CHAPTER V. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS TO THE ENGLISH HISTORIE, 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS TO THE ENGLISH HISTORIES. IN turning to the second great cycle, consisting of the English histories, we shall find that the poet has, in them, proceeded on an apparently different course, that he has treated the historical matter with greater freedom, and paid more regard to his public, and to the dramatic effects of his works. Gervinus disputes Schlegel's assertion that in Shakspeare's histories the leading features of events are so faithfully conceived, their causes and even their secret motives so clearly penetrated that the truth of history may be learned from them.' And H. Courtenay,* also, has taken the trouble, in a work of two volumes, to point out how far every single incident, every turn in the course of the action in Shakspeare, coincides with its historical source, and finally pretty well denies that they possess any historical value. But Gervinus †-whose judgment in historical matters is assuredly more to be depended upon than Mr. Courtenay's-expressly acknowledges that Shakspeare often brings together a series of facts which display a unity of action; that he comprehends various actions under one cause and traces them to one and the same origin, so as to be able to make use of the wealth of history without destroying the unity of the action; that he rejects other facts which could not be brought into this unity; in short, that he indeed pays little heed either to the laws of chronology or, in fact, to anything that might be termed external truth, but that he invariably respects 'the law of internal truth,' that higher and universal * Commentaries or the Historical Plays of Shakspeare. † Shakespeare Commentaries, p. 252 f. VOL. II. P truth,' which is gathered by the poet, not as would be done by an historian by entering into every detail of the historical subject, but from a series of facts; and from the very circumstance of this internal truth proceeding from historical and actual facts, and being supported and upheld by them, it must be admitted that it acquires a double authority, i.e. the authority of poetry and of history combined.' When, accordingly, Gervinus thus acknowledges the internal truth' of Shakspeare's dramas, he, in reality, maintains exactly what Schlegel meant to imply, but expressed in a form less precise and liable to be misunderstood. For, 'to learn the truth of history' does not mean to learn external historical facts by heart, but to understand their significance and meaning, that is, to gain a knowledge of their ‘internal truth.' This internal truth,' however, lies more deeply concealed in modern than in ancient history; in the former, the relations and conditions from which events proceed, are not so natural and simple, the leading ideas and persons, the characters of the nations and their representatives do not stand out so distinctly, or in so plastic and round a manner, as in antiquity; even an age like that of Antony and Cleopatra seems clear and simple when compared with the times of King John, Henry IV. and his successors. Hence the poet could not give a poetical reflex of the historical substance with the same fidelity and truth; in the latter case, the more important and the more complicated the mass of events, the number and characters of the dramatic personages, and the co-operating relations and conditions, the more frequently he was obliged to 'combine' facts, to 'comprise' various actions under one kind of cause, or to refer them to one and the same origin, and the less could he avoid occasionally offending the law of chronology, and all that which may be termed external truth. To this must be added the fact that a portion of the English histories were written by Shakspeare in his younger days, and that all (with the exception of 'Henry VIII.') belong to the first two stages of the poet's career, a period in which his mind had not yet attained its full maturity, or its full power in carrying out his artistic intentions. It is all the more astonishing that he has, nevertheless, in all cases succeeded in hitting the internal truth, and in exhibiting it in its own peculiar features through the historical facts. The most frequent and most striking deviations from history are therefore to be found in the three parts of 'Henry VI.,' in 'Richard III.,' and in 'King John.' In regard to the latter piece-which I place at the head of my discussions, because, in Schlegel's words, it forms the prologue to the other English histories-this is in the first place explained by the fact that Shakspeare had to follow an older and, as it seems, an exceedingly popular drama of the same name and subject, and which, to some extent deserved the great applause it received. But in addition to this, the historical subject itself, as we shall see, demanded, comparatively speaking, more abbreviations, condensations and violations of chronology, etc., than elsewhere. And yet even in King John' all the principal facts and characters are portrayed with historical fidelity; the deviations from history are only that Arthur (at least according to the Chronicle of Math. Paris) at the time of his imprisonment was not so young, so innocent, or so sensitive a child, as to have taken no part in politics; that the interval between his death and that of John was far greater (almost fourteen years); that the archduke of Austria, who kept Richard Coeur de Lion a prisoner for some time, is dragged into the history of King John, and confounded with the Duke of Limoges in front of whose castle it was that Richard fell; that Faulconbridge, the bastard, is not the historical character which he here appears, but is merely believed, by popular tradition, to be a natural son of Richard Cœur de Lion, Philip by name (who, according to Holinshed, is said to have, in 1199, murdered the Duke of Limoges to avenge his father's death); and lastly that it was not John's bad government and despotic violation of the rights of the nobility and of the people, but Arthur's death-of which he is accused-that is represented as the principal motive of the revolt of the barons; for which reason there is no mention of the granting of the Magna Charta. The omission of so important a historical fact is the chief thing censured in the poet by modern historians and critics, and is regarded as a want of historial appreciation. Courtenay thinks that 'as Shakspeare was a decided courtier, he might not wish to remind Queen Elizabeth— who set Magna Charta at nought in its most interesting particular of the solemn undertakings of her ancestors." But Kressig justly reminds us that even the historians of the sixteenth century entered but very superficially and cursorily into the history of that famous privilege, and that the whole constitutional question did not receive its actual significance till the struggles between the Stuarts and the House of Commons. Shakspeare's public probably knew little or nothing about the Magna Charta, and still less about its historical importance. This importance it, in fact, did not possess directly at the time of its origin, but acquired it only at a subsequent period; the Barons and burgesses of the day regarded it, and had demanded it, only as a means of protecting themselves against John's arbitrary rule, and of strengthening the promise he had given of a better government. The poet upon whom it devolved to give a representation of the internal truth of the reign of King John, and thereby a reflex of the spirit and character of the Middle Ages in general-not indeed merely its political motives and principles, but its ethical motives and principles as well-could, accordingly, not admit into his play an external and at the same time an unimportant fact which referred only to John's personal conduct, without burdening it with superfluous ballast and detracting from the historico-poetical interest of his work. It was for similar reasons and with equal justice, that he made the other deviations in the historical data, or rather retained them from the older play of 'Kynge Johan.' For the historical dramatist is the court-poet, not the court-servant of history; he can frequently be true to history only by being untrue in other things. And this infidelity is justified by history itself, according to which every great event, like every great man, is surrounded by a number of satellites, attendants and servants, the selection of whom appears more or less accidental, and who, accordingly might have been different without this doing injury to the significance contained in the principal incidents of the historical development. All that which serves clearly to exhibit this importance of the facts the poet must take into consideration, even though it were apparently ever so trivial and insignificant; everything else can be left to the free disposal of his artistic genius. The greater the poet. the less he will have to alter, and the more will his free creation be an historical poem. Only in this manner can history and historical truth, in the limitation imposed upon the poet by the artistic form, be a work of art. This is the reason why history cannot be learned even from Shakspeare's dramas-there are schoolmasters and historical books enough in the world for this-and therefore Courtenay's inquiry, as to whether Shakspeare's histories are adapted for teaching history, that is, for taking the place of a schoolmaster, is very superfluons. Yet even this pedantic inquiry only tends to immortalise the poet; we find from it, as Gervinus intimates, that Shakspeare's deviations. from his historical sources are, in fact, almost exclusively single anachronisms, omissions and condensations, here and there a different light thrown upon the picture, or secondary personages added to enrich it. This is done not only in King John,' but also in 'Henry IV.' 2. KING JOHN. After these introductory remarks, which apply to all Shakspeare's English histories, I begin my discussion with King John,' because, in more than one respect, the piece is not only the prologue, but the basis of the whole cycle. As in Coriolanus' the nature of the ancient state is depicted in the relation most important to its foundation, the family bond, so, in the present case, we first of all obtain an insight into the essentially different conception of the medieval state. The ancient state, inasmuch as it had proceeded from the natural bond of family life, was itself but the extended, legally established and organised family bond, and would have fulfilled its idea, if that which the family represented in a limited sphere, and in a loose, undeveloped and personal form, |