nothing else than selling pardon from oneself, for it has no spiritual value. Now, since John's conclusion is strictly according to the law, and since this is certainly intended as a scoff, it can be considered as a scoff only on the assumption that John here ignores entirely the deep spiritual significance of excommunication and, therefore, also the spiritual values of religion.

Line 169, This iugling witchcraft: This phrase can refer to religion only. The phrase "with reuennue cherish" makes it beyond a doubt that John is referring to the support of religion or, in John's day, of the Catholic Church. Philip is here portrayed as being faithful to the Church, and, therefore, he is supporting the church with revenue. Consequently, in this disdainful remark to Philip, John is giving undeniable proof of his irreligion.

..

Line 170, Yet I alone, alone : Here John glories in his disdain for Philip's religiousness and his own contempt for the Pope.

Line 171, count his friends my foes: By virtue of the ban of excommunication and deposition, those who are faithful to the Church may give John no recognition, service or support but may actually be bound to oppose him.54 His deposition seems uppermost again in his mind, and in view of that sentence these words seem utterly rash and foolhardy.

Comments

A. THE NATURE OF THE SPEECH. It is with bitter disdain that John addresses himself to Philip. He calls Philip's religious reverence but fear and dread of excommunication, which he despises as simply a means of fraud. With acrid contempt he brands the support that Philip and the other kings of Christendom give the cause of religion, which he condemns as "iugling witchcraft". His words ring with haughty conceit as he hurls defiance at the Pope, and, blinded by passion, he defies the friends of the Pope as well.

B. THE CONTENTS. An aspect of the character of John, which in his foregoing speech was only implied, is now clearly accentuated. The question of deposition having been uppermost in his mind, John now turns to the subject of excommunication, and he despises the excommunication, because he has no regard for religion. To him, excommunication is only a means by which the Church obtains money. Once again he harkens to the subject of Church revenues. He considers the support of the church as cherishing witchcraft. In reiterating his defiance of the Pope, he asserts more plainly the effects of deposition, for the friends of Rome will then be automatically turned against him. In this way an element of irreligion becomes accentuated in John's character. The irreligion is emphasized by his disdain for excommunication, by his contempt for religion and by his general defiance.

In The Troublesome Raigne John is also disdainful of Philip's attitude in submitting himself to be "abused by a Prelate's slavery", and with a show of dignity and high resolve he asserts that his "mind is not of such base temper". Then with rather chivalrous defiance he challenges the Pope to take the sword. He thus assumes the role of a hero in championing the crown of England. John is then a type of Protestant hero, a forerunner of Elizabeth. There is no trace of any irreligion as in Shakespeare. John seems more self-controlled and calculating. Although he defies the Pope he does not rashly defy all the kings of Christendom. The contrast then between Shakespeare's John and the John of The Troublesome Raigne is very considerable. In Shakespeare, John is not a Protestant as in The Troublesome Raigne, but he is positively irreligious. Shakespeare's John rashly defies the world, whereas in The Troublesome Raigne John is staunch in defying the Pope, but he does not invite Philip to break the newly made treaty of peace. In this way, in The Troublesome Raigne the ignominy falls on the Church and on Philip, while John is a champion whose rights and dignity have been outraged. However, in Shakespeare John's irreligion and uncontrolled passion make him despicable, and his blustering conceit and defiance is unworthy of a king. The difference here between the two plays is great, and it indicates a pronounced difference in motive and purpose.

Although it is commonly said that Shakespeare based his play exclusively on The Troublesome Raigne, it so happens in this instance that Shakespeare's treatment conforms perfectly with Holinshed and not with The Troublesome Raigne. This fact is also confirmatory of the interpretation here given of John's boast. Now, in John's letter to the Pope as given in Holinshed, 55 there is no trace of John's concern over possible excommunication, whereas he is defiant to the Pope and fears deposition and invasion by foreign foes. Moreover, the fact that John in Holinshed is ready to sustain "the liberties of the crowne" even "to the death," shows a reckless disregard for religion. Thus Shakespeare's John is apparently identical with John in Holinshed. This fact is certainly noteworthy, but far more significant is the fact that Shakespeare's John is decidedly not the Protestant hero of The Troublesome Raigne.

C. THE PLOT. John's seizure of the crown by might more than by right has already indicated a deep disregard for moral standards. His squandering the English possessions in France showed not only a profound lack of responsibility in performing his royal duty but also indicated an admission of the guilt of usurpation by treasonably buying the throne at the expense of the crown. After such unscrupulous conduct, and even with his blackened honor veiled with the borrowed robes of majesty, it is not in the least surprising to hear John spurn religion. At once his irreligion becomes the explanation of his lack of moral restraint. Thus John's irreligion has already been remotely

55 See Plate II, p. 70.

motivated at least by implication, and it presents a clearer and fuller view, but by no means a different or incongruous view, of his character.

The fact that John so definitely ignores the excommunication in his defiance speech to Pandulph but at the same time builds up a defense against deposition, which supposes excommunication, certainly implies a disregard for the excommunication and also for religion. Therefore, John's outburst of irreligion in his boast is exactly what is expected when Philip applies the spark. Thus this speech in the manner interpreted is likewise proximately motivated.

John's boast supplies also the motivation for the excommunication, which immediately follows. In the excommunication John is at once excommunicated and deposed. According to the law and custom,56 the ban of excommunication was first applied so that the royal offender might repent, for by the excommunication he was barred from the sacraments and the other consolations of religion; if after a year the king was still contumacious, he was deposed. But Shakespeare combined the two censures not without an important precedent and, consequently, there was required stronger motivation. By stressing the irreligion of John, it becomes at once apparent that to withhold the deposition for a year would be merely so much trifling. Of course, it would also have delayed the play. The accentuation of John's irreligion provided the necessary strengthening of the motivation. It is the absence of this motivation in The Troublesome Raigne which helps to create the impression that John's excommunication and deposition is unjustifiable. Furthermore, in The Troublesome Raigne the same note of irreligion is not implied in John's defiance speech, because John makes himself spiritual head of the Church. Thus, in Shakespeare the element of irreligion, which is implied in John's defiance and emphasized in his boast, provides the motivation for the excommunication and deposition. With the proper motivation of the ban, the incident fulfills the requirements of dramatic justice, and thus by the elimination of the element of propaganda, the play gains at once in artistic finesse.

Again, this exhibition of irreligion, although so manifest, does not violate artistic restraint, for, in the first place, the speech is spoken to Phillip and not to Pandulph, and, in the second place, it is essentially a boast. John's passions are still running high, but it is rather haughty conceit than intense rage that is dominant. In this way the necessary artistic restraint also has well been preserved.

The speech motivates likewise, Philip's subsequent breaking of the peace. One cannot miss the note of defiance to Philip. By the fact that John himself is shoving the question of Philip's constancy to the fore, one feels that John is stretching the interpretation of the articles of peace. This certainly weakens the advantage that the peace gives John.

The scorn of Philip reveals John's attitude as very fickle, for he seems much inclined to his former defiance of France. Thus, as far as fidelity to John is concerned, there is some motivation for Philip's subsequent breaking of the peace. This aspect of John's character is also quite different from the John of The Troublesome Raigne, and it shows Shakespeare's John again morally inferior.

D. THE AUDIENCE. Protestants as well as Catholics would most likely have understood John's boast as disavowal of religion. Even if they had missed the implications in this respect contained in John's defiance, Philip's reminder to John, "you blaspheme in this", would certainly have aroused their attention to John's attitude. The mention of the word "curse" was commonly understood to mean excommunication, for it is not only repeatedly used in this scene, but also writers like Foxe and Holinshed use it in this sense. Catholics in particular would have understood that excommunication is not taken away for a price, but