murderous lust of vile spies. When three days later (March 19, 1603) he rode to Parliament for the first time, Ben Jonson made Themis rehearse to him "All the cunning tracts and thriving statutes," while afterwards "The bloody, base, and barbarous she did quote ; About the same time the Catholics of England were preparing an address to James, protesting their loyalty, and begging for a mitigation of the "cruel persecution which had made England odious, caused the decay of trade, the shedding of blood, and an unprecedented increase of subsidies and taxes, and discontented minds innumerable." Let "the lenity of a man," they said, "re-edify that which the uninformed anger of a woman destroyed." One of the advisers of the Catholics, whose letter is preserved in the State Paper office, declared that one of the first things to be done was to petition for liberty of religion, and abrogation of those bloody laws, and also to impress strongly on the king that nothing could tend more to the security of his person and assurance of his estate, than to show favour and grace to the Catholics, by which he would cut off all practices against his estate and person, seeing the Catholics, by the cruelty of the bloody laws and intolerable burden of persecution, had either just cause, or show of just cause, to pursue their liberties by all means, JAMES I. AND CATHOLICS 351 and with all princes, to the utmost of their power. Whereas favour shown to the Catholics would not only assure the king from all attempts of foreigners who cannot take hold of England but by a party at home, but also fortify the throne against the insolence of the Puritans.1 Sir Walter Raleigh was an advocate on the same side, as we may see from his letter to Nottingham in Cayley's "Life of Raleigh.” 2 It will be seen that the reasoning just described is exactly like that in the "Merchant of Venice-a dissuasion from violence on the ground that it is a game at which two can play. The same argument was employed in Father Parsons' "Memorial " (p. 248), and it reappears some two centuries later as the main foundation of the famous letters of Peter Plymley. It looks as if the play had been composed for James. When the Duke says "I love the people, But do not like to stage me to their eyes: It reminds one of the king's proclamation about the throngs which pressed round him in his journey from Scotland. The Duke's treatment of Lucio seems inconsistent 1 Dom. James I., vol. vi. Nos. 56 and 63. 2 Vol. ii. p. II. with the general scope of the argument, while the most atrocious criminals are let off free, or even rewarded. Lucio, the good-natured, hare-brained, is punished with something worse than "pressing to death, whipping and hanging," only because, as the Duke says, "slandering a prince deserves it" (v. 1). Yet this severity fits in so well with the notions of James about the sanctity of his royal person, that it would appear that Shakespeare must have introduced the glaring injustice for the purpose of satire. It is as if he said: I argue for relaxation of penalties for all crimes except slandering your sacred person, which is of so deep die, so murderous, so burglarious and wanton that the traitorous traducer deserves all you can lay upon him; as you are crazy on that point, I waive it. It is not to be denied, however, that Lucio's character is of the kind on which Shakespeare was always most severe. Licentious as Falstaff, of ungovernable tongue, and though willing enough to do friendly offices, in the end, from mere levity, he turns round on his friends, and bears false witness against the only witness who could entirely acquit them (v. 1). The argument in "Measure for Measure" is not for the repeal of the penal laws, but for allowing them to lie dormant. The prerogative of the governor is said to be "so to enforce and qualify the laws as to his soul seems good" (i. 1), and James seems to be invited to commit his pre THE PENAL CODE 353 rogative for a season to some upright viceroy, and himself to retire behind the scenes, and observe not only how his substitute behaves, but how the laws themselves suit the commonwealth. The dramatic interest of the play henceforth divides itself from its philosophic interest. Dramatically, it is the trial and fall of Angelo and the trial and triumph of Isabella. Philosophically, it is the trial and condemnation of the penal code. The title "Measure for Measure" is the accurate summary of the theory of punishment which the poet advocates. In this world neither reward nor punishment should be given for what a man is, but only for what he does, "If our virtues did not go forth of us, 'twere all alike as if we had them other side, "What's open not " (i. 1); and on the ""Tis better to be vile than vile esteemed -Sonnet cxxi. There are three propositions about the penal law which Shakespeare develops in this play. To be punishable, a man must do something; he cannot be punished for what he is. This, however, is not the theory of society. "We're nettles, some of us, And give offence by the act of springing up; And if we leave the damp side of the wall, The hoes, of course, are on us." . -Mrs. BROWNING, Aurora Leigh, p. 119, 1st ed. Nor was it the theory of Elizabethan legislators. For them, to be a Catholic was to be guilty of misprision of treason; to be a seminary priest was to be a traitor. "Because he liketh mutton, therefore he hath stolen a sheep," said Campion at his trial, and for a priest to be caught in England was death. In other words, there was a kind of original sin in criminality. Men grew guilty without doing anything. To be a player was to be a rogue and a vagabond. To be a vagrant was to be a rogue. As it was a crime against the Revolution of 1789 to be born noble, so it was treason against Elizabeth to be born a Catholic. Some people were vermin by nature, and the sentence upon such a man was— "Let him die, in that he is a fox, By nature proved an enemy to the flock." -2 Henry VI., iii. 1. The next point is, to be punishable a man must not be merely a sinner, he must be a criminal. The sin comes not under the rod of the law. ""Tis |