CRITICISM

Berman, Ronald. “Anarchy and Order in Richard III and King John.” Shakespeare Survey 20 (1967): 51-9.

Argues that both King John and Richard III confront the “anarchic nature of the individual” but end by reasserting the ideals of rationalism and materialism.

Berry, Ralph. “King John: Some Bastards Too.” In The Shakespearean Metaphor: Studies in Language and Form, pp. 26-36. London: Macmillan, 1978.

Interprets King John as a play about right and authority informed by the controlling metaphors of bastardy and legitimacy.

Boklund, Gunnar. “The Troublesome Ending of King John.” Studia Neophilologica 40, no. 1 (1968): 175-84.

Maintains that despite Faulconbridge's seeming arguments to the contrary, commodity and self-interest, rather than honor, remain the dominant political principles at the close of Shakespeare's King John.

Colmo, Christopher. “Coming Home: The Political Settlement in Shakespeare's King John.” In Shakespeare's Political Pageant: Essays in Literature and Politics, edited by Joseph Alulis and Vickie Sullivan, pp. 91-101. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996.

Examines the competing elements of commodity and honor in the political conflicts of King John.

Elliot, John R. “Shakespeare and the Double Image of King John.” Shakespeare Studies 1 (1965): 64-84.

Examines Shakespeare's juxtaposition of two common Elizabethan perceptions of the historical King John—the national hero and the “villainous failure.”

Halio, Jay L. “Alternative Action: The Tragedy of Missed Opportunities in King John.” Hebrew University Studies in Literature and the Arts 11, no. 2 (spring 1983): 254-69.

Examines the play’s tragic pattern of missed opportunities, contending that Shakespeare developed this theme more successfully in subsequent works.

Heberle, Mark A. “‘Innocent Prate’: King John and Shakespeare's Children.” In Infant Tongues: The Voice of the Child in Literature, edited by Elizabeth Goodenough, Mark A. Heberle, and Naomi Sokoloff, pp. 28-43. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1994.

Considers the importance of child characters in Shakespearean drama, with a focus on Arthur of King John.

Hobson, Christopher Z. “Bastard Speech: The Rhetoric of ‘Commodity’ in King John.” Shakespeare Yearbook 2 (spring 1991): 95-114.

Weighs differing interpretations of Lord Faulconbridge's “commodity” speech in Act II, scene i of King John, offering a rhetorical analysis of the soliloquy, and finding an implied warning against Machiavellism in his discourse.

Hodgdon, Barbara. “Fashioning Obedience: King John's ‘True Inheritors.’” In The End Crowns All: Closure and Contradiction in Shakespeare's History, pp. 22-43. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1991.

Focuses on the problem of rule as the central issue of King John, and considers the drama's ambiguous ending, particularly as it has been interpreted on the stage.

Honigmann, E. A. J. Introduction to King John, by William Shakespeare, edited by E. A. J. Honigmann, pp. xi-lxxiii. London: Methuen and Co., 1954.

Surveys the imagery of King John in relation to the play's themes and stylistic devices, concluding that John, although unsatisfactory as the hero of the drama, is nevertheless structurally central.

Lewis, Allan. “Shakespeare and the Morality of Money.” Social Research 36, no. 3 (autumn 1969): 373-88.

Studies Faulconbridge's references to “commodity” in terms of the more contemporary connotation of “merchandise” (a meaning Shakespeare was aware of), rather than in its definition as “self-interest” or “expediency,” as it has more frequently been glossed by editors and critics.

MacKenzie, Clayton G. “Renaissance Emblems of Death and Shakespeare's King John.” English Studies 79, no. 5 (September 1998): 425-9.

Traces the thematic significance of the death and rebirth imagery in King John.

Mullini, Roberta. “‘But Thou Didst Understand Me By My Signs’: The Instability of Signs in King John.” Italian Studies in Shakespeare and His Contemporaries, edited by Michele Marrapodi and Giorgio Melchiori, pp. 206-19. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1999.

Attributes a number of indeterminacies and confusions in King John to tensions between Tudor historiography and Shakespeare's dramatic interpretation of history.

Ortego, Philip D. “Shakespeare and the Doctrine of Monarchy in King John.” CLA Journal 13, no. 4 (June 1970): 392-401.

Comments on Shakespeare's critique of the Tudor Monarchical Myth in King John, his omission of the Magna Carta from the drama, and his concern with historical truth versus simple historical fact.

Sibly, John. “The Anomalous Case of King John.” ELH 33, no. 4 (December 1966): 415-21.

Contends that Shakespeare's introduction of the theme of usurpation into King John allowed him to make a detailed argument against the historical claims of the Papacy in regard to the English crown.

Simon, John. Review of King John. New York Magazine 33, no. 7 (21 February 2000): 101-2.

Reviews the 2000 Theatre for a New Audience production of King John, directed by Karin Coonrod, and finds the production lacking on nearly all counts, from acting and interpretation to set design, reserving praise only for dramatic lighting and two supporting roles.

Weimann, Robert. “Mingling Vice and ‘Worthiness’ in King John.” Shakespeare Studies 27 (1999): 109-33.

Discusses Shakespeare's rhetorical, representational, and thematic conflation of virtue and vice in King John, with particular focus on the figure of Faulconbridge, the Bastard.

White, Howard B. “Bastards and Usurpers: Shakespeare's King John.” In Ancients and Moderns: Essays on the Tradition of Political Philosophy in Honor of Leo Strauss, edited by Joseph Cropsey, pp. 148-76. New York: Basic Books, 1964.

Dissects King John for the purpose of more fully understanding Shakespeare's interest in the philosophical problems associated with political legitimacy.

Womersley, David. “The Politics of Shakespeare's King John.” Review of English Studies 40, no. 160 (November 1989): 497-515.

Relates the development of the Bastard's character over the course of King John to Shakespeare's representation of heterodox political views.