of this historical event. Needless to say, their comments on the historical event are irrelevant here. In respect to the play, Bayne is of the opinion that Shakespeare's version of the excommunication is "more definite and pointed in its reference to Queen Elizabeth's case." Wilson45, too, states that the terms of Pandulph's speech were "clearly intended to recall the bull of 1570 excommunicating Elizabeth." Brooke46 reflects how this "anathema of death ... went home to the heart of the audience," for, as he asserts, "there is not a man in the pit who had not heard that Rome had treacherously played for the assassination of Elizabeth, had openly attacked her legitimacy, and urged the Roman Catholics of England to throw off their allegiance."

However, Liebermann11 is careful to note that the words of the excommunication are not taken from the papal bull against Elizabeth but from The Troublesome Raigne. Furthermore, the parallel between Elizabeth's excommunication and John's seems weakened by Canning's*s incisive observation, for when Constance asserts that unless her wrongs are considered "no tongue has power to curse him right," Pandulph distinguishes that "there is law and warrant" for his curse. "It is evident," Canning concludes, "that the Pope had no idea of denying John's right to the English Crown, or of acknowledging prince Arthur, which, perhaps, was a great disappointment to Constance and a surprise to the French king." This, indeed, is an important difference between the excommunication of Elizabeth and the ban of King John in Shakespeare.

Besides the excommunication of John and the absolu

tion of his subjects from their allegiance to him, Pandulph's pronunciation brings up also the question of tyrannicide. With reference to the present case Lloyd49 calls it the "authorization by religious sanction of secret, treacherous murder." Of the excommunication, this feature in particular is considered by Collins50 to make the Catholic Church as well as the character of Pandulph most contemptible. Birch51 thinks that "the answer of the Legate making meritorious John's assassination, must have been intended to gratify the feelings of the audience, this crime being charged against the Pope by Elizabeth and James."

That the excommunication is the remote cause of John's death is suggested by Wilkes. 52 However, Rose, 53 followed by Wilson, 54 states that John's poisoning is not at all motivated as it is in The Troublesome Raigne. But Kittredge55 holds that John's poisoning is sufficiently motivated by John's command to loot the monasteries (III, iii, 7-11) and by Faulconbridge's thorough obedience to that command (IV, ii, 141-143). Finally, Bowden 56 points out that the sentiments of the dying John seem to nullify any possible connection of John's death with the excommunication.

In reference to John's death, it is appropriate to mention also that certain critics, such as Rose57 and Wilson58

49 William W. Lloyd, Critical Essays on the Plays of Shakespeare (London, 1875), 188.

50 John C. Collins, Ephemera Critica (New York, 1902), 355.

51 William J. Birch, An Inquiry into the Philosophy and Religion

of Shakespeare (London, 1848), 255.

52 George Wilkes, Shakespeare from an American Point of View (New York, 1877), 57.

53. Edward Rose, “Shakespeare as an Adapter," Macmillan's Magazine, 39 (1878): 72.

54J. Dover Wilson, op. cit., xxi-xxii.

55 George L. Kittredge, The Complete Works of Shakespeare

(New York, 1936), 472.

56Henry S. Bowden, op. cit., 131.

57 Edward Rose, op. cit., 72.

58J. Dover Wilson, op. cit., xxii.

stress the fact that Hubert calls the monk who poisons John, "a resolved villain." Perhaps on this phrase hangs a tale. However, Brother Leo's59 observation cannot easily be ignored. Hubert breaks the bad news to Faulconbridge with this significant line: "The King I feare is poyson'd by a Monke," (V, v, 23). Now in the older play, the words "I feare" do not occur. Thus, what was stated as a fact în the older play becomes a plausibility in Shakespeare.

Pandulph and Philip

After the excommunication of John, Pandulph's next important speech is addressed to Philip of France concerning the latter's recent oath with John. This rather lengthy speech on oaths (III, i, 263-297) has occasioned a great diversity of opinion among Shakespeare's interpreters. Brooke sees in it an arraignment of the Catholic Church, for he believes that in this passage Shakespeare accuses the Church of "putting aside the most solemn vows, the conscience and honour and faith of men, if those were against her interests and power." To Kopplow61 the speech discloses the real colors of the Cardinal: "His powerful dialectics with which he quiets the conscience of Philip" is conceived of as one of the "genuinely jesuitical" characteristics of Pandulph. Oechelhäuser62, too, sees in this speech a portrayal of the Cardinal's character "in its most unpleasant phase."

As to the speech itself, Ash6s considers it sophistry and

59 Brother Leo, Contrast in Shakespeare's Historical Plays (Washington, D. C., 1915) 76.

60 Stopford A. Brooke, Ten More Plays (New York, 1927) 231-232. 61George Kopplow, Shakespeare's "King John" und seine Quellen (Kiel, 1900) 82.

62 Wilhelm Oechelhäuser, Einführungen zu Shakespere's BühnenDramen (Minden, 1885) I, 21.

63 Margaret S. Ash, A Historical Study of "King John" (Iowa City, 1936, Unpublished) 100.

juggling; and Gentleman speaks of the "churchman's able sophistry." With more evasiveness, Pye65 calls it an "absurd passage," and Rose66 characterizes it as "somewhat sinister wisdom." In the same tone Perring67 gives his generalization of the speech as "the elaborate web of Cardinal Pandulph's subtle casuistry a marvellous sample of priestly sophistry." Capells labels the speech "sophistry," while Ritsons maintains that the passage has "sense and meaning, is quite in the spirit of the Cardinal's quibbling logic." Verplanck thinks the speech is full of verbal subtleties, which render the intricate reasonings more intricate," and he believes that the "poet unquestionably meant to produce this effect."

Corson is of the opinion that the speech did not convince Philip. This raises the problem of effective motivation. The same problem is likewise involved in Birch's72 view: "The Jesuitical casuistry of Pandulph, that no vows are to be kept except to the Church, is only produced to gain the derisive applause, and accommodate the temper of the times." Wallersteins too believes that "the patriotic feelings of the audience were satisfied when Pandulph was

64 Francis Gentleman, Dramatic Censor (London, 1770) II, 159. 65 Henry J. Pye, Comments on the Commentators on Shakespear (London, 1807), 142.

66Edward Rose, "Shakespeare as an Adapter" Macmillan's Magazine, 39 (1878): 72.

147.

67Sir Philip Perring, Hard Knots in Shakespeare (London, 1885)

68 Edward Capell, Notes and Various Readings to Shakespeare (London, 1779) 128.

69 Joseph Ritson, Remarks Critical and Illustrative (London, 1782) 82.

70 Gulian C. Verplanck, The Illustrated Shakespeare (New York, 1847) I, 48.

71Hiram Corson, "(On) King John," Shakespeariana, 4 (1887) 62. 72 William J. Birch, An Inquiry into the Philosophy and Religion of Shakspeare (London, 1848) 256.

73 Ruth C. Wallerstein, King John in Fact and Fiction (Philadelphia, 1917) 43.

shown a sophister and schemer." If these views be correct, the speech, as motivation, limps, and artistically it is seriously defective.

Liebermann considers Pandulph "a cunning lawyer," and he observes that "the kernel of the sophism is that an oath is invalid which is contrary to Christian obligations and this is taken as identical with the commandments of the Church." Raich, 75 however, views the same matter from the aspect of the validity of the latter vow against the former. "This," he says, "is no sophism, but the very foundation of the Shakespearian theory of vows."

According to Dr. Johnson, 76 there is nothing "inconsequent or ridiculously subtle" in the speech: "The propositions, that the voice of the church is the voice of heaven, and that the Pope utters the voice of the Church, neither of which Pandulph's auditors would deny, being once granted, the argument here used is irresistible; nor is it easy, notwithstanding the gingle (sic), to enforce it with greater brevity or propriety." Wordsworth would interpret the speech in the same light as Judges XI, 30-40 and II Henry VI. V, i, 182-190.

Bowden78 points out that in The Troublesome Raigne the sworn alliance between the two kings is declared invalid by Pandulph, because "the oath was made with a heretic." "This popular calumny against Catholic doctrine," Bowden declares, "Shakespeare utterly repudiates, and instead he substitutes a careful, accurate, and detailed disquisition on the obligations of an oath, drawn out according to the

74 Felix Liebermann, "Shakespeare als Bearbeiter" Archiv 143 (1922): 43.

75 Johann Raich, Shakespeare's Stellung zur Katholischen Religion (Mainz, 1884) 158.

76 Samuel Johnson, The Plays of William Shakespeare (London, 1765) III, 450.

77 Charles Wordsworth, Shakespeare's Knowledge and Use of the Bible (London, 1880) 73-76.

78Henry S. Bowden, Religion of Shakespeare (London, 1899) 125.