The 2010 edition of The Oxfordian contained an essay entitled The Swallow and the Crow in which Sabrina Feldman presented a very interesting case for a hitherto unconsidered candidate for being the true author of Shakespeare's works - Thomas Sackville, Lord Buckhurst. Whilst most of us will be familiar with why a Crow might be relevant to this subject, I must confess that the Swallow referred to in the title was new to me.
It turned out to be a reference to the poem Orchestra, or, A Poeme of Dauncing by John (later Sir John) Davies. Davies was five years younger than Marlowe and came from a fairly similar background, his father being a tanner. Educated at Winchester and at Queen's College, Oxford, apparently without taking a degree, he then became a law student, mainly at Middle Temple, and was called to the bar in 1595. He is described as having a "flamboyant and tempestuous personality" - like someone else we know? Although too early at Middle Temple to have associated with Marston the playwright or Manningham the diarist, Davies may well have been - along with most Inns of Court students - an enthusiastic playgoer during his time there (1588-95), which included the period directly coinciding with Marlowe's rise to fame.
Orchestra was registered with the Stationers' Company in 1594, but the earliest extant copy of it is dated 1596, which could therefore include later additions to the original. The work runs to 131 stanzas,1 but it is just the last four which concern us here. In these, he wishes that he could write as well as Homer, Virgil (of Mantua), Chaucer (Gefferie), Spenser (Colin), Daniel (Delia), or his "sweet Companion" - presumably Richard Martin, to whom the whole poem is dedicated. He wishes he might mingle his brain with theirs to be able to write as well as them. Then he moves on to Sir Philip Sidney (Astrophell) and another unnamed, and so far unidentified, poet whom he calls "the Swallow."
Yet Astrophell might one for all suffize,
VVhose supple Muse Camelion-like doth change
Into all formes of excellent deuise:
So might the Swallow, whose swift Muse doth range
Through rare Ideas, and inuentions strange,
And euer doth enioy her ioyfull spring,
And sweeter then the Nightingale doth sing.
O that I might that singing Swallow heare
To whom I owe my seruice and my loue,
His sugred tunes would so enchant mine eare,
And in my mind such sacred fury moue,
As I should knock at heau'ns great gate aboue
With my proude rimes, while of this heau'nly state
I doe aspire the shadows to relate.
So who was this Swallow, and why was that sobriquet chosen? It was clearly someone whom it would have been inappropriate to identify as easily as the others. Sabrina Feldman argues that it was Lord Buckhurst, but offers no explanation for the choice of nickname. Yet there is one characteristic for which swallows are well-known, and which is mentioned by both Aristotle ("One swallow does not make a summer") and Shakespeare ("daffodils / That come before the swallow dares") - they arrive back from overseas in late spring or early summer.
An identity thought by most Marlovians to have been adopted by Marlowe upon his first return from exile overseas was that of one Monsieur Le Doux who apparently arrived (back?) in England in the late spring or early summer of 1595.2
Under the protection of the Earl of Essex's spymaster Anthony Bacon, Le Doux spent the rest of the year at the home of Sir John Harington (later Baron Harington of Exton) at Burley on the Hill, in Rutland. There he was employed as tutor to the Haringtons' young son, another John. He left Burley at the end of January 1596, however, and returned to London to receive instructions from the Earl of Essex concerning travel across Europe to collect intelligence on his behalf. Le Doux nevertheless seems to have spent most of the following month in London. Although Essex issued a passport for him on 10 February it doesn't appear to have been used, and another was issued on 20 March. By 5 April he was overseas, however, and the last definite news we have of this Monsieur Le Doux is a letter dated 22 June 1596 sent by him from "Mittelburg," that is Middelburg, the capital of the province of Zeeland, in the Low Countries.
We know that in 1592 Marlowe had been in Flushing, not far from Middelburg, and Charles Nicholl has suggested3 that he may have used this as an opportunity to get the first edition of his translations of some of Ovid's Amores printed, as the title page says that they were printed "at Middleborough," the town had a thriving printing industry, and the material would have been quite unlikely to get past the rather strict censorship then in operation in England. We do not know exactly when the printing was done, however, and it could certainly have been as late as 1596, when a surviving Marlowe may well have been not in Flushing this time but in Middelburg itself.
The interesting thing from the point of view of this paper, however, is that it wasn't just Marlowe's work contained in the volume printed there. The title page of the first edition reads "EPIGRAMMES and ELEGIES by I.D. and C.M." The "I.D." is of course John Davies, and this is what the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography has to say about it: "About the same time as he wrote and published Orchestra, [i.e. in 1596, when Le Doux was in Middelburg] Davies went into print with a number of epigrams, notorious for their 'roughness, even coarseness'."
To conclude: if Le Doux really was Christopher Marlowe returning from overseas in late spring or early summer 1595, and if he used the occasion of his visit to Middelburg in 1596 to get the shared volume of his and Davies's work printed there, then he must also be by far the most likely candidate for the mysterious "Swallow" so admired by Davies in his poem Orchestra, which was printed that very year. Conversely, this possibility must in itself add support to the case for Le Doux being a surviving Christopher Marlowe.
© Peter Farey, 2011
Peter Farey, a founding member of the International Marlowe-Shakespeare Society, was also a founding member (with Derek Jacobi) of the UK's National Youth Theatre. Click here to reach Peter's website. S
am Riley Marlowe Burgess Emmerich Anonymous
Notes
1Orchestra may be found here.
2See A. D. Wraight's Shakespeare: New Evidence, 1996, and my A Deception in Deptford
3Charles Nicholl, "At Middleborough: Some reflections on Marlowe's Visit to the Low Countries in 1592" in Darryll Grantley and Peter Roberts (eds.) Christopher Marlowe and English Renaissance Culture, 1996. Emmerich Sam Riley
Click here for the blog's home page and recent content.THE MARLOWE PAPERS
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
More excellent observations Peter. I'll put Wraight's Shakespeare: New Evidence online at The Marlowe Studies this week. I believe you did much to aid her in her Le Doux research there. I'd like to add this bit by you to the intro for the book, and anything else you'd like mentioned. Bravo. Cynthia
This is pure speculation, but I can think of one reason Marlowe might be called a "swallow." In British heraldry there is a charge called a "martlet," which represents a swift or swallow. In Marlowe's time, the martlet was sometimes called a "marlette," which could be a pun on Marlowe's own spelling of his name, which was Marley. It's also interesting to note that one branch of the Marlowe family has as its arms: "quarterly, gules and azure, six martlets or."
Thanks for kind words Cynthia.
If you are going to add anything to the book itself, may I suggest that "Why the name Le Doux?" (at http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/chap3.htm) in my A Deception in Deptford would be far more appropriate? And yes, I might just like to take the opportunity to correct the record as to just how far I "did much to aid her in her Le Doux research"!
Dan, I think that your possible "martlet" connection is an interesting one, and may well be right. I'm not sure that the OED would entirely support it, however. As far as I can see, the martlet was was a word for a swift or house martin rather than a swallow, and the only time that the 't' was missing was way back in Anglo-Norman or Middle French.
Peter
Peter’s line of thought is intriguing. My initial hunch was that the swallow may allude to Aesop’s Fables. There is the tale of the Swallow and the Crow, a common term for an actor. But in this story, the Crow (Shakespeare?) gets the better of the Swallow (Marlowe). Then there is the celebrated story of the Fox and the Crow. The crow is tricked into dropping the morsel clutched in its beak when the fox praises its voice and convinces it to sing—shades of Kit and Will. But these associations are rather far-fetched.
During the Cold War, the Soviet KGB used “swallow” to refer to female agents who used sex to seduce their targets. “Raven” was the comparable male term. According to the OED, “swallow” was a theatrical term for hurrying up a performance or quickly memorizing a part, but the earliest references are in the 19th century.
Meanwhile, one of Davies’ epigrams appears to refer to Marlowe. Davies’ epigram Faustum 7 suggests the two men were well acquainted:
Faustus, not lord nor knight, nor wise nor old,
To every place about the town doth ride.
He rides into the fields, plays to behold,
He rides to take boat at the water side:
He rides to Paul’s, he rides to th’Ordinary
He rides unto the house of bawdry too.
Thither his horse doth him so often carry,
That shortly he will quite forget to go. (1)
As the references to Paul’s, or St. Paul’s Cathedral, and the ordinary, or alehouse, suggest, the passage portrays Marlowe, not the Renaissance magus and namesake of Doctor Faustus. Ironically, Marlowe’s last ride as Marlowe was to Madame Bull’s ordinary in Deptford, or to Dover after his death was staged. Note “plays to behold” in the above passage points unequivocally to Marlowe.
Kit’s passion for riding was underlined by the recent discovery that he acquired a grey gelding in London in 1587, just before Tamburlaine was produced, and was involved in a legal wrangle with the owner—another indication of his tempestuous, youthful demeanor.(2)
In As You Like It, Jaques’s lament: “Why, who cries out on pride / That can therein tax any private party” (2.7.71-72) alludes to Davies epigram: “But if thou finde any so grose and dull, / That thinke I do to privat Taxing leane: / Bid him go hang, for he is but a gull, / And knows not what an Epigramme doth meane: / Which Taxeth under a particular name, / A generall vice that merits publique blame.” This epigram (Ad Musam.1) appeared in Epigrammes and Elegies by J.D. [John Davies] and C.M. [Christopher Marlowe] that was banned by the bishops about the time AYLI was composed. This allusion is a bold rejoinder to Whitgift and Bancroft, who had ordered that Davies and Marlowe’s book, as well as all satires, be publicly burned.
The prelates no doubt hoped that Hell would swallow up the blasphemous poet like it did Faustus, but the fugitive playwright, safely aboard a fast horse in France, Italy, or the English countryside, appears to have had the last laugh.
1. The Complete Poems of Sir John Davies, edited by the Rev. Alexander B. Grosart, London, 1876.
2. David Mateer, “New Sightings of Christopher Marlowe in London,” Early Theatre 11.2 (2008), 13-38.
Thanks for comments, Peter. Heraldry has its own lexicon, of course, and the dictionary doesn't always expound at great length on the terms. Here's a reference that makes it clear that in English heraldry, at least, martlets are swallows:
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/martlet.htm
The reason I mentioned this is that I recalled Thomas Nashe complaining that if he so much as mentioned a dog, some nobleman with a talbot in his arms would assume the passage applied to him, or something along those lines.
At the risk of beating this to death, I found another interesting reference in "The Symbolisms of Heraldry," W. Cecil Wade, London, 1898, p.79 " The footless swallow, or martlet . . .represented one who had to subsist by the wings of his virtue and merit, having little land to rest upon." That certainly sounds like our man!
Sounds good, Peter. I just printed the long trail of comments around your previous article here and read your post of 8/6 which says you wrote chapter 2 of Shakespeare: New Evidence. It's time we corrected the record. I'll link to "Why the name Le Doux?" as you suggest.
Fun to watch Peter's idea grow with daver852's and Alex's additions.
Alex! Thank you for giving us sound reasons Davies' Faustum 7 refers to Marlowe. You are the first as far as I know to give a more specific reason than the use of "Faustus".
Should we believe Davies was speaking of Marlowe in the epigram, the "house of bawdry" gives the heterosexual side of the scale has added weight (or, adds bisexual to the mix).
I noticed in the postings to Peter's previous article "Anonymous" mentioned that Marlovians tended to claim Marlowe was "a red-blooded hetero who rampantly sired babies all over the place", and, " . . . the only comment ever made about his sexuality [Marlowe's] by a contemporary says the exact opposite . . . "
First of all, I have never read the writing of any Marlovian who ranted in this manner about Marlowe's sexuality. Secondly, I see that Anonymous speaks of the informer Baines in the same manner as many Orthodox Shakespearens do. Rarely do they get specific about Baines by saying he was an informer, or daringly delve into the possibility he was a paid informer, or bring up his own confession of "atheism". To merely say Baines was "a contemporary" is to leave out the possibility the mention of tobacco and boys in the Note was par for the course in an informer's accusations. It limits the historical context within which we look for evidence.
While Wraight and Riggs have given some good ideas
that support the heterosexual side, Roger Hards has recently written a short essay for The Marlowe Society Journal 36 "The Character of Kit Marlowe". Here is an excerpt from the essay regarding this "contemporary" of Marlowe's:
"In his hostile 'Note" to the Privy Council Richard Baines accused Marlowe inter alia of saying that they that loved not tobacco and boies were fools. Although the Baines Note is worthless as a guide to Marlowe's character it has given encouragement to those who try to label him homosexual. It is a measure of their desperation that they can only apply that label by wilfully misinterpreting and misquoting Baines' phrase to read 'tobacco and boys.'
There is no caue to doubt that if Baines had meant 'boys' he would have written it with the 'y' that occurs invariably in all its usage spelling in contemporary plays . . . The 'y' gives a different pronunciation from 'boise' (bo-ise), which corresponds phonetically with early spellings of what is intended as 'booze', a far more probable pairing for tobacco than 'boys,' and a pairing that associated Baines' accusations against Marlowe with Ralegh also."
Cynthia: "Thank you for giving us sound reasons Davies' Faustum 7 refers to Marlowe. You are the first as far as I know to give a more specific reason than the use of "Faustus"."
In fact the link between Davies' "In Faustum" and the documents David Mateer found at Kew was made in Dr Barber's essay "Was Marlowe a Violent Man?", published in "Christopher Marlowe The Craftsman" in the summer of 2010, and is also mentioned in a section of her PhD thesis (shortly to be available through the British library).
See http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754669838
And more of "credit where credit's due" the "Tobacco and Booze" idea was first suggested in an article by Dr Steward Young in Spring 2008 - see "they that loue not Tobacco & Boies" in issue 30 of The Marlowe Society newsletter.
Dan,
Yes indeed, following the heraldic route - as explained very nicely in the piece to which you directed us - does seem more promising than I had thought. Thank you.
Cynthia,
There is another short article of mine which really ought to be associated with it too, since it casts fairly terminal doubt upon the idea (originally mine!) that Le Doux's coffre necessarily contained his papers rather than Anthony Bacon's. Whilst I am still fairly confident that Le Doux was Marlowe, I'm afraid that this particular argument for it is really no longer tenable. It's posted at http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/coffer.htm, and also goes a little way to correcting the record, since it does refer to the long essay which she and I co-authored, of which the book was simply an updated (by both of us) and extended version.
Peter
Clare, thanks for the link to "Christopher Marlowe The Craftsman". I will want to read this book. I also look forward to reading Ros' PhD thesis, along with her "The Marlowe Papers" written in blank verse. You are right, Stewart Young was the first to write about boies-booze.
Peter, Yes, your other article should also be presented. It certainly would show that you do not "swamp the good data in reckless certitude and groundless speculation".
Peter:
In respect of that “swallow”, I think we need to be aware that whatever roads there were in the 16th Century, would have been unlit and unmapped; therefore, travelers who could not afford the comfort and expense of a carriage and abundant oil for lamps, would have chosen to travel in the spring and early summer, when days are longer and the weather is more temperate; second choice would have been late summer and early autumn.
So I think we may take for granted that not just Marlowe, but any travelers either walking or riding, unless forced by an emergency, would have chosen to travel within those periods.
Therefore, although I agree that Le Doux was possibly Marlowe, and that he may have arrived at Burley before June 1595 (in time to write MND for the Derby wedding in June), the sobriquet of “swallow”, just because he may have arrived in the spring, does not add any certainty to the Le Doux conjecture, even if we could explain how did John Davies get to know about Le Doux at all.
On the other hand, I agree with Alex Jack about the Faustus Epigram, and I regret that I do not have a copy here of the Marlowe Society Newsletter nº 30, where Donna Murphy also based her essay: "Clues About Christopher Marlowe's Sexuality", on one of Davies Epigrams, but I cannot remember which.
On the whole, I tend to agree with Anthony that the "swallow" lines may refer to Richard Martin.
Isabel
Peter:
I am not so sure that Le Doux used the passport dated 20th March. In his book on the Correspondence of Antonio Perez in Exile (for which I thank Chris Gamble), Ungerer gives two different and contradictory footnotes.
Looking directly at the sources: In his letter of April 5th, Le Doux implies that he is with Mr le baron” which must mean Zeroitin. Then in his letter of April 20th, he mention that “our Frenchmen are not very happy with the man who is in your Library”. As both Essex's and A. Bacon’s Libraries would have been in Essex House, those "Frenchmen" would have been in London.
Moreover, we know the Baron was stuck in England due to illness since March, and we also know that he crossed the Channel soon after he obtained a passport from the PC on 31st May.
If Marlowe was to accompany Zeroitin on his journey back to Germany, leaving after May 31st, he might have needed to travel to Middleburg as an anonymous member the Baron’s retinue, because in May 1596 Essex was on his way to Cadiz so he could not have signed any passports, and Zeroitin's passport does not mention Le Doux.
The fact that both the Baron and Le Doux wrote letters to Essex and A. Bacon respectively on the same date; 22nd June, (12th June in England) means they were both in Mittelburg that day and, at least, using the same courier to convey their letters to England.
BTW, the "Count Maurice" that Dolly at least could not identify, would have been Maurice of Nassau, leader of the Dutch rebels and second son of the assassinated William of Orange.
Isabel
Hi Clare:
You are absolutely right about Stewart Young and the “booze”, and I apologize if I failed to mention it in my comment.
I did give "credit where it’s due" to both Stewart and Donna Murphy in my essay: “Tobacco, Booze & Women - Kit Marlowe's Dangerous Living”, (MS Newsletter nº 32) and in “The Grafton Portrait and Kit Marlowe’s Dangerous Living”, here: http://marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com/2009/04/grafton-portrait-and-kit-marlowes.html
Thanks for putting the record straight.
Isabel,
Thank you for causing me to take another look at my ancient Le Doux notes, as I now see that I did get something wrong in my article. I said:
"Le Doux nevertheless seems to have spent most of the following month [i.e. February] in London. Although Essex issued a passport for him on 10 February it doesn't appear to have been used, and another was issued on 20 March. By 5 April he was overseas, however, and the last definite news we have of this Monsieur Le Doux is a letter dated 22 June 1596..."
In fact I had this the wrong way round, and it looks as though the first passport may well have been used for a quick trip to the Low Countries shortly after it was issued. After returning, however, he apparently remained in England until leaving with the Baron at the end of May. He was with the Baron (in England) on 5 April, and was being used around 10/11 April to carry messages between Anthony Bacon and the visiting French ambassador Nicholas Harlay, seigneur de Sancy, who was (I believe) staying in Greenwich.
This being so, I don't really see any reason why the passport issued for Le Doux under Essex's signature in mid-March, being unused, shouldn't still be valid two or three months later.
Peter
Before responding to Isabel's comment concerning the Swallow, which may have to wait until tomorrow, I think it might help for us to have a copy of John Davies's dedication of Orchestra available, together with the last five stanzas. The poem itself actually finishes with stanza 126, and both the dedication and the last five stanzas were omitted from the 1622 edition, possibly because of the well-known falling out of the two friends! This does of course support the idea that Martin was referred to at the end as well as at the beginning.
First, the dedication:
To his very Friend, Ma.
Rich: Martin.
TO whom shall I this dauncing Poeme send,
This suddaine, rash, halfe-capreol of my wit?
To you, first mouer and sole cause of it
Mine-owne-selues better halfe, my deerest frend.
O would you yet my Muse some Honny lend
From your mellifluous tongue, whereon doth sit
Suada in maiestie, that I may fit
These harsh beginnings with a sweeter end.
You know, the modest Sunne full fifteene times
Blushing did rise, and blushing did descend,
While I in making of these ill made rimes,
My golden bowers vnthriftily did spend.
Yet if in friendship you these numbers prayse,
I will mispend another fifteene dayes.
And Stanzas 127-131:
127
Away Terpsichore, light Muse away,
And come Vrania, Prophetesse diuine;
Come Muse of heau'n, my burning thirst allay,
Euen now, for want of sacred drinke I tine.
In heau'nly moysture dip thys Pen of mine,
And let my mouth with Nectar ouerflow,
For I must more then mortall glory show.
128
O that I had Homers aboundant vaine,
I would heereof another Ilias make,
Or els the man of Mantuas charmed braine
In whose large throat great Ioue the thunder spake.
O that I could old Gefferies Muse awake,
Or borrow Colins fayre heroike stile,
Or smooth my rimes with Delias seruants file.
129
O could I sweet Companion, sing like you,
VVhich of a shadow, vnder a shadow sing;
Or like faire Salues sad louer true,
Or like the Bay, the Marigolds darling,
Whose suddaine verse Loue couers with his wing:
O that your braines were mingled all with mine,
T'inlarge my wit for this great worke diuine.
130
Yet Astrophell might one for all suffize,
VVhose supple Muse Camelion-like doth change
Into all formes of excellent deuise:
So might the Swallow, whose swift Muse doth range
Through rare Ideas, and inuentions strange,
And euer doth enioy her ioyfull spring,
And sweeter then the Nightingale doth sing.
131
O that I might that singing Swallow heare
To whom I owe my seruice and my loue,
His sugred tunes would so enchant mine eare,
And in my mind such sacred fury moue,
As I should knock at heau'ns great gate aboue
With my proude rimes, while of this heau'nly state
I doe aspire the shadows to relate.
Peter
I'm going to have to post this in two parts, as I'm told that it exceeds the permitted 4096 characters!
A few pieces of evidence do indeed suggest that Davies's friend Richard Martin was a poet. Davies's own words "O would you yet my Muse some Honny lend / From your mellifluous tongue" support it, as do Martin's apparent membership of the Mitre group of poets and wits - including Ben Jonson and Fulke Greville - and Anthony Wood reporting him as a poet in his own right. The swallow and the martin are certainly birds of the same family (Hirundinidae) and I see that John Payne Collier also suggested that this swallow was Richard Martin, even though no poems of Martin's have survived.
When we look at the closing stanzas of Orchestra, we see Davies listing several poets whose brains he wishes might be mingled "all" (i.e. as a group) with his to improve his poem. These are the easily identified Homer, Virgil, Chaucer, Spenser and Daniel. Less easily recognised are those he refers to as his "sweet Companion...VVhich of a shadow, vnder a shadow sing", as "faire Salues sad louer true", and one who is "like the Bay, the Marigolds darling."
Chapman, author of The Shadow of Night (1594) is, I now have to admit, probably the best candidate for his "good Companion", despite my having argued earlier that it must have been Martin. Whilst I know of no reason why Chapman would have been Davies's good companion in particular, it is by no means unlikely, and the "shadow" stuff is a pretty good indication.
"Salues sad louer true"? Thomas Watson's Amyntas was entirely concerned with a sad lover who eventually commits suicide, and one certainly might expect Watson to have been included in such a list. But Fair Salue (or Salve)? What's that all about? Salve means "welcome" or "hello", and may be a personification by Davies, just as the Suada in the dedication probably was too (persuasion?).
(to be continued)
(continued)
The next individul of the poetical group is "...like the Bay, the Marigolds darling, / Whose suddaine verse Loue couers with his wing".
For me, and despite the Marlowe Society's enthusiasm for the marigold, the most likely person for this to refer to is Charles Best, who was at Middle Temple with Davies and Martin. Davies in fact addressed an epigram to "my kind friend, Mr Charles Best" in his The Scourge of Folly, and a poem of Best's (which could of course have been written very much earlier) appeared in Francis Davison's Poetical Rhapsody in 1602. This was A Sonnet of the Sun the whole of which compares his love Mary to a marigold. "Bay" doesn't make much sense does it? I wonder if it's meant to be "bee"? Coverdale's bible had "bee" spelt "bey" at one point, according to the OED.
The remaining two poets, however, seem to be so much better than the rest that he thinks the one brain of either of them would be enough. In other words, they are pretty special! The first is Astrophell (Sir Philip Sidney) and the other the one he calls "the Swallow" and wishes "that I might that singing Swallow heare", implying that it isn't possible right now?
Of course this could be Martin, and such hyperbole is of course a possibility, but for such an unknown poet to be so much better than that other lot would seem a bit OTT don't you think? So who is missing from his list who just might have a better claim? I would suggest Marlowe himself, of course, and Shakespeare, whose Venus & Adonis and Rape of Lucrece had been around for 2 or 3 years by then. They had also both appeared in a similar list of great English poets in Thomas Edwards's L'Envoy published a year earlier, in 1595.
My conclusion would therefore be that Davies met Marlowe some time in April or May 1596 and, if he didn't know before, learned the full story of what had happened to Marlowe. This would include that he had returned from overseas the previous spring, and that it was he who had written Venus & Adonis, Lucrece, etc. They agreed that Marlowe would get the Ovid translations and Davies's epigrams printed once he was overseas again. Those last two stanzas of Orchestra, did in fact have Marlowe as the Swallow, but this would be deniable because of the possibility of it referring to Richard Martin instead.
Peter
Peter:
In re to Davis poem:
I agree with you that the “marigold” does not necessarily mean Marlowe; I have a feeling (and even Mike F agrees) that it has some times been used to refer to Mary Sidney. I don’t know how that fits.
On the whole I find Davis' Poem too abstruse, and in any case I cannot with any confidence agree that the Swallow is Mr le Doux. Maybe you are reconsidering that.
Talking of Le Doux, I am having a new look at the entire Le Doux file, because the Index in the LPL (a few pages of which I have photocopies), does not make any sense. They have the "Instructions" and the Catalogue of books, indexed under 1597, for example.
Isabel
Isabel,
The problem with Mike Frohsdorff's interesting article about the marigold was that he gave very little evidence for the connections he claimed to have found, quite understandably preferring to keep most of that for the book he was writing. That's why I prefer the Charles Best connection that we can be quite sure of rather than ones for which we have only Mike's say-so.
I didn't actually suggest that Davies knew anything at all about the Le Doux identity - although he may have done - only that there may well have been some contact between him and Marlowe during Marlowe's apparent stay in London before heading for Middelburg (as the printing there of the one book containing works by both of them would suggest).
Yes indeed, there are quite a few errors in the Index to the Papers of Anthony Bacon in Lambeth Palace Library. I see that I corrected that '1597' in my own copy. Did you know that Dolly and I spent 3 months searching through the Bacon Papers before we discovered that such an index even existed!
In fact it turned out to be of only limited value as regards the search for Le Doux, however, since I had already discovered most of the ones listed under his name by the time we found out about it, and only about a third of the documents related to him are indexed under Le Doux anyway.
Peter
Hi Peter:
I started yesterday to write a comment for you on the matter of Le Doux and the Bacon Papers, but I had to stop when I realized I would need to write forever, as the oddities jumped at me one after the other. I am trying to identify the problems and am re-reading all the documents I have, but it will take sometime.
As for the mistakes on the Index, I informed the Library about the more obvious ones but I doubt if they have done anything about it. I had a photocopy made of the entire Index, of which only a few letters are here; the rest is in my flat in London. But I have enough material here to drive me crazy, so I’ll get on with my lucubrations.
Two things you may be able to tell me that I cannot check here: a) what is the date in Zerotin’s passport signed by the Emperor Rudolph? And b) If the letter 656, ff 372 has no date, why did you and Dolly give it the date of 20th April 1956? Could it possibly be 1595? Many thanks in advance for the information.
I am not sure Mike has continued his research about the marigold as Marlowe, but he did agree that it could also refer to Mary Sidney, whatever we may infer from that.
Isabel
Peter:
Apologies. I believe I've got the meaning of that letter from Le Doux and it was indeed from late April 1596. This means either that Le Doux was still in London on that date, or had just left. More anon.
Isabel
I really liked the article, and the very cool blog
Isabel said...
"I had a photocopy made of the entire Index"
As far as I recall, the book which the Lambeth Palace Library sold me really didn't cost much.
"what is the date in Zerotin’s passport signed by the Emperor Rudolph?"
I've no idea, I'm sorry, and I've lent Ros the relevant microfilm. My notes for MS.656 f.189 simply say "Petit's copy of Baron Zeirotin's charge from the emperor (received 2 Mar 1596)".
"If the letter 656, ff 372 has no date, why did you and Dolly give it the date of 20th April 1956? Could it possibly be 1595?"
Usually the date is endorsed on the verso of the document, often by Jaques Petit, and this is where I presume it came from. Sometimes the numbers aren't as clear as they might be, which might explain why, funnily enough, my notes about this do have "(possibly 1595?)". On the other hand, whilst it may of course have been misfiled, the fact that MS.655 and MS.656 contain nothing but papers from 1596 does give a pretty clear indication of the year it was most probably written, as I see you have now concluded.
Peter
Peter:
By the time I visited the LP Library they only had one copy of the Index which of course was not for sale.
So I asked for photocopies. I also have a CD with most of the LD stuff, but I’ve left it in London.
Sorry about Zerotin’s passport; anyway I was trying to work out when could Z have arrived in England. His first passport to go to Scotland is dated March 96 and he wouldn't have travelled such a long way just for a few weeks, so he may have arrived in 95.
When he finally left for Germany around 1st June, I am almost sure LD went with him, as I suggested.
As for the letter, it is most probably April 96, as you say. I think I have identified both Cyprian and “the man in the library”.
One last bit of info: One of the Spanish books in the Coffre, “Historia Imperial”, was written by Pedro Mexia, the author of “Silva de Varia Leccion”, one of the acknowledged sources for Tamburlaine.
Will write a piece about it all one of these days.
Isabel
Isabel said...
"When he finally left for Germany around 1st June, I am almost sure LD went with him, as I suggested."
Yes, this is certainly the conclusion I came to. As I said in my A Deception in Deptford "he would later accompany Baron Zeirotine, Ambassador from the Holy Roman Emperor, Rudolf II, and Zeirotine's right-hand man, Henry d'Eberbach, on their return home to Prague" and "the last time we ever hear of Le Doux is ... 22nd June (probably the 12th in England) when he wrote from Middelburg, again with the Baron (whose passport for this trip 'homeward by Flushinge' had been issued on 31st May) and d'Eberbach."
See my http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/add5.htm for what else I found out about Le Doux before he left England (whether there is anything in his having also used the identity of Ferries or not.)
"As for the letter, it is most probably April 96, as you say. I think I have identified both Cyprian and “the man in the library”."
I've never given much thought to who Cyprian was, although we are told that he was Spanish, "reputed a man of virtue and learning" and had a son who had presumably been an agent of Mr. Secretary Walsingham. I had tended to assume that the man in the library was Antonio Perez himself, the phrase referring to the first part of Perez's autobiography, printed in Spanish by Richard Field, which Le Doux had sold to Anthony Bacon.
"One last bit of info: One of the Spanish books in the Coffre, “Historia Imperial”, was written by Pedro Mexia, the author of “Silva de Varia Leccion”, one of the acknowledged sources for Tamburlaine."
Thanks, Isabel, but I had picked that up already. In fact I think I managed to identify all of the items on the booklist eventually. See http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/appx2a.htm
Peter
re Isabel's post of 18th August: the wedding of Will Stanley 6th Earl of Derby and Lady Elizabeth Vere took place on Jan 26th 1595 new dating, not June 1595.(Nelson Alan H. Monstrous Adversary, 349, is as good a recent reference as any to that fact.)In other words, well before le Doux is believed to have entered England, if the ciphered reference to 'our spy' in Wilton's letter to Essex, August 1595 is indeed Le Doux ( see Ungerer, Vol II letters 331, 334)
Hello Frank,
In my opinion, and pace Isabel, this wasn't the wedding MND was written for, but rather for the marriage of Sir George Carey's daughter, on 19th February 1595/6. Assuming that Le Doux was in fact Marlowe, I gave my reasons for thinking this in Chapter 7 of my A Deception in Deptford at http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/chap7.htm .
Any chance of you telling us a little more about "the ciphered reference to 'our spy' in Wilton's letter to Essex, August 1595" by the way? Unless online, the chance of my examining "Ungerer, Vol II letters 331, 334" any time soon, even if I knew where to find them, is zero.
Peter
Hello Frank and Peter:
You are both right about the Derby wedding; sorry about that. But the play was most prbably written for a summer wedding, probably a May-day celebration, as Bulloughs suggests, so not a February marriage either (pace Peter).
Re-studying this issue thanks to Frank, I find Bulloughs’ interesting conjecture that the play may have been written for the wedding of Sir Thomas Heneage and Southampton’s mother, on 2nd May 1594. My hypothesis would be that a private celebration, (performance of play included, perhaps a shorter version), may have taken place a couple of weeks later, on Midsummer’s Night. Bulloughs points out the fact that Theseus and Hippolyta seem middle-aged by comparison to the four youngsters, and that this may be a reflection on the ages of the groom, the elderly Sir Thomas (about 60 then and died the following year) and his widowed bride.
As I believe Sir Thomas was part of the Deptford conspiracy, plus Southampton’s involvement in Venus and Adonis and The Rape, I find nothing more natural than that Marlowe may have written this delightful comedy for such wedding.
So, unless Le Doux had arrived a lot earlier than we think, MND has nothing to do with Burley. Marlowe may have travelled to England in the spring of 1594 under another name.
As for Ungarer’s book, I only have Part I here and have just ordered part II. As far as I can see it has restricted view online.
Isabel
Louis Ule has a few interesting things to say about the writing of MND. Although he does go far out on the limb with some of his ideas (Shakespeare the puppeteer) he is sharp in many ways. For those who are interested in his chapter 19: A Midsummer Night's Dream, its on the MS site:
http://themarlowestudies.org/z-ule/ch19-346-357.pdf
Also, le Doux is happily tucked into his library shelf now. You'll find Wraight's Shakespeare: New Evidence on the home page in the list of her work.
http://www.themarlowestudies.org
Cynthia:
Thanks for the info. I'll have a look at that. You are doing a great service to the Marlovian case, putting all those books in your site. Cheers to you.
Isabel
Peter:
I think “the man in the library” was indeed Perez; my problem was that Perez had left England, allegedly for good, late in July 1595, that was why I was questioning the date on the letter. It was in my last revision of the files this week that I realized Perez had come back for a very short time precisely in April 1596. He wanted to settle down in England, under Essex’s wing, but the Queen did not agree, so Perez left for France towards mid-May.
Cipriano de Cardenas was a Spaniard living in London. He must have obtained what he was asking for (via Le Doux), in that letter, because Ungerer says that he translated Perez’s book to the Latin.
By the way, I find it highly unlikely that LD would have needed to “buy” Perez’s book for Anthony Bacon. Perez presented with free copies of “The Relaciones” to Essex and several of his friends, and that must have included a copy for Bacon as both men must have been staying together in Essex House when the book was published in 94.
In fact, the only person in that circle who might have needed to actually “buy” a copy of Perez’s book could have been Le Doux, for himself.
Which supports my suspicion that you may be mistaken about the books on that List having been bought by Le Doux for AB.
Isabel
Isabel said... "I think “the man in the library” was indeed Perez; my problem was that Perez had left England, allegedly for good, late in July 1595..."
But whether he was there in person or not, he was - I suggested - being referred to symbolically via the first part of his autobiography which Anthony Bacon now had in his library, courtesy of Le Doux.
Isabel said... "the only person in that circle who might have needed to actually “buy” a copy of Perez’s book could have been Le Doux, for himself. Which supports my suspicion that you may be mistaken about the books on that List having been bought by Le Doux for AB."
I do wish that you would stop doing this, Isabel. As far as I am aware I have never suggested any such thing, since I have never believed that this was the case. Why should my arguing that Le Doux sold the books to Bacon imply that he must have bought them for him? Please tell me if I have suggested this, because I would like to correct it!
Coincidentally, I wrote the following to a correspondent of mine only this morning: "I have no problem with the Cathologue Des Livres De Monsieur Le Doux, which I still take to be a list of books which had belonged to him. Any inferences one may make from them about his nationality, the languages he spoke, and the sort of things he was interested in are therefore, in my opinion, all still valid."
And if Anthony Bacon bought all of the books as a job lot (whilst requiring some justification of the overall price) he is hardly going to chuck one or two out just because he already has a copy. Unless you want to argue that he didn't actually buy them?
Peter
Peter.
“... As far as I am aware I have never suggested any such thing (...). Why should my arguing that Le Doux sold the books to Bacon imply that he must have bought them for him? Etc.!”
So sorry, Peter; what you actually say in your website is this:
“This is important, since it shows that the rest of the figures are money that Le Doux is owed. This could, of course, be either as some form of expense claim, or indicate that he has sold these books to Anthony Bacon”. Etc.
So, one of the possibilities that you suggest for the list of LD’s books itemized by language and price, is that LD may have sold such books to Anthony Bacon although he did not buy them for him. Would this mean that you think LD may have been investing his money on books that he intended to sell before he knew who might buy them, or, knowing/hoping that A. Bacon would buy the lot?
You say: “And if Anthony Bacon bought all of the books as a job lot (whilst requiring some justification of the overall price) (INDEED) he is hardly going to chuck one or two out just because he already has a copy (WHY NOT, SINCE THE PRICE IS ITEMIZED BY TITLE?). Unless you want to argue that he didn't actually buy them?”
I thought it would be clear that is exactly what I wanted to argue. But, since you wish I “stopped doing this” that's what I'll do.
Eventually I may be able to write my own article on Le Doux and explain what I think about those books.
Isabel
Peter, in response to your request for more detail about'Our Spy' Ungerer Vol II p.23, letter 331 (Edward Wilton to Earl of Essex 18 Aug 1595): Ungerer indicates that the following was ciphered:'Our Spy insinuateth himself by all means he can into Sennior Peres company notwithstanding that he hath almost in plain terms forbidden him.' We look within this iiij or five days to heare from the king.
Wilton to Essex 14 Sept 1595: (ciphered)'Our Spy hath followed us to Parris' but Sr Perez hath almost in playn termes 'forbydden hym his company.'
See also Ungerer II p.270-273 for List of Books Owned by M.Le Douz (sic) and letter (in French) of M. Le Douz to Anthony Bacon 20 Apl 1596 which refers to Perez. You will also find Paul Hammer's 'Polarization of Elizabethan Politics' p.180-184 relevant.
To Isabel re your 18th Aug post suggesting that a certain Count Maurice must refer to Maurice of Nassau: Consider the possibility that the Count Maurice in question may be the Landgrave Moritz of Hesse Kassel. A troupe of English players led by Robert Browne( formerly of Admiral's Men) was there between April 1595 and ? 1598, and a delegation, led by Clinton Earl of Lincoln, represented the Queen there in mid 1596 when she was godmother to the Landgrave's daughter Elisabeth.
Isabel.
I think that the most likely reason for a sum of money being given by Le Doux against each of the books is that it is what he believes he is owed for it.
I think this mainly because of the item Monsr Petit un angelot, down as 10 shillings, which happens to be the sum which we know (from Petit's letter of 24 January which Le Doux himself carried to London) he was owed by Petit. An 'angel' coin (in French un angelot) was worth ten shillings at that time.
I think it more likely, however, that the books would have actually been bought from him by Anthony Bacon rather than by Petit, and that Anthony was being asked to pay off Petit's debt at the same time. Petit had stayed on at Burley after Le Doux's departure.
There are several items in the list for which Anthony would had no personal use, and it seems far more to be the sort of fairly random assortment of books that a person travelling on the continent could have simply assembled over time. I therefore conclude that Anthony must have simply taken all of the books in Le Doux's possession, but asked him to list them and estimate what each was worth to arrive at a fair total of what Le Doux was owed (i.e. £14-9s-8d).
This is what I think now, and it is what I have thought ever since I worked out why I was unable to find any trace of books called either Le coffre de bonne esperance or Monsr Petit un angelot.
If there is something you disagree with in this, then do please let's hear why. All I was asking you to stop doing was to disagree with things I hadn't actually said, i.e. that the books on the list had been bought by Le Doux "for" Anthony Bacon.
Peter
Frank:
Thanks for your suggestion; however, I am pretty sure that this “Count Maurice” is Maurice of Nassau, who at that moment was (I quote from Le Doux’s letter, translated) “ready to forestall the designs that Archduke Albert has on Hulst, Axel and Ostend.”
The Cardinal Archduke Albert arrived in Brussels in Feb 96 to take over as Governor of the Spanish Netherlands. His intention was to recover for Spain all rebel cities that resisted under the leadership of Maurice of Nassau, second son of the assassinated William of Orange. As it happens Hulst was taken on 18th August, so just under two months after Le Doux letter.
I hope this helps,
Isabel
Thanks, Frank. That's interesting.
On the other hand, if Wilton is saying that 'Our Spy hath followed us to Parris' on 14 Sept. 1595, then I find it hard to imagine that it can have been Le Doux. In his letter to Anthony Bacon that October (Ms.652 f.105), Jean Castol does seem to imply that Le Doux has been at Burley for a while by then, and there is certainly no suggestion in the Bacon papers that he did anything else before being tucked safely out of the way in Rutland.
Thanks for the other references. The booklist is of course something which we are already very familiar with and, as I suggested, is given a pretty thorough explanation in my http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/appx2a.htm . The letter referring to Perez is the "Cyprian" one we have been discussing. As for Paul Hammer's 'Polarization of Elizabethan Politics' p.180-184 being relevant, I fear that I am just going to have to take your word for it!
Peter
Thanks Isabel...given that extra information it certainly sounds as if the Count Maurice being referred to is William the Silent's son. I have not see the letter you quote from, but would be very glad to know where I can find it.
Frank:
The letter is on pg 140-1 (original and translation) of Wright’s book: “Shakespeare: New Evidence”.
Cynthia Morgan’s website now has the book online.
http://www.themarlowestudies.org/index.html
Click "Home", then find the title on the Index, then go to page 148 of the book.
Alternatively, you can find the original at the Lambeth Palace Library Archive in London.
Ref: MS 657 f. 227
I hope this helps.
Isabel
Isabel said... The letter is on pg 140-1 (original and translation) of Wraight’s book: “Shakespeare: New Evidence”.
And an excellent translation it is too, in my humble opinion! :o)
Peter
For some reason the online address for The Marlowe Studies doesn't work when the "/index.html is added. So it is always simply:
http://www.themarlowesudies.org.
When books are placed into a bookreader every page is numbered chronologically, including the cover. This means that Isabel's reference to page 140 is going to be page 148 in the bookreader window. In other words, all the text pages are 8 numbers ahead of the actual page number. You can type "148" into the number window at the top, hit return, and that will take you to page 140.
There is a link at the top of the booklist that explains how to navigate these bookreaders.
Peter said:
“And an excellent translation it is too, in my humble opinion! “
What do you mean, Peter? Do I detect a touch of irony?
In her book Dolly thanks Mme Lucie Bouchon for the translation of the French letters. Was that incorrect?
I will be doing my own translations anyway.
Isabel
Yes, Isabel, I confess to a bit of irony there.
In 1995, Dolly Wraight and I (unsuccessfully) entered a rather long essay entitled "William Shakespeare: New Evidence" for the Hoffman prize. The essay was divided into three parts of which Dolly wrote Parts 1 and 3, and I wrote Part 2. My bit was about Le Doux, which included my translations of that letter and the first of his passports. These were repeated word for word (as was some 75% of my original Part Two) in the book which we developed from that essay. Whilst I did where appropriate often provide Dolly with very rough translations of the Le Doux-related stuff I found (which was all but two of the 25 such documents mentioned in the book), I do think it was very sensible of her to get someone whose first language was French to re-do most of them!
Peter
Oops, the first passport was a transcript, of course, and not a translation!
Peter
I'm very much enjoying the wonderful debate and knowledge displayed on this blog. I'm learning a lot. Thanks to all of you. And going back to Peter's original post, I think this is a really thought-provoking piece. It presents a strong positive peg in the intriguing Marlowe puzzle of "did he" or "didn't he" survive Deptford. I think he did. I'm looking forward to more post-1593 evidence turning up in the records. I'm sure it will.
Peter, I'm inclined to agree with you. All this is very interesting, but a lot of the dates could just be coincidence.
Post a Comment