shown that the general public would hardly have been shocked or surprised at the declaration that the killing of John was a meritorious act. The audience would simply consider this as a specific effect of excommunication since John was denounced as a heretic. Now, all this is confirmed by the manner in which the various characters likewise react on the stage. Indeed, not a reproachful word is uttered on the stage against the Cardinal, the law or the various phases of the law, which would indicate that the audience of Shakespeare's day understood the entire episode in the same way.

Conclusions:

1. Objectively taken, Shakespeare's treatment of the excommunication and deposition is strictly in keeping with established ecclesiastical procedure. The declaration that John's life is forfeited, is founded on an unusual but important and generally known fact of that day, and since this was generally looked upon as an effect of the excommunication, there is good reason for saying that in this regard Shakespeare is also conforming objectively with a practice which for a time had recognition by ecclesiastical authority.

2. A comparison with The Troublesome Raigne reveals that Shakespeare eliminated the Protestant elements of The Troublesome Raigne, made his treatment of the excommunication conform with the procedure of the Church and used words and phrases which are in keeping with Catholic theology. The comparison shows also that Shakespeare blackened the character of John but strengthened and ennobled the character of Philip.

3. By fulfilling the requirements of art, Shakespeare's treatment of the episode is in every regard elevated, consonant with the event and deeply respectful of the Church and religion.

4. The fact that the characters duly respect the Church's law; the fact that the motivation accentuates the superiority of the spiritual cause, and the fact that the contrast between religion and irreligion is so strongly developed to justify Philip's breaking of the peace at the request of the Church-all contribute to set forth the claims of the Church and religion in a very favorable light.

CARDINAL PANDULPH'S SPEECH ON OATHS

Pand. So mak'A chou faith an enemy to faith,
And like a ciuill warre sexft oath to oath,
Thy tongue against thy congue. O let thy vow
First made to heauen, first be to heauen perform'd,
That is, to be the Champion of our Church,
What fince thou swortt, is swome against thy felfe,
And may not be performed by thy felfe,
For that which theu haft (worse to doc amufle,
Is not amiffe when it is truely done:
And being nae done, where doing tends to ill,
The truth is then moft done not doing it:
The better Ad of purposes miftcoke,
Is to mistake agam, though indire,
Yer indirection thereby growes direct,
And falihood, falshood cures, as fire cooles fire
Within the scorched veines of ope new burn'd:
It is religion that doth make vowes kept,
But thoa hast sworne againft religion:
By what thou swear'ft against the thing thou swear it,
And mak'tan oath the furetie for thy cruch,
Against an oath the truth, thou art enfure
To sweare, sweares onely not to be forfworne,
Elfe what a mockene should it be to sweare?
But thou doft sweare, onely to be forfworme,
And moft forsworne, to keepe what thou doft sweare,
Therefore thy later vowes, against thy fuft,
Is in thy seife rebellion to thy felfe:
And better conquest neuer canst thou make,
Then arme thy conftant and thy nobler parts
Again these giddy loose suggestions:
Vpon which better part, our prayts come in,
If thou vouchsafe them. But if not, then know
The perill of our curses light on thee
So heauy, as thou shalt not take them off
But in despaire, dye under their blacke weight.

Plate IV. Folio (1623) 10. III, i, 263-297.

CHAPTER V

CARDINAL PANDULPH'S SPEECH ON OATHS

The hesitancy of Philip of France to break his oath with King John elicits from Cardinal Pandulph a long speech on Philip's obligations to the Church. This particular speech has been the object of much criticism from almost every conceivable aspect. Therefore, in this chapter the doctrine of oaths, as enunciated by the Catholic Church, will first be discussed, and thereupon the entire speech will be examined in every detail.

1. The Doctrine of oaths

An oath is the calling of God to witness the truth.1 In itself it is an acknowledgement of God and His infinite attributes, for God, Who knows the secrets of the human heart, is called upon to put His seal on human varacity. In this way, greater certainty is given to a statement made under oath, for he who takes the oath puts himself under the extra obligation of religion. The swearer, as it were, places himself under bond to God and makes himself liable then to greater punishment from God if he knowingly swears falsely. In this way greater certainty is given to to human veracity.2

It becomes evident at once that both Catholics and Protestants, and for that matter all who believe in God as the Supreme Being realize to some extent the grave sanction of

Codex Iuris Canonici (Rome, 1918) canon 1316 n. 1. 2Eduardus Genicot and J. Salsman, Institutiones Theologiae Moralis (Louvain, 1931) I, n. 298.

an oath and the grave obligation that the very nature of an oath imposes. The conception of an oath is so elementary that it might readily be assumed that an Elizabethan audience fully understood this simple concept. This assumption is sufficiently justified by many of Shakespeare's plays.

The Church's doctrine on oaths is nothing else than a logical deduction from the concept of an oath, and a practical application to varying conditions. Nevertheless, it may rightly be called Catholic doctrine, since the Church has been so specific and consistent in the teaching of this doctrine.

The point of interest here is the promissory oath. A promise is a contract by which some one gratuitously obliges himself to give, do or omit something. The obligation arising from a promise is one of fidelity or of justice.3 When the promise is made under oath, the obligation of religion is added to that of fidelity or of justice.

4

If a promise, which directly involves the injury of others, or prejudices the commonweal or one's eternal salvation, is confirmed by an oath, the promise does not thereby acquire any justification.5 From this it is clear that an oath does not change the essence of a promise, but it is rather superadded to it. Consequently, the promissory oath follows the nature of the promise. If then the obligation of the promise should cease, the promissory oath would be meaningless and, therefore, not binding. In consequence, the same conditions under which a promise ceases to bind applies also to the promissory oath."

The obligation imposed by a promissory oath ceases: 1. if it is remitted by him in whose favor the oath is made; 2. if the object promised under oath has sub