- knave

Here we have, brought out by the same root-number (338), a whole wardrobe: shirts — cloak — stockings-shoes- smock; together with out-at-heels — cap on back out at elbows; and also horson - weare- nothing almost naked. Why - if this is the work of chance — did not some of these words, descriptive of clothing, come out by the other root-numbers, or by this same rootnumber, when applied to other pages?

Smock occurs but once in this play and but six other times in all the Plays; elbow is found but once in this act and but twice in this play; shirts occurs but this once in this act; slops is found only this one time in this play, and but one other time in all the Plays; this is the only time stockings is found in the play, and it occurs but eight times besides in all the Plays; this is the only time shoes is found in this play; and this is the only time cap occurs in this act; and this is the only time infamy is found in this play. Can any one believe that all these rare words came together, in so small a compass, by chance; and that, by another chance, they were each of them made the 338th word from some one of a few clearly defined points of departure in counting?

Observe those words almost naked. Each is derived from 338; nay, each is derived from 338 minus 50-288. We commence with 288 at the end of scene 2 and go forward to the next column, and we have almost; we take 288 again, and commence at the end of the next scene and go forward again to the next column, and we have naked! This alone would be curious; but taken in connection with all the other words in this sentence, which cohere arithmetically and in sense and

meaning, with almost naked—no shirts or stockings- doth wear nothing but a cap, and shoes out at the heels, and a smock out at the elbow, not over clean, it amounts to a demonstration.

The word slops signified breeches. We have in the Plays: "A German, from the waist downward all slops." We also find, in the text under consideration, Falstaff speaking of "the satin for my short cloak and slops." The word smock signified a rough blouse, such as is worn by peasants and laborers. In the text the word smock is disguised in smack, which was pronounced smock in that age. Some explanation of the figures used as modifiers in the Cipher-work are necessary. We are advancing, as Bacon would say, "into the bowels of the" play.

Page 77 is solid; - that is to say, there is no break in it by stage directions or new scenes. The first column of page 78 contains two fragments; one of 162 words, being the end of scene third; the other the first part of Scana Quarta, containing 306 words, with 17 bracketed words and 3 hyphenated words besides. If we count from the end word of scene third upward, exclusive of that word, as we have done in other instances, we have 161 words; if we count from the beginning of scene fourth we have 162 words. In this fragment the words, "th'other," on the 14th line, are counted as one word—"t'other." From the end word of scene third downward there are 306 words; from the first word of scene fourth downward there are 305 words. The next column of page 78 is unbroken. When we reach the next column (79:1) we have a complicated state of things. The column is broken into four fragments. The first of 31 words, with 5 words in brackets, constitutes the end of scene fourth. Then we enter act second. The first break is caused by the stage direction, Enter Falstaffe and Bardolfe, and ends with the 317th word from the top of the column; being the 286th word from the end of the last act, or 285 from the beginning of act second, or 284, excluding the first and last word. This gives us the modifier 286 or 285, or 284. And to the bottom of the column there are 199 or 200 words.

The next break in the text is caused by the stage direction, Enter Ch. Justice, ending with the 461st word, and containing 143 or 144 words, accordingly as we count from the beginning of that subdivision or the end of the preceding one; and the fourth fragment runs from the 461st word to the end of the column, and contains 57 or 58 words. The second column of page 79 is broken by the stage direction, Enter M. Gower. The first contains 533 words; the second contains 64 or 65 words; and there are 534 words from the first word of the second subdivision, inclusive, to the top of the column. This page gives us therefore these modifiers:

31-32;317-318; 284-285-286; —199—200; —461—462;—143—144;57-58;533-534;-64-65.

And when we turn to the next column (78:1) the remainder of the scene, scene 1, act 2, gives us 338 words, with 12 b & 5 h words additional; and the fragment of scene second, act 2 (78:1), gives us 57 or 58 words, as we count from the beginning of scene second or the end of scene first. And the next column gives us two fragments, yielding 461-2 and 61-2.

And here I would call the attention of the reader to the curious manner in which the stage directions are packed into the corners of lines on page 79, as compared with column I of page 75, where the words, Enter Morton, are given about half an inch space; or on page 64, where one stage direction is assigned

1 Much Ado about Nothing, ii, 2.

2 See Webster's Dictionary,“ Smock” and “Smock-frock."

three-quarters of an inch space; or page 62, where three stage directions have nearly an inch and a half space, while three others, on this page, 79, have not even a separate line given them. The crowding of matter on some pages, as compared with others, is also shown by contrasting the small space allowed for the title of Actus Secundus, Scana Prima, on 79:1, with the heading, not of an act, but a scene, on the next column (80:1). In the one case the space from spoken word to spoken word is five-eighths of an inch, in the other it is an inch and one-sixteenth. And that this is not accidental is shown also in the abbreviations used on page 79: Chief is printed Ch.; remembered is printed remě bred; a hundred is printed a 100; & is constantly used for and; M. is used repeatedly for Master; Mistress is printed Mist.; thou is repeatedly printed y' twenty shillings is printed 20 s. And observe how Lombard street and silk man (79:1 29th line) are run together into one word each, where anywhere else we should at least have had a hyphen between their parts. And that these things were deliberately done is shown in the case of the word remembered (79:2, 16 lines from end); if it had been simply printed remebred we might suppose it was a typographical error, but the printer was particular to put the sign

over thee to show

that there had been an elision of part of the word. Now it took just as long to put in that mark as it would have taken to insert them and the additionale between the 6 and e. (Did the ordinary fonts of type of that age use this elision sign? Or were these types made to order?)

A still more striking fact is, that while by uniform custom each speaker in the text of the Plays is allowed his line to himself, yet in two instances, on page 79, the words uttered by an interlocutor are crowded in as part of the line belonging to another speaker. Thus we have (79:1, 12th line from end) this line:

Falst. Keep them off, Bardolfe.

Fang. A rescue, a rescue.

And again (79:2, 3d line):

I am a poor widow of Eastcheap and he is arre-
sted at my suit. Ch. Just. For what summe?

Here we see that the printer has not even room to print in full the words Chief Justice, but condensed them into Ch. Just.

Now every printer will tell you that unless there had been some special and emphatic order to crowd the text in this extraordinary fashion it would not have been done; but a dozen lines or more of page 79 would have been run over onto page 80, where, as we have seen, there is plenty of room for them. Compare 79:1 or 79:2 with 80:1. There are in 80:1 no abbreviations in spelling; no contractions, with the single exception of one M. for Master; there is no & for and; no using of figures for words, although we have "fifteen hundred foot, five hundred horse;" no running of the speeches of two characters together in one line. And there are 631 words on 79:2 and only 403 words on 80:1! And yet each is a column, the one following the other. Why should one column contain 228 words more than the other, or onethird more words than the other? There is on page 79 matter enough to constitute two pages and a half, printed as column I of page 80 or as column I of page 62 is printed.

But the exigencies of the Cipher required that column 79:2 should contain 228 words more than column 80:1; and the carrying of a single word over from the one to the other would have destroyed the Cipher on both pages; and hence all this packing and crowding of matter, which one cannot fail to observe by simply glancing at the page, as given herewith in fac-simile.

CHAPTER XIV.

THE BISHOP OF WORCESTER AND HIS ADVICE.

The curses he shall have, the tortures he shall feel, will break the back of a man, the heart of

Who was the Bishop? It was his Lordship Sir John Babington, Bishop of Worcester--" the right reverend father in God, Lord John, Bushop of Worcester "– of the diocese in which Stratford was situated,-for whose protection was executed that famous bond, dated November 28, 1582, to enable " William Shagspere, one thone partie, and Anne Hathwey of Stratford, in the dioces of Worcester, maiden," to marry with "once asking of the bannes of matrimony between them." We know that the Bishop belonged to the Cecil faction, and when Essex was arrested for treason, and he thought he could do so safely, he took advantage of the opportunity to attack him. Hepworth Dixon says:

Babington, Bishop of Worcester, glances at him [Essex] cautiously in a court sermon; but when sent for by the angry Queen he denies that he pointed to the Earl.?

The Bishop belonged to the Cecil faction; he was Sir Robert's superserviceable friend, and the very man, of all others, to tell him all about Shakspere's youth; and we will see hereafter that "Anne Hathwey" had dragged the future play-actor before Sir John, as Bishop of the diocese; and that Sir John had compelled Shakspere to marry her. So the Bishop knew all about him. And herein we find an explanation of the bond just referred to; and the hurried marriage; and the baptism treading fast upon the heels of the bridal.

And it was the Bishop of Worcester who gave Cecil the description of Shakspere's appearance in his youthful days which we copied into the last chapter.

And there is a great deal in the Cipher story about the Bishop of Worcester. When Cecil became suspicious of the Plays, he gave Sir John the plays of Richard II. and Measure for Measure to examine, or, as Bacon was wont to say, to anatomize (The Anatomy of Wit, The Anatomy of Melancholy, etc.) The Bishop found

Halliwell-Phillipps' Outlines, p. 569.

Personal History of Lord Bacon, p. 123.

the same strain of infidelity in Measure for Measure which, centuries afterwards, shocked the piety of Dr. Johnson; and he then told Cecil the story of Shakspere's life, and expressed his opinion that the ragged urchin who had been dragged before him, at eighteen years of age, and constrained, perforce, to accept the responsibilities of matrimony, never wrote the play of Measure for Measure or Richard II. The Bishop of Worcester is also referred to in that part of the Cipher narrative which grows out of the root-number 523, modified by commencing to count at the end of the second subdivision of 74:2, the same subdivision which gives us all the 338 story; but instead of counting only to the beginning of the subdivision, (167), we go to the top of the column, which gives us 218 words as a modifier. We then have:

523-218-305.

And if we again modify this by deducting 193 (upper 75:2), we have left 112; or, if we deduct 254 (lower 75:2), we have 51 left; and if we deduct 50 at the end of scene second (76:1) we have 255 left. And this last number, 255, gives us the words Bishop and Worcester. Thus: if the reader will commence at the top of 76:1, and count down the column, counting in all the words, bracketed and hyphenated, he will find that the 255th word is the end word of the 240th compound word Archbishop; and if he will carry his 255th number down the next preceding column, but not counting in the bracketed and hyphenated words, he will find that the 255th word is the word Worcester; so that the 255th word, 76:1, is Bishop, and the 255th word, 75:2, is Worcester. And observe the exquisite cunning of the work. If the reader will look at the opening of this chapter he will see that that same last word of Arch-bishop was used in the 338 narrative. That is to say, 338 minus 30 (the modifier on 74:2) equals 308, and this, commencing at the beginning of scene third (76:1), and carried down the column, leaves 259; and 259, carried up the column, counting in the hyphenated words, brings us to the same word bishop- the last word of arch-bishop. And some time since we saw the arch of that word archbishop used to give us the first syllable of the name of the man Archer, who slew Marlowe !

But lest it should be thought that this coming together of Bishop and Worcester, by the same number, 255, was another accident, I pause here, and, leaving the story growing out of 338 alone for a while, I give a part of the narrative in which these words Bishop of Worcester occur. And here I would ask the reader to observe that you cannot dip into this text, at any point, with any of these primal root-numbers, 505, 513, 516 or 523, without unearthing a story which coheres perfectly with the narrative told by the other numbers. And this has been one cause of the delay in publishing my book. I have been tempted to go on and on, working out the marvelous tale; and I have heaps of fragments which I have not now time to put into shape for publication. I have been like Aladdin in the garden: I turn from one jewel-laden tree to another, scarce knowing which to plunder, while my publishers are calling down the mouth of the cave for me to hurry up. Cecil says to the Queen: