those periodical outbreaks against Roman Catholicism. Protestant sentiments had become particularly aggravated due to the threatened invasion of the kingdom by the Young Pretender and due to the possibility of the dreaded return to the throne of the Stuart line. Opportunity knocked for Cibber. At Convent Garden Cibber produced his alteration, Papal-Tyranny in the Reign of King John. Once again John became a hero and the Pope was insultingly defied. Cibber had catered to the incensed feelings of his audience, and in return popular excitement accorded him the then respectable run of ten nights. But like a fond mother Cibber attributed all his success to his favorite offspring, for, when he published his play in the same year (1745), he avowed his puerile conceit in the dedication to Lord Chesterfield: 78

77

In all the historical Plays of Shakespear there is scarce any Fact, that might better have employed his Genius, than the flaming Contest between his insolent Holiness and King John. This is so remarkable a passage in our Histories, that it seems surprising our Shakespear should have taken no more Fire at it: .... If then he was under no Restraint from his Religion, it will require a nicer Criticism than I am master of to excuse his being so cold upon so warm an Occasion.

It was this coldness then, my Lord, that first incited me to inspirit his King John with a Resentment that justly might become an English Monarch, and to paint the intoxicated Tyranny of Rome in its proper Colours. I have endeavour'd to make it more like a

Play than what I found it in Shakespear....

Cibbers play, although doomed to oblivion, helped to popularize the assumption that Shakespeare's play was antiCatholic. The challenge to Shakespeare's "coldness" towards "his insolent Holiness" would naturally make lovers

77 Thomas R. Lounsbury, Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist (New York, 1901) 316-317. 78Colley Cibber, Papal Tyranny in the Reign of King John (London, 1745) Dedication.

of Shakespeare want to find fiery insinuations in his play, because such a challenge seemed to attack the inherent greatness of Shakespeare. Consequently, the nature of Cibber's attack, when considered in the light of the strongly anti-Catholic spirit of England, makes one wonder whether the subsequent popularity of King John is not rather a dubious compliment to the genius of Shakespeare.

There are other facts that may not be disregarded, facts which doubtlessly strengthened the anti-Catholic conception of King John. 1. The attention of the critics was drawn to King John by Papal Tyranny, for, though Papal Tyranny was not staged or published till 1745, critics were well acquainted with its nature as early as 1736, that is, prior to the resurrection of King John. And even if the critics had not examined Papal Tyranny as early as 1736, its very name sufficiently indicated the anti-Catholic significance which it attributed to Shakespeare's King John. Furthermore, the line in Pope's Dunciad (1743) clearly suggests that the entire incident was fairly well known. 2. Papal Tyranny, as staged and published, openly assumed that its stepfather, Shakespeare's King John, was anti-Catholic. 3. For the ten performances of Papal Tyranny Colley Cibber took the part of Pandulph, and the spirit he injected into this role is evident from the Dedication to Papal Tyranny. Now all these circumstances connected with Papal Tyranny are entirely extraneous to Shakespeare's King John, yet the na ture of these circumstances are such as to make King John appear anti-Catholic.

79

That the circumstances connected with Papal Tyranny actually fostered the anti-Catholic interpretation of King John seems substantiated by Davies' remark. After quoting John's boastful speech to Philip of France immediately before the excommunication, Davies says, 80

79 For a description of Cibber as Pandulph, see Davies Dramatic

Miscellanies I, 41. 80Ibid., I, 44.

From this and the former speech of King John to the legate, many good Protestants, and, amongst the rest, Colley Cibber, have brought ample proofs to discredit the belief of Shakespeare's being a Roman Catholic, which seems to have taken its rise from the description of purgatory by the ghost in Hamlet. Shakespeare's contempt of the fopperies and corruptions of Rome, may be found in more places of his works than this, and particularly in his Henry VIII.81

The spirit that surrounds the stage history of King John would be a study in itself, and therefore, it cannot be given here in detail. While other alterations and revisions, such as, Valpy's, 82 Kemble's and Kean's, might be discussed, their influence has little significance for the present sub

81.Child writes ("History of Play", King John, lxx): And so ends the story of King John in the era of Garrick, in which it had been often seen and treated on the whole with respect by all but Cibber." Unfortunately Child mentions no authorities for this statement. If he relies on Thomas Davies or Francis Gentleman, I would suggest the proverbial grain of salt. Davies certainly holds that Shakespeare was anti-Catholic in King John (see, for example, the above passage), and Gentleman much inclines to this same opinion (Dramatic Censor, II, 159 & 169). Consequently, their idea of respectibility must be understood in the light of their interpretation of the play. In fact, Davies makes an admission that is quite to the contrary: "The character of Pandulph has not, as yet, been represented with that air of dignity and importance which it demands." (Ibid. I, 41.)

82 Richard Valpy, King John: An Historical Tragedy (Reading, 1800) Advertisement immediately after Dedication: "When the Editor formed the design of introducing the Play of King John on his classical Stage, he procured Cibber's Papal Tyranny, with a view of adopting some part of his plan and style. On the perusal, he found two great obstacles to his wishes. Cibber's object, during the rebellion in 1745, was to paint the character of the Pope's Legate in the blackest colors, and to darken the principles of the Romish Church with circumstances of horror, which might increase the indignation of the people of England against them. In the present times, when the situation of the Pope had become a subject of commiseration to the Christian world, the aim of the Editor was to soften the features of Papal Tyranny, as far as historical evidence would permit him."

ject, and it seems to affect the popular mind, as a few incidences indicate, more than the actual trend of criticism.

The circumstances, connected with the history and tradition of King John, undoubtedly had their influence in making the anti-Catholic interpretation of Shakespeare's King John more credible and in propagating this assumption. By unmasking these historical fictions, which occurred to me in the course of this investigation, I wish merely to point out the inherent weakness of what some may consider the traditional or preponderant interpretation, namely, the antiCatholic interpretation. Unless new records be discovered, the stage history of King John discloses nothing to ascertain Shakespeare's attitude towards the Catholic Church in this play.

PART II-THE PLAY

CHAPTER III

KING JOHN'S DEFIANCE AND BOAST

John's defiance of Pandulph (III, i, 147-160) and his boast to Philip (162-179) were delivered at the same time and in the same heat of passion. Certain historical questions on the relation between Church and state are brought to the fore, but actually it is not so much the settlement of these questions that demands attention as the extent to which John is asserting his jurisdiction and supremacy. Consequently, before venturing upon an interpretation of John's speeches, it is necessary to observe the origin and development of the king's jurisdiction in relation to the Church and to discover the manner in which that jurisdiction was generally understood in Elizabethan days, particularly in the period in which Shakespeare's King John was written.

1. Supremacсу

When Henry VIII became supreme head of the English Church, the event was a decidedly new procedure in English history; yet it was not without some important precedents. Certain English kings had assumed a pronounced anti-papal attitude in the centuries previous to Henry VIII, and consequently the way was fairly well prepared. When Henry then brought into England this essentially different creature, royal supremacy, only comparatively few Englishmen recognized her for what she actually was, and doubtless hardly anyone expected royal supremacy to be claimed as a prerogative of the crown of England.