And better conquest neuer canst thou make, These lines constitute the major part of the speech as well as the major arguments, and these lines have suffered least from misinterpretation. Consequently, what constitutes the main argumentation, Shakespeare set down in language that is not difficult to understand. Conclusion 1. In every detail Cardinal Pandulph's speech is perfectly in keeping with the doctrine of oaths as enunciated by the Catholic Church. 2. The entire plot as well as the artistic motivation of the scene demand that the speech be delivered with the dignity proper to a high ecclesiastic. 3. The content and the form of the speech show clearly to the advantage of the Cardinal. 4. There is very good reason to believe that the audience understood the speech in the manner interpreted, and, what is more, the plot demanded that the speech be understood in this manner. 5. There is no evidence to indicate that Shakespeare wished to vilify or ridicule in any regard the character of the Cardinal or the Catholic Church. But on the contrary, the soundness of the Cardinal's doctrine and the respect and reverence shown to his words point once again to the conclusion that Shakespeare's attitude towards the Catholic Church in King John was duly respectful. CHAPTER VI THE CHARACTERS AND THE PLAY The chief passages bearing upon the religious question in King John have already been investigated in detail. In this chapter the various characters will be discussed in their relation to the present subject. In the First Section the character of King John will be carefully scrutinized. In the Second Section the character of Cardinal Pandulph will be considered particularly from the attitude of the respective characters towards the Cardinal. In the Third Section an interpretation will be suggested, which will take into account not only the entire play as such, but also the conclusions resulting from the present study. 1. The Character of King John Shakespeare's King John is by no means a hero. It can hardly be doubted that he is in the truest sense a usurper. The words of Elinore were an admission of her son's guilt and a disclosure of her own unscrupulous and artful intrigue: Your strong possession much more then your right, These words were deeply significant. Any audience would consider them as true, since they came from John's own mother, and, what is more, John himself did not deny them. Moreover, the fact that John was reigning by his "strong possession" shows that John was therefore king, not by the voluntary choice of the people or by right of decent, but by the fact that he imposed himself upon them by force. This would have been chafing to an Elizabethan audience, or for that matter, to any audience, for human nature, even when shackled by servitude, detests any imposition on its liberties. These words of Elinore were all the more telling with the audience, since they were uttered in confidence as the dictates of her own conscience. Thereafter, Elinore's insinuation of Arthur's illegitimacy (II, i, 122), and her reference to a will (II, i, 192) were so many empty words hurled in haughty defense of her own son. John himself admitted that he was a usurper by the very fact that he surrendered his French possessions in order to gain Philip's recognition of his kingship in England. This surrender of all the French provinces was certainly treason to the crown; and this surrender probably touched the Elizabethan audience to the quick, for in 1558 England lost Calais, her last stronghold on the continent, and throughout Elizabeth's reign England made various attempts of regaining some foothold on the continent.1 It is true, John had his followers, and, as Englishmen, they were highly acclaimed In briefe, a brauer choyse of dauntless spirits To doe offence and scathe in Christendome: (II, i, 72-75) However, English though they were, they were certainly not representatives of the sound and stable element of the kingdom: With them a Bastard of the Kings deceast, And all th'vnsetled humors of the Land, Arnold O. Meyer, England and the Catholic Church under Queen Elizabeth (London, 1916) 227. Rash, inconsiderate, fiery voluntaries, (II, i, 65-71) The only followers of John, who were important enough to be mentioned were Faulconbridge, Pembroke, Salisbury and Hubert. Thus, throughout John's French campaign, it can hardly be said that John's "strong possession" had any sanction or right proceeding from the free choice of England, whereas John had admitted himself a usurper and proved himself a traitor.2 John's next crime is that of irreligion, as shown above. After the excommunication John is blustering and defiant towards Philip of France, but he has not a word of defiance against the Church. This harmonizes with John's character, for such a man, whose passions rush him from one extremity to another, is likely to be confounded by any firm and steady course taken against him. John defied Philip and would not yield even the town of Angiers; then, merely for Philip's recognition he yielded all his French possessions. In the same way, John defies Pandulph even to the point of irreligion, and yet he is silenced by the excommunication. John shows immediately the effects of the ex 2After noting the several incidents in King John, which emphasize the King's tyranny, it is interesting to observe the definition of a tyrant given by Sir Thomas Smith: "A tyrant they name him, who by force commeth to the monarchy against the wil of the people, breaketh lawes already made, at his pleasure, maketh other without the advise and consent of the people, and regardeth not the wealth of his Commons, but ye advancement of himself, his faction and kindred. These definitions doe containe three differences: the obtaining of the authoritie, ye manner of administration thereof, and the butte or marke wherevnto it doth tend and shoote. So as one may be a tyrant by his entry and getting of the gouernment, and a king in the administration thereof. The Common-wealth of England (London, 1594) 6. .. communication, and his ominous silence is the prelude to his complete submission. John's next crime is the design upon Arthur's life. Since no critic has volunteered to be the attorney for the defense, at least on this point then his moral depravity is unanimously admitted. However, there is one aspect of this incident that indicates the depth of John's moral depravity. John was unreasonable in his defiance and in his concessions to Philip of France and to the Church. In both cases he was confronted with a power to be reckoned with. But in his commission for the murder of Arthur, who is defenseless and wholly within his power, John reaches the nadir of moral depravity, in which state he is quite capable of the most vile and the most detestable. The arbitrary manner with which John disposes of Peter of Pomfret (IV, ii, 155-157) is a sufficient commentary on his utter ruthlessness. In due course comes John's submission to the Church. There is nothing surprising in this, for the storm clouds of misfortune have gathered over John. But what is surprising is the fact that John surrendered his crown in submitting to the Church. The surrender of the crown is entirely unmotivated, and nowhere is it stated by Pandulph that such was the demand of Rome. By thus making John proceed to this uncalled for, and unjustifiable humiliation, Shakespeare shows the utter treachery of John's character, for he yielded his crown, not on demand, but simply out of policy. This episode demands closer observation. As previously demonstrated, the crown was not demanded from John, but only his submission. Now, this historical fact may not have been unknown to Shakespeare, for Shakespeare's treatment of the episode is strictly in conformity with the historical fact. It is less probable that this conformity was purely accidental. However, I did not succeed in dis 3See pp. 30-33. |