Robert Davenport\u27s King John and Matilda and the Autocracy of Charles I

Mentioning the Magna Charta for the first time in contemporary historical plays, Robert Davenport\u27s King John and Matilda has been regarded by critics as an understandable reaction to King Charles I\u27s grievous autocracy. However, the criticism does not cover the subplot of the starvation of Lady Bruce and her son. In addition, the heavy emphasis is on King John\u27s personal villainy rather than his public failures-his disregard of the Magna Charta and his acceptance of papal authority to end struggles with his barons. It is John\u27s lustful passion for Matilda that the barons call into question. The playwright\u27s way to show the conflicts between the king and barons differs from that of historical plays written in the Stuart period, which depicted a history of Tudor monarchy from the commoner\u27s point of view. The tone of the story-the king\u27s acceptance of his guilt leads to the stability of the kingdom-is dark, although this play was written in the blessed time when Charles had ascended to the crown of England. Then, what is the historical significance of the playwright presenting the play as early as Charles\u27s ascension? To examine it, I would like to illuminate the time of the King\u27s autocracy. This essay will show that the parliament\u27s unsuccessful opposition to Charles\u27s government is reflected in the barons\u27 political struggles and reconciliation with John, attained by the martyrdom of Matilda. She is a symbol of a political predicament of Charles\u27s parliament, which failed to come up with some solution to the conflict to the sovereign. Now, fewer critics have been interested in the play since its second edition, printed in 1662. Despite the unpopularity, the fact that the playwright depicted the strife between the king and the barons in John\u27s reign so as to reflect the contemporary political situations should not be underestimated