pion of his country, but, "conscious of the weakness of his claim, he seeks to buy off the hostility of Philip by surrendering all England's possessions in France to her hereditary foe." This treason makes John's usurpation seem like petty larceny, and it is a clear admission by John himself of the weakness of his claim to the English throne.

John's Character

In the course of the play, John's character is unfolded rather than developed or transformed. As Liebermann® points out, John is quick and strong in action, courageous and able in war, and fearless and defiant in the face of France and Rome. Such is King John, but only for the first half of the play. In the second half of the play he is cowardly and helpless, tyrannical, brutal and murderous, a prey to omens and prophecy. In all this Brooke beholds the admirable contrast of physical and moral bravery in the character of one man. Somewhat differently, Moores believes that Shakespeare has selected but one passion-the passion to rule out of John's many crimes in history, and here Shakespeare presents a picture of the tyranny and fatalism of an overmastering passion.

As Colby views this grim picture, Shakespeare "could not paint John any whiter than he was when he opposed the Church, though he did paint him blacker than he was when he maltreated young Arthur. He did not make John a hero, and he likewise came far from making him a doctrinal Protestant." In The Troublesome Raigne John

Felix Liebermann, "Shakespeare als Bearbeiter des King John," Archiv fur das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, 143 (1922), 23.

Stopford A. Brooke, Ten More Plays (New York, 1927), 234. Ella A. Moore, "Moral Proportion and Fatalism in King John," Poet Lore, 8 (1896), 140.

Elbridge Colby, English Catholic Poets: Chaucer to Dryden (Milwaukee, 1936), 140.

was a Protestant hero, but according to Neilson and Thorndike1o in Shakespeare's John nothing of the anti-Romanist bias remains, and this they consider the most significant fact in the play. Needless to say, many critics consider the anti-Romanist bias of the older play simply more refined in Shakespeare. This will be pointed out in due order.

John's Defiance

John's position in the play has frequently been viewed as a conflict between earthly and spiritual power. Then, as Courtenay11 observes, "it is possible that Shakespeare, in the speech which he has put into John's mouth, has in his mind the king's supremacy, asserted afterwards more effectually by Henry the Eighth and Elizabeth." To strengthen this hypothesis, it has been suggested that John's defiance of Pandulph and Rome (III, i, 147-160; 162-171) is "from the mouth of England." Be this as it may, the question whether John is here insisting on a supremacy like that of Henry VIII or like that of Elizabeth has direct bearing upon the present problem. In fact, the nature of John's defiance has been a bone of contention among the interpreters, and apparently, ink and paper were of little consideration in the controversy, for anyone who had anything to say on King John or Shakespeare's religion or a dozen other subsidiary subjects, took the opportunity of discussing John's defiance of Rome.

John's defiant speech it not only looked upon as an "unsurpassed reproof," but coming as it does in the center of the play, Oechelhäuser12 considers it the very "peak of interest for the audience." Birch 13 believes that Shakespeare intended this speech "to gratify the feelings of the audience." Since this speech is uttered in defiance of Rome, it would seem then that Shakespeare used John for antiCatholic propaganda. This view of the matter appears substantiated by Keeton's observation:

John is here speaking entirely out of character. Although John actually did oppress the Church, he never denied the spiritual hegemony of the Pope. The speech might have been framed by Henry VIII or Elizabeth, in reply to some new audacity from Rome. It is necessarily a post-Renaissance product, and Shakespeare, in putting it into the mouth of John, is making him a champion of national honour and state absolutism.14

Thus, the development of John's character seems to have been intentionally distorted in order that John might express "Protestant feelings" and hatred of Rome, for, according to Van der Spek, 15 these things "appealed to Shakespeare." A romantic touch to the situation is added by Warner, 16 when he says that John's defiance was "like sweet honey to the Virgin Queen, Elizabeth, to whom undoubtedly Shakespeare paid his court in writing them. For she had been through exactly such a papal struggle as was now to follow in the case of John. She felt the 'supreme headship' of the Church as keenly as any who preceded or followed her."

John's defiance, however, permits of a more liberal interpretation. Although "it cannot be said that in this crucial passage he (Shakespeare) weakens at all the im

13 William J. Birch, An Inquiry into the Philosophy and Religion of Shakspere (London, 1848), 254.

14George W. Keeton, op. cit., 66.

15 Cornelius Van der Spek, The Church and Churchmen in English Dramatic Literature before 1642 (Amsterdam, 1931), 81.

16Beverley E. Warner, English History in Shakespeare's Plays (New York, 1894), 36.

peachment of Rome," as Bayne1 contends, yet he seems to view this "antipapal matter" from the political and not from the religious point of view. Since this is the only instance where John mentions supremacy, whereas in the older play it is mentioned frequently, Liebermann1s quite agrees that only temporal and not spiritual or dogmatic supremacy is meant. In fact, Liebermann1o goes further and concludes that John does not even think as an enemy of the Church nor in an unchristian or anti-Catholic manner, but that John protests merely for the temporal suzerainty of the crown.

The incident that provoked John's defiance was a political case that involved ecclesiastical as well as state rights. After noting that Pandulph's activity is strictly political, Wilson20 explains John's attitude thus:

He almost succeeds in confining the issue between John and Rome to the ancient quarrel between the spiritual and temporal powers, which was the standing debate of the middle ages and had nothing necessarily to do with the reformation at all. Almost, I say, but not quite, since he could not with safety avoid some statement of the doctrine of Royal Supremacy. This, following his source, he puts into John's mouth in a single speech; but its force is discounted by the fact that John is neither the rightful king nor an admirable character.

In much the same vein Taylor21 points out the weakness of John's utterance, since it "comes from the most wicked and perfidious of sovereigns," and he strongly objects to the application of any of these sentiments to Shakespeare, be

17 Ronald Bayne, "Religion," Shakespeare's England (Oxford, 1917), I, 51-53.

18 Felix Liebermann, "Shakespeare als Bearbeiter des King John," Archiv, 143 (1922): 195.

19Ibid., 143 (1922): 23, 24.

20J. Dover Wilson, "Introduction," King John (Cambridge, 1936), cause the "whole passage is not much more than a literal transcript from the earlier play by another hand."

In viewing King John in his defiance of Rome, Bowden22 emphasizes that "the language and action of a hero may be supposed to represent the poet's type of what is good and noble, and therefore of what he would wish his own language and action to be." Consequently, Bowden insists that the poet would not make his own views "the sentiments of a scoundrel." He further points out that John is a mean villain who lacks "the satanic grandeur of an Edmund or a Macbeth," and as such he rants and rages defiance. However, John "makes no reply to the prelate after the excommunication is pronounced and he is singularly silent till he threatens Philip at the close of the play."

Enough has been said to bring out the salient features of John's defiance as well as the principal arguments used by critics in its interpretation. Thus, in interpreting this speech, critics have attributed to Shakespeare anti-Catholic prejudice, or antipapal sentiments on grounds of English nationalism or a purely objective attitude which in no way revealed his own feeling towards the Church, whether as a religious or as a political institution.

John's Submission

Another important episode in the study of John, as a possible reflection of Shakespeare's attitude towards Catholicism, is John's submission to Rome and his surrender of the crown into the hands of the Legate (V, i, 1-29). Once again disagreement reigns among the interpreters, but in general they are not so voluble on the subject of John's submission as on that of his defiance. It seems quite evident that to many of the interpreters John's submission is a very distasteful subject. Davies2s believes that Shakespeare con