2

will. On the one hand, William was conscientious, judicious and zealous in administering the affairs of the Church; and on the other hand, Gregory VII (1073-1085) was too busy with the Emperor Henry IV to do more than protest the assumed powers of the Conqueror. In consequence, William II (1087-1100) and Henry I (1100-1135) looked upon these practices of their father as a royal prerogative. A conflict between Church and state was inevitable. This controversy, which ended in 1107, concerns chiefly the question of investiture, but it clearly indicates that the Holy See considered toleration of these assumed privileges as extremely dangerous to faith, discipline and the liberty of the Church.

6

About the time of the publication of the Corpus Juris Canonici (c. 1140), which contains the old law on the election of bishops, the Church was growing in power, and she was able to insist on normal electoral procedure.5 At the same time there is an evident development in the law, giving more and more the control of elections to the Pope himself. In view of this, it is interesting that the Constitutions of Clarendon (1164), which is manifestly hostile to the Church, prescribes that the election of bishops and abbots are to be held in the kings chapel with the consent of the king. Though the Constitutions were repudiated by Henry II (1154-1189) at the murder of Thomas á Becket, they were nevertheless looked upon by future kings as a bill of royal rights. However, it is important to note that disputed elec

7

2The Cambridge Medieval History (New York, 1936) V, 516. 3John T. Ellis, Anti-Papal Legislation in Medieval England: 1066-1377 (Washington, 1930) 6-13.

4C. 34, D. LXIII: Corpus Juris Canonici (Leipzig, 1839) 211. 5E. Roland, op. cit., IV, 2269.

Geoffrey Barraclough, "The Making of a Bishop in the Middle

Ages", The Catholic Historical Review 19 (1933): 284 f.

Ellis, op. cit., 34. This regulation was by no means a concession, for the Constitutions stipulated that the king was to receive the revenues of the vacant sees, and thus it was a ready means of keeping the sees vacant.

Ellis, op. cit., 27-41.

tions were more and more referred to the Holy See for decision, so that Henry II attempted to check the growth of these appeals, but he had to concede the point at Avranches in 1172.9 With the turn of the century these appeals for decision became very common.

In 1205 when the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury became vacant, the monks of Christ Church elected Reginald, their sub-prior, while King John proposed as his candidate John de Grey, Bishop of Norwich. Both parties rushed to Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) to have their respective candidate approved.10 John's action is noteworthy, but this was by no means an unusual procedure in those days, nor was it unusual that the Pope should reject both candidates and appoint one of his own.11 That the Pope's choice was a good one, is a matter of history. 12

King John's indignation at the rejection of his candidate created the appearance that the Pope's action was an encroachment upon royal authority. It was this element that John Bale capitalized in Kynge Johan in the character Usurped Power. The same phrase, "usurped power," was spread abroad by John Foxe, 13 and some critics show a decided leaning towards the sentiments of the phrase, if not towards the actual wording.

2. King John's Submission

The fact that King John steadfastly opposed the Pope in the case of the election of Stephen Langton, as Archbishop of Canterbury, seems very commendable to many writers. But the termination of that quarrel with the submission of John to the Papacy is one of those phases in his

1252.

Barraclough, op. cit., 279, 294.
10 Ellis, op. cit., 43.

11 Barraclough, op. cit., 295.

12 Hefele-Leclerq, Histoire des Conciles (Paris, 1913) V, 1250

13 John Foxe, Acts and Monuments (London, 1837) II, 326.

tory to which a little modification of facts would be welcomed by ardent spirits of Protestantism and nationalism. Indeed, on the surface it may appear very contemptible that any king should surrender his crown and sovereignty only to receive it back again in vassalage.

John's action in becoming the vassal of the Pope was really a stroke of policy, for John was sorely in need of the strong support of the Church. True, he was forced by circumstances-principally the stress of invasion, the rebellion of some of his barons and the doubtful loyalty of othersto make peace with the Church.14 But peace with the Church did not imply the surrender of John's sovereignty. Briefly, the chief demands of the Church were the recognition of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, the return of the exiled churchmen, and the restoration of Church property and subsidies, which John had confiscated. These demands by no means implied any surrender of the throne. John's surrender of his crown and his throne into the hands of the Pope was, indeed, a piece of astute politics, possibly even originating in his own wily brain. 15

To understand the situation it is important to bear in mind that governments in the Middle Ages were feudalistic. By this system every man was directly responsible to his immediate overlord. But such vassalage was not considered

14See John Stow, The Annals of England (London, 1592) 249. 15 John Lingard and Hilaire Belloc, The History of England (New York, 1912) passim; John T. Ellis, Anti-Papal Legislation in Medieval England: 1066-1377 (Washington, 1930) 45f. Archbishop Langton absolved John from excommunication on July 20, 1213 at Winchester. From Winchester the Archbishop went to St. Albans, thence to London, where a great assembly of clergy and barons gathered at St. Paul's on August 25. On this occasion the Archbishop preached, saying in the course of the sermon: "Nec aliquis nostrum curiam Romanam adiit, cum illud impetraretur capitulum, scilicet ut non relaxeretur interdictum donec restituerentur ablata, immo dominus rex illud postulavit et per nuntios suos impetravit." Remarkable zeal for restitution in an unscrupulous king! See George Lacombe, "An Unpublished Document on the Great Interdict (1207-1213)", Catholic Historical Review, 15 (1930): 408-420.

very degrading in those days. At the time most kings were actually vassals: for example, the king of Scotland was a vassal of John; John himself was a vassal of Philip of France; John's father had become a vassal of Pope Alexander III; John's brother, Richard the Lion-hearted, had become the vassal of the Emperor of Germany. Now, by John becoming the vassal of the Pope, the power of the Church, which nearly drove him from the throne, was bound to preserve him and his posterity to the throne against his foreign (France in particular) and domestic enemies. Moreover the great council of the barons, John's constitutional advisers, constrained John to this action, for thereby the Pope became John's superior lord, and the barons could then, according to the laws of feudalism, appeal to the Pope against the arbitrary and despotic rule of John.16

Those who have not understood the situation correctly have naturally looked upon John as the Judas of English history. Lingard is fully aware of this misunderstanding, for he writes,

This transaction has heaped eternal infamy on the memory of John. Every epithet of reproach has been expended by writers and readers against the pusillanimity of a prince, who could lay the crown of England at the feet of a foreign priest, and receive it from him again as his vassal and tributary.17

John's surrender of sovereignty was certainly disgraceful, but the extenuating circumstances of the case must not be forgotten. Unfortunately, some of the interpreters of Shakespeare have made this mistake. But even though John appears contemptible in their eyes, when they speak of the Church's part in that transaction, then John becomes a victim of ecclesiastical politics and intrigue and the Church becomes a greedy usurper demanding not only spiritual obedience but scepter and crown as well. Once again, they are

16Lingard-Belloc, op. cit., II, 332; Ellis, op. cit., 46.
17 Lingard-Belloc, op. cit., II, 331.

not allowing for the manners and notions of the early thirteenth century. However, distorted notions do influence the judgment of men; and it is clear that a warped concept of this particular historical fact was brought to bear upon the interpretation of Shakespeare's King John, the result being at times something little better than an invective against the Church instead of a calm interpretation built upon reasonable observations of the play itself.

3. The Chronicles and “Kynge Johan"

The early English chronicles give various estimates of King John. Historians contemporary to John lacked the full facts and the necessary perspective to make a fair judgment of the King and his reign. To some he was weak, cruel and self-indulgent. Then again, he was a strong English king, who somehow came to grief in quarrelling with his men. And, in spite of his fight with the Church, one chronicler considers him even a good king.18

In much the same way, early thirteenth century literature is hampered in forming a correct judgment of John. At the loss of Normandy early in John's reign, the troubadours bitterly regretted being separated from England, and they cast many caustic reflections on the King's cowardice and weakness. 19 In regard to John's quarrel with Rome, some interesting literature has come down. A poem, Invectio contra avaritiam, which was probably written during the interdict, makes John a lion, and the Bishops asses, and at the end the King is represented as Jupiter whilst the Pope receives the contemptuous designation of Pluto.20 Another poem in Provencal, written by an ardent antichurchman,