Sir John van Olden Barnavelt

"The Tragedy of Sir John van Olden Barnavelt" was a Jacobean play written by John Fletcher and Philip Massinger in 1619, and produced in the same year by the King's Men at the Globe Theatre. Based on controversial contemporaneous political events, the play was itself controversial and had to survive an attempt at suppression by religious authorities.

Historical facts

The historical Johan van Oldenbarnevelt (spellings vary), "Lord of Berkel, Rodenrys, etc.," was a prominent Dutch politician and statesman who was executed in The Hague on May 13, 1619. He was beheaded at the age of 71, after a conviction on a charge of high treason for allegedly conspiring with the Spanish enemies of the Netherlands — though he maintained his innocence to the end of his life. Since Holland was an English ally and English troops had long been involved in their conflict with Spain, the case of Oldenbarnevelt was of immense interest in England.

Ideology

Fletcher and Massinger composed a drama on the subject that was ready for the stage in a scant three months, by August 1619. The play they wrote has been described as "an ideologically charged work with distinct republican and anti-authoritarian connotations." [Kamps, p. 142.] It was actable on the Jacobean stage only because it conformed to the official line on Oldenbarnevelt's life and death. King James I was an opponent of the Dutch statesman, and especially of his Arminianism. Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange, Oldenbarnevelt's rival and the main engine of his downfall, was a close ally of James. In the play, Barnavelt is plainly guilty of treason and attempts to seduce English soldiers to join with him — unsuccessfully of course.

The play even touches on contemporary anti-feminism. It includes an Englishwoman who disputes with Dutch Arminian women about the proper role of women in society. The Englishwoman is traditional in outlook, while her Dutch counterparts think that women should rule. Some readers, like Algernon Charles Swinburne, recognized this as anti-feminist satire.

Censorship

The play was censored by George Buc, the Master of the Revels, for its political content. Buc was not interested in suppressing a play that endorsed the official line on the subject; rather, he worked to ensure that the play did its job in a way that served the government's interests. The surviving manuscript shows that most of Buc's edits consisted of small changes, "altering the tone or tweaking a phrase." [Auchter, p. 335.] In one place where such tweaking was inadequate, Barnavelt's speech of self-defense in his trial scene in Act IV, Buc cut out the entire speech. (Coincidentally, Buc had been James' diplomatic representative in the Netherlands and was personally acquainted with both Prince Maurice and Oldenbarnevelt.) [Kastan, p. 426.]

(Buc trimmed lines that could be considered anti-monarchical; he also cut a 14-line section in the opening scene, which described the prostitutes who cluster around London theatres.)

Even after meeting Buc's political vetting, the play had to confront religious censorship. In 1619 as for a long period previously, the Bishop of London had an authority to approve plays for their religious conformity, as the government did for political content; and "Barnavelt" touched on the sensitive subject of Arminian-Calvinist rivalry. The Bishop acted to stop the play on August 14, 1619, just before its premiere. Yet the play was in the interest of the state, and the actors managed to get clearance to perform it; "Barnavelt" was on the boards by August 16.

Manuscript

Though it was a popular success, "Barnavelt" was not published in the seventeenth century. It remained in manuscript until 1883, when A. H. Bullen included it in his "Old English Plays", Vol. 2. The manuscript is now in the collection of the British Museum, identified as Add. MS. 18653. It is a fair copy of the play text prepared by the professional scribe Ralph Crane, who worked repeatedly for the King's Men in the early seventeenth century and would prepare copy for some of Shakespeare's plays for the First Folio (1623). Crane's manuscript is of high quality, with full Act-and-scene divisions; it is marked by two other hands. The prompter of the King's Men added details about stage props, sound effects (horns offstage), and other matters needed for performance, indicating that the manuscript was going to be used, and in all likelihood was used, as the prompt-book for the production; [For a somewhat-dissenting view of the MS. as an "almost-promptbook," See Howard-Hill, "Crane's 1619 'Promptbook'...."] and it also bears Buc's censorship marks.

Authorship

One notable aspect of Crane's manuscript is that it faithfully reproduces the textual and linguistic preferences of the two authors. Scholars have long recognized that Fletcher had a highly distinctive profile of linguistic usages that allows his share in collaborative works to be distinguished from others — like Francis Beaumont, or as in this case, Philip Massinger. Scholars can therefore agree on a breakdown of the two authors' contributions with near unanimity: [Logan and Smith, p. 72.]

:Massinger — Act I, scenes 1 and 2; Act II, 1; Act III, 2, 5, and 6; Act IV, 4-5; Act V, 1 (except middle portion);
:Fletcher — Act I, scene 3; Act II, 2-6; Act III, 1, 3, and 4; Act IV, 1-3; Act V, 1 (middle portion, from exit of Ambassadors to exit of Provost), 2, and 3.
The authors appear to have been influenced by the similar contemporary histories of George Chapman, especially his two-part play "The Conspiracy and Tragedy of Charles, Duke of Byron" (1608).

Actors

The manuscript also contains mentions of some of the King's Men in the cast, under their own names. (The manuscript for "Believe as You List" shows the same type of identifications.) Some of these are cryptic: "Michael," no last name given, was a Captain; an otherwise-unknown "R. T." played several small roles. The part of Barnavelt's daughter was filled by G. Lowen, an otherwise-unknown boy player. "Nick" played Barnavelt's wife; some scholars have assumed that this was Nicholas Tooley — but Tooley was nearing 40 years old in 1619. "Nick" was possibly Nick Underwood or another boy active in the company at the time. [Regarding the vexed question of boys vs. men in women's roles in English Renaissance drama, see: boy player.]

These data in the MS. allow a partial reconstruction of the cast in the 1619 production:
* George Birch played a servant, and likely doubled other parts;
* Robert Gough played Leidenberck;
* Thomas Holcombe played the Provost's Wife, and likely doubled other female roles;
* Thomas Pollard played Barnavelt's supporter Holderus;
* John Rice played a Dutch Captain;
* Richard Robinson played a Captain, and the French Ambassador.

T. H. Howard-Hill made an attempt to reconstruct the casting of the play's other roles, based on what is known about the personnel of the King's Men in 1619 and the types of roles they took. [Howard-Hill, "Crane's 1619 'Promptbook'...," pp. 159-62.] His least uncertain guesses are that John Lowin most likely played Barnavelt, and Joseph Taylor the Prince of Orange.

ynopsis

The plays opens with Barnavelt complaining to three supporters, Modesbargen, Leidenberck, and Grotius. [Given the subject matter of the drama, many of the characters are versions of historical people, at lesser or greater removes. The Grotius of the drama is reasonably close to the Grotius of history. Modesbargen represents Bartolomeus de Wael, Heer van Moersbogen. Leidenberck and Hogerbeets are Gilles van Ledenberg and Rombout Hogerbouts, Arminian leaders in Utrecht and Leiden. Vandermitten is Cornelis Van der Mijle, Oldenbarnevelt's son-in-law.] Barnavelt is incensed at the rise of the Prince of Orange in popularity. The opening scene establishes the basic nature of the man's personality, in what is largely a character study: Barnavelt is intensely egotistic, obsessed with his rivalry with the Prince of Orange, and addicted to a magniloquent and grandiloquent style of speech. Among his followers, only Modesbargen raises a cautionary note: he suggests that Barnavelt is descending into a second childhood in his old age. Barnavelt rejects the criticism; he tells Modebargen that "The fire of honour, which is dead in you, / Burns hotly in me...." His sense of wounded honor drives Barnavelt throughout the play.

Subsequent scenes show the actions Barnavelt and his followers take in preparing to counter Orange's influence. In several Dutch towns they raise new bands of troops, dominated by Arminians; they try, unsuccessfully, to seduce the English troops into joining them. (The English contrast their principled commitment to Dutch independence with the usual conduct of mercenaries in other European wars.) Barnavelt arranges for Orange to be locked out of a meeting of the States-General; when the Colonels and Captains who accompany Orange want to break open the doors, Orange restrains them. In contrast to Barnavelt, Orange is presented as temperate, sensible, and in control of his emotions — the antithesis of the title character.

Orange moves quickly and effectively to counter Barnavelt's plans. With the backing of his own soldiers and the English troops, he cowes and suppresses the Arminians; Barnavelt's followers panic in response. Leidenberck is arrested; when Modesbargen flees to a family estate in Germany, Orange sends a small party of picked men to capture and return him. Out of respect for his reputation and past achievements, Barnavelt is left free for the time being. Barnavelt visits Leidenberck in prison, and convinces the man to commit suicide. Yet Leidenberck has already made his confession; with his and Modesbargen's evidence, Barnavelt is arrested and brought to trial.

Grotius and other supporters stir up public feeling in Barnavelt's favor; but they are unable to effect the outcome. Barnavelt is convicted. The French Ambassador appeals for clemency, but Orange and his party are unreceptive. Barnavelt deals with the grief of his family, his wife, son, and daughter. In the play's main attempt at comic relief,the professional executioners of Haarlem, Leiden, and Utrecht boast of their beheading skills and the sharpness of their swords. The three roll dice for the job of Barnavelt's executioner; Utrecht wins. The final scene depicts the tumult on the day of Barnavelt's execution. The condemned man continues talking to the end; he even signals the headsman when to strike by raising his voice for his final words: "I come, I come, O gracious heaven! now, now, / Now, I present —"

tagecraft

The beheading of Barnavelt was acted out onstage, which raises obvious questions of how this was done in Jacobean stagecraft. [Gurr, p. 184.] In the play the headsman chops off not only Barnavelt's head, but a few of his fingers; as the text puts it, "you have struck his fingers too / But we forgive your haste."

Notes

References

* Auchter, Dorothy. "Dictionary of Literary and Dramatic Censoship in Tudor and Stuart England." Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 2001.
* Gurr, Andrew. "The Shakespearean Stage 1574–1642." Third edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992.
* Hoenselaars, A. J. "Images of Englishmen and Foreigners in the Drama of Shakespeare and His Contemporaies." Rutherford, NJ, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1992.
* Howard-Hill, T. H. "Buc and the Censorship of "Sir John van Olden Barnavelt" in 1619." "Review of English Studies" Vol. 39 No. 153 (February 1988), pp. 39-63.
* Howard-Hill, T. H. "Crane's 1619 'Promptbook' of "Barnavelt" and Theatrical Processes." "Modern Philology", Vol. 86 No. 2 (November 1988), pp. 146-70.
* Kamps, Ivo. "Historiography and Ideology in Stuart Drama." Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
* Kastan, David Scott. "A Companion to Shakespeare." Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 1999.
* Logan, Terence P., and Denzell S. Smith. "The Later Jacobean and Caroline Dramatists: A Survey and Bibliography of Recent Studies in English Renaissance Drama." Lincoln, NE, University of Nebraska Press, 1978.