« ZurückWeiter »
Bishop of Rochester,) declared that they judged it an unlawful marriage-Warham had from the first objected to it. (Burnet.)
Scene 3d. If Kemble had any authority for changing Shakspeare's Old Lady into Lady Denny, he should have pointed it out in a note—if he had none, his caprice was inexcusable.
Scene 4th. The King concludes the act with an apostrophe to Cranmer-Cranmer suggested that instead of applying to the Pope for a divorce, it would be better to consult all the learned men, and the Universities of Christendom * the King was much pleased with the suggestion, and said that Cranmer “ had the sow by the right ear.” (Burnet.)
Act 3d. Shakspeare begins this act with an interesting scene between the Queen and the two Cardinals--this Kemble has, with much discredit to him. self, omitted-it was retained at C. G. in 1773— Davies in 1784, says, it is omitted as tedious and unnecessary-Cavendish gives a circumstantial account of the beginning of this interview, at which he was doubtless present—it corresponds with the scene in Shakspeare-he concludes with saying—" and there. “ with she took my Lord Cardinal by the hand and “ led him into her privy chamber, with the other “ Cardinal-where they tarried a season talking with “the Queen, and we might hear her very loud, but " wbat she said we could not tell.”
Norfolk tells Wolsey it is the King's pleasure he should confine himself.
“ To Esher house, my lord of Winchester's.”
Shakspeare is inaccurate -Ashere was a house situate near Hampton Court, belonging to the Bishoprick of Winchester, ( Cavendish) and consequently to Wolsey himself, who was the Bp. of that See.
In Wolsey's 3d speech to Cromwell, Kemble has omitted 5 lines and half which should have been retained, but he has restored as many which were not in the prompt-book of 1773.
Act 4th. It has long been customary to give the part of Griffith in this act to Cromwell, for the sake of making the whole more worthy of the attention of a respectable performer—there is however a manifest absurdity in representing the same person as in the confidence of Wolsey and the Queen--Cavendish says, that the Queen at her trial prepared to leave the Court, leaning upon the arm of Mr. Griffith her General Receiver-when she was called back“ Madam," quoth Griffith, “ Ye be called again." “On, on," quoth she, “it maketh no matter,” &c.
Katharine—“ He step'd before me, happily, for my example”_happily here means haply-Herbert in his Country Parson says—“ he turns his care to “ fit all his children's dispositions with some calling, “not sparing the eldest, but giving him the preroga“ tive of his father's profession, which happily for his “ other children he is not able to do.”
« Of his own body he was ill, and gave
one of the articles brought against Wolsey was, that, being conscious he had the lues venerea, he had notwithstanding approached the King continually, and had often whispered him in the ear. (Rapin.)
Johnson and Steevens read
“ This cardinal * * Was fashioned to much honour. From his
cradle, “He was a scholar, and a ripe and good one."
“ Was fashioned to much honour from his cradle : “He was a scholar, and a ripe and good one.”
the old reading is the better-Kemble by altering the punctuation has perverted Shakspeare's meaning, which was, not to say simply that Wolsey was a good scholar, but that he made as early a proficiency in learning as it was possible for a child to do - Cavendish says—“ being but a child he was very
apt to be learned, wherefore he was conveyed to “Oxenford, where he shortly prospered so in learning, “ as he told me by his own mouth, he was made “ Bachelor of Arts, when he past not 15 years of
age, in so much that for the rareness of his age, “ he was called most commonly, through the Uni“ versity, the Boy Bachelor."
Shakspeare's concise account of Wolsey's death agrees exactly with the longer account of Cavendish
Cavendish 'says that Wolsey was the haughtiest man alive, but he represents his conduct, after his fall and retirement to the North, as exemplary-and Wordsworth in a note shows, that Cavendish's account is fully confirmed by an authority, which can
not be suspected of partiality to Wolsey's memoryWolsey was about 60 when he died-he kept his last Easter at Peterborough—upon Maunday Thursday he washed and kissed the feet of 59 poor men-the number denoted that he was then 59 years of age* - it was in his last discourse, as he lay on his deathbed, that he said the words which have been so often quoted—“if I had served God, as diligently as I “ have done the king, he would not have given me “over in my grey hairs--but this is the just reward I “must receive, for my diligent pains and study, that “I have had to do him service-not regarding my “service to God, but only to satisfy his pleasure.
In the former editions of Cavendish's work it is said that Wolsey “poisoned himself,” but Words- . worth assures us, that these words do not occur in any
of the four MSS. that he had seen. Kemble has, with singlar impropriety, given the small part of the Messenger to Sir Henry Guildford
- in the 1st and 2d acts he makes him act the part of the Queen's Gentleman Usher, and give her a cushion to kneel on-and now he offends her, by not showing her that respect, of which such a man as Sir Henry Guildford could not be ignorant that she was extremely tenacious - she had been much disquieted, because she would not lay down her title of Queen: many of her servants were put from her on that account, but she would accept of no service, from any that did not use her as a Queen and call her so she had the jointure that was assigned her, as Princess Dowager, and was treated with the respect due to that dignity, but all the women about her still called her Queen. (Burnet.)
* Pepys says April 4 1667—“My wife had been to White “Hall to the Maunday, it being Maunday Thursday ; but the King “ did not wash the poor people's feet himself, but the Bishop of “ London did it for him"-this silly ceremony is said to have been kept up by the Archbishops of Canterbury at Lambeth to a much later time.
Sir Henry Guildford was in reality Comptroller of the King's house-( Cavendish )—Kemble has given him the parts of the Queen's Gentleman Usher, Sir Nicholas Vaux, the Messenger, and Dr. Butts—just before the entrance of the Messenger, Kemble has improperly omitted 3 short speeches-Katharine's last speech is altered for the worse.
Act 5th. Scene 1st.-Cranmer enters to the King Steevens tells us that the substance of this and the two following scenes is taken from Fox's Acts of the Martyrs, from which he gives a long extract--it is not certain in what year this design against Cranmer took place—Burnet (see pp. 342-344) thinks it was in 1546--certainly several years after the birth of the Princess Elizabeth, which was in 1533.
Scene 3d. When Cranmer exhibits the ring, Nor
“Do you think, my lords,
These words were really spoken by Lord Russel, whom Fox improperly calls Earl of Bedford—in this scene Kemble has made several small changes—one of them does him credit, if it was made in consequence of looking into Burnet—he gives the Lord