Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Getting the Body to Deptford by Peter Farey

It is the evening of 29 May 1593. Imagine that it is your responsibility to take charge of the body of John Penry, after his execution at St. Thomas à Watering, and to convey it to Eleanor Bull's house at Deptford Strand.How do you think that you would go about it? Fortunately, you do have a warrant – signed by the Coroner of the Queen's Household, William Danby – to receive it from the sheriff, but how best to transport it to widow Bull's place without arousing any suspicions as to the legitimacy of that destination? Four bodies a year were allowed to go to the Company of Barber-Surgeons for dissection, but their headquarters was certainly not located in Deptford.

Even though the distance from St. Thomas à Watering to Deptford Strand was less than three miles by road, I would have had some concerns about carrying a body in an easily followed horse-drawn cart, especially if it was apparently setting off in the wrong direction. So was there another way? Thanks to information now available to us on-line it seems that there very probably was.

Have you ever heard of Earl's Sluice? I certainly hadn't, even though its source was apparently in what is now Ruskin Park, a few hundred yards from where I lived throughout my teens in Herne Hill, south London. It is one of the capital's lost rivers, which rose there, headed north-east through Camberwell and – gathering more waters from the River Peck (which gave us Peckham) – finally flowed into the Thames at Rotherhithe. The earl in question seems to have been Robert, the first Earl of Gloucester, who was an illegitimate son of the Norman king Henry I, and lord of the manor thereabouts. The word 'sluice' suggests that it was more man-made (presumably at the behest of the said earl) than an entirely natural stream.

The interesting thing from our point of view is that the name of the place where Earl's Sluice crossed the Old Kent Road was in fact St. Thomas à Watering. According to Paul Talling, "In 1934, evidence of a medieval bridge was discovered in a trench at the junction of the Old Kent Road and Shorncliffe Road. This section of Earl's Sluice was nicknamed St. Thomas à Watering after it became a popular horse-watering place for pilgrims on their way to the shrine of St. Thomas à Becket in Canterbury."2 In terms of latitude and longitude, this is at 51° 29' 18" North and 00° 04' 35" West. That place was of course given some fame by Chaucer in his The Canterbury Tales, it being the first stop his pilgrims made after leaving the Tabard Inn, and where it was agreed that they would tell stories to each other to pass the time.

And off we rode at slightly faster pace
Than walking to St. Thomas' watering-place;
And there our Host drew up, began to ease
His horse, and said, "Now, listen if you please,
My lords! Remember what you promised me.
If evensong and matins will agree
Let’s see who shall be first to tell a tale.
And as I hope to drink good wine and ale
I’ll be your judge. The rebel who disobeys,
However much the journey costs, he pays."3

There is a nice illustration, together with a map of the Sluice and Peck's approximate courses, here at londonist.com.

Nowadays, it is the site of the Thomas A Becket bar and Nolias Art Gallery where, according to their website, David Bowie wrote and rehearsed Ziggy Stardust in an upstairs room. It's amazing what you discover when writing these articles!

In Elizabethan times, however, it was the place of execution for the northern parts of Surrey, a permanent pair of gallows having been erected there in 1559.4 We must therefore return to our predicament concerning John Penry. Do we have to follow the pilgrims down the old Kent Road, which certainly went past Deptford? Chaucer's host, after hearing the Knight's tale, even tells the Reeve:

Give us your story, if you've one in stock.
Why, look! There's Deptford and it's nine o'clock!

Earl's Sluice ran to the north of the Canterbury road, heading initially north-east then east from St. Thomas à Watering, and being joined by the River Peck half a mile or so later before finding the Thames. Would it have been navigable by a small boat? There are some indications that it would. We learn that "The 1537/8 accounts of the London Bridge estate, which owned land in south London, include a record of the sale of several loads of timber to a man called Christopher Payne including one load of oak 'for the earl’s sluice' which cost him 8 shillings, which may have been for embanking or for bridging the stream."5 We also know that it formed a boundary between Camberwell and Southwark, Rotherhithe and Deptford, and even the counties of Surrey and Kent. It seems unlikely that a simple brook would have achieved such a status. That the river Peck was the tributary also suggests that Earl's Sluice was the larger of the two, and an early print, copied as a watercolour,6 in fact shows it as having been a fairly substantial waterway by the time it reached the Thames at Rotherhithe.


So we know where the probably navigable (at least by rowing boat) Earl's Sluice started and where it passed by on the way, but where did it enter the Thames, since no vestige of it apparently remains? Fortunately, we have a clue in it having provided the boundary between Rotherhithe and Deptford. There is one piece of evidence in the form of a stone, right on the Thames embankment, marking the boundary between the parishes of St. Mary's in Rotherhithe and St. Paul's in Deptford. It is about a hundred yards south of the lock at the entrance to the South Dock Marina. A blue plaque tells us that the "stone was on a bridge over the Earl Creek nearby, but was relocated here in 1988."7

So where does the water go now? In fact, Earl's Sluice, at least at the Rotherhithe end, exists nowadays only as a part of the Thames Water sewage system. It is redirected by the appropriately named "Earl Pumping Station" in Yeoman Street into the Southern Outfall sewer, dating from Victorian times, which finishes up at the Crossness sewage treatment works, nine or ten miles down-river. Only when the system can't cope does it currently have to rely on the former route to the Thames, which follows Plough Way straight down to the overflow point observable on Google Earth at 51° 29' 35"N and 00° 01' 55"W. This is presumably at the same place as the original confluence.8

Assuming that Earl's Sluice could have provided a route for a small boat to reach the Thames, how far was it from St. Thomas à Watering? Calculating from the two locations described by their latitude and longitude,9 we find a distance of just over three kilometres (1.86 miles) as the crow flies. Even if we add a certain amount for deviations from the straight line, it is still unlikely to be much more than a couple of miles. And as the drop from the source to St. Thomas was about 21 metres (69 ft.), and from there to the Thames a mere 4 metres (13 ft.), getting the boat up to St. Thomas à Watering in the first place should not have been all that onerous.

Although it is quite likely that Eleanor Bull's house in Deptford Strand was itself on the river, we don't actually know this, so let us head for the middle water-gate shown on the map in Charles Nicholl's The Reckoning.10 Having reached the Thames after a bit over two miles, it would be only about a further kilometre (0.62 miles) to the water-gate at Deptford Strand. A total distance by water of less than three miles, as it would have been by road, but in this case all downstream.

So, if it was indeed possible, I know which of the two options I would have chosen.

© Peter Farey, July 2012

Peter Farey is a founding member of the International Marlowe-Shakespeare Society.

1It was David More who first suggested that John Penry's body may have been used in the faking of Christopher Marlowe's death. See his 1997 essay Drunken Sailor or Imprisoned Writer? at http://www.marlovian.com/essays/penry.html
2Talling, Paul (2011). London's Lost Rivers, Random House, pp.109–110. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PNe5ZBe53HYC&pg=PA109
3These two quotations are taken from Neville Coghill's excellent modern version of the book, republished by Penguin in 2003.
4http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=45279
5http://www.caughtbytheriver.net/2012/04/caught-by-the-river-peck/
6http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/southwark/assets/galleries/rotherhithe/earls-sluice
7See it shown at http://www.bermondseyboy.net/2011/07/03/blue-plaques-in-bermondsey-rotherhithe/ . There is also a photograph of it on Google Earth in its exact location, which is just north of where Plough Way meets the river, at 51° 29' 36"N and 00° 01' 57"W.
8This appears as the magenta line on the map at http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk/doclib/earl-pumping-station/
9 Using the calculator at http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html
10Nicholl, Charles (2002). The Reckoning: The Murder of Christopher Marlowe (2nd edition), London, Vintage, plate 3.

Monday, July 9, 2012

Library Journal on The Marlowe Papers

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

Click here for the full article. 
U.S. readers don't have to wait until January.  You can order The Marlowe Papers now on Amazon.co.uk.

A Kindle edition is also available at Amazon.com.

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

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."

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

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!



Thursday, May 24, 2012

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

Saturday, May 19, 2012

"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

Monday, May 7, 2012

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. 

Sunday, April 15, 2012

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

Sunday, April 1, 2012

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."