covering with certainty the source of Shakespeare on this particular point. It is noteworthy that Holinshed refers to John's surrender of his crown, as being demanded by Rome: Wherefore shortlie after (in like manner as pope Innocent had commanded) he took the crowne from his owne head, and deliuered the same to Pandulph the legat;....5 The paranthetical remark in this quotation from Holinshed seems to be merely an interpretative interpolation, and it may have been dictated by Protestant prejudice. This perenthetical remark appears in both the 1577 and the 1586 editions. Many such insidious remarks mar the pages of the 1586 edition of Holinshed. If Holinshed was actually Shakespeare's historical guide in this play, which assumption is certainly supported by his treatment of the charac It is interesting to note that Cardinal Allen states the incident as if the Church demanded the crown of John: "For great iniuries also done to holie Church, and for persecution of Bishops and religious, was Iohn one of our kinges of England with his whole land interdicted, and brought (after long strugling against God and the Sea Apostolique) to yield his croune to the courtesie of the Popes Legate, and to make both his Realmes of England and Ireland, tributaries."William Cardinal Allen, A trve, sincere and modest defence of English catholiques (Ingolstadt, 1584) 111. Sir Thomas Smith seems to favor the opposite view of the case: "Although king Iohn (by the rebellion of the Nobilitie, ayded with ye Dauphin of Fraunce his power) to appease the Pope, who at that time possessing the consciences of his subiectes, was then also his enemie, and his most grieuous torment (as some histories doe witnesse) did resigne the crowne to his Legate Pandulphus, and tooke it againe from him, as from the Pope, by faith and homage, and a certain tribute yeerly. But that act being neither approoued by his people, nor established by act of Parlement, was forthwith, and euer sithens taken for nothing, either to binde the king, his successors or subiectes."-Sir Thomas Smith, The Common-wealth of England (London, 1594) 10. 5 Raphaell Holinshed, The Historie of England: The Third Volume of Chronicles (n. p. 1586) 177. The quotation is identical in the 1577 edition. ter of John, then in deleting this interpretation of his favorite historian, Shakespeare showed himself very fair to the Catholic Church. The treatment of this point by the author of The Troublesome Raigne is perfectly in accord with that of Holinshed. One way is left to reconcile thyself, And only one, which I shall show to thee: Thy crown and diadem; .... In Shakespeare Pandulph made no such demand, whereas King John expressly asserts that he surrendered his crown voluntarily: Is this Ascension day? did not the Prophet (V, i, 25-29.) In The Troublesome Raigne John is loathe to surrender his crown, and it is only under constraint of circumstances that he finally yields to Pandulph's demand. Shakespeare omits the entire scene in which John surrenders his crown to Pandulph. Again, in The Troublesome Raigne there is an interval of a long scene between John's submission to the terms of Rome, and Pandulph's return of the crown to John; in Shakespeare both events occured on Ascension day. Furthermore, in the twenty-nine lines given to this episode, Shakespeare devotes most of them to the discussion of the terms. The terms, of which Pandulph speaks, relate to the sincerity of John's repentance and the See pp. 70 f., 80. "Horace H. Furness, A Variorum of King John (Philadelphia, 1919) 518. 8V, i, 23 and 26. sincerity of his oath of service to the Pope. But John, is wholly concerned not with his own fidelity, but with repressing rebellion and beating off the French. In all this, two facts stand out most clearly in Shakespeare's treatment of the event: 1. John's character is in no manner enhanced even by the slightest insinuation that he has been victimized by the Church. 2. Everything that Holinshed and The Troublesome Raigne include which may be interpreted as ignominious to the Church, has been removed or decidedly changed to the advantage of the Church, and there is nothing in Shakespeare's treatment that might be looked upon as disreputable to the Church. Indeed, Shakespeare has been so favorable to the Church in the presentation of this episode, that it would be difficult to present it in a more favorable manner without substantially changing the historical fact itself. It should be noted that before John's submission to the Church, the Church kept aloof from the question of John's right to the kingship. The question of John's usurpation was an internal affair, and the Church's decision was not requested in the matter. Naturally, then, the Church did not enter into the question. The restoration of the crown to John did not imply that the Church sanctioned John's usurpation, for with the death of Arthur, John had ceased to be a usurper, as far as the law of lineal descent was concerned. John's submission bears certain marks of insincerity. Faulconbridge in a rather heated speech (V, ii, 174-175), which will be considered later, gives some indication of It should be noted that immediately after John's surrender, Faulconbridge makes a ringing speech to rally the shattered spirits of John (V, i, 43-61). Then John tells Faulconbridge of his suit for peace through his submission to the Pope. Faulconbridge's reaction is not against John's submission to the Pope, but against the prospect of peace with the invading Lewis. The bravery of Faulconbridge emphasizes by contrast the despicable cowardice of John. It is impossible for any audience to miss this interpretation of John's action. See J. Dover Wilson, King John (Cambridge, 1936) 174-175. this. The Church, however, accepted John's word of honor and his oath, and any indication of insincerity then simply adds to his guilt. In fact, there is nothing to indicate John's sincerity, and, after all that has gone before, John's external submission seems nothing more than one of his schemes of treachery. But before John can conclude this little game, death catches up with him. The death of John comes as a welcome relief. Since, so much has been said about his being poisoned, the circumstances of his death must needs be investigated. Before beginning this investigation, certain very obvious facts, which have often been ignored, must be noted: 1. It is purely an assumption, unsubstantiated by any reference in the play, that there is any connection between John's alleged poisoning and his excommunication. 2. It is a like assumption that there is any connection between John's alleged poisoning and his order for the looting of the monasteries. 3. Before John comes to the monastery, he is already burning with a fever: This Feauer that hath troubled me so long, (V, iii, 3-4.) Aye me, this tyrant Feauer burnes mee vp, (V, iii, 14-17.) 4. John's malady is the same after as before the alleged poisoning-he complains of a burning fever. 5. There is no specific mention of the monks purpose in the alleged poisoning. The incident of the alleged poisoning is related by Hubert: Hub. The King I feare is poyson'd by a Monke, I left him almost speechlesse, and broke out Bast. How did he take it? Who did taste to him? Hub. A Monke I tell you, a resolued villaine (V, vi, 23-31.) After stating what he considers the correct story of John's death, Holinshed then cites the following story as less probable: There be which haue written, that after he had lost his armie, he came to the abbeie of Swineshead in Lincolneshire, and there vnderstanding the cheapeness and plentie of corne, shewed himselfe greatlie displeased therewith, as he that for the hatred which he bare to the English people, that had so traitorouslie reuolted from him vnto his aduersarie Lewes, wished all miserie to light vpon them, and therevpon said in his anger, that he would cause all kinds of graine to be at a farre higher price, yet manie daies should passe. Where vpon a monke that heard him speake such words, being mooted with zeale for the oppression of his countrie, gaue the king poison in a cup of ale, wherof he first tooke the assaie, to cause the king not to suspect the matter, and so they both died in manner at one time.10 As to Shakespeare's narration of the story, it is particularly noteworthy, that the report of the poisoning incident is given as a conjecture-the "I fear" is not in The 10 Raphaell Holinshed, The Historie of England: (n. p., 1586) 192. |