Igor Djordjevic. King John (Mis)Remembered: The Dunmow Chronicle, the Lord Admiral's Men, and the Formation of Cultural Memory. Farnham: Ashgate, 2015. Pp. xii + 204. $109.95. It has become a critical commonplace that King John was a figure laden with significance for Elizabethan historical dramatists. Maligned by medieval commentators such as Matthew Paris, who wrote that hell itself was made fouler by the dead monarch, after the Reformation John could be seen on the strength of his quarrel with the Papacy as a kind of dry run for Henry VIII. John Bale, for example, would cast "noble kynge Iohan" as Moses to Henry's Joshua, with the later king finally leading the English to "the lande of mylke and honye" (King Johan, ed. John Henry Pyle Pafford, Malone Society Reprints, 1931; 1097, 1103). In King John (Mis)Remembered, however, Igor Djordjevic offers a much more nuanced picture of John's literary afterlife. For one thing, he brings together materials that have tended to interest different groups of critics: historical chronicles, the King John plays of George Peele and William Shakespeare, the Admiral's Men plays about Robin Hood, and Samuel Daniel's Jacobean historiography. For another, some of the plays he considers, such as the anonymous Look About You and Robert Davenport's King John and Matilda, have largely failed to capture the interest even of aficionados of obscure early modern drama. This gives his book admirable range and ambition. Of crucial importance in Djordjevic's account is the Dunmow Chronicle, a medieval text partially reproduced in John Stows Chronicles of England of 1580. This fragment offers a fanciful account of thirteenth-century history including a sympathetic portrayal of the feudal magnate Robert FitzWalter who, not coincidentally, was a major benefactor of the Augustine priory at Little Dunmow, Essex. In a version of history overlooked by other Elizabethan chroniclers, it attributes the baronial wars to a "discord" that arose "because of Mawde called the Faire, daughter to Robert Fitz Water, whome the King loued, but hir father woulde not consente" (The Chronicles of England, London, 1580; 242). Although ignored by Peele and Shakespeare, whose dramatic treatments of King John Djordjevic discusses in his second chapter, the Dunmow narrative evidently interested some writers. One was Michael Drayton, who used it as the basis for his 1594 poem Matilda, and for a dialogue in Englands Heroicall Epistles; Djordjevic suggests that Drayton saw in the story "an English historical world-changing exemplum to rival the tragic power of Tarquin and Lucrece" (59). Another was Anthony Munday, who seems to have been the first dramatist to associate King John with Robin Hood (in his Earl of Huntingdon plays). As with Drayton, Djordjevic finds Munday in these plays using the story of John and Maud/Matilda as a means of figuring something bigger: "the role of a king's overwhelming passions in the history of a nation" (84). While this treatment of Munday as a serious, historically aware dramatist rather than a theatrical hack is welcome, it does, however, involve a marginalizing of Robin Hood as merely a "device" (93) for the plays' exploration of John's kingship--a reading I find overstated given how insistently the frame narrative presents The Downfall of Robert Earl of Huntingdon as a play about Robin Hood. It also involves a marginalizing of Henry Chettle--not merely the reviser of Munday's work, as Djordjevic has it (73), but apparently a substantial contributor to Part Two, for which the Admiral's Men paid him twenty shillings in comparison to Munday's fifteen (although Philip Henslowe's records do not specify how the remaining balance was allocated) (Henslowe's Diary, ed. …

中文翻译：

---

约翰国王 (Mis)Remembered: The Dunmow Chronicle, the Lord Admiral's Men, and the Formation of Culture Memory by Igor Djordjevic

伊戈尔·乔尔杰维奇。约翰国王（Mis）记得：邓莫编年史，海军上将的人，以及文化记忆的形成。法纳姆：阿什盖特，2015 年。Pp。xii + 204。109.95 美元。约翰国王是一个对伊丽莎白时代的历史剧作家来说意义重大的人物，这已成为一种批判的普遍现象。受到中世纪评论家的诽谤，例如马修·帕里斯，他写道，在宗教改革之后，死去的君主使地狱变得更加肮脏，可以看出约翰与教皇的争吵是对亨利八世的一种试探。例如，约翰·贝尔将“高贵的 kynge Iohan”选为亨利的约书亚的摩西，后来的国王最终将英国人带到了“mylke 和 honye 的土地”（约翰国王，编辑。约翰·亨利·派尔·帕福德，马龙社会重印, 1931; 1097, 1103)。在约翰王（Mis）记得，然而，Igor Djordjevic 为约翰的文学来世提供了更加细致入微的画面。一方面，他汇集了不同评论家倾向于感兴趣的材料：历史编年史、乔治·皮尔和威廉·莎士比亚的约翰国王戏剧、海军上将的人关于罗宾汉的戏剧，以及塞缪尔·丹尼尔的詹姆士一世史学。另一方面，他考虑的一些戏剧，例如匿名的《Look About You》和罗伯特·达文波特的《约翰王与玛蒂尔达》，在很大程度上未能引起即使是晦涩的早期现代戏剧爱好者的兴趣。这使他的书具有令人钦佩的范围和雄心。在 Djordjevic 的叙述中，至关重要的是 Dunmow Chronicle，这是一部在 1580 年的英格兰约翰·斯托斯编年史中部分复制的中世纪文本。这个片段对 13 世纪的历史进行了奇特的描述，包括对封建大亨罗伯特·菲茨沃尔特的同情描绘，他是埃塞克斯郡小邓莫的奥古斯丁修道院的主要捐助者，这并非巧合。在一个被其他伊丽莎白时代编年史家忽视的历史版本中，它将男爵战争归因于“因为莫德被称为马戏团，罗伯特·菲茨·沃特的女儿，国王大声喧哗，但他的父亲不同意”而出现的“不和”（英国编年史，伦敦，1580 年；242）。尽管皮尔和莎士比亚在他的第二章中讨论了对约翰·乔尔杰维奇国王的戏剧性处理，但邓莫的叙述显然引起了一些作家的兴趣。一个是迈克尔德雷顿，他用它作为他 1594 年诗玛蒂尔达的基础，以及在英格兰英雄书信中的对话；Djordjevic 认为德雷顿在故事中看到了“一个英国历史上改变世界的例子，可以与塔昆和卢克雷斯的悲剧力量相抗衡”（59）。另一个是安东尼蒙迪，他似乎是第一个将约翰国王与罗宾汉联系起来的剧作家（在他的亨廷顿伯爵戏剧中）。与德雷顿一样，德约杰维奇在这些戏剧中找到了蒙迪，他使用约翰和莫德/玛蒂尔达的故事来描绘更大的事情：“国王压倒性的激情在一个国家的历史中所扮演的角色”（84）。虽然这种将蒙迪视为严肃的、有历史意识的剧作家而不是戏剧黑客的做法是受欢迎的，但是，它确实涉及将罗宾汉边缘化为仅仅是戏剧探索约翰的“装置”（93）王权——考虑到框架叙事如何坚持将亨廷顿的罗伯特伯爵的垮台作为一部关于罗宾汉的戏剧，我觉得这种阅读被夸大了。它还涉及对亨利·切特尔的边缘化——不仅仅是 Munday 著作的修订者，正如 Djordjevic 所说（73），而且显然是第二部分的重要贡献者，与 Munday 的十五先令相比，Admiral's Men 付给他二十先令（尽管 Philip Henslowe 的记录没有具体说明剩余余额是如何分配的）（Henslowe's Diary, ed. ...