God, whether Catholic or not, has some kind of religion. It is obvious then that the word "religion" is not limited simply to the Catholic Church. The confusion may have arisen from the fact that Catholics hold that Christ has given the Catholic Church the power to loose and to bind in matters of oaths and vows. However, this loosing and binding by the Church is a judgment consequent upon the act itself. The actual obligation still arises from the act itself, from the fact that God was called to witness. Thus Catholics and non-Catholics may validly take an oath. Conclusion In this interpretation all emendations have been rejected. Each word has been interpreted in that sense which seemed most obvious in itself and which seemed most consistent with the argument, with the speech as such and with the entire situation. It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that an interpretation, yielded by such a process, must be the correct interpretation. Now, this interpretation, when compared with the doctrine of oaths, shows not even the slightest discrepancy. Consequently, in the matter of doctrinal content there is no evidence that Shakespeare was attempting to vilify the Cardinal or the Catholic Church. King John34 Part IV.-Lines 290-297. And better conquest neuer canst thou make, 290 291 292 Vpon which better part, our prayrs come in, 293 If thou vouchsafe them. But if not, then know 294 The perill of our curses light on thee 295 34Folio (1623) 10. See Plate IV p. 116. So heauy, as thou shalt not shake them off 296 297 (III, i.) These lines hardly require detailed examination, for not a single adverse criticism respecting them has been found. Nevertheless, a few pertinent facts should be noted. In the foregoing lines Pandulph shows satisfactorily that duty and the law demand that Philip breaks his oath with John. In concluding his speech he naturally exhorts him to observe the law as the nobler course in spite of the temptations to the contrary, which temptations are based on emotion and policy, certainly not on principle. The fact that this exhortation is based mainly on principle is noteworthy. The entire speech is based on the principles of the doctrine of oaths, and, consequently, Pandulph appeals to the "nobler parts", conscience and honest conviction in the exhortation. To this end he adds also the urgent solicitations of the Church, not in a mandatory manner, but rather with due regard for Philip's royal dignity: "If thou vouchsafe them." However, he concludes by reminding the king of the excommunication, and he reminds him in particular of the peril of dying without being reconciled to God. Indeed, this peril is always great in case of excommunication, for excommunication always presupposes contumaciousness in sin. Therefore, if a man is so resolute in sin that he willingly faces the ban of excommunication, he may readily remain in his sinful state, and thus die in despair. It is to this peril that Pandulph refers, and it should be noted that the word "perill" holds the emphatic position in the the line. Pandulph then does not threaten Philip with the actual curse of dying in despair-a curse which is inimical to the very nature of the Catholic Church-but he warns him of the peril of dying in despair. These lines then are in keeping with the entire speech, and in no way do they misrepresent the doctrine of the Church. They clearly set forth the dilemma that confronts Philip, and both the good and the bad are presented in their true colors. Such an accurate presentation of the moral side of the case is certainly not discreditable to the character of the Cardinal nor to the Church. Comments on the Speech A. THE NATURE OF THE SPEECH. The nature of the subject treated in the speech is abstract and philosophical. However, it was the logical and convenient subject for motivating Philip's subsequent action. That it is treated in a philosophical manner is not at all surprising, for this would be most natural to a churchman. In fact, the perfect logic of the speech shows Pandulph to be a man of education and culture, and the philosophical manner-a fact to be presented below-in which Pandulph handles the abstract argumentation, is certainly characteristic of a trained philosopher. Besides a possible printing mistake, which has already been pointed out, there is a certain stylistic flaw in the speech which must be taken into account. In the minor parts the language becomes somewhat abstruse. This abstruseness seems to have been a failing of Shakespeare at the time. Witness, for instance, the following lines of Constance: Oh, if thou grant my need, Which onely liues but by the death of faith, III, i, 211-216. Consequently, it would be unfair to say that in this abstruseness, which is limited only to the minor parts of Pandulph's speech, Shakespeare had intended to besmirch the character of the Cardinal. B. THE CONTENTS. In studying the contents of the speech, I found that the entire speech was arranged on a well-formed, truly scholastic framework. While the scholastic framework is quite apparent, the speech is, of course, adapted to the situation. Proposition: line 263-265a. I Argument-From the conflicting ends of the two oaths. II Argument-From the nature of the second oath in as much as it is contrary to the nature of a valid oath. Major: line 279. Minor: lines 280-281. Explanation of Minor: lines 282-283a. Minor is proved: Major: lines 283b-285. Minor: lines 286-287. Conclusion: lines 288-289. Motives: lines 290-297. While this diagram of the speech seems quite correct in all its details, nevertheless the interpretation is in no way dependent on this plan. Cardinal Pandulph's argument on the question of oaths is based on the fact that Philip has been previously bound by oath to support the cause of the Church. The King of France and the Duke of Austria have also been bound by oath to support the cause of Arthur. Thus in identically the same manner Philip was forsworn in regard to Arthur. This fact is brought out in numerous lines by Constance. Constance argues as an afflicted mother; Pandulph as a Churchman. Both argue the same point. Yet some critics allow Constance's argument but reject Pandulph's as invalid. It seems that the only reason that should make Pandulph's argument unsound is the fact that he is the representative of the Catholic Church. C. THE PLOT. If Shakespeare intended to make Pandulph's speech ridicuolus, then there would be no motive for Philip's change of mind. Thus the play would seriously suffer, for both the first half of the play and the second clearly hinge on this question. Moreover, if this argumentation were not sufficiently clear or not convincing, then as motivation this speech is absolutely useless, for before the speech, Philip's sentiments are strongly in favor of John, whereas after the speech Philip is definitely set against John. Motivation, therefore, demanded that this speech be sufficiently clear and convincing to the audience, otherwise there would be a technical error. Is this master of drama to be charged with a serious technical error, for the sake of attributing to him some partisan prejudice? Where in all the plays of Shakespeare is it evident that he sacrifices his art for the sake of advocating partisan opinion? D. THE AUDIENCE. It is noteworthy that the speech is not so abstract nor the arguments so profound that the salient points of the speech are obscured. Thus, if the speech were delivered properly, it would be difficult to find many even in the present-day audiences, who would not grasp the meaning of the following lines: So mak'st thou faith an enemy to faith, .... It is religion that doth make vowes kept, Therefore thy later vowes, against thy first, |