CHRONOLOGY OF THE PLAY-ITS CONNECTION WITH THE OLDER CHRONICLE THIS HIS historical drama, or “History,” as the folio editors designate it, was first printed in their collection, in 1623, under the title of the "Life and Death of King John," having never before been separately printed, during the author's life, as most of his works produced before LEAR had been. It, however, unquestionably does not belong, as that circumstance would indicate that it did, to the later period of his matured genius, when the attraction of his name and works was too valuable to his theatrical associates to allow them to permit his plays (to use a phrase of the times) "being staled by the press." Meares mentions KING JOHN, in his list of Shakespeare's works, before 1598; but, indeed, that weighty evidence is hardly needed to authorize our assigning its production to that second, or-if we admit PERICLES and ANDRONICUS to be the juvenile essays of his muse-to that third period of his literary progress, when, after the success of his first comedies, his style and versification gained a larger freedom, his characters a deeper stamp of truth and individuality, as well as a richer variety, and his exhibitions of emotion, passion, and suffering, more minuteness and accuracy, as well as more vividness of painting; while the flowing lines, with a certain regularity of pause-the somewhat diffuse and perspicuous diction-still distinguish his manner quite as much from that of OTHELLO and LEAR, as it otherwise varies from that of the Two GENTLEMEN OF VERONA. In these respects, the contrast between the English historical plays and the Roman tragedies is worthy of notice the former being more assimilated, in their general poetic tone, to the MERCHANT OF VENICE, as the latter are to the great tragic master-pieces of the author's zenith of power. Yet in both classes alike-the English and the Roman histories-in KING JOHN, as in CORIOLANUS, we can trace the same overflowing creative mind, which crowded HAMLET, and MACBETH, and LEAR, with character, passion, allusion, reason, poetry, until the language bent under the weight of thought and sentiment. In KING JOHN and its companions, these characteristics of style are seen but occasionally, appearing as in their very rudiments; while in the later works they appear in a calmer and moderated exercise, rather as the effect of habit than of effort. In addition to the general interest which the true admirer of Shakespeare must always feel, in contemplating and comparing the successive and differing phases of the genius of him so justly described, by an admirable critic, as "the greatest name in our literature-the greatest name in all literature," (HALLAM's Literature of Europe,) this play of KING JOHN has a special interest and value, as opening to us, as it were, the great Poet's study, and enabling us to analyze one of the many varieties of his modes of composition. In many of his dramas, the old legend, or poem, or play, (such as that of LEAR,) from which he drew the leading incidents, or the characters and names familiar to his audience, when it had once served this purpose, and that of exciting his invention, was thrown aside and used no more. In others, and especially in the historical plays, we trace the Poet diligently disinterring from his "Plutarch," or his old English chroniclers, names, story, incidents, characters, dialogues, and then pouring life and beauty over the dry skeleton of history, or, as it may happen, into the mouldering relics of old romance. Again we find him, in HAMLET and ROMEO AND JULIET, and in the broad comedy of the MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR, working up his own earlier vigorous but imperfect sketches, pruning out their defects, or enriching these "first heirs of his invention," with the treasures of his exercised intellect or varied observation of life. Again, in the TAMING OF THE SHREW, we are surprised to find him, when in the full exercise of his original and prolific power, and enjoying an established popular reputation, yet employing himself in the recasting and improving a favourite comedy, by an author of no unmerited popularity, without any attempt to conceal the original groundwork; heightening its humour and laugh-provoking extravagance, infusing a more life-like individuality into its personages, and, as his subject warmed and expanded in his mind, pouring through its scenes strains of nobler and sweeter melody, until at last-probably to his own surprise-he found that he had produced another and more brilliant and joyous comedy, with the same characters, scenes, and situations, and on the very same plot. KING JOHN presents another variety of the processes of his dramatic laboratory. He found on the stage a chronicle historical drama, in two parts, entitled "The Troublesome Raigne of John King of England, with the Discouerie of K. RICHARD Cordelion's base Sonne, (vulgarly named the Bastard Fawconbridge.) Also the death of K. John at Swinstead Abbey, as it had been sundry times acted by the Queene's Players." This was of the old fashion of chronicle plays-a series of historical events, thrown into dramatic dialogue and action, connected mainly by the chronological succession of events, without any thought of unity of action, or consequently of unity of interest. It places on the stage successively all the leading incidents of John's reign, which were at the time most likely to interest or excite a London audience. Of these, as the spirit of religious controversy and warfare was predominant in the public mind, just after the accession of Elizabeth, John's collision with the Pope, and his plunder of the monasteries, were made most prominent; while the modern reader is surprised to find that in the old play, as in Shakespeare's tragedy, John's contest with his Barons, on the great questions of political rights, and his signing the Magna Charta, are passed over without notice. The solution of this omission, in both cases, is simply that, although the influence and effect of the Great Charter were felt in the administration of justice, the protection of the rights of property, and the institutions and habits which had grown up under it; yet in itself it was little mentioned or known, out of the courts, until, in the reign of James I. and afterwards, it was made a "household word" in the mouths of Englishmen, by the frequent appeals in parliament, and through the press, to the ancient rights of the subject, against the royal claims and prerogative. These two parts of the old play were first printed without the name of any author, in 1591; but afterwards, in 1611, when not only Shakespeare's own name, but the title of his own KING JOHN, had become attractive to general readers, the old "Troublesome Raigne" was reprinted with a half ascription of it to Shakespeare, as "written by W. Sh." In 1622, after his death, and the year before his own KING JOHN first appeared in print, it was again republished, with a bolder, but still not absolute ascription to him as its author, as by "W. Shakespeare”—an abbreviation of the name not found in the old title-pages of our Poet's works, after his name had become popular. This piece has been put within the reach of Shakespearian students by two modern editions—one in the collection of Stevens and Nichols, of "Six old Plays on which Shakespeare founded his," etc.; and the other in Stevens's accurate reprint (1775) of the "Twenty Plays of Shakespeare," as first printed in quarto. The “Troublesome Raigne of K. J." was inserted in that collection, on the supposition that these two parts were of Shakespeare's juvenile authorship, and that he became "so thoroughly dissatisfied with the play as to have written it almost entirely anew, reserving only a few of the lines, and the conduct of several scenes." Pope had before, in one of his notes, affirmed, without giving any authority or reason for it, that "the old play was written by Shakespeare and Rowley;" though there is no mention of Rowley's name in any edition or any contemporary publication. Stevens afterwards retracted the opinion of Shakespeare's having any share in the older drama. In this opinion there now seems a general critical concurrence, with the partial exception of the German critics who adopt a middle theory of Ulrici's, that the "Troublesome Raigne" was Shakespeare's own enlargement and adaptation of a still older drama, which he had thus improved, in some very early stage of his juvenile dramatic attempts. But the external evidence of Shakespeare's concern in the "Troublesome Raigne," is almost nothing; for the absence of his name in the first edition, the mere initials, which might apply to others, in the second, when any play that might be taken for his would be eagerly bought, and finally the something bolder ascription to him after his death, and before the publication of the "King John" then actually on the stage,—all tend to confirm the opinion of Dr. Farmer, that the older play was written by Rowley, or some still preceding dramatist, and that when Shakespeare's own KING JOHN was on the stage, and called for by the public, but could not be procured from the players who owned the copy, this older one was reprinted, as his, by some piratical bookseller. On the other hand, the internal evidence of diction, manner, versification, and management of the plot, are all repugnant to the opinion that the older play was Shakespeare's. There is no circumstance adduced, as in the cases of PERICLES and ANDRONICUS, to throw the production of the play back to the days of boyish authorship; but it was printed in 1591, and cannot be traced further back. It is, therefore, to be compared with his writings of that period, with LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST, and the comedies which immediately succeeded it, and probably with the first or chrysalis form of ROMEO AND JULIET, as we have it in the first quarto. With these the old chronicle play has little in common, and nothing but the most positive evidence could authorize the conclusion that it came from the same hand. Moreover, his entire and thorough re-writing of the chronicle drama affords a strong indication that Shakespeare had no claim to its dialogue or poetry, for this is a process which no author would unnecessarily apply to his own work, and it is one which we know with certainty, that he was not in the habit of using in his enlargements and improvements, from those of LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST, to the more thorough re-writing of much of ROMEO AND JULIET and of HAMLET. This argument is the stronger from the consideration that there is much of the ordinary dialogue of the older play, necessary for the conduct of the plot, unmarked by any special excellence or defect, which had it been written by him, he would of course have preferred retaining, with such modifications only as might be required to adapt it to the new matter, instead of actually re-writing the whole as he appears to have done. I must add, that there are some words of touching tenderness in the dying speech of Arthur in the old play, (see note, act iv., scene 3,) which, had the thought been originally his own, I cannot but think that he would have expanded and improved instead of throwing them aside, as the poetical property of another which he did not care to use; whilst the historical incidents and personages drawn from the old chronicles or from prior plays, he might justly regard as the common property of every dramatist who might choose to employ them. My own impressions are therefore strongly in accordance with the opinions of the best English authorities, (Farmer, Stevens, Knight, |