Historical Implications in Shakespeare’s King John

Introduction

History is made by the decisions and actions of men and women taken at particular times and in particular circumstances. A play, in literature, is a dramatic work or composition written to be performed by actors on stage, television or radio. Therefore, a historical play presents facts that had happened on a specific setting and persons who are basically plain or trended. William Shakespeare, as a playwright created masterpieces relating to history. His historical plays abound monarchs and medieval datum.

Discussion

Shakespeare’s ‘histories’ therefore are neither generically similar one to another nor bound to historical fact. They are related to history mainly by offering representations of historical figures and the creation of theatre out of historical events. Yet in another sense they are profoundly historical, addressing themselves to historical process, ways in which change comes about (Hatthaway, 2002). He wrote ten history plays chronicling English kings from the time of the Magna Carta (King John) to the beginning of England’s first great civil war, the Wars of the Roses (Richard II) to the conclusion of the war and the reuniting of the two factions (Richard III), to the reign of Queen Elizabeth’s father (Henry VIII) (Lee, 1994). In King John, Shakespeare addresses not just character conflict but the role of the monarchy in a newly emergent state.

Conflicts between, on the one hand, the material desires of the aristocracy and monarchs who required money for rule and government (or demanded it to maintain wanton magnificence), and, on the other, the necessary thrift of commoners and handicraftsmen led to charges of prodigality and waste that are represented in morals throughout the six-teenth century and given a local habitation in Shakespeare’s histories (Hatthaway, 2002). In the play, Constance, the wife of Geffrey, John’s older brother, and the mother of Arthur, supports and ensues her son’s claim to the throne. When France stops supporting her son, she becomes furious; when John defeats her allies and captures Arthur, she goes mad. Observing these acts of Constance may result to a conclusion that she represents the first kind of conflict that was mentioned. Another persona in the play who was like Constance; she’s Queen Elinor, the widow of King Henry II and the mother of the late King Richard I and of King John, Elinor, like Constance, also supports John’s claim to the throne and accepts the Bastard as her grandson. A powerful and lively character, she accompanies John on his French campaigns, but dies toward the end of the play. The following conversation is between the two mothers, Queen Elinor and Constance, who has undying love for their sons and for the throne in the kingdom.

QUEEN ELINOR

Who is it thou dost call usurper, France?

CONSTANCE

Let me make answer; thy usurping son.

QUEEN ELINOR

Out, insolent! thy bastard shall be king,

That thou mayst be a queen, and cheque the world!

CONSTANCE

My bed was ever to thy son as true

As thine was to thy husband; and this boy

Liker in feature to his father Geffrey

Than thou and John in manners; being as like

As rain to water, or devil to his dam.

My boy a bastard! By my soul, I think

His father never was so true begot:

It cannot be, an if thou wert his mother.

QUEEN ELINOR

There's a good mother, boy, that blots thy father.

CONSTANCE

There's a good grandam, boy, that would blot thee.

The same actions are also inferred to King John. King John has seized the throne after his brother’s death, over the possibly more legal claim of his nephew, Arthur. Rather than evil like Richard III, Shakespeare’s King John is undistinguished; rather than dominating the numerous events around him, he rather lets them govern him.

Due to the usurping, many wars had gone. It seems like the powerful could easily decide to have a war just for their own sake, just for their own desire. The conversation below is between King John and Chatillon. Here you can infer how war was immediately upheld.

KING JOHN

What follows if we disallow of this?

CHATILLON

The proud control of fierce and bloody war,

To enforce these rights so forcibly withheld.

KING JOHN

Here have we war for war and blood for blood,

Controlment for controlment: so answer France.

CHATILLON

Then take my king's defiance from my mouth,

The farthest limit of my embassy.

Due to King John’s acts, he was branded names such as soft-sword. Having earned the derogatory nickname of ‘Soft-Sword’ for his loss of Normandy and Anjou, John attempted to return to the continent the following year, but was forced to abort the voyage (Appleby, 2009). King John has also a dispute with the papacy. The following conversation represents the papal dispute;

KING PHILIP

Here comes the holy legate of the pope.

CARDINAL PANDULPH

Hail, you anointed deputies of heaven!

To thee, King John, my holy errand is.

I Pandulph, of fair Milan cardinal,

And from Pope Innocent the legate here,

Do in his name religiously demand

Why thou against the church, our holy mother,

So wilfully dost spurn; and force perforce

Keep Stephen Langton, chosen archbishop

Of Canterbury, from that holy see?

This, in our foresaid holy father's name,

Pope Innocent, I do demand of thee.

KING JOHN

What earthy name to interrogatories

Can task the free breath of a sacred king?

Thou canst not, cardinal, devise a name

So slight, unworthy and ridiculous,

To charge me to an answer, as the pope.

Tell him this tale; and from the mouth of England

Add thus much more, that no Italian priest

Shall tithe or toll in our dominions;

But as we, under heaven, are supreme head,

So under Him that great supremacy,

Where we do reign, we will alone uphold,

Without the assistance of a mortal hand:

So tell the pope, all reverence set apart

To him and his usurp'd authority.

KING PHILIP

Brother of England, you blaspheme in this.

KING JOHN

Though you and all the kings of Christendom

Are led so grossly by this meddling priest,

Dreading the curse that money may buy out;

And by the merit of vile gold, dross, dust,

Purchase corrupted pardon of a man,

Who in that sale sells pardon from himself,

Though you and all the rest so grossly led

This juggling witchcraft with revenue cherish,

Yet I alone, alone do me oppose

Against the pope and count his friends my foes.

CARDINAL PANDULPH

Then, by the lawful power that I have,

Thou shalt stand cursed and excommunicate.

And blessed shall he be that doth revolt

From his allegiance to an heretic;

And meritorious shall that hand be call'd,

Canonized and worshipped as a saint,

That takes away by any secret course

Thy hateful life.

           

In the history, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Hubert Walter, died on 13 July 1205, John became involved in a dispute with Pope Innocent III that would lead to the king's excommunication. John wanted John de Gray, the Bishop of Norwich and one of his own supporters, to be appointed Archbishop of Canterbury after the death of Walter, but the cathedral chapter for Canterbury Cathedral claimed the exclusive right to elect Walter's successor. They favoured Reginald, the chapter's sub-prior. To complicate matters, the bishops of the province of Canterbury also claimed the right to appoint the next Archbishop  (Turner, 2009). The chapter secretly elected Reginald and he travelled to Rome to be confirmed; the bishops challenged the appointment and the matter was taken before Innocent. John forced the Canterbury chapter to change their support to John de Gray, and a messenger was sent to Rome to inform the papacy of the new decision. Innocent disavowed both Reginald and John de Gray, and instead appointed his own candidate, Stephen Langton. John refused Innocent's request that he consent to Langton's appointment, but the pope consecrated Langton anyway in June 1207.

John was incensed about what he perceived as an abrogation of his customary right as monarch to influence the election. He complained both about the choice of Langton as an individual, as John felt he was overly influenced by the Capetian court in Paris, and about the process as a whole. He barred Langton from entering England and seized the lands of the archbishopric and other papal possessions. Innocent set a commission in place to try to convince John to change his mind, but to no avail. Innocent then placed an interdict on England in March 1208, prohibiting clergy from conducting religious services, with the exception of baptisms for the young, and confessions and absolutions for the dying. Many more events happened the lead to excommunication. Until John finally negotiated terms for a reconciliation, and the papal terms for submission were accepted in the presence of the papal legate Pandulph in May 1213 at the Templar Church at Dover (Turner, 2009). As part of the deal, John offered to surrender the Kingdom of England to the papacy for a feudal service of 1,000 marks (equivalent to £666 at the time) annually: 700 marks (£466) for England and 300 marks (£200) for Ireland, as well as recompensing the church for revenue lost during the crisis (Harper-Bill, 2007). The agreement was formalised in the Bulla Aurea, or Golden Bull.

Moreover, King John was the signer of the Magna Carta. By far, it was the most significant accomplishment to come out of John’s reign.  The 1215 charter required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties, and accept that his will was not arbitrary, for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right which is still in existence today. Over the course of his reign a combination of higher taxes, unsuccessful wars, and conflict with the Pope had made King John unpopular with his barons. Some barons began to conspire against him in 1209 and 1212; promises made to the northern barons and John's submission to the papacy in 1213 delayed a French invasion (Thomas, 2003). In 1215 some of the most important barons engaged in open rebellion against their King. Such rebellions were not particularly unusual in this period.

The Magna Carta was later been used to establish Habeas Corpus, a writ or order issued by a court to a person having custody of another, commanding him or her to produce the detained person in order to determine the legality of the detention. The writ of habeas corpus is of English origin; its original purpose was to liberate illegally detained persons, and it is still a protection against arbitrary imprisonment. It is perhaps found on Clause 29 (clause 39 in the 1215 charter), a right to due process.

In modern day, Habeas Corpus is used as protection against arbitrary imprisonment by the right of habeas corpus is not found in continental Europe. In the democratic countries of Western Europe, however, the codes of criminal procedure require that an arrested person be informed with reasonable promptness of the charges and be allowed to seek legal counsel. In many other countries, persons are subjected at times to lengthy periods of imprisonment without being informed of the charges (Encarta, 2008).

            As many say, history repeats itself. Like the conflict of usurping in King John, Mary Queen of Scots (1542-1587) claimed the English throne after Elizabeth (1533-1603), Henry’s daughter by Anne Boleyn (1507-1536), became Queen of England in 1558. Because Henry eventually rejected and executed Elizabeth's mother and remarried, supporters of Mary Queen of Scots declared she was the rightful queen of England, not Elizabeth. A period of unrest ensued in England, mainly between Catholic supporters of Mary and Protestant supporters of Elizabeth. Like King John, Queen Elizabeth was condemned by the papacy. Like the throne claimant Arthur, Mary eventually died (by beheading) (Cummings, 2003). Moreover, of the ensuing intrigues to affect her deliverance and to place her on the throne of England, the most famous was that of Mary's page, Anthony Babington, who plotted to assassinate Elizabeth. Babington (1561-1586), is an English conspirator, born in Dethick, Derbyshire. He served briefly as page to Mary, Queen of Scots, during her imprisonment by the English in Sheffield. In 1586 Babington entered into a Roman Catholic conspiracy to murder Queen Elizabeth I of England and free Mary. He received letters from Mary approving the proposed assassination. The letters came into the hands of Sir Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth's secretary, who had Babington and his accomplices arrested. The conspiracy was discovered, and Mary was brought to trial in October 1586. She was sentenced to death on October 25, but not until February 1, 1587, did Elizabeth sign the warrant of execution, which was carried out a week later. Babington, too, was sentenced to death.

Conclusion

            History is reflected in the History plays of Shakespeare. In King John, it had been subtle enough to infer the conflicts faced by the protagonist himself in real life. He had faced other usurper, Arthur and his mother, Constance; he had a dispute with the papacy; and he also had arguments from the most important barons and persons in the monarch. Moreover, King John’s most important achievement was the Magna Carta which is still used in modern day laws and has contributed a lot to the Habeas Corpus. The story of King John also reviews the life of Mary, Queen of Scots and Queen Elizabeth. Indeed, history repeats itself. In order to avoid committing the same mistakes all over again, one must examine his own life and execute discipline.

Works Cited

Appleby, J. (2009). John, King of England. Shakespeare and the Absurd .

Bradbury, J. (2007). Philip Augustus and King John: Personality and History. in Church.

Bruce C. Lee. (1994). History is Written by the Victors. Utah Shakespeare Festival: Insights , 10.

Cummings, M. J. (2003). King John.

Encarta. (2008). Habeas Corpus. Redmond, WA.

Harper-Bill. (2007). John and the Church of Rome. InChurch.

Hatthaway, M. (2002). Shakespeare's history Plays. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Thomas, R. V. (2003). Magna Carta. Pearson , 39-40 & 53-54.

Turner, R. (2009). King John: England's Evil King? Stroud, UK: History Press.

Warren, W. L. (1991). King John. London: Metheun.