tical murders. Up to the Protestant Reformation the motives for political assassination were usually confined to reasons of state.23

With the Protestant Reformation religious hatred and considerations of ecclesiastical state-craft were frequently confused with the political motive in justifying murder. Of the reformers, Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox -all justified tyrannicide in various forms. 24 In the reign of Edward VI, Poynet, the Protestant Bishop of Winchester, wrote in his short Treatise of Politique Power, "The manifold and continual examples that have been, from time to time, of the deposing of Kings, and killing of tyrants, do most certainly confirm it to be most true, just, and consonant to God's judgment."25 It was but in the next century that the Puritan Milton drew largely upon the works of these reformers, particularly on those of Knox, in order to justify the Puritan action in the execution of Charles I.26 Now, in Elizabethan days, Puritanism was already a power to be reckoned with; and with its strength continually in creasing it became a great menace in the 1590's. Though the vast majority remained within the established church, it constituted the radical element that aimed at its complete transformation. The fundamental political doctrines were inimical to the whole structure of Tudor government.27 Their opposition to the established church finally brought action from the government against them. In 1590 John Udall was imprisoned under sentence of death, but died before execution. In 1592 three Puritans, Coppinger, Arth

23 Arnold O. Meyer, England and the Catholic Church under Queen Elizabeth (London, 1916) 266-267.

24H. G. Ganss, "Jesuits and Tyrannicide", American Catholic Quarterly Review 27 (1902): 341-343.

25Т. В. Р., "Catholic Writers on Tyrannicide", The Month 41 (1873): 285.

26 John Milton, "The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates", edited by William Haller, The Works of John Milton (New York, 1932) V, 1-59. 27 John B. Black, The Reign of Elizabeth: 1558-1603 (Oxford, 1936) 151.

ington, and Hacket, were accused of plotting to take the Queen's life, and Hacket was accordingly executed. In the following year Barrow and Greenwood who were Separatists, were executed for seditious words, and likewise John Penry for his share in the Marprelate movement. 28 In view of the fact that the Puritans were followers of Calvin and Knox and in view of the fact that the Separatists, who formed the spearhead of Elizabethan Puritanism, held that the connection between Church and state was unscriptural and ought to be abolished, 29 the action of these radicals becomes readily understandable. Moreover, the extreme harshness and severity of the laws against the Catholics in 1591 and 1593 is attributed to the influence of Puritans in the government.30 Therefore, from the attitude of the leaders of Protestantism on the question of political and religious murder, and from the actions of the radical Protestants, which seem significant of the extremity of their view on the question, it might at least be deduced that moderate Protestants did not consider an extreme statement on the matter as shockingly unusual.

It must always be kept in mind that the religious persecution of Catholics by Protestants was to a great extent carried out under the veil of governmental legal sanction.31 Elizabeth and her government were shrewd enough to make it appear that the executions of Catholics were not for their religion and faith but for treason against the state. 32 In that way their deaths did not have the appearance of a martyrdom or of a religious murder, but, as it were, of due punishment. 33 But in spite of Elizabeth's and Burghley's subterfuges, both at home and abroad the issues were considered as essentially religious.34 Elizabeth and Burghley claimed and exercised the power of burning heretics, 35 but they were careful not to exceed public sentiment in the matter. The fact that they could proceed to the lengths that they did in regard to Catholics indicates the general callousness of the time in respect to such executions. Elizabeth was always meticulous about appearances, but one glance behind the scenes will show how lightly death was discharged. The following is an undated letter from Sir Walter Raleigh to Sir Robert Cecil:

Sir, It can be no disgrace if the killing of a rebel were practised, for you see that the lives of anointed Princes are daily sought, and we have always in Ireland given head-money for the killing of rebels, who are ever-more proclaimed at a price. So was the Earl of Desmond, and so have all rebels been practised against. Notwithstanding I have written this enclosed to Stafford, who only recommended me that knave upon his credit. But for yourself you are not to be touched in the matter. And for me, I am more sorrye for being deceaved than for being declared in the process.36

It was a time of intense political treachery. Not only in England, but in almost every country in Europe there were politico-religious executions and murders, and the dagger of the assassin was frequently employed against the great. In 1572 the massacre of St. Bartholomew's Night occurred. The Prince of Orange was assassinated on July 10, 1584. In 1587 Mary of Scotland was executed and the following year witnessed the assassination of Henry Duke of Guise and his brother Cardinal Charles de Guise. Philip II of Spain made much use of assassination to attain his purposes. In fact, there were very few princes in all Europe, who so rose above their age as to keep their hands clean. 37

It is necessary to have this general background in mind in order better to understand the declaration of the forfeiture of John's life which Shakespeare attaches to the excommunication. It is important to observe that the killing of John is announced to be a meritorious act and that his killing may be accomplished by "any secret course." The problem must therefore be considered from the aspect of excommunication.

As mentioned above, the law of excommunication, which still obtained in Shakespeare's time, was made in 1215, and it clearly takes into account the feudal system. 38 In the sixteenth century it became impossible to carry out the law in all its details, for contumacious heretics were much too numerous. According to the law, it was the duty of the state to execute the heretics. Henry VIII observed this aspect of the law before he himself came under the law, and thereupon he executed Catholics as heretics for not recognizing his newly claimed spiritual authority. Although Mary the Catholic was very zealous in exterminating the heretics, heresy was already too widespread. But, under Mary, the law was the guide and the executions followed upon due process of law. The immediate effect of these executions was not so aggravating as is often assumed. It was only when Foxe's Acts and Monuments “canonized" the heretics as martyrs that a more drastic reaction set in. It is hardly to be doubted that Elizabethans generally understood that Mary acted according to the law of the Catholic Church, and that in doing so, she was prompted by religious motives.39

Elizabeth's excommunication occurred in 1570. It is only a dozen years later that the government begins to show concern about designs on the Queen's life. Once Pius V had excommunicated Elizabeth, he not only called upon Catholic sovereigns to invade England and depose the Queen, but he also encouraged conspiracies and rebellions. But there is no evidence that he approved her murder or advocated it as meritorious.40 However, Pius' successor, Gregory XIII (1572-1585) alone among the popes of the counter-reformation regarded assassination, when employed in the Church's service as a work pleasing to God. For this study it is necessary to observe the nature of the evidence in which Gregory's approval is manifested.

In 1580 Dr. Humphrey Ely was sent to the papal nunciature at Madrid by English noblemen, who had agreed to murder Elizabeth. Realizing the danger to their own lives in such an attempt, they requested at least the verbal assurance of the Pope that they would not commit sin. On Nov. 14, 1580 the Nuncio, Bishop Sega, accordingly wrote to the Cardinal of Como the Secretary of State to the Pope. In the letter he states that he, when asked, had assured the English Catholics that they need not regard the murder of Elizabeth as a sin, since the bull of excommunication permits all the Queen's subjects to take up arms against her. He promised nevertheless to consult the Pope on the matter. He encouraged them in their enterprise and, in conclusion, asked absolution in case he himself had gone too far in the matter. On Dec. 12, 1580, the Cardinal of Como wrote the following letter to Bishop Sega in Madrid:

39 John H. Pollen, The English Catholics in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (New York, 1920) 7. 40Meyer, op. cit., 267.