Protagonist

Character Role Analysis

King John/The Bastard

Why are we putting down two protagonists here instead of one? Is that even kosher? In the case of King John, we think it is, for some specific reasons that have to do with the play's structure. As many scholars have pointed out, the play falls naturally into two halves: the first half runs from Act I to Act III and deals with King John's war in France against King Philip. The second half starts in Act IV and deals with matters back in England; it includes the death of Arthur, the revolt of the English nobles, the invasion of Louis, and King John's death at Swinstead Abbey.

One of the major differences between these two halves is that the protagonist changes. In the first half, King John is the one who gets the action going by declaring war on France and taking his army across the channel. At the same time, the Bastard is a peripheral figure, more of a sidekick than a hero.

In the second half of the play, however, King John becomes passive, almost helpless: instead of controlling events, he's flabbergasted by them. At the same time, he delegates almost all military authority to the Bastard, who pretty much stage-manages the defense of England. Thus, we'd say that, in the first half of the play, King John is the protagonist. In the second half, that role falls to the Bastard.