King John: Some Bastards Too

Abstract

The problems of King John invite a direct confrontation: what is the play about? For Tillyard, it is about ‘the theory of loyalty and when it is lawful to rebel against the reigning king.’¹ Irving Ribner, in the same vein, recognises the ‘political didacticism’ of King John: Faulconbridge’s decision is ‘The orthodox doctrine Shakespeare wishes to present most dramatically: Faulconbridge will serve the de facto king, unlawful and sinful though he be, for rebellion, the worst of evils, could only further anger God, whereas lawful submission might cause God to effect a reformation in the king.’² Sigurd Burckhardt sees a totally different play: ‘What King John presents us with is a world in which authority is totally untrustworthy.’³ These commentators identify the same area of subject-matter (authority and rebellion) but adopt differing perspectives on the issues. While inclining to Burckhardt’s view of King John, I do not regard any of these formulations as wholly satisfactory. The play cannot be crudely didactic, because John’s treatment of Arthur is fully exposed as a human and political crime; there are limits to the obedience a King can exact of a subject, and the play explores them. But however ‘untrustworthy’ authority may be, it exists, and the subject has few options to exercise.