that sincere repentance was the sole condition for absolution. Although Protestants had no relish for papal excommunications, they nevertheless recognized a form of excommunication within their own ranks. Article thirty-three of the thirty-nine articles reads, That person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto.57 Thus, Protestants too would have grasped the disregard for religion that is contained in John's scorn for the ban of excommunication, and John would have been as deserving of excommunication in their eyes as in the eyes of the Church. Finally, the reference to religion as "iugling witchcraft" would have been considered as irreligion by Protestants and Catholics, for, though the Elizabethan era had its vices, irreligion was certainly not one of them. Conclusions 1. John's boast is in keeping with his character: hitherto he has disregarded moral principles in asserting his title to the throne; now in his attempt to maintain his title to the throne he shows what is but the complement of his disregard of moral principle: namely, a disregard of religious principles. 2. In Shakespeare John is not a Protestant hero as in The Troublesome Raigne, but he is pronouncedly irreligious. The irreligion is implied in his defiance and asserted in his boast. In this Shakespeare clearly conforms to Holinshed. 57 The Book of Common Prayer (London, n. d.) 3. This interpretation seems to be thoroughly consistent with the requirements of dramatic art. 4. In view of the religious situation of those days, this interpretation could readily have been understood by both Catholics and Protestants, and the character of John would probably have been equally despicable to both. 5. A review of the evidence in the case revealed nothing to indicate that Shakespeare was inimical to the Church. However, in view of the fact that The Troublesome Raigne, which presents John as a Protestant hero, was apparently never suppressed, Shakespeare could safely have followed it even in the character of John; the fact that he definitely changed John's character in an essential point may indicate that he wished to conform more strictly to history in this regard, or that he was bent on eliminating Protestant propaganda for artistic reasons, or that he wished to be fair or even favorable to the Church. His conformity to history and art seems sufficiently conclusive, but that he wished thereby to be fair and even favorable to the Church is not conclusively evident, though the presumption stands in favor of a positive conclusion. 6. Whatever may have been Shakespeare's personal reason in depicting the character of John in such a vicious manner, this portrayal of him is certainly favorable to the Catholic Church, since the gross wickedness of John justifies all the more the action of the Church against him. THE BAN AGAINST KING JOHN Pand. Then by the lawfull power that I have, Con. O lawfull let it be That I have roome with Rome to curse a while, Good Father Cardinall, cry thou Amen To my keene curless for without my wrong There is no tongue hath power to curfenim right. Pan. There's Law and Warrant (Lady) for my curse. Conf. And for mine too, when Law can do no right. Let it be law full, that Law barre no wrong: Law cannot give my childe his kingdome heere; For he that holds his Kingdome, holds the Law: Therefore fince Law it selfe is perfect wrong, How can the Law forbid my tongue to curse Pand. Poup of France, on perill of a curse, Let goe the hand of that Arch-beretique, And raise the power of France upon his head, Vnlesse he doe fabmit himfetfe to Rome. Plate III. Folio (1623) 9. III, i, 172-194. CHAPTER IV. THE BAN AGAINST KING JOHN The decree excommunicating King John contains four distinct elements: the excommunication itself, the deposition, the declaration of forfeiture of life and the invitation to Philip of France to execute the ban. In the First Section, therefore, the nature of the law of excommunication will be briefly examined, particularly in its application in Shakespeare's time. The Second Section will treat of tyrannicide and the killing of heretics. In the Third Section the decree against King John, as it appears in Shakespeare, will be critically examined together with its immediate effects. 1. Excommunication Excommunication is a censure by which one is excluded from the communion of the faithful and is deprived of many spiritual goods according to the nature of the excommunication.1 Prior to Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241), the word "anathema," when contrasted with excommunication, meant major excommunication; Gregory IX, however, declared that the term “excommunication" without any modification meant major excommunication, and the word "anathema" was then understood to refer to a more solemn pronouncement of the sentence. Such then was the meaning of the Codex Iuris Canonici (Rome, 1918) Canon 2257 n. 1. Whenever the present law is merely a precise statement of the old law, the present law will be used. Any critical edition of the Code will state the sources for each canon. Francis Hyland, Excommunication: Its Nature, Historical Development and Effects (Washington, 1928) 24. word "anathema" before and after King John, and the word still signifies the most solemn pronouncement of excommunication.3 Excommunication traces its origins to apostolic days. St. Paul and St. John clearly speak of it. This same doctrine is restated by many Fathers of the Church, and it is incorporated in the decrees of the Popes and Councils of the Church. Since both Scripture and Tradition in Catholic belief, are sources of divine revelation, this disciplinary regulation has divine sanction. It is only reasonable that the varying conditions of the ages required some variation in the manner in which this divine regulation should be applied. The Catholic Church, therefore, has at various times specified the manner in which the ban of excommunication was to be imposed. In making these specifications the Church has never in any way changed the end or purpose of this disciplinary regulation as set down in Scripture and Tradition. It is this divinely sanctioned disciplinary regulation, as specified by the Catholic Church, that will hereafter be referred to as the law of excommunication. What then is the purpose of excommunication? Since excommunication is a censure, its primary purpose is medicinal. It aims in the first place at correcting a person for some external, grievous, contumacious sin.5 In the second place it purposes to heal the wound inflicted by the sin on Codex, Canon 2257 n 2. "In the New Testament, anathema designates separation from God, or from the society of the faithful (Rom. IX, 3; Gal. I, 9). But he who is separated from God is cursed, hence the word is also employed as a malediction (I. Cor. XVI, 22)”— Hyland, Excommunication, 23. Thus, Pandulph's words: "Thou shalt stand curst, and excommunicate", at once take on a fuller meaning. 4Hyland, Excommunication, 16-18. Since the idea of excommunication has sound scriptural sanction, it is not surprising that Elizabethan Protestants had regard for it even to the extent of embodying it in the Thirty-nine articles. See Art. 33 of the Thirty-nine Articles, Infra p. 94. 5Codex, Canon 2242 n. 1. |