In the following excerpt, Pugliatti reexamines King John in light of Elizabethan politics, arguing that Shakespeare intended it as a commentary on the political crisis in England.

In the following essay, Elliot argues that Shakespeare's King John reveals the playwright's understanding of the Elizabethans ambiguous and complex interpretations of King John. Elliot shows that while the play's original audiences most likely would have sympathized with John as a nationalist and as a Protestant martyr, Shakespeare's John is also depicted as a usurper and potential murderer.

In the following essay, Dusinberre focuses on the subversive and dramatically energizing qualities of the feminine roles in King John.

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.

In the following essay, Braunmuller compares the accounts of Shakespeare's King John, Holinshed's Chronicles, and Sir John Hayward's writings, to discern Shakespeare's perception and treatment of historiography.

In the following essay, Weimann characterizes Faulconbridge as a new type of vice character, a type that merged the serious with the jocular.

In the following essay, Blanpied regards King John as a transitional play that adheres to the events of its source while simultaneously parodying the work, and as one in which Shakespeare does not invoke the providential theme of English history, thereby leaving a sense of incompleteness in the drama.

Steve Longstaffe, S. Martin's College Lancaster Deborah Curren-Aquino, summing up fifty years of critical engagement with Shakespeare's King John, identifies a radical break with earlier views of the play in "the tendency in post 1940 scholarship to describe John as ambivalent, ambiguous, suspicious, sceptical, questioning and ideologically subversive".1 The form and tone of John, in other words, are recognisably modern. Few critics have gone as far as Sigurd Burckhard...

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.

In the following essay, Lane outlines the ways in which Shakespeare altered the historical account of King John in order to raise questions about Queen Elizabeth's successor.

In the following essay, Lane reflects on the ways in which King John addresses the succession crisis of the 1590s, at the end of Queen Elizabeth's reign. Lane explains that the play explores the doubts regarding legitimacy and succession that plagued the reigns of both King John and Queen Elizabeth.

In the following essay, Gieskes compares the portrayal of the Bastard in King John and in The Troublesome Raign of John, King of England, highlighting Shakespeare's views on such social issues as class, rank, and vocation.

In the following essay, Hunt analyzes Shakespeare's use of antimetabolic tropes in King John, contending that this type of language obscures what is presented as truth and emphasizes the play's theme of indeterminancy.

INTRODUCTION Shakespeare's King John, standing between the two tetralogies, marks a transition in his treatment of political and historical questions. This argument has been advanced by critics like Sigurd Burckhardt, Virginia Vaughan, Michael Manheim, and Marsha Robinson (among many others).1 Vaughan, for example, writes that the play "demonstrates Shakespeare's experimentation with more sophisticated dramaturgical techniques to convey political complexities, techni...

In the following essay, Matchett maintains that the plot of King John focuses on the issue of the “right” to the throne, and studies the claims to the throne of Arthur, John, and the Bastard. The critic asserts that in King John the mark of a true king is decided not by power or prestige, but on the basis of what is best for England.

In the following essay, Matchett argues that, structurally, King John revolves around the question of succession and which of the three potential claimants—Arthur, the Bastard, or Henry—is most fit and has the right to rule England.

In the following essay, Champion examines the characterization, dramatic technique, and thematic structure of King John, maintaining that Shakespeare's use of shifting angles of vision in the work creates a successful and complex pattern of ambiguity.

In the following essay, Saeger discusses the Bastard's illustration of the developing relationship between identity and political legitimacy in King John, arguing that in the course of the drama Faulconbridge endeavors to assert an authentic nature for himself and for England.

In the following essay, originally published in 1978, Waith examines critical and popular reaction to King John through the centuries. Waith maintains that the current emphasis on the political and historical themes of the play obscure its power.

In the following essay, Simmons compares King John with its source play The Troublesome Reign of John, King of England, noting that Shakespeare's drama corrects the moral confusion of its predecessor while confirming its theme of “the evils of usurpation and rebellion.”

In the following excerpt, Jones considers Faulconbridge as an extension of Richard I, arguing that Shakespeare raises doubts about the validity of a direct link between past and present.

In the following essay, Bonjour takes issue with the traditional viewpoint that King John lacks unity, and argues instead that the structure of the play is given symmetry by the presence of two main characters, John and the Bastard.

In the following essay, Boyd closely analyzes The Troublesome Reign of King John, arguing that this inferior play is not the source for Shakespeare's King John or for its character the Bastard, but that King John is in fact the source for The Troublesome Reign.

In the following essay, Boyd argues that Shakespeare's play King John provided source material for The Troublesome Raigne of King John.

In the following excerpt, Bullough argues that The Troublesome Reign was Shakespeare's source for King John and presents a comparison of the two plays so that readers can decide for themselves.

In the following essay, Grennan contends that Shakespeare's idiosyncratic King John reflects a pivotal change in the historiographic method of the dramatist's earlier chronicle history plays and his source material.

In the following essay, Jones concentrates on the thematic significance of truth and legitimacy in King John, particularly as these concepts are represented in the figure of Lord Faulconbridge, the Bastard.

Bryant, James C. “Shakespeare's Use of Religious Controversy in King John.” In Tudor Drama and Religious Controversy, pp. 129-49. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1984. In the following essay, Bryant maintains that in King John Shakespeare was able to achieve a measure of objectivity in his treatment of late fifteenth-century religious disputes.

In the following essay, Heberle illustrates that Shakespeare significantly modified his sources in order to highlight the conflict between John and the child Arthur. Heberle views the play's treatment of Arthur, and later Henry, as revealing Shakespeare's belief that nurturing and protecting children is crucial to the maintenance of political order.

In the following essay, Tucker considers themes associated with the chaotic, unpredictable, and Machiavellian political world of King John.

In the following essay, Leggatt analyzes the shifting viewpoints of the characters in King John and how they affect our ultimate understanding of the play—focusing primarily on the Bastard's shift from satirist to patriot.

In the following essay, Vaughan maintains that King John operates as a bridge between the two historical tetralogies, contending that the play “demonstrates Shakespeare's experimentation with more sophisticated dramaturgical techniques to convey political complexities, techniques he perfected in the Henriad.”

In the following essay, Calderwood asserts that King John achieves structural unity via the play's juxtaposition of two conflicting themes: commodity and honor.

In the following essay, Wixson describes King John as an “open” form of Elizabethan political propaganda that makes an appeal for political unity.

In the following excerpt, Braunmuller argues that no distinction can be made between the so-called truth of Shakespeare's historical sources and the so-called fiction of his dramatic sources or of his own play King John.

In the following essay, May posits that the image patterns used in King John evoke disorderly motion, expressing uncertainties in the play's characterizations and conflicts.

In the following excerpt, Beaurline demonstrates how the world of King John concerns power, personal necessity, and realpolitik rather than ethics or divine Providence.

In the following essay, Robinson considers the ways in which Shakespeare satirizes the moral interpretation of past events.

In the following essay, originally a paper presented at a conference sponsored by the Shakespeare Association of America in 1986, Vaughan asserts that in King John, Shakespeare intentionally reflects the conflicts and contradictions between the old feudal sense of community and the emerging Renaissance belief in individuality and realpolitik.

In the following excerpt, Rackin assesses the unofficial, matriarchal power that the female characters in King John wield over the male characters ' political authority and ambitions.

In the following excerpt, Beaurline traces parallels between the structural design and characterizations of King John.

In the following essay, Levin observes the strength, honesty, and insight of the female characters in the otherwise corrupted world of King John.

In the following essay, Colmo reviews the political issues of King John, and within this context discusses the problems related to the inheritance of rule in general, King John's role as a usurper and his treatment of Arthur in particular.

In the following essay, Bonjour defends his thesis that Lord Faulconbridge, the Bastard, should be viewed as the dramatic hero of King John.

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.

In the following essay, Burgoyne stresses Cardinal Pandulph's role as villain and “chief mischief-maker” in King John.

In the following essay, Traister investigates the concept of ceremony in King John, and evaluates the portrayal of John as a king without recourse to ceremony or access to the power of “majesty.”

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 following essay, Pearlman investigates the weaknesses of King John, focusing on the play's plot, characters, and language.

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.

In the following essay, Moore emphasizes the tragic quality of Shakespeare's King John as a victim of his own ungovernable passions.

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.

In the essay below, MacKenzie examines the imagery of regeneration in King John, arguing that Shakespeare emphasizes the importance of death, rather than life, in the play.

In the following review, Bates examines two productions of King John: Northern Broadsides' production co-directed by Conrad Nelson and Barrie Rutter, and the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) production directed by Gregory Doran. Bates finds that the Northern Broadsides' production forcefully refuted any pretensions of nationalism and reflected Shakespeare's refusal to choose sides in the play's conflicts. Bates praises the RSC production for Doran's ability to evoke from h...

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.

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.”

In the following review of Robin Phillips's 1993 production of King John at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival, Brantley notes the director's focus on John as the central element of the play and praises the performance's psychological insights, but finds its World War I setting unnecessarily confusing.

In the following review, Isherwood praises Karin Coonrod's Theatre for a New Audience production of King John for its clarity of direction, but notes that the production lacked conceptual inspiration.

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.

In the following excerpted review, Tucker assesses Gregory Doran's Royal Shakespeare Company production of King John, praising Doran's emphasis on the plight of the innocent and finding that the production as a whole was appropriately dark in tone.

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.

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.

In the following excerpted review of Karin Coonrod's Theatre for a New Audience production of King John, Simon faults the production on several levels. Simon argues that the acting was weak, the production was not opulent enough to adequately treat the play's pageantry, and the director failed to capture the play's complexity and subtlety.

In the following review of Michael Kahn's 1999 production of King John at the Shakespeare Theater in Washington, D.C., Marks praises the contemporary relevancy of the play's political conflicts, power struggles, and questions of legitimate authority, while acknowledging a flatness in many of the individual performances.

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.