Sunday, May 1, 2011

Marlowe and the Privy Council

Peter Farey develops some interesting ideas arising from an email discussion he had with Anthony Kellett last December.

The story is one with which we are all very familiar. On 18 May 1593 the Privy Council issued a "warrant to Henry Maunder one of the Messengers of her Majesty's Chamber to repair to the house of Mr. Thomas Walsingham in Kent, or to any other place where he shall understand Christofer Marlow to be remaining, and by virtue hereof to apprehend and bring him to the Court in his Company. And in case of need to require aid."1

Most commentators point out that this standard wording indicates that he was not charged with any offence, and that there isn't really any implication of his being expected to resist. However, they do assume that this warrant had been issued at a meeting of the Council itself, and as a result of the members having been told of Thomas Kyd's arrest and the "vile heretical conceits" which he claimed to be Marlowe's found in his dwelling. Other than A.D. Wraight, who wrongly believed that it was the Court of Star Chamber he was to attend,2 all biographers up to and including Charles Nicholl,3 and David Riggs4 seem to have followed William Urry's5 lead in thinking that "the Court" referred to was the royal one, which it was, but had this wrongly located at Greenwich, when in fact it was at Nonsuch Palace in Surrey.6

The problem is that there is no record of there having been a meeting of the Privy Council on 18 May and, even though the court had moved from Croydon to Nonsuch before then, none of their meetings were held at Nonsuch before the afternoon of 31 May. All of their meetings over that period (16, 23, 25, 29 and the morning of 31 May) were held in the Star Chamber in Westminster Palace―which may explain Wraight's mistake.

So how is it that the warrant was issued on 18 May? The last minuted Privy Council meeting preceding that date was two days earlier (16 May) and was attended by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Whitgift), Lord Keeper (Puckering), Lord Treasurer (Burghley), Lord Derby, Lord Chamberlain (Hunsden), Lord Buckhurst, Sir John Wolley and Sir John Fortescue.7 It therefore seems likely that the decision to call Marlowe in for questioning was taken then. It would be issued to Henry Maunder, a messenger of the Queen's chamber, which as we now know was then located at Nonsuch. We also know (because of another warrant signed by him on 18 May)8 that Burghley was at Nonsuch on that date. So it seems quite likely that Burghley―or, if also there, one of the others present on 16 May―used the opportunity to issue the warrant on the Council's behalf. Whoever it was that issued it, however, they don't seem to have accorded it much urgency.

We don't know whether Marlowe actually was at Scadbury, of course, only that he might be found there and that the person signing the warrant appeared to be aware of that possibility. If it was Burghley who signed it, then this would presumably have been because Marlowe was one of his agents. However, when Marlowe turned up to report to their lordships two days later the note does refer to him as being "of London."

Where did Maunder take him on the 20th, and what happened when they got there? We have seen that the warrant was probably signed at Nonsuch, so the words "bring him to the Court" seem to indicate that this was where he was meant to go. As the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) says, the word bring "implies motion towards the place where the speaker or auditor is, or is supposed to be."

Yet once again there was apparently no meeting of the Privy Council that day, whether at Nonsuch or at Westminster. All we have is the bald statement that "being sent for by warrant from their Lordships, Christofer Marley of London, gent, hath entered his appearance accordingly for his Indemnity therein;9 and is commanded to give his daily attendance on their Lordships, until he shall be licensed to the contrary."

So what's going on? The obvious answer must be that Marlowe turned up at Nonsuch on 20 May, only to be told by some official that they weren't there right now but, given what they had said, he really should keep turning up until they were. But was he released on bail? This is undoubtedly what most biographers think,10 but it really doesn't say that. According to the OED the only definition of indemnity apparently in use at that time was "Security or protection against contingent hurt, damage, or loss." So, since the indemnity is his and not theirs, it must be saying that he has entered his appearance in the record as a protection against his being accused of having ignored their lordships' command. The word therein clearly refers to the "warrant from their Lordships" and the terms "therein."

It is reasonable to assume, I think, that Marlowe did appear (presumably at Nonsuch) each day, but there were no Privy Council meetings for him to attend. However it is of course possible that on 22 May he was told that they would be meeting at the Star Chamber on the following day, and that he should present himself there. If he did, he would have found Whitgift, Puckering, Burghley, Derby, Buckhurst and Fortescue waiting for him. From Kyd's testimony it seems that Marlowe must have admitted to them that the "vile heretical" fragment did belong to him,11 but that this is fairly easily explained away, given that it is an extract from a refutation of the anti-Trinitarian argument. Someone with Marlowe's gift for words should have had no difficulty with that.

At this point speculation must take over, however. Puckering will have already heard the more damaging aspects of Kyd's testimony, confessed under torture; Drury has also included dangerous accusations about Marlowe in his "Remembrances" and, even if the "Baines Note" itself may not yet have been delivered, there is a fair probability that Puckering already had a very good idea of the contents of that too. In particular, there is enough evidence for Marlowe to be accused of having written an article or book
on atheism which is being used for subversive purposes. We may presume that Whitgift and Puckering would insist that trial and execution are the only possibilities. In opposition, as Marlowe's probable employer for many years, Burghley is appalled. He wants him saved―not only because of Marlowe's past services to the queen, but because of his extraordinary ability with words which, if used properly, could be of enormous benefit to the state. That Marlowe may know things which Burghley would not want revealed under torture is also a possibility.

There appears to be a complete impasse. Whitgift and Puckering want him tried and executed. Burghley and Derby (himself a lover of poets and actors, and still the patron of a company of players) want him saved. As Burghley's friend, and working for him as under-treasurer and chancellor of the exchequer, Fortescue also probably goes along with him on this. But why on earth did the Council apparently agree to let him go? With the sort of information now being gathered one would have expected him to be held in custody pending the arrival of all the written testimony at least.

At this point I think that Thomas Sackville, Lord Buckhurst, may have come into the picture. As the joint author of Gorboduc, the first English play written in blank verse, and a fine poet in his own right,12 we may reasonably assume that his sympathies would have been with a fellow poet and playwright whom he cannot fail to have admired enormously, Marlowe. On the other hand, he had apparently been involved with Puckering in Drury's machinations against him. As a first cousin of the queen's mother, Anne Boleyn, Buckhurst had the Queen's ear in a way that few others could match and, as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography puts it, "He acquired a reputation for impartiality, courage, and plain speaking since his kinship with the queen largely enabled him to avoid factions at court."

So, with Burghley's side perhaps prepared to accept exile for Marlowe but not death and Whitgift's insisting that exile wasn't enough of a deterrent, I can imagine Buckhurst suddenly saying "I think I can see a possible way out of this. Couldn't we make everyone just believe that he was dead?"

Postscript.

Marlowe would not have been released, but held incommunicado at Westminster while the plans were laid, in particular the bringing in of Thomas Walsingham to plan and organize the deception. Poley, if he could be recalled from the Netherlands in time, would supervise it on the day itself and thereafter. On 25 May, the Privy Council met again in the Star Chamber with the same six members present, checked on progress, and possibly told Marlowe of what they had decided. It was made quite clear what was expected of him if his life was to be saved and just what the penalty would be if he failed to meet the terms of the deal in any way. The possibility of an eventual pardon if he toed the line was also indicated. There apparently being no alternative―other than torture, trial and execution―he accepted.

We are told that the Baines Note was "delivered" no more than three days prior to the "sudden and fearful end of (Marlowe's) life." Exactly three days earlier would have been on the Sunday before Whitsun (i.e. 27 May) rather than "Whitsun eve" (i.e. 2 June) as the endorsement on the document, quite impossibly, also claims. But what is not clear is whether "delivered" referred to Baines's delivery of his note to Puckering or to the date it went to the Queen,13 as we know it did at some point. Assuming the latter, with Puckering having actually received it some days earlier, under the scenario described here 27 May was when he (or they) would have taken it to the Queen and informed her of the Privy Council's opinion as to what should be done about it.

On 29 May the Privy Council was attended by far more of its members than usual. Derby couldn't make it, but they were joined by Lord Admiral (Howard), Lord Chamberlain (Hunsdon), the Earl of Essex, Sir John Wolley and Sir Robert Cecil. They were told what had been decided and put in place. Nothing of this was put in writing, but at the end of the meeting Lord Chief Justice Popham was asked to join them and add his signature to those of Whitgift and Puckering on the warrant for John Penry to be executed later that same day. The deception had begun.14

© Peter Farey, 2011

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."

Notes Emmerich Anonymous film Shakespeare
1National Archive, Acts of the Privy Council, 18 May 1593. I have modernized the spelling of all quotations.
2Wraight, A. D. & Virginia Stern. 1965. In Search of Christopher Marlowe. MacDonald & Co., p.283.
3Nicholl, Charles. 2002. The Reckoning: The Murder of Christopher Marlowe. Vintage, p.20.
4Riggs, David. 2004. The World of Christopher Marlowe. Faber & Faber, p.331.
5Urry, William. 1988. Christopher Marlowe and Canterbury. Faber & Faber, p.81.
6First pointed out by William Honey in 1983 and repeated without acknowledgment by his fellow Marlovian A.D. Wraight in 1995; this important information had to wait for "official" acceptance ten years later in Park Honan's 2005 biography Christopher Marlowe, Poet & Spy (Oxford, p.354).
7Wraight (p.285) had precisely the same list of members being present when he appeared on 20 May, but there is no evidence supporting this, and she may have simply got the dates mixed up.
8There is the record of a payment to "Romano Cavaliere: upon a warrant signed by the Lord Treasurer dated at the Court the 18th day of May 1593, for bringing of letters in post ... to the Court at Nonsuch."
9Most transcripts give this as "herein" but it is fairly clearly "therein," as Wraight's copy of the entry itself (p.284) shows that the first letters are exactly the same as those of the word "their" in the line above it.
10Wraight (p. 284), Nicholl (p. 54), Riggs (p. 325) and Honan (p. 336) all use the word "bail" in this context.
11I am grateful to Daryl Pinksen who first explained this to me and convinced me he was right.
12In fact a good case for Buckhurst having been the author of Shakespeare's works―called The Swallow and the Crow―was presented by Sabrina Feldman PhD in last year's The Oxfordian.
13Thanks to Ros Barber for pointing out this ambiguity.
14Dave More was the first to argue that Penry's body was the one used for the faking, a suggestion accepted by most, if not all, Marlovians these days even if not all are aware of who originally made it.

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

17 comments:

tim.nash said...

It is also possible that Whitgift and Puckering had no knowledge of the conspiracy to exile Marlowe and that their signatures on the death warrant for Penry were the way of ensnaring them, should the conspiracy ever be discovered. In this reading Penry, as a thorn in the side of the established church, was a bone thrown to Whitgift while supposedly the debate over Marlowe's fate continued.

Whether Whitgift knew that Marlowe was Burghley's agent before all this started remains a key question - he signed the letter from the Privy Council to the Cambridge authorities in 1587 but did he remember that?

Peter Farey said...

Tim Nash said... "It is also possible that Whitgift and Puckering had no knowledge of the conspiracy to exile Marlowe and that their signatures on the death warrant for Penry were the way of ensnaring them, should the conspiracy ever be discovered. In this reading Penry, as a thorn in the side of the established church, was a bone thrown to Whitgift while supposedly the debate over Marlowe's fate continued."

Tim, thanks for your comment.

The main point of this piece (particularly given my claim that he wasn't given 'bail' on 20 May, just allowed to wander off and come back later) is that there is no reason to suspect any sort of "conspiracy to exile" him until after there was some reason to suspect that he was in any danger, and that this wouldn't have happened until 23 or 25 May at the earliest, when Puckering could have revealed such evidence as was only just beginning to arrive. So this leaves us on the horns of a dilemma. Either nothing was said about this evidence and he was allowed to go free (and therefore what reason would there have been to conspire to save him?) or Puckering did reveal the evidence (creating a reason to save him) but, in spite of this evidence of Marlowe's capital crimes, the Council just allowed him to go free in the hope that he would remain available to be re-arrested once a bit more written evidence arrived.

Personally, I find neither of these scenarios acceptable, and a Privy Council compromise of the sort I have suggested is the only rational solution I have been able to come up with.

Peter

DresdenDoll said...

A very reasonable assessment

Harper said...

Robert Poley seems to be the ring leader during the time in Bull's house. He was a MAJOR spy in Elizabeth's secret service; this is important. For him to spend that much time at Bull's while he was to be delivering important letters (as Farey points out in his earlier article) is quite telling. My gut tells me that Poley is acting under the directive of some members of the Privy. He is, after all, a very reliable "soldier," wouldn't you say?

Peter Farey said...

Poley certainly had some experience to call on, having - as well as for the Cecils - "previously worked for Lord North, Sir Francis Walsingham, Sir Christopher Blunt, Sir Philip and Lady Sidney, possibly Sir Philip's uncle the Earl of Leicester ... and Sir Thomas Heneage, as well as for the queen herself" (according to Roy Kendall) and most of them, I would submit, as a part of his role as a spy.

I certainly agree with you that if it had been any sort of plot (rather than what we are told happened at Deptford) then it was Poley who was in charge - "the very genius of the Elizabethan underworld" as Frederick Boas called him.

My original theory was that he was working for the Cecils, who were behind the whole thing - an idea which went very much against what Calvin Hoffman and A.D. Wraight had argued up until then. It was Dave More who first got me interested in the possibility of a compromise at Privy Council level, however. And this has, I believe, now received a considerable boost by my noticing (I think for the first time) that Marlowe was simply released without any "bail" on 20 May, and that we now (again for the first time as far as I know) have a very good idea of just who was present when he did actually appear before them. Dave's idea tended towards a private agreement between Whitgift and Burghley, but I think that the clearer look at what the Privy Council notes actually tell us, as I have tried to present in this article, makes a faked death and permanent exile generally agreed and accepted by the Privy Council easily the best explanation on offer.

Peter

Coyote said...

Why would the Privy Council want to send Marlowe to the gallows (or racks) when he was the most celebrated playwright prior to his "death", while also being a secret agent (and a pretty good one, we shall assume)? Yes, heresy was a very grave charge, but I can't get my mind around the fact that the Council (or the majority of them) wanted Marlowe dead. Hence, a faked death does not seem out of the question!

daver852 said...

The Sackville angle is very intriging. It is worth noting that Sackville was a Freemason. I've long been skeptical of Marlowe's alleged Masonic connections, but it is interesting how many of the people who play major roles in Marlowe's story were Freemasons.

Dan Sayers said...

I find the idea interesting that Marlowe might have been partly saved for, as Peter puts it,

... his extraordinary ability with words which, if used properly, could be of enormous benefit to the state.

Does anyone have any interesting theories as to what documents Marlowe might have contributed to, apart from plays and poetry, that might have been put to such purposes?

Peter Farey said...

daver852 said...
The Sackville angle is very intriguing. It is worth noting that Sackville was a Freemason. I've long been skeptical of Marlowe's alleged Masonic connections, but it is interesting how many of the people who play major roles in Marlowe's story were Freemasons.

I suggested Sackville/Buckhurst as having come up with the idea only because he seemed to have the best credentials to act as an intermediary in these circumstances, and because we know he was there.

As regards your second comment, the earliest person that the new DNB seems to acknowledge as having been a mason in that sense is William Herbert, who "became a particularly active freemason - in 1617 as grand warden and in the next year grand master" and (somewhat ambiguously) dismisses the idea "that in 1561 Sackville became a grand master of the order of freemasons" which "repeats a fiction, first generated in 1738".

Whether he was a freemason or not, however, I must say that I always worry about any mention of a possible connection with the Priory of Syon, Knights Templar, Rosicrucians, Freemasons or suchlike (even if true!). Seems to me that we already have a sufficiently uphill path to tread in getting people to take our ideas seriously, without also loading ourselves with baggage of a type which would immediately nullify even the good stuff in the eyes of most people. I for one am quite happy that Dolly Wraight's "Legend of Hyram" still hasn't seen the light of day, and your skepticism is in my opinion well worth holding on to!

Peter

Peter Farey said...

Dan Sayers said...
I find the idea interesting that Marlowe might have been partly saved for, as Peter puts it,
... his extraordinary ability with words which, if used properly, could be of enormous benefit to the state.
Does anyone have any interesting theories as to what documents Marlowe might have contributed to, apart from plays and poetry, that might have been put to such purposes?

I would certainly be interested in hearing any ideas that people may have, although I'm not sure that I had anything other than plays in mind when I wrote that. I was conscious of the fact that Walsingham had had a hand in the formation of the first "Queen's Men" company about which McMillin in his Elizabethan Theatre (1987, p.59 - quote pinched from Wikipedia) said "The Queen's Men were a deliberately political company in origin, and their repertory appears to have followed the path no doubt pointed out for them by Sir Francis Walsingham." In the plays they acted, "one finds no conflict or disturbance that is not settled in the interests of Tudor conservatism."

We may, I think, debate whether "Shakespeare" was ever used in this way, but I cannot believe that this wouldn't have played a part in their thinking at that point, and the presence of the Lord Chamberlain and the Lord Admiral at the meeting on the 29th could also have provided the opportunity for a discussion about how it might be best achieved. Was the formation of "Shakespeare's" company the Lord Chamberlain's Men in 1594 - taking some of the best people from existing companies just as the Queen's Men had done eleven years earlier - just a coincidence?

Peter

ISABel Gortazar said...

Peter:
“Whether he was a freemason or not, however, I must say that I always worry about any mention of a possible connection with the Priory of Syon, Knights Templar, Rosicrucians, Freemasons or suchlike (even if true!).

I agree that it is uncomfortable to integrate the thread of the secret societies into our already difficult story. However, the fact remains that Marlowe lived in a period when Mathematics and Astronomy were considered as suspicious as Alchemy and one could be burnt at the stake for fiddling around with a telescope.

The appearance of the secret societies in the liberal Universities, mainly Wittemberg, (the Uni of Dr Faustus, Hamlet, Horatio, Rosenkranz, Guilderstein) was at first a necessity to protect freethinkers.

It does seem, however, that by the late 16th Century, the Freemasons had become a sort of Rotary Club that would, within two decades, include the highest people in office such as Pembroke and Bacon. I suspect that joining the Freemasons soon became a way of political and social advancement.

To ignore what Marlowe may have thought of the Freemasons (the Guild of the Stone) and Rosicrucians (the Rosen Kreutz) would be perhaps to miss a valuable clue: “For Rosenkrantz and Guilderstein are dead”.

The name Guilderstein, too obvious, was changed in the 2Q to Guilderstern, (the Guild of the Star). The original family name (Swedish, I think) seems to have been Gulderstiern, but as usual in those days, it appears differently spelt in various records.

Isabel Gortazar said...

Peter:
“Whether he was a freemason or not, however, I must say that I always worry about any mention of a possible connection with the Priory of Syon, Knights Templar, Rosicrucians, Freemasons or suchlike (even if true!).

I agree that it is uncomfortable to integrate the thread of the secret societies into our already difficult story. However, the fact remains that Marlowe lived in a period when Mathematics and Astronomy were considered as suspicious as Alchemy and one could be burnt at the stake for fiddling around with a telescope.

The appearance of the secret societies in the liberal Universities, mainly Wittemberg, (the Uni of Dr Faustus, Hamlet, Horatio, Rosenkranz, Guilderstein) was at first a necessity to protect freethinkers.

It does seem, however, that by the late 16th Century, the Freemasons had become a sort of Rotary Club that would, within two decades, include the highest people in office such as Pembroke and Bacon. I suspect that joining the Freemasons soon became a way of political and social advancement.

To ignore what Marlowe may have thought of the Freemasons (the Guild of the Stone) and Rosicrucians (the Rosen Kreutz) would be perhaps to miss a valuable clue: “For Rosenkrantz and Guilderstein are dead”.

The name Guilderstein, too obvious, was changed in the 2Q to Guilderstern, (the Guild of the Star). The original family name (Swedish, I think) seems to have been Gulderstiern, but as usual in those days, it appears differently spelt in various records.

Isabel Gortazar said...

Donna:
Many thanks for all this information.
One point only; the Freemasons’ rules absolutely forbad them to initiate women, so I assume that point would have been tricky to explain to Queen Bess.

daver852 said...

While I agree with Peter that looking for Masonic codes, ciphers, etc., in Marlowe's and Shakespeare's works is counterproductive, it still surprises me that many of the key players were reported to be Freemasons. My thought is this: if Marlowe was a Mason - and there is evidence in his plays that he was certainly familiar with Masonic rites and symbols - then Sackville and perhaps other members of the Privy Council would have had an added incentive in aiding him to escape. There are many recorded incidents of Freemasons intervening to save the lives of fellow Masons.

Donna Murphy said...

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your well-written article.

It is ironic that I find myself writing about Freemasonry in a comment regarding your article, knowing how hesitant you are to engage in the topic, but I would like to shed some clarity.

The first known Freemason was Sir Robert Moray, inducted in 1641, but it was not a new organization at that time. Freemansonry went public in 1717, and in 1738,James Anderson published its history. Anderson's "Constitutions" dates Freemasony's founding to early Biblical times. His history is a blend of fiction and fact, the problem being that we don't know when fiction stops and fact begins. This is what he wrote regarding Sackville:

"But [Queen Elizabeth] hearing the Masons had certain Secrets that could not be reveal'd to her (for that she could not be Grand Master) and being jealous of all secret Assemblies, she sent an armed Force to break up the annual Grand Lodge at York, on St. John's Day, 27 Dec. 1561.

"But Sir Thomas Sackville, Grand Master, took Care to make some of the chief Men sent Free-Masons, who then joining in that Communication, made a very honourable Report to the Queen; and she never more attempted to disloge or disturb them, but esteem'd them as a peculiar sort of Men that cultivated Peace and Friendship, Arts and Sciences, without meddling in the Affairs of Church or State" (pp. 80-81)

I think, actually, that Freemasonry was founded a bit later (Anderson's work was intentionally deceptive), and I don't know whether Sackville really was a Freemason, but I wanted to let people know where the report that he was came from.

Donna

Anonymous said...

It amazes me constantly that few reguard the secrets of the dissolution of any relevance to the literature published during 'marlows' time...was there not a great inquisition of all things revelationary concerning spiritual writings or translations of exiles ? Therefore any suspicions raised about the motives of marlow or any other publications at that time directly reflect the facts about ownership of those translations by the translators,specifically of scripture. Marlow simply used his talent to distract from this great event & to enable those who would claim those translations for the alias also known as king james. Yes ,it was the formation of the masonic order or scottish rites of james...authorizations. marlow definitely had a hand in claiming them for the king to come & its aid in banning elizabeths firsthand rites to them...'if I were crested & not cloven,you would not have spoken of me thus'...

criminalpsychologist said...

Peter,
you were asked, how the establishment might have used Marlowe's talents as a wordsmith:
"I'm determined to prove a villain and hate the idle pleasures of these days" comes to mind. We are still grieving for the poor princes in the tower. The poet known as Shakespeare is thought to have singlehandedly ruined the reputation of Richard the 3rd for eternity. Why? Richard was a Plantagenet. The Tudor's way to the throne can be described as a hostile takeover, which needed to be legitimized after the facts. It seems to be ancient history now, but it wasn't at Elisabeth I's time. A little slander of the preceding dynasty might have been well recieved.