King John

1/ Unlike Henry VIII, King John got my interest right away. It’s more dynamic, the characters have a stronger presence. 

I note the parallels when King John and his mother Queen Elinor looks at Philip the Bastard, and when they and the French king look at Arthur:  

“ELINOR He hath a trick of Cordelion’s face; 

The accent of his tongue affecteth him:

Do you not read some tokens of my son

In the large composition of this man? 

KING JOHN Mine eye hath well examinèd his parts, 

And finds them perfect Richard…” 

(Act 1 scene 1) 

Now see: 

“KING PHILIP […] Look here upon thy brother Geoffrey’s face: 

These eyes, these brows, were molded out of his; 

This little abstract doth contain that large

Which died in Geoffrey, and the hand of time

Shall draw this brief into as huge a volume…

[…]

CONSTANCE My bed was ever to thy son as true 

As thine was to thy husband, and this boy 

Like in feature to his father Geoffrey

Than thou and John in manners, being as like 

As rain to water, or devil to his dam…” 

(Act 2 scene 1)

Ah life before DNA. 

As a note: Philip the Bastard is in paper son of Sir Robert Falconbridge, but actually an illegitimate son of Richard Plantagenet, often called Cordelion; Arthur is son of Geoffrey Plantagenet and nephew of King John, and King Philip of France wages war against England because he says Arthur should be king. Constance is Arthur’s mother. 

Compared to Henry VIII, King John feels more Shakespearean—it’s packed with metaphors and metaphors. 

“KING JOHN […] And now, instead of bullets wrapped in fire, 

To make a shaking fever in your walls, 

They shoot but calm words folded up in smoke, 

To make a faithless error in your ears…” 

(Act 2 scene 1) 

This makes me think of the theatre of war motif in War and Peace: 

“BASTARD By heaven, these scroyles of Angiers flout you, kings,

And stand securely on their battlements

As in a theater, whence they gape and point

At your industrious scenes and acts of death…” 

(ibid.) 

The battle scene lasts rather long, then ends with a humiliating peace, which leads to a great rant from Philip the Bastard (note that the word “commodity” here means “interest”, “self-interest”, or “expediency”): 

“BASTARD […] that same purpose-changer, that sly devil, 

That broker that still breaks the pate of faith, 

That daily break-vow, he that wins of all, 

Of kings, of beggars, old men, young men, maids,

Who, having no external thing to lose 

But the word “maid”, cheats the poor maid of that, 

That smooth-faced gentleman, tickling commodity, 

Commodity, the bias of the world, 

The world, who of itself is peisèd well, 

Made to run even upon even ground, 

Till this advantage, this vile drawing bias, 

This sway of motion, this commodity, 

Makes it take head from all indifferency, 

From all direction, purpose, course, intent. 

And this same bias, this commodity, 

This bawd, this broker, this all-changing word, 

Clapped on the outward eye of fickle France, 

Hath drawn him from his own determined aid, 

From a resolved and honorable war, 

To a most base and vile-concluded peace…” 

(ibid.) 

I like the way Shakespeare gets hold of a word and clings to it, repeating it multiple times, as he expands on the concept.

In some later scenes, Philip the Bastard clings to the word “calfskin” and keeps taunting Austria with it.  

2/ I know it is not news but Shakespeare is so good at writing women. Constance is a vivid character, I love her reaction upon hearing the news that Lewis the Dauphin (son of King Philip) is to marry Blanch, King John’s niece—for the price of peace and a few territories, and at the cost of Constance and her son Arthur. In her first speech, she repeats the word “fears” 4 times. 

I also love her final speech in the scene: 

“CONSTANCE […] I will instruct my sorrows to be proud, 

For grief is proud and makes his owner stoop. 

To me and to the state of my great grief 

Let kings assemble, for my grief’s so great 

That no supporter but the huge firm earth 

Can hold it up: here I and sorrows sit; 

Here is my throne, bid kings come bow to it.” 

(Act 2 scene 2)

I especially love the scene of Constance grieving (Act 3 scene 3). Magnificent scene. 

It’s quite hard to explain, but in King John (which is all Shakespeare), there is conflict and there is drama—I can’t say the same about Henry VIII (which is a collaboration), which lacks tension despite the intrigue and the downfall of 3 characters. 

Act 3 scene 1 of King John is a fantastic scene: Shakespeare builds up the drama as Constance is shouting at King Philip for joining with King John and betraying her and Arthur, then Pandulph comes in and excommunicates King John, forcing King Philip to choose between England and Rome. In the middle of that conflict between England and France, we have the new marriage between Lewis and Blanch, and Constance in the background is also dependent on King Philip’s decision. 

“BLANCH The sun’s o’ercast with blood: fair day, adieu! 

Which is the side that I must go withal? 

I am with both: each army hath a hand, 

And in their rage, I having hold of both, 

They whirl asunder and dismember me…”

(Act 3 scene 1)

Most interesting in the scene is that long speech from Pandulph, when King Philip talks about the vows between Lewis and Blanch, thus between himself and King John, and Pandulph tries to persuade him to turn against England: 

“PANDULPH […] What since thou swor’st is sworn against thyself 

And may not be performèd by thyself, 

For that which thou hast sworn to do amiss 

Is not amiss when it is truly done; 

And being not done, where doing tends to ill, 

The truth is then most done not doing it, 

The better act of purposes mistook 

Is to mistake again; though indirect, 

Yet indirection thereby grows direct, 

And falsehood falsehood cures, as fire cools fire

Within the scorchèd veins of one new burned.

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 later vows against thy first

Is in thyself rebellion to thyself…” 

(ibid.) 

What is this doublespeak? Shakespeare has always been fond of this technique (“Lesser than Macbeth, and greater”, “Not so happy, yet much happier”), but I think in this speech he pushes it further than anywhere else. 

3/ I must save this line for the next heatwave:  

“BASTARD Now, by my life, this day grows wondrous hot 

Some airy devil hovers in the sky

And pours down mischief…” 

(Act 3 scene 2) 

The play is full of interesting things. 

“KING JOHN […] the fat ribs of peace

Must by the hungry now be fed upon!...” 

(ibid.) 

4/ As I was reading King John, I kept thinking: why was the play neglected? why did nobody talk about it? 

But at about Act 4, I understood. King John is a weak character, both in the sense that he gives way under pressure (he twice chooses an inglorious peace over fighting, and orders Hubert to kill Arthur but later blames him for his “abhorred aspect” and for following order without objection), and in the sense that he lacks the power to hold our interest and hold the play together (compared to Macbeth, Lear, Othello and Iago, Richard III, Hal and Falstaff, and so on).

He is, as Tony Tanner says, treacherous, but I don’t think he’s particularly cruel, bloodthirsty, or vindictive, but at the same time he also doesn’t struggle with doubt or conscience, except the brief moment when he realises that the killing of Arthur has made him unpopular among his subjects. He comes across as weak and ineffectual and rather pale. 

I still think there’s great drama in Act 3, and there are lots of good things in the play. 

The death scene of King John however has some good lines: 

“KING JOHN Ay, marry, now my soul hath elbow-room,

It would not out at windows, nor at doors; 

There is so hot a summer in my bosom

That all my bowels crumble up to dust! 

I am a scribbled form, drawn with a pen

Upon a parchment, and against this fire

Do I shrink up.” 

(Act 5 scene 7) 

I should probably steal these lines for when I have a fever. 

5/ The most interesting character in the play is Philip the Bastard. 

Tony Tanner says: 

“… we have a de facto king who turns out not to have the qualities to make a good ruler, and we have a de jure ‘king’ who would clearly prove hopeless and disastrous were he to be installed on the throne. This leaves the way clear for the appearance of a character who, though having neither ‘right’ nor ‘possession’, manifests the desirable, requisite kingly characteristics. And this, indeed, is one of the Bastard’s roles. He develops and holds onto a true concept of ‘honour’; he renews the proper meaning of ‘loyalty’ and ‘duty’ by remaining unflaggingly steadfast in his support of king and country; he doesn’t turn his coat or change his side, and he never ‘plays fast and loose with faith’ or, indeed, anything else.” (Introduction) 

In a play full of treachery (people “changing sides, yielding to shifting solicitations and pressures, breaking oaths as soon as they have made them, abandoning sworn loyalties as the wind changes”), Philip the Bastard is the main one who is loyal and honourable. But as Tony Tanner says, he’s not a type, a simple embodiment of patriotism. Philip the Bastard is clear-eyed about everyone including himself; he sees through it all “Mad world! Mad kings! Mad composition!”; he does right as he can, and his loyalty comes from honour and integrity, not blind conformity. 

Brilliant, complex character. And he is Shakespeare’s creation. 

If you read King John, you must also read Tony Tanner’s essay.