II. BACON ASSIGNED TO PROSECUTE ESSEX FOR HAVING HAD SHAKSPERE'S PLAY ACTED.

But this is not all.

When the Qeeen came to prosecute Essex for his treasons, the Council assigned to Francis Bacon, as his part, that very hiring of the actors to enact the deposition and murder of King Richard II. And what was Bacon's reply?

I quote from Judge Holmes:

Nor was this all. But when the informal inquiry came on before the Lords Commissioners, in the summer of 1600, Bacon, in a letter to the Queen, desired to be spared from taking any part in it as Queen's Counsel, out of consideration of his personal obligations to his former patron and friend. But the Queen would listen to no excuse, and his request was peremptorily refused. It will be borne in mind that the Queen's object in this inquiry was to vindicate her own course and the honor of the crown without subjecting Essex to the dangers of a formal trial for high treason, and that her intention then was to check and reprove him, but not to ruin his fortunes. Bacon made up his mind at once to meet the issues thus intentionally forced upon him, and he resolved to show to her, as he says, that he "knew the degrees of duties;" that he could discharge the highest duty of the subject to the sovereign, against all obligations of private friendship toward an erring friend; wherein, says Fuller, very justly, "he was not the worse friend for being the better subject;" and that if he must renounce either, it should be Essex, rather than the Queen, who had been, on the whole, personally, perhaps, the better friend of the two to him: well knowing, doubtless, that conduct is oftentimes explained equally well by the basest as by the loftiest motives, and that the latter are generally the most difficult of appreciation. The next thing he heard was, that the Lords, in making distribution of the parts, had assigned to him, "by the conclusion binding upon the Queen's pleasure directly, nolens volens," that part of the charges which related to this same "seditious prelude "; at which he was very much annoyed. And they determined, he says, 'That I should set forth some undutiful carriage of my lord, in giving occasion and countenance to a seditious pamphlet, as it was termed, which was dedicated unto him, which was the book before mentioned of King Henry IV. Whereupon I replied to that allotment, and said to their lordships that it was an old matter, and had no manner of coherence with the rest of the charge, being matters of Ireland, and thereupon that I, having been wronged by bruits before, this would expose me to them more; and it would be said I gave in evidence mine own tales." What bruits? What tales? The Lords, evidently relishing the joke, insisted that this part was fittest for him, as "all the rest was matter of charge and accusation," but this only "matter of caveat and admonition": wherewith he was but "little satisfied," as he adds, "because 1 knew well a man were better to be charged with some faults, than admonished of some others." Evidently, here was an admonition which he did not like, and it is plain that he took it as personal to himself. Nevertheless he did actually swallow this pill; for we learn from other history that on the hearing before the Lords Commissioners "the second part of Master Bacon's accusation was, that a certain dangerous seditious pamphlet was of late put forth into print concerning the first year of the reign of Henry IV., but indeed the end of Richard II., and that my lord of Essex, who thought fit to be patron of that book, after the book had been

out a week, wrote a cold, formal letter to my lord of Canterbury to call it in again, knowing belike that forbidden things are most sought after."

But he who reads the proceedings of this trial will see that the play of Richard II. filled a much more conspicuous place than Dr. Hayward's pamphlet, and that it was to this, probably, that Bacon really alluded when he said he had been "the subject of bruits," and that the public would say "he gave in evidence his own tales." Does it not occur to every intelligent reader that Bacon, in this covert way, really says: "It has been reported that I am the real author of that play of Richard II.; and now if I prosecute Essex for having had it played, it will be said that I am using my own composition for the overthrow of my friend"?

And it seems to me that when the whole of the Cipher story is worked out, we shall find that Bacon was completely in the power of Cecil; that he (Cecil) knew that Bacon was the author of the play; that therefore he knew that Bacon had shared in the conspiracy; and that Bacon had to choose between taking this degrading work on his hands or going to the scaffold with Essex. If such was the case, it was the climax of Cecil's revenge on the man who had represented him on the stage as Richard III. It was humiliation bitterer than death.

III. "THE ISLE OF DOGS."

And we turn now to another curious fact, illustrative of how greatly the Plays were mixed up in public affairs, and showing the spirit of sedition which at this time pervaded the very air.

J. Payne Collier, in his Annals of the Stage, shows that in the year 1597 an order was given by the Queen's Council to tear down and destroy all the theaters of London, because one Nash, a play-writer, had, in a play called The Isle of Dogs, brought matters of state upon the stage; and Nash himself was thrown into prison, and lay there until the August following.

What the seditious matter was that rendered The Isle of Dogs so objectionable to the government, we do not know; it must have been something very offensive, to cause a Queen who loved theatricals as much as Elizabeth did to decree the destruction of all the theaters of London. But all the details will probably be found

Holmes, The Authorship of Shak., pp. 255-7.

hereafter in the Cipher story, together with an explanation of the causes which induced the Queen to revoke her order.

Collier says:

We find Nash, in May, 1597, writing for the Lord Admiral's players, then under Philip Henslowe, and producing for them a play called The Isle of Dogs, which is connected with an important circumstance in the history of the stage, viz., the temporary silencing of that company, in consequence of the very piece of which Nash was the author. The following singular particulars are extracted from the Diary kept by Henslowe, which is still, though in an imperfect and mutilated state, preserved at Dulwich College. Malone published none of them:

Pd 14 of May, 1597, to Edw Jube, upon a notte from Nashe, twentye shellinges more for the Tylle of Dogges, which he is wrytinge for the companey.

Pd this 23 of August, 1597, to Henerey Porter to cary to T. Nashe, nowe att this tyme in the flete for wrytinge of the Eylle of Dogges, ten shellinges, to be payde agen to me wen he cann. I saye ten shillinges.

Pd to M. Blunsones, the Mr. of the Revelles man, this 27 of August, 1597, ten shellinges, for newes of the restraynt beying recaled by the lordes of the Queene's Counsell.

Here we see that in the spring of 1597, Nash was employed upon the play, and, like his brother dramatists of that day, who wrote for Henslowe's company, received money on account. The Isle of Dogs was produced prior to the 10th of August, 1597, because, in another memorandum by Henslowe (which Malone has quoted, though with some omissions and mistakes), he refers to the restraint at that date put upon the Lord Admiral's players.

On the 23d of the same month, Nash was confined in the Fleet prison, in consequence of his play, when Henry Porter, also a poet, carried him ten shillings from Henslowe, who took care to register that it was not a gift; and on the 27th of August the restraint was recalled" by the Privy Council. We may conclude also, perhaps, that Nash was about the same time discharged from custody.

In reference to this important theatrical transaction, we meet with the following memorandum in the Registers of the Privy Council. It has never before been printed or mentioned:

A Letter to Richard Topelyfe, Thomas Fowler and Ric. Skevington, Esqs., Doctour Fletcher and Mr. Wilbraham.

Uppon information given us of a lewd plaie that was plaied in one of the plaie howses on the Bancke side, contayninge very seditious and sclaunderous matter, wee caused some of the players to be apprehended and comytted to pryson; whereof one of them was not only an actor, but a maker of parte of the said plaie. For as muche as yt ys thought meete that the rest of the players or actours in that matter shal be apprehended to receave soche punyshment as their lewde and mutynous behavior doth deserve; these shalbe, therefore, to require you to examine those of the plaiers that are comytted, whose names are knoune to yow, Mr. Topclyfe; what ys become of the rest of theire fellowes that either had their partes in the devysinge of that sedytious matter, or that were actours or plaiers in the same, what copies they have given forth of the said playe, and to whome, and such other pointes as you shall thincke meete to be demaunded of them; wherein you shall require them to deale trulie, as they will looke to receave anie favour. Wee praie you also to peruse soch papers as were founde in Nash his lodgings, which Ferrys, a messenger of the chamber, shall delyver unto you, and to certifie us the examynations you take. So, etc.

Greenwich, 15th August, 1597.

There is also another entry at page 327, dated 28 July, 1597, addressed to the Justices of the Peace of Middlesex and Surrey, directing that, in consequence of great disorders committed in common play-houses, and lewd matters handled on

the stages, the Curtain Theater and the theater near Shoreditch should be dismantled, and no more plays suffered to be played therein; and a like order to be taken with the play-houses on the Bankside, in Southwark, or elsewhere in Surrey, within three miles of London. In February, 1597-8, about six months before the death of Lord Burghley, are to be observed the first obvious indications of a disposition on the part of the government of Elizabeth permanently to restrain theatrical representations. At that date, licenses had been granted to two companies of players only—those of the Lord Admiral and of the Lord Chamberlain —“to use and practise stage playes" in order that they might be the better qualified to appear before the Queen. A third company, not named, had, however, played "by way of intrusion," and the Privy Council, on the 19th February, 1597-8, sent orders to the Master of the Revels and to the Justices of the Peace of Middlesex and Surrey for its suppression.'

IV. THE DATE OF THE CIPHER STORY.

I am unable to fix with precision the date of the events narrated in the Cipher narrative. They may have been in the spring of 1597, at the same time the destruction of the theaters was ordered: they may have been later. I fall, as it were, into the middle of the story. Neither can we be sure of the year in which the first part of Henry IV. was really printed by the date upon it. We know that in the case of the great Folio of 1623 there have been copies found bearing the date of 1622, and one, I think, of 1624. It would be very easy to insert an erroneous date upon the title-leaf of the quarto of the 1st Henry IV., and we have no contemporary record to show what was the actual date of publication.

But I think I have established that the years 1597, 1598 and 1599 were full of plots and conspiracies against the Queen and Cecil, and in favor of King James and Essex; and that the play of Richard II. was used as an instrumentality to play upon the minds of men and prepare them for revolution. I have also shown that the Queen and the court were aware of these facts; that the arrest of Shakspere as the reputed author of the treasonable play must have accompanied the arrest of Dr. Hayward, unless some cause prevented it—and that cause the Cipher narrative gives us. It follows that the events set forth in the Cipher story are all within the reasonable probabilities of history.

1 The History of English Dramatic Poetry and Annals of the Stage, by J. Payne Collier, Esq., F. S. A., pp. 294-8.

CHAPTER II.

THE TREASONABLE HISTORY OF HENRY IV., WRITTEN BY

DR. HAYWARD.

My breast can better brook thy dagger's point

Than can my ears thy tragic history.

3d Henry VI., v, 6.

UDGE HOLMES gives the following interesting account of the pamphlet supposed to have been written by Dr. John Hayward, with, it was claimed, an intent to incite the Essex faction to the overthrow of Queen Elizabeth:

Her disposition toward Essex had been kindly and forgiving, but she was doubtful of him, and kept a watchful eye upon his courses. As afterward it became evident enough, all his movements had reference to a scheme already formed in his mind to depose the Queen by the help of the Catholic party and the Irish rebels. He goes to Ireland in March, 1599, and after various doubtful proceedings and a treasonable truce with Tyrone, he suddenly returns to London, in October following, with a select body of friends, without the command, and to the great surprise and indignation of the Queen; and a few days afterward finds himself under arrest, and a quasi-prisoner in the house of the Lord Keeper. During this year Dr. Hayward's pamphlet appeared. It was nothing more than a history of the deposing of King Richard II., says Malone. It was dedicated to the Earl of Essex, without the author's name on the title-page; but that of John Hayward was signed to the dedication. This Hayward was a Doctor of Civil Law, a scholar, and a distinguished historian of that age, who afterward held an office in Chancery under Bacon. This pamphlet followed on the heels of the play, and it may have been suggested by the popularity of the play on the stage, or by the suppression of the deposing scene in the printed copy.

According to Mr. Dixon, "it was a singular and mendacious tract, which, under ancient names and dates, gives a false and disloyal account of things and persons in his own age; the childless sovereign; the association of defense; the heavy burden of taxation; the levy of double subsidies; the prosecution of an Irish war, ending in a general discontent; the outbreak of blood; the solemn deposition and final murder of the Prince." Bolingbroke is the hero of the tale, and the existence of a title to the throne superior to that of the Queen is openly affirmed in it. A second edition of the Richard II. had been printed in 1598, under the name of Shakespeare, but with the obnoxious scene still omitted; and it is not until 1608, in the established quiet of the next reign, that the omitted scene is restored in print. It is plain that during the reign of Elizabeth it would have been dangerous to have printed it in full; nevertheless, it had a great run on the stage during these years. Now, Camden speaks of both the book of Hayward and the tragedy of Richard He states that, on the first informal inquiry, held at the Lord Keeper's house, in June, 1600, concerning the conduct of Essex, besides the general charges of dis

II.