[King John (Arden Shakespeare)]- William Shakespeare
The life and death of King John - BBC Film
The Arden Shakespeare edited by Jesse M. Lander and J. J. M. Tobin have chosen to call the play King John instead of the usual title The Life and Death of King John. It is unusual in the Shakespeare cannon as it appears to be a rewrite of an earlier play: The Troublesome Reign of John, King of England which was published in 1591, some four years earlier than the probable date of Shakespeare's play. In my opinion Shakespeare could have called his play The Troublesome play of King John, because although he improved the dramatic effect of the earlier play, he lost some continuity in his version. It was a play depicting an historical event and the telling of the story, however accurate or inaccurate it might be, should be intelligible for the punters paying their money at the theatre gate. It is a play that has not enjoyed many revivals in the late 20th and early 21st century and although the poetry is typically Shakespearean the drama suffers from being tied to the earlier Troublesome Reign.

The Troublesome Reign of John, King of England has been accredited to George Peele and it is noted for its coherent story and sustained and developed characterisation. It starts in the court of King John when a messenger from king Philip of France informs John that his brother Geoffrey's son Arthur is entitled to the crown of England and that John has usurped the throne. John tells the messenger that he will take an army to France to enforce his crown. Shortly after the messenger leaves two sons of Lord Faulconbridge arrive disputing a claim to their father's property. John with the aid of Queen Eleanor sorts the dispute by knighting the bastard Philip as Sir Richard and agreeing that his brother Robert be entitled to Sir Robert's property. The newly knighted Sir Richard will join King John in his expedition to France. The armies of England and France face each other outside the town of Angiers, whose citizens will not decide who is the rightful ruler of their town. A compromise is reached when the citizen of Angiers suggests a marriage between the Dauphin and Blanche a ward of John. After the wedding the Pope's legate Cardinal Pandulph arrives to excommunicate King John and orders King Philip to restart his war with John. After the battle we learn that John has captured Arthur and returned to England and instructed Sir Richard to rob the monasteries. The Dauphin and his army land in England to rescue Arthur. King John arranges for Hubert to murder Arthur, but this is too much for his followers who side with the French. Sir Richard remains loyal and leads King John's army against the French; the English Lords who have changed sides learn that the Dauphin is planning to kill them change sides again. Cardinal Pandulph arrives to welcome John back into the christian fold and the Dauphin's invasion is thwarted but King John while residing at an Abbey is poisoned and his son Henry is proclaimed king.

It is a complex story and the plot in (TR) is reeled out in fairly pedestrian fashion. Shakespeare takes the plot by the scruff of the neck in his King John and in the very first scene the french ambassador has arrived and is squaring up to the usurper King John. In the Troublesome Reign (TR) Queen Eleanor starts by explaining the history of King Richard's brother Geoffrey and Arthurs claim to the crown. This is an early example as to how Shakespeare dramatises the action and he continues to do this as he follows and changes the story line to the plays advantage. His characters are more sharply drawn and have better poetry to speak: there is no prose in Shakespeares play. Shakespeare further enhances the drama by introducing more action; for instance he has the two Kings clutching hands while the Pope's legate is excommunicating John and King Philip must decide to let John's hand fall.

I read the two plays side by side and had the impression that Shakespeare grew into the story. The first act with the disputed land rights of the Faulconbridge brothers is confusing and goes on too long, making the play appear top heavy at the start. There follows the dispute in front of the town of Angiers and it feels like the scene has been shaped to allow processions and parades, rather than battles and action. In the second half of the play Shakespeare is able to cut out scenes that hamper the central storyline. for example in TR there is an account largely in prose of Sir Richard's sacking of a monastery: there is a semi humorous conversation between Sir Richard and Friar Lawrence. This scene has disappeared from King John.

Shakespeare's play is built around the politics of the relationship between the two kings and the women who support them. Queen Eleanor mother of John and Constance mother of Arthur are fanatical in support of their progeny and emerge as strong characters exerting some control over the men. Shakespeare emphasises the oath breaking: the changing of sides which all the men are guilty of, while the women stay firm. The action moves forward at a good pace in the second half and while it does not enjoy a particular climax the death scene of King John provides a sombre conclusion to a play where few characters are shown at their best. Commodity rules much of the action as Sir Richard reminds us in one of his soliloquies. TR is very anti catholic and while this is present to some extent in King John Shakespeare has toned it down.

I also watched the 1984 BBC production with Leonard Rossiter as King John, who gave his character a particularly Machiavellian bent; perhaps a bit too much like a pantomime character in some places. The production made excellent sense of the story and moved it along at a pace. Shakespeare indulges in much word play throughout and some of it, not even the best actors are able to deliver meaningfully, for example part of Pandulph's speech in act 3:

It is religion that doth make vows kept,

But thou hast sworn against religion

By what thou swear’st against the thing thou swear’st,

And mak’st an oath the surety for thy truth

Against an oath. The truth thou art unsure

To swear, swears only not to be forsworn,

Else what a mockery should it be to swear?

But thou dost swear only to be forsworn,

And most forsworn, to keep what thou dost swear.

Therefore thy latter vows against thy first

Is in thyself rebellion to thyself;

Of course there is much good poetry, including this much misquoted speech by Lord Salisbury:

Therefore, to be possess’d with double pomp,

To guard a title that was rich before,

To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,

To throw a perfume on the violet,

To smooth the ice, or add another hue

Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light

To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish,

Is wasteful and ridiculous excess.

All in all I spent an enjoyable few days with King John, but this early play of Shakespeare's is not my favourite. 4.5 stars. ( )

Reread 2/19/22 in Bantam Complete Works--
This play was even better on a second read. A scene that I severely underrated last time is the part in Act III Scene I where King Philip and King John are holding hands and everyone is yelling at them to either keep holding hands or let go immediately-- the staging on that could have some great physical comedy.

In addition to all the comic elements (intentional or not, as the case may be) there were also some genuinely moving speeches, scenes, and lines, from Blanche (explaining her split loyalties), Constance (mourning the capture of her son), the Bastard (pretty much every scene), Hubert (sparing Arthur's life), Pandulph (convincing Lewis to start a war), and others.

Also on this read-through, King John's death-by-monk at the end of the play seemed less out of left field, since we paid more notice to his financial and spiritual relationship to the church throughout the earlier parts of the play.

Original review 5/11/20, read in Pelican Complete Works--
It's been so great to read the Shakespeares I know next to nothing about, and King John is no exception. New characters to add to my favorites list: Elinor (for the persona), the Bastard (for the interiority), Citizen 1 (for the comedy)

Really want to read more about what was going on with the Catholicism stuff here.

Overall, a play of long speeches and strange choices. Structured like Shakespeare wrote the scenes that interested him most first and then decided he didn't need the other ones after all. Arthur is a paragon of (presumably) unintentional comedy. Still immense fun. ( )

The biggest surprise from my Shakespeare reading so far. At times a parody of royal politics, a reminder of the arbitrary nature of power and how little is ever under the control of the kings, whoever they may be. This seems like more of a forerunner of Richard II than the first tetralogy does. ( )

This review is written with a GPL 4.0 license and the rights contained therein shall supersede all TOS by any and all websites in regards to copying and sharing without proper authorization and permissions. Crossposted at WordPress, Blogspot & Librarything by Bookstooge’s Exalted Permission

Title: King John
Author: William Shakespeare
Rating: 4 of 5 Stars
Genre: Play
Pages: 265
Words: 76K

Synopsis:

From Wikipedia

King John receives an ambassador from France who demands with a threat of war that he renounce his throne in favour of his nephew, Arthur, whom the French King Philip believes to be the rightful heir to the throne.

John adjudicates an inheritance dispute between Robert Faulconbridge and his older brother Philip the Bastard, during which it becomes apparent that Philip is the illegitimate son of King Richard I. Queen Eleanor, mother to both Richard and John, recognises the family resemblance and suggests that he renounce his claim to the Faulconbridge land in exchange for a knighthood. John knights Philip the Bastard under the name Richard.

In France, King Philip and his forces besiege the English-ruled town of Angers, threatening attack unless its citizens support Arthur. Philip is supported by Austria, who is believed to have killed King Richard. The English contingent arrives; and then Eleanor trades insults with Constance, Arthur's mother. Kings Philip and John stake their claims in front of Angers' citizens, but to no avail: their representative says that they will support the rightful king, whoever that turns out to be.

The French and English armies clash, but no clear victor emerges. Each army dispatches a herald claiming victory, but Angers' citizens continue to refuse to recognize either claimant because neither army has proven victorious.

The Bastard proposes that England and France unite to punish the rebellious citizens of Angers, at which point the citizens propose an alternative: Philip's son, Louis the Dauphin, should marry John's niece Blanche (a scheme that gives John a stronger claim to the throne) while Louis gains territory for France. Though a furious Constance accuses Philip of abandoning Arthur, Louis and Blanche are married.

Cardinal Pandolf arrives from Rome bearing a formal accusation that John has disobeyed the Pope and appointed an archbishop contrary to his desires. John refuses to recant, whereupon he is excommunicated. Pandolf pledges his support for Louis, though Philip is hesitant, having just established family ties with John. Pandolf brings him round by pointing out that his links to the church are older and firmer.

War breaks out; Austria is beheaded by the Bastard in revenge for his father's death; and both Angers and Arthur are captured by the English. Eleanor is left in charge of English possessions in France, while the Bastard is sent to collect funds from English monasteries. John orders Hubert to kill Arthur. Pandolf suggests to Louis that he now has as strong a claim to the English throne as Arthur (and indeed John), and Louis agrees to invade England.

Hubert finds himself unable to kill Arthur. John's nobles urge Arthur's release. John agrees, but is wrong-footed[clarification needed] by Hubert's announcement that Arthur is dead. The nobles, believing he was murdered, defect to Louis' side. Equally upsetting, and more heartbreaking to John, is the news of his mother's death, along with that of Lady Constance. The Bastard reports that the monasteries are unhappy about John's attempt to seize their gold. Hubert has a furious argument with John, during which he reveals that Arthur is still alive. John, delighted, sends him to report the news to the nobles.

Arthur dies jumping from a castle wall. (It is open to interpretation whether he deliberately kills himself or just makes a risky escape attempt.) The nobles believe he was murdered by John, and refuse to believe Hubert's entreaties. John attempts to make a deal with Pandolf, swearing allegiance to the Pope in exchange for Pandolf's negotiating with the French on his behalf. John orders the Bastard, one of his few remaining loyal subjects, to lead the English army against France.

While John's former noblemen swear allegiance to Louis, Pandolf explains John's scheme, but Louis refuses to be taken in by it. The Bastard arrives with the English army and threatens Louis, but to no avail. War breaks out with substantial losses on each side, including Louis' reinforcements, who are drowned during the sea crossing. Many English nobles return to John's side after a dying French nobleman, Melun, warns them that Louis plans to kill them after his victory.

John is poisoned by a disgruntled monk. His nobles gather around him as he dies. The Bastard plans the final assault on Louis' forces, until he is told that Pandolf has arrived with a peace treaty. The English nobles swear allegiance to John's son Prince Henry, and the Bastard reflects that this episode has taught that internal bickering could be as perilous to England's fortunes as foreign invasion.

My Thoughts:

FINALLY! A Shakespeare play that I fully enjoyed and didn't feel like pee'ing on after I was done reading it. I don't know if it was the actual play, the fact that we've moved into “recent” history (as opposed to ancient history of Greece, Rome, etc), or what, but I had zero quibbles while reading this.

Lots of drama and people being jerks and lying and backstabbing, but I still understood the context. I guess that was what was missing for a lot of the other plays I read? I couldn't understand why the characters would do what they did, but here I could completely understand things, even if I thought it was stupid or wrong.

My only hesitation now is that if I liked this so much, perhaps I'm setting the bar too high for the rest of the Histories? Of course, with works like Henry V coming down the pipeline, that shouldn't be a concern of mine. But I'm a worrier, so I'm going to worry about something that doesn't matter one whit.

★★★★☆ ( )

I decided to work through the least memorable or least beloved plays while I'm working through the more beloved histories, and frankly, I don't think this one was bad at all.

Sure, there's no Magna Carta, even though it would have been signed one year before the King's death, but as it has been said many times before, no one in Shakespeare's time really gave a hoot about the document.

So why did this flop of a play even get written? For it was a flop at its inception and no one really wants to see it on stage, now. Are there any redeeming virtues?

Hell yeah. Philip the Bastard. Many soliloquies, the last line in the play, and my god what a mouth he has. :) He has the righteous Plantagenet fire, the hot breast, the military and manly and steadfast nobility that everyone loves and honors... and yet, despite that, he's a Bastard.

Let me back up. Most bastards in any of the Shakespearian plays are real bastards. This is the only one that is truly noble, through and through. Wow! What a departure! Plus, he was pretty show-stealing every time he popped his head up on the page, with great quips, true heart, and utter loyalty to the king.

Plus we get to see a pretty spry old woman Eleanor of Aquitaine. But that's just for us history buffs. She really doesn't do much except support son the King's decisions and help raise the fortune of Philip the Bastard. :) Which is delightful enough.

The rest of the play, though, does appear to have the right kind of propagandist flavor, turning King John into a Protestant by default because he chooses to snub the Cardinal who then proceeds to excommunicate him, but in my eye, that's just the overt window dressing.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the story in the play, either. There's wars, reconciliations, humorous dealings at Anjou, bitter sorrow over Arthur, and more war, ending with the declaration that there will never be another successful invasion of England.

Pretty rousing. I was entertained. So why the hate?

*shrug* maybe people are just idiots. :) Great characters, good story. I guess this is just one of those cases that because Shakespeare wrote it, it must be brilliant instead of just fine, and therefore we must, obviously, rate it low. :) ( )

Having finished the last of a trilogy of novels about Eleanor of Aquitaine last night, I was prompted to read this, one of Shakespeare's less well known and now rarely performed plays. It prevents a telescoped version of the events early in John's reign in 1202-3, where he fought, triumphed over and probably murdered his nephew Arthur of Brittany, who had an arguably superior claim to the throne of England, being the son of one of John's older brothers, Geoffrey. It also presents a fictitious version of John's death and succession by his son, Prince Henry, who was not in reality born until a few years after Arthur's death. (Magna Carta does not exist in this fictionalised version of events). The events are dramatic, but it mostly lacks the memorable and pithy dialogue and quotations of many of the plays, and is one of only two Shakespeare plays written entirely in (mostly blank) verse. ( )

This was my least favorite of the histories that I've read (and that is sad because he is my umpteenth grandfather). Shakespeare sticks pretty much to the facts (which is unusual) though he condensed things into a much shorter time frame. And considering he did make some deviations, I thought he might a well have made some better ones to make a more interesting story. ( )

This was my least favorite of the histories that I've read (and that is sad because he is my umpteenth grandfather). Shakespeare sticks pretty much to the facts (which is unusual) though he condensed things into a much shorter time frame. And considering he did make some deviations, I thought he might a well have made some better ones to make a more interesting story. ( )

When King Richard the Lion-hearted dies, there are two potential heirs to the throne of England and her French territories. Richard’s brother, Geoffrey, had a young son named Arthur who is the rightful king according to the laws of succession. Their father’s will, however, named his younger son, John, as the heir. John takes the throne, and his nephew’s mother appeals to the French monarchy to enforce her son’s right to throne. France threatens England with war if John won’t give the crown to Arthur, a marriage between the families brings a temporary peace, John refuses to recognize the Catholic Church’s authority in his kingdom, the Church appeals to France to destroy John for being a heretic, and the two countries go to war.

I like Shakespeare’s history plays. After doing a bit of research, I realize that he took some liberties with the plot, but that’s understandable. The battle scenes were kept to a minimum, which was a plus for me, and the poetry of some of the speeches was quite nice. This is one of his lesser-known plays, and I don’t see a reason for it other than the fact that the historical characters and incidents portrayed aren’t quite as famous. ( )

The ironic commentary of Falcounbridge and the histrionics of Constance redeem the lack of focus in this crowded, awkwardly constructed play---at least, redeem it on the page; I do not know if these could save it in performance. ( )

I think I would like a modern English version of this historical (fiction?) play as there was plenty of action. However I struggled with Shakespeare's writing too much to enjoy it. ( )

Certainly not among Shakespeare's greatest plays, "King John" isn't among his worst either. I found it pretty middle of the road overall -- a decent plot and good pacing, but lacking in those memorable lines of dialog that have filtered into modern times.

The plot, like most of the bard's historical plays, focuses on the struggle over the throne as a vacillating and somewhat weak-willed King John fights with the French. All this is viewed through his brother's illegitimate son's eyes.

I'm not sure why this is ranked with Shakespeare's least popular plays -- it's not half bad. ( )

WS sees John as a lesser man coming to the throne in the wake of the Glorious Richard Lionheart. He's not that good, and drags the country down, gets it interdicted by the Papacy and invaded by the French. He's also the murderer of his older brother's son, a child with a good claim to the throne. WS creates., a point of view character "Bastard Fauconbridge" who represents the playwright's vision of what the English thought of John. there's no mention of the Magna Carta, because in Elizabeth I's England, it wasn't thought of as an important document.
I've recorded it as read 4 times. ( )

The Bastard Faulconbridge, illegitimate son of Richard the Lion-Hearted, is welcomed at the beginning of the play into the retinue of his uncle John. He spends most of the rest of the play being shocked at the inability of the medieval powers that be to keep their word or maintain their honor or stay the course or even show decent familial feelings when "commodity" enters the picture. This dour play, almost a satire, puts King John in Richard III's position, i.e., having a young boy as a dangerous political rival, but John behaves more like Richard II than III, giving the death order rashly, then whining over its consequences. ( )

At least this history has a plot, even if it lacks the redeeming qualities/actions that the real King John had.

One of Shakespeare's most unpopular history plays, King John deals with the life and death of King John, who reigned from 1199 to 1216. This is as early as Shakespeare goes in his treatment of English history, concentrating more successfully on the later 14th and 15th centuries in the plays which stretch from Richard II to Henry VI. As a result King John suffers from being so historically distant in time, as well as offering a rather weak and vacillating king, who lacks the charisma and authority of Richard III or Henry V. The play begins with King John struggling to retain his throne, under attack from rebellious courtiers and Philip, the king of France. As the quarrel escalates into war with France, the play begins to take on a contemporary Elizabethan flavour--the feared invasion from a foreign (Catholic) nation, and the extent to which such an invasion is based on the questionable paternity of King John (like Queen Elizabeth, John is accused of being a bastard and is excommunicated). The play is saved from its rather colourless political machinations by Philip the Bastard, John's favourite, a dramatic forerunner of dubious but charismatic malcontents like Edmund in King Lear. It is also Philip who is given the most powerful and patriotic lines, when he claims that "This England never did, nor never shall,/Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror". King John's mysterious and anticlimactic death through illness at the end of the play deflates expectations - something that could be said of the play as a whole. --Jerry Brotton

I don' t know why Shakespeare's King John is so little known. It has an involving story line and some quirky characters that I imagine could be played very effectively, though I have never had the opportunity to see it on stage. King John is as bad as he is legendarily supposed to be, though not without redeeming qualities. The famous Eleanor of Aquitaine of Lion in Winter fame plays a substantial part. There is, however, no comic character to compare with Falstaff of the Henry IV plays, though Richard the Bastard, the supposed illegitimate son of King Richard the Lion Heart, has a fair number of snarky lines, and is, in his role of outside observer, a satiric commentator on the political insincerities of the other characters, until his assumption of a redemptive role in the final act.

I had to brush up on the history of the real King John after reading the play. It turns out that King John had a very convoluted and eventful life filled with sound and fury, and Shakespeare selected episodes from it to weave into a tragedy without much regard to the actual historical sequence of events. Yet every episode dramatizes something that is part of the historical record.

I recommend King John if you have already read the major Shakespeare plays. Otherwise go read them first, i.e. Macbeth, Julius Caesar, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, The Tempest, Antony and Cleopatra, The Merchant of Venice, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Henry IV Parts I and II, Henry V, Othello, etc. King John is not at the same level of excellence, but is still worth a read. ( )

I love, love, love King John. I can see why it's hardly ever performed, though - there's several characters that only show up for a scene or two before leaving (the three women - Constance, Queen Elinore and Blanche disappear after act three), plus it would be hard to find a child actor that could memorize and speak Arthur's role. But, dear God, the characters! Constance and Philip the Bastard may be two of my favorite characters in all the histories. Constance is just so nuts - her catfight with Queen Elinor is hilarious - and the Bastard is so completely epic in every way. His constant haranguing of Austria is hilarious, and his utterly mad schemes of warfare (that always end up working!) are just...he's just awesome. ( )

Dette historiske skuespillet handler om den engelske kongen Johan ("King John", 1199-1216) og hans konflikter med bl.a. den franske kongen Philip og pavekirken. Det forekommer en del slagscener og intriger med den engelske adelen, og arverekkefølge og hvem som skal styre England er også noen av temaene som blir drøftet.
Dette er ikke mitt favoritt-Shakespeare- skuespill, men det er absolutt lesverdig, ikke minst på grunn av Shakespeares språk og underfundighet, noe som synes å være godt ivaretatt av gjendikteren Torstein Bugge Høverstad. ( )

My memory is sketchy on the facts of John's reign, this may be colored by Shakespeare's need to please Queen Elizabeth and re-write history a bit, but then, who reads Shakespeare for history? There are certainly many pithy, witty and funny lines within this drama. Though it isn't my favorite, it was good to read. I really enjoyed the two women sending verbal barbs at each other, and even teared up a bit at Arthur's death. ( )

http://nhw.livejournal.com/1111973.html

I confess I knew nothing at all about this play before last week. It's a somewhat weird meditation on the political process. There is a sort-of viewpoint character, "The Bastard" who is the illegitimate son of John's brother Richard Cœur de Lion; yet at the same time he consistently argues for a more vigorous and vicious engagement by the English against the French and/or the Pope, including at times when this is obviously a bad idea. So although he is definitely the author's creation, it is not at all clear that he is the author's mouthpiece.

King John himself is also an ambiguous figure. His bold words against the Pope in Act 3, which sound terribly impressive in post-Henry VIII England, melt into historical footnotes in Act V. The cosmic karma that descends on him for killing Arthur is unfair because a) his orders weren't actually carried out, b) he changed his mind and c) Arthur dies by accident. John (and by the end of the play Henry III) may be legitimate, but that doesn't make you right. It's not at all obvious that John's agonising death is deserved.

I'm surprised that this play isn't better known. Apart from the title role, the Bastard, Constance, Arthur, Hubert and Salisbury all seem to me to be rather interesting characters who could be brought to life under the right circumstances. Arkangel have a decent cast, none particularly outstanding, but it is good material and they deliver a quality product. ( )

This play has absolutely the best line in Shakespeare: Let that be thy message and go rot! ( )

Has powerful moment when Prince Arthur is pleading with Hubert for his life. ( )

Folger ( )

King John's right to the throne is being challenged by the king of France. He believe's John's nephew, Arthur, should be the king. Conflict ensues and alliances shift as they struggle for power. King John was less memorable than some of the other histories, but it still held some powerful moments. There's one scene where a mother grieves for her child and no matter the context, it's a heartbreaker:

“Grief fills the room up of my absent child, Lies in his bed, walks up and down with me... My life, my joy, my food, my all the world!”

Lady Constance was a melodramatic character that I would love to see portrayed on the stage. Like all of Shakespeare's plays, this one had beautiful lines, but overall it's not a new favorite.

“Grow great by your example, and put on the dauntless spirit of resolution.
Away, and glister like the god of war
When he intendeth to become the field.
Show boldness and aspiring confidence.”

“Mad world, mad kings, mad composition (agreement)!” ( )