King John (Vol. 88)
For further information on the critical and stage history of King John, see SC, Volumes 9, 24, 41, 56, 68, and 78.
Categorized among Shakespeare's early historical dramas, King John (c. 1596) occupies a unique position between his first and second tetralogies. Unlike Shakespeare's other chronicle history plays, King John is generally thought to eschew a providential vision of English history, instead depicting a chaotic universe and an unpredictable sequence of events largely devoid of any teleological meaning. The play details the declining reign of the titular English king, a thirteenth-century monarch mired in a war with France and plagued with questions over the legitimacy of his rule. Critics have traditionally assumed that Shakespeare used the anonymously published The Troublesome Reign of John, King of England (1591) as a source for his play. Some recent commentators disagree with this assumption, however, and argue instead that The Troublesome Reign was derived from Shakespeare's King John. Scholars note that Shakespeare deliberately distorted historical fact in King John in order to focus on the play's principal theme: political legitimacy. This subject was of particular interest to Elizabethans because Queen Elizabeth's legitimacy was frequently questioned. In addition to the play's political content, critics are interested in Shakespeare's characterization of King John and his illegitimate nephew, the Bastard. Other ongoing issues of significance with regard to King John include the drama's sources, structure, and validity as a subject of contemporary theatrical performance.
Modern scholarship of King John has devoted considerable attention to the relationship between Shakespeare's drama and its probable source, The Troublesome Reign of John, King of England. Nicole Rowan (see Further Reading) compares King John with The Troublesome Reign of John in order to highlight John's motivation in both works. Rowan notes that despite his overall elevation of the poetic and dramatic quality of his source, Shakespeare's King John lacks the psychological motivation of the original. Guy Hamel (1989) follows a similar approach, again through comparison with The Troublesome Reign of John. According to Hamel, Shakespeare altered his source material in a number of significant ways, particularly his expanded characterization of the Bastard and his improvement upon the play's poetic quality. A more traditional, early twentieth-century discussion of character in King John is reflected in the critical writings of Stopford A. Brooke (see Further Reading). Brooke maintains that Shakespeare's John is one of the most historically accurate portrayals in the drama, an estimation that has since been largely discredited by subsequent scholarship. Characterizing John as an insensible villain, Brooke views the Bastard as King John's moral center and tacit hero and designates John's wife Constance as the source of the play's emotional depth. Charles Stubblefield (1973) presents contrasting appraisals of John and the Bastard based on their differing perceptions of the chaotic, deceitful, and insecure political world of Shakespeare's King John. Stubblefield views John as a bargainer and betrayer whose political treachery in ordering the death of his rivals is repaid in kind. In contrast, Stubblefield commends the Bastard for having accurately apprehended the unstable world around him and for penetrating the cynicism of his king. Turning to a minor but pivotal figure in King John, Sidney C. Burgoyne (1977) evaluates the guileful papal legate Cardinal Pandulph, characterizing him as the drama's principal “mischief-maker,” a sinister schemer whose actions contribute to the oppressive atmosphere of political chaos that pervades the play.
During the course of its stage history, King John has seen periods of relative popularity succeeded by long stretches of neglect. Geraldine Cousin (1994) offers a summary of King John's theatrical history, from its period of topical relevance in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to a phase of heavy-handed stage adaptation in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Cousin concludes with a look at the dramatic performance of King John in the twentieth century, a low point in its popularity according to the critic. The period shortly after Cousin wrote her survey, however, witnessed a resurgence of interest in King John as a stage piece. Two productions in particular, director Karin Coonrod's 2000 staging of the drama with the Theatre for a New Audience and Gregory Doran's Royal Shakespeare Company production of 2001, reaffirmed the dramatic potential of this frequently overlooked work. Reviewer Ben Brantley (2000) offers a generally positive assessment of Coonrod's “tough-minded and darkly funny” version. Brantley finds Coonrod's stylized and political interpretation of King John well-realized, though somewhat lacking in “intricate characterization.” Dan Isaac (2000) admires Coonrod's “vibrantly alive” production and notes its emphasis on the play's concerns with legitimacy and cynical politics. Reviewing the Royal Shakespeare Company staging, Alastair Macaulay (2001) commends the strong performances of the cast as well as Doran's fine stewardship of the drama, but suggests that even these could not surmount the plot and pacing weaknesses inherent in Shakespeare's play. Offering a similar assessment, Ian Shuttleworth (2001) contends that “Doran's production as a whole works excellently on its own terms, but the niggling doubt remains that there are aspects of the play which are not, and perhaps never can be, all fully brought out in performance.” Reviewing the same production, Susannah Clapp (2001) praises Doran's “shrewd and playful and pertinent” staging. Clapp singles out several excellent performances, particularly Guy Henry in the demanding title role.
Scholars of King John have generally concentrated on the play's central issue: political legitimacy. John Sibly (1966) examines the play's themes of usurpation, rebellion, and social turmoil. Sibly stresses that these themes, as well as John's questionable legitimacy, would have strongly resonated with Elizabethan audiences. The critic also identifies a profoundly anti-Catholic and anti-papal element in the drama. Gunnar Boklund (1968) observes the elusiveness of a “happy ending” in King John. Boklund notes that the play's ambiguous conclusion dramatizes the uneasy compromise between Christian moral principle and corrupted political self-interest (termed “commodity” in the drama) and ultimately fails to resolve the thematic tensions between these two opposing ideologies. In his 1970 essay, Philip D. Ortego aligns King John with the Tudor myth that features so prominently in Shakespeare's chronicle history sequences. Like the first and second tetralogies, Ortego claims, King John invokes the Tudor doctrine of providential, divine-right monarchy as a tool of political legitimacy and social unity. Douglas C. Wixson (1981) describes King John as an “open” form of Elizabethan political propaganda that makes an appeal for political unity. Wixson notes that the work represents a balance between artistic and political concerns, which contributes to the expansiveness of its message. Lastly, Kenneth Tucker (2003) underscores the chaotic worldview rendered in King John, emphasizing elements of confusion, perplexity, and Machiavellian political deceit that inform the drama.
Criticism: Overviews And General Studies
SOURCE: Hamel, Guy. “King John and The Troublesome Raigne: A Reexamination.” In King John: New Perspectives, edited by Deborah T. Curren-Aquino, pp. 41-61. Cranbury, N.J.: Associated University Presses, 1989.
[In the following essay, Hamel approaches King John as an adaptation of the anonymous 1591 drama The Troublesome Reign of John, King of England, noting that Shakespeare altered his source material in a number of significant ways, particularly his expanded characterization of the Bastard and his improvement upon the play's poetic quality.]
The comparison of Shakespeare's King John to the anonymous The Troublesome Raigne of Iohn King of England has been done so often that one should offer some justification for doing it again.1 My reasons are both specific and general. The immediate cause is a recent note by Sidney Thomas supporting the “orthodox” opinion that The Troublesome Raigne precedes King John.2 That claim now seems to me so strong as to need no further elaboration or support. One need no longer hedge or leave an escape route in assuming that King John derives ultimately from The Troublesome Raigne.
The larger justification for this study is the defense offered in Shakespearean criticism of the past few years for the independent authority of the separate versions represented by...
(The entire section is 9648 words.)
SOURCE: Beaurline, L. A., ed. Introduction to The New Cambridge Shakespeare: King John, by William Shakespeare, pp. 1-62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[In the following excerpt, Beaurline traces parallels between the structural design and characterizations of King John.]
Like Shakespeare's other histories and tragedies, [King John] falls into two unequal parts, roughly equivalent to Acts 1-3 and 4-5.1 The first part concerns two challenges to John's authority, one of which he finesses, the other he overcomes: the second part concerns the French invasion, which the kingdom survives but John does not. Part I is dominated by three massive scenes with Tamburlaine-like debates, used as weapons with intent to beat down an opponent. Part II still contains some big speeches, but the scenes are scaled down and they move ahead breathlessly from one catastrophe to the next. Part I creates the conditions for John's tragedy in a series of dubious and difficult choices, vows and broken vows, that foreshadow worse times to come. In the second part the characters still must choose, but in their compounded troubles events seem to slip from their control. As a result the world becomes so treacherous and unpredictable that oath-breaking seems more meritorious than oath-keeping.2
Therefore, in the world of the play most decisions are necessarily impure: an idea...
(The entire section is 4807 words.)
SOURCE: Cousin, Geraldine. Introduction to Shakespeare in Performance: King John, pp. 1-27. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994.
[In the following excerpt, Cousin surveys the performance and critical history of King John, listing significant adaptations of the drama and summarizing major movements in its reception and interpretation.]
KING JOHN IN THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES
The few incontestable facts concerning the early history of King John are soon told: in 1598 it was listed among Shakespeare's ‘tragedies’ in Francis Meres's Palladis Tamia; it was initially published in the First Folio of 1623; the first production for which a record still exists was at Covent Garden in February 1737. Scholarly opinion is divided with regard to both the date of the play's composition and whether this precedes or antedates the publication, in 1591, of an anonymous play, The Troublesome Reign of John, King of England. Though the majority view has been that Shakespeare's play is a reworking of The Troublesome Reign, and must therefore have been written sometime between 1591 and 1598 (probably 1594-96), a number of critics, including recently L. A. Beaurline, editor of The New Cambridge Shakespeare King John, have argued that Shakespeare's play was written first, some time after the second edition of Holinshed's...
(The entire section is 9433 words.)
Criticism: Character Studies
SOURCE: Stubblefield, Charles. “Some Thoughts about King John.” CEA Critic 35, no. 3 (March 1973): 25-8.
[In the following essay, Stubblefield presents contrasting appraisals of John and the Bastard based on their differing perceptions of the chaotic, deceitful, and insecure political world of Shakespeare's King John.]
No two commentators read Shakespeare's King John alike, and in some instances there are directly opposed views as to what the meaning of the play is. What characterizes a large portion of the criticism that one reads on King John is its tendency to consider only one element of the play, such as characterization or imagery. Such criticism, while it is true enough in its limited way, cannot hope to derive a meaning which is valid for the total play. Most commentators seem reluctant to look at the play closely to determine just what its central issues are. One has the feeling that they have read the play perfunctorily and that they wish to deal with it as quickly as possibly so they can move on to the meatier subjects in Shakespeare. This surface treatment condemns the play out of hand, and while one must agree that King John does not rank with Shakespeare's great plays, it is much more significant than such criticism indicates.
A play, or any work of art, derives its meaning from its parts; it can be dissected, the parts analyzed and separate...
(The entire section is 2327 words.)
SOURCE: Burgoyne, Sidney C. “Cardinal Pandulph and the ‘Curse of Rome.’” College Literature 4, no. 3 (fall 1977): 232-40.
[In the following essay, Burgoyne stresses Cardinal Pandulph's role as villain and “chief mischief-maker” in King John.]
Although holding a minority opinion, a surprising number of writers1 have viewed Cardinal Pandulph, the papal legate, in a kindly light, and some have maintained that in comparison with the source-play2 Shakespeare's King John shows a complete absence of anti-Catholic elements.3 A recent scholar offers a far more perceptive view of the Cardinal but then seems to miss his significance and stage value as the papal legate: “Pandulph is an evil genius—cocksure and skilled in having his own way—who happens to be a papal legate”; and concludes that he is a figure of some stature but only “for a few moments in the play.”4 But to say that he “happens to be a papal legate” is to defuse the play; it is like saying that Shylock is a usurer, who happens to be a Jew; or that Othello is a great military commander, who happens to be black. The Cardinal's influence is much more than momentary: he has a decisive effect on the action, and he is a major source of the evils that afflict England. Pandulph is the proud churchman, who functions here as the evil counselor, the catalyst, who makes possible the...
(The entire section is 3618 words.)
Criticism: Production Reviews
SOURCE: Brantley, Ben. Review of King John. New York Times (31 January 2000): E1.
[In the following review, Brantley finds director Karin Coonrod's stylized and political interpretation of King John with the Theater for a New Audience well-realized, though somewhat lacking in “intricate characterization.”]
The man in the front row, the one with the heavy black eyeliner, can't believe what he's seeing. Actually, he's a character in Karin Coonrod's lively new production of Shakespeare's King John, but he has decided to join the audience to get a clearer perspective on what's going on between the play's title monarch and the King of France It is, he has decided, a pretty disgusting spectacle.
All those rubber principles bending every whichaway, all that instant backtracking, all that compromise parading as conviction, this all comes as a shock to the fellow known as the Bastard, a virgin in the realm of government, played by Derek Smith. What he observes leads him to wax poetic and satiric on something he calls “commodity,” or pure self-interest.
It's the most famous monologue in this brooding political cartoon of a play, which opened last night in a production by the Theater for a New Audience at the American Place Theater, a mock-Machiavellian primer of a speech on how to get by in a corrupt society. That it is delivered by a man who has...
(The entire section is 1031 words.)
SOURCE: Isaac, Dan. Review of King John. Back Stage 41, no. 6 (11 February 2000): 56.
[In the following review, Isaac admires Karin Coonrod's “vibrantly alive” 2000 Theatre for a New Audience production of King John, noting its emphasis on the play's concerns with legitimacy and cynical politics.]
Shakespeare's King John, generally thought to be a weak play about a weak embattled king, comes vibrantly alive in an imaginative production directed by Karin Coonrod and presented by Theatre for a New Audience.
The question of who has the right to inherit is introduced in the opening scene, when a French ambassador threatens war if King John (Ned Eisenberg) does not surrender his land to France and his throne to young Arthur, a legitimate claimant. Moments later, King John, sympathizing with a bastard who has lost his right to inherit his father's land, grants him the nobility of knighthood. Known only as the Bastard, this character becomes a choral figure whose cynical wit and passionate patriotism color the action. Derek Smith's engaging portrayal of the Bastard keeps the audience in the world of the play, even when too many scenes takes place “on another part of the battlefield.”
The stunning event of this production comes when the imprisoned Arthur (Michael Ray Escamilla) makes a perilous decision to escape by jumping from a high wall....
(The entire section is 338 words.)
SOURCE: Shuttleworth, Ian. Review of King John. Financial Times (30 March 2001): 18.
[In the following review, Shuttleworth suggests that Gregory Doran's 2001 Royal Shakespeare Company production of King John resolved some, but not all, of the play's problems of characterization and structural unity.]
While Northern Broadsides beat the Royal Shakespeare Company to the punch by a couple of weeks with the first big production of King John in a decade or more, Gregory Doran's production in the Swan at Stratford is the more watchable; moreover, the problems with the play are not fictitious, and Doran goes some—though not the whole—way towards resolving them.
The main “problem”, compared to Shakespeare's other histories, is that John is neither a good nor bad king, a good nor bad person, nor let down by a single tragic flaw. This, for once, is not a history play about how the throne of England is well or ill-served by its occupant, but rather one in which the powers of England, France and the papacy are alike motivated by shifting priorities of pragmatism. When the English and French, on the brink of war, are ranged outside the town of Angiers which has vowed to admit only the victor, they are persuaded temporarily to set aside their differences and lay joint siege to the city; this is in turn averted by a convenient dynastic marriage. Within minutes, the French...
(The entire section is 504 words.)
SOURCE: Clapp, Susannah. Review of King John. Observer (1 April 2001): 13.
[In the following excerpted review, Clapp singles out several excellent performances in director Gregory Doran's “shrewd and playful” 2001 Royal Shakespeare Company production of King John.]
Suddenly King John, one of the least performed of Shakespeare's plays, is all the rage. Last month, Northern Broadsides belted it out in Halifax. Now it's at the Swan. And in Gregory Doran's marvellous new production, it comes up shrewd and playful and pertinent. Shot through with humour and despair, this study of political shenanigans presents diplomacy (alias spin) as a series of playground games played for high stakes; it involves a trio of sorrowful women and a host of cynical men.
From the moment that Guy Henry's febrile, flippant King John arrives late to greet the French Ambassador—the trumpets are on their second fanfare and the nobles are rolling their eyes in exasperation—it's clear that the throne is in insolent hands. He rushes in, putting on his crown as if he were pulling on a baseball cap; later, he dangles it in his hand and wags it reprovingly.
Instability is the key to Henry's clever, comical performance, which is enhanced by his tendency to spin out the verse in long, warbling lines. He can behave like an infant having a temper tantrum: stamping his foot at the papal...
(The entire section is 441 words.)
SOURCE: Macaulay, Alastair. Review of King John. Financial Times (20 December 2001): 22.
[In the following review of Gregory Doran's 2001 Royal Shakespeare Company production of King John, Macaulay commends the strong performances of the cast as well as Doran's fine stewardship of the drama, but suggests that even these could not surmount the plot and pacing weaknesses inherent in Shakespeare's play.]
No Shakespeare play comes round less often than King John. And yet there's never any doubt that all of it—unlike Pericles or Henry VIII, for example—is Shakespeare's work. In every scene, the cut-and-thrust of dialogue, the wonderful alternations of plain talk and lyrical metaphor, the forcefields created simply by bringing dissimilar characters together: all this feels sheer Shakespeare.
Why don't we see King John more often? It has the most famously misquoted line in all of Shakespeare “to paint the lily and to gild refined gold” (usually rendered as “to gild the lily”—many a pedant has waxed hot on that). It has a wide selection of vivid and radically different characters: the unkingly King John with his unpredictable and drastic shifts of temper, the dead King Richard Coeur-de-Lion's impudent bastard son, the militant old Queen mother Eleanor, the furiously grieving Constance (mother of Arthur, rightful heir to the throne by...
(The entire section is 598 words.)
SOURCE: Barrow, Craig. Review of King John. Upstart Crow 22 (2002): 96-9.
[In the following review of Howard Jensen's production of King John at the 2001 Alabama Shakespeare Festival, Barrow praises the set design, costuming, and excellent individual performances, as well as its concentration on the tragic potential of John.]
On entering the Octagon to see King John, one is confronted by a series of arches forming a rampart set at an acute angle to the stage; each arch seems slightly larger than the next. One wishes imaginatively to make these arches harmonically the same size, but one is frustrated by the creation of this visible symbol of the play by its Scenic Designer, Emily Beck. This skewed design, probably a collaboration with Director Howard Jensen, serves as a representative of the twisted behavior one so often sees in this Shakespearean play. While critics such as James L. Calderwood in “Commodity and Honor in King John”1 and William H. Matchett in “Richard's Divided Heritage in King John”2 see the Bastard as a potential king in contrast to the ineffectual, morally corrupt John, the ASF production goes another way. Although it does not present the Bastard negatively as Richard A. Levin in “King John's Bastard”3 does, where he argues that the Bastard follows rather than criticizes commodity, or self-interest,...
(The entire section is 1123 words.)
SOURCE: Sibly, John. “The Anomalous Case of King John.” ELH 33, no. 4 (December 1966): 415-21.
[In the following essay, Sibly describes King John as a strongly anti-papal drama depicting themes of usurpation and political legitimacy that were especially relevant in the Elizabethan era.]
Most writers on the subject of King John have been puzzled by the emphasis Shakespeare lays on the fact that the eponymous monarch was an usurper. In what must for many years remain the standard study of the History plays, for instance, Mr. Reese1 speaks of ‘Shakespeare's curious insistence that John was a usurper. …’ E. A. J. Honigmann in his Preface to the New Arden King John2 says ‘John's “usurpation” is Shakespeare's fiction, for his “right” is not seriously questioned in the chronicles.’ Recently, John R. Elliott has pointed out3 that Shakespeare presumably got the idea of making him an usurper from the Tudor historian Polydore Vergil. We may ask why a Tudor writer should emphasise this view when, as Elliott says ‘… most of the chroniclers had grudgingly admitted that King Richard had indeed designated John his heir in a deathbed will which replaced an earlier one favouring his nephew Prince Arthur.’ Why, too, we may ask, did a Tudor playwright in 1595 go to such lengths to emphasise this ‘usurpation’ in a play notoriously...
(The entire section is 2584 words.)
SOURCE: Boklund, Gunnar. “The Troublesome Ending of King John.” Studia Neophilologica 40, no. 1 (1968): 175-84.
[In the following essay, Boklund observes the elusiveness of a “happy ending” in King John and notes that the play's ambiguous conclusion dramatizes the uneasy compromise between Christian moral principle and corrupted political self-interest.]
To judge from the critical attention that has been devoted to King John since the publication of Tillyard's and Lily B. Campbell's books on Shakespeare's history plays, it is now taken much more seriously than previously, although nothing like critical unanimity about it has so far been reached. Three of the writers who hold very high opinions of King John interpret the emphasis of the play quite differently: Adrien Bonjour, being primarily concerned with dramatic structure, sees the significant pattern in the balance between John's disintegration and the Bastard's assumption of responsibility, James L. Calderwood views the action in terms of a conflict between honour and commodity, and William H. Matchett identifies the main theme as “who should be King of England”.1 As a result of several investigations of the relationship between King John and The Troublesome Raigne, however, we have learned to realize how problematic Shakespeare's adherence to what has become known as Tudor orthodox...
(The entire section is 3694 words.)
SOURCE: Ortego, Philip D. “Shakespeare and the Doctrine of Monarchy in King John.” CLA Journal 13, no. 4 (June 1970): 392-401.
[In the following essay, Ortego argues that King John, like Shakespeare's other history plays, invokes the Tudor doctrine of providential, divine-right monarchy as a tool of political legitimacy and social unity.]
In the very first play of the Histories, King John, Shakespeare omits the most significantly important event of the time, videlicet, the baronial charter of concessions called the Magna Carta. In the Birth of Britain Winston Churchill describes this singular event as follows:
On a Monday morning in June, between Staines and Windsor, the barons and Churchmen began to collect on the great meadows at Runnymede. An uneasy hush fell on them from time to time. Many had failed to keep their tryst; and the bold few who had come knew that the King would never forgive this humiliation. He would hunt them down when he could, and the laymen at least were staking their lives in the cause they served. They had arranged a little throne for the King and a tent. The handful of resolute men had drawn up, it seems, a short document on parchment. Their retainers and the groups and squadrons of horsemen in sullen steel kept at some distance and well in the background. For was not armed rebellion against the Crown the...
(The entire section is 3372 words.)
SOURCE: Wixson, Douglas C. “‘Calm Words Folded Up in Smoke’: Propaganda and Spectator Response in Shakespeare's King John.” Shakespeare Studies 14 (1981): 111-27.
[In the following essay, Wixson describes King John as an “open” form of Elizabethan political propaganda that makes an appeal for political unity.]
The low view of political life, Faulconbridge's determination to run with the times, conflicts in which both sides lose, divided loyalties, endless “jawboning”—these are elements of Shakespeare's King John that ought to make it material for a successful modern production. Yet this play continues to languish, awaiting some future rebirth of interest, meanwhile attracting relatively little attention from scholars or producers. There have been, of course, long periods in the past when John thrived.1 Have we misread the play in our own time? I suggest here that we might consider freeing John from the bondage of historical circumstance or formal dramaturgical convention. It is not necessary to read John as a political morality play in order to recognize in it types of politicians, indeed politics as a kind of theater with its own special conventions. Are we not, after all, used to viewing politicians as actors playing out their roles on the world's stage? And is not Faulconbridge's creditability established with us when in the...
(The entire section is 6619 words.)
SOURCE: Tucker, Kenneth. “‘Cry, havoc!’ King John and the Darkling Plain.” In Shakespeare and Jungian Typology: A Reading of the Plays, pp. 15-32. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company, 2003.
[In the following essay, Tucker considers themes associated with the chaotic, unpredictable, and Machiavellian political world of King John.]
Among Shakespeare's history plays King John has seldom received accolades. Early in the twentieth century, E. K Chambers, in his Shakespeare: A Survey, dubbed it an “incoherent patchwork” (102). E. M. W. Tillyard in his classic, if controversial, Shakespeare's History Plays, though finding the drama “full of promise and new life,” laments that “as a whole it is uncertain of itself” (266). More recently Russell Fraser has aligned himself with its detractors, marshaling a battalion of judgments against it. Fraser finds the play “all carapace, and you look in vain for interior logic” (154). Maurice Charney remarks upon “the shapelessness of the play” (151). Deeming it an early work, Ian Wilson judges “the play as a whole [lacks] the quality” of the plays Shakespeare was scripting in the mid-nineties (209). More recently still, Park Honan judges that “King John's overall form is poorer than in its best scenes, and the play is not a strong one” (195).
Some reasons for the general reader's neglect...
(The entire section is 7458 words.)
Berman, Ronald. “Anarchy and Order in Richard III and King John.” Shakespeare Survey 20 (1967): 51-60.
Contends that King John and Richard III differ significantly from Shakespeare's other historical dramas in their depiction of a conflict between anarchic individualism and idealized social order, as respectively personified in the figures of the Bastard and Richard III.
Berryman, John. “1590: King John.” In Berryman's Shakespeare, edited by John Haffenden, pp. 296-307. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1999.
Characterizes Shakespeare's early dramatic style as illustrated by King John. This is an unfinished essay, originally written by Berryman in 1960.
Brooke, Stopford A. “King John.” In Ten More Plays of Shakespeare, pp. 227-51. London: Constable, 1913.
Discusses Shakespeare's portrayal of John, the Bastard, and Constance in King John.
Carr, Virginia Mason. The Drama as Propaganda: A Study of The Troublesome Raigne of King John. Salzburg, Austria: Institut für Englishe Sprache und Literatur, 1974, 185 p.
Provides a book-length study of The Troublesome Raigne of King John that evaluates the merits of this anonymous drama and offers a comparative analysis with...
(The entire section is 421 words.)