Saturday, July 24, 2010

John Matthew alias Christopher Marlowe by Peter Farey

On 30 May 1599, six years after the apparent death of Christopher Marlowe, a man presented himself for admission to St. Alban’s, the English college at Valladolid in Spain. In the college register—the Liber Alumnorum—he is identified as Jo(hann)es Matheus (John Matthew), but in the right margin is written al(ias) Christopherus Marlerus (Christopher Marler—or Marlowe?). Although not all of those who believe Marlowe to have survived 1593 take this to be the same man, there are several who do.

So let us take a look at just what we know or can surmise about him, and in particular whether he is a John Matthew using Christopher Marlowe as an alias, or a Christopher Marlowe calling himself John Matthew. In doing this I must thank Ros Barber, Michael Frohnsdorff, Isabel Gortázar and John Baker, each of whom has provided valuable and relevant information.

The main reason why the arrival of this man at Valladolid is known about is because of a letter discovered by Leslie Hotson and transcribed in his The Death of Christopher Marlowe.1 It was written from Pisa in Italy by William Vaughan to the Privy Council and includes the following:
1602, July 4/14. I thought it the part of her Majesty's loyal subject in these my travels to forewarn the Council of certain caterpillars, I mean Jesuits and seminary priests, who, as I am credibly informed by two several men, whose names, under your pardon, according to promise, instantly I conceal, are to be sent from the English seminary at Valladolid, in the kingdom of Castile in Spain, to pervert and withdraw her Majesty's loyal subjects from their due obedience to her. I have therefore sent notice to some of you from Calais in France of some such persons, and of their dealing, the one of whom, George Askew, as he then termed himself, being made priest at Douay in Flanders, is taken, as I understand, and lies prisoner in the Clink. . . .
In the said seminary there is . . . one Christopher Marlor (as he will be called), but yet for certainty his name is Christopher, sometime master in arts of Trinity College in Cambridge, of very low stature, well set, of a black round beard, not yet priest, but to come over in the mission of the next year ensuing. . . .
So in 1602 Vaughan has learned from two different people of this man at Valladolid who "will be called" (i.e. wants to be known as) Christopher Marlor, and who had an M.A. from Trinity College in Cambridge.

Before admission at the English College the applicant was questioned and the answers recorded in their Liber Primis Examinis. Here he had told them that he was born and educated in Cambridge, that he was 27 years of age and had been at Cambridge University for seven years, gaining both B.A. and M.A. degrees.2 Marlowe the poet/playwright would have been 35 years old by then.

When we look at who was at Trinity at about the right time, however, we find both a John Matthew and a Christopher Morley. This is what J. A. Venn's Alumni Cantabrigienses3 has to say:
MATTHEW, JOHN. Matric. pens. from TRINITY, Michs. 1588; scholar from Westminster; B.A. 1592-3; M.A. 1596. One of these names of Tortworth, Gloucs., minister. Will (P.C.C.) 1628.
He matriculated from (was accepted at) Trinity as a pensioner (one who pays for his keep) in the Michaelmas (Autumn) term, having been awarded a scholarship to pay for it on his behalf.
MORLEY, CHRISTOPHER. Matric. pens, from Trinity, Michs. 1578; B.A. 1582-3; M.A. 1586. Fellow. Will proved (V.C.C.)4
This Christopher Morley was therefore somewhat older, but held a fellowship at Trinity most probably—as we shall see—during the whole time that John Matthew was there. Before looking at that, however, let us first see what we can find out about the earlier life of John Matthew.

According to the Liber Primis Examinis, he told them that he was 27 years old when he arrived in Valladolid, and Venn tells us that he went to Westminster school. One entry in the parish register for St. Margaret, Westminster, may therefore be relevant—a John Mathew, son of William Mathew, was baptized there on 24th August 1571, which would indeed make him 27 on that date. Furthermore, another John Mathew, son of Thomas Mathew, was baptized in St. Clement Danes, Westminster, on 14 October 1571.5

Whether either of them was the same John Matthew or not, this would place him at Westminster School in the years leading up to 1588, and make him a contemporary of Ben Jonson, a year younger than him, who is believed to have been there from about 1579. Another contemporary, some 8 years older but not leaving until 1589, was the Welshman Hugh Holland, who over 30 years later would contribute a sonnet to the First Folio, maybe at his schoolfellow Jonson's request? That all three later converted to Catholicism may be a coincidence, but maybe not?6

John Matthew left Westminster for Trinity in 1588, followed there a year later by Hugh Holland. As we can see above, he achieved his B.A. in 1592-3 and M.A. in 1596. In that same year, the year of his departure from Cambridge, Christopher Morley died. That Morley was still at Trinity is indicated by the fact that the records apparently show him as being present until the year of his death, 1596.7 Whether Matthew was there when it happened or not, he would have certainly known about it.

According to the Liber Primis Examinis (in Louis Ule's translation),8 the applicant for admission "was converted to acknowledge and profess the Catholic faith by Father Thomas Wright, and he was later received into the church by Father Hugo, at that time delayed in the Clink prison for fifteen days, before he left England ..."

Father Wright had returned to England from Valladolid, after some 18 years in Europe, on 8 June 1595. One of Anthony Bacon's sources in Spain, Anthony Rolston, had been instrumental in ensuring his safe return, with Bacon getting him the protection of the Earl of Essex.9 His activities nevertheless got him imprisoned a year or so later. So the "conversion" most probably happened within that first year, while Wright was still closely associated with Anthony Bacon and Essex (and also while a certain Monsieur Le Doux was under their protection too).

From England, our man "was sent to St. Omer (in France) with letters of recommendation by Father Garnet of the Society of Jesus." The College at St. Omer (Audomaropolis), founded by Robert Persons in about 1591, was established for the education of Catholic laymen, and not those aspiring to priesthood.

At Valladolid "he humbly asked admission to this college that he might become a priest and be sent to do the work of the Lord in England." From the College's Liber Alumnorum: "Joannes Matheus (alias Christopher Marlerus in the right margin) Cantabrigiensis admissus est in hoc Collegium die 30 Maii an° 1599." John Matthew alias Christopher Marler (?) of Cambridge is admitted into this college on 30 May 1599.

At this point we are faced with the main question. What was his true identity? John Matthew of Westminster or Christopher Marlowe of Canterbury? What would have happened in each case?

1) John Matthew, of Westminster and Trinity, B.A. and M.A., arrives there with two companions and seeks admission. He gives them true information about himself, other than where he was born and went to school (perhaps protecting his family?). He says that he would like to use a pseudonym from now on, however, and chooses the name of one of the Fellows at his college with whom he had been closely associated for eight years or so, but who had died three years earlier. From then on he is known as Christopher Marlowe (in various forms), "master in arts of Trinity College in Cambridge" as both he and the origin of his pseudonym were.

2) The "dead" playwright Christopher Marlowe, of Canterbury and Corpus Christi, B.A. and M.A., arrives there with two companions and seeks admission. He tells them a pack of lies about who he is, pretending for no obvious reason to be John Matthew, a real and still living person some eight years younger than himself (with an M.A. from Trinity) whom he presumably knew about, although there is no evidence to support this assumption. He says that he would like to use an alias from now on, however, and chooses his real name, the single most dangerous name (for him) that he could possibly use.

It has also been suggested that the arrival of the party at Valladolid on 30 May must have been planned deliberately to coincide with the date of Marlowe’s alleged death. We are therefore asked to believe that three people set off from St. Omer at the northern tip of France to travel over 800 miles (and across the Pyrenees) to Valladolid in north-central Spain, but before setting out decide to time their departure and adjust their speed to make sure that they arrive precisely on a date which happens to be the anniversary of what was probably the worst thing that ever happened to one of them, and which he is also presumably unable to divulge to the others? I find this impossible to believe.

Since, with or without the coincidence of dates, the first of those two options is clearly so much more likely than the other, let us see whether any of the rest of the Matthew/Marlowe story works against it.

First, we need to go back to William Vaughan's letter of 1602, the one in which he says he has been told by two different people that in the seminary there is "one Christopher Marlor (as he will be called), but yet for certainty his name is Christopher, sometime master in arts of Trinity College in Cambridge."

A couple of years earlier, in his Golden Grove, Vaughan had provided the best description of Marlowe's death to appear until, largely because of his words "Detford" and "Ingram," the inquest details were discovered in 1925. In this he wrote of "Christopher Marlow by profession a play-maker," saying "it so hapned, that at Detford, a little village about three miles distant from London, as he meant to stab with his ponyard one named Ingram, that had inuited him thither to a feast, and was then playing at tables, he quickely perceyving it, auoyded the thrust, that withall drawing out his dagger for his defence, hee stabd this Marlow into the eye, in such sort, that his braines comming out at the daggers point, hee shortlie after dyed."10

So the first person Vaughan, on hearing the name, would be reminded of would have been the playwright, whereas there is no reason to think that John Matthew knew anything about Marlowe at all, tucked away as he had been in Cambridge for almost the whole of Marlowe's short career.

Matthew must have been using the identity of his friend from Trinity, but Vaughan—recognizing the name of the supposedly dead "atheist" Marlowe—thought that the Privy Council should be told about it just in case it really was the same man. He apparently knows nothing of an alias, but says that the man "will be called" (says his name is) Christopher Marlor. The surname may not be precisely the same as "Marlow," but there is no doubt the Christian name is right: "but yet for certainty his name is Christopher."

There is no reason to think that Vaughan himself knew what the dead poet would have looked like, but he obtained a description of the seminary man from his sources so that the Council might be able to ascertain if it was in fact Marlowe. He was "of very low stature, well set, of a black round beard." Further information to enable them to identify him—Marlowe’s qualifications most probably being unknown to him—is that this man was "sometime master in arts of Trinity College in Cambridge." This would certainly have ruled the playwright out, even in the unlikely event that the physical description had not!

Returning to the English College at Valladolid, we see that Matthew had taken the oath (fecit iuramentum) on 2 February 1600, was ordained priest (factus est sacerdos) in September 1602 and, as Vaughan had predicted, was sent into England in early spring 1603 (missus est in Anglia 1603 primo vere).

In England, he seems to have managed to remain at liberty pursuing his mission for over a year, but was eventually arrested and locked up in the Gatehouse prison from 3 August until 23 September 1604.11 Amongst the Gatehouse bills it says: "Committed by my Lo: Chief Justice Christopher Marlowe, alias Mathews, a seminarie preist oweth for 7 weeks and 2 daies being close prisoner at rate of 14s the week 5li 2s. For washing 2s 4d. -- 5li 4s 4d."12 The order in which the names were given would not have implied (as it perhaps would today) that the first name was the "real" one. In fact, the entry preceding it is identical other than the names, which, according to Anstruther, has the pseudonym first. Although Anstruther cites the pardon rolls (C.67/9) as referring to "a cleric named John Matthew alias Marley of the City of Canterbury" it in fact says Cambridge, not Canterbury,13 and therefore reflects his Valladolid claim that he was born and educated there. In passing we may note that this may well have applied to his alter ego Christopher Morley. Another Christopher Morley (although clearly not the same one) was married in All Saints, Cambridge, on 14 November 1568.14

These records pose a problem, whether he really was John Matthew or the playwright Christopher Marlowe.

1) If it was John Matthew operating under the Marlowe name, why was he prepared to divulge his real name too? Could it be that any possible danger to his family had passed? There was a William Matthew who apparently died early in 1603 and may have been his father. Since he was pardoned, perhaps the revealing of his true identity was a price he had to pay. There is also the possibility, of course, given his mentor Father Wright's connections with Anthony Bacon's network of agents, that Matthew had been a double agent all along.

2) If it was Christopher Marlowe using John Matthew as an alias, the question of why he would reveal his real name to the Lord Chief Justice and risk having it passed on to Popham’s colleagues is totally inexplicable. Whitgift had died earlier that year, but Richard Bancroft—his successor-in-waiting as Archbishop of Canterbury—would have been just as much of a danger to Marlowe as Whitgift would have been. Whether they had been privy to what really happened to Marlowe in 1593 or not, any news his arrival in London in 1603/4 reaching the ears of Bancroft would have surely meant his real death this time. For any return to England, deep cover (as in the case of Monsieur Le Doux?) would have been absolutely essential.

It may seem a bit surprising that all that happened to him (given the purpose of his being sent back into England) was banishment, but this does not appear to have been all that unusual by then. For example, according to the DNB entry for Thomas Wright, above, some 30 priests—including Wright—were banished at the time of James's accession in 1603.15

Anyway, according to Anstruther, "He set out again for England from Douai 10 Dec 1604."16 After this the trail would have gone cold had it not been for that comment by Venn: "One of these names of Tortworth, Gloucs., minister." Was this our John Matthew? One is reminded of the theory that the double agent Richard Baines (having been ordained priest at Rheims before his discovery and confession) finished up as rector of the parish of Waltham in Lincolnshire.17 Could it be that John Matthew, as suggested above, really "had been a double agent all along"? An interesting possibility, enhanced by his having been "converted" by Father Wright, who had been helped in his 1595 return to England by Anthony Bacon's agent Anthony Rolston.18

If it was our John Matthew, his will was proved (by which time he would have had to be dead!) by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury (P.C.C.) in 1628.

To conclude, the interesting story of John Matthew (choosing the name of his friend Christopher Morley as an alias) makes complete sense to me. The story of it having been a surviving Christopher Marlowe (picking from goodness-knows-where the name of someone there is no reason for him ever to have heard of, let alone known any details) really makes no sense at all.

Peter Farey

© Peter Farey, July 2010

Peter Farey has been manning the Marlovian barricades on the internet for the past 12 years. His Marlowe Page is one of the most respected sites about Marlowe on the web. He is a founding member of the International Marlowe-Shakespeare Society.

1Hotson, Leslie J. 1925. The Death of Christopher Marlowe.
2Ule, Louis. 1992. Christopher Marlowe (1564-1609): A Biography. p. 448.
3Venn, J. A. 1903. Alumni Cantabrigenses. p. 161.
4Venn, I am grateful to Ros Barber for explaining to me that VCC refers to the records of the Vice-Chancellor’s Court.
5Family Search website
6Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 2004.
7Ros Barber discovered that the 1589-1592 Buttery records from Trinity show Christopher Morley as being present throughout that time. The last recorded payment for his fellowship was in 1596, however, and his will was proved by the University Vice-Chancellor’s Court, indicating that he must have still been there when he died.
8Ule, p. 448.
9LPL Bacon Papers MS.651 f.232-2.
10Vaughan’s words as transcribed in A.D.Wraight and Virginia F. Stern’s In Search of Christopher Marlowe. 1965. p. 307.
11Anstrother, Godfrey. 1968. The Seminary Priests: A Dictionary of the Secular Clergy of England and Wales, 1558-1850, Vol 1. His source is given as The Catholic Record Society (CRS 53, 266).
12Ule, p. 501.
13I am grateful to Isabel Gortázar for pointing out this inaccuracy in Anstruther’s work.
14Family Search website
15Oxford DNB.
16Anstruther, citing (DD 63—Douai Diaries [CRS 10, 11]).
17In an article by Constance Brown Kuriyama, accepted by Charles Nicholl. But Roy Kendall, showing Baines would have had to be in two places at once, refutes this idea in his Christopher Marlowe and Richard Baines: Journeys Through the Elizabethan Underground. 2004. p. 114.
18Oxford DNB and LPL Bacon Papers MS.651 f.232-2 (Copy of letter from another agent, Anthony Standen, to Anthony Rolston).

Click here for the blog's home page and recent content.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Christopher Marlowe – Flight or Banishment? by Peter Farey

Although we Marlovians - almost by definition - share a belief that Marlowe's death was faked, there is rather less unanimity about just who was and who wasn't also involved in the deception. This paper sets out my own thoughts on the subject.

One thing needs to be cleared up straight away: there is no evidence that the Court of Star Chamber had shown any interest in Marlowe's doings. He was arrested on behalf of the Privy Council, appeared before the Privy Council, was released on his indemnity by the Privy Council, and commanded to report daily to the Privy Council until licensed to the contrary. Furthermore, the reports of his alleged wrong-doings seem to have gone only to Privy Council members. Although most of the meetings of the Council in the latter half of May 1593 were held in the Star Chamber at Westminster (rather than at Nonsuch, where the Queen and Court were), and although members of the Privy Council also served as members of the Court of Star Chamber, this court as such was not involved.

There can be little doubt, however, that Marlowe was in trouble. One may dismiss some of the individual accusations made by those informing against him as either inaccurate or exaggerated, but taken all together they paint a fairly clear picture of someone who had genuine atheistic beliefs (whatever that meant), who attempted to persuade others that these were right, and who had even written a book on atheism which he had used possibly more than once as the script of a lecture intended to persuade others to this opinion.

The main thrust of the campaign currently being pursued by Archbishop Whitgift was anti-presbyterian and anti-puritan, but we can still be fairly confident that he would have considered these activities no less deplorable than those of Barrow, Greenwood and Penry - all of whom were tried and executed around then for things they had written. And we may assume, I think, that on the Privy Council both he and Lord Keeper Puckering would have been pushing hard for similar action to be taken against Marlowe. Voices would surely have been raised in his defence too - by Lord Burghley, Lord Admiral Howard or Sir Robert Cecil perhaps - but if Marlowe was in trouble it was nevertheless primarily with the Privy Council itself.

If Marlowe had decided to escape inevitable punishment by faking his own death, therefore, his choosing of Thomas Walsingham to help him - as he clearly must have done given Walsingham’s links with everyone there - may seem a bit strange. Until only four years earlier Walsingham had been working as an important functionary in the intelligence network of his close relative Sir Francis Walsingham, the Queen's spymaster and until his death in 1590 a leading member of the Privy Council. This could be fairly easily explained away, of course, but if the two of them did join forces to fake the death some of their other decisions are rather harder to understand.

For example, if I had been engaged in a project intended to outwit the Privy Council I don't think I would have chosen a venue owned by someone related in some way to two of its members, as Eleanor Bull apparently was. Nor would I have chosen a location within the verge (i.e. within 12 miles of the Queen), which was therefore not only within the special jurisdiction of the Privy Council but would ensure that the one coroner in the country closely connected to the Privy Council, William Danby, would have to hold the inquest.

Similarly, one might question their choice of accomplices. In Nicholas Skeres we have someone who had served under the Earl of Essex for several years and only a month earlier as a witness before the Court of Star Chamber declared that the Earl (who would have attended in his capacity as a recently appointed Privy Council member) was his "Lord and Master."1 Robert Poley was certainly employed directly by the Privy Council at this time, nearly all of his warrants being signed by Vice-Chamberlain Heneage on their behalf. In fact, of all the people involved in the attempt to escape the clutches of the Privy Council on that fateful day, Thomas Walsingham's servant Ingram Frizer seems to have been the only one not to have some connection with it!

No, what we really must infer from this is that at least one or more members of the Privy Council were involved in some way. But if so, who? The Council consisted of different factions, so whoever it was would have been putting their careers and possibly even their lives at risk should a member of one of the rival factions find out. There is a likelihood, as I have discussed here earlier,2 that Nicholas Skeres's Star Chamber Court appearance a month earlier had put him out of favour with Essex, but this would have made him even more eager to ingratiate himself with the Earl. Could any of the others really trust him? And Robert Poley was widely known as duplicitous, Sir Francis Walsingham having even written that he was loath to "lay himself open" to him.3 A simple word from either of them directly or indirectly into the ear of Archbishop Whitgift could have been catastrophic for any Council member or members acting on their own. Would any of them have really been prepared to take such a risk on behalf of Christopher Marlowe, no matter how much "good service" he had done for Her Majesty in the past nor how potentially valuable his brilliance as a poet/dramatist might be? I think not.

For me, therefore, it really is very hard to believe that the death-faking was performed without there having been some sort of agreement at Privy Council level as Louis Ule first suggested.4 Unlike him, however, I see this as a compromise between the Cecils (mainly) on the one hand, who wanted him saved, and Whitgift and Puckering (mainly) on the other, who wanted him dead. The Queen's tacit approval would also be sought. He would be not only banished for life, but would become a "non-person" too. By their doing this he would be seen by the masses to have been struck down by God for his transgressions,5 but his undoubted genius would survive in a way that might prove useful to the state. I note that it was Whitgift and Puckering who, with Chief Justice Popham, actually signed John Penry's death warrant for that most unusual (but possibly essential) time of day, and that it was Puckering who changed the words on the Baines Note from "died a sudden and violent death" to the more equivocal "came to a sudden and fearful end of his life."6

Lord Burghley was apparently quite ill at this time, so it may also be worth noting that he nevertheless attended more Privy Council meetings than any other Privy Counsellor over this period, apparently not once missing any of the eleven meetings held between 11th May and 12th June. The 31st of May - between the "death" and the inquest - is particularly interesting, when at the Star Chamber in the morning he attended a Council meeting with Whitgift and Puckering (the opposition?) and one at Nonsuch in the afternoon with Essex, Hunsden, Heneage and Robert Cecil (the supporters?).

My conclusion is in fact that the whole Privy Council knew and, with varying degrees of conviction, agreed to it. As I see it, this is the only way in which the risk to anyone involved could be sufficiently reduced, unless they themselves spilt the beans! If it were discovered, it could be brushed aside as a Privy Council decision, and any alleged perjury excused on the basis of the inquest having in any case been null and void.7

Whitgift's going along with this might seem very strange at first, despite his above-mentioned role in the provision of John Penry's body at just the right time. Although I am usually reluctant to read hidden meanings into the texts, however, there is a passage in As You Like It (the play with so many apparent references to Marlowe) in which I cannot but believe the symbolism to be deliberate:
Under an old oak, whose boughs were mossed with age
And high top bald with dry antiquity,
A wretched, ragged man, o'ergrown with hair,
Lay sleeping on his back. About his neck
A green and gilded snake had wreathed itself,
Who with her head, nimble in threats, approached
The opening of his mouth. But suddenly
Seeing Orlando, it unlinked itself,
And with indented glides did slip away
Into a bush, under which bush's shade
A lioness, with udders all drawn dry,
Lay couching, head on ground, with catlike watch
When that the sleeping man should stir. For 'tis
The royal disposition of that beast
To prey on nothing that doth seem as dead.
I'm not sure why the snake (who doesn't appear in the original story) is female, but that it forms a noose around the man's neck and threatens to stop his mouth is surely meaningful. I understand that the basic colour of ecclesiastical vestments changes to green at Pentecost (i.e. when Marlowe "died") and stays green for the six months until Advent. That an Archbishop's vestments would have gilt trimmings goes without saying, especially someone as showily extravagant as Whitgift was.8 The identity of the lioness, who was male in the original story, with the royal disposition (and "udders all drawn dry"!) also seems clear. They are together on this, and Marlowe will be in no danger from either of them as long as he "doth seem as dead."

The publication of plays registered with the Stationers' Company at this time was subject to the approval of Whitgift or his colleague Bancroft. As You Like It was registered in 1600, but this was not converted into permission for it to be published until over twenty years later, and after the deaths of both the Queen and Whitgift. It therefore seems to me that this may well have been one of the reasons why.

Finally, it is worth saying that such a scenario would be far more likely to work in ensuring both Marlowe's accepting the "sentence" and his continued silence on the subject. With any other situation it would be just the fear of what might otherwise be done to him which would buy his obedience, whereas with this one the ultimately more powerful carrot of eventual forgiveness, return, and recognition could be promised, whether such an end was ever really on the cards or not.

The constant recurrence of such themes in Shakespeare’s later plays may well suggest that he at least still thought it was. Referring to Prospero’s epilogue to The Tempest, for example, Stephen Greenblatt wrote: "Why, if [Shakespeare] is implicated in the figure of his magician hero, might he feel compelled to plead for indulgence, as if he were asking to be pardoned for a crime he had committed?"9 Why indeed?

Peter Farey

© Peter Farey, July 2010  Burgess Sam Riley Deptford

Peter Farey, a founding member of the International Marlowe-Shakespeare Society, is the 2007 recipient of the Calvin & Rose G. Hoffman Prize, administered annually by The King's School in Canterbury for a "distinguished publication on Christopher Marlowe." Himself no stranger to official subterfuge, Peter was based behind the Iron Curtain during the "cold war" (in BRIXMIS), observing and reporting on Soviet military activity in East Germany.

Click here to reach Peter's website.

1Nicholl, Charles. 2002. The Reckoning. p.33.
2Farey, Peter. "Nicholas Skeres and the Earl of Essex."
3Nicholl, p.160.
4Ule, Louis. 1995. Christopher Marlowe 1564-1607: A Biography. p.234. David More also suggested around this time that Marlowe had been "banished to death," probably by The Queen, Burghley and Essex.
5See for example William Vaughan’s 1599 Golden Grove, in which he wrote: "Thus did God, the true executioner of divine justice, work the end of impious atheists."
6Nicholl, pp.323-5. Trascripts of the two Baines Note versions can be found at and
7Farey, Peter. "Was Marlowe’s Inquest Void?"
8I am grateful to Michael Frohnsdorff, who suggested the Whitgift connection in The Marlowe Society Newsletter 18, Spring 2002, pp.31-33.
9Greenblatt, Stephen. 2004. Will in the World. pp.376-7.

Click here for the blog's home page and recent content.
Who wrote Shakespeare? Rylance,Jacobi,Emmerich, Anonymous,Oxford