1862-Frieder. A. Kreyssig 1863-Charles C. Clarke 1863-George G. Gervinus 1895-Eduard W. Sievers 1896-Frederick S. Boas 1903-Joseph Knight Shakespeare's Antipapal Attitude The interpreters in this group consider King John as the expression of Shakespeare's personal sentiments in regard to the political domination by the Catholic Church. They do not regard Shakespeare as denying or protesting in any way the spiritual supremacy of the Church. But they assert that King John is at once Shakespeare's plea for nationalism and his protest against political interference in England by the Church as a foreign power. These critics are: 1846-Hermann Ulrici 1900-George Kopplow 1936-Max Huhner Shakespeare's Non-Committal Attitude The interpreters here listed contend that Shakespeare assumed a non-committal attitude towards the Catholic Church, and that King John is to be considered merely as a work of art. Each role is considered to speak "in character" and no incident or character is construed as expressing Shakespeare's personal sentiments. 1851-Hartley Coleridge 1896-Ella A. Moore 1917-Ruth C. Wallerstein 1918-Sir John A. Marriott Shakespeare's Pro-Catholic Attitude Under this classification are those interpreters who see revealed in King John a pro-Catholic attitude. They contend that the treatment of the issues involved shows Shakespeare to have been definitely sympathetic towards the Catholic Church. 1877-George Wilkes 1892-Appleton Morgan Observations 1899-Henry S. Bowden Some Shakespearian critics believe that The Troublesome Raigne was written by Shakespeare himself. Since The Troublesome Raigne is very definitely anti-Catholic, one may be inclined to infer that these critics held that Shakespeare was also definitely anti-Catholic in King John. However, this inference is not conclusive, for there is always the possibility that these critics thought that Shakespeare changed his attitude in writing the later play. In the absence of positive evidence on this point these critics have been excluded from the above classifications. But they will be mentioned in the next chapter in treating of another aspect of the present subject.102 The above classification confirms an old truth. 103 The early Shakespearean critics were mostly editors and commentators. In general, interpretation of Shakespeare as a definite phase of Shakespearean criticism is, according to this classification, hardly a century old. This type of criticism is concerned with the interpretation of episodes and scenes, characters and plots, and it seeks a fuller appreciation of the substance. It does not ignore textual criticism, but the solution of purely technical difficulties is only a secondary aim. In the above classification it is quite evident that the majority of interpreters consider Shakespeare's attitude towards the Catholic Church to be anti-Catholic or antipapal. Among those who consider Shakespeare's attitude antipapal, there are many who do not consider Shakespeare in any way Catholic minded, but who attribute any toleration he may show to his art. Consequently, those holding the antiCatholic interpretation and those holding the anti-papal interpretation may be considered as belonging to one and the same school of interpretation, even though for the purpose of more accurate classification the objective distinction has been made between anti-Catholic and anti-papal. But to this school of interpreters, including both groups holding an "anti" view, the honor of being traditional can hardly be accorded, because to be traditional, the "anti" view should be traceable a few centuries closer to Shakespeare's own day. Nevertheless, this "anti" view has certainly been the prevailing view, and, as such, its reliability demands some attention. 102See below p. p. 40-42. 103 See Charles F. Johnson, Shakespeare and His Critics (New York, 1909) viii-ix. CHAPTER II-HISTORICAL FICTIONS In reading the opinions of the interpreters, one becomes aware of the impression, again and again insinuating itself, that with many critics the wish is father to the thought. Their own attitude towards the Catholic Church leads them consciously or subconsciously to conclude that Shakespeare's attitude was quite the same. Arguments in favor of a personal conviction or of a pet theory are always far more captivating than those in favor of the opposite. This is just one of those misleading traits of human nature, to which even the best of us in all good faith and sincerity may fall a victim. That some critics have thus indulged their feelings can hardly be doubted. But the most discerning eye could not exercise such fine discrimination as any judgment in the matter would require. It would, therefore, be rash and imprudent to accuse any one of deliberate prejudice. Indeed, among the critics there are many of undoubted scholarship, many who are conscientious devotees at the shrine of truth. While then it is not my purpose to pass judgment on the thoughts, intentions and inclinations of any critics, nevertheless I shall point out certain objective circumstances in the history of King John and in the history of the play, which might readily induce a critic to develop erroneous views and to draw false conclusions. In many instances it will be very evident that certain able critics have been lured into a land of make-believe by the misleading nature of these objective circumstances. Among the historical events frequently misconstrued are the election of Stephen Langton and the submission of King John to the Pope. These incidents will be presented in Section One and Two respectively. In Section Three the King John tradition, including the play Kynge Johan, will be examined. The Troublesome Raigne, as the source of Shakespeare's play, will be accorded separate treatment in Section Four. Section Five will point out certain misleading facts resulting from the work of the early editors and commentators. In Section Six the stage history of King John will be reviewed with reference to the present subject. In each section the misleading signposts, which may readily deceive the unwary, will be duly pointed out. 1. Canonical Election It was an ancient law and custom in the Church that bishops be elected by the clergy and the people. However, in the early middle ages bishops and abbots were considered temporal lords, and they held both spiritual and temporal authority. The temporal authority came from the king; the spiritual authority came from the Church. From a legal point of view, the Church considered the spiritual office of bishop or abbot as primary and foremost, while she considered the possessions, revenues and political privileges attached thereto merely the means for the proper function of the office itself. The state stressed the temporal side of the office: the political influence, the financial and military resources, which in time of war might become an important factor. For the security of himself and of his realm, the king naturally wished to choose the bishops and abbots. Consequently, many kings took it upon themselves to appoint bishops and abbots and present them for consecration.1 Unless a king were conscientious and not very amenable to financial and political persuasion, he might appoint a very unworthy candidate to an ecclesiastical office. Thus, at least for the sake of discipline, the Church was constrained to oppose this newly assumed royal privilege of appointment. When William the Conqueror (1066-1087) reorganized the Church in England, he appointed bishops and abbots at 1E. Roland, "Élection des Évêques" Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (Paris, 1924) IV, 2256-2281. |