THE POLITICAL PURPOSE OF _KING JOHN_
1591-1592
The three parts of _Henry VI._ and their originals are of interest to
Shakespearean students as marking the beginning of a phase of English
historical drama, afterwards developed by Shakespeare, Kyd, Marlowe, and
others. They owed their origin to the demand of the theatres for
material with which to cater to the ebullient national spirit aroused by
the long-threatened danger of a Spanish invasion, and its happy issue in
the destruction of the great Armada, in 1588. They were originally
produced between 1589 and 1591, and evidently for the Queen's players.
The theatrical managers having found them a profitable investment,
encouraged the continued production of historical plays. Peele, who is
usually supposed to have been the author of _The First Part of Henry
VI._, soon after wrote a play upon the reign of _Edward I._; Marlowe
appropriating _Edward III._ and later on _Edward II._; and Shakespeare
_King John_ in 1591 and _Richard II._ in 1592-93.
Shakespeare, before composing _Richard II._,--in the composition of
which he was evidently guided by the previous production of Marlowe's
_Edward II._,--tried his "prentice hand" on _King John_. Both this play
and the older play of _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_ (upon which
it is based, and which, in fact, it practically recasts) owe their
origin to the same influences as the other historical plays mentioned.
_The Troublesome Raigne of King John_ was composed for the Queen's
company at, or near to, the date of the Spanish Armada, and at a period
when religious animosities were acute. Its anti-Catholic spirit is very
aggressive. We have good evidence, in the manner in which Shakespeare,
on recasting the old play, toned down or eliminated this spirit, that
whatever dogmatic latitude he allowed himself in religion, his social
and religious sympathies at this period were Catholic rather than
Protestant. He was, withal, in common with a large proportion, and
probably a majority, of his compatriots at that time, an English, as
distinguished from a Roman, Catholic, and like them, though he outwardly
acquiesced in the established religion, tacitly favoured the old Church
in spiritual matters, while resenting its political activities.
Socially and politically, Shakespeare was essentially conservative. He
looked naturally unto the rock whence he was hewn and to the hole of the
pit whence he was digged. With a deep and abiding pride of race, linking
him spiritually with the historic past of his people, he was inclined to
look askance at the subverting spirit of Puritanism, which was now
beginning to give Merrie England food for serious thought. His
temperamental bias against Puritanism was accentuated by the openly
avowed hostility of the Puritans to his chosen profession. Though born
of the people, Shakespeare's social ideals were strongly aristocratic,
and, while possessing, in an unusual degree that unerring knowledge of
human nature in all classes and conditions of men, and broad tolerance
of human foibles and weaknesses, attainable only by spiritual sympathy,
in the political wisdom of democracy as it could then be conceived he
had little confidence.
We have good evidence that Shakespeare's father was a Catholic, and it
is more than likely that Shakespeare's sympathies were Catholic. His
most intimate affiliations were Catholic. Southampton's family, the
Wriothesleys, and his mother's family, the Browns, were adherents of the
old faith, and though Southampton, in later life, turned to
Protestantism he was Catholic during the early years of his intimacy
with Shakespeare. For the clergy of the Established Church Shakespeare
had little respect; he probably regarded the majority of them as
trimmers and time-servers. He always makes his curates ridiculous; this,
however, was probably due to his hostility to Roydon, whom he
caricatures. On the other hand, his priests and friars, while erring and
human, are always dignified and reverend figures. There is, however, no
indecision in his attitude towards Rome's political pretensions. The
most uncompromising Protestant of the time sounds no more defiant
national note than he.
In _King John_ we have an ingenuous revelation of Shakespeare's outlook
on life while he was still comparatively young, and within a few years
of his advent in London. He was yet unacquainted with the Earl of
Southampton at the date of its composition, early in 1591.
In the character of Falconbridge, with which one instinctively feels its
creator's sympathy, I am convinced that Shakespeare portrayed the
personality of Sir John Perrot, an illegitimate son of Henry VIII., and
half-brother to Queen Elizabeth. The immense physical proportions of
both Perrot and Falconbridge; their characteristic and temperamental
resemblances; their common illegitimate birth; the fact that both were
trusted generals and relatives of their sovereigns; their similar bluff
and masterful manner; their freedom of speech; and the suggestive unison
between important incidents in their lives, all exhibit a resemblance
much too remarkable for mere coincidence.
In the development of certain of Shakespeare's characters we
instinctively feel his sympathy with, or antipathy for, the type he
represents. Like Thackeray in the case of _Barry Lyndon_, he paints in
Falstaff a rascal so interesting that he leads us almost to condone his
rascality; yet who can doubt in either instance the author's inherent
antipathy to the basic character he portrays. On the other hand, in
depicting Biron, Antonio, and Jacques, we feel a sympathetic touch. For
no one of his numerous characters is his admiration so apparent and
unreserved as for that of Falconbridge. With other characters, such as
Biron, Antonio, Jacques, Hamlet, and Prospero in their successive
stages, we apprehend a closer mental likeness to, and spiritual
synthesis of, their creator; here, however, is no creature of the brain,
but a flesh-and-blood man of action, taken bodily from life. An early
date for the original composition of _King John_ is manifest in the
broad strokes of portraiture, and lack of introspective subtlety, with
which this character is drawn.
Sir John Perrot was a natural son of Henry VIII. and Mary Berkley,
afterwards wife of Thomas Perrot of Islington and Herrodston in
Pembrokeshire. His resemblance to Henry VIII. was striking, although his
physical proportions were still larger. Much as he resembled his father
he more nearly approximated in type both temperamentally and physically
to "Coeur-de-lion." Perrot lived about two hundred years too late for
his own fame. Had he been born a couple of centuries earlier he might
have lived in history as a paladin of romance. He was a fantastical
recrudescence, of the most fanciful age of chivalry. He is reported to
have possessed extraordinary strength, and in his youth to have been
much addicted to brawling. At about the age of twenty he owed his
introduction to Henry VIII. to a fight in which he became engaged with
two of the Yeomen of the Guard who endeavoured to oust him from the
palace grounds, and whom he worsted in the effort. The King appearing
upon the scene, Perrot is reported to have proclaimed himself his son.
Henry received him favourably and promised him preferment, but died soon
afterwards. Edward VI., upon his accession, acknowledged his kinship and
created him Knight of the Bath. He was a very skilful horseman and
swordsman, and excelled in knightly exercises.
In 1551 he accompanied the Marquis of Southampton to France upon the
mission of the latter to negotiate a marriage between Edward VI. and
Elizabeth, daughter of Henry II. The French King was so well pleased
with him that he offered to retain him in his service. While generous
and brave to an unusual degree, Perrot was extremely hot-tempered and of
an arbitrary disposition. He seems to have inherited all of his father's
mental, moral, and physical attributes in an exaggerated form, and to
have had an ever-present consciousness of his kingly lineage. Money
flowed through his fingers like water; he was rarely out of debt, and
was relieved in this respect by both Edward VI. and Elizabeth. Upon the
accession of Queen Mary, Perrot, though a Protestant, continued in
royal favour; his kinship outweighing his religious disadvantage. He
was, however, never without enemies at Court, created largely by his
high-handed behaviour. During Mary's reign he was accused of sheltering
heretics in his house in Wales, and was, in consequence, committed for a
while to the Fleet, but was soon released. He saw service in France
under the Earl of Pembroke, being present at the capture of St. Quentin.
Later on he had a violent disagreement with his old commander, owing to
his refusal to assist the latter in persecuting Welsh Protestants. A
life-enduring friendship was later established between them by
Pembroke's magnanimity in rallying to his support at a crucial period in
his career. When Protestantism, at a later period, gained the upper hand
under Elizabeth, he was equally averse to the persecution of Catholics.
Elizabeth upon her accession continued the favours shown him by her
predecessors. He was selected as one of four gentlemen to carry the
canopy of state at her Coronation, and was appointed Vice-Admiral of the
seas about South Wales. In 1570 he was made President of Munster, where
he performed his duties in an extremely strenuous manner. He used
deputies only in clerical matters; where there was fighting to be done
he was there in person, and usually in the thick of it. Much as he liked
to command he never could resist being in the actual scrimmage. He
challenged James Fitmaurice Fitzgerald, the rebel leader in Munster, to
single combat, which the latter prudently refused; later on, Fitzgerald
led him and a small body of men into an ambush where he was out-numbered
ten to one; Perrot refused to surrender, and though he made great
slaughter of his assailants, was saved only by the timely arrival of a
small body of his own men, whom the rebels supposed to be the advance
guard of a stronger force. He was as generous in victory as he was
imprudent in action; having defeated and captured Fitzgerald, he forgave
him and restored him to his property. Such actions on his part being
criticised by the Council, Perrot, in dudgeon, resigned his command and
returned to England in 1573. He was received favourably by Elizabeth,
whose goodwill he still continued to keep in spite of his numerous
enemies at Court. Retiring to his Welsh estates at this time, he told
Burghley that he intended thereafter to lead a "countryman's life," and
"to keep out of debt." Much of his time during the following ten years
was spent in suppressing piracy on the seas in his capacity of
Vice-Admiral and Warden of the Marches. In 1584 he was appointed Viceroy
of Ireland, an office which he executed vigorously and effectively, but
in the same dominating spirit and with the same impatience of control
that had marked his earlier Irish career. Exasperated at the delays of
the Council in agreeing to his plans, he even went to the length of
addressing the English Parliament in a letter, which, however, was
suppressed by Walsingham, who apprehended the resentment of Elizabeth at
such an unwarranted appropriation of her prerogative.
While Perrot's physical proportions were much above the average he was
an extremely graceful and handsome man. A German nobleman of the time,
visiting Ireland, seeing Perrot at the opening of Parliament, declared
that though he had travelled all Europe he had never seen any one
comparable to him for his port and majesty of personage.
Perrot's arbitrary and dominating manner created constant friction in
his Council and aroused the enmity of his coadjutors and subordinates.
He challenged Sir Richard Bingham, President of Munster, to a duel, and
came to actual blows in the council chamber with Sir Nicholas Bagenal.
He aroused the deadly enmity of Loftus, Archbishop of Dublin, who set
many plots on foot to work his undoing. One Philip Williams, a former
secretary of Perrot's, was set on by Loftus to make revelations
reflecting on Perrot's loyalty, which gained such credence that they
resulted in his recall to England in 1588. He left behind him, writes
Sir Henry Wallop, "a memory of such hard usage and haughty demeanour
amongst his associates as I think never any before him in this place
hath done." After Perrot's return to England, Loftus continued his
machinations against him. Informers of all kinds were forthcoming to
accuse him. One Denis O'Roughan, an ex-priest, offered to prove that he
was the bearer of a letter from Perrot to Philip of Spain, promising
that if the latter would give him the Principality of Wales, he would
make him Master of England and Ireland. While this evidence was palpably
false, the excited condition of public feeling in regard to the Jesuit
plots and the aggressive plans of Spain lent it credence. A year before,
Sir William Stanley, previously quite unsuspected of disloyalty, had
turned the fortress of Deventer over to the Spaniards, and the Armada,
which had been in preparation for years, was expected daily on the
English coasts. Perrot, while not yet placed under arrest, was treated
coldly by the Court. His was not a temper that could stand such
treatment uncomplainingly. Knowing that the Queen's ill-usage of him
arose largely from the influence of Sir Christopher Hatton, he expressed
himself somewhat freely regarding that gentleman, and in a manner that
reflected upon the Queen. Hatton's hatred of Perrot was well founded,
he having seduced Hatton's niece some years before. The unceasing
plotting of Perrot's enemies and his own imprudence of speech led to his
arrest early in 1591. After a short confinement in Burghley's house, he
was removed to the Tower, where he remained for a year before he was
brought to trial. At this period and while still under restraint at
Burghley's house, I date the composition of Shakespeare's _King John_.
He was tried for high treason in April 1592, being charged with using
contemptuous words about the Queen, relieving known traitors and Romish
priests, and also with treasonable correspondence with Philip of Spain
and the Duke of Parma. All of the evidence against him, except that
relating to the use of disrespectful expressions regarding the Queen,
fell to the ground. He was found guilty on this one point and taken back
to the Tower. Two months later--that is, on 26th June--he was brought up
for judgment and condemned to death. "God's death," he exclaimed, on
being led back to the Tower, "will the Queen suffer her brother to be
offered up as a sacrifice to the envy of his frisking adversary?" He
died a natural death in the Tower in September 1592. It is probable that
had he lived the Queen would have pardoned him. It was rumoured at the
time that she intended to do so. While such an intention appears
probable from the fact that after his death his son was restored to his
estates, it is more likely that Perrot's death, while under the Queen's
disfavour, softened her resentment toward his family. Perrot's son, Sir
Thomas, who inherited his estates, had incurred the ill-will of
Elizabeth some years before by his clandestine marriage to Dorothy
Devereux, sister of the Earl of Essex. She vented her displeasure upon
every one remotely concerned in this transaction. Essex, who was
entirely innocent of any complicity in it, was frowned upon for a time,
and Bishop Aylmer, under whose surreptitiously obtained licence the
marriage ceremony was performed, was called before the Council. The
Queen for years declined to receive Lady Perrot, and upon one occasion,
when visiting the Earl of Essex, refused to remain in his house upon the
arrival of his sister, and was pacified only when Lady Perrot removed to
a distant neighbour's.
It thus appears that the rancour of Elizabeth towards Sir John Perrot,
which led to his imprisonment in 1591 and his later prosecution, was
intensified by the fact of his family connection with the Earl of Essex,
who at this same period was deep in her disfavour owing to his own
unauthorised marriage to Lady Sidney. We may then infer that Court
circles were divided in their attitude towards Perrot, and that while
Sir Christopher Hatton and his followers were antagonistic to him, that
Essex and his faction were correspondingly sympathetic.
I am convinced that Shakespeare's first recast of _The Troublesome
Raigne of King John_ was made at about this period, at the instigation
of a court of action friendly to Perrot and antagonistic to Hatton, with
the intention of arousing sympathy for Perrot by presenting him
inferentially in heroic colours in the character of Falconbridge.
Whatever animosities his outspoken criticisms and arbitrary demeanour
may have aroused, amongst the courtiers and politicians, it is likely
that his romantic history, his personal bravery, and his interesting
personality had made him a hero to the younger nobility and the masses.
It is evident that the author of _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_
had Perrot in mind in the composition of that play, which is usually
dated by the text critics in about 1588-89. It is acknowledged that the
old play is based almost entirely upon the second edition of Holinshed's
_Chronicles_, which was published in 1587, and that the Falconbridge
incident has no foundation in that source, it being transposed from a
portion of Hall's _Chronicles_ relating to French history of an earlier
time. If the original author's intention had been to dramatise the reign
or character of King John, why should he have transposed incidents and
characters from French history in no way connected with John's reign,
and also have made one of these characters practically the protagonist
of the action? Bearing this fact in mind, in conjunction with the
evident date of composition of the old play in or about 1588-89, at the
time when Perrot was recalled from Ireland and was being accused of
disloyalty by his political enemies, it appears evident that the author,
or authors, of _The Troublesome Raigne_ had Perrot's interests in mind
in its composition, and that its intention and personal point were
recognised by the public upon its presentation, and also that it was
published and rewritten in 1591, at the time when Perrot was sent to the
Tower, in order further to stir up sympathy for his cause by a still
more palpable and heroic characterisation.
In recasting the old play in 1591 at the most crucial period of Perrot's
troubles, Shakespeare--evidently cognizant of its original intention and
of the interpretation placed upon it by the theatre-going public--still
further enhanced the character of Falconbridge as the protagonist of the
drama, while he minimised the character of King John and quite neglected
to explain the reason for much of the plot and action, which is quite
clear in the old play. The neglect of historical and dramatic values,
and the absence of analytical characterisation shown by Shakespeare in
this play when it is considered as a dramatisation of the reign of King
John, has been noticed by many past critics, who have not suspected the
possibility of an underlying intention in its production. Mr. Edward
Rose, in his excellent essay upon Shakespeare as an adapter, writes:
"Shakespeare has no doubt kept so closely to the lines of the older
play because it was a favorite with his audience and they had grown
to accept its history as absolute fact; but one can hardly help
thinking that, had he boldly thrown aside these trammels and taken
John as his Hero, his great central figure; had he analyzed and built
up before us the mass of power, craft, passion, and devilry which
made up the worst of the Plantagenets; had he dramatized the grand
scene of the signing of the Charter and shown vividly the gloom and
horror which overhung the excommunicated land; had he painted John's
last despairing struggles against rebels and invaders as he has given
us the fiery end of Macbeth's life, we might have had another
Macbeth, another Richard, who would by his terrible personality have
welded the play together and carried us breathless through his scene
of successive victory and defeat. That, by this means, something
would be lost, 'tis true--Falconbridge, for example, would certainly
be lesser," etc. etc.
While regretting Shakespeare's neglect of the great dramatic
possibilities in the reign and the character of King John, Mr. Rose
recognised Shakespeare's evident interest in the character of
Falconbridge. He writes:
"In reconstructing the play the great want that struck Shakespeare
seems to have been that of a strong central figure. He was attracted
by the rough, powerful nature which he could see the Bastard must
have been; almost like a modern dramatist writing up a part for a
star actor, he introduced Falconbridge wherever it was possible, gave
him the end of every act (except the third), and created from a rude
and inconsistent sketch a character as strong as complete and as
original as even he ever drew. Throughout a series of scenes not
otherwise very closely connected, this wonderful real type of faulty
combative, not ignoble manhood, is developed, a support and addition
to the scenes in which he has least to say, a great power where he is
prominent."
Had Mr. Rose endeavoured briefly to describe the character of Sir John
Perrot, he could not have done so more aptly.
Shakespeare in recasting _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_ did not
endeavour to dramatise either the character or reign of that King, but
purposely followed the story of the earlier dramatist, having the same
personal point in view. The author of _The Troublesome Raigne of King
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
protégé 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 a proper understanding of the chronological order in which the
plays were produced, and their consequent inability to synchronise the
characters or action of the plays, with circumstances of Shakespeare's
life, or with matters of contemporary interest, as well as to the
masterly objective skill by which he disguised his intentions, in order
to protect himself and his company from the stringent statutes then in
force, prohibiting the presentation of matters concerning Church or
State upon the stage.