The twenty-first century"

55Curren-Aquino, Deborah T., 2000

"King John: A Modern Prospective" (Washington Square P: New York, 2000) 237-72. In Folger Edition.

Topics: Bastard

King John's most liminal figure is the Bastard, who functions in a series of transitional stages on his way from country madcap to spokesman for England, a trajectory that anticipates Prince Hal's in the Henry IV plays.

. . .

King John . . . does not conclude with a coronation . . . that the Bastard and nobles kneel to Henry points in the direction of incorporation, as does the Bastard's plural inclusive voice. But his elegiac exhortation with its recalcitrantly loaded "if," delivered in the presence of a fragile boy-king surrounded by peripatetic nobles (not an image to instill confidence) and further qualified by the nonhistorical status of the speaker who emerges as the national conscience, maintains the sense of liminality to the very end.

56McEachern, Claire, 2000

Introduction from King John (Penguin: New York, 2000) xxxvi-xxxvii.

Topics: historical context, political actors

The powerful way in which the church operates in this world, making and suspending treaties, instigating and quelling rebellions, excommunication and crowning kings, would have seemed to Shakespeare's audience a lurid and also salient portrait of papal dominion. Given that the pope had issued in 1570 a papal bull (or decree) excommunicating Queen Elizabeth and pardoning anyone who would resist her authority, the role of Cardinal Pandulph in this play would have seemed an especially sinister one.

. . .

the weak power of kings makes space for a new kind of political actor. The play is populated by figures who claim to legitimate authority, and even to historical veracity, may be scant, but who nonetheless impact heavily and decisively on the events in question. The actions of characters such as Hubert and the Bastard are pivotal in terms of political events; so too the presence of Arthur, Eleanor, Constance and Blanche packs an untoward affective and political punch.

57Roe, John, 2002

Shakespeare and Machiavelli (D. S. Brewer: Cambridge, 2002) 105-107.

Topics: Bastard, Pandulph, religious, Machiavel

[The Bastard's] commitment towards John, or at least to the welfare of England which John's kingship embodies, brings him from the marginal role of commentator or chorus, which he tends to occupy in the earlier stages, and propels him into a more central one of protector. It must be emphasized, however, that Falconbridge does not attempt to cover up John's ill deeds, or represent the king in a better light than he deserves. He in no way resembles the Buckingham of Richard III. The Bastard does not adopt the Machiavel person of schemer, nor does he indeed cultivate that of potential usurper, though some critics have felt that—but for the obstacle of historical records—the natural trajectory of the play would be for him to emulate Bullingbrook in his relationship with Richard and displace John as king.

. . .

The substance of Pandulph's exhortation is made clear in his opening words to Philip: [Quotes TLN 1184-85] One cannot get closer to what Il Principe urges than this: morality is to be suspended until the desired aim is achieved.

58Weil, Judith, 2005

Service and Dependency in Shakespeare's Plays (Cambridge U P: Cambridge, 2005) 44-49.

Topics: Bastard, servant

Like Imogen [in Cymbeline], the Bastard in King John has recently figured in post-modern readings which emphasize the construction of national subjects. But the play also shows, as Graham Holderness has argued for the second tetralogy, how thoroughly Shakespeare understood the feudal customs and mentalities. I would emphasize that the play is very much the work of the 1590's in revealing how treacherous for young people service within their own families and households might become. . . . It is difficult to judge where kinship ends and service begins . . .

Having chosen a vaguer service placing over a legitimate kinship role, the Bastard enjoys the kind of protection which licenses a degree of free speech. He is sheltered by his retainer's position when he brashly advises the Kings of France and England to attack Angiers. . . . Like Hubert, who soon becomes another of John's servants, the Bastard seems to be closely associated with the term "hand." Regarded by Emrys Jones as elements of Senecan style, the many "hands" referred to in King John also invoke the agency of retainers in a world of manual work, warfare, and communication. To expound The Householders Philosophie, Torquato Tasso idealizes the good servant as a "hand" that responds immediately to the master's "mind" (obeying him "at a winck of the eye, or bent of the brow"), and he praises this animate ensouled "instrument of instruments" as a "lively and several instrument of action." The Bastard boasts of his role when he threatens the invading French by referring to

That hand which had the strength . . . [continues quoting TLN 2391-97]

59Slights, Camille, 2008

"When Is a Bastard Not a Bastard? Character and Conscience in King John") 214-231. In Yachnin and Slights.

Topics: Bastard, moral conscience, commodity

Variously identified by critics as a folk hero, a Vice figure, and a Machiavel, [the Bastard] is, according to Walter Cohen, "less a coherent fictional figure than a series of discontinuous theatrical functions." A better argument, I suggest, is that his very inconsistencies constitute a continuous consciousness, a self-reflective moral awareness that develops in response to the moral confusions of his world and that adumbrates a significant change in the concept of conscience in early modern England.

. . .

Unlike the other characters in King John who exhibit conscience by judging themselves on the basis of moral standards articulated in religious and political traditions, the Bastard judges and condemns society on the basis of a personal sense of right and wrong that develops as he self-consciously constructs an identity.

. . .

King John explores a strand in the transition from a universal to an individualized conscience and the transformation of subjects into citizens. Most characters in the play judge themselves and others on the basis of a shared traditional moral code. In contrast, the Bastard judges good and evil in a confusing world without relying on external authority. Looking at the Bastard from this perspective shows his inconsistencies to be the material of a continuous consciousness, a self-reflective internal dialogue through which he constitutes a moral self. As he becomes his own moral authority, he simultaneously transforms his social identity from eldest son in a patriarchal family, to feudal retainer, and then to responsible citizen.

. . .

In the sixteenth century, traditional understanding of conscience as the voice of God within each person implied universal understanding of moral truth. Since divine law was held to be everywhere and always the same, consciences theoretically ensured obedience and uniformity— docile subjects and social cohesion. In practice, of course, consciences disagreed. By the 1640s, the word "conscience" in a pamphlet title indicated politically controversial material rather than widely acceptable Christian piety. During the Civil War, many conscientious Englishmen thought of themselves as responsible citizens rather than as dutiful subjects and killed and died for conscience's sake. I have tried to show here that King Johnexplores a strand in the transition from a universal to an individualized conscience and the transformation of subjects into citizens. Most characters in the play judge themselves and others on the basis of a shared traditional moral code.

. . .

As an exemplar of an independent conscience, the Bastard is both attractive and disturbing. He loyally serves England and England's king despite clear-eyed recognition of John's questionable title and personal faithlessness, but his efforts are largely futile. The announcement of his rescue of Elinor in Act 3 is followed shortly by the announcement of her death in Act 4. The rebel lords defect to France despite the Bastard's efforts to command their loyalty. He fights to defend England, but the French invasion is averted by the political maneuvering of the papal legate rather than by the Bastard's courage and patriotism. The play suggests that a single moral voice may have little effect in a time when Commodity is the world's bias. Perhaps more troubling, while the play invites us to admire the Bastard's independent conscience, through the scornful malice of the "wild counsel" he offers at Angiers and the despairing nihilism of his soliloquy on Commodity, it also warns us that the subjectivism of the individual conscience is unstable and potentially dangerous.