident. I therefore assign the original composition of _King John_ to the early part of the year 1591, and believe, that in writing this play Shakespeare worked from a copy of _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_, and that he followed, and still further developed, the original intention of that play regarding the interests of Sir John Perrot. It is evident that _King John_ was written at the time _The Troublesome Raigne_ was published in 1591, and that the play was Burbage property when it was published. A play was not as a rule published until it had outrun its interest upon the stage, or had been replaced by a new play upon the same subject.
While records of Henslowe's affiliations with Lord Strange's and the Admiral's companies do not appear in his _Diary_ until February 1592, when the Rose Theatre was ready for their occupancy, it is likely that their connection commenced in the previous year and that his affiliations with the Queen's company ended at the same time. The number of old plays formerly owned by the Queen's company that came into the hands of Strange's, the Admiral's, and Pembroke's men at this time were probably purchased from Henslowe, upon the reorganisation of companies in 1591-92, or else were brought to these companies as properties by Queen's men who joined them upon the disruption of this large and powerful company at this period. Gabriel Spencer, Humphrey Jeffes, and John Sinkler, whose names are mentioned in _The True Tragedy of the Duke of York_, were evidently old Queen's men, the former two joining Pembroke's men, and Sinkler, Strange's men at this time. The entry of their names as actors in this play was evidently made while it was a Queen's property and when the Queen's company acted under Henslowe's auspices at the Rose Theatre between 1587 and 1591. Both Jeffes and Spencer rejoined Henslowe upon the new reorganisation of companies in 1594, and continued to perform with him and the Lord Admiral's men as Pembroke's men until 1597, when they became Admiral's men. After Spencer was killed in a duel by Ben Jonson in 1598, his widow continued to be a protege or pensioner of Henslowe's for some years.
The generally accepted belief that the old _Henry VI._, _The Contention_, and _The True Tragedie_ were--like _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_, _The Seven Deadly Sins_, and other plays owned by companies with which Burbage was connected--originally Queen's plays, is responsible for the otherwise unsupported assumption that Burbage was a member and the manager of the Queen's company for several years. As the disruption of the old Queen's company and its reorganisation into a smaller company under the two Duttons, as well as the inception of Henslowe's connection with Strange's men, evidently took place some time between the Christmas season of 1590-91, when the Queen's company performed four times at Court and the Admiral-Strange company only once, and the Christmas season of 1591-92, when Strange's company performed six times and the Queen's only once, and then for the last time on record, it is evident that Pembroke's company was formed also in this year. It is not unlikely then that Shakespeare's recast of _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_ into _King John_ was made at the instigation of the Earl of Pembroke himself at the time of Perrot's arrest in 1591. As Pembroke's father was a lifelong friend of Perrot's it is extremely probable that he also would be his partisan and well-wisher.
In every poem or play written by Shakespeare from the time he made the acquaintance of the Earl of Southampton at the end of 1591, and even for some time after the accession of James I. in 1603, I find some reflection of his interest in that nobleman or in the fortunes of the Essex party with which he was affiliated. I find no reflection of this interest in _King John_ nor in _The Comedy of Errors_, except in a few passages which palpably pertain to a period of revision in the former play. From this and other subjective evidence already advanced I date the composition of both of these plays in 1591, and in doing so conform to the chronological conclusions reached by authoritative text critics whose judgments have been formed altogether upon textual and stylistic grounds.
While nearly all writers upon the Elizabethan drama recognise the topical, political, or controversial nature of much of the dramatic representation of that age, it is usual to deny for Shakespeare's plays any such topical significance. This attitude of the critics is due largely to neglect or ignorance of contemporary history, and also to the lack of
"As he was thus sadly debating the Matter unto hymselfe, the Kinge
came behynd hym, and overheard most of that which he sayd, who at
length stepped before him, and asked him, How now Perrott (quoth the
Kinge) what is the matter that you make this great Moane? To whom Sir
John Perrott answered, And it lyke your Majestie, I did not thinck
that your Highness had byn there. Yes, said the Kinge, we heard you
well inough: And have you spent your Livinge in our Service, and is
the Kinge so younge, and under Government, that he cannot give you
any Thinge in Recompence of your Service? Spie out somewhat, and you
shall see whether the Kinge hath not Power to bestow it on you. Then
he most humbly thanked his Majestie and shortly after founde out a
Concealment, which as soon as he sought, the Kinge bestowed it on
hym, wherewith he paid the most part of his Debtes; and for always
after he became a better Husband. This story Sir John Perrott would
sometimes recounte unto his Frends, acknowledging it a greate
Blessinge of God, that had given him Grace in Time to look into his
decaying Estate."
Comparison of this biographical incident with the following passage from _The Troublesome Raigne_ not only reveals the source of the dramatist's inspiration but also accounts for a scene that has appeared peculiar to many critics.
K. JOHN. Ask Philip whose son he is.
ESSEX. Philip, who was thy father?
PHILIP. Mass, my lord, and that's a question: and you had not taken
some pains with her before, I should have desired you to ask my
mother.
K. JOHN.. Say, who was thy father?
PHILIP. Faith, my lord, to answer you sure, he is my father that was
nearest my mother when I was gotten; and him I think to be Sir
Robert Falconbridge.
K. JOHN. Essex, for fashion's sake demand again: And so an end to
this contention.
ROBERT. Was ever man thus wrong'd as Robert is?
ESSEX. Philip! Speak, I say; who was thy father?
K. JOHN. Young man, how now? what! art thou in a trance?
Q. ELINOR. Philip, awake! The man is in a dream.
PHILIP. Philippus, atavis edite Regibus. (_Aside._)
What say'st thou: Philip, sprung of ancient Kings?
Quo me rapit tempestas?
What wind of honour blows this fury forth,
Or whence proceed these fumes of majesty?
Methinks I hear a hollow echo sound,
That Philip is the son unto a King:
The whistling leaves upon the trembling trees
Whistle in concert I am Richard's son;
The bubbling murmur of the water's fall
Records Philippus Regis filius;
Birds in their flight make music with their wings,
Filling the air with glory of my birth;
Birds, bubbles, leaves and mountains, echo, all
Ring in mine ears, that I am Richard's son.
Fond man, ah, whither art thou carried?
How are thy thoughts yrapt in Honour's heaven?
Forgetful what thou art, and whence thou cam'st?
Thy father's land cannot maintain these thoughts;
These thoughts are far unfitting Falconbridge;
And well they may; for why this mounting mind
Doth soar too high to stoop to Falconbridge
Why, how now? Knowest thou where thou art?
And know'st thou who expects thine answer here?
Wilt thou, upon a frantic madding vein,
Go lose thy land, and say thyself base-born?
No, keep thy land, though Richard were thy sire;
Whate'er thou think'st say thou art Falconbridge.
K. JOHN. Speak, man! be sudden, who thy father was.
PHILIP. Please it your Majesty, Sir Robert ...
Philip, that Falconbridge cleaves to thy jaws: (_Aside_)
It will not out; I cannot for my life
Say I am son unto a Falconbridge.
Let land and living go! 'tis Honour's fire
That makes me swear King Richard was my sire.
Base to a King, adds title of more state,
Than knight's begotten, though legitimate.
Please it your Grace, I am King Richard's son.
While it is generally agreed by text critics that Shakespeare's _King John_ was drastically revised in about 1596, the metrical tests and the scarcity of classical allusions denote its composition at about the same period as that of the original composition of _Richard II._; and though the later time revision of both of these plays has no doubt replaced much of Shakespeare's earlier work in them with matter of a later time, an early date for their original composition is very evident. I therefore assign the original composition of _King John_ to the early part of the year 1591, and believe, that in writing this play Shakespeare worked from a copy of _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_, and that he followed, and still further developed, the original intention of that play regarding the interests of Sir John Perrot. It is evident that _King John_ was written at the time _The Troublesome Raigne_ was published in 1591, and that the play was Burbage property when it was published. A play was not as a rule published until it had outrun its interest upon the stage, or had been replaced by a new play upon the same subject.
While records of Henslowe's affiliations with Lord Strange's and the Admiral's companies do not appear in his _Diary_ until February 1592, when the Rose Theatre was ready for their occupancy, it is likely that their connection commenced in the previous year and that his affiliations with the Queen's company ended at the same time. The number of old plays formerly owned by the Queen's company that came into the hands of Strange's, the Admiral's, and Pembroke's men at this time were probably purchased from Henslowe, upon the reorganisation of companies in 1591-92, or else were brought to these companies as properties by Queen's men who joined them upon the disruption of this large and powerful company at this period. Gabriel Spencer, Humphrey Jeffes, and John Sinkler, whose names are mentioned in _The True Tragedy of the Duke of York_, were evidently old Queen's men, the former two joining Pembroke's men, and Sinkler, Strange's men at this time. The entry of their names as actors in this play was evidently made while it was a Queen's property and when the Queen's company acted under Henslowe's auspices at the Rose Theatre between 1587 and 1591. Both Jeffes and Spencer rejoined Henslowe upon the new reorganisation of companies in 1594, and continued to perform with him and the Lord Admiral's men as Pembroke's men until 1597, when they became Admiral's men. After Spencer was killed in a duel by Ben Jonson in 1598, his widow continued to be a protege or pensioner of Henslowe's for some years.
The generally accepted belief that the old _Henry VI._, _The Contention_, and _The True Tragedie_ were--like _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_, _The Seven Deadly Sins_, and other plays owned by companies with which Burbage was connected--originally Queen's plays, is responsible for the otherwise unsupported assumption that Burbage was a member and the manager of the Queen's company for several years. As the disruption of the old Queen's company and its reorganisation into a smaller company under the two Duttons, as well as the inception of Henslowe's connection with Strange's men, evidently took place some time between the Christmas season of 1590-91, when the Queen's company performed four times at Court and the Admiral-Strange company only once, and the Christmas season of 1591-92, when Strange's company performed six times and the Queen's only once, and then for the last time on record, it is evident that Pembroke's company was formed also in this year. It is not unlikely then that Shakespeare's recast of _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_ into _King John_ was made at the instigation of the Earl of Pembroke himself at the time of Perrot's arrest in 1591. As Pembroke's father was a lifelong friend of Perrot's it is extremely probable that he also would be his partisan and well-wisher.
In every poem or play written by Shakespeare from the time he made the acquaintance of the Earl of Southampton at the end of 1591, and even for some time after the accession of James I. in 1603, I find some reflection of his interest in that nobleman or in the fortunes of the Essex party with which he was affiliated. I find no reflection of this interest in _King John_ nor in _The Comedy of Errors_, except in a few passages which palpably pertain to a period of revision in the former play. From this and other subjective evidence already advanced I date the composition of both of these plays in 1591, and in doing so conform to the chronological conclusions reached by authoritative text critics whose judgments have been formed altogether upon textual and stylistic grounds.
While nearly all writers upon the Elizabethan drama recognise the topical, political, or controversial nature of much of the dramatic representation of that age, it is usual to deny for Shakespeare's plays any such topical significance. This attitude of the critics is due largely to neglect or ignorance of contemporary history, and also to the lack of
Free e-book «Shakespeare's Lost Years in London, Arthur Acheson [bookreader .txt] 📗» - read online now
Add a comment
Comments (0)