B. THE CONTENTS OF THE SPEECH. John speaks of temporal matters only, over which he claims to have temporal authority. By the vigorous assertion of his temporal supremacy, his answer to the Pope's demand is clearly implied, and it is evident that he considers the Langton case within his jurisdiction. The fact that he forbids Italian priests to tithe or toll is at once the assertion of jurisdiction on an old disputed question between Church and state and a gesture on the part of John to show how much his temporal supremacy can affect the Church, if such be his royal will.

In The Troublesome Raigne King John expressly insists upon spiritual supremacy as well as temporal, whereas in Shakespeare's King John there seems to be no indication that the supremacy John asserts is to be taken in a spiritual sense.

Shakespeare's treatment of John's defiance should also be compared with a passage in Holinshed. 39 (See Plate II, p. 70).

If history was Shakespeare's guide in his choice of materials from The Troublesome Raigne, then he probably turned to Holinshed. Now, it is interesting to note that the passage containing John's letter to the Pope is in quotations in the 1586 edition. Therefore, even though the contents of the letter are given in indirect speech, it is nevertheless recorded as sound history. In this letter John's rejection of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury is immediately followed by his reference to the financial gains Rome enjoyed from England. Then there is a strong insistance on the "liberties of the crowne" that he would champion "to the death." In the second paragraph John asserts that "if he might not be heard and haue his mind", he would permit no one to leave the realm, "least his land should be so emptied of monie and treasure, that he should want sufficient abilitie to beat backe and expell his enimies that might attempt inuasion against the same." The sig

39 Raphaell Holinshed, The Historie of England (1586) 171. In the 1577 edition, the quotation marks do not occur.

KING JOHN'S LETTER TO THE POPE

uing John puteth to

he pope.

The king so:c offended in his mind that the bichop of Norwich was thus put beside that dignitie, to the 30 bhich he had aduanced him, caused forthwith all the

gods of the monks of Canturburie to be confiscate The monks to his ble, and after banished them the relme, as well Canturbu= re barulhed. I meane those at home, as those that were at Kome, and herewith wrote his letters onto the pope graing him to understand for answer, that he would never consent that Stephan which had bene brought bp falwaies conuerfant with his eninties the Frenc men, should now crioy the rule of the bishop:ike and Dioces of Tanturburic. Moscouer, he declared in the 40 same letters, that he maruelled not a little ubat the pope ment, in that he did not consider how necessarie the frandthip of the king of England was to the fee

How gainfull

England was to the of Kome,ith there came more gains to the Romanc court of Rome church out of that kingdome, than out of any other "realme on this ide the mountaincs. He added here "to, that for the liberties of his crowne he would "Dand to the death, if the matter so required. And as " for the clection of the bishop of Norwich unto the fie "of Canturburis, sith it was profitable to him and to 50 "his realme, he meant not to releasert.

"

"

Moreover, he declared that if he might not be heard and haue his mind, he would fuerlic restraine the pallages out of this realme, that none should go "to Koine, least his land should be so emptied of mo nie and treasure, that he thould want fufficient abis litie to beat backe and erpell his enimes that might "attempt inuafion against the same. Laßlie of all he « concluded,uth the archbishops, bithops, abbats, and other ecclefiafticall persons, as well of his realine of Co England, as of other his lands and dominions, were "sufficientlie furnished with knowlege, that he would <<< not go for anic need that heuld deine gun thereto, to fo@keiustice o; iudgement at the prescript of any foy ren perfons.

Plate II. Raphaell Holinshed, The Historie of England (1586)

171. In the 1577 edition the quotation marks do not occur.

nificance of this letter seems quite clear. As far as he himself is concerned, John is willing to resist the Pope to the death, which is certainly defying the Pope's excommunication, for the excommunication affects more the person of the man than his external possessions.40 Obviously, John has also in mind deposition, for he clearly expects invasion, and he will immediately prepare for such an invasion, "If he might not be heard and haue his mind." Now, it should be noted that John does not deny the Pope's spiritual supremacy, nor does he himself claim any spiritual supremacy. While he seems to have no regard for his own excommunication, his sole concern is the "liberties of the crowne" which he will maintain "to the death" in the event of an invasion to depose him. Therefore, it is deposition alone that John fears as a result of the present conflict. Now, the clear parallel between King John's letter and the explanation here presented of John's defiance in Shakespeare is so striking that this explanation seems at least strongly confirmed.

C. THE PLOT. The basis of the trouble is the refusal of John to admit Archbishop Langton to Canterbury. From Pandulph's speech it is evident that the Pope considers John's refusal as an encroachment on the spiritual jurisdiction of Rome. On the other hand, John considers the case as falling within his jurisdiction. Thus the case as presented is clearly a borderline case between the temporal and spiritual jurisdictions. Therefore, Pandulph makes the demand "religiously", that is, in the name of the Pope in his spiritual character. However, the manner in which John insists on his temporal supremacy shows definitely that he considers Langton's case within his temporal jurisdiction. Thus, John's attitude towards Langton's case makes him liable to excommunication and deposition. It is this imminence of the ban that provides the motivation for John's defiance to Pandulph and his boast to Philip.

If John assumes also the spiritual authority, there is a disproportion between cause and effect, or in other words, between the motivation and the effect of the motivation. As it is, John's action is motivated only to the extent that he insists on the case being within his temporal jurisdiction. Besides this insistence on the part of John is sufficient motivation also for the excommunication. Therefore, from the point of view of the case involved, and from the point of view of motivation, the plot as well as artistic restraint demands no more than an assertion of extended temporal jurisdiction and not a declaration of spiritual jurisdiction.

It should also be observed that the motivation for the subsequent excommunication is by no means dependent on the soundness or orthodoxy of King John's theory of inherent temporal supremacy. John's theory is merely the vehicle that carries his refusal to admit Langton. The theory also emphasizes John's obduracy and contumacy, a condition which is essential for excommunication. But the Langton case is nevertheless the sole reason for John's excommunication and deposition.

D. THE AUDIENCE. Protestants and Catholics could readily percieve that the issue in the conflict between the Pope and the king was no other than the Langton case. While they may have had a diversity of opinion as to the legitimacy of either claim in the matter, the motif of the plot would still have been preserved.

The reference to deposition touched a vital question of the day. Protestants looked upon Elizabeth's deposition as a vain gesture of the Pope, while Catholics sought every means to avoid its application in their regard, for they were overwhelmingly loyal to the queen. 41 It is interesting then to note that the trend of thought in the non-political Catholic party in the 1590's is a direct shift from the obligations imposed on Catholics by any ban of deposition. This move ment in the non-political Catholic thought finally culminated in "The Protestation of Allegiance," which was signed by thirteen secular priests on January 31, 1603. The following are the chief points in this document:

The queen has the same sovereign power over us as any of her predecessors had; nothing in the world can release us from the obedience we owe her in all things temporal.

We swear to defend the queen and the state against conspiracies, attempted invasions, and attacks of all kinds whatsoever.

If the pope, in fulfillment of his excommunication, commands us to forsake the queen and take part with her enemies, we shall refuse him obedience, even if he threatens us with excommunication.

At the same time we acknowledge the pope to be our spiritual chief pastor and the successor of St. Peter who has "as ample and no more authority or juristiction over us" as Christ committed to that apostle. For as we are most ready to spend our blood in the defence of her majesty and our country, so we will rather lose our lives than infringe the lawful authority of Christ's catholic church.42

This document represents a phase of development in the larger and more complicated problems of the relation between the Church and the modern state. Of course, it is beyond the scope of this work to judge the soundness of the tenets expressed in this document. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that it contains the tenets which were germinating for years among Catholics in England.43 Moreover, even though the majority of the appellants shrank from signing this document in the crucial moment,44 it nevertheless formulates the trend of thought among