Shakespeare's King John, With Explanatory Notes, Adapted for Scholastic Or Private Study by J. Hunter

by Anonymous

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

132 pages, Paperback

First published August 9, 2015

About the author

Books can be attributed to "Anonymous" for several reasons:

* They are officially published under that name
* They are traditional stories not attributed to a specific author
* They are religious texts not generally attributed to a specific author

Books whose authorship is merely uncertain should be attributed to Unknown.

See also: Anonymous

Reviews

[Joseph]

The more I read, the less I liked this one, as it became increasingly unclear what Shakespeare was trying to say with this story. Possibly many things, several of which contradict each other, and which wind up making the whole thing feel pointless.

I think part of the problem is that he condensed several years of history into what feels like a very short time; as a result, things happen way too quickly. King John is at war with the King of France, then they suddenly make peace for contrived reasons, and then, in the very next scene, go back to war for different contrived reasons. Who's winning the war changes from scene to scene. Shakespeare also plays rather loose with history, seemingly for no reason, or possibly to promote the aforementioned confusing themes.

I never really got a feel for the characters. Early on, I thought this was supposed to be a story without clear heroes or villains, just two (or three) sides are vying for power, but I'm not sure if that was intentional; John doesn't really feel focal, but what characterization he gets is contradictory. He drives away his supporters by ordering the death of Arthur, seemingly a child and thus the one definitively innocent character...but later, the supporters come back, lamenting that they never should have turned from him in the first place. Is John a Macbeth, driven to tyranny by his desire to hold onto power, or Duncan, the rightful king betrayed? 'Cause he can't be both. I mean, I guess Shakespeare pulled that off with Julius Caesar, but John isn't really morally gray, it's more that we're supposed to see him as black and white at the same time.

John orders Arthur's death, but after an interminably long scene, Arthur convinces his would-be executioner, Hubert, to spare him; then, he just dies trying to escape from prison. It's another "what was the point of that?" digression, though I suspect it might have been an attempt to absolve John of his death. Except that doesn't work, because a.) John still ordered the death, b.) he only seems to regret doing it because his nobles abandoned him, not because he actually thought it was wrong, and c.) when he thinks Hubert did kill Arthur, he looks like a self-serving hypocrite for being angry that his hired killer killed the person that he hired him to kill.

My favorite character was actually Constance, which is interesting, because the Introduction to this book, and most of the reviews I've seen, don't really like her. But her motive is easy to understand—she loves her son, and wants him to be king. She's a loving mother, but still aggressive and ambitious, and she gets some good lines, calling out people on their own BS. In contrast, most people like Falconbridge, who honestly comes off as more of a protagonist than anyone else, but again, I never really understood his deal. Mostly he just seems to push people to fight even when they're on the verge of making peace—which, given that there's no moral answer to the conflicts, doesn't really make me like him. He seems really mad about the guy who killed his father, King Richard...except Falconbridge just found out Richard was his father like, five minutes ago. Why do you care more than Richard's relatives who actually met him? He has a speech near the beginning about behaving the way people expect a member of the royal family to act, rather than how he really thinks, so is that the point of his character? If so, it still means that we don't really know him.

Part of the historical inaccuracy is that, since the real King John had issues with the pope, people of Shakespeare's time tried to rework him into a Protestant avant la lettre. The Introduction mentions that this play did it less than some of his predecessors...but the old English anti-Catholicism is still pretty glaring. I don't even have a horse in this race, I'm just saying.

When you get down to it, this whole succession crisis is a question between primogeniture, by which Arthur should be king, versus John's claim, based on the will of...not the people, exactly, but the previous king and the nobility. Which, if you know the politics of Shakespeare's time and the decades after, was a very relevant question. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have an answer for us. I spent the whole play wondering who would become king at the end, and the answer is...John's son Henry! A character who was not even mentioned until page 140/145. Which is also when we first hear about the unnamed, unseen monk who poisons King John.

It's just...if you're gonna have a story about a succession crisis that ends in a murder, I feel like the heir to the throne and the murderer should be set up before the last six pages? You know? Maybe Shakespeare just figured his audience would know this history going in (even though the monk isn't even actual history, just a popular legend), but it's bad storytelling, and I'm not sure the groundlings would have known this stuff. I mean, I thought Fortinbras becoming king at the end of Hamlet was sudden, but at least Fortinbras was in the play before that point.

The closest thing we have to a consistent theme is nationalism, with a whole "England will never be ruled by foreigners!" thing at the end. Which is an odd moral for a play that was largely made up of two British people fighting for the throne. And where much of "England" is actually in France.

Anyway. This was apparently one of Shakespeare's earliest plays, which might explain why it's a mess. The language is pretty good, as always, and I hear the other Histories are better.