stantially changed, be it that changed circumstances have made it either sinful or entirely indifferent, or be it that it impedes a higher good; 3. if the purpose or condition for which the oath was taken fails; 4. if competent authority annuls, dispenses or commutes the object. The competent authority here referred to is ultimately the Apostolic See." It will become quite evident that it is the second point that Shakespeare uses in order to show that Philip's oath to King John has ceased.

This doctrine, although technically formulated into specific laws by the Church, is hardly more than a logical deduction from the concept of an oath. Moreover, this doctrine is frequently very practical and, therefore, it is known at least in a general way, if not in a clear and specific manner. Furthermore, it has already been shown that the oath of allegiance caused strained consciences as well as hardships and troubles for many Elizabethans, and consequently the doctrine of oaths must have been intensely vital in that day.10

Shakespeare uses this doctrine of oaths in other plays. It will be sufficient to cite but one apt example. In II Henry VI old Salisbury joins the rebellion against King Henry. The king then upbraids him for his faithlessness and disloyalty in his old age. To which Salisbury replies:

Salisbury:

My lord, I have consider'd with myself
The title of this most renowned duke;
And in my conscience do repute his Grace
The rightful heir to England's royal seat.

K. Henry:

Hast thou not sworn allegiance unto me?

Salisbury:

K. Henry:

Canst thou dispense with heaven for such an oath?

Salisbury:

It is great sin to swear unto a sin,

But greater sin to keep a sinful oath.
Who can be bound by any solemn vow
To do a murderous deed, to rob a man,
To force a spotless virgin's chastity,
To reave the orphan of his patrimony,
To wring the widow from her custom'd right,
And have no other reason for this wrong
But that he was bound by a solemn oath ?11

In this passage the concept of an oath is clearly stated. The oath is not merely a solemn promise made to the king, but a promise in which God stood as witness, from which fact a special obligation towards God arose. "Canst thou dispense with heaven for such an oath."12 Then Salisbury states the ground on which he justifies his infidelity to the king. "It is a great sin to swear unto a sin", for this implies an evident mockery of God. "But greater sin to keep a sinful oath", for to the mockery of such an oath, the sinful execution of the promise is added. Then Salisbury points out by many examples that an oath does not justify a sinful deed. 13

This doctrine Salisbury applies to his own case. At one time he had solemnly and apparently in good faith taken an oath to remain faithful to Henry as his king. But since taking this oath Salisbury has concluded that Henry was not "rightful heir to England's royal seat". In Salisbury's eyes, to support Henry is to support an unjust cause, and consequently to remain true to his oath would be to sin. Here then is clearly enunciated the vital point in this examination.14

Thus Shakespeare himself was familiar with this doc

trine of oaths, and the fact that Shakespeare used the same doctrine as mentioned above shows that the audience also must have been familiar with it.

King John15

2. The Speech

Part I. - Lines 263–265 a.

So mak'st thou faith an enemy to faith,
And like a ciuill warre setst oath to oath,
Thy tongue against thy tongue.

Remarks on Context

263

264

265

(III, i.)

Philip of France had sought the advice of Cardinal Pandulph in the hope of finding some compromise in his present dilemma. In the foregoing speech Pandulph had shown the superiority of the claims of the Church over against the fickleness of John. Still Philip vainly argued: "I may disioyne my hand, but not my faith." In this way Philip himself proposed the issue of his fidelity to the Church and his fidelity to John. Thereupon Pandulph shows in the light of the doctrine of oaths that the two obligations are irreconcilable. He begins his reply with the concept of faith, suggested by Philip's remark.

Meaning of Words

Line 263, faith: "Fidelity." Philip's fidelity to John is contrary to his fidelity to the Church, for at his coronation Philip, like other Christian kings, took an oath to keep and defend the Catholic faith.16

15 Folio (1623) 10. See Plate IV p. 116.

16 William Cardinal Allen, A true, sincere and modest defence of English Catholiques (Ingolstadt, 1584): 112-114.

Paraphrase

Your fidelity to the latter oath is inconsistent with your fidelity to a former oath. You have then created a civil war within yourself by taking an oath against a previous oath. Your tongue, therefore, denies its own statement.

Comments

1. These lines contain the proposition of the entire speech. This proposition will be further elucidated and proved in the following lines.

2. Pandulph does not deny that the second oath was taken in good faith. But since that oath was taken, circumstances have changed, so that the two oaths conflict. By his coronation oath Philip swore to defend the Church. To keep his second oath would be sinful, for by keeping the peace with John he is not defending the Church.

3. I have not found a single emendation or comment on these lines. It would appear then that the critics did not consider them obscure. This seems quite important, since these lines contain the proposition of the entire speech.

Part II. - Lines 265 b 278.

King John18

O let thy vow

265

First made to heauen, first be to heauen perform'd,266

That is, to be the Champion of our Church,

267

What since thou sworst, is sworne against thy selfe, 268

And may not be performed by thy selfe,

269

For that which thou hast sworne to doe amisse, 270

17 Furness, likewise, has neither emendation nor comment. See

Variorum of King John (Philadelphia, 1919) 218.

18 Folio (1623) 10. See Plate IV p. 116.

Is not amisse when it is truely done:

271

And being not done, where doing tends to ill,
The truth is then most done not doing it:

272

273

The better Act of purposes mistooke,

274

Is to mistake again, though indirect,

275

Yet indirection thereby growes direct,

276

And falshood, falshood cures, as fire cooles fire

277

Within the scorched veines of one new burn'd:

278

(III, i.)

Proposed Emendations19

Line 271, Is not – Is most by Hanmer, Hudson, Wordsworth,
Nielson; Is yet by Pope, Warburton, Capell; Is't not by
Johnson; Is but by Collier, and White; Is done by Sped-
ding.20

Line 271, done: - done? by Johnson.21

Meaning of Words:

Line 265, vow: This word has the same significance that the word "oath" has in line 288. If the word "oath" had been used, it would have produced an iteration with the foregoing line. However, the argument would not be changed if "vow" were taken in its literal sense, for a vow is a promise made to God, whereas an oath is a promise made to any one, but sealed by calling God to witness. Both beget an obligation towards God.

Line 266, heauen: Under James I a law was passed which forbade the use of the name of God, of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost in any stage plays.22 Consequently, the Folio usually substitutes the word "heauen" for the word

X