William Shakespeare
King John is a history play that was written by William Shakespeare in, as it is
believed, the mid-1590s and
published in 1623 after his death. The primary source for King John was, as far as some scholars believe, an anonymous play that is The Troublesome Reign of King John; published
in 1591. Shakespeare's play dramatizes a variety of historical events and
topics that would have interested the playwright's contemporary audience.
Including the debate about
legitimate rule, the danger of invasion, and the conflict with papacy. In fact, these matters were hotly
debated throughout Queen Elizabeth's reign, for many people used to believe
that she had not been a legitimate ruler. However, other historians and critics
formerly exhibited objections believing that " of all Shakespeare's plays,
this is that which sins most".
The play represents a set of topics
that are highly related to every political and social system. Starting with the
struggle about legitimacy that is epitomized by king John and his nephew,
Arthur. Indeed, Arthur is the son of the previous king's eldest brother, thus
he is , normally, the rightful heir to the throne. However, John is chosen by
the previous sovereign to rule. Though Arthur seems to be indifferent and has
no desire to be a king as he claims "I
would that I were low laid in my grave: \ I am not worth this coil that's made
for me.", his mother still wants
him to get his crown back for she strongly defends his being the only
legitimate ruler. The struggle over the crown is apparent throughout the whole play. Even
after Arthur was dead, as Shakespeare announces, the strife about rule was
still alive. In fact, the king thought that by ordering to kill his nephew, he
would set the tone for an easier way toward reign. By contrast, this idea of
assassination worsens the situation, leads to the rebellion of the lords
against their king and brings on a french invasion. And so the clashes over legitimacy and rule continue.
In addition, King John sheds light on the jeopardy of war and invasion that hovers around both
kingdoms, France and England. Starting with the ambassador that is sent by king
Philip of France to intimidate the English king, to humiliate the 'borrowed majesty' he
possesses, and to order him to give up the crown to his nephew, Arthur ; otherwise
France will wage “fierce and bloody war” . Anyhow, king John's reaction did not meet his
enemy's expectations, and he haughtily replies Philip's declaration of war with
a "war for war". Hence, he claims that he will be in
France before the french arrival can be announced. Another instance in the play
where the theme of war prevails is in Act IV scene II in which the lords rebel
against king John and side by the French. In his "The copy of your speed is
learn'd by them;\For when you should be told they do prepare,\The tidings come
that they are all arrived.",the messenger
notifies the king about the war to come as well as the enemy's well
preparation.
Furthermore, in his play,
Shakespeare underscores the conflicts that may appear between the church, as a
religious institution, and the king as a political one. As a matter of fact,
the English king considers himself as the supreme head below God, and that no
one could ever intervene within his realm, even the Pope. Hence, he refuses the
appointment of Stephen Langton as an Archbishop of Canterbury by a papal
decree, as he considers all the followers of the Pope as foes and he neglects his
right to collect tithes. Thus, all these provocations that John committed would
pave the way for an obvious excommunication that was declared by the legate.
Consequently, the legate asks Philip to relinquish his alliance with John,
since his son was married to John's niece, so he breaks with him and sides by
the church for it is believed to be more powerful. Accordingly, new wars and
battles take place and so the vicious circle that the characters are trapped in
grows larger.
To sum up, we may say that, through
the use of a set of historical events, Shakespeare mirrors some hotly debatable
issues of that time, such us politics and legitimacy, politics and wars, and
politics as a religion. However, many people believe that our playwright aimed
at using these specific events for the sake of drama, and not for the sake of history.
As a matter of fact, William
Shakespeare alludes to the events that took place during the reign of king John
from 1199 until his death in 1216. However, it is obvious that the playwright
had not been faithful to many of these historical outbreaks, whether they are
related to characters,
death or to other events.
As far as the characters are
concerned, Shakespeare was not as subjective, when it comes to history, as he
is supposed to be. Ultimately, he takes dramatic liberties with many characters
in the play. Starting with Philip, the Bastard. He is an illegitimate son to
Richard and Lady Faulconbridge, yet, he is created by Shakespeare. In
other words, he is a character who has not been a real historical figure, he is
an invention that one would rather call a Shakespearean theatrical technique.
Hence, one may consider it as a dramatic prossess that goes hand in hand with
the historical events, still it does not contribute to the authentic-like
quality of the play ; it is just there as a moral foil to John. Even the
barons in the play do not really resemble their image during the reign of king
John.For Shakespeare marginalizes the populace instead of attributing the
nobility with the strength they really had and the power they posessed. Moving
to other characters such us Leopold, the Archduke of Austria. Actually, including
this character in the play may be explained in two ways : Whether the
playwright did not know that Leopold died five years before John got the crown,
or he did know about this fact and he aimed at ignoring it for he needed to
obtain a more developed plot. Yet, one cannot deny the fact that this Archduke
did not live to witness John's being a king. Therefore,
Shakespeare made a fusion between dates and events.
Added to Leopold, Constance seems
to be another « Shakespearean failure », as some people believe.
Actually , Arthur's mother, in the play, dies after her son's capture, which
was not the case in reality. Historically speaking, Constance was remarried and
died one year before Arthur's being captured by his uncle in 1202.
Additionally, Shakespeare portrays
Arthur as younger than he was in reality. While the historic Arthur was at
least 16 at the time of his presumed death, the theatrical one is still a kid
who relies on his mother's guidance and needs her to hold his hand until he
jumps from the wall of the castle and dies. In this context, death in the play
is used as an evident theme ; hence, Shakespeare focuses on the
theatricality of the scenes, rather than their historical dimensions. For
instance, when it comes to Arthur, the reality about his death is still a
mystery and no one actually knows what happened to him. Except for some historians who claimed that he "disappeared" in 1203.
To further enrich the dramatic
process, Shakespeare instills in the play a tragic end of his creation which
has to do with the death of the king. He claims that John was poisoned by a
monk at Swinstead. Nevertheless, history says something else. That is the
loss of his treasure while passing through the marshes,including the crown
jewels he inherited from his grandmother Matilda, added to his being attacked
by dysentery were the fundamental reasons
behind his passing away. Right then he was carried to Newark, there
where he died. Thus, depression and desease paved the way to his death.
By the same token, the events were,
similarly, compressed into a more suitable timeline for the sake of the story.
In fact, Shakespeare epitomizes the conflict with the French and John's
disobedience of the Pope as two events that follow on the heels of Arthur's
death. Hence, he ignores the fact that the disagreement about the appointment
of Stephen Langton by the Pope took place 5 years later in 1207. What is more, Shakespeare lessened the
significance and the influence of the quarrel between John and the pope to
interwove it within the rest of the events, Arthur's claim and the barons’s
revolt. After Arthur's death, the dispute between the two powers begins and
then ended before the baron's rebellion. Then, John accepts to obey pope
Innocent III. Besides, it is taken for granted in the play that the king lost
his lords for he had ordered Hubert to imprison Arthur and to kill him.
However, reality has always a different version to show. Murder was a normal
political practice in medieval times. Hence, the barons were reluctant to
support John for other several stronger reasons among which one may mention the
fact that he was the reason behind the loss of their French lands because of
his misrule and his imposition of royal
supervision over the remaining important portions. Moreover, the barons’ hatred
toward John augmented due to the violation of the principles that the Magna
Carta had summoned since 1215, though this document was not even mentioned in
the play.
Likewise, Pandulph, the papal
legate did not ally with France against John until 1211, nor did the planned
invasion against England start until 1216, the same year during which John
died. Another instance in the play that may be considered as an error is
Shakespeare's distilling the battles between John and Philip to two wars. Whereas
in reality there were four. ?
In
brief, it is obvious that William Shakespeare was less concerned with history
than with the tragic dramatic quality of the play. Indeed, his focus was more
directed to the stylistic effect, rather than the reality of history. Hence, he
made of the death of Arthur the climax, drammatically speaking, of the era
during which John reigned, as he made of it the climax of the play.
Additionally, he represented John’s usurpation of the crown form his nephew as
the dominant issue in the play in support of his all-important theme, political
legitimacy.
All in
all, King John
is a play conerned with a usurpation that some historians doubt, rather than
about the religious conflict that is proven to have taken place. For this reason,
Shakespeare tackles the issue in a way that the reader would think that the
religious question at that time was less important than the issue of political
legitimacy, which was not the case. Religious affair was the most debated issue
during the reign of king John ;however, politcal legitimacy was the
talking that monopolized the minds of the people during the Elizabethan Era.
Thus, one may say that shakespeare mixed
between both epochs in order to serve drama, rather than history. Accordingly,
the reader may deduce that what we see on stage is not what people saw in the
past ;whether i twas in the castle, in the battlefield, in France or in
England. Still, it is unfair to deny the fact that the playwright managed to
tackle a variety of historical events in a subjetive way, with no interference
such as the excommuniation of John and his being recrowned and many other
events.
Sources :
ü King John by William Shakespeare
ü Stories of Shakespeare's
English History Plays by Helene Adeline
Guerber. New York: Dodd, Mead and company.
ü Guide
to Shakespeare (Asimov, 1970), Complete
Works of Shakespeare 5th ed. (Bevington, 2009), Essential Shakespeare Handbook (Dunton-Downer
and Riding, 2004), Kings and
Queens of England (Williams, 2008), NTC's Dictionary of Shakespeare (Clark, 1996)
ü
http://hudsonshakespeare.org/
ü
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/
ü http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/
ü http://www.bardweb.net/
