invoked to subject State to Church very naturally refuses to be subjected itself. This is just the old struggle over again the Legate is exactly where he began. Such is

the outcome of the political authority of the Church; it shows indeed a comic retribution. When the end is sup

posed to be gained, it is simply lost.

and Lewis declares for battle.

Pandulph vanishes,

England, therefore, must look for defense to her own stalwart arm; an Italian priest cannot secure natural autonomy. Now is the time for the hero to enter and assert his principle. On the spot he appears, uttering the defiant voice of the nation against France, the Church, and domestic traitors. Falconbridge was deeply disgusted at the submission of John, but that could not taint his devotion to his country. His moral indignation also was intensely aroused when he beheld the dead form of Prince Arthur lying upon the rocks, but he never entertained the thought, for that reason, of deserting to the hereditary foe of his native land. In all his actions there is seen · the same adamantine fidelity to England, and his extravagant laudation of her valor and greatness comes from his innermost soul. As opposed to the ecclesiastical, domestic, and moral person- - all of whom are represented in the drama - he is national. This does not mean that he wantonly disregards these other principles, but, in case of a conflict between them and the nation, he goes with the nation.

Under his leadership England triumphs a second time over France, and the kingdom is brought back to internal harmony. Corresponding to this national restoration is the death of the sovereign who was unable to uphold the principle of his country. A new king must begin the

new epoch; he is the son of John, and, hence, the conflict between inheritance and possession, which opened the play, is now solved. But, at the same time, it is announced in thunder-tones that the heir must be a ruler; that he must truly represent the deepest national aspiration; that the loss of birthright shall follow like destiny upon his desertion of nationality. It is the same lesson both in the case of Arthur and in the case of John the right of succession is valid within its limitation; but, when it conflicts with the right of the nation, it must be set aside. Such has always been the fundamental principle of the English people, though to maintain it has cost many an intestine struggle. The final solution came by taking away from the king political power, so that he could not be the supreme representative of the nation, and leaving to him the empty right of inheritance. But this revolution was destined to take place long after the time of Shakespeare. The play ends-the last person to leave the stage is Falconbridge; there he stands, speaking to future England and inspiring it with his own lofty spirit of nationality, as he utters words which stir the breast like the trumpet-call of battle.

RICHARD THE SECOND.

In Richard the Second the fundamental theme is the right of revolution. We behold a king deposed, and the grounds of his deposition declared in the most explicit manner. It is manifest that the Poet intended to justify the change of rulers, and thus to show when revolution may be necessary for the welfare perhaps for the existence of the nation The whole action is the story of a king who loses the essential attribute of kingship, and, hence, loses his crown. In English History the royal authority has been often claimed to be of God; Shakespeare boldly puts this religious element also into the conflict, and makes it subordinate to the national principle. Though Richard asserts the divinity of his office and its superiority to any human control, he is still hurled from his throne by the people of England. There is no dis-, guise, no softening of the collision—it is the divine right of Kings against the temporal right of the State. The latter is supreme-is, indeed, the most divine of all things.

Let us note the connection between this and the preceding drama. In King John we see the monarch making good his defective title by his determined support of nationality. He maintains the independence and honor of England against her stalwart enemies-France and the See of Rome. Thus he is the true ruler, and receives the unquestioned loyalty of the people. But he loses his

り

lofty principle of action, namely, the defense of nationality; he submits abjectly to the Church, and the country suffers the ignominy of a French invasion. The change in his conduct and character is complete; he is no longer King, indeed, and we may suppose his violent death anticipated dethronement. The main point to be noticed is that John failed to support nationality against the external powers which sought to subject it; he could not, therefore, remain the representative of the free nation.

[In Richard the Second it is not a combat without, but a struggle within; it is not the attitude of the king toward foreign States, but his attitude toward his own subjects, The issue is wholly internal, and now the right of the individual becomes the paramount object of interest. But Richard, as well as John, violates the principle of nationality, though in a different manner. The English State can not and ought not to be placed under the yoke of an external power as long as its supreme end is to secure the liberties of the subject. The government which most adequately maintains the rights of the individual will be most strongly pillared in the hearts of the people. The depth and intensity of national feeling must in the end repose upon the excellence and purity of national institutions, whose highest object may be stated to be the security of the Will of the Person in all its manifestations. Let this be destroyed by a government, then such a government is not worthy of its independence, and the people are not fit to be free.

[Here lies the violation of King Richard he assailed the truest principle of nationality by committing wrongs upon the subject. He refused to be controlled by the law; the institution of which he was the head, and whose

end is to secure to every man his rights, was perverted by him into an instrument of the most arbitrary extortion.] The very ruler was thus destroying the State, was assailing in its most tender germ the principle of nationality. From being the means of protecting person and property, government in his hands has become the most potent engine of their destruction. Such a king must be put out of the way; the struggle cannot be avoided. [The question is: Shall the nation or the sovereign endure? The answer is given in this drama by the deposition and death of King Richard the Second.

But the conflict cannot end here. There are two sides — both have their validity; each party has committed a violation. The title of Richard is unquestioned; his right to the crown is asserted by that same law for the defense of which he has been deprived of the throne. The wrong of Richard has been punished by the loss of his kingdom, but his punishment has begotten a new wrong, which, by the same inexorable logic, must call forth a new retribution.

Such a result will take place, but to portray it will far transcend the limits of a single drama. Hence arises the necessity of the Tetralogy, or series of four plays; two such Tetralogies now follow in regular sequence. It ought also to be observed that the king who succeeds Richard is not the next in line of succession.] Thus the right of inheritance is doubly violated the second time without any guilt on the part of the true heir. After two generations of men, and after the original violators have lain long in their tombs, the penalty will come -the most terrific struggle known in English History, the Wars of the Roses, will break out concerning the right of inheritance, and sweep the descendant of

4)