INTRODUCTION Was Shakespeare a Catholic? This question has frequently been discussed in the past four centuries, and still the problem remains unsolved. Unless some decisive evidence be discovered in this regard, there is little likelihood that the problem will definitely be solved in the near future. When speaking then of Shakespeare's attitude towards the Catholic Church in King John, it is not my purpose to attempt to discover what may have been the religion of Shakespeare. This may seem rather strange, for almost every writer on the subject uses one or more arguments from King John, in order to introduce Shakespeare as a member of the congregation chosen for the occasion. Needless to say, their arguments are not very conclusive and their conclusions are often very startling. Although this investigation has revealed certain facts that have some positive significance in regard to the religion of Shakespeare, I hasten to say that the question of Shakespeare's religion is beyond the scope of the present study. Shakespeare may have had various reasons for writing King John. Perhaps his primary purpose was to furnish wholesome entertainment for his fellowmen, or to produce a play that complied with all the artistic standards of his day, or, perhaps - as some would have it to use the drama as a political or religious weapon in the great controversies of that period. Whatever may have been his purpose in writing King John, Shakespeare was constrained to adopt some definite attitude towards the Catholic Church. This attitude may have been dictated by his own personal sentiments, or by external circumstances, such as political or religious policy. Nevertheless, Shakespeare had to adopt some attitude towards the Catholic Church, and it is this attitude that the present enquiry seeks to discover. In the course of the investigation the works of at least two hundred critics were consulted. The chief interest in this phase of the study lay in the vast difference of opinion, which directly or indirectly bore upon the subject itself. Naturally, the material that had only an indirect bearing upon the subject was quite difficult to construe. Sometimes mere emendations or incidental explanatory remarks were the sole basis on which to judge the critic's opinion. Whenever there was any doubt about an author's opinion, the critic in question was simply excluded from classification, for a doubtful classification would be meaningless. But even though a critic could not be classified, his views or comments were, nevertheless, duly considered. Many opinions of critics clearly rest upon premises and assumptions, which, if not absolutely false, are at least questionable. Some of these assumptions pertain to the history of King John, others to the Protestant interpretation of King John and others to certain peculiar circumstances relating to the stage history of Shakespeare's King John. It has, therefore, been deemed necessary to probe these assumptions, in order to evaluate correctly the opinions which rest upon them. Some critics interpret King John according to the prevalent religious and political attitude of their own dayto say nothing of their own personal prejudices. This fact has rendered much of the criticism of King John valueless. Now, in this study of the play the method pursued is, of course, purely objective: the history of all the vital questions is closely examined, particularly in their relation to Shakespeare's day, and, throughout, that interpretation is followed which seems to have been the most obvious to an Elizabethan audience. In Shakespeare's King John the canon law of the Church plays an important part. Wherever the present canon law is merely a precise statement of the old, the present law is used. Any critical edition of the present code1 states the sources for each canon. When the old law contains some distinctive regulation relevant to this subject, the old law will be used. It need hardly be remarked that any references to the Corpus Iuris Canonici or to the Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentini are references to laws promulgated before Shakespeare's time and, of course, still enforced in Shakespeare's time. The references to the Corpus Iuris Canonici are given doubly: the first according to the standard form among canonists, the second according to the usual bibliographical method of reference. This method of handling the law seems the simplest and its purpose is to avoid complexities. Throughout this study the 1623 Folio Text has been used, but the act, scene and line references are according to the Oxford Text. Although all emendations of the text, which seem to have some bearing on the present subject, are noted, no emendation forms the basis of any conclusion. This study is based simply on the unemended text. In interpreting a speech, the sources, the context, the important words, the nature of the speech, the manner of its delivery, the artistic requirements, the historical background and the audience-each receive separate consideration as the case may require. In this way conclusions are formed, which, it is hoped, may rightly be considered sound. In order to corroborate these conclusions, the actions, reactions and general attitude of the various characters are considered in relation to the present subject. The final test of these conclusions consists in observing their harmony with an obvious and reasonable interpretation of the play as a whole. In conclusion, I wish to acknowledge my deep indebtedness to Dr. Arthur Deering for his time, interest and scholarly advice throughout the progress of this work, to Dr. Francis J. Hemelt and to Dr. H. Edward Cain for their careful examination of the completed work. I wish to express Codex Iuris Canonici (Rome, 1918). |