Herald Scotland Review of The Marlowe Papers

"A truly superb achievement."

Time Out London Review of The Marlowe Papers

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

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

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

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

Ros Barber

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

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

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

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

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

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

© The Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection, 2012

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

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

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

Ros Barber at British Library

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

The Telegraph Review of The Marlowe Papers

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

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




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

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

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

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


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

Review: The Marlowe Papers The Guardian The Observer Express

Financial Times Review of The Marlowe Papers

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

For the full review by Suzi Feay, click here.



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

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

Order The Marlowe Papers Today!

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

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

Review: The Shakespeare Guide to Italy

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Ros Barber, 2012    

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

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

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

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

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

Western Union Telegram

11 May 1916

HENRY WATTERSON, LOUISVILLE, KY [Kentucky]

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

WILBUR G. ZEIGLER

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

May 6, 1919

Dear Sir,

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

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

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

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

Yours truly,
Wilbur G. Zeigler

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

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

May 12, 1919

Dear Sir:

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Secretary to H.W.

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

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

© Donna N. Murphy, 2012

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

Rheims and the Privy Council Note by Peter Farey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to which we might add another from Shakespeare:

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

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

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

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

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

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

and for the second

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Peter Farey, 2012

Peter Farey's essay “Hoffman and the Authorship” is the 2007 recipient of the Calvin & Rose G. Hoffman Prize, administered annually by The King's School in Canterbury for a "distinguished publication on Christopher Marlowe." He is a founding member of the International Marlowe-Shakespeare Society.Em
merich Anonymous
Bibliography THE MARLOWE PAPERS BARBER

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

Did Marlowe Die in Padua in 1627? by Peter Farey

One of the stories dear to the hearts of many Marlovians is one from Calvin Hoffman which concerns a man from Padua—Pietro Basconi—who claimed to have nursed an exiled recluse called Christopher Marlowe when he was terminally ill in Padua in 1627. Unfortunately, it has only very recently come to light that on 23 April 1916, the 300th anniversary of Shakespeare's death, something appeared which seems to show that this whole story is a myth.

According to an item in the Guardian newspaper of 11 July 1983, Calvin Hoffman had been left some notes about it in the will of a journalist friend of his. Here is what it says:

"CALVIN HOFFMAN, probably the most indefatigable friend the Elizabethan playright (sic) Christopher Marlowe ever had, will travel to Italy next week in what he hopes will be the conclusive phase of his 30-year campaign to prove that Marlowe wrote the works of Shakespeare.
This is to follow up written evidence indicating that documents could exist showing that Marlowe lived in hiding in Padua, creating the entire Shakespearean cannon (sic), for 34 years after his supposed death in a tavern brawl in 1593. The evidence is in the form of notes which Mr Hoffman, aged 75, an American former theatre critic, received this year from the will of a journalist friend. These say that a 16th century Paduan, Petro (sic) Basconi, left papers stating that an English writer named Marlowe lived with him as a recluse until dying in 1627, 11 years after Shakespere's (sic) death. The notes add that the writer had "had to leave England." The papers were passed down the Basoni (sic) family and were said to have been shown during the 19th century to a British ambassador to Italy, who is said to have commented that he was "afraid to tamper with a matter so dear to the English heart." ... "Mr Hoffman does not know where to begin looking in Padua."

He did in fact go there and succeeded in finding a 17th century grave for someone called Merlin, a name used for Marlowe when he was at Cambridge, only to discover that it is quite a common name in Padua. He found nothing else.¹

It is too good a story to just be left alone, however, and other Marlovians have tried to see what truth there might be in it.

In his 2001 film Much Ado About Something, after hearing of the Guardian account from John Hunt, Michael Rubbo also discovered the existence of a 1983 letter from Hoffman on the same subject, and showed that it mentioned Washington Irving (US Ambassador to Spain, 1842-6, who had apparently seen the relevant document) and Whitelaw Reid (US Ambassador to the UK, 1905-1912). Mike discussed the story with the archivist at Mantua, Dr. Ferrari, but—not really surprising as Padua is over 50 miles from there—found nothing.

In April 2003, Christian Lanciai reported to an internet newsgroup that he had visited three different archives in Padua, finding only (in the Archivio della Stato) that nobody with a name like Marlowe appears in a record of all the deaths in Padua from 1626 to 1651. He did find a Merlini who had died there in 1647, but "no confirmation at all in the city archives of Padua...that Christopher Marlowe had died there in the 1620s." His piece was also published in the Marlowe Society's Newsletter 22, of Spring 2004.

Izabel Gortázar mentioned the result of her research on this in an essay for the Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection blog on 20 September 2010² when she said that she "found no Basconi or Bosconi families in the Padua records." Amplifying this for some of us she said "A few years ago I went to Padua in search of Marlowe. Luckily I had friends who ensured that I had entry to the old Municipal, Church and University records and that I could talk to Librarians and Professors. Although I only spent a few days there I could not find any records of a Basconi/Bosconi family, and indeed was dissuaded by the Librarians to continue looking for such name, assuring me that there had never been a Bosconi or Basconi family in Padua."

Some Marlovians, amongst whom I count myself, nevertheless thought that there might even yet be something in it. At least we did until Edward Clybourn told us about a newspaper article he had found, dated 23 April 1916, which he correctly thought must cast doubt upon the truth of the whole thing. It was from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and was by Henry Watterson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was editor of the Louisville Courier-Journal for more than 50 years (1868-1919).³

The first half of it consists mainly of a summary of, and apparent agreement with, his friend Mark Twain's argument against Shakespeare's authorship of the works attributed to him. "Thus Mark Twain briefs the case. Not a single statement can be gainsaid. The conclusion is dead against Shakespeare." Next he considers the Baconian case, finding some merit in it, but also disliking some aspects. He mentions how in a discussion with Whitelaw Reid, American Ambassador to the UK, Reid wouldn't check whether one Baconian argument was true or not, saying that he would not even if he could, "meaning of course that as American Ambassador he could not afford to meddle in such a controversy." Before and after the Bacon bit, however, are anecdotes apparently about how people feel free to make anything up in support of a story if they have enough belief in their version of it. Whereupon he illustrates this with his own story, written of course before Leslie Hotson's discovery of the inquest, and containing a whole lot of information which we now know to be completely wrong.

"TO COME directly to the point, there is a simple but perfect thesis in explanation of the Shakespearean mystery," he said. "This relates that the plays were written by Christopher Marlowe. They were revised by Francis Bacon. Thus prepared for the stage, they were produced by William Shakespeare." Then comes the "story". Marlowe and Shakespeare were celebrating in a tavern when he got into row with an actor called Herrick, who was accidentally killed in a scuffle. Marlowe's friend and "former classmate" Francis Bacon happened to be passing and helped to sort it out. Marlowe and the dead Herrick would swap clothes and the former "fly for his life". "Next day it was given out that Marlowe had been killed, and, the penalty death for him in case he came to life again, it was ever after thus proclaimed." He travelled to Paris and Spain, and "Finally, all individual traces lost, he repaired to Italy and settled down in Padua." There he wrote the plays which he sent back home to Bacon.

So far, so good, but now Watterson gives full rein to his imagination:

"Bacon left no cryptogram. No more did Marlowe. But, in an early edition of the Lemounier (sic) Vasari, the Comte de la Borde (sic), correcting one of the many errors in the Guida de Bassano,⁴ refers to a recluse of Padua, Pietro Basconi by name, who claimed to have nursed Marlowe in his last illness (Marlowe died in 1627, just a year after Bacon's death), and to have had from him the story and reduced it to writing. This strange composition came into the possession of Andreas Basconi, a descendant of Pietro, and was read, we are told, as late as 1843 by no less a person than Washington Irving, who, thinking it a doubtful yarn, and with Whitelaw Reid, knowing it dangerous for a man of importance (he was the American minster (sic) to Spain) to tamper with a subject so sacred to the British heart, wrote nothing about it, nor, indeed, spoke of it except to one or two intimate friends."

So could it have happened like that? "Why Not? Why Not?" Watterson asks. Couldn't a friend of his, long resident of Florence, have heard the story and told him about it? Or why, when in London, couldn't he have "fallen in with a ragged Italian in Leicester Square who, born and reared in Padua, had an inkling of the truth and who tried to sell me a plaster cast of Christopher Marlowe, declaring that, if I would go with him on a dark night into a wood by the river Wye, he would produce from the hollow of an old oak the identical Basconi manuscript."

Now comes the important bit. "Go to! Go to!" he says. "I am not on the witness stand making oath to anything—only pursuing the usual Bacon-Shakespeare method" ... "Why may I not call from the shadows and the stars the strange story of Christopher Marlowe ... at the moment of his supposed death the greatest of English poets and dramatists...many of whose early conceits, and some of his actual phrasing, to be found in the plays later ascribed to William Shakespeare?"⁵ In other words, whilst agreeing with the Marlovian theory, the story he told about it was "from the shadows and the stars"—all made up. In fact it is easy to see that the bit about the River Wye must have been inspired by the actions in 1907 of a Baconian, Dr. Orville Ward Owen, who claimed he had decoded instructions revealing that a box containing proof of Bacon's authorship had been buried in the River Wye near Chepstow, but whose dredging machinery failed to retrieve any concealed manuscripts.

Henry Watterson did clearly favour the Marlovian theory over any other. The Wikipedia article⁶ on the Louisville Courier-Journal says that "He attracted controversy for attempting to prove that Christopher Marlowe had actually written the works of Shakespeare" and the New York Times carried his reaction to the Oxfordian book of J. Thomas Looney, saying that "My own guess—we can only guess—has always been that Marlowe wrote the plays."⁷ His correspondence with Wilbur G. Zeigler—the first known Marlovian—is also held in the Library of Congress, and should be well worth reading.⁸

The date when his article appeared is an interesting one, though. Not only was it the exact tercentenary of Shakespeare's death,⁹ but it followed hard upon a quite extraordinary court case, which ran from 3 to 21 April, in which a Colonel Selig—who had produced several films about Shakespeare (presumably ready for the tercentenary)—sued a Baconian, Colonel Fabyan, because the recent publishing of his anti-Stratfordian theory would lose Selig money. The judge actually came down on Fabyan's side because he found that Bacon must indeed have written the works of Shakespeare! The plaintiff and defendant were apparently good friends, however, and cynics suggested that the publicity given to Selig's films would have been well worth the cost to him of those proceedings. Watterson's article appeared on 23 April as a signed front-page feature article in his own Courier-Journal, which apparently realized over a thousand dollars for its syndication of the story to other newspapers.¹⁰

So how is it that Calvin Hoffman got hold of this, and thought it worth following up? We know that the notes about it had been left to him in 1983 by a friend of his. Any of Henry Watterson's five children would have been well over 100 years old by then, so we are probably looking at one of his grand—or great-grand—children. It is in fact interesting that the Watterson Papers as held at the University of Louisville carry on until 1983, despite his having died in 1921. Perhaps this descendant lived until 1983, having carried on collecting related documents, and then left them all to the University of Louisville and the Library of Congress, except for one item. They left the "notes" about the Basconi/Padua story to Calvin Hoffman, because they not only knew of Henry's beliefs but also that Hoffman's 1955 book had argued much the same theory. It is just a pity that they seem to have missed their ancestor's point—that that bit was just a story.

©Peter Farey, 2012

¹ I am grateful to Gene Ayres for sharing with me this information which he obtained from the then archivist at King's College Canterbury, Paul Pollak.
² http://marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-doubts-about-will-4-real-death-of.html (accessed 13 February 2012).
³ The article is quite long, but it can be found online at http://tinyurl.com/watterson-item  (accessed 13 February 2012).
⁴ The earliest edition of Vasari’s writings published by Lemonnier appeared in 1846. As Ellen Wilson pointed out to me, this must therefore refer to Léon-Emmanuel-Simon-Joseph, Comte de Laborde (1807-69). He wasn't one of Lemonnier’s editors, however, so this would appear to have been in the form of handwritten marginalia.
⁵ I have corrected part of this, where the lines were set in the wrong order.
⁶ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Courier-Journal (accessed 13 February 2012).
⁷ Thanks to Ellen Wilson for finding this at http://tinyurl.com/watterson-NYT (accessed 13 February 2012).
⁸http://memory.loc.gov/service/mss/eadxmlmss/eadpdfmss/2009/ms009072.pdf (accessed 13 February 2012).
⁹ Thanks to Anthony Kellett for pointing this out.
¹⁰ Wall, Joseph Frazier. Henry Watterson, Reconstructed Rebel (1956). Oxford University Press, New York. pp.293-4.

Crossing the Channel by Isabel Gortázar

To the best of my knowledge, pending further research, the first documented appearance of someone whom I personally believe might have been Christopher Marlowe after 1593 occurs in 1595.

Going through the Anthony Bacon Papers¹ in 1995, A.D. Wraight² and Peter Farey³ found several documents relative to a Frenchman, possibly passing for a Huguenot⁴, named Mr. Le Doux (no Christian name mentioned), staying in the house of Sir John Harington, at Burley-on-the Hill near Exton in Rutland, as tutor to Sir John’s son.

The information is contained in a series of letters from various persons, including: Mr. Le Doux; a de-frocked possibly Huguenot nun called Ide du Wault; Anthony Bacon; and a French servant of the latter called Jacques Petit. Le Doux, Petit and Ide du Wault are all at the house of Sir John Harington during the Christmas Festivities of 1595/6.

Jacques Petit’s letters to Anthony Bacon, together with other documents found in the Lambeth Palace Archives, led A.D. Wraight and Peter Farey to surmise that Le Doux could have been Christopher Marlowe, acting as a secret agent to the Earl of Essex.

(For those who wish to know more about Mr. Le Doux, Anthony Bacon and Jacques Petit as they appear in the Bacon Papers [Lambert Palace Library], and their possible relation with Christopher Marlowe, I suggest they visit The Marlowe Studies, where they will find most of the information published so far on the subject.)

This document below has been included and published as part of a longer essay: "About Mr. Le Doux and Some Related Matters," at The Marlowe Studies website.

However, I thought to post it here separately as well, for what I believe to be interesting information for Marlowe researchers in general, even if probably not particularly relevant to the theories about Mr. Le Doux.

As I say, I find this letter from Jacques Petit to Anthony Bacon interesting in itself, for two reasons. In the first place, it confirms the problem of dates, as it gives us good proof of the unreliability of apparent dates in some of the documents contained in the Bacon papers. The dates can be unreliable on two accounts: The fact that not all the correspondents seem to be using the same calendar, which affects primarily all documents dated January, February and March, of any particular year, but also the day. A second misleader is that we sometimes find the date of reception of one document, but not the date when it was written or even sent.

In the letter we have here, we find, written sideways on the margin the following note: “De Jacques Petit, le 4eme Feburier 159?” The last digit is unclear, but it seemed to me to say 1596. We know from other documents in this correspondence that this letter could not have been written in January 1595/6, when Petit was at Burley writing frantic letters to Bacon about Le Doux and du Wault (see the complete essay). The printed Index in the LPL indicates the year 1597, which would be consistent with the apparent 1596 (OS) in the MS itself. For the record, however, the day that Petit starts this Diary, the 6th of January 1596 was a Tuesday in the Julian, Old Style calendar, and a Saturday in the Gregorian calendar. In 1597, January 6th was a Thursday (Julian) or Monday (Gregorian). In fact we only find January 6th to be a Friday in 1595 (Gregorian), and in 1598 (Julian).

This discovery not only gives us new food for thought as to Petit’s movements, but, as I said above, may also require that we revise several year-dates in the Bacon Papers in order to establish which calendar is being used in each case, and this can only be done by double-checking against week-days whenever possible, and/or following up on events and/or information dated beyond the tricky months of January, February and March. Once we know which calendar is being used in each document, we must remember to add or detract the ten days’ difference that existed between the two.

In this respect, for example, we will find that the letter written from Middleburg by Le Doux to Anthony Bacon, dated 22nd June 1596, would have meant 12th June in England, because the Baron Zeroitin in his letter to the Earl of Essex, also from Middleburg, also dated 22nd June, explicitly says he is using the Gregorian calendar. Even if we cannot be certain that Le Doux had crossed the Channel with Zeroitin, both men seem to have entrusted their letters to the same courier.

The second reason why I think this letter from Petit is interesting to Marlovian researchers has to do with the information it gives us about Channel crossing conditions in the Sixteenth Century - a matter of extraordinary importance when it comes to speculating as to who might have been where, when.

As we will see, Petit’s Diary (Journal) sheds abundant light on the matter, and goes a long way to prove that making exact plans about arrival, or even departure, dates across the Channel may have been futile.

Reading this document we realize that it took Petit nearly a week to go from the Thames Estuary to The Hague. We also realize that the precise dates of departure and arrival were a matter of chance. The crossing could have been done in two or three days, it also might have been delayed even longer. Contrary winds, bad weather, a greedy captain, pirates, enemy ships… There are other documents telling a similar story that I will endeavour to publish in the near future. So here is the letter:

Jacques Petit: Journal de passage from Gravesend to The Hague.

Recorded by Anthony Bacon as follows: “De Jacques Petit, le 4eme Feburier 159?”

Below is the transcription (in italics) and English translation, of a two-page document preserved among the Bacon Papers in the Lambeth Palace Archives (MS65, f34 r/v.). It is a letter from Jacques Petit to Anthony Bacon. For easier reading, I have placed each translated paragraph just under its French transcription.

Memoire de nôtre passage depuis Gravesend jusques a La Haye en Hollande:

Diary of our Crossing from Gravesend to The Hague in Holland.

Vendredi, le six de Janvier sommes parties de Gravesend & avec la Maree sommes descendus jusques a Lee por le minuit. Le vent et la maree estant contraires, le maitre du navire est retourné a Gravesend pour avoir davantage de passagers et faire mieux son profit.

Friday, January sixth we have set off from Gravesend and sailed down with the tide, reaching Lee at midnight. As we had the wind and the tide against us, the captain of the vessel took us back to Gravesend to find more passengers so he could make more money

Sammedi nous n’avons point bougé de la a cause que le vent estoit toujours mauvais.

Saturday we have not moved because the wind was still bad.

Dimanche de grand matín, avec bon vent et la maree, sommes descendus jusque a Lee, puis a la seconde maree sommes arrives a Lands End. La nuit avec peu de vent avons passé Dunkirk et jetté l’ancre entre Ostend et Newport.

Sunday, early in the morning, with good wind and the tide, we sailed to Lee, then with the second tide we arrived at Lands End. At night with little wind, we passed Dunkirk and anchored between Ostend and Newport.

Lundi il a eté calme tellment que n’avons peu bouge de tout ce jour jousques avec la maree.

Monday it was so calm that we have moved very little all day, until the tide.

Mardi sommes arrives a Fleshingue ou nos passagers (qui n’avaint ni vivres ni argent) on mis pied a terre. et de 20 ou 25 qu’ils estoint il ny a a pas 20 qui ayent paye pour leur passage. Cestoit telle racailleque c’est merveille que n’ayons ete submerges. Et que l’enemy ne nous aye pris veu les blasphemes et les vilanies quon y profiroit et endurcit tant des homes et des femmes & le mauvais gouvernement plein de nonchalance de nos mariniers.

Tuesday, we arrived at Flushing, where our passengers (who had neither food nor money) disembarked, and out of the 20 or 25 there were, not 20 had paid for their trip. They were such riff-raff that it’s a miracle we didn’t drown. And that the enemy did not take us despite the blasphemies and villainies they proffered, both the men and the women, and the bad managing of the indifferent sailors.

Ceux de Flesingue qui vinrent regarder nôtre Flibot chargé de chaux (a la valeur seulement de 30p sterling)⁵ et de ces passagers nous demandant si l’enemy nous avoit rencontres s’estonoit d’entendre que non, disant qu’il y avait et navires et scouters de Dunkirk que auront rode les alentours tout hier et la nuit passé.

Those of Flushing who came to inspect our Flyboat loaded with lime (at the value of only 30d sterling) and of those passengers were asking us if we had met the enemy and they were surprised when we said we hadn’t, saying that there were vessels and scouters⁶ from Dunkirk that would have been roaming around all of yesterday and last night.

Mercredi: Nous sommes arrives a Dort,⁷ et de la a Rotterdam, puis de Rotterdam jusques a Delft ou nous avons couche.

Wednesday: We arrived to Dort , and, from there (continued) to Rotterdam, then to Delft, where we have stayed the night.

Jeudi: Au matin nous sommes arrives a La Haye ou nous nous sommes retires chex un Mr Daniel Anglois (name unclear), ou Sir Francies Ver a aussi son logis. La nous avons mis les hardes de Sr William Woodhouse, et faissons nôtre ordinaire ailleurs lequel revient pour nous 5, a un angelot par jour, ce qui est le moins que l’on puisse payer car tout est extremement cher.

Thursday: In the morning we arrived at The Hague where we rested in the house of one Mr. Daniel Anglois (name unclear), where Sir Francis Ver also lives. There, we changed into some rags (provided by) Sir William Woodehouse, and we are staying in an inn which costs us 5 one angelot⁸ each day, which is the least one can pay, because everything is extremely expensive.

Si nous n’entendons point bientôt des nouvelles de Mr W. Wodehouse, il nous faudra vivre a credit car son despensier dit qu’íl n’a plus d’argent de son maistre et commence déjà a nous laisser faire comme nous pourrons.

If we don’t hear soon from Mr. William Woodehouse we will need to live on credit, because his agent says he has no more money from his master and is already leaving us to fend for ourselves.

**********

©Isabel Gortázar, February 2012

My sincerest thanks to LCR Seeley and Anthony Kellett for their invaluable help in translating and making sense of this document. Thanks also to S. Foster for sharing his Channel navigation experience with me. I wish to thank Cynthia Morgan as well, for her help and suggestions.

¹Bacon Papers. Lambeth Palace Library.
²Wright, A.D. Shakespeare, New Evidence. (Adam Hart Publishers Ltd. 1996.) Also online at
http://www.themarlowestudies.org
³See Farey’s extensive research at: http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/title.htm; Also at http://www.themarlowestudies.org
⁴Huguenots and Walloons were French and French-speaking Flemish Calvinists respectively.
⁵ The denomination of sterling is difficult to make out, as the letter after 30 is not clear. However, having consulted my colleague Anthony Kellett about the possible relative prices of lime at the time, and discarding absolutely the it may refer to pounds sterling, the probable meaning seems to be 30d, rather than 30s, particularly in view of Petit qualifying the sum with the word “only." Here follows Kellett’s information:
“One cubic metre of lime would cost around four shillings (48d) in Holland, in 1596; and weigh roughly one tonne (though both price and weight would vary, based on the actual material described as 'lime'). Therefore, as an approximation, Petit’s transport either carried around 7 cubic metres (7 tonnes), and was worth 30 shillings; or less than one tonne (one cubic metre) and was worth 30d."
⁶ "scouters" may mean “privateers." If they were “from Dunkirk," as the letter says, they would have been under Spanish orders. Dunkirk was taken in 1583 by Spanish forces led by the Duke of Parma. It became a base for the Dunkirkers, a series of ships that acted both as pirates, and as part of the Spanish “Armada de Flandes” (Flemish Armada).
⁷ Dort, or Dordrecht, in Dutch.
⁸ This would be the second time we find, in the Bacon Papers, Jacques Petit referring to “an angelôt” as 10 shillings. It would also seem that Petit’s travelling party could have consisted of five people, but that is not clear.