Troublesome Raigne, but it was inserted by Shakespeare as Brother Leo has already pointed out. 12 This conjecture is uttered by Hubert, who actually accepted the commission to kill Arthur; and it seems then rather humorous that Hubert, of all men, calls the monk a "resolued villaine". Finally, it is most remarkable that the monks bowels almost immediately burst out, whereas John's fate is slower and less violent.

The reaction of Faulconbridge is quite matter-of-fact. It is only when Hubert tells him that the lords have returned and have been pardoned by the King, that Faulconbridge's anger is aroused:

With-hold thine indignation, mighty heauen,
And tempt vs not to beare aboue our power.

(V, vi, 37-38.)

Subsequent to Hubert's conjecture, there are three references to poison: one by Pembroke and two by John himself:

Pem:

His Highnesse yet doth speak, & holds beleefe,
That being brought into the open ayre,
It would alley the burning qualitie
Of that fell poison which assayleth him.

John:

Poyson'd ill fare: dead, forsooke, cast off,

(V, vii, 6-9.)

(V, vii, 35.)

11It is hardly necessary to state that in The Troublesome Raigne the incident of John's poisoning is greatly elaborated and actually presented. John becomes a martyr in England's cause; once more he despises Rome, and with prophetic eye he beholds a greater John in the person of Henry VIII.

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

John:

The salt in them is hot.

Within me is a hell, and there the poyson
Is, as a fiend, confin'd to tyrannize,
On vnrepreeuable condemned blood.

(V, vii, 45-48.)

In these three references there is no mention of poison having been administered by a monk. 13 Thus, Shakespeare presents the incident as a conjecture or a surmise, and he makes the conjecture less credible by the circumstances with which he surrounds John's death.

There is another curious point to be noted in regard to the same incident. Neither Holinshed nor the annonymous author of The Troublesome Raigne mention the monks bowels bursting out. Grafton and Foxe14 mention this point, but both expressly state that their accounts are taken from certain writers, as if they themselves are somewhat incredulous. Why then does Shakespeare mention the point? It would seem that the only reason Shakespeare mentions this peculiar aspect is to ridicule the entire story of the alleged poisoning. Indeed, when Shakespeare wrote King John the story was generally under suspicion by the chroniclers. As mentioned Grafton and Foxe show some hesitancy in accepting the story. Holinshed and Stow15 attribute John's death to an ague which was aggravated by his greedy eating of peaches and drinking of new cider. Holinshed accords only a secondary place to the story given above. Only a few years after Shakespeare's King John Samuel Daniel discredited the poisoning story entirely. 16

13 Some have attempted to diagnose John's malady. Furness quotes various theories. See: Variorum of King John (Philadelphia, 1919) 402 f. 14 Richard Grafton, Chronicle or History of England (London, 1569) 246. John Foxe, Acts and Monuments (London, 1837) II, 341. 15 Raphaell Holinshed, Op. cit., 192. John Stow, The Annals of England (London, 1592) 255.

16 Samuel Daniel, The Complete Works ed. by Alexander B. Grosart (London, 1896) V, 67.

And to top it all, both Grafton and Holinshed seem much inclined-if the story be true to look upon the monk as a patriotic fellow, and in view of John's detestable character, it is quite likely that an Elizabethan audience would also favor the monk.

Even if it be assumed that Shakespeare was gullible enough to believe this story, just what would it prove concerning Shakespeare's attitude towards the Catholic Church? A single nameless monk is by no means the Catholic Church. Yet critics have nodded their heads very knowingly. The whole incident of the alleged poisoning is veiled with such an elaborate web of absurdities that as evidence of Shakespeare's attitude towards the Catholic Church, it is utterly valueless.

John dies as he has lived. There is not a prayer on his lips, nor does he seek the consolations of the sacraments of the Church. On the other hand he is too self-centered to think of the Church, the French or his own country, as in The Troublesome Raigne. The best comfort Salisbury can offer the young Prince Henry is a poor commentary on John's arbitrary reign:

Be of good comfort (Prince) for you are borne
To set a forme vpon that indigest
Which he hath left so shapelesse, and so rude.

(V, vii, 25-27.)

All the various events of the play seem purposed to illustrate the various aspects of John's moral depravity. In studying the imagery of Shakespeare, Caroline Spurgeon 17 arrives at the same conclusion from wholly different premises. The imagery that Shakespeare uses in reference to John produces, often in a subconscious way, feelings of horror, disgust and contempt for his despicable majesty. Furness likewise points out that John is so morally debased by Shakespeare that there is not a single redeeming trait in his character. 18 Richard III and Macbeth are ruthless and cruel, but at least they show the steady hand of purpose, that demands our regard and interest. But John is wholly without strength of character and utterly contemptible.

Shakespeare realized that John was too wretched to be the mouthpiece of English nationalism. King John could not have uttered Faulconbridge's ringing speeches of patriotism and nationalism without evident insincerity. Still to write a historical play without a trumpet of patriotism would be unthinkable and unpardonable. Shakespeare was constrained to supply the note of nationalism. King John was impossible; Hubert and the other lords were mere parasites; Faulconbridge was the logical man. For this reason Shakespeare built up the character of Faulconbridge and he made him the personification of his country.

In portraying King John in his villainy, Shakespeare places the Catholic Church against a background which inevitably shows her object, purpose and policy not only as fully justifiable but also as commendable. The circumstances of the plot necessarily demand an exhibition of the coercive powers of the Church, but beneath it all there is evident her bedrock foundation of principle and the profound significance of her spiritual authority. Such a ruthless tyrant as King John can cause but a surface ripple on the deep bosom of her calm.

2. Cardinal Pandulph and the Other Characters.

Cardinal Pandulph is the official representative of the Church, and by virtue of his office he must be accorded the same high regard which is due the Church. He may have personal traits and idiosyncrasies, for which due allowance

18Horace H. Furness, A Variorum of King John (Philadelphia,

1919) xi.

must be recognized. But his general character reflects to a great extent upon the Church, for the presumption stånds -a fortiori in art that a representative is chosen because of his particular aptitude to represent a government in a given case. Moreover, in all things that pertain directly to his office, his actions may rightly be presumed to have the official sanction of the Church, Consequently, the general personal character, as well as the official capacity of the Cardinal Legate in King John, reveals to a great extent Shakespeare's definite attitude towards the Catholic Church in that play.

The Cardinal has been sent to England for the express purpose of defending the rights of the Church against King John in the Langton case. This is his official capacity. It is not for him to interfere in any internal affairs, but with unswerving purpose he must carry out the object of his mission. By virtue of his office, he mingles with quarreling kings and enraged royalty. He may not espouse their cause, nor may he be guided by their personal interests and grievances, although at times their cause is identified with the cause of the Church. He may not become a tool for furthering the cause of the English nor of the French nor of any others. He is strictly the Cardinal Legate commissioned to protect the rights of the Church in the Langton

case.

In the Cardinal's relations to the various characters, the great issues that are at stake not only reveal the innermost feelings of the various characters to the Church, but also offers ample opportunity to present the Church in a disparaging or in a favorable light to the audience. Therefore, these relations of the various characters to the Cardinal will be carefully examined to discover not merely the personal feelings of the respective characters, but particularly the general manner in which the cause of the Church has been presented. The most important relations have already been examined-John's defiance and boast, the excommunication, the Cardinals explanation of oaths and