peace wholly advantageous to him, but even at the cost of such a peace he would not add to that first sin, the sin of irreligion, by braving the excommunication. The contrast between Philip and John becomes a contrast between religion and irreligion, -as John himself had put it-a contrast between friend and foe. Before comparing Shakespeare's treatment with that in The Troublesome Raigne, a few remarks on the contents of the corresponding section in The Troublesome Raigne are necessary. The treatment of the excommunication and the absolution of the subjects from allegiance to John is in general according to the bull against Elizabeth. However, the anonymous author apparently never studied a Catholic catechism for he speaks of "pardon and forgiveness of sin to those or them whatsoever which shall carry arms against thee, or murder thee..." Perfect contrition and sacramental confession are the only means for the forgiveness of sin. However, the Church does grant indulgences, which Protestants from the beginnings of Protestantism have wrongly construed to mean forgiveness of sin.73 An indulgence is not a pardon of sin, but a remission of punishment due to sins already forgiven.74 Now, a crusade indulgence (that 73 Nikolaus Paulus, Geschichte des Ablasses (Paderborn, 1923) III, 516 f. Bernard J. Otten, A Manual of the History of Dogmas (St. Louis, 1925) II, 369-370. 74An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of temporal punishment still due to sins which have already been forgiven. The doctrine of indulgence presupposes the doctrine of the dispensing power of the Church as well as the doctrine of the communion of saints, for by virtue of the power of the keys the Church in granting indulgences simply applies some of the superabundant merits of Christ and the saints for a good and reasonable motive. Obviously then, an indulgence is not a permission to sin, not a remission of past or future sin, and not an absolution from censure or excommunication. This in brief, is the Catholic doctrine on indulgences.-J. M. Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Paris, 1932) IV, 421 f.; Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentini Sessio XXV, Cap. xxi (Leipzig, 1839) 100. By the end of the thirteenth century, this doctrine of indulgence was already clearly and definitely enunciated. Franz Beringer, Die Ablasse, ihr Wesen und Gebrauch (Paderborn, 1921) I, 9 X is, a plenary indulgence or a remission of all punishment still due to sins already committed) was granted on Sept. 24, 1583 to all who confessed their sins and took part in the proposed enterprise against England. 75 At Christmas 1586 this crusade indulgence was renewed.76 If there be any connection between this crusade indulgence and the "forgiveness of sin" in The Troublesome Raigne, which is very likely, it would seem that the anonymous author was imbued with this doctrinal characteristic of early Protestantism. But to go on. In answer to the excommunication in The Troublesome Raigne John tauntingly remarks: Sir, the more the fox is curst, the better 'a fares: if God bless me and my land, let the Pope and his shavelings curse, and spare not."דד To this the Cardinal makes no response, but turns to Philip: "So, Furthermore, I charge thee, Philip, King of Fraunce, and all the Kings and Princes of Christendom, to make war upon this miscreant. And whereas thou hast made a league with him, and confirm'd it by oath, I do, in the name of our foresaid Father, the Pope, acquit thee of that oath as unlawful, being made with an heretic. How say'st thou, Philip, dost thou obey? It is noteworthy that mention is made only of Philip being absolved of his oath to John. According to the law, by keeping his oath Philip would incur at least minor excommunication, or if the situation would demand it, even formal and nominal excommunication. But to follow the bull against Elizabeth, Philip should be threatened with a sentence such as John incurred. However, in The Troublesome Raigne Philip yields without a struggle and therefore he 75 Meyer, op. cit., 286. 77This is in keeping with the boast of Elizabeth, Burghley, Bacon and others that God blessed the Queen and the land in spite of the Pope's excommunication. See, Meyer, op. cit., 367-369. needs no threat. In this way Philip's yielding to Rome is made to appear very contemptible, especially since John's remark, "Obey the Pope, and break your oath to God"? is strongly tinged with Protestantism and Philip allows it to pass unanswered. In comparing the same episode in the two plays, a few important facts come to light. When speaking of the reward of him who will carry out the sentence against John, Shakespeare drops the phrase "pardon and forgiveness of sin", which is according to the Protestant conception of the Catholic idea of indulgences, and instead, Shakespeare uses the word "meritorious" which in reference to a good act is technically sound Catholic moral theology. In King John the manner in which Pandulph calls upon Philip to break his peace with John, that is, by threatening Philip with a like sentence, is strictly according to the decree against Elizabeth. In this way Shakespeare is able to contrast the reaction of the two Kings with regard to the same ban. Herein lies an essential difference in treatment, for just as John's character was changed for the worse by his irreligion, so Philip's character is changed for the better by his regard for spiritual values even in the face of natural sentiment and political advantages. It should also be noted that once the decree against John has been pronounced, the John of The Troublesome Raigne is flippant, whereas Shakespeare's John is almost completely silenced: in fact, he says not a word to the Cardinal, but utters only two lines in a decidedly altered tone. In the one he requests Philip's answer: "Philip, what saist thou to the Cardinall, (line 202); in the other he merely observes Philip's reaction when Constance presses her case to the fore: "The king is moud, and answers not to this." (line 217). Thus there is an essential difference in content and treatment between the two plays. With reference to both content and treatment of this episode in Shakespeare's King John, it is again quite evident that the critics have been out of touch with the times particularly in regard to the various aspects of excommunication. C. THE PLOT. The plot becomes again more involved, and this is accomplished by broadening the issue. The contumacy of John which justifies the excommunication has been stressed in John's defiance and boast. The Langton case, which actually occasioned the excommunication is shoved to the background by John's extreme expression of irreligion. In this way not only the excommunication is thoroughly motivated, but also the far reaching significance of the excommunication is brought out from its negative aspect. Both the anonymous author of The Troublesome Raigne and Shakespeare found it necessary to unite the excommunication and deposition as in the decree against Elizabeth. To have separated the two would have unduly prolonged the play and retarded the action to no purpose. The full decree as uttered by Pandulph to John and Philip contains four elements: excommunication, deposition, forfeiture of life and a demand to break the peace. As a result every one present on the stage is deeply affected by this decree. Although the conflict of passion, emotion and sentiment that follows is keen, not a single one questions the fact or the validity of the law. Not even Elinore protests the threat against her son's life. All are concerned with Philip's obedience or disobedience to the law. Apparently it is for John's sake that Elinore wants peace, whereas Constance wants war for Arthur's sake. Austria and Lewis urge obedience to the Church. Womanly sentiment causes Blanch to choose peace. Faulconbridge seems quite indifferent to the main issue, but continues to taunt Austria as before. Actually the only reason given favoring disobedience is that of emotion and sentiment by Blanch. No phase of the decree is called into question, but one and all accept the law and one and all accept the effects of the law as a matter of course. It would be most ridiculous, not to say unnatural, to suppose that the Cardinal's words to Philip-just four lines -calling upon him to break his peaceful relations with John, would have been sufficient in itself to stir up such a turmoil: to threaten the newly made peace, to endanger the royal marriage on the very wedding day. Those words did stir up the turmoil, not because they were uttered by a Cardinal, but because the Cardinal acted with the authority of the Church, and his words, therefore, signified the operation of a law that none present would contest. Consequently, it was not the Cardinal himself that actually demanded the breaking of the peace, but it was the law, which demanded respect and observance, regardless of the Cardinal's own personal character and personal sentiments. In fact, it can hardly be said that up to this point the Cardinal reveals any of his personal feelings and sentiments on the matter. He merely performs the formal duties enjoined upon him by his office of Legate. Again, the full operation of the law provides the motivation for the subsequent part. Unless the law be duly respected, the subsequent breaking of the peace would not be properly motivated. Thus the law provides the remote motivation and the proximate motivation lies in the decision of Philip. The conflict in Philip between his unwillingness to break the peace and his obedience to the Church emphasizes the cost of this obedience and accentuates all the more his devotion to the Church and religion. In this way the extreme contrast on the basis of religion and irreligion is provided in order to justify the breaking of the peace and the resumption of the war. D. THE AUDIENCE. There is strong reason to believe that Shakespeare's audience understood this episode in the manner interpreted, for in consideration of the religious situation of the day, this interpretation is certainly the most obvious. Catholics and Protestants knew the Church law, if not directly at least from its operation in Elizabeth's case, which had been so widely advertised. It has also been |