What do you think?
Rate this book
The chronicle history of Perkin Warbeck;: A strange truth
Academic, Scholarly, Research
190 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1634
About the author
John Ford
64 books42 followersJohn Ford (baptised 17 April 1586 – c. 1640?) was an English Jacobean and Caroline playwright and poet born in Ilsington in Devon in 1586.
Ford left home to study in London, although more specific details are unclear — a sixteen-year-old John Ford of Devon was admitted to Exeter College, Oxford on 26 March 1601, but this was when the dramatist had not yet reached his sixteenth birthday. He joined an institution that was a prestigious law school but also a centre of literary and dramatic activity — the Middle Temple. A prominent junior member in 1601 was the playwright John Marston. (It is unknown whether Ford ever actually studied law while a resident of the Middle Temple, or whether he was strictly a gentleman boarder, which was a common arrangement at the time.)
It was not until 1606 that Ford wrote his first works for publication. In the spring of that year he was expelled from Middle Temple, due to his financial problems, and Fame's Memorial and Honour Triumphant soon followed. Both works are clear bids for patronage: Fame's Memorial is an elegy of 1169 lines on the recently-deceased Charles Blount, 1st Earl of Devonshire, while Honour Triumphant is a prose pamphlet, a verbal fantasia written in connection with the jousts planned for the summer 1606 visit of King Christian IV of Denmark. It is unknown whether either of these brought any financial remuneration to Ford; yet by June 1608 he had enough money to be readmitted to the Middle Temple.
Prior to the start of his career as a playwright, Ford wrote other non-dramatic literary works—the long religious poem Christ's Bloody Sweat (1613), and two prose essays published as pamphlets, The Golden Mean (1613) and A Line of Life (1620). After 1620 he began active dramatic writing, first as a collaborator with more experienced playwrights — primarily Thomas Dekker, but also John Webster and William Rowley — and by the later 1620s as a solo artist.
Ford is best known for the tragedy 'Tis Pity She's a Whore (1633), a family drama with a plot line of incest. The play's title has often been changed in new productions, sometimes being referred to as simply Giovanni and Annabella — the play's leading, incestuous brother-and-sister characters; in a nineteenth-century work it is coyly called The Brother and Sister. Shocking as the play is, it is still widely regarded as a classic piece of English drama.
He was a major playwright during the reign of Charles I. His plays deal with conflicts between individual passion and conscience and the laws and morals of society at large; Ford had a strong interest in abnormal psychology that is expressed through his dramas. His plays often show the influence of Robert Burton's The Anatomy of Melancholy.
Ford left home to study in London, although more specific details are unclear — a sixteen-year-old John Ford of Devon was admitted to Exeter College, Oxford on 26 March 1601, but this was when the dramatist had not yet reached his sixteenth birthday. He joined an institution that was a prestigious law school but also a centre of literary and dramatic activity — the Middle Temple. A prominent junior member in 1601 was the playwright John Marston. (It is unknown whether Ford ever actually studied law while a resident of the Middle Temple, or whether he was strictly a gentleman boarder, which was a common arrangement at the time.)
It was not until 1606 that Ford wrote his first works for publication. In the spring of that year he was expelled from Middle Temple, due to his financial problems, and Fame's Memorial and Honour Triumphant soon followed. Both works are clear bids for patronage: Fame's Memorial is an elegy of 1169 lines on the recently-deceased Charles Blount, 1st Earl of Devonshire, while Honour Triumphant is a prose pamphlet, a verbal fantasia written in connection with the jousts planned for the summer 1606 visit of King Christian IV of Denmark. It is unknown whether either of these brought any financial remuneration to Ford; yet by June 1608 he had enough money to be readmitted to the Middle Temple.
Prior to the start of his career as a playwright, Ford wrote other non-dramatic literary works—the long religious poem Christ's Bloody Sweat (1613), and two prose essays published as pamphlets, The Golden Mean (1613) and A Line of Life (1620). After 1620 he began active dramatic writing, first as a collaborator with more experienced playwrights — primarily Thomas Dekker, but also John Webster and William Rowley — and by the later 1620s as a solo artist.
Ford is best known for the tragedy 'Tis Pity She's a Whore (1633), a family drama with a plot line of incest. The play's title has often been changed in new productions, sometimes being referred to as simply Giovanni and Annabella — the play's leading, incestuous brother-and-sister characters; in a nineteenth-century work it is coyly called The Brother and Sister. Shocking as the play is, it is still widely regarded as a classic piece of English drama.
He was a major playwright during the reign of Charles I. His plays deal with conflicts between individual passion and conscience and the laws and morals of society at large; Ford had a strong interest in abnormal psychology that is expressed through his dramas. His plays often show the influence of Robert Burton's The Anatomy of Melancholy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
January 9, 2026
The portrayal of monarchy by historians or dramatists in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was a perilous affair since the king and sometimes queen was a powerful figure, either an absolute monarch, or with pretentions to be one.
During the Tudor period, it was just about acceptable for writers to speak negatively about the kings who reigned during the Lancastrian and Yorkist periods, because the Tudor dynasty was fought to have ended years of civil war.
Shakespeare sets the tone for what was acceptable. Henry IV could be criticised for usurping a rightful king, but as he was an early Lancastrian (and therefore related to the Tudor line), he was still to be honoured as a great leader, the king that England rightfully should have had if only he had been the legitimate heir. Henry V was celebrated as a great war king. Henry VI could be deplored as a weak ruler because his reign saw the loss of most of England’s gains in France, and the king was overthrown by the Yorkist dynasty.
Writers were on safer ground with the Yorkists, because the Tudor dynasty replaced them by force. So Edward IV was portrayed by Shakespeare as a corrupt ruler with blood on his hands, Edward V as an unfortunate child murdered by his uncle, and Richard III as evil incarnate.
Attempts to portray the Tudor monarchs with honesty had to wait until the reigns of James I and Charles I, the first kings who were not the children of Henry VII or Henry VIII. At this time, Shakespeare wrote a play about Henry VIII, showing sinister machinations at the king’s court, and John Ford followed later with Perkin Warbeck, in which he presented a surprisingly sympathetic portrait of a rebel who sought to overthrow Henry VII.
Even here, dramatists had to tread a line. The Stuart dynasty may not have been directly related to the Tudors, but related they were. In any case, it is not in the interests of any king to see his office being treated with disrespect while he is in it. So Shakespeare made sure that Henry VIII was not personally seen to do anything wrong.
Then we have John Ford. His revenge tragedies were written long after this sub-genre had fallen out of fashion, and the same is true of his history play, Perkin Warbeck. The play reads like a sequel to Shakespeare’s Richard III, which it in some ways resembles. Richmond inherits the throne in Shakespeare’s play, only to be challenged by new pretenders in Ford’s play.
In the play, Ford may devote some time to making Warbeck seem like a tragic anti-hero, but this is not at the expense of Henry VII, who is seen as a capable and surprisingly clement monarch. There is some truth in this. Henry was a wily operator who overcame opposition to survive on the throne for 24 years, leaving behind a stable dynasty which only ended through lack of heirs, not violence. Yet he was also curiously forgiving towards his enemies. He faced two rebellions from young men who were supposedly pretenders to the throne.
The first of these was Lambert Simnel, a young lad of limited intelligence, who was set up as a figurehead of revolt. In one of the most peculiar decisions in the history of rebellion, Henry not only spared Simnel’s life, but appointed the boy to turn the spits in the royal kitchen. Later Simnel was promoted to become the king’s falconer.
We see Simnel in the play, trying to encourage Warbeck to admit his claim is fraudulent. It is a curious unsympathetic portrait by Ford, who makes Simnel seem like a harsh and callous tormentor of Warbeck, even though he behaved in much the same way at one point.
Later came Perkin Warbeck, passed off as one of the missing Princes in the Tower that Richard III probably murdered. Once again, Henry was generous to his fallen enemy. Warbeck was even released from the Tower after his confession, and allowed to attend royal banquets. However, Warbeck was not content with this. After two attempts to escape, the king reluctantly had him beheaded.
It is not surprising then that Ford gives Henry credit for his gentle and compassionate nature, which almost seems too kindly in Ford’s eyes. The king sometimes must avoid facing his enemies because he knows that he will weaken if he faces them, and let them go, even when it would be good policy to have them executed.
Henry’s advisers feared that leniency might suggest that the king felt that their cause had some justice. Perhaps that was part of the reason, since Henry’s own claim to the throne was hardly stronger than that of Simnel or Warbeck, except that he was not lying about his identity – only claiming a throne for which he was not the most immediate heir.
The most intriguing aspect of Ford’s play is that he makes Warbeck into a likeable figure, and (at the cost of some historical accuracy) has Warbeck refuse to admit that he was not the rightful heir to the throne.
This lends Ford’s play an uncertain quality that makes it more exciting. What are we to make of Warbeck? Is he really the heir to the throne? Is he a madman who thinks he is? Or is he a shyster who believes his own lies? He does seem to have a royal air about him. He charms everyone, including his wife who stands loyally by him during his fall.
Do we read the play as being about delusions of grandeur, or about the way in which a plausible charlatan can sway large numbers of people to support him, if they think it is in their interests? Notably, some allies such as the Scottish king can be bought off by Henry, showing us the fragile nature of Warbeck’s support, and the cynicism that causes people to back insurrectionists, as America saw a few years ago.
I would have liked to see Ford explore the ambiguities of his subject matter a little more, but perhaps the play works better as it is. Sometimes under-writing a story can be more fun for the reader than over-writing it, as we are left to fill in the gaps ourselves, or to imagine different ways of filling in those gaps.
During the Tudor period, it was just about acceptable for writers to speak negatively about the kings who reigned during the Lancastrian and Yorkist periods, because the Tudor dynasty was fought to have ended years of civil war.
Shakespeare sets the tone for what was acceptable. Henry IV could be criticised for usurping a rightful king, but as he was an early Lancastrian (and therefore related to the Tudor line), he was still to be honoured as a great leader, the king that England rightfully should have had if only he had been the legitimate heir. Henry V was celebrated as a great war king. Henry VI could be deplored as a weak ruler because his reign saw the loss of most of England’s gains in France, and the king was overthrown by the Yorkist dynasty.
Writers were on safer ground with the Yorkists, because the Tudor dynasty replaced them by force. So Edward IV was portrayed by Shakespeare as a corrupt ruler with blood on his hands, Edward V as an unfortunate child murdered by his uncle, and Richard III as evil incarnate.
Attempts to portray the Tudor monarchs with honesty had to wait until the reigns of James I and Charles I, the first kings who were not the children of Henry VII or Henry VIII. At this time, Shakespeare wrote a play about Henry VIII, showing sinister machinations at the king’s court, and John Ford followed later with Perkin Warbeck, in which he presented a surprisingly sympathetic portrait of a rebel who sought to overthrow Henry VII.
Even here, dramatists had to tread a line. The Stuart dynasty may not have been directly related to the Tudors, but related they were. In any case, it is not in the interests of any king to see his office being treated with disrespect while he is in it. So Shakespeare made sure that Henry VIII was not personally seen to do anything wrong.
Then we have John Ford. His revenge tragedies were written long after this sub-genre had fallen out of fashion, and the same is true of his history play, Perkin Warbeck. The play reads like a sequel to Shakespeare’s Richard III, which it in some ways resembles. Richmond inherits the throne in Shakespeare’s play, only to be challenged by new pretenders in Ford’s play.
In the play, Ford may devote some time to making Warbeck seem like a tragic anti-hero, but this is not at the expense of Henry VII, who is seen as a capable and surprisingly clement monarch. There is some truth in this. Henry was a wily operator who overcame opposition to survive on the throne for 24 years, leaving behind a stable dynasty which only ended through lack of heirs, not violence. Yet he was also curiously forgiving towards his enemies. He faced two rebellions from young men who were supposedly pretenders to the throne.
The first of these was Lambert Simnel, a young lad of limited intelligence, who was set up as a figurehead of revolt. In one of the most peculiar decisions in the history of rebellion, Henry not only spared Simnel’s life, but appointed the boy to turn the spits in the royal kitchen. Later Simnel was promoted to become the king’s falconer.
We see Simnel in the play, trying to encourage Warbeck to admit his claim is fraudulent. It is a curious unsympathetic portrait by Ford, who makes Simnel seem like a harsh and callous tormentor of Warbeck, even though he behaved in much the same way at one point.
Later came Perkin Warbeck, passed off as one of the missing Princes in the Tower that Richard III probably murdered. Once again, Henry was generous to his fallen enemy. Warbeck was even released from the Tower after his confession, and allowed to attend royal banquets. However, Warbeck was not content with this. After two attempts to escape, the king reluctantly had him beheaded.
It is not surprising then that Ford gives Henry credit for his gentle and compassionate nature, which almost seems too kindly in Ford’s eyes. The king sometimes must avoid facing his enemies because he knows that he will weaken if he faces them, and let them go, even when it would be good policy to have them executed.
Henry’s advisers feared that leniency might suggest that the king felt that their cause had some justice. Perhaps that was part of the reason, since Henry’s own claim to the throne was hardly stronger than that of Simnel or Warbeck, except that he was not lying about his identity – only claiming a throne for which he was not the most immediate heir.
The most intriguing aspect of Ford’s play is that he makes Warbeck into a likeable figure, and (at the cost of some historical accuracy) has Warbeck refuse to admit that he was not the rightful heir to the throne.
This lends Ford’s play an uncertain quality that makes it more exciting. What are we to make of Warbeck? Is he really the heir to the throne? Is he a madman who thinks he is? Or is he a shyster who believes his own lies? He does seem to have a royal air about him. He charms everyone, including his wife who stands loyally by him during his fall.
Do we read the play as being about delusions of grandeur, or about the way in which a plausible charlatan can sway large numbers of people to support him, if they think it is in their interests? Notably, some allies such as the Scottish king can be bought off by Henry, showing us the fragile nature of Warbeck’s support, and the cynicism that causes people to back insurrectionists, as America saw a few years ago.
I would have liked to see Ford explore the ambiguities of his subject matter a little more, but perhaps the play works better as it is. Sometimes under-writing a story can be more fun for the reader than over-writing it, as we are left to fill in the gaps ourselves, or to imagine different ways of filling in those gaps.
July 3, 2020
Touted as the “last, and one of the best, English history plays of its era,” the introduction frequently compares this drama to Henry IV, Richard III and Henry VIII. That’s pretty lofty company.
And it is an enjoyable, fast paced, well-written piece with some beautiful poetry. But it doesn’t quite reach those altitudes.
(That could partly be my fault. When I started reading about this be a “psychological study” I started expecting something much different than a mid-17th century play. But this is certainly a mid-17th century play.)
The drama tells the story of a man, Perkin Warbeck, who claims to be the rightful heir to the English throne. Historians today believe Warbeck was a “pretender to the throne” or a fake. (Pretenders actually happened quite frequently in history.)
What’s interesting and unique about the play, particularly for the mid-17th century, is that Ford, never has Warbeck admit to being a fake. (In real life, Warbeck confessed his true parentage, though you could argue that was forced by torture.) In the play, Warbeck goes to his death claiming he was the rightful heir.
For it’s time, that is a radical (and one would think politically dicey) thing to do. Even Pushkin’s Boris Godunov, a similar play written 200 years later, admits almost immediately he is a fake. Casting any kind of doubt on the legitimacy of one’s king is risky career move.
I was somewhat disappointed because I thought the play would delve deeper into identity and the ambiguity of our self-identifications. I thought the characters, and even Warbeck himself, would spend more time wondering if he were really the rightful heir or not.
Instead, the characters are set in their belief right from the beginning. Henry VII and his followers all belief Warbeck is a fake. James of Scotland and most of his followers pretty much believe Warbeck is the real thing. (They do express some ambiguity, but it is very slight and you need to grab on to a word or two.) And Warbeck never expresses any doubt.
So the play I thought I was going to read was not the play I read. And that’s my fault. This is a mid-17th century play, and it is one of the better ones. (Certainly better than any of Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays.) It is psychologically progressive for it’s time, and it’s not fair to fault it for not being progressive enough.
If you can manage your expectations, I highly recommend this to drama lovers and historians. For the average reader, you could do worse than read this, but there are a lot of better works out there.
And it is an enjoyable, fast paced, well-written piece with some beautiful poetry. But it doesn’t quite reach those altitudes.
(That could partly be my fault. When I started reading about this be a “psychological study” I started expecting something much different than a mid-17th century play. But this is certainly a mid-17th century play.)
The drama tells the story of a man, Perkin Warbeck, who claims to be the rightful heir to the English throne. Historians today believe Warbeck was a “pretender to the throne” or a fake. (Pretenders actually happened quite frequently in history.)
What’s interesting and unique about the play, particularly for the mid-17th century, is that Ford, never has Warbeck admit to being a fake. (In real life, Warbeck confessed his true parentage, though you could argue that was forced by torture.) In the play, Warbeck goes to his death claiming he was the rightful heir.
For it’s time, that is a radical (and one would think politically dicey) thing to do. Even Pushkin’s Boris Godunov, a similar play written 200 years later, admits almost immediately he is a fake. Casting any kind of doubt on the legitimacy of one’s king is risky career move.
I was somewhat disappointed because I thought the play would delve deeper into identity and the ambiguity of our self-identifications. I thought the characters, and even Warbeck himself, would spend more time wondering if he were really the rightful heir or not.
Instead, the characters are set in their belief right from the beginning. Henry VII and his followers all belief Warbeck is a fake. James of Scotland and most of his followers pretty much believe Warbeck is the real thing. (They do express some ambiguity, but it is very slight and you need to grab on to a word or two.) And Warbeck never expresses any doubt.
So the play I thought I was going to read was not the play I read. And that’s my fault. This is a mid-17th century play, and it is one of the better ones. (Certainly better than any of Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays.) It is psychologically progressive for it’s time, and it’s not fair to fault it for not being progressive enough.
If you can manage your expectations, I highly recommend this to drama lovers and historians. For the average reader, you could do worse than read this, but there are a lot of better works out there.
September 8, 2023
Perkin Warbeck is a fantastic play, and I would love to see it on stage. Henry VII is a Putin-figure, crying crocodile tears over a "friend" he has just sent to execution, offering "mercy" to the wives of the defeated that essentially requires them to become his sex-slaves, making everyone betray their own interests to serve his Kingdom, having no interest but his own power and money, using every opportunity to execute the children of his enemies. I have no idea if the real Henry VII was like this, but oh my god is he creepy in this play.
And I kept waiting for Perkin to say "It was all a con" (like La Pucelle does in Henry VI part one), but he doesn't. Whether he really is Richard, Duke of York, or not (and the play is certainly ambiguous on this question, even if the text calls him Warbeck throughout), he is certainly the most noble, most honest character in the play, whereas the "real" Kings (Henry of England, James of Scotland) are political opportunists, backstabbers and betrayers, who have their power only through fear and violence.
And the relationship between Perkin and his noble wife, Katherine, is really moving.
As good as any (I would say any) of Shakespeare's History plays.
I know John Ford is only known for Tis Pity She's a Whore (I had not heard of this play till about six months ago), but this is wonderful.
And I kept waiting for Perkin to say "It was all a con" (like La Pucelle does in Henry VI part one), but he doesn't. Whether he really is Richard, Duke of York, or not (and the play is certainly ambiguous on this question, even if the text calls him Warbeck throughout), he is certainly the most noble, most honest character in the play, whereas the "real" Kings (Henry of England, James of Scotland) are political opportunists, backstabbers and betrayers, who have their power only through fear and violence.
And the relationship between Perkin and his noble wife, Katherine, is really moving.
As good as any (I would say any) of Shakespeare's History plays.
I know John Ford is only known for Tis Pity She's a Whore (I had not heard of this play till about six months ago), but this is wonderful.
October 10, 2022
I actually end up liking Perkin Warbeck and Kathrine. Several intriguing speeches here and there in the text. But nothing more. I guess my understanding to this play must be very different to the Jacobean audiences. Imagine. Live in the era as a subject and watch this play when phrases like "Earl of Oxford"/"King James"/"Tower of London" were still intimidating to a mere subject like you.
February 24, 2016
Ab fab play about a pretender who was a pretender to the English throne. It is in part a love story, and I did not see that coming. Fascinating.
Read
May 9, 2024With Lomax Annotations
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews