Church's teaching." With this, the circle of varying interpretations set about Pandulph's speech on oaths is quite complete.

Pandulph and Constance

..

...

The circle of varying opinions is duplicated in reference to Pandulph's attitude towards Constance. When Pandulph tells Constance, "There's Law and Warrant (Lady) for my curse," (III, i, 184) Calvert's sentiments gush in approved Victorian fashion: "How profoundly must the humane, truly Christian Shakespeare have felt the secret irony of this answer. Law and warrant for cursing a fellowman! For the curse of poor Constance there is some warrant, the warrant issued by the wronged, bleeding heart of a mother." Pandulph's other lines to Constance: "Lady, you vtter madness, and not sorrow." (III, iv, 43) and "You hold too heynous a respect of greefe." (III, iv, 90), have inspired Brookes to remark: "Not only public morality, but the tenderest ties of humanity are thus represented as despised by the Church, when her interests are endangered." In the same vein Liebermanns1 speaks of the "coldness of his commiseration" and notes, "Above all it is remarkable that this Catholic must first preach consolation to a Cardinal, 'That we shall see and know our friends in heauen.' (III, iv, 77) Quite different is the interpretation of Bowden, 82 who considers Pandulph "a ghostly Father, full of sympathy for the afflicted." And Bowden continues, "He grieves for Arthur's capture and pities Constance, whose maternal beautiful and pathetic appeal proves that she saw in him a spiritual consoler, and not a mere cold-hearted, calculating politician."

دو

79George H. Calvert, Shakespeare: A Biographic Aesthetic Study (Boston, 1879) 143-144. 80Stopford A. Brooke, Ten More Plays (New York, 1927) 232-233. 81 Felix Liebermann, op. cit., 143 (1922): 28. 82Henry S. Bowden, op. cit., 127.

Pandulph and Lewis

Shakespeare's interpreters point an accusing finger at the Cardinal's relations with the Dauphin Lewis. After the battle, Lewis is quite discouraged at the ill-success of the French arms, and at the capture of Prince Arthur. Pandulph bids Lewis to revive his courage and then points out the significance that the new political setting has for the disheartened Dauphin. Once again the words of Pandulph are scrutinized and the interpreters render verdicts, which are quite so drastically conflicting as in other cases. Heraud83 considers the matter as another incident of a "priest's crafty sophistry." Lloyds is shocked at Pandulph's "coldblooded complacency as he speculates on the certain murder of Arthur if dextrously provoked and the advantages to result to Holy Church therefrom." Even though Liebermann85 stresses the political side of the case, he seems to cast some sinister reflection on the Cardinal's character: "As a cold politician, he reckons with murder, superstition, revolt and war without any indication of pity." In speaking of the same incident, Canning86 refers to Pandulph as "the observant Cardinal," and Bowdens7 views Pandulph's words as good common sense: "In his speech to the Dauphin the Cardinal shows his political foresight, and his knowledge of the ways of Providence in the conduct of human affairs."

Pandulph and Lewis meet again after John's submission to Rome, and again the Cardinal's words and policy are subjected to the scrutiny of the critics. "Pandulph is truly a comic figure," writes Snider, 88 "Here his deep policy has

83 John A. Heraud, Shakspere: His Inner Life as Estimated in His Work (London, 1865) 156.

84 William W. Lloyd, Critical Essays (London, 1875) 188-189.
85 Felix Liebermann, op. cit., 143 (1922) 43.

86 Albert S. Canning, Thoughts on Shakespeare's Historical Plays (London, 1884) 59.

87 Henry S. Bowden, Religion of Shakespeare (London, 1899) 128.

88 Denton J. Snider, The Shakespearian Drama: The Histories (St. Louis, 1890) 308.

swallowed itself." Heraud,89 remarks that "France, as little as England, will be 'propertied', or consent merely to underplay the game of crafty Rome." This phase of the game Keeton calls "open perfidy." For Ash1 this is just another occasion in the play where faith and truth are juggled in the name of religion. Liebermann, 92 however, looks upon Lewis' opposition as lacking all religious regard, and he asserts that it is directed against Rome as a sovereign state, since it is motivated merely by personal profit. In contrast, Canning93 is inclined to smile at the Dauphin: "Louis warmly, almost boyishly opposes him." Bowden views the situation rather calmly: "Instead of mutually cursing each other to their 'bellyful' as in the old plays, in Shakespeare the Cardinal tells the Dauphin that he looks at but 'the outside of the work,' and persuades him though victorious to offer England terms of honourable peace."

Pandulph and Faulconbridge

Thus, the various incidents, with which Pandulph is in any way connected, are differently interpreted. However, the key to the correct interpretation of the character of Pandulph may be found in Faulconbridge "whose humorous, honest, and clear-sighted view of the wrongs and intricacies about him serves the twofold function of comedy and chorus, and affords at once a contrast to the somber tone of the rest of the play and a normal standard by which to judge among the contending parties."95 While many interpreters readily enough regard Faulconbridge as the official interpreter of Shakespeare himself, they disagree in interpreting his attitude to Pandulph and to the Church, Swinburne, 96 for instance, speaks of Faulconbridge's "loathing for the Church" and "contempt for his (John's) abjection at the foul feet of the Church." Gervinus is more sweeping in his opinion: "Shakespeare delineates his Faulconbridge (and himself in him) rigidly and bitterly enough as a good Protestant in the base treatment of Popish arrogance." For Snider, 98 Faulconbridge is "a special character introduced as the representative of nationality." Bowden, however, looks upon Faulconbridge as a "reckless, careless soldier, but he is not a Protestant bigot. On the contrary, instead of expressing indignant contempt as he does in the old playat John's submission to the Legate, by which 'friars are made kings, and kings friars,' Faulconbridge looks upon Pandulph as the friend of England and an honourable peacemaker." Bowden points out further that the "anger of the Bastard is reserved exclusively for France and the Dauphin." From the diversity of these opinions it is quite clear that even if we accept Faulconbridge as the official interpreter of Shakespeare's Pandulph, the dissent of the interpreters on the attitude of Faulconbridge to Pandulph and to the Church clouds the issue as much as it was before.

Summary

From the above differences of opinion on the words and deeds of Cardinal Pandulph, it is clear that excommunication, allegiance, the killing of heretics and the doctrine of oaths are problems of vital importance in this investigation. In the treatment of these problems, the teaching of the Catholic Church and certain historical facts associated with these problems will be of great assistance for the proper understanding of Shakespeare himself. The other problemsPandulph's attitude towards Constance and towards Lewis, and Faulconbridge's attitude towards Pandulph-will certainly illuminate the subject from still other angles.

3. The Interpreters

In the following categories the interpreters are classified according to their respective opinion of Shakespeare's attitude towards the Catholic Church in King John.100 Some interpreters have been very definite in the expression of their views; others have merely insinuated or implied their opinions: in regard to the latter, unless the inference is so evident as to warrant definite classification, their names are simply omitted. Again, some interpreters find Shakespeare's attitude towards the Church clearly set forth in the play as a whole; others find Shakespeare's attitude revealed only in one or more episodes, speeches or remarks. In either case the critic is attributing a positive attitude to Shakespeare, and, therefore, the critic is subject to classification.

Shakespeare's Anti-Catholic Attitude

The following interpreters are of the opinion that in King John Shakespeare shows himself opposed to the Catholic Church on religious grounds:

1710-Charles Gildon101

1785-Thomas Davies

1848-William J. Birch
1858-William W. Lloyd

100 References to the works of the interpreters, upon which this classification is based, are given in the Appendix.

101 Interpreters are listed according to the date of publication of their views the earliest date discoverable in case of several editions or reprints. This date immediately precedes the name of the interpreter.