In a recent piece posted on this blog, Peter Farey develops the theory that despite appalling accusations of heresy and immorality presented against him by Richard Baines, the entire Privy Council, including Archbishop Whitgift, decided to spare Marlowe’s life, fake his death and send him abroad without interrogation and trial.
For my part, I find Farey’s theory improbable in the extreme, so I will explain my interpretation of the available evidence according to my sense of logic.
Farey’s research traces all Councillors absent and present at the Privy Council’s sessions on the dates when Marlowe’s fate would have been been discussed, logically between May 21st to 29th. He points out that both the Earl of Essex and Lord Burghley did not attend the Council Meetings during that period. Indeed, Lord Burghley remained at home towards the end of May on account of his gout.1
When debating the issue, presumably those Councillors present would have been aware of the consequences of their decision, and the two possible scenarios in the “dead” man’s immediate future:
A) Marlowe could be left somewhere in the Continent to fend for himself, without a legal persona and without funds, papers or travelling companions, which would have meant a slow death from exposure and starvation, or being murdered at the first crossroads for whatever money he may have had on him. This would be practically tantamount to a death sentence without any attempt at exemplarity. So, what was the Deptford charade in aid of? Whom were they trying to fool that could not have been fooled more easily and with a lot less fuss?
That said, eventually Marlowe might have learned to cope with such a situation like his late character Autolycus (or Autolykos, the lone wolf) in The Winter’s Tale. The mythological Autolycus, son of the god Hermes/Mercury, was like his father a thief and a trickster; he also had, like Pallas Athena, a helmet that made him invisible. Unless the merciful Councillors had come to his rescue, Marlowe may have had to survive, hopefully not for long, as a pickpocket and a ballad-monger.
In any case, I don’t see how in these circumstances it would have been possible for Kit to send the MSS of his new plays more or less regularly to London, as he did between 1593 and 1599.
B) The Privy Council, in their infinite mercy, decided not just to spare this atheist’s life without an exemplary punishment, but also to provide him with money, passports, and letters of introduction, so that he could travel in the Continent, find a job and send his new MSS (to whom?) in England.
Farey has suggested that Marlowe’s fate was discussed in the Privy Council; therefore, the risky decision would have been taken in the absence of at least Essex and Lord Burghley. In the recorded Acts of the Privy Council, there is no mention of Christopher Marlowe at all after May 20th, when his appearance (or attempted appearance), before the Council was recorded.2 Had the case been officially discussed during the sessions, some mention of it would have remained, though perhaps allowing a “criminal” to escape to the Continent on a State pension is not the kind of decision that the Council would leave on written record.
That said, the intervention of Coroner Danby strongly suggests that the decision to save Marlowe’s life was approved by the Queen, however reluctantly. This then might imply that the idea was privately discussed, not by the Privy Council as such, but by some individual Councillor/s who had enough influence with the Queen to persuade her to agree. As Queen Elizabeth was notoriously tight-fisted, whoever was at the head of the Marlowe-friendly conspiracy would have undertaken to keep him in funds abroad.
Once I reach this point in my reasoning, I need to think which of the two most influential men at the time, Lord Burghley or the Earl of Essex, would have agreed to do this. Given that Lord Burghley had been cutting “Inteligence Network” expenses since Sir Francis Walsingham’s death in 1590,3 while Essex had been building his own network, paying for it out of his own pocket, it seems to me the choice is easy between these two men. Biographers tell us, by the way, that Essex and his close friend, the Earl of Southampton, were fond of attending plays. Presumably they would have admired the best playwright of all; the dedication of Venus and Adonis supports such conjecture.
Farey’s scenario, however, requires not only Lord Burghley making an exception in his spy network's cost-cutting policy, but also an ungrateful Marlowe shifting his allegiance to Essex, the Cecils’ political rival, and joining the Earl’s new spy team barely two years after Deptford. This seems to be an unavoidable conclusion since I believe (and so does Farey) that Marlowe probably was one Mr Le Doux that appeared under Anthony Bacon’s wing, in October 1595 at the latest, in the household of Sir John Harington at Burley, in Rutland, as tutor to his son.4
In view of all this, my proposed scenario runs smoothly from May 1593, with Essex persuading the Queen to save Marlowe’s life, and then keeping him hidden somewhere, providing him with passports and money and/or jobs until 1599. This arrangement would have included a regular courier service across the Channel, such as Essex would have organized in the Continent in order to obtain his various agents’ reports. As we know from the papers related to Le Doux and others, Anthony Bacon would have received any such reports and letters from the agents; these couriers could also have brought the MSS of new plays written by one particular agent.
The fact that no new Shakespeare plays appeared on the stage (as far as I know), between 1600 and 1603/4, suggest that this routine was suspended at the time of Essex’ Irish campaign, which started April 1599, and his ill-advised return to London in September of the same year. If my conjecture is right and unless he found another patron, as from this time Marlowe would have been job-less, money-less and courier-less, as it seems until 1604, when the next new Shakespeare plays appeared: The 2Quarto Hamlet, twice the length of the 1Q; Measure for Measure and The Moor of Venice. At this point, with a new monarch on the English throne showering favours on the friends of the executed Essex, Marlowe may have found help and protection, at least for a time.
So, what happened between the end of 1599 and November 1604, the period of Shakespeare’s sudden and unprecedented long silence? And why was it that the Bard never again wrote the sort of “happy” comedies that obtained such praise from Francis Meres in his Palladis Tamia?5 In fact, what comedies did he write after 1603?
- The sinister Measure for Measure (1604), most of which action takes place in a prison: An innocent man is sentenced to death, but in order to spare his life the prison authorities execute a common criminal in his stead.
- The Tempest (1611), a bitter tale in which a magician called Prospero shows himself to be alive when everybody thought he had been long dead. The name Prosperus in Latin is synonymous to Faustus.
- The Winter’s Tale (1611); its original title, A Winter’s Night’s Tale,6 was altered sometime after 1604. The play tells the sad story of a queen falsely accused of immorality that faked her death turning into a statue and could only come to life after sixteen years.7
No more comedies; and despite their happy endings, these three don’t raise many laughs.
So, what happened to Shakespeare in or around 1599/1600 when all his plays seem to have been swept from the boards and, it seems, as many rights as could be sold went to the publishers? And why did he not write any new plays between 1599 and 1603? And why did his merry wit become sour after 1603/1604?
We all have our pet theories, based on our own personal interpretation of the available evidence. My own opinion of what happened is a logical sequence to my Essex-as-Patron scenario. As it is another of the several theories in which Farey and I disagree, I shall leave it for some other time.
Let me just mention as an example a letter that may shed some light on the situation of penniless exiles in the Continent: On March 27, 1613, a certain Edward Eustace wrote a letter to William Trumbull that included the following comment: “I have no means to live in France more than here, except I enter into a College and become a priest."
© Isabel Gortázar, June 2011
Isabel Gortázar is an independent scholar, specializing in Shakespeare and Marlowe studies. She is a member of the Board of Directors of the Marlowe Society (UK) and a founding member of the International Marlowe Society. She divides her time between London and Bilbao, Spain.
who wrote shakespeare's sonnets?emmerich devere
Notes
1Lord Burghley wrote letters dated May 21st and 28th to his son, Robert Cecil, from his sick bed. He attended the Privy Council on May 29th. Ref: Conyers Read's Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth (1960), Jonathan Cape, London. V II, p. 485. Read’s ref: Thomas Wright’s Queen Elizabeth and Her Times: A Series of Original Letters Selected From Unedited Private Correspondence (1838), London. V 2. I owe Cynthia Morgan this information, published in her essay "A New Interpretation of Sonnet 112." The Marlowe Society Research Journal, nº 7.
220th may. This daie Cristofer Marley (sic) of London, gentleman, being sent for by warrant from their Lordships, hath entered his apparance accordinglie for his indemnity therein, and is commaunded to give his daily attendaunce on their Lordships untill he shalbe lycensed to the contrary. Acts of the Privy Council. The Lambeth Palace Archives.
3Hammer, P.F.J. The Polarization of Elizabethan Politics: The Political Career of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, 1585-1597. Cambridge University Press, 1999. pp. 154-155.
4Wraight, A.D. Shakespeare, New Evidence. Ref.The Lambeth Palace Archives: The Bacon Papers.
5Meres F. Wits Treasury: A Comparative Discourse of our English Poets, with the Greek, Latin, and Italian Poets. Published in 1598.
6In 1609 a Spanish book of tales by Antonio de Eslava was published in Pamplona under the title Winter Nights. The story in The Tempest seems to be based on one of Eslava’s Winter Nights’ tales.
7The acknowledged principal source of The Winter’s Tale is Pandosto, a novel by Robert Greene (1588); however, the original title of the play suggests that Marlowe was aware of Eslava’s book. In the source story, there is no statue, the Queen dies and the King commits suicide.Emmerich Anonymous
Click here for the blog's home page and recent content.THE MARLOWE PAPERS
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
Isabel, I'll spend a bit more time examining your arguments before commenting further, but there is a significant error in what you say which really should be pointed out immediately. It is when you quote me as saying that both the Earl of Essex and Lord Burghley were absent from Council Meetings during the period between 21 and 29 May. Although this applied to Essex, it certainly didn't apply to Burghley.
In fact between 16 May (when it seems likely that the Privy Council first asked for Marlowe to be brought before them) and 1 June (the date of the Deptford inquest and burial) the Council met on seven occasions. The only member to attend every one of those meetings, two more than anyone else and despite any gout, was Lord Burghley.
This fact is essential to the scenario I suggested, hence my eagerness to set the record straight!
Peter
Isabel, before responding to the arguments you make here, I think I had better make sure that I understand what those arguments actually are.
It appears to me you are saying, firstly, that if the Privy Council as a whole had known about and accepted such a compromise between the 'pro' and 'con' Marlowe camps, there were only two options available to them:
A) to abandon him completely, or
B) to make sure that every need of his was met.
Second, that as this wasn't reflected in the minutes of the Privy Council, it probably didn't happen.
Third, that whoever on the Privy Council most wanted him saved must have been the only one to to support him from then on.
Fourth, that (although you appear somewhat coy in admitting it) there was a lack of plays between 1600 and 1603/4 because he was at the seminary in Valladolid.
Fifth, that any plays after this show how unhappy he was, and that this was most probably related in some unspecified way to Essex's death.
Does this cover the case you have presented reasonably well?
Peter
P.S.
That Essex (a very new member of the Privy Council) missed every meeting of it between 14 and 29 May suggests that he was away from his London home, which was within only a few hundred yards of where they were meeting. So it is most unlikely that he could have known that Marlowe needed "saving". On the other hand, my timetable indicates that Essex would have most probably learned about Marlowe's plight on 29 May (far too late to arrange any escape). Eager as he was to expand his stable of intelligencers, however, don't you think that at that point he may well have decided (perhaps even openly offered) to provide the necessary funds?
Peter
Peter.
Apologies for the mistake which, however, does not affect the point I was trying to make.
According to the information that you sent us in Dec 2010, there were 14 Councillors in May 1593 and from May 16th to May 29th, there were four Council Meetings: May 16th, (8 attendants), 23rd (6 attendants), 25th (6 attendants), 29th (10 attendants).
(If I have misinterpreted your information pls let me know.)
On May 21st and 28th Lord Burghley wrote to his son from his sick bed; both letters are confidential but, as far as I know, there is no mention of Marlowe; perhaps I have not read the full letters, but if Conyers Read had found such reference we would surely have heard of it.
Instead, in the letter of May 21st Lord Burghley is concerned with an answer that is to be made to James of Scotland, via his agent, a certain Henry Locke. (My thanks to Cynthia Morgan for a copy of these letters.)
"May 21st(…] The matter you wrote of concerning the answer to be made by Locke is very piquant for difficulties on both sides..."
So, withdrawing my error about Lord B’s presence in those Council meetings, what you are saying is that the Privy Council, within four sessions and in the absence of almost half of its members, took the criminal decision to defraud their Country and stage the faked death of Kit Marlowe.
Isabel
Peter:
In answer to your points below. I might have to use more than one message.
Your point 1) "... that if the Privy Council as a whole had known about and accepted such a compromise between the 'pro' and 'con' Marlowe camps, etc.
I don’t belive the PC had accepted any compromise, but yes, if they had they must have been aware that either they left him in a most dangerous situation, or they had to provide him with the minimum equpment for survival: Some funds or indications of where to obtain them, passports and credentials, as well as letters of introduction. There is no way Marlowe could have got to Italy without a plausible passport.
Your point 2). I think I included a somewhat sarcastic comment about that.
Your point 3). Yes, but not “whoever”on the Privy Council..."
I am saying that this was a private –not a Council- arrangement between Essex and the Queen, to which arrangement some other men who happened to be Councillors, and others who weren’t, such as Thos Walsingham,agreed.
As I find that the decision was a somewhat crazy one, and as I believe Mr le Doux was Marlowe, and as Essex was building his network, and as he was notoriously loyal to his people, I think this Quixotic scheme was Essex’s idea. You may have noticed that all of Mr Le Doux passports were signed solely by Essex.
Isabel
Peter:
Your point 4)
I never mentioned Valladolid, but, yes, of course I am struck by the coincidences.
Here are the facts:
1)In the spring of 1599 Essex left for Ireland.
2)On 30th May 1599 Christopherus Marlerus entered the Seminary College of Valladolid.
3) It apears from Eustace’s letter that entering the Colleges and becoming a priest was one of the ploys used by pennyless exiles to escape from want.
4) Shakespeare did not present any new plays between 1600 and 1604.
5) Marlerus returned to England in the Spring of 1603.
6) Much of the action in Measure for Measure, presented at Court in December 1604, takes place in a prison.
7) Christopher Marlowe alias Mathews was in the Gatehouse prison in the summer of 1604.
Your point 5)
Stratfordian scholars (and others) have often commented on the fact that the plays that appeared after 1603/4 are “unhappy” for lack of a better word. I happen to agree.
But I don’t have a problem because if, as I think, Marlowe found himself patron-less in the Continent after the end of March 1599, and if he had to take refuge in a Seminary College, etc, it makes total sense to me that he should have lost the cheeky humour of his early plays and become the author of such sombre plays as Measure for Measure and King Lear.
As I say, it makes sense to me, but one needs to believe in the Essex scenario in order to accept the rest of my reasoning.
Isabel said: "Apologies for the mistake which, however, does not affect the point I was trying to make."
Apologies accepted, Isabel, but since the presence of Lord Burghley is central to the argument of mine which you are attacking, one would have hoped you would have at least understood this before attacking it!
Isabel said: "So, withdrawing my error about Lord B’s presence in those Council meetings, what you are saying is that the Privy Council, within four sessions and in the absence of almost half of its members, took the criminal decision to defraud their Country and stage the faked death of Kit Marlowe."
What I am suggesting is that at a meeting of the Privy Council, which must necessarily have had a quorum and at which two of its most influential members were present, a compromise was reached concerning the fate of Christopher Marlowe in which his death would be faked. I further suggest that this was presented to as many other members as could be assembled (on 29 May) for their approval before any irreversible actions were taken. If we also infer that the queen herself must have given the ok to the plan, then the question must be whether your words "criminal decision to defraud their Country" are anything more than rhetoric. Throughout history governments have assumed the right to deceive their people "in the national interest". Wartime "spin" on the news, for example, and the witness protection programme, the relevance of which Daryl has brought to our attention. It is also interesting to consider whether anyone could be accused of perjury if the hearing at which it was allegedly committed was in fact legally null and void as Marlowe's inquest was.
I shall wait a while before dealing with the main content of your article.
Peter
Peter.
Considering that Danby's Report was not made public and, as we know, most people had no idea of how Marlowe had died, what was all that charade in aid of?
Whom were they trying to fool?
Couldn’t they have decided to spread a rumour that Marlowe had died of the plague?
Why involve Danby and a Jury if everybody in power knew what was going on?
The need for the modern Witness Protection Programme is mostly due to the fact that modern technology makes it much easier to locate and gain access to any person who might need to remain hidden. In the case of Marlowe, even this would be irrelevant because he had no wish to remain hidden, except to the Whitgiftians. If the Inquisitors were happy to let him go, who was he being protected from?
And BTW, if they had to wait until the 29th to make a final decision, how on earth did they manage to get Poley back from The Hague in time? Not that I believe that Poley was “sent for” in any case, but I wonder how you think that particular item in the agenda was organized.
We are so fundamentally opposed in our views, Peter, that I doubt if this exchange may be of any use to anybody.
Isabel
Isabel said: "Considering that Danby's Report was not made public and, as we know, most people had no idea of how Marlowe had died, what was all that charade in aid of? Whom were they trying to fool? Couldn’t they have decided to spread a rumour that Marlowe had died of the plague? Why involve Danby and a Jury if everybody in power knew what was going on?"
Danby's report would have been enrolled in the Kent archives and available to anyone who had an interest in it. As to "what was all that charade in aid of?", I think it was because it was decided that there should be no possible doubt on anyone else's part that he had died. Our only difference lies in whether that "anyone else" would include Whitgift and Puckering (as you believe) or not (as I say the facts would suggest).
Isabel: "If the Inquisitors were happy to let him go, who was he being protected from?"
Where did I say that anyone was "happy to let him go"? Please Isabel, if you want to argue against the solution which I have offered as one which joins the dots (as Ros puts it) in a way which I claim does so in a better way than any other, please argue against what I actually said. You say that he was being "protected from" something by the faked death. I don't. What is it about the word "compromise" that makes it so difficult for you to incorporate it in your thinking?
Isabel: "And BTW, if they had to wait until the 29th to make a final decision, how on earth did they manage to get Poley back from The Hague in time? Not that I believe that Poley was “sent for” in any case, but I wonder how you think that particular item in the agenda was organized."
My words were carefully chosen, that this "was presented to as many other members as could be assembled (on 29 May) for their approval before any irreversible actions were taken." Any message for Poley to get back pronto did not depend upon any rubber-stamping by the rest of the Council. The irreversible action I particularly had in mind was the extraordinary signing immediately after that meeting (by Whitgift, Puckering and Popham, and most probably after some discussion by the Council) for Penry to be executed that very evening. Why? Four days after sentence of death had been pronounced on him, what possible urgency can there have been unless his body was agreed to be needed the following day? I assume from these and other earlier words of yours that you are unfamiliar with the convention by which some meeting discussions are "on the record" and some not?
Isabel: "We are so fundamentally opposed in our views, Peter, that I doubt if this exchange may be of any use to anybody."
What an extraordinary conclusion! The exploration of such "fundamentally opposed" views, is (I think) precisely what is of most use to anyone seriously interested in this subject!
Peter
We Marlovians have a problem. It is how to reconcile the fact that Marlowe was still apparently as free as a bird on 30 May, even though accusations serious enough to have him tortured, tried and executed must have been available to at least one member of the Privy Council for a week or more.
We tend to give prominence to the Baines Note, but I don't think the real danger to Marlowe lay there. It was mainly in the information being provided to Lord Keeper Puckering by Thomas Drury. Three things said by Drury in different documents stand out:
1) "That [Cholmeley] saieth & verely beleveth that one Marlowe is able to showe more sounde reasons for Atheisme then any devine in Englande is able to geve to prove devinitie & that Marloe tolde him that hee hath read the Atheist lecture to Sir walter Raliegh & others."
2) That it was the purpose of Cholmeley's sect "to drawe her majestys subiects to bee Athiests, their practise is after her majestys decease to make a kinge amonge themselves & live accordinge to their owne lawes, & this saieth Cholmeley wilbee done easely because they bee & shortely wilbe by his & his felowes persuasions as many of their opynion as of any other religion."
3) Referred to later, but implied in the above, "Sithens that tym there is ould hold and shoue for to gett the bocke [presumably by Marlowe] that doeth mayntayn this damnabell sect".
This is not only heresy, of course, but also sedition and high treason.
Now none of this can possibly have been known about by the Council when he was summoned to appear before them and (apparently without being seen) simply allowed to go away, trusted to return daily until their next meeting. So the obvious time for Puckering to have made it known to others would have been at the Council meeting on 23 May, when Marlowe would have finally met them, and where his apparent heresy would have been the subject under discussion.
If Puckering did reveal it then, however, there is no way whatsoever that Whitgift would have happily let Marlowe just toddle off with a vague instruction to keep in touch, just in case he was needed again. He would remember how Penry had given him the slip by making for Scotland, and Puckering may even have already learned from Kyd that Marlowe had said something to him about heading in the same direction.
On the other hand, if Puckering had kept quiet about these things, why would anybody, least of all Essex or Walsingham, have any reason to think that Marlowe was in such trouble that he needed saving in any way? Indeed, how would anyone other than Puckering (and possibly Whitgift and Buckhurst I suppose) have known anything about it?
It's a puzzle, isn't it? And, as far I know, the scenario which I offered is the only attempt which has so far been made to solve it.
Peter
Put it another way. Given the appalling accusations being made against Marlowe between 23 and 27 May, and the fact that he was easy to find, it is simply not possible for him to have still been at liberty on 30 May. So this 'liberty' can have only been a part of the story being concocted for that day, and makes a huge contribution to the "faked death" case. Unfortunately for those who don't like the idea, it is a story which Whitgift must have both known about and, albeit grudgingly, accepted.
Peter
Peter,
If Marlowe had been in custody since May 23rd (or so), wouldn't everyone who knew him or knew of him be aware of this?
I don't understand why the Council would then choose to place the scene of the faked death outside of custody, and attempt to spread the impression that Marlowe had been free to move about for that week when this would have been known (by many) to be false.
Using a transparent lie as the basis of a much bigger lie would guarantee failure on both counts. I would strive to concoct a story that would minimize the chance of failure, rather than expose it to unnecessary risk.
Can you speculate on the thought processes that went into choosing to fake Marlowe's freedom prior to May 30th?
Daryl
"If Marlowe had been in custody since May 23rd (or so), wouldn't everyone who knew him or knew of him be aware of this?"
Excuse me for butting in, Daryl, but that seems a rather large assumption. It is more than likely that Marlowe, at the time the warrant was issued, was staying with Thomas Walsingham. The Privy Council certainly thought that's where he would be found and Chiselhurst historians wrote in the 19th century that Marlowe had fled from London to Scadbury to escape accusations against him.
In such circumstances, no-one barring Walsingham needs to have known that Marlowe was in custody (and Walsingham was a trusted friend - and as we know, the most likely 'mastermind' of any scheme, being the contact-in-common between Poley, Frizer and Skeres). Marlowe's London friends would assume he was still a free man in Kent unless they heard to the contrary and there's no reason to think they would hear.
Marlowe's Government dealings were by nature secretive - hence the Rheims defection rumours that the PC were obliged to break silence and scotch. His friends would be used to not knowing where Marlowe was for periods of a time. The Government (and their agents) were perfectly capable of keeping secrets. If not, they would not have had successes such as the Babington and Mary Queen of Scots set ups.
Ros,
When a person is missing for a week, assuming that no one notices is as large an assumption -- and in this case a riskier one -- as assuming that someone notices, since the success of the "Privy plot" would be dependent on that assumption.
Regardless, this doesn't answer the question of why the Privy Council would chose to fake Marlowe's freedom? Isn't this an unnecessary complication? If he were in custody, wouldn't it have been easier, and more effective as a propaganda boon, to have his death faked in a manner akin to Penry's execution?
Daryl
Daryl, what kind of life are you imagining when you say "missing for a week"? Presumably a stable permanent home from which one could be "missing" and we have no evidence Marlowe had any such thing at this point. He clearly spends periods away from London - he is in Flushing in January 1592, Canterbury in September 1592. If he had said to London friends "I'm off to stay with Walsingham for a while until this thing blows over", why would anyone think him "missing" between 23rd and 30th of May. Wouldn't they assume (not unreasonably) he was still in Scadbury?
When you suggest they could have just faked his death in custody you're assuming the Government was happy to be held publicly accountable for Marlowe's death. Given his public profile as a playwright, and the fact that he is on record as having "done Her Majesty good service", I very much doubt this would have been the case.
Also, Penry wasn't just vanished - he was prosecuted. They couldn't just fake an execution without being seen to prosecute Marlowe. He was an eloquent man and well-connected (Raleigh, Lord Strange, the Earl of Northumberland). Prosecuting him (towards a faked death or not) would have been a major public event. This is something it seems they were actively trying to avoid both at this time and in January 1592. Why would you prosecute (and appear to kill) your own agent, when you knew the set up came from Catholic double agents (Drury, Baines)? It would be playing into the hands of the enemy.
Daryl: "If Marlowe had been in custody since May 23rd (or so), wouldn't everyone who knew him or knew of him be aware of this?"
Why? I said that he would have been held incommunicado. The Privy Council warrant seems to indicate that he would have probably - although not certainly - been assumed to have been at Scadbury, and those at Scadbury who weren't made aware of the true situation would presumably have assumed that he had gone back to London.
Daryl: "I don't understand why the Council would then choose to place the scene of the faked death outside of custody, and attempt to spread the impression that Marlowe had been free to move about for that week when this would have been known (by many) to be false."
The scene of the faked death (if, as seems most probable, Danby was also a coroner for Kent) was the only place in England where the Privy Council would have overall jurisdiction, where Danby could legally run the inquest on his own, and which was as near as possible to a place where the Privy Council could ensure that a (legally) dead body could be provided precisely when it was needed and only two miles away. Your claim that "this would have been known (by many) to be false" has been dealt with above. I said nothing about anyone trying to "spread the impression that Marlowe had been free", did I?
Daryl: "Using a transparent lie as the basis of a much bigger lie would guarantee failure on both counts. I would strive to concoct a story that would minimize the chance of failure, rather than expose it to unnecessary risk."
Well, I'm afraid that I simply don't accept that the absence of a single 29-year-old male with no family responsibilities from their usual location(s) would cause any surprise whatsoever. Furthermore, I would suggest that Marlowe may have been among those least likely to make sure that his acquaintances all knew precisely where he was going to be at any time!
Daryl: "Can you speculate on the thought processes that went into choosing to fake Marlowe's freedom prior to May 30th?"
Please tell me where I said that this is what happened. He was held incommunicado for a week, and apparently reappeared at Deptford on 30 May. Where's the problem?
And some comment upon my argument concerning the fact that he was still at liberty a week after those capital accusations had been made would be appreciated!
Peter
Given that we deny the major: That Marlowe was killed by Frizer in self defence, why should we believe that ANY of the details given in Danby’s Report (which, as Peter says, referred to an Inquest that was probably null and void and so legally worthless), has to be true?
If Marlowe was not killed in Deptford on the date and way mentioned, how do we know he was there at all on that particular day? How do we know WHO was there? Poley probably wasn’t anyway, unless Heneage’s account of a payment of 30 shillings on June 8th was also false, as it well could be.
For all we know, the Inquest and Danby’s report became necessary only because Whitgift started to ask questions when Marlowe failed to appear before their Lordships after a certain day, which could have been the 29th or the 30th.
Perhaps the Queen had to get her Coroner cracking and organize an Inquest on June 1st, showing a corpse to a Jury, because Whitgift wanted “proof” that Marlowe had really died.
The point is that we don’t know what happened, nor who orchestrated whatever happened. I am trying to establish what I believe is UNLIKELY to have happened.
I frankly do not see the Privy Council as a body discussing Marlowe’s fate, nor do I believe in merciful 16th Century Inquisitors. I can more easily believe in Quixotic schemes, hatched by a “white knight” and his Queen. After all, Frederic of Saxony had done the same for Luther.
Peter,
There's a lot to sort through. I'll try to focus my questions:
1. Are you saying Marlowe was actually at Deptford all day?
2. Peter: "There is no way whatsoever that Whitgift would have happily let Marlowe just toddle off with a vague instruction to keep in touch, just in case he was needed again."
But isn't this in effect what you're saying Marlowe was allowed to do after May 30th? What changed? Was he under close watch for the rest of his life, or free to move about?
3. Peter: "Please tell me where I said that this [Marlowe's freedom was faked] is what happened."
Marlowe's standing order was "to give his daily attendance on their lordships till he shall be licensed to the contrary." Doesn't this order allow him free movement? Is there some evidence that his legal status changed after the Baines note was delivered?
4. Can you comment on this from Ros: "Prosecuting him (towards a faked death or not) would have been a major public event. This is something it seems they were actively trying to avoid."
I'm not sure why. They went after Raleigh, someone equally articulate, and far more powerful, on far less evidence. Why would they fear prosecuting a virtual cipher like Marlowe but not Raleigh?
Let's leave it at this for now,
Daryl
Isabel,
In my opinion, any theory which depends in a significant way upon an assumption that the relevant historical documents are lies is doomed. Historical scholarship just doesn't work that way. On the other hand, I am quite sure that there is no shortage of documents saying things which aren't true.
For example, I maintain that in the case of Marlowe's inquest the coroner's inquisition is in fact a completely accurate report of just what was decided by those people named as the jury, even though the information upon which those jurors made their decision may well have been a pack of lies. That those jurors would have nevertheless expected Frizer, Poley, Skeres and Eleanor Bull to have appeared before them as witnesses would (in my view) go without saying, as would the fact that there was a body for them "view" to the extent allowed by the coroner. We now know that those witnesses were all real people with real backgrounds, so I wonder just why someone would claim to be Robert Poley (given his associations with the Privy Council) if he wasn't. It may have made sense for Poley to have pretended to be someone else, but I cannot for the life of me see why it might be the other way round!
Peter
P.S. Personally, I rather doubt that Marlowe himself was ever at Dame Bull's establishment, but this isn't something I would consider very important anyway.
Daryl said: "1. Are you saying Marlowe was actually at Deptford all day?"
No, as I said to Isabel, I rather doubt that he was there at any time that day.
Daryl said: "2. Peter: "There is no way whatsoever that Whitgift would have happily let Marlowe just toddle off with a vague instruction to keep in touch, just in case he was needed again." But isn't this in effect what you're saying Marlowe was allowed to do after May 30th? What changed? Was he under close watch for the rest of his life, or free to move about?"
My words were explicitly concerned with what Whitgift would have insisted upon if Puckering had revealed what he knew and there had been no compromise. You apparently think that it would have been impossible for any agreement to be found between Burghley and Whitgift which would have satisfied the latter. I don't.
Daryl said: "3. Peter: "Please tell me where I said that this [Marlowe's freedom was faked] is what happened."
Marlowe's standing order was "to give his daily attendance on their lordships till he shall be licensed to the contrary." Doesn't this order allow him free movement? Is there some evidence that his legal status changed after the Baines note was delivered?"
No Daryl, that command (made by some clerk in the absence of any Council meeting that day) was perfectly genuine. We are, I thought, talking about whether Marlowe would have still been allowed to go free after Puckering's bombshell about Marlowe's significant (even if unintentional) role in a group's high treason was known, whenever that was. The Baines Note is really not all that important in this context.
Daryl said: "4. Can you comment on this from Ros: "Prosecuting him (towards a faked death or not) would have been a major public event. This is something it seems they were actively trying to avoid."
I'm not sure why. They went after Raleigh, someone equally articulate, and far more powerful, on far less evidence. Why would they fear prosecuting a virtual cipher like Marlowe but not Raleigh?"
Yes, I'll be happy to. But I would prefer to do so after you have responded to the main part of Ros's post, compared to which that remark was of very little importance.
Now please answer a question for me. At some time between 22 and 27 May, Puckering, whose work (according to Nicholl) "belongs within the broader political programme of silencing dangerously vocal dissidents" discovered that Marlowe's arguments were being used by a group who planned to replace the current monarchy with a king of their own and live according to their own laws. So how is it, do you think, that the easily located Marlowe, who had even - as they most probably knew - expressed his intention of heading for Scotland, was (apparently) still free enough to be able to attend a knees-up at Deptford on 30 May?
Peter
All:
Having by now proven to ourselves that we find many points of disagreement on details, while we are all convinced that Marlowe was not killed in Deptford, I personally would like to propose that most of these details are really irrelevant and we should concentrate on essentials.
I state here what I believe to be Peter’s theory:
That the Privy Council as a body, Whitgift included, agreed to let Marlowe flee to the Continent and fake his death leaving a legal document signed by the Queen to record the fact. I also understand that Peter believes Lord Burghley to have been mainly in charge of the operation and of subsequent plans.
My point:
In making this decision, the PC had to choose between leaving Marlowe to fend for himself in most dangerous circumstances, or provide him with money and papers, necessary for survival. I must take for granted that, in this scenario, Marlowe was not allowed to return to England at any time.
(To be continued)
Continues from latest:
Assuming, as we do, that Marlowe did survive, these are my questions:
-Did the PC include the agreement with W. Shakespeare in their plans?
-Did the PC organize the traffic of MSS from the Continent?
-Was a religious censorship routine organized, or did Whitgift trust Marlowe not to write anything objectionable?
-Were the Cecils at the head of both the faked death and its aftermath?
-What was supposed to be done/said if anybody met a living Marlowe in the Continent and sent the news home?
Example: Marlowe went probably to Padua (for which he needed a passport), before writing The Merchant (SR 1598) and could easily have met the Earl of Rutland who entered that University in 1596.
While in Peter’s scenario, Marlowe should have then gratefully become/remained as part of Lord Burghley’s network, naturally living in the Continent, by October 1595 at the latest he was working for Essex and living in England, in the household of a wealthy aristocrat that was part of the Sidney/ Essex circle. His passports during that period were signed by Essex.
Last but not least, there is the “curious incident of the dog in the night”: While in Peter’s scenario, Essex’ departure for Ireland and subsequent fall should not have altered Marlowe’s apparently secure life in the Continent, including the flux of new plays, it so happens that there are no new Shakespeare plays between 1600 and 1604.
On your last point only, Isabel - although I think Peter's "compromise" scenario best fits the evidence, I see no reason why Marlowe wouldn't become dependent on Essex's protection later (especially given the Southampton link) e.g. if financial support failed to materialise - as Peter's various excursions in the Bacon Papers can be read to suggest. Drury's letter to Anthony Bacon in August suggests Essex took an interest from the start. It doesn't mean he was the instigator, but there to pick up the pieces? Very possibly.
The relationship between Essex and Burghley seems to have been in a constant state of flux (probably because Essex was an impulsive and somewhat emotional creature) - on certain issues (such as the Protestant cause) they were often very much in agreement and would sometimes work together in a common cause.
After Burghley's death in 1598, Marlowe's most likely connection to "home" would be through the Essex intelligence network - and Essex's downfall would of course be devastating in these circumstances.
What I'm saying is that I don't think the dog's silence from 1600-4 casts any light on who set the dog roaming in 1593.
Thanks Ros,
What I said here nearly a week ago now was that "my timetable indicates that Essex would have most probably learned about Marlowe's plight on 29 May (far too late to arrange any escape). Eager as he was to expand his stable of intelligencers, however, don't you think that at that point he may well have decided (perhaps even openly offered) to provide the necessary funds?"
Isn't it also obvious that Essex's interests would in any case have best been served by supporting Marlowe *after* such a living death (read what 'Shakespeare' had to say about banishment!) was inflicted on him by other people? As you rightly point out, my evidence suggesting that Marlowe returned to England in 1595, angry at not having been paid by Burghley, is being ignored.
On the other hand, frankly, I find arguments based solely upon what we know of the situation as it was in 1593 to be far more compelling than any based upon speculations about what may have been the situation several years later if our case for Marlowe's survival is correct. And so would any academic we may hope to get interested!
Peter
Well, it seems we must agree to disagree.
- I find your assumption that "academics" will see it that way a piece of wishful thinking. It may depend on whether we are talking of specialists in Renaissance Literature or Renaissance European History.
- I do not see the evidence says that the PC as a body agreed to such a plan.
- I do not believe Whitgift could have agreed to it, taking on board the risk that Marlowe may have returned/spilled the beans at any time.
- I find the comment that the matter did not concern either the RCC of the Anglican Church remarkable, as both Churches are based on the figure of Jesus.
- I do not see that either Ros or Peter have replied to my Shakespeare -related questions.
- I do not see either why/when would Essex start paying for Marlowe's expenses and providing with passports, if he was Lord B's agent.
- I do not see why would Lord B take the risk of defending Marlowe's escape if he did not intend to provide the means of support that he would have needed in his nameless exile.
- With all due respect, the "dog's silence" is far better explained if Marlowe depended on Essex for survival than if he depended on the Cecils. Robert Cecil was a powerful man after his father's death and until his own in 1612. He doesn't seem to have helped much. If anything, in 1599 he might well have sent Marlowe to Valladolid to spy on the matter of the succession.
Isabel said:
"- I do not see the evidence says that the PC as a body agreed to such a plan."
It depends what you mean by "evidence". I have given my arguments for thinking this to be the most probable scenario and, whilst I am happy for you to reject my reasoning, I find it unacceptable for the actual evidence (such as that Poley was at Deptford) to be rejected, just because it doesn't support your theory.
"- I do not believe Whitgift could have agreed to it, taking on board the risk that Marlowe may have returned/spilled the beans at any time."
As I see it, my scenario poses the least risk to any of the people involved. You seem to be arguing against the whole faked death theory here.
"- I find the comment that the matter did not concern either the RCC of the Anglican Church remarkable, as both Churches are based on the figure of Jesus."
I'm trying to figure out what you are talking about. In a separate conversation with Anthony, of which you had a copy, I said that Whitgift's two main concerns were Catholicism and Puritanism (as opposed to atheism, I was implying, which he seems not to have considered so much of a threat at that time). If that is what you are referring to I'm afraid your point eludes me.
"- I do not see that either Ros or Peter have replied to my Shakespeare-related questions."
The most comprehensive dating of Shakespeare's plays I have to hand is Gary Taylor's. In this, he gives as the most likely dates for the following plays as: As You Like It (1599-1600), Hamlet (1600-1601), Twelfth Night (1601), Troilus & Cressida (1602), Measure for Measure (1603) and Othello (1603-1604). Chambers and Bloom would include All's Well That Ends Well within that time frame too. So your question "why did he not write any new plays between 1599 and 1603?" is somewhat debatable.
As to whether his future career as a dramatist was discussed, I have no idea. But the fact that both the Lord Admiral and the Lord Chamberlain were at the 29 May meeting may be of some relevance?
"- I do not see either why/when would Essex start paying for Marlowe's expenses and providing with passports, if he was Lord B's agent."
No, nor do I. Not unless Marlowe could be persuaded to switch his allegiance, anyway.
"- I do not see why would Lord B take the risk of defending Marlowe's escape if he did not intend to provide the means of support that he would have needed in his nameless exile."
You are the one saying he wouldn't have intended to provide the necessary support, not I. I merely pointed out that Essex could have simply taken advantage of Burghley's failing to do so to lure Marlowe into his fold - just as he did with Anthony Bacon - and that this could have happened at any time from 29 May on, although I have suggested that it was in fact in May 1595. See my remarks on 'Montanus' at http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/add4.htm .
Peter
Peter.
The evidence you have provided, as far as I understand it, is that between May 15th and May 29th, an average of 6 out of 14 members of the PC met in four different sessions. The official matters discussed during those sessions are recorded in the Acts, and in those Acts, Marlowe is referred to only once, on May 20th.
Another piece of “evidence” that we have is that Poley left for The Hague on May 8th and did not deliver “important” letters to the Queen until June 8th.
Danby’s Report of June 1st, contradicts Poley’s travelling dates. So, on the basis of these two documents, it appears that we are looking at a conspiracy. Consequesntly, Danby’s Report could include a number of falsehoods, including Poley’s presence in Deptford, apart from the main issue of Marlowe’s death.
This is what I mean by “evidence”; the rest is conjecture both on your part and mine.
As you rightly say, Kyd’s statement that the papers found in his room belonged to Marlowe could not have pulled much weight, considering their contents. That Puckering already knew the contents of the Baines’ Note, is again conjecture. The Baines Note tangentially implicates Raleigh, Heriot, and Cholmeley in its accusations, so the Council would have had quite a job following up all that information.
Therefore, while I admire (and am grateful for) the amount of factual information that you (and Anthony) have gathered and generously shared with us, I cannot say that such factual information necessarily –or even probably – leads us to the conjecture that a 16th Century religious fanatic would agree to fake Marlowe’s death, so he could escape interrogation, trial and possibly execution. I personally find it an improbable scenario. So, taking on board all the facts you have given me, I must interpret the situation differently.
BTW, I see you are using the Stratfordian dates of composition to refute my argument that there were no new plays between 1600 and 1604. I will deal with that elsewhere.
Ros, you said, "Why would you prosecute (and appear to kill) your own agent, when you knew the set up came from Catholic double agents (Drury, Baines)? It would be playing into the hands of the enemy."
Before I respond to this within the context of the current debate, I'd like to be sure I understand your meaning. Are you saying you believe that Baines was secretly working for the Catholic side?
Cynthia
Based on Roy Kendall's work, yes. Have a look at Kendall's book "Christopher Marlowe and Richard Baines". It's very illuminating on this subject.
Unfortunately, I must bow out from any further discussions, but I'm sure there are others who might answer any additional questions you might have.
Isabel said:
- "The official matters discussed during those sessions are recorded in the Acts, and in those Acts, Marlowe is referred to only once, on May 20th."
The minutes themselves contain no record of Marlowe's attendance being demanded nor why it was. Nor do they say anything of his appearing before them, what he said when he did, and what action was taken as a result. Most meetings have some discussion which is off the record, and that would appear to have been the case here.
- "Danby’s Report of June 1st, contradicts Poley’s travelling dates."
No it doesn't. The warrant says nothing about what he was doing between those two dates other than that he was on her majesty's service "all the aforesaid time."
- "Danby’s Report could include a number of falsehoods, including Poley’s presence in Deptford."
Everything we know about that report supports the fact that the inquisition gives an accurate account of what happened at the inquest, including a real jury consisting of real people who would have had access to the report if they had wanted to see it. There must therefore have been someone there claiming to be Poley. So I'll ask again. Why would anyone need to pretend that he was Poley if he really wasn't?
- "That Puckering already knew the contents of the Baines’ Note, is again conjecture."
Which doesn't really matter all that much, since the really damaging allegations were in the Remembrances, and the probability very high that they were in Puckering's hands by then.
- "...the conjecture that a 16th Century religious fanatic would agree to fake Marlowe’s death..."
As Archbishop of Canterbury, Whitgift was determined to combat any perceived threat to the Church's current organization. He was less interested in matters of doctrine, unless they also posed such a real threat, and Cholmeley's gang would been unlikely to worry him all that much. Provided he was reassured that Marlowe would stop spreading this stuff, I see no reason why he couldn't have been persuaded to accept such a compromise. He himself didn't have to "fake" anything.
- "I see you are using the Stratfordian dates of composition..."
I am using dates acceptable to most Shakespearian scholars. In our business (as with the Poley question) it is better, as far as possible, to go with those facts established by recognized authorities if we are to avoid accusations of special pleading or circular argument.
Peter
I have read Kendall’s book, although that is not what created my own suspicions around the possibility Baines was a double agent. I’m bringing it up now because if the secret service suspected Baines of being a double agent it would put a new spin on this discussion, one that ought to begin by asking a lot of questions, and might broaden the scope of the problems.
The first question one might ask is, if they doubted Baines’ credibility (Drury’s Remembrances is linked to Baines in content and style) and if they knew that Drury had been sent to Baines by Puckering for “information”, why could they not have protected Marlowe simply by stating that all the charges were void because Marlowe had been merely acting in such a manner for a particular role he was playing in the secret service? Both the Cambridge rumors and the Flushing incident would seem to have been voided by this method.
If this line of thinking has any merit, then we would look for a reason compromise was impossible.
Peter, you say "That Puckering already knew the contents of the Baines’ Note, is again conjecture."
This takes us back to Drury’s conversation with Puckering regarding the Dutch Church Libel. A conversation in which Puckering told Drury to go see Baines because he had some information about the Libel. It becomes necessary to ask at this point if both Baines and Drury were being used as informants by the “Whitgift faction” to set up Marlowe. If this is true, does it not make it more unlikely they would have later compromised with the Burghley faction?
More follows this, there were too many characters to post at once.
Cynthia
To continue . . .
Questions to ask are, how did Puckering know Baines had “information”? How is it possible Baines actually did have pertinent information regarding the DCL? If Baines did have information, why would Puckering send Drury to Baines if Puckering didn’t know what this information was (how else could P. ascertain it was valuable enough to send Drury to Baines?).
Just as there was a battle going on between Protestant/Catholic, there was a battle going on between England’s Church/State, those leaning toward the democratic parliamentarian and those who wanted to keep the power in the hands of the Church. The Dutch Church Libel reflected Raleigh’s statements in Parliament. It contained three references to Marlowe’s plays. They went after Raleigh a year later (the Cerne Abbas enquiries into the orthodoxy of his religious beliefs).
What a coincidence that Baines, who went after Marlowe a year before this in Flushing, is the very man who has the information that Puckering tells Drury he can use to find the author of the Dutch Church Libel. Can we know what Baines information was by the actions next taken? Those actions were to arrest Kyd and “discover” Marlowe’s “heretical” papers in Kyd’s room, papers Kyd said must have been shuffled in with his own. (Contrary to what many writers have misinterpreted as being a definitive, Kyd did not seem to have recognized these papers). Which brings up another question, did Baines plant those papers?
It seems that Marlowe was likely working for the secret service in Flushing to discover who was behind the coin counterfeiting. The evidence suggests that Baines did not know Marlowe was in Flushing on a mission for secret service, otherwise he would not have gone to Sidney with his charges. Yet Baines was there. Was he working for the Whitgift faction at that time? Had they been after Marlowe before 1593? It may not have been a personal grudge Baines had against Marlowe (the poisoning of wells by Jews was common folklore in England, something Marlowe would have latched onto for Barabas, we need not lock ourselves into thinking Baines had a personal vendetta to get Marlowe).
In the light of these questions that are perfectly legitimate to ask, it would seem difficult to come to a firm conclusion that the Burghley/Whitgift factions came to a compromise over Marlowe. Rather, it would seem to beg more questions. Now that Sir Francis Walsingham was dead, and during the time Burghley was quite ill, had the Whitgift faction decided to go after a few of the freethinkers? As far as Buckhurst the former blank verse dramatist being sympathetic to Marlowe, he could just as well have been hostile to this former Parker scholar divinity student who was using blank verse in a more broadminded way than the church might like.
After all this, let me add that (ironically) today is our Independence Day here in the US.
Cynthia
Cynthia,
These are all excellent observations but I'm afraid I find them too far away from the event itself to be of any real help in determining what happened. In an attempt to explain why, let me repeat here part of a post I have just sent to Anthony.
If we start with a shared assumption that the famous three were at Deptford that day to fake Marlowe's death, we must ask just what circumstances would have required such an incredibly drastic solution. It seems to me that Puckering's having damaging evidence against him (even really dangerous accusations) which he had mentioned to Burghley gets nowhere near enough to creating the sort of situation where it would be appropriate. Why wouldn't Burghley simply tip Marlowe off that serious trouble was brewing, and that he had better make himself scarce until it was clear just what the reaction to it might be? Only after it was absolutely certain that Whitgift was irrevocably committed to Marlowe's trial and execution and that even straightforward banishment wasn't an option would they need to consider a scheme so irreversible in its effects.
And for them to be absolutely certain about this, Whitgift himself must surely have known about it and expressed his verdict on the subject, particularly that banishment would simply not be enough. I would say that this would have had to be after 20 and by 23 May. Just a week to set it up.
So either Marlowe turned up that day, in which case he cannot have been allowed to go free, or he didn't, in which case why wasn't that fact recorded and why was there no new warrant issued for his immediate arrest to answer those serious charges now definitely being made against him?
As you know, I think that Poley's presence (and warrant issued later) is a clear indication of the involvement of Burghley and Heneage in what happened. And I assume he was chosen because he was quite understandably thought to be the best man for the job, although Thomas Walsingham could take Poley's place if he failed to get back from the Hague in time.
Behind my reservations about any scenario other than the compromise one, however, lies a judgment as subjective as any expressed on the subject.
- I cannot see how it is possible to exclude Burghley from involvement in the deception.
- I cannot see either him or Danby being prepared to play any part in it without the Queen's approval.
- I cannot see the Queen agreeing to a scheme specifically designed to cheat her highly trusted Archbishop of Canterbury out of what he thought of as his duty. She was in a position (as Isabel has reminded us) to simply tell him what was going to happen, so why wouldn't she do that?
Peter
An admirable example of circular reasoning, Peter!
And BTW, why would anybody consider this scheme “irreversible in its effects”? Can you really not inmagine a scenario in which it could be reversed, for instance, when Whitgift died? He was already about sixty-three-years'old by 1593.
Peter,
I think most of us agree with your points that Burghley had to have been involved, hence the Queen. She either insisted on a compromise with Whitgift behind the scenes or she didn’t. If she did, it is hard to picture both factions sitting around the Privy Council table haggling out the precise way in which the Marlowe problem would be solved, and all agreeing that the faked death (at this point a seemingly unnecessarily elaborate method) was the best way to go. But perhaps this is what happened.
If she didn’t insist on a compromise with Whitgift, there would have had to have been a good reason. Which brings us back to the Burghley faction’s distrust of Baines (which would have begun with Francis who doubted the dramatics of Baines’ confession at Rheims and the story of his release after threatening to poison their well) and the idea that he was setting up Marlowe. If he had told the Queen that he and Francis suspected Baines of being a double agent, that Baines was giving Whitgift a man that could reveal state secrets under torture, a man that might give the church a reason to go after men like Raleigh and Hariot, etc., a man that could be the beginning of greater fracture within state/church relations, then she might have consented to a different sort of compromise, one that Whitgift was not himself privy to. This compromise would exist in her conscience as a way of preventing further fracture between church and state. Marlowe’s faked death solved this problem.
What started out as a search for the Dutch Church Libeler turned into a Marlowe as atheist witch hunt that had nothing to do with the Dutch Church Libel. Baines’ first attack on Marlowe in Flushing coincided with the 1592 Catholic priest Robert Persons’ English publication Responsio ad Edictum Elizabethan out of which the mythic “School of Night” was born. In this satirical piece Persons wrote of “Sir Walter Rawley’s school of atheism” and “the diligence used to get young gentlemen to this school, wherein both Moses and our Saviour, the Old and the New Testament, are jested at, and the scholars taught among other things to spell God backward.” Baines as double agent seems to have been in perfect alignment with Persons, the evidence of this is in the contents of Baines and Drury’s information.
Cynthia
Isabel said:
- "An admirable example of circular reasoning, Peter!"
Blowed if I can see it. I'd be grateful if you would explain just what you have in mind, so that I can avoid it in future!
- "And BTW, why would anybody consider this scheme "irreversible in its effects"? Can you really not imagine a scenario in which it could be reversed, for instance, when Whitgift died? He was already about sixty-three-years'old by 1593."
Not that I said "permanently irreversible", but you seem to be ignoring the survival of Whitgift's successor, Bancroft, until 1610. Furthermore, whereas the revelation of the deception would have been risk free if it had been originally ordered by the Privy Council, I would have thought that the uncovering of any unilaterally organized one could still pose significant risk both to Ingram Frizer (d.1627) and Thomas Walsingham (d.1630).
Peter
Cynthia,
Again you make some excellent points, but (as I mentioned earlier on) I don't see the Baines input to this being as important as what Drury was reporting to Puckering about Marlowe's relationship with Cholmeley and his crew. As I see it, Drury wasn't all that bothered about Marlowe, but (once Baines told him what he knew about Marlowe's blasphemies) thought that they would be a useful "appendix" to his anti-Cholmeley information. This would explain why they were sent to the Queen and she wanted it "prosecuted to the full" despite Marlowe already being "dead" by then.
Peter
Peter, you say, "I don't see the Baines input to this being as important as what Drury was reporting to Puckering about Marlowe's relationship with Cholmeley and his crew." The question is, how much of Drury was influenced by Baines? If Baines knew there was money to be gleaned by providing juicy information, even though untrue (and possibly to the Catholic advantage), could he not have persuaded Drury to embellish his own "information"?
Drury's gripe was with Cholmeley, he had a vendetta there. It is hard to imagine Marlowe hanging out with riff raff like Cholmeley and his crew when he was so busy working with other writers 1589-93 on the King Henry VI plays, Edward III, Edward II, etc., and working in the secret service on other matters, being a friend of Watsons and Thomas Walsinghams, most likely Southampton, etc.
Surely this could have been supported by many people involved with Marlowe. I suppose my point here is that the actual compromise struck between Burghley and the Queen had more to do with satisfying the ecclesiastics, giving them something (in the form of Cholmeley) than with the truth. The Queen would not have wanted Marlowe's high end friends involved and neither would they have wanted to get involved.
Cynthia
I agree a deal was evidently struck to save Marlowe’s life. However, in my view, Robert Cecil, not Essex, was the intermediary who approached Elizabeth. He would have done so on behalf of his father, who was ailing at the end of May and not fully able to broker the arrangement. The queen was persuaded and after Whitgift was brought into the discussions authorized Cecil, her acting secretary, to attend to the details.
Whitgift and Marlowe’s relationship may have been much better than we might expect. Though Kit’s plays were provocative, they were theologically impeccable, as many Anglican critics have noted. But Kit was reckless, overly ambitious, and prone to jest, especially at table talk. Given the witch hunt against Separatists, the Parliamentary debate on dissent, and civil unrest, I suspect that the attack against Marlowe emerged from below, not above.
Whitgift was not anti-theatrical like the Puritans. On the contrary, he enjoyed plays, and Thomas Nashe, Marlowe’s friend and editor of Dido, Queen of Carthage, lived for a while as a writer in residence at the archbishop’s manor in Croyden where he wrote and performed the play, Summer’s Last Will and Testament. Whitgift also kept his own fool, which suggests that he had a sense of humor, at least within his own verge.
Whitgift was harsh and uncompromising on matters of church organization and polity, as was pointed out, but he had a weak spot for acolytes. For example, he stuck with Essex, his former pupil, long after he later run afoul of the queen.
Whitgift also had signed off on the deal to send Rev. John Udall, one of his harshest Puritan critics, into exile in Turkey in 1591, as I noted in my book on Hamlet. Udall had incurred the queen’s displeasure following the Marprelate affair and was languishing in prison under sentence of death. A group of London merchants offered to sponsor him as a pastor for their agents if he were released. Ironically, Turkey, the seat of Christendom’s historic foe, Islam, tolerated freedom of religion for Christians and Jews. Sir Walter Raleigh proposed the deal, Burghley and Essex interceded with the queen, and according to Strype Whitgift did “freely condescend” to the arrangement. (Keep in mind that earlier when supervising his interrogation the archbishop had Udall brought before the commissioners laden with heavy chains.) The queen signed the pardon and Whitgift notified Puckering, but unfortunately Udall fell ill and died before the actual release. His rescue may have been a dress rehearsal for Kit’s.
Alex
Thanks for reminding me about Udall, Alex.
I see that in my copy of your book I had actually underlined Strype's words (p.410) "the Archbishop did freely condescend"!
Peter
Cynthia,
Yes, I'm sure that the second batch of Drury's accusations was largely the result of Baines's 'information' about Marlowe, even though Marlowe wasn't mentioned in it.
I don't see Baines having much of an influences upon the Remembrances themselves, however, which seem to be what they purport to be - Drury's memories concerning Cholmeley.
The most important bits concerning Marlowe (even though he gets just the one mention) are the ones I quoted here way back on 27 June.
Peter
All:
Having re-read all comments,I must repeat once again what seems to me obvious:
- That Peter and Ros have failed to convince me of feasibility of the "Privy Plot", as Anthony calls it.
- That I have failed to convince anyone of the Essex Plot.
As a result of this, I must decide to quit this argument.
On the whole, I find Cynthia's observations quite interesting.
Replying to Alex's comment may take several posts, so I shall reply to him separately.
Also, as a last attempt to reply to several of Peter's comments, I will send a reply following this.
Isabel
Peter:
What I meant by your "circular reasoning" referred to this paragraph of yours:
"If we start with a shared assumption that the famous three were at Deptford that day to fake Marlowe's death, ...etc."
In the first place, I do not share that assumption. In the second place, even if I did, I could think of other circs that would have explained the situation.
The problem with your arguments is that they are always based on that assumption; that is why I say you are using circular reasoning.
Next: What particular piece of evidence makes you say that "Marlowe returned to England in 1595, angry at not having been paid by Burghley"? While it may be the case, I would have thought that Burghley had stopped paying Marlowe much earlier, possibly in the winter of 1592. You must know something I don't (not that that's unusual).
Next: Peter: "As to whether his future career as a dramatist was discussed, I have no idea. But the fact that both the Lord Admiral and the Lord Chamberlain were at the 29 May meeting may be of some relevance?"
Perhaps even more relevant may be the fact that on May 31st the "usual suspects" met again, this time without the Archbishop.
As per your information:
May 31st: (Thur) Afternoon: Meeting at Nonesuch: Attendants; Burghley, Essex, Hunsdon, Heneage, Cecil.
In other words, the men that I suggested were involved in the deception: Essex leading, and the others following the Queen's orders, including Hunsdon.
Lastly: Peter
" In our business (as with the Poley question) it is better, as far as possible, to go with those facts established by recognized authorities...".
Which authorities on what happened at Deptford do you recognize as established? Why do you decide that Heneage's accounts for the period are less to be trusted as accurate than Danby's Report, about which you are denying the major premise to begin with?
The payment of 30 shillings to Poley on 8t June is recorded not in an independent document, but within a list of various payments to different people, for different services. This would have been possibly written by a clerk in Heneage's office.
So which of these two documents, Heneage's or Danby's would have been "easier" to manipulate, if we agree that the Queen was privy to the scam?
Ros:
"if financial support failed to materialise - as Peter's various excursions in the Bacon Papers can be read to suggest."
I may have missed something in the Bacon Papers which I have studied very carefully since Dolly's book and Peter's website made me aware of them. I have copies both digital and on paper of most of the relevant letters, and, I think, all passports.
What I read in those papers is that in October 1595 Jacques Petit, by order of Anthony Bacon, travelled to Burley where Le Doux already was placed as tutor of the Harington boy. We have no way of knowing (unless I have missed a letter) when did Le Doux arrive in Burley.
However, one might speculate as to why would Sir John engage a French Huguenot tutor for his son for only three months, as we know Le Doux was taken away from Burley "precipitately" in January.
If Le Doux was Marlowe, he would have been Essex agent well before October, as we must consider the neccesary time to organize the plan, Marlowe's travel, Petit's travel, etc. So, it is not unreasonable to surmise that Marlowe may have been in Essex's service at least since early 1595, maybe earlier.
Rather generous of Essex, if Marlowe were Lord B's agent. And then providing him with those passports. Why were the Cecils not involved in Le Doux's passports?
I agree that the Cecils and Essex collaborated in certain things, but the foreign Intelligence network doesn't seem to be one of them.
Isabel
Some interesting arguments here, on both sides. In regard to Whitgift, I agree that he would have been extremely reluctant to allow Marlowe to escape trial and punishment. But isn't it possible that a deal was struck between Burghley snd Whitgift? It is well known that Burghley was opposed to the execution of Puritan ministers, and had unsuccessfully tried to prevent the hanging of several of them in the period immediately preceding Marlowe's supposed death. Might not Burghley have agreed not to oppose John Penry's execution in exchange for Whitgift's cooperation in allowing Marlowe to escape? Whitgift would certainly have regarded Penry as a much greater threat than Marlowe. A deal like this could explain why whoever was ultimately responsible for Marlowe's escape was able to make the arrangements without opposition from the PC.
Isabel, thank you so much for humouring me. I really think that discussions like these are exactly what we need to have if we are to get anywhere near to finding out whether we are right in arguing for these excentric beliefs of ours! I'm afraid that running to more than 4,096 characters this has to be a two-parter
You said:
- "Peter: What I meant by your "circular reasoning" referred to this paragraph of yours: "If we start with a shared assumption that the famous three were at Deptford that day to fake Marlowe's death, ...etc." In the first place, I do not share that assumption."
As regards the alleged "circular reasoning", it is as I thought. In this case I was discussing with Cynthia whether or not the faked death (which is what I thought all Marlovians were agreed upon) was the result of a compromise which either involved Whitgift or not. Such a discussion must necessarily be based upon the premise that there was a faked death in the first place. That I stated this in a form which you don't agree with (i.e. that the "third man" Poley was there) is neither here nor there.
- "In the second place, even if I did, I could think of other circs that would have explained the situation."
We can all think of "other circumstances that would have explained the situation". What I and most other Marlovians are therefore doing is to discuss which of those possible circumstances seem to explain the situation better than any other.
- "The problem with your arguments is that they are always based on that assumption; that is why I say you are using circular reasoning."
Circular reasoning would have been if I had in some way taken it that Whitgift was involved in the deception as a premise of an argument in which I showed why I was trying to show that he must have been. That is clearly not the case here.
Peter
(to be continued)
(continued)
Isabel said:
- "What particular piece of evidence makes you say that 'Marlowe returned to England in 1595, angry at not having been paid by Burghley'?"
I said "See my remarks on 'Montanus' at http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/add4.htm". Did you? Do you have any evidence supporting your claim that it was earlier? As I have said, I am quite happy to assume that a transfer from Burghley to Essex may have happened long before that if there were any evidence to support the idea, but that it happened at any time before the deception itself is completely contradicted by the evidence we have available to us right now.
- "Perhaps even more relevant [than my answer to a quite different question] may be the fact that on May 31st the "usual suspects" met again, this time without the Archbishop. As per your information: May 31st: (Thur) Afternoon: Meeting at Nonesuch: Attendants; Burghley, Essex, Hunsdon, Heneage, Cecil. In other words, the men that I suggested were involved in the deception: Essex leading, and the others following the Queen's orders, including Hunsdon."
You omit my saying that he had met with Whitgift and Puckering at a PC meeting at Westminster that morning. Your assumption seems to be that Burghley could have engineered it that precisely the right people attended each meeting, rather than that he was making sure that everyone on both sides of the compromise knew what was going on.
- "Lastly: Peter: "In our business (as with the Poley question) it is better, as far as possible, to go with those facts established by recognized authorities...". Which authorities on what happened at Deptford do you recognize as established?- "
One of the most important lessons any non-Stratfordian can learn (and it is one in which most recent Marlovians beat others hands-down) is to reduce to the absolute minimum those points about which we and professional Shakespearian scholars disagree. The more premises upon which we can base our argument which are already accepted by the academic establishment the better. And any non-Stratfordian who doesn't understand that hasn't a hope in hell of getting anyone who matters to take their argument seriously.
- "So which of these two documents, Heneage's or Danby's would have been "easier" to manipulate, if we agree that the Queen was privy to the scam?"
I keep trying to explain to you how I see this, but don't seem to be getting through. I think that Danby's report was a true account of what was decided at the inquest. That some people got away with lying about what happened and managed to convince the jury that this is what actually occurred is just one of those things. That's what he reported. Poley's warrant, again with no reason for us to disbelieve, was unique in stating that he had been on her majesty's service throughout the time that he was away. I say that this was because his appearance at Deptford was indeed "on duty". My question to you, however, still remains unanswered: "Why would anyone need to pretend that he was Poley if he really wasn't?"
Peter
Alex: First Post:
“Robert Cecil, not Essex, was the intermediary who approached Elizabeth”
Do you have any evidence for that, other than the assumption that Burghley would have done it had he not been ill? And yet, despite his illness, Burghley did get up from his sick bed to attend the PC meetings of end May. Too ill to go and talk to the Queen but not to attend the Meetings?
“Whitgift was not anti-theatrical (...) he enjoyed plays, and Thomas Nashe (…), lived for a while as a writer in residence (...) in Croyden where he wrote and performed the play Summer’s Last Will and Testament.”
That’s interesting, but yo may be seeing too much in it. All wealthy Courtiers were in the habit of entertaining guests. I had not thought about Whitgift doing that, but it makes sense to think he did. Entertaining a bunch of guests, probably staying in the house for a few days, meant that some indoor amusement had to be provided. It may be music, or poetry reading, but also plays, which were all the rage. So Whitgift hired Nashe to write a play for him. This fact might simply mean that, unlike other hosts, such as Oxford (“the best for Comedy”) or Mary Sidney, the Archbishop was incapable of writing plays for his friends.
In any case, that he used plays to entertain his guests privately, in no way means that he would approve of the public theatres, where the plebeians of London might hear things they shouldn’t, such as the railings of a man selling his soul to the devil.
Alex,Second post:
I will now comment on the case of the Rev. John Udall, according to your information:
-Udall had been sentenced to death, presumably after trial.
-The sentence was openly changed to exile, not disappearance. Threfore we are still talking about an exemplary puishment.
-A group of London merchants offered to sponsor him as a pastor for their agents in Turkey. So we know who paid for his everyday needs, and under which network he would be traveling.
I find it interesting that Raleigh proposed the deal and that Burghley and Essex interceded with the Queen. The Archbishop, who had kept Udall in chains, condescended, under pressure presumably, to send the man into exile, openly, quite far away and under control of the Merchants.
Alex: In what way is this case remotely similar to Marlowe’s?
You are so right, Peter. It is good we are discussing these things, "brainstorming" the matter so to speak. Who knows what new connections might be forged when we toss our ideas into the ring. That's why I'm glad Ros brought up the idea of Baines being a double agent. It gives a new dimension to many events.
And by the way, I do think that Drury's saying he had no idea where to find Baines when Puckering sent him to B. might be telling us that Baines was not the man who Kuriyama thinks was a Waltham Rector. Certainly Puckering would have known that, and told Drury. It is Drury's tone when he wrote (something to the effect of) "I did not so much as imagine where I might find him."
I was thinking that we might add something from the horses mouth to this discussion.
We have Marlowe's own words in Hamlet, the wicked Whitgift passage that you discovered, Alex, which might (or might not) be relevant to this particular event:
GHOST. I that incestuous, that adulterate Beast
With witchcraft of his wits, hath Traitorous gifts,
Oh wicked Wit, and Gifts, that have the power
So to seduce? Won to this shamefull Lust
The will of my most seeming virtuous Queene
We have Polonius, who seems to characterize Lord Burghley and who get stabbed behind the curtain for his meddling.
We have Sonnet 125 which seems to tell us a paid (suborned) informer has impeached Shakespeare.
We have Sonnet 34 which seems to tell us that Marlowe wasn't at Deptford, and hadn't known the way in which they were going fake his death. As a matter of fact, it seems to say that he had been promised another scenario before he left for the continent:
Why didst thou promise such a beauteous day,
And make me travel forth without my cloak,
To let base clouds o'ertake me in my way,
Hiding thy bravery in their rotten smoke?
'Tis not enough that through the cloud thou break,
To dry the rain on my storm-beaten face,
For no man well of such a salve can speak,
That heals the wound, and cures not the disgrace:
Nor can thy shame give physic to my grief;
Though thou repent, yet I have still the loss:
The offender's sorrow lends but weak relief
To him that bears the strong offence's cross.
Ah! but those tears are pearl which thy love sheds,
And they are rich and ransom all ill deeds.
And, to throw a friend of Marlowe's into the mix,
we have the last stanza in Sir Walter Raleigh's poem The Lie which might or might not have been aimed at Marlowe (if there was an "atheist" lecture? And if he did, indeed, tell Cholmeley that he'd read the atheist lecture to Raleigh?):
So when thou hast, as I
Commanded thee, done blabbing,--
Although to give the lie
Deserves no less than stabbing,--
Stab at thee, he that will,
No stab the soul can kill.
(If this was Marlowe, the poem would imply he is still alive.)
Cynthia
In response to Isabel’s first point about Robert Cecil’s role in Marlowe’s rescue, as Charles Nicholl observes in The Reckoning (revised edition, 2002), after his arrest “Marlowe had at this stage some kind of protection . . . A plausible candidate as the protector of Marlowe in May 1593 is Sir Robert Cecil.”
Nicholl concludes Marlowe was working for Cecil in Flushing, and Kit’s rumored desire to go to Scotland was probably connected with Poley’s journeys to Scotland in late 1592 and early 1593 for Cecil and his father.
In Surveillance, Militarism, and Drama in the Elizabethan Era, Curtis C. Breight concludes that Robert altered the copy of the Baines Note delivered to Elizabeth. In my view, the references to tobacco and counterfeiting were taken out because they touched on the queen. She was known to smoke tobacco with Ralegh, who was introduced to it by James Harriot, his scientific adviser. Harriot was also Marlowe’s friend and the source for the first article in the Baines Note in which Kit was accused of denying biblical chronology concerning the age of Adam and hence the Second Coming of Christ. Robert was also acquainted with Drury, one of the informers, and arranged for his release from prison in August, probably as part of the cover up and damage control. Burghley no doubt was the mastermind behind Kit’s rescue, but given his intermittent infirmities probably left the logistics to his son.
As for Whitgift, my point is that he was not entirely inflexible and closed to compromise. He enjoyed the theater, as did Elizabeth, and attended plays at court, as well as staged them privately in his residence. The archbishop was not a prude like most Puritans and had personally licensed Venus and Adonis, on April 18, 1593, just a month earlier. V&A is much more lewd than Hero and Leander or Ovid’s Elegies. Indeed, Martin Marprelate alludes (pun intended) to Whitgift’s infatuation with a Mistresse Toye, and Marlowe may have quipped on this tie in the prologue to The Jew of Malta: “I count religion but a childish toy.” Martin also glances at a possible gay relationship between Whitgift and his mentor, Andrew Perne.
Whether it was these innuendoes that enraged the prelate, the assault on church doctrine, or both, Whitgift went after Marprelate with a vengeance. He commissioned Nashe, Lyly, and other writers (but conspicuously not Marlowe) to write satirical replies and authorized the Queen’s Men and other troupes to attack Martin on the London stage. This led to theatrical dismemberments and killings and so much mayhem that Martin and anti-Martin became indistinguishable and a further source of embarrassment to the authorities.
Whitgift believed Penry to be Martin and showed him no mercy despite the efforts of the moderates to spare him. Udall also called for a complete reformation of the Church of England. As a leading theologian, he was a clear and present danger to Elizabeth and Whitgift, but they were persuaded to release him and send him into exile, a precedent I believe was followed in Marlowe’s case.
By contrast, Kit, the impeccable Anglican playwright whose Doctor Faustus dramatized the wages of sin, posed no existential threat to the Church or Crown and in fact was a trusted agent who performed good service for Her Majesty. But he had become the scapegoat for Puckering, Buckhurst, Popham, Young, and other hardliners who were more Catholic than the pope—or in this case, more Anglican than the queen and archbishop. As the witch hunt for atheists reached a fever pitch, the deal was struck to allow Marlowe to withdraw to safety. The ritually staged murder was caviar to the general who saw God turning the atheist’s writing hand against himself. The Reckoning, as this scripted morality play became known, was truly Shakespearean.
Alex
Nice post. Graças
Post a Comment