Thus begins my reading of the so-called "History" plays of one William Shakespeare. Some I have read before, the others have been put off indefinitely...until now! So let us dive in...at the "beginning". Not the earlier plays that Shakespeare wrote, but rather the first play on a historical chronology: King John.

King John is based on that infamous king of England whose rule was so fantastic the Magna Carta was drafted as a result and King John would forever be the effeminate antagonist of Robin Hood. Neither appear in this "middle period" play, for Shakespeare is more concerned with questions of royal legitimacy and global politics.

King John is reigning as king when an emissary from those filthy French who challenges John's right to the throne. The French wish to install John's nephew, Arthur, as the lawful King of England. They are welling to invade England, if need be! John tells the messenger that France can piss off and he will invade France, post haste!

King John, as a Shakespearean play, seems to be considered something of a mess by many commentators. From what I have read, there is confusion over plot, motivations, and perhaps meaning. I did not have trouble with any of these, viewing the play as something of a political thriller set during the reign of King John's life. I get this impression particularly since the events dealt with in the play were all historic mysteries during Elizabethan times and some continue to be historic mysteries now. What role did Arthur play in his "rebellion" against his uncle? Whatever did happen to Arthur? Why did a good portion of the landed gentry rebel against John? What caused King John's sudden death? The play attempts to answer these questions and depict what type of King John was.

John is more rash than malevolent in this play. He wishes to maintain his domain and his actions that lead to this tend to be spontaneous than purposeful. This rashness is what ultimately causes and increases the conflict, ultimately leading to John's death.

The tone of the play is somewhat dynamic. Before the Catholic Church gets involved in Act 3, it's mostly a comedic story. This is completely left behind in the serious Acts 4 & 5, lending credence to the charge that this play is not one of Shakespeare's most polished works.

Though unpolished, consensus seems to be that this is not the worst either. As a result, I shall calibrate my ratings of the other Shakespearean Histories based on this play (hence the three stars). All in all, I enjoyed this play... and if you do not like that I did not even so much as mention the Bastard until the end, well too bad!