tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post8121974430318512365..comments2024-03-05T10:34:30.182-05:00Comments on The Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection: John Davies and the Swallow by Peter FareyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-8518475462823213352011-09-04T23:45:08.157-04:002011-09-04T23:45:08.157-04:00Peter, I'm inclined to agree with you. All th...Peter, I'm inclined to agree with you. All this is very interesting, but a lot of the dates could just be coincidence.daver852https://www.blogger.com/profile/06067533090226229731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-37601823765287884342011-08-30T18:53:30.742-04:002011-08-30T18:53:30.742-04:00I'm very much enjoying the wonderful debate an...I'm very much enjoying the wonderful debate and knowledge displayed on this blog. I'm learning a lot. Thanks to all of you. And going back to Peter's original post, I think this is a really thought-provoking piece. It presents a strong positive peg in the intriguing Marlowe puzzle of "did he" or "didn't he" survive Deptford. I think he did. I'm looking forward to more post-1593 evidence turning up in the records. I'm sure it will.Maureen Duffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-56541843590278718972011-08-30T06:26:33.260-04:002011-08-30T06:26:33.260-04:00Oops, the first passport was a transcript, of cour...Oops, the first passport was a transcript, of course, and not a translation!<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-8834697130081109152011-08-30T06:20:25.735-04:002011-08-30T06:20:25.735-04:00Yes, Isabel, I confess to a bit of irony there.
I...Yes, Isabel, I confess to a bit of irony there.<br /><br />In 1995, Dolly Wraight and I (unsuccessfully) entered a rather long essay entitled "William Shakespeare: New Evidence" for the Hoffman prize. The essay was divided into three parts of which Dolly wrote Parts 1 and 3, and I wrote Part 2. My bit was about Le Doux, which included my translations of that letter and the first of his passports. These were repeated word for word (as was some 75% of my original Part Two) in the book which we developed from that essay. Whilst I did where appropriate often provide Dolly with very rough translations of the Le Doux-related stuff I found (which was all but two of the 25 such documents mentioned in the book), I do think it was very sensible of her to get someone whose first language was French to re-do most of them!<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-17669931813066729352011-08-29T12:36:08.345-04:002011-08-29T12:36:08.345-04:00Peter said:
“And an excellent translation it is t...Peter said: <br />“And an excellent translation it is too, in my humble opinion! “<br /><br />What do you mean, Peter? Do I detect a touch of irony?<br /><br />In her book Dolly thanks Mme Lucie Bouchon for the translation of the French letters. Was that incorrect?<br /><br />I will be doing my own translations anyway.<br />IsabelIsabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-24749368458423963132011-08-28T13:08:51.662-04:002011-08-28T13:08:51.662-04:00For some reason the online address for The Marlowe...For some reason the online address for The Marlowe Studies doesn't work when the "/index.html is added. So it is always simply:<br />http://www.themarlowesudies.org.<br /><br />When books are placed into a bookreader every page is numbered chronologically, including the cover. This means that Isabel's reference to page 140 is going to be page 148 in the bookreader window. In other words, all the text pages are 8 numbers ahead of the actual page number. You can type "148" into the number window at the top, hit return, and that will take you to page 140.<br /><br />There is a link at the top of the booklist that explains how to navigate these bookreaders.Cynthia Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16293844996421547422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-17810809450442108872011-08-28T07:38:08.622-04:002011-08-28T07:38:08.622-04:00Isabel said... The letter is on pg 140-1 (original...Isabel said... The letter is on pg 140-1 (original and translation) of Wraight’s book: “Shakespeare: New Evidence”.<br /><br />And an excellent translation it is too, in my humble opinion! :o)<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-13111385889079158082011-08-27T15:43:22.545-04:002011-08-27T15:43:22.545-04:00Frank:
The letter is on pg 140-1 (original and tra...Frank:<br />The letter is on pg 140-1 (original and translation) of Wright’s book: “Shakespeare: New Evidence”. <br /><br />Cynthia Morgan’s website now has the book online. <br />http://www.themarlowestudies.org/index.html<br />Click "Home", then find the title on the Index, then go to page 148 of the book.<br /><br />Alternatively, you can find the original at the Lambeth Palace Library Archive in London. <br />Ref: MS 657 f. 227<br />I hope this helps.<br />IsabelIsabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-44439094493431351842011-08-27T05:32:36.874-04:002011-08-27T05:32:36.874-04:00Thanks Isabel...given that extra information it ce...Thanks Isabel...given that extra information it certainly sounds as if the Count Maurice being referred to is William the Silent's son. I have not see the letter you quote from, but would be very glad to know where I can find it.frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928512514965684624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-12527048887860555842011-08-26T07:55:36.632-04:002011-08-26T07:55:36.632-04:00Thanks, Frank. That's interesting.
On the oth...Thanks, Frank. That's interesting.<br /><br />On the other hand, if Wilton is saying that 'Our Spy hath followed us to Parris' on 14 Sept. 1595, then I find it hard to imagine that it can have been Le Doux. In his letter to Anthony Bacon that October (Ms.652 f.105), Jean Castol does seem to imply that Le Doux has been at Burley for a while by then, and there is certainly no suggestion in the Bacon papers that he did anything else before being tucked safely out of the way in Rutland. <br /><br />Thanks for the other references. The booklist is of course something which we are already very familiar with and, as I suggested, is given a pretty thorough explanation in my http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/appx2a.htm . The letter referring to Perez is the "Cyprian" one we have been discussing. As for Paul Hammer's 'Polarization of Elizabethan Politics' p.180-184 being relevant, I fear that I am just going to have to take your word for it!<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-40858437190548775112011-08-26T07:15:57.135-04:002011-08-26T07:15:57.135-04:00Frank:
Thanks for your suggestion; however, I am p...Frank:<br />Thanks for your suggestion; however, I am pretty sure that this “Count Maurice” is Maurice of Nassau, who at that moment was (I quote from Le Doux’s letter, translated) “ready to forestall the designs that Archduke Albert has on Hulst, Axel and Ostend.”<br /><br />The Cardinal Archduke Albert arrived in Brussels in Feb 96 to take over as Governor of the Spanish Netherlands. His intention was to recover for Spain all rebel cities that resisted under the leadership of Maurice of Nassau, second son of the assassinated William of Orange. As it happens Hulst was taken on 18th August, so just under two months after Le Doux letter.<br /><br />I hope this helps,<br />IsabelIsabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-79961816618125713672011-08-26T01:55:13.696-04:002011-08-26T01:55:13.696-04:00Isabel.
I think that the most likely reason for a...Isabel.<br /><br />I think that the most likely reason for a sum of money being given by <i>Le Doux</i> against each of the books is that it is what he believes he is owed for it.<br /><br />I think this mainly because of the item <i>Monsr Petit un angelot</i>, down as 10 shillings, which happens to be the sum which we know (from Petit's letter of 24 January which <i>Le Doux</i> himself carried to London) he was owed by Petit. An 'angel' coin (in French <i>un angelot</i>) was worth ten shillings at that time.<br /><br />I think it more likely, however, that the books would have actually been bought from him by Anthony Bacon rather than by Petit, and that Anthony was being asked to pay off Petit's debt at the same time. Petit had stayed on at Burley after <i>Le Doux</i>'s departure.<br /><br />There are several items in the list for which Anthony would had no personal use, and it seems far more to be the sort of fairly random assortment of books that a person travelling on the continent could have simply assembled over time. I therefore conclude that Anthony must have simply taken all of the books in <i>Le Doux</i>'s possession, but asked him to list them and estimate what each was worth to arrive at a fair total of what <i>Le Doux</i> was owed (i.e. £14-9s-8d). <br /><br />This is what I think now, and it is what I have thought ever since I worked out why I was unable to find any trace of books called either <i>Le coffre de bonne esperance</i> or <i>Monsr Petit un angelot</i>.<br /><br />If there is something you disagree with in this, then do please let's hear why. All I was asking you to stop doing was to disagree with things I hadn't actually said, i.e. that the books on the list had been bought by <i>Le Doux</i> "for" Anthony Bacon. <br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-62242472448108036652011-08-25T22:31:40.775-04:002011-08-25T22:31:40.775-04:00To Isabel re your 18th Aug post suggesting that a ...To Isabel re your 18th Aug post suggesting that a certain Count Maurice must refer to Maurice of Nassau: Consider the possibility that the Count Maurice in question may be the Landgrave Moritz of Hesse Kassel. A troupe of English players led by Robert Browne( formerly of Admiral's Men) was there between April 1595 and ? 1598, and a delegation, led by Clinton Earl of Lincoln, represented the Queen there in mid 1596 when she was godmother to the Landgrave's daughter Elisabeth.frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928512514965684624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-35953895721070697102011-08-25T22:18:23.256-04:002011-08-25T22:18:23.256-04:00Peter, in response to your request for more detail...Peter, in response to your request for more detail about'Our Spy' Ungerer Vol II p.23, letter 331 (Edward Wilton to Earl of Essex 18 Aug 1595): Ungerer indicates that the following was ciphered:'Our Spy insinuateth himself by all means he can into Sennior Peres company notwithstanding that he hath almost in plain terms forbidden him.' We look within this iiij or five days to heare from the king.<br />Wilton to Essex 14 Sept 1595: (ciphered)'Our Spy hath followed us to Parris' but Sr Perez hath almost in playn termes 'forbydden hym his company.'<br />See also Ungerer II p.270-273 for List of Books Owned by M.Le Douz (sic) and letter (in French) of M. Le Douz to Anthony Bacon 20 Apl 1596 which refers to Perez. You will also find Paul Hammer's 'Polarization of Elizabethan Politics' p.180-184 relevant.frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928512514965684624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-75833994647372954072011-08-25T14:55:29.660-04:002011-08-25T14:55:29.660-04:00Peter.
“... As far as I am aware I have never sugg...Peter.<br />“... As far as I am aware I have never suggested any such thing (...). Why should my arguing that Le Doux sold the books to Bacon imply that he must have bought them for him? Etc.!”<br /><br />So sorry, Peter; what you actually say in your website is this:<br />“This is important, since it shows that the rest of the figures are money that Le Doux is owed. This could, of course, be either as some form of expense claim, or indicate that he has sold these books to Anthony Bacon”. Etc.<br /><br />So, one of the possibilities that you suggest for the list of LD’s books itemized by language and price, is that LD may have sold such books to Anthony Bacon although he did not buy them for him. Would this mean that you think LD may have been investing his money on books that he intended to sell before he knew who might buy them, or, knowing/hoping that A. Bacon would buy the lot? <br /><br />You say: “And if Anthony Bacon bought all of the books as a job lot (whilst requiring some justification of the overall price) (INDEED) he is hardly going to chuck one or two out just because he already has a copy (WHY NOT, SINCE THE PRICE IS ITEMIZED BY TITLE?). Unless you want to argue that he didn't actually buy them?”<br /><br />I thought it would be clear that is exactly what I wanted to argue. But, since you wish I “stopped doing this” that's what I'll do.<br /><br />Eventually I may be able to write my own article on Le Doux and explain what I think about those books. <br />IsabelIsabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-31500656495974919692011-08-25T09:48:55.292-04:002011-08-25T09:48:55.292-04:00Isabel said... "I think “the man in the libra...Isabel said... "I think “the man in the library” was indeed Perez; my problem was that Perez had left England, allegedly for good, late in July 1595..."<br /><br />But whether he was there in person or not, he was - I suggested - being referred to <b>symbolically</b> <i>via</i> the first part of his autobiography which Anthony Bacon now had in his library, courtesy of <i>Le Doux</i>.<br /><br />Isabel said... "the only person in that circle who might have needed to actually “buy” a copy of Perez’s book could have been Le Doux, for himself. Which supports my suspicion that you may be mistaken about the books on that List having been bought by Le Doux for AB."<br /><br />I do wish that you would stop doing this, Isabel. As far as I am aware I have never suggested any such thing, since I have never believed that this was the case. Why should my arguing that <i>Le Doux</i> sold the books to Bacon imply that he must have bought them for him? Please tell me if I have suggested this, because I would like to correct it!<br /><br />Coincidentally, I wrote the following to a correspondent of mine only this morning: "I have no problem with the <i>Cathologue Des Livres De Monsieur Le Doux</i>, which I still take to be a list of books which had belonged to him. Any inferences one may make from them about his nationality, the languages he spoke, and the sort of things he was interested in are therefore, in my opinion, all still valid."<br /><br />And if Anthony Bacon bought all of the books as a job lot (whilst requiring some justification of the overall price) he is hardly going to chuck one or two out just because he already has a copy. Unless you want to argue that he didn't actually buy them?<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-83551372544795137212011-08-25T06:28:52.789-04:002011-08-25T06:28:52.789-04:00Peter:
I think “the man in the library” was indeed...Peter:<br />I think “the man in the library” was indeed Perez; my problem was that Perez had left England, allegedly for good, late in July 1595, that was why I was questioning the date on the letter. It was in my last revision of the files this week that I realized Perez had come back for a very short time precisely in April 1596. He wanted to settle down in England, under Essex’s wing, but the Queen did not agree, so Perez left for France towards mid-May.<br /><br />Cipriano de Cardenas was a Spaniard living in London. He must have obtained what he was asking for (via Le Doux), in that letter, because Ungerer says that he translated Perez’s book to the Latin. <br /><br />By the way, I find it highly unlikely that LD would have needed to “buy” Perez’s book for Anthony Bacon. Perez presented with free copies of “The Relaciones” to Essex and several of his friends, and that must have included a copy for Bacon as both men must have been staying together in Essex House when the book was published in 94.<br /><br />In fact, the only person in that circle who might have needed to actually “buy” a copy of Perez’s book could have been Le Doux, for himself. <br /><br />Which supports my suspicion that you may be mistaken about the books on that List having been bought by Le Doux for AB. <br />IsabelIsabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-81475228083562690322011-08-25T06:15:45.380-04:002011-08-25T06:15:45.380-04:00Cynthia:
Thanks for the info. I'll have a look...Cynthia:<br />Thanks for the info. I'll have a look at that. You are doing a great service to the Marlovian case, putting all those books in your site. Cheers to you.<br />IsabelIsabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-73453565250703961982011-08-24T13:15:26.526-04:002011-08-24T13:15:26.526-04:00Louis Ule has a few interesting things to say abou...Louis Ule has a few interesting things to say about the writing of MND. Although he does go far out on the limb with some of his ideas (Shakespeare the puppeteer) he is sharp in many ways. For those who are interested in his chapter 19: A Midsummer Night's Dream, its on the MS site:<br />http://themarlowestudies.org/z-ule/ch19-346-357.pdf<br /><br />Also, le Doux is happily tucked into his library shelf now. You'll find Wraight's Shakespeare: New Evidence on the home page in the list of her work.<br />http://www.themarlowestudies.orgCynthia Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16293844996421547422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-60170804222470232422011-08-24T09:24:00.607-04:002011-08-24T09:24:00.607-04:00Hello Frank and Peter:
You are both right about th...Hello Frank and Peter:<br />You are both right about the Derby wedding; sorry about that. But the play was most prbably written for a summer wedding, probably a May-day celebration, as Bulloughs suggests, so not a February marriage either (pace Peter). <br /><br />Re-studying this issue thanks to Frank, I find Bulloughs’ interesting conjecture that the play may have been written for the wedding of Sir Thomas Heneage and Southampton’s mother, on 2nd May 1594. My hypothesis would be that a private celebration, (performance of play included, perhaps a shorter version), may have taken place a couple of weeks later, on Midsummer’s Night. Bulloughs points out the fact that Theseus and Hippolyta seem middle-aged by comparison to the four youngsters, and that this may be a reflection on the ages of the groom, the elderly Sir Thomas (about 60 then and died the following year) and his widowed bride. <br /><br />As I believe Sir Thomas was part of the Deptford conspiracy, plus Southampton’s involvement in Venus and Adonis and The Rape, I find nothing more natural than that Marlowe may have written this delightful comedy for such wedding. <br /><br />So, unless Le Doux had arrived a lot earlier than we think, MND has nothing to do with Burley. Marlowe may have travelled to England in the spring of 1594 under another name.<br /><br />As for Ungarer’s book, I only have Part I here and have just ordered part II. As far as I can see it has restricted view online. <br />IsabelIsabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-45802844416803234452011-08-24T07:15:06.553-04:002011-08-24T07:15:06.553-04:00Hello Frank,
In my opinion, and pace Isabel, this...Hello Frank,<br /><br />In my opinion, and <i>pace</i> Isabel, this wasn't the wedding MND was written for, but rather for the marriage of Sir George Carey's daughter, on 19th February 1595/6. Assuming that <i>Le Doux</i> was in fact Marlowe, I gave my reasons for thinking this in Chapter 7 of my <i>A Deception in Deptford</i> at http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/chap7.htm .<br /><br />Any chance of you telling us a little more about "the ciphered reference to 'our spy' in Wilton's letter to Essex, August 1595" by the way? Unless online, the chance of my examining "Ungerer, Vol II letters 331, 334" any time soon, even if I knew where to find them, is zero. <br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-4669269490683528562011-08-24T03:35:49.256-04:002011-08-24T03:35:49.256-04:00re Isabel's post of 18th August: the wedding o...re Isabel's post of 18th August: the wedding of Will Stanley 6th Earl of Derby and Lady Elizabeth Vere took place on Jan 26th 1595 new dating, not June 1595.(Nelson Alan H. Monstrous Adversary, 349, is as good a recent reference as any to that fact.)In other words, well before le Doux is believed to have entered England, if the ciphered reference to 'our spy' in Wilton's letter to Essex, August 1595 is indeed Le Doux ( see Ungerer, Vol II letters 331, 334)frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928512514965684624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-9194448307564663132011-08-24T01:22:01.837-04:002011-08-24T01:22:01.837-04:00Isabel said...
"When he finally left for Ger...Isabel said...<br /><br />"When he finally left for Germany around 1st June, I am almost sure LD went with him, as I suggested."<br /><br />Yes, this is certainly the conclusion I came to. As I said in my <i>A Deception in Deptford</i> "he would later accompany Baron Zeirotine, Ambassador from the Holy Roman Emperor, Rudolf II, and Zeirotine's right-hand man, Henry d'Eberbach, on their return home to Prague" and "the last time we ever hear of Le Doux is ... 22nd June (probably the 12th in England) when he wrote from Middelburg, again with the Baron (whose passport for this trip 'homeward by Flushinge' had been issued on 31st May) and d'Eberbach." <br />See my http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/add5.htm for what else I found out about <i>Le Doux</i> before he left England (whether there is anything in his having also used the identity of <i>Ferries</i> or not.) <br /><br />"As for the letter, it is most probably April 96, as you say. I think I have identified both Cyprian and “the man in the library”."<br /><br />I've never given much thought to who Cyprian was, although we are told that he was Spanish, "reputed a man of virtue and learning" and had a son who had presumably been an agent of Mr. Secretary Walsingham. I had tended to assume that the man in the library was Antonio Perez himself, the phrase referring to the first part of Perez's autobiography, printed in Spanish by Richard Field, which <i>Le Doux</i> had sold to Anthony Bacon.<br /><br />"One last bit of info: One of the Spanish books in the Coffre, “Historia Imperial”, was written by Pedro Mexia, the author of “Silva de Varia Leccion”, one of the acknowledged sources for Tamburlaine."<br /><br />Thanks, Isabel, but I had picked that up already. In fact I think I managed to identify all of the items on the booklist eventually. See http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/appx2a.htm <br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-54083715388383496402011-08-23T13:50:43.740-04:002011-08-23T13:50:43.740-04:00Peter:
By the time I visited the LP Library they o...Peter:<br />By the time I visited the LP Library they only had one copy of the Index which of course was not for sale.<br />So I asked for photocopies. I also have a CD with most of the LD stuff, but I’ve left it in London.<br /><br />Sorry about Zerotin’s passport; anyway I was trying to work out when could Z have arrived in England. His first passport to go to Scotland is dated March 96 and he wouldn't have travelled such a long way just for a few weeks, so he may have arrived in 95.<br />When he finally left for Germany around 1st June, I am almost sure LD went with him, as I suggested.<br /><br />As for the letter, it is most probably April 96, as you say. I think I have identified both Cyprian and “the man in the library”. <br /><br />One last bit of info: One of the Spanish books in the Coffre, “Historia Imperial”, was written by Pedro Mexia, the author of “Silva de Varia Leccion”, one of the acknowledged sources for Tamburlaine.<br /><br />Will write a piece about it all one of these days.<br />IsabelIsabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-42286560951102860342011-08-23T01:59:05.327-04:002011-08-23T01:59:05.327-04:00Isabel said...
"I had a photocopy made of th...Isabel said...<br /><br />"I had a photocopy made of the entire Index"<br /><br />As far as I recall, the book which the Lambeth Palace Library sold me really didn't cost much.<br /><br />"what is the date in Zerotin’s passport signed by the Emperor Rudolph?"<br /><br />I've no idea, I'm sorry, and I've lent Ros the relevant microfilm. My notes for MS.656 f.189 simply say "Petit's copy of Baron Zeirotin's charge from the emperor (received 2 Mar 1596)".<br /><br />"If the letter 656, ff 372 has no date, why did you and Dolly give it the date of 20th April 1956? Could it possibly be 1595?" <br /><br />Usually the date is endorsed on the verso of the document, often by Jaques Petit, and this is where I presume it came from. Sometimes the numbers aren't as clear as they might be, which might explain why, funnily enough, my notes about this do have "(possibly 1595?)". On the other hand, whilst it may of course have been misfiled, the fact that MS.655 and MS.656 contain nothing but papers from 1596 does give a pretty clear indication of the year it was most probably written, as I see you have now concluded.<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.com