sidered the matter quite contemptible, for he says, "Shakespeare seems to have shrunk from the detested subject: he knew the just representation of such an act would be shocking to an English audience, and, therefore, passes it over with as much celerity as possible." In contrast, Boas24 contends that for Shakespeare the surrender of the English crown and not the Charter was the most significant and supreme event of John's reign. John's submission is also looked upon as a "scene of moral suicide" which was provoked by the approaching attack of France and the downfall of his greatness-both events combining to "rob him of all spirits."25 But Shakespeare's John makes his own comment on the event: My Crowne I should give off? euen so I haue: (V, i, 27-29) To Davies26 these words seem to be irony or a form of selfdeception. No action was "less voluntary than this, for he reduced himself to such a necessity." Similarly Swinburne,27 who regards Faulconbridge as the interpreter of Shakespeare, sees but "contempt for his abjection at the foul feet of the Church." John's submission has also been considered as a matter of policy and statecraft. Brooke, 28 still insisting that the king in Shakespeare's hands is no villain, sees John standing up for England and "when he does submit to the Legate (changing apparently his steadfast mind) it is not so much to bow to Rome as to overthrow as he does-the 24 Frederick Boas, Shakspere and His Predecessors (London, 1896), 243. 25 Wilhelm Oechelhäuser, op. cit., I, 11. 26 Thomas Davies, op. cit., I, 95. 27 Algernon C. Swinburne, A Study of Shakespeare (London, 1909), 80. 28 Stopford Brooke, Ten More Plays (New York, 1927), 234. whole conspiracy of his foes against the English crown." But strong-minded or not, John is no longer defiant. After receiving his crown again, John's first words are: Now keep your holy word, go meet the French, (V, i, 5-7) "Being now recognized as King by the Pope," Canning29 observes, "John naturally reckons upon the Church's assistance to maintain his power." Shakespeare does not actually present the scene of John's submission, but only the bestowal of the crown. He requires but twenty-four lines to explain the agreement in the matter between John and Pandulph. Thus, John's submission lacks emphasis, whereas in the older play it is long drawn out. This lack of emphasis, as Liebermann30 observes, may just as readily be regarded as consideration for Catholicism as for royalism. Summary Whatever may be his Shakespeare intended The interpreters have thus enshrouded Shakespeare's John in a fog of diversified opinions. real nature, it is inconceivable that him to be a foil for the interpreters. Doubtless, to Shakespeare John was a clear cut, a genuine character, who opposed the Church and submitted to the Church. A correct interpretation of John's opposition and subsequent submission to the Church will give a better understanding of the king's character, and, it is hoped, will throw light on the more important question of Shakespeare's attitude towards the Catholic Church in this play. 29 Albert S. Canning, Thoughts on Shakespeare's Historical Plays (London, 1884), 64. 30 Felix Liebermann, "Shakespeare als Bearbeiter," Archiv, 143 (1922): 196. 2. Shakespeare's Pandulph Cardinal Pandulph is the sole ecclesiastic who appears in King John. As Legate of the Pope, he holds the center of the stage in all the problems affecting the relation of Church and state, and is naturally then a central figure in the present investigation. His position and character accordingly merit attention. His every statement must be weighed in the light of Catholic doctrine, Catholic principles, and Catholics views. And, what is of equal importance, the manner in which his utterances are made must be carefully scrutinized. The interpreters, however, have been quite negligent concerning the objective value of the Cardinal's statements, though they are very profuse in their interpretations of the manner of his utterances and also of his attitude to the various characters. In fact, almost every statement of the Cardinal becomes a nucleus for conflicting opinions. Pandulph's Character Merely as a starting point, I might begin on this side of the confines of hell. Mrs. Griffith31 not only compares the ingenious Pandulph with Milton's Satan, but asserts that the object of both is the same, "the absolute and exclusive dominion of Heaven." It is not surprising then to find such phrases as "the sleek insolence of Pandulph"32 and "the intriguing and strife fomenting cardinal."33 To Calvert34 Pandulph was Shakespeare's great opportunity to represent "a typical priest, that is, a man who assumes that he is empowered by heaven to be the exclusive, infallible expounder 31 Elizabeth Griffith, Morality of Shakespeare's Dramas (London, 1775), 180. 32Stephen W. Fullom, History of William Shakespeare (London, 1864), 62. 33 Charles C. Clarke, Shakespeare Characters (London, 1863), 328. 34George H. Calvert, Shakespeare: A Biographic Aesthetic Study (Boston, 1879), 140. and interpreter of heavenly things, to guide and rule the spirituality of other men, an assumption which, concentrating in itself the guilt of usurpation with the iniquity of despotism, is a blasphemy towards God and an offense and an insult to man." The personal corruption of Pandulph is emphasized by Ulrici, 35 who considers Pandulph "the most correct delineation of a corrupt priest that poet ever painted." From the same angle Oechelhäuser36 views the Cardinal, but sees considerably more: "Pride, cleverness, casuistical sharpness, jesuitical cunning, lack of regard in the choice even of immoral means, as long as they lead to the one fixed goal, the strengthening and widening the power of Rome, all these fix a stamp upon the role, while the mantle of religious hypocrisy covers all." With less emphasis on the moral and more on the political, Gentleman's catalogue of the Cardinal's faults is still quite strong: "The Cardinal is a very well drawn churchman of those times, subtle, proud, irascible; rather prone to promote than prevent public calamities, where his master's interest seems concerned; a mere politician, not encumbered with delicacy of principle, or the feelings of humanity...." A. E. Baker38 sees in him "an arrogant nature, priding himself upon his errand and his power to excommunicate, bless and canonize." However, he concedes that "he is also very diplomatic in his methods and carefully takes advantage of circumstances which will further his own ends." All this is quite well summed up by Van der Spek39 in one meaningful phrase, "a master of Machiavellian policy." 35 Hermann Ulrici, Shakespeare's Dramatic Art, trans. A. J. Morrison (London, 1846), 361. 36 Wilhelm Oechelhäuser, Einführungen zu Shakespere's BühnenDramen (Minden, 1885), I, 21. 37 Francis Gentleman, Dramatic Censor (London, 1770), II, 169. 38 Arthur E. Baker, "King John," A Shakespeare Dictionary (Taunton, England, 1927), 320. 39 Cornelius Van der Spek, The Church and Churchmen in English Dramatic Literature before 1642 (Amsterdam, 1931), 82. This view of the Cardinal as a politician is still further modified by Boas, 40 who asserts that "no religious partisanship blurs the masterful presentation of the Papal envoy." ... A loftier conception of the Cardinal is set forth by Canning:41 Pandulph, "evidently a resolute and conscientious man occupies a singular grand position. He mingles with quarreling kings, fierce nobles, and their armed retainers, as if bearing a charmed life-fearless, observant, determined and exacting, or unwillingly obtaining, the respect of all. Yet he is always laboring for the interests of the Church he represents, and never for private purposes." Bowden42 adds to this favorable picture of the Cardinal: "He appears as an experienced and farsighted statesman, but also as a ghostly father, full of sympathy for the afflicted." And the caption of this picture is supplied by Hardin Craig:43 ... a truly impressive ecclesiastical statesman." It is difficult to believe that all these interpreters are speaking of one and the same character. Naturally a similar diversity of opinion will charge the interpretations of the various incidents involving Cardinal Pandulph, and, since these incidents are so intimately associated with the present subject, some representative views on each will be noted. Pandulph and John Cardinal Pandulph enters the play in the third act. He salutes the two kings and immediately states the purpose of his mission to King John. That monarch becomes indignant and defiant. Thereupon the Cardinal pronounces the sentence of excommunication upon him (III, i, 172 f.). Of course, many critics have recorded their bitter resentment 40 Frederick S. Boas, Shakespeare and His Predecessors (London, 1896), 241. 41 Albert S. Canning, Thoughts on Shakespeare's Historical Plays (London, 1884), 57-64. 42Henry S. Bowden, Religion of Shakespeare (London, 1899), 127. 43 Hardin Craig, Shakespeare (New York, 1931), 312. |