Death in the Desert Book

King John is probably the history play I delved in the deepest (which means I read the whole introduction, most of the commentary and the appendix … can someone give me an award for turning into a scholar?) and so I'm able say it with my whole chest: John is a pathetic little ass.

Let's not kid ourselves, I wasn't excited to delve into this play. It's supposed to be one of the more boring histories (absolutely correct!) and on top of that, I heard that it wasn't particularly well written because Shakespeare wrote it fairly early in his career (sometime in the mid-1590s) (also correct!), and so I knew this would be a pain in the ass to read. However, due to the fact that I read the introduction before the actual play, I was actually excited to see how Shakespeare would play out this historic mess of succession to the British throne … because, boy, let me tell you, if you thought the Wars of the Roses was messy, it'll take you a hot minute to understand why A) John sits on the throne, B) how he defended his claim, C) who is challenging the claim and D) why they're doing that.

So, let me break it down to you. Let me take you back to England in 1199, the year that Richard I (better known as Coeur-de-lion or Lionheart) died and the throne was up for grabs again. The problem with Richard was that he left no heir because he only had one illegitimate child (conveniently referenced as "bastard" throughout the entire play… oh Willie!). And since the next eldest son of Henry II (the former King) was also illegitimate (we talking about Geoffrey here), things got a little messy because as the next child in line, John saw his claim to the throne as certain (John is the youngest son of Henry II and therefore also the youngest brother of Richard). I know I probably should've just provided a family tree but whatever. Now you know where John's claim is coming from.

The problem is that his claim was challenged by Arthur (spurred on by his mother Constance). Arthur is the son of Geoffrey. In real life, he only lay claim to certain English territories in France (like Anjou) but Shakespeare kinda blew that out of proportion for the play and made Arthur deny John's legitimate King-ship. Shakespeare also conveniently doesn't mention that Geoffrey was an illegitimate child, so Arthur's claim would be even stronger. The law of primogeniture, firmly established in Shakespeare's time, but not entirely so in John's (!), would make Arthur's claim to the English crown better than his uncle's. KING PHILIP [to John]
But thou from loving England art so far
That thou hast under wrought his lawful king,
Cut off the sequence of posterity,
Outfaced infant state, and done a rape
Upon the maiden virtue of the crown. Historically, Richard I's will was undisputed in England, where John inherited his brother's power virtually unchallenged, since Richard wanted John to succeed him.

However, in the play, John has the problem that he is not seen as the rightful King by all of his subjects. On top of that, Arthur's claim is backed up by France because, for some damn reason, Arthur is chillin' with the French King (…that is never really elaborated upon and I'm still confused what this little British boy was doing at the French court but oh well), and so war with France is also looming if John doesn't yield the throne. And as if this wasn't enough, John also got in major trouble with Rome (aka the fucking Pope) because he was a fervent Protestant and wanted England to be independent from papal power and catholicism in general… and let's just say, things got ugly pretty quickly.

This last point may also be the reason why Shakespeare wrote this play in the first place because it oddly stands out rather alone and isolated when you look at the other history plays that Shakespeare has written. King John is set well before all of them and John's struggle against catholicism may be the reason for it. The play has a lot of patriotic moments in which characters proclaim that England shall always be independent and free from foreign influence (wether that be Rome, France or Spain). It even ends with a patriotic outcry provided by the bastard after John's death: O, let us pay the time but needful woe,
Since it hath been beforehand with our griefs.
This England never did, nor never shall,
Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror,
But when it first did help to wound itself.
Now these her princes are come home again,
Come the three corners of the world in arms,
And we shall shock them. Nought shall make us rue,
If England to itself do rest but true. But let's get back to our King. He's pathetic, fallible, uncertain and truly an imperfect monarch. He is successful at first (mainly in Act 1 and 2) withstanding the French and the Pope but as the play moves along, he becomes subject to corruption, ill-judgement and, ultimately, collapsing fully and giving his power away. It's a pathetic sight to behold.

The play was incredibly frustrating to read due to how Shakespeare set up all the events. In one scene he shows a conflict or problem and then in the next scene it is resolved in the silliest fashion, e.g. the dispute between England and France is resolved by John simply surrendering to all the French demands (which is historically inaccurate) and you as a reader are left wondering why it was such a dispute in the first place, if John then a couple of minutes later seemingly has no issues surrendering Anjou and Maine to Arthur. It makes no damn sense. All of John's reasonings and actions are stupid as fuck and he just pissed me off.

Arthur is just as bad. Throughout, Shakespeare purposefully portrays him as a little boy incapable of making good decisions. The first time we see him he is actually embracing his uncle's killer and being so co-dependent on his mother, we have no other choice but to feel like he is unfit for ruling. Let's not talk about his stupid ass prison break plan … that fails and ultimately gets him killed (…well, who would've thought that jumping out of the window of the tower you're imprisoned in will get you killed…). He leaps down
O me! My uncle's spirit is in these stones!
Heaven take my soul, and England keep my bones!
He dies Good riddance, that's all I have to say on that.

The only sensible soul in this play is the "Bastard", and that's especially interesting since Shakespeare kinda invented him. He is the only character of significance in any of the Bard's history plays that isn't based on a real person. And yet, the "Bastard" is the only one who really shines in this play. He's the only one with honest true emotions and somewhat good moral values, unlike John who orders the blinding of a mere boy (=> Arthur's eyes are to be cut out). He is also the only one able to call John out for his bullshit and his weak ass decisions ("Let not the world see fear and sad distrust / Govern the motion of a kingly eye.")

Let's also note that Shakespeare's misogyny really shines in this play because he never misses an opportunity to weigh in on the weaknesses of women ("she's a woman, naturally born to fears"). Moreover, there are only three women in this play and they are all equally pathetic and rather unimportant: Blanche is to be married off to Lewis in order for John to able to appease France and come up with a peace treaty (so she's literally treated as an object) and then she is abused by her husband who doesn't really care about her, both Eleanor and Constance (mothers to John and Arthur respectively) are only obsessed and concerned with their son's life and claim to power … both of them die off stage and their childish bickerings don't provide anything useful to the story.

So, at the end of the day, I really have to say that I left this play rooting for absolutely no one at all, even though the "Bastard" is the most sensible one, he never really grew on me due to the rather bad writing of Willie overall, and the back and forth of the plot was just annoying and frustrating to read. At the end, I was very happy that both Arthur (by jumping out a fucking window) and John (either by poison or through a fever) died and we could move the fuck on. Deuces!