Library Journal on The Marlowe Papers

Regarding the January 2013 U.S. publication of Ros Barber's The Marlowe Papers by St. Martin's, Library Journal writes:  "Barber does know her stuff. She has three poetry collections and a Ph.D. in Marlowe studies to her name and won the Marlowe Society’s Hoffman Prize for this work. In-house enthusiasm, too, so watch." 

Click here for the full article. 

U.S. readers don't have to wait until January.  You can order The Marlowe Papers now on Amazon.co.uk.

A Kindle edition is also available at Amazon.com.

The Marlowe Papers: High Praise for Ros Barber's Novel

Herald Scotland Review of The Marlowe Papers

"A truly superb achievement."

Time Out London Review of The Marlowe Papers

June 13: " . . . exquisitely poetic descriptions and turns of phrase worthy of the Bard himself, whoever he was."

You can order The Marlowe Papers on Amazon.co.uk.

For U.S. readers, a Kindle edition is available at Amazon.com (U.S. hard copy release is January 2013; U.S. customers can, of course, order the hard copy from Amazon.co.uk - the price after currency conversion, s + h included, is around $29).RosBarber

On May 30, 1593: a quick question for Ros Barber

Ros Barber

Q:  Ros, congratulations on the success of The Marlowe Papers. Let me add to the many highly favorable reviews of the novel by saying it's a truly exceptional read that I didn't want to put down. You really transport the reader back to the Elizabethan era and you make Marlowe's world come alive via this inimitable, vibrant poetic narrative laden with dramatic tension. Aside from my interest in all things Marlowe, this is simply an outstanding work of literature and I enthusiastically recommend it to anyone who loves great writing. Martin Newell really nailed it when he wrote: "The Marlowe Papers is the best read, so far, this year." Now that's unambiguously high praise!

So, Ros, May 30.  Any thoughts on today being the anniversary of Christopher Marlowe's alleged death in Deptford?

RB: Thanks, Carlo, I am very pleased with how the book has been received. This is the day, of course, that Marlowe's name began to sink into infamy. The story that emerged from that day and seeped into the public consciousness - at first in inaccurate hearsay accounts and from its discovery in 1925, from the inquest document - was that Marlowe died in fight and that he was the aggressor. From these comes the common perception - I would say misconception - of Marlowe as a violent brawler.

The most influential version of the tale was that of puritan clergyman Thomas Beard, whose "The Theatre of God's Judgements" was published in four editions over a fifty-year period. Beard's account doesn't tally with that in the inquest document in any significant detail except that Marlowe was apparently stabbed through the eye.  Beard takes this as God's just punishment for a notorious atheist: "see what a hook the Lord put in the nostrils of this barking dog." Marlowe, name blackened, thus sank into the mire of history, and though his most popular plays continued to be sporadically performed until the middle of the 17th century, the reality of his existence had become so murky by the early 19th that in 1820, one critic even wrote that "Marlowe" was "a borrowed designation of the great Shakespeare." ¹

Yet, since the inquest document came to light, over half the scholars who have expressed an opinion about it believe it to be some kind of cover-up. The only named witnesses to the event were all professional liars:  con men and intelligence services agents. The chief of them, Robert Poley, a key figure in the Babington Plot of six years earlier, is on record as saying he is happy to lie even to the Secretary of State if it serves his purposes; his contemporary, William Camden, describes him as "very expert at dissembling." If the inquest document was, as many scholars believe, false, then Marlowe was either the victim of violence (rather than the perpetrator of it), or was using the staged "brawl" to escape capital charges of atheism and heresy being levelled against him (a warrant for his arrest having been issued ten days earlier). In either case, the only unambiguous evidence of his violence is then dissolved, since the other incidents in which he was involved would make him no more violent than his contemporaries and considerably less so than Ben Jonson (who killed a man and was said to have put a boy's eye out).

As the foundation for our assessment of what kind of person Marlowe was, 30 May 1593 is a riddle in need of a solution. In 85 years of scholarly argument over the likely truths behind the inquest document, no consensus has been reached, chiefly because his biographers thus far have only been prepared to consider two options, manslaughter or assassination, and a close analysis of the historical evidence will bring up very reasonable objections to both. What interests me about the third possibility - faked death and escape - is that it explains all the evidence we have, including the objections to the other two theories. Why some people find it unlikely, given the parlous position Marlowe was in, is quite a puzzle in itself. Imagine for a moment that your work on behalf of Queen and country had gotten you into serious trouble and you had been targeted by a double agent (Richard Baines). Say a warrant for your arrest had been issued, you were facing serious accusations of crimes punishable by imprisonment, torture and execution, and had friends in government and the intelligence services who could help you start a new life abroad with a new identity. Would you actually think twice?

© The Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection, 2012

¹MacLure, Millar. Christopher Marlowe: The Critical Heritage.  London and New York: Routledge, 1979. p.8

You can order The Marlowe Papers on Amazon.co.uk.

 "Marlowe's passion infects the page; Barber's skill draws the fever."

Ros Barber at British Library

These two photos were taken at the British Library on 29 May 2012.  Ros Barber spoke about her new novel The Marlowe Papers, along with Shakespearean scholar Bill Leahy (c) and writer Will Self (r).  Photo credit Tim Pieraccini.  Click here to see a video from the evening - a fascinating discussion!

The Telegraph Review of The Marlowe Papers

" 'Some knowledge lifts and some intoxicates'. The Marlowe Papers does both and with considerable aplomb."

For the full review by Adam O'Riordan, click here.




You can order The Marlowe Papers on Amazon.co.uk.

For U.S. readers, a Kindle edition is available at Amazon.com (U.S. hard copy release is January 2013; U.S. customers can, of course, order the hard copy from Amazon.co.uk - the price after currency conversion, s + h included, is around $29).RosBarber

"The Marlowe Papers is the best read, so far, this year."

Martin Newell: "For me, The Marlowe Papers is the best read, so far, this year."  


For "Debut Author:  Ros Barber" by Gemma Kappala-Ramsamy, click here.

Review: The Marlowe Papers The Guardian The Observer Express

Financial Times Review of The Marlowe Papers

"It’s enough to strike despair into the heart of James Shapiro, author of Contested Will, as well as the hearts of all the other Shakespeare experts who refute the so-called 'authorship controversy'."

For the full review by Suzi Feay, click here.



You can now order Ros Barber's The Marlowe Papers on Amazon.co.uk. 

For U.S. readers, a Kindle edition is available at Amazon.com (U.S. hard copy release is January 2013; U.S. customers can, of course, order the hard copy from Amazon.co.uk - the price after currency conversion, s + h included, is around $29).RosBarber

Order The Marlowe Papers Today!

You can order Ros Barber's The Marlowe Papers on Amazon.co.uk.  The book is set for official release in the U.K. on May 24.  For U.S. readers, a Kindle edition is available for pre-order (available May 24) at Amazon.com (U.S. hard copy release is January 2013; U.S. customers can, of course, order the hard copy from Amazon.co.uk - the price after currency conversion, s + h included, is around $29). 

I am thrilled at the very positive early reviews for this unique verse novel ("Terrifically accomplished and enjoyable.  It restores one's faith in English fiction," says Fay Weldon).  I have known Ros for a few years, going back to my first Q and A with her on this blog in 2008.  She is a regular contributor to this website and a fellow co-founder of the International Marlowe-Shakespeare Society.  I am proud to call her my friend.  Stay tuned for more news on The Marlowe Papers. 

Review: The Shakespeare Guide to Italy

William Shakespeare is universally acknowledged as one of greatest poets and playwrights of all time. Yet we know virtually nothing about the inner man or the experiences that formed him. The people we believe to be his friends never reported a single conversation with him, he kept no diary, and if he wrote and received letters they have not survived. But thanks to twenty years of detective work by a retired lawyer from Pasadena, California, we now know one thing for certain. The author of Macbeth, Hamlet, and King Lear once stood on the corner of the Piazza Goldoni and the Borgo Orgnissanti, in Florence, Italy.

The Shakespeare Guide to Italy: Retracing the Bard’s Unknown Travels by Richard Paul Roe was published in the US and UK by Harper Perennial (an imprint of HarperCollins) at the end of last year. The idea that Shakespeare knew Italy well has been raised before, notably by Ernest Grillo, but has been generally dismissed by orthodox Shakespearean scholars, who suggest that the man from Stratford was a geographical ignoramus who gleaned what little European information he could from travelers in London taverns. Through analyzing the texts of Shakespeare’s ten Italian plays and seeking evidence of specific locations on the ground, Roe’s book demonstrates, repeatedly and decisively, that whoever wrote these works knew Italy intimately.

Roe shows how amendments of the texts by Shakespeare’s editors over the centuries have removed vital clues which exist in the original Quarto and Folio versions of the plays. It is interesting to note that something as small as changing capitalization can make a difference to our being able to identify where, in All’s Well That Ends Well, Helen meets Widow and the other women as they wait for Bertram and the soldiers returning from the Tuscan wars. Roe triangulates the place exactly by analyzing what the trumpet calls in the text signified, identifying the gate through which the soldiers would have entered and where they were heading, and locating the landmarks that Widow points out as she talks to Helen. This is not information one would – or could – glean through a conversation with a Florence merchant.

There are numerous other revelations which demonstrate the author’s personal knowledge of Milan, Verona, Mantua, Venice (and the Veneto), Padua, Lombardy, Florence, Pisa, and Sicily. As Roe says, “the author has this trick of pointedly naming or describing some obscure or unique place that might look like an invention or mistake but which turns out to be real: a one-of-a-kind place which reveals an unusual, intimate knowledge of Italy.” One might almost think he were deliberately laying a trail. One of the most powerful moments – and a slightly shocking reflection on the character of one of the Two Gentlemen of Verona – is when Roe unveils the horror of the place Proteus is sending Thurio – his rival in love – when he directs him to "St Gregory’s Well": not a well or a fountain (as orthodox scholars have assumed), but a mass grave.

Roe has more surprises: the "imaginary" settings of both A Midsummer Night’s Dream and The Tempest are shown to be both real and Italian, the latter identified by “a particular combination of characteristics found nowhere else on earth.” If the happy coincidences of geology, geography, flora and fauna are not convincing enough, Roe finds that the names of both Ariel and Caliban (the meaning of which has long been debated) were sourced from the local dialect – in Catalan, caliban means outcast, or pariah. And "in popular Catalan tradition, an ariel is a spirit of the air and of the water, generally mischievous."  The author, then, not only travelled in northern Italy; he set four plays in, or near to, the southern isle of Sicily.

This book makes fascinating reading for any lover of Shakespeare’s works, no matter whom they believe to be the author. Roe, although apparently an Oxfordian, does not use his research as a basis for arguing that "Shakespeare wasn’t Shakespeare."  Those who believe the author was William of Stratford can choose to chalk these extraordinary travels down to the infamous "Lost Years."  But I suggest that to enjoy the book as it was meant to be enjoyed, those of the orthodox persuasion should skip straight to Roe’s text and avoid the introduction written by Daniel Wright of Concordia University. The Shakespeare Guide to Italy has only two major flaws, and this is one of them. (The other is the absence of an index). Wright’s preface is inappropriately aggressive and triumphant, given the current state of the Shakespeare authorship question. Roe’s book may indeed be a game-changer, but unfortunately Wright’s contribution may prevent this book from getting into the hands of those one would most want to read it.

© Ros Barber, 2012    

Dr. Ros Barber holds a PhD in English Literature and is the author of forthcoming book The Marlowe Papers, which will be published in the UK by Sceptre on 24 May 2012 and in the US by St Martin’s Press in January 2013. She is the also the author of three volumes of poetry, the latest being a Poetry Book Society Recommendation. She is joint winner of the 2011 Hoffman Prize for a distinguished work on Christopher Marlowe. Her scholarly work on Marlowe and Shakespeare is published in academic books and journals including Rethinking History, Critical Survey and Christopher Marlowe the Craftsman (Ashgate, 2010), and has been delivered at conferences and public lectures at venues including the Institute of Ideas and The Globe. She is an Associate of the Shakespearean Authorship Trust and a founding member of the International Marlowe-Shakespeare Society. TED HUGHES MARLOVIAN

Did Marlowe Die in Padua in 1627? The Watterson-Zeigler Correspondence by Donna N. Murphy

In his recent Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection article “Did Marlowe Die in Padua in 1627?”, Peter Farey wrote that the correspondence between Henry Watterson and Wilbur G. Zeigler held at the Library of Congress would make interesting reading. Watterson, a long-time newspaper editor, was the author of the 1916 piece which presented the information that one Pietro Basconi nursed Christopher Marlowe during Marlowe’s final illness in Padua in 1627, while Zeigler, the first known Marlovian, was the author of the novel It Was Marlowe, 1895, wherein Zeigler portrayed Marlowe as the author of the Shakespeare works. Farey maintained that Watterson purposely made up the story about Basconi and Marlowe.

I live a subway ride away from the Library of Congress, visited its Manuscripts room, and examined the contents of the file entitled “Zeigler” within its collection of Henry Watterson’s documents. Following is a transcript of all three documents the file contains. Note in particular the line in Document 3: that Watterson “wrote the Shakespeare-Marlowe story more as a joke than anything else.”

1) In response to the April 23, 1616 article by Henry Watterson, Wilbur Zeigler sent the following telegram:

Western Union Telegram

11 May 1916

HENRY WATTERSON, LOUISVILLE, KY [Kentucky]

YOUR ARTICLE IN HERALD APRIL TWENTY THIRD ATTRIBUTES SHAKESPEARE PLAYS TO MARLOWE AND MY THEORY IS CLAIMED AS YOURS MY BOOK “IT WAS MARLOWE” IS UNMENTIONED IT IS AN INFRINGEMENT OF MY COPYRIGHT PIRACY AND PLAGIARISM BOOK REVIEWED IN COURIER JOURNAL EIGHTEEN YEARS AGO DO YOU ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR ARTICLE.

WILBUR G. ZEIGLER

2) Watterson wrote an article published April 5, 1919 in the Saturday Evening Post magazine, one of a series by him called “Looking Backward,” telling stories from his eventful life and 50-year career as editor of the Louisville Courier-Journal newspaper. The article (click here to read a segment of the article relating to Marlowe and Shakespeare) again mentions the Marlowe/Shakespeare theory. In response, Zeigler wrote Watterson the following letter:

May 6, 1919

Dear Sir,

My attention has just been called to the Saturday Evening Post of April 5th, containing chapters of your interesting story “Looking Backward,” in which reference is made to the Marlowe theory. This has been a pet theory of mine since I studied law forty years ago. It was an original one with me and provoked by the similarity of vocabularies, versification and thought of the Marlowe and Shakespeare dramas. Many years later I wrote the book “It Was Marlowe,”—a romance woven around the theory. It was founded upon a plot which you, twenty years later, adopted as your own as appears in the Post, and appeared more fully in the Herald and Courier Journal of Ap. 23, 1916,--i.e. that Marlowe killed his adversary at Deptford, changed clothes with him, retired into solitude, continued writing (but under the name of Shakespeare) and was aided by his friends to escape to the continent.

There are instances of a writer unconsciously absorbing the ideas of another and later claiming them as his own. This appears to be one as shown by your review of my book printed in the Courier Journal in 1898, or early 1899. I enclose a copy of that review, and ask if you cannot by foot-note in “Lookiing Backward” when it appears in book form, do me the justice of acknowledging the source of your inspiration.

As “It Was Marlowe” received favorable mention from Wm. J. Rolf, Ignatius Donnelly, Appelton Morgan and others including yourself, I am confident that a new edition would meet with a large sale, and will ask if you will kindly write me a preface for it and use your influence to secure me a publisher. I should like a little taste of that fame for which you ambitiously sought, and have certainly attained.

I have very few copies of the book, but will send you one if you desire to read it again and will submit it to the proposed publisher.

Yours truly,
Wilbur G. Zeigler

A photoplay founded upon “It Was Marlowe” is now in course of preparation.

3) Mr. Watterson’s secretary replied to Zeigler in the following letter:

May 12, 1919

Dear Sir:

As it has been made clear by Mr. Watterson in the Saturday Evening Post, he wrote the Shakespeare-Marlowe story more as a joke than anything else. He can not recall that he ever saw your book, It Was Marlowe, or read the review you state was published in the Courier-Journal. The review was no doubt written by the regular literary editor at the time, not by Mr. Watterson.

Mr. Watterson has retired entirely from the Courier-Journal, and is devoting what time and energy he has, in this eightieth year, to the preparation of his Looking Backward Memoirs. He really finds this duty somewhat irksome.

While the Looking Backwards stories will be printed in book form, it is quite possible that some of them may be eliminated, and the Marlowe-Shakespeare article may be among those left out.

Under the circumstances, Mr. Watterson does not feel that he should be asked to write a preface for you, or to secure you a publisher.

Respectfully,
Secretary to H.W.

[Watterson published his memoirs under the title Marse Henry: An Autobiography in two volumes in 1919. The Marlowe-Shakespeare story was not included. He died two years later.]
------------
On the basis of this correspondence, I conclude that while Watterson was certainly attracted to the Shakespeare/Marlowe theory, he wrote the two stories about it with a wink in his eye and did no research as to where Marlowe might have ended up or when he might have died. He didn’t even bother to read Zeigler’s book or engage him in conversation.

As Watterson wrote in his memoirs about an unrelated topic, in a humorous vein: “I have been not only something of a traveller, but a diligent student of history and a voracious novel reader, and, once-in-a-while, I get my history and my fiction mixed.” Marse Henry: An Autobiography, Vol. 2 p. 55.

© Donna N. Murphy, 2012

Donna N. Murphy is the co-winner of the 2010 Calvin and Rose G. Hoffman Prize for a Distinguished Publication on Christopher Marlowe. In its March 2012 issue, Notes and Queries printed her two most recent articles on authorship of anonymous works written during the English Renaissance: “ ‘George a Greene’ and Robert Greene," and “ ‘Look Up and See Wonders’ and Thomas Dekker."

Rheims and the Privy Council Note by Peter Farey

When in 1925 Leslie Hotson established that the "Christopher Morley" named in the Privy Council note of 29 June 1587 must have been the playwright Christopher Marlowe, he rather avoided the question of just what the Privy Council had meant when they said that he "was determined to have gone beyond the seas to Rheims, and there to remain", and this is something which has appeared to cause some confusion ever since.

Was the Privy Council saying it was rumoured he had actually gone to Rheims or not? This paper tries to answer that question. Although there is little doubt that he could have gone to Rheims at some point while he was still at Cambridge, we are concerned here only with what the Privy Council's note actually says, and what it is reasonable to infer from it.

According to Hotson (p.62), "Marlowe had been employed as an agent in State affairs, probably abroad," and "Busy tongues had falsely given it out that he was to go to Rheims for a protracted stay." The suggestion seems to be that he may have paid Rheims a quick visit, with the intention of going back "to remain" there at a later date. However, the actual words of the Privy Council note are not examined closely.

Since that time, most biographers tend to have tipped in one or other of the two different directions. One is that the Council was referring to a rumour that he had actually been to Rheims. The other is about a rumour that says no such thing. Constance Brown Kuriyama, however, could be thought to favour both answers:

"It tells us that he was rumoured to have gone to Rheims" – yes – and "[He was]...reportedly planning to go to the English seminary at Rheims and remain there" – no. (p.70)

In the former camp – those appearing to interpret the Council's words as saying that he was rumoured to have gone there – we find the following:

John Bakeless, "It is easy to see why the master and fellows of puritanical Corpus Christi looked with disfavour on a scholar suspected of journeys thither." (p.83)

William Urry, "when he was taking his MA degree, he was under suspicion of going beyond the seas." (p.72)

A.D. Wraight, "... rumour had been rife to the effect that he had been sojourning in Rheims." (p.87)

M.J. Trow, "The earlier part of the sentence 'was determined' either shows Marlowe's keenness to be of service or is merely Elizabethan speak for 'was ordered'. There is little doubt that he went to Rheims..." (pp.66–7)

David Riggs, "His rumoured journey to the Catholic seminary at Rheims" (p.5) and "the rumour that Marlowe had defected to Rheims." (p.130)

Also (apparently) the Marlowe Society, still reflecting on its website the original words of A.D. Wraight, "the rumour spread at Cambridge that Christopher Marlowe had gone to Rheims as a Catholic convert." In his review of M.J. Trow’s book for the Society's Newsletter, 'Benedict' also said that he thought it meant that Marlowe was discovered by the college to have gone there. (p.21)

Opposed to them, by favouring the "not rumoured to have been to Rheims" interpretation, are the following:

Frederick Boas, "the rumour might easily be spread and accepted that he was intending to join them in their principal continental centre." (p.27)

Charles Nicholl, "It is sometimes said, on the strength of this document, that Marlowe actually went to Rheims. This seems unlikely. ... The Council officially denies his 'determination' to go there: this was, they say, an 'intent' which he did not have." (p.113)

Peter Roberts, "a letter to the University authorities to scotch the rumour that 'Christopher Morley' had entertained plans to quit the realm and to settle in Rheims..." (p.24)

Park Honan, "The rumour of his wish to go overseas reached his college's master, Robert Norgate." (p.153)

So which is it? Here are the actual words they used:

"Whereas it was reported that Christopher Morley was determined to have gone beyond the seas to Rheims and there to remain, their Lordships thought good to certify that he had no such intent ..."

It would appear that the problem is mainly caused by that phrase "have gone". If they had said instead that it was reported he "was determined to go ... to Rheims and there to remain" there would have been no difficulty. The rumour would have been that it was his firm intention to go there and to stay there, and when the Privy Council certified that "he had no such intent" it would have been this firm intention they meant.

The problem is that, at least to our modern ears, the words "have gone" seem to shift the whole thing into the past, but this causes a problem. How is it possible to be firmly resolved to do something which has already happened? It isn't, of course, so a different meaning for "was determined to" has to be found.

The one we have used so far is as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) as "to have come to a decision or definite resolve (to do something); to be finally or firmly resolved". Among their examples they include two from Shakespeare:

I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
(Richard III)

What are you then determined to do?
(Julius Caesar)

to which we might add another from Shakespeare:

...Are you yet determined
Today to marry with my brother's daughter?
(Much Ado About Nothing)

and, not to be left out, one from Marlowe:

These taxes and afflictions are befall'n,
And therefore thus we are determined;
(The Jew of Malta)

Those who want to find a meaning which will allow it to refer to something which has already happened, however, apparently take it to mean that Marlowe was "decided" (i.e. by the College) to have gone there, or that it was "discovered", "suspected", "believed" or "known" by them.

Of these usages, only "decided" has any support at all offered by the OED. There we find "determine. II. To bring to an end a dispute, controversy, or doubtful matter; to conclude, settle, decide, fix." Within this category are "4.a. trans. To settle or decide (a dispute, question, matter in debate), as a judge or arbiter" and "4.c. with subordinate clause, expressing the matter at issue." Their examples – not quite the same as the one we are considering but the best on offer – include, for the first:

Let the laws of Rome determine all.
(Titus Andronicus 1.1. 404)

and for the second

When it was determined [earlier versions demed, concluded, decreed] that we
should saile into Italy.
(1611 Bible, Acts xxvii. 1)

So, it was reported that he was decided to have gone; awkward, but perhaps not impossible. Even more awkward, though, are the words which follow immediately after, "and there to remain." With those added it now says that it was reported that it was decided that he had gone to Rheims, and there to remain. What is that supposed to mean?

The Privy Council certify that "he had no such intent", which may help. Should we assume that they had wanted the word "intended" simply to be understood, as follows? "Whereas it was reported that he was decided to have gone to Rheims, and (that he intended) there to remain, their Lordships thought good to certify that he had no such intent..."

The intent would now refer just to the possibility of his remaining there, and not to the going, and may even support David Riggs's idea that they had "finessed the whole question of whether he had actually gone". Or were they saying that he hadn't actually intended to go, but they packed him off overseas anyway?

All of this is becoming very complicated, of course, just because of the original difficulty presented to our modern ears by that phrase "have gone". We have this rather strange "it was reported that it was determined that"; we have to use the words "was determined" in a way for which there really appears to be no precedent; and we must assume either that the phrase "that he intended" should have been included, but wasn't, or that he was sent to Rheims even though he hadn't intended to go. Isn't there an easier meaning?

Well yes, there is a much easier one, but it becomes apparent only if we look at what a phrase like "was determined to have gone" would have meant to people at the time, and not the way we would read it today. Assuming that what would have been the normal meaning for "was determined" concerned someone's intention to do something, please look at the following.

I know it well, sir. Lo, here's the chain.
I thought to have ta'en you at the Porcupine.
(The Comedy of Errors)

I must confess that I have heard so much,
And with Demetrius thought to have spoke thereof;
(A Midsummer Night's Dream)

I thank your honour. For my part, my lord,
My purpose was not to have seen you here,
(The Merchant of Venice)

For thy part, Claudio,
I did think to have beaten thee,
(Much Ado About Nothing)

I thought to have told thee of it, but I feared
Lest I might anger thee.
(The Tempest)

All quite illuminating, but probably the most helpful examples come from Foxe's Book of Martyrs (with emphasis added):

"Thomas Hitton ... took his journey toward Rochester in Kent, intending to have gone to Dover, and so to have crossed the seas into France and other countries for a time, where reposing himself a while, he might be free from the heat of persecution. As he was going on his intended journey, [he was] brought before the ... archbishop of Canterbury ...who demanded of him from whence he came, and whither he intended to have gone, if he had not been intercepted? The same Thomas answered, that he came out of the diocese of Norwich, and purposed to have gone beyond the seas, if God had so permitted."

So what about "he was determined (i.e. intended) to have gone beyond the seas" in the Privy Council document? In the context of all of these examples it clearly states the rumour as being that it was his intention to go to Rheims, but that – as in the case of every other example above – it hadn't happened.

As was said earlier, he may well have actually gone there, but we must surely interpret their words as not being in any way ambiguous but as saying that although it had been reported that Christopher Marlowe was fully intending to go beyond the seas to Rheims and to remain there, he had had no such intent. And that this rumour should be allayed.

© Peter Farey, 2012

Peter Farey's essay “Hoffman and the Authorship” 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." He is a founding member of the International Marlowe-Shakespeare Society.Em
merich Anonymous
Bibliography THE MARLOWE PAPERS BARBER

Bakeless, John. 1942. The Tragicall History of Christopher Marlowe. Harvard.
'Benedict', in The Marlowe Society Newsletter 17 (Autumn 2001).
Boas, Frederick S. 1940. Christopher Marlowe: A Biographical and Critical Study. Oxford.
Honan, Park. 2005. Christopher Marlowe, Poet & Spy. Oxford.
Hotson, Leslie. 1925. The Death of Christopher Marlowe. London.
Kuriyama, Constance Brown. 2002.Christopher Marlowe: A Renaissance Life. Cornell.
Nicholl, Charles. 2002. The Reckoning: the Murder of Christopher Marlowe. Vintage.
Riggs, David. 2004. The World of Christopher Marlowe. Faber & Faber.
Roberts, Peter. 1996/9. "The 'Studious Artizan'" in Christopher Marlowe and English Renaissance Culture. Eds. Darryll Grantley & Peter Roberts. Ashgate.
Trow, M.J. 2001. Who Killed Kit Marlowe? Sutton.
Urry, William. 1988. Christopher Marlowe and Canterbury. Faber & Faber.
Wraight, A.D. & Virginia Stern. 1965. In Search of Christopher Marlowe. MacDonald & Co.