plays. Needless to say, a clear understanding of these important Elizabethan concepts contributed much not only for a correct interpretation of the play but also for arriving at some specific solution of the present problem. In the light of the Elizabethan conception of supremacy, of the law of excommunication and of the doctrine of oaths, every speech and every episode in King John, which pertains to the present subject, was examined in detail and from all aspects. The close scrutiny of these speeches and episodes revealed not a single instance in which Shakespeare gives evidence of an inimical attitude towards the Catholic Church, or in which Shakespeare attempted in any way to vilify or ridicule the Catholic Church. A comparison with The Troublesome Raigne disclosed that Shakespeare eliminated all anti-Catholic elements and any detail that smacked of Protestantism. In changing the character of John from that of a Protestant hero in The Troublesome Raigne to that of a vicious and perfidious monarch as in Holinshed, Shakespeare justified all the more the action of the Church against John. On the other hand, Shakespeare ennobled the character of the King of France by Philip's manifestation of faith and confidence in the principles and judgement of the Catholic Church and by his self-sacrificing devotion and disinterested service even at the loss of a cherished advantage. Indeed, the fact that the contrast between the irreligion of John and the religiousness of Philip is so strongly developed to justify Philip's breaking of the peace at the request of the Church, the fact that the motivation accentuates the superiority of the spiritual cause, the fact that the law of the Church prevailed where arms and statecraft had failed-all contribute to set forth the claims of the Church and religion as superior and in a light by no means unfavorable. The Cardinal, as the representative of the Church, is painted in a manner consistent with his office, and as such he is depicted as a man of wisdom and character: the soundness of his doctrine, his steadfast devotion to principle and to the purpose of his mission, the respect and reverence shown to his words, and, as the curtain falls, the exalted position he holds as the dispenser of peace between the warring nations reflects a nobility, dignity and grandeur upon him and upon the Church he represents. The blackening of John's character may have been due to a preference for the historical portrayal of that monarch as given in Holinshed, but then the ennobling of Philip, particularly to the extent of motivating his breaking of the peace by a lengthy presentation of the doctrine on oaths, is historically unfounded. Dramatic contrast and the need of motivation allow sufficient reason for such a developement of character and plot. But whether Shakespeare was motivated by a love of art in thus fashioning his play or by a love for the Catholic Church cannot be decided with certainty. Nevertheless, whatever may have been his motive the fulfillment of the artistic requirements resulted in a treatment that was at once elevated and deeply respectful towards the Church. It might be thought that to present a play favorable to the Catholic Church at a time when that Church was violently persecuted in England would have been dangerous to the author, company and actors, if not actually impossible. Shakespeare, however, has taken ample precautions in this respect. He portrays the character of John on strictly historical lines; he adheres perfectly to established canonical procedure, and he places the directing force of the play into the hand of Providence and not into those of the Church. In this way the favorable attitude in which the cause of the Church is presented is not so pronounced as to be dangerous to the author and to the others concerned. Since Shakespeare's attitude towards the Catholic Church is favorable, it does not necessarily follow that Shakespeare was a Catholic. Although this favorable attitude towards the Catholic Church is not inconsistent with his other plays nor contrary to the known facts of his life, still Shakespeare may have been prompted by a sense of gratitude to his Catholic patron, the Earl of Southampton, or by a dozen other considerations. Whatever may then have been Shakespeare's personal religious sentiments, it is clear from the present study that Shakespeare's attitude towards the Catholic Church in King John is definitely favorable. APPENDIX1 (To Chapter I, Section 3.) Ash, Margaret S. (p. 25) A Historical Study of "King John" (Unpublished. Iowa City, Iowa, 1936) 128. Bayne, Ronald (p. 24) "Religion" Shakespeare's England (Oxford, Belden, Henry M. (p. 24) The Tudor Shakespeare (New York, 1912) 937 Birch, William J. (p. 23) An Inquiry into the Philosophy and Religion of Shakespeare (London, 1848) 254. Boas, Frederick S. (p. 24) Shakspere and His Predecessors (New Bowden, Henry S. (p. 25) Religion of Shakespeare (London, 1899) 121, 135. Brandes, George M. (p. 24) William Shakespeare (London, 1902) 142. Calvert, George H. (p. 24) Shakespeare: A Biographic Aesthetic Campbell, Lord John C. (p. 24) Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements Child, Harold (p. 25) "History of Play", King John, edited by J. Clarke, Charles C. (p. 24) Shakespeare Characters (London, 1863) 319-328. 8615 932 5613 Colby, Elbridge (p. 25) English Catholic Poets: Chaucer to Dryden q? (Milwaukee, 1936) 101. Coleridge, Hartley (p. 25) Essays and Marginalia (London, 1851) II, 152. Collins, John C. (p. 24) Ephemera Critica (New York, 1902) 355. Corson, Hiram (p. 24) "(On) King John", Shakespeariana 4 (1887): 53. Craig, Hardin (p. 25) Shakespeare (New York, 1931) 14. 1The works here listed are not repeated in the Bibliography unless some other reference is made elsewhere in the text to the same work. C595 |