The form of the History Plays is a direct continuation of the methods of
the old Miracles, and does not differ in essentials from that found in
Shakespeare's 'Histories'. Such differences as do occur are due, as a
rule, to minor differences of arrangement and length. The author of _The
Troublesome Reign of King John_ extended his theme into two plays, and
so found room for much that had to be omitted in a single play;
Shakespeare, on the other hand, spread over three plays the royal
character--Henry V--which his predecessor comprehended in one. The
historical method had, however, a certain effect on the English drama.
It made extremely popular, by its patriotic subjects, a form which
disregarded the skilful evolution of a plot, contenting itself with a
succession of scenes, arranged merely in order of time, that should
carry a comprehensive story to its finish. We shall see this influence
operating disastrously in plays other than History, and must mark it as
a retrograde movement in the development of perfect drama. One extremely
valuable contribution of these History Plays was their insistence upon
absolute humanness in the characters. To present a Prince Hal, a King
John or a Faulconbridge, a Queen Elinor or a Constance, as mere
mouthpieces or merely royal persons would have been to court immediate
failure before an audience of Englishmen imbued with intense pride in
the life and vigour of their country, their countrymen, and their Queen.

Of the three following extracts from _The Troublesome Reign of King
John_ the first is a speech which might well have found a place in
Shakespeare's first scene, where Faulconbridge is questioned as to his
parentage, the inheritance depending on his answer; the second is from
one of John's dying speeches, full of remorse for his bad government,
and may be compared dramatically with the better known speeches, full
only of outcry against his bodily affliction; the third illustrates the
spirit of patriotic pride which glows in every scene.