The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Assassination of Christopher Marlowe (A New View)

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: The Assassination of Christopher Marlowe (A New View)

Author: Samuel A. Tannenbaum

Release date: June 7, 2021 [eBook #65544]

Most recently updated: October 18, 2024

Language: English

Credits: E-text prepared by Tim Lindell, Graeme Mackreth, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images digitized by the Google Books Library Project (https://books.google.com) and generously made available by HathiTrust Digital Library (https://www.hathitrust.org/)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ASSASSINATION OF CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE (A NEW VIEW) ***

The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Assassination of Christopher Marlowe, by Samuel A. (Samuel Aaron) Tannenbaum

Note:

Images of the original pages are available through HathiTrust Digital Library. See https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uva.x001173683

THE ASSASSINATION

OF

CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE

MURDER, THOUGH IT HAVE NO TONGUE, WILL SPEAK WITH MOST MIRACULOUS ORGAN.—Shakspere.

THE ASSASSINATION

OF

CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE

(A New View)

BY

SAMUEL A. TANNENBAUM

THE SHOE STRING PRESS, INC.

HAMDEN, CONNECTICUT

SAMUEL A. TANNENBAUM

All Rights Reserved

Offset 1962

from the 1928 edition

Printed in the United States of America

TO

ERNEST H.C. OLIPHANT

A GOOD FRIEND

AND

A FINE SCHOLAR

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Among the many friends who have patiently or enthusiastically, as the case might be, read my essay on Marlowe's assassination, and who have freely expressed their views on my theory and ungrudgingly argued the subject with me, raising and meeting difficulties, I am especially obliged to PROFESSOR JOSEPH QUINCY ADAMS, MR. MAX I. BAYM, PROFESSOR JOSEPH VINCENT CROWNE, MR. ALEXANDER GREEN, PROFESSOR E. H.C. OLIPHANT, and Professor Ashley H. Thorndike. Others to whom I am indebted are the distinguished physicians whose opinions I quote in Appendix A. In common with the rest of the literary world, I am grateful to PROFESSOR JAMES LESLIE HOTSON, whose inspiration, intelligence and perseverance brought to light the new documents in the case—the Coroner's report and the Queen's pardon.

S.A.T.

April 1928.

THE ASSASSINATION OF CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE

I

The arrest, on May 12, 1593, of Thomas Kyd, the first of the great Elizabethan dramatic poets, on the grave charges of atheism, of meddling in dangerous matters of state, and of publishing seditious libels tending to incite insurrection and rebellion in the English capital, had far more important causes and much more far-reaching consequences than have hitherto been suspected.

Among the causes which led to the inhuman torture on the rack and the untimely death of the popular dramatist, we must reckon—if my reading of the history of the period be right—the idyllic love of one of the most remarkable couples of whom we have any record, the fierce and vindictive resentment of England's greatest queen, as well as the fantastic ambitions and exalted dreams of one of the most gifted and brilliant men of all time.

Among the consequences of the passions thus brought into conflict, we must include the non-completion of the revision of one of the best and most characteristic historical dramas of the period—the tragedy of Sir Thomas Moore.[1] This play, undoubtedly written with political intent, was being rushed to completion by no less than six of England's most virile and most versatile poets: the veteran playwright, Anthony Mundy, young Thomas Heywood, fat Henry Chettle, kindly Thomas Dekker, industrious Thomas Kyd, and one—out of all whooping, the best of the group—who has not yet been identified and whom some very able scholars consider to have been none other than Shakspere himself.[2]

But the non-completion of the play was only a trifle in comparison with the effects Kyd's arrest had on his career as well as on that of the marvellous Christopher Marlowe, and therefore on the history of English letters. That its completion and performance would have affected the political history of the world in any way may well be doubted.

The more or less immediate circumstances leading to the imprisonment of "sporting Kyd" were these:

Living conditions in London, owing to the increase of population and to unwise legislation, were very hard on the native artisans, mechanics, petty tradesmen, and apprentices. As is usual in such cases, the presence of thrifty and prosperous foreigners was bitterly resented by the natives. This resentment had for several years taken the shape not only of public disturbances and riots, but of admonitions to the unwelcome aliens, mainly refugees from France and Belgium, to get out of the country. Unobserved by the authorities, during the small hours of a night in May 1593, some dissatisfied citizens posted up in various sections of the city placards which warned the foreigners to depart, with bag and baggage, before July 9. One of these posters, only a fragment of which has come down to us, was found on the wall of the Dutch churchyard. It read:

You strangers, that inhabit in this land,

Note this same writing, do it understand;

Conceive it well, for safe-guard of your lives,

Your goods, your children, and your dearest wives.

The Privy Council—in reality, the National Government—had for more than a year been protesting against the outrages perpetrated on the foreign residents and had solicited the Lord Mayor of the city to apprehend the disturbers and to seek out and imprison the agitators.[3] Their Lordships went so far as to instruct the Mayor to have the person guilty of having written the "libel" apprehended and tortured (though torture was no part of the English legal system) if he did not disclose his meaning and purpose and the identity of his accomplices. This was in the early part of April, 1593. But the Mayor, whose sympathies were evidently with the natives, made no arrests. On April 22, the Privy Council[4] again considered the matter and appointed a special commission "to examine by secret means who maie be authors for the saide [seditious] libelles." Less than two weeks after this, a highly alliterative and bombastic placard was displayed in London in which "the beastly Brutes, the Belgians, or rather Drunken Drones, and faint-hearted Flemings," as well as the "fraudulent Frenchmen" were ordered "to depart out of the Realm of England." Six days later, on May 11, the Council—fearing international complications even more than domestic broils—ordered another commission to use "extraordinary pains" (the equivocal wording may have been intentional) to apprehend the malefactors and to "put them to the Torture in Bridewell and by the extremitie thereof, to be used at such times and as often as you shall think fit, draw [!] them to discover their knowledge concerning the said libells."[5]

The very next day, May 12, 1593, officers of the law entered the study of Thomas Kyd with a warrant for his arrest and made a careful search of the premises for documents of a seditious nature. Inasmuch as it could not have been the literary qualities of the posters—verse tests had not yet been discovered—which made the authorities suspect Kyd, we are almost compelled to assume that he had been betrayed to the Commission by an informer. That Kyd probably thought so will appear from what follows. Whether his arrest was due solely to his connection, real or supposed, with the minatory placards, or whether it was also due to his share in the authorship and contemplated production of the incendiary play of Sir Thomas Moore, or both, it is impossible to say. But the combination is certainly suggestive.

The search, it is fairly certain, brought to light nothing of a seditious or politically objectionable nature. But that did not save Kyd; his arrest had evidently been determined on by the Government. Searching his chamber, the officers discovered something else, something which furnished them with an excuse for arresting him and conveying him to Bridewell prison. This discovery consisted of three sheets of paper (written in a neat and easily legible hand) which the officers regarded, or pretended to regard, as a treatise on atheism.[6] The possession of such a document was in those days a dangerous matter, certainly far more dangerous than to have in one's possession literature attacking the French and Dutch residents of the city. The Privy Council frowned on atheism, even though they often dared not prosecute those they suspected to be guilty of the offence.

Fortunately these three sheets of paper have been preserved. The back of the third sheet bears the following inscription, in all probability in the hand of the officer making the arrest: "12 May 1593/ Vile hereticall Conceiptes/ denyinge the deity of Jhesus/ Christe or Savior fownd/ emongest the paprs of Thos/Kydd prisoner/."

In connection with this almost lawless arrest three significant facts stand out in bold relief:

1. The alleged treatise is, as I have tried to prove in my book on the Moore manuscript,[7] in Kyd's handwriting.

2. Kyd, though he must have been aware of the seriousness of the charge against him and of the danger he was in, refrained from entering a general denial in his defence. He could have maintained—correctly, as Professor Boas informs us—that the papers were not atheistical; that they were, in fact, "a defence of Theistic or Unitarian doctrines," and that they were (as Professor W.D. Briggs[8] has recently shown) only a transcript of material contained in John Proctor's book, The Fall of the Late Arrian (published in 1549). Instead of making this perfectly obvious plea, Kyd, apparently accepting the officer's characterization of the documents, chose a most remarkable line of defence. He asserted that these papers were not his, that the alleged disputation had, as a matter of fact, emanated from Christopher Marlowe. Thereupon the officer making the arrest added the following words to the previously quoted notation on the back of the third page: "wch [papers] he [Kyd] affirmethe That he/ had ffrom Marlowe."[9] That these words were added some time, probably a few days, after Kyd's arrest, may be inferred from the following circumstances: the ink in which they were written is not that of the rest of the memorandum (Boas), and the writing, though in the same hand, is slightly different (larger and freer).

3 The cautious wording of the allegation regarding Marlowe must be noted. Kyd was careful not to say that Marlowe had written the alleged atheistical treatise. Had he done so, Marlowe would unquestionably have been able to prove that the penmanship was not his. Kyd did not say that the opinions expressed in the document were Marlowe's, nor even that the papers were Marlowe's property. All he said was that he "had" them from Marlowe. From all of which it is fairly certain that when these memoranda were written, Marlowe was still alive and that Kyd thought it best to be cautious in attacking his former associate.

How he came into possession of the dangerous document, Kyd explained subsequently (the date is not known) to the President of the Star Chamber, Sir John Puckering, in a letter in which he pleaded for his Lordship's assistance in recovering his former position in the service of Ferdinando Stanley, Lord Strange,[10] and in which he tried to minimize his relations with the atheist Marlowe. He wrote to his Lordship: "When I was first suspected for that libell that concern'd the state, amongst those waste and idle papers (wch I carde not for) & wch vnaskt I did deliuer vp, were founde some fragments of a disputation, toching that opinion [atheism], affirmd by Marlowe to be his, and shufled with some of myne (vnknown to me) by some occasion of or wrytinge in one chamber twoe yeares synce."[11]

It will be noticed that, even though Marlowe was dead when this letter was written, Kyd did not say that the alleged atheistical papers were in Marlowe's handwriting. He contented himself with vehemently reiterating his innocence and with alleging that Marlowe, who (he said) made no secret of his atheism, had shared his room with him and that in this way their papers might have got mixed. How long they had shared one chamber he did not say; but it is clear that he was trying to give the impression that it was for only a very short time ("some occasion"), even though that makes it extremely improbable that any of Marlowe's papers should have accidentally got mixed with his without either one having noticed it, and even more improbable that he would not have returned them to his associate or thrown them out.

From Kyd's unnecessarily venomous attack on the character and opinions of "this Marlowe" (as he contemptuously designates him) it seems reasonable to infer that Kyd hated Marlowe and thought that it was he who had betrayed him to the Council. How otherwise, Kyd might have thought, would the authorities have selected his study for such a search, and known what they evidently knew—the very day after the special commission had been appointed. It was impossible for the officers to have pounced on him by chance. Fretting under his supposed betrayal by his quondam room-mate, he wrote to Sir John: "his L[ordshi]p never knewe his [Marlowe's] service, but in writing for his plaiers, ffor never co[u]ld my L[ord] endure his name, or sight, when he had heard of his conditions [i.e., of his atheism], nor wo[u]ld indeed the forme of devyne praiers vsed duelie in his L[ordshi]ps house, haue quadred [—squared] w[i]th such reprobates. That I sho[u]ld loue or be familer frend, w[i]th one so irreligious, were verie rare, when Tullie saith Digni sunt amicita quib[u]s in ipsis inest causa cur diligantur, w[hi]ch neither was in him, for p[er]son, quallities, or honestie, besides he was intemp[er]ate & of a cruel hart...."

The inference that Kyd suspected Marlowe to be the author of his woes is further supported by the fact that in a document[12] which was almost certainly written during Kyd's incarceration, and therefore before the letter to Puckering, the prisoner declares—in his own handwriting—that it was Marlowe's custom "in table talk or otherwise to iest at the deuine scriptures/gybe at praiers, & stryve in argum[en]t to frustrate & confute what hath byn/spoke or wrytt by prophets & such holie men/He wold report S[ain]t John to be o[u]r savior Christes Alexis.[13] J [—I] cover it with reverence/and trembling that is that Christ did loue him w[i]th an extraordinarie [—unnatural] loue."[14]

That Kyd thought he had been betrayed to the Council by an informer is clearly implied in his attributing his troubles to an "outcast Is[h]mael" who "for want [i.e., in hope of reward] or of his own dispose to lewdness [i.e., wickedness] had ... incensed yo[u]r L[ordshi]ps [the Council] to suspect me" (quoted from his letter to Puckering).

But that is not all. The words "outcast Ismael" in the above quotation serve, almost without a doubt, to identify Kit Marlowe as the informer who betrayed Kyd to their Lordships of the dreaded Star Chamber. In the epithet "outcast" Kyd probably meant no more than that Marlowe's atheism made him a social outcast, but it is not at all impossible that he had something more specific in mind. In his letter to Puckering he says that the patron whom he and Marlowe served could not endure Kit's name "when he heard of his conditions." In the one-page memorandum or affidavit which Mr. Brown discovered, Kyd calls God to witness that this pious patron had commanded him, "as in hatred of his [Marlowe's] life and thoughts," to break off associations with one who entertained such "monstruous opinions." This considered, it would not be at all surprising if we should some day discover that Lord Strange had ordered the troupe of players bearing his name to sever its relations with the atheist poet. That the designation of the informer as an "Ishmaelite" (a term which the Standard Dictionary defines as "a person whose hand was against every man") refers to Marlowe's rashness in attempting "soden pryvie iniuries to men"[15] (Kyd's words) seems almost a certainty.

On May 18, 1593—six days after Kyd's incarceration—the Privy Council issued an order for Marlowe's arrest. It must always remain a matter for great regret that the minutes of the Council, as well as the warrant for Marlowe's apprehension, are silent about the nature of the charges against the younger poet and the identity of his accuser. But, considering the close similarity between the accusations brought against him in the other documents in the case and the offences enumerated in the Kyd memorandum, there can be but little doubt that Marlowe's arrest was due solely to Kyd's charges against him. So certain was Kyd that it was his erstwhile associate who had betrayed him to the authorities that he retaliated by divulging what he knew about him and even by threatening to involve the advanced spirits who permitted Marlowe to share in their freethinking and philosophical debates.

On the 20th day of May Marlowe was under arrest, but not imprisoned. Though at liberty, he was prohibited from leaving the precincts of the city and was "commanded to give his daily attendance to their Lordships [the Council] until he shall be licensed to the contrary."[16] This, it must be granted, was so extraordinary an act of leniency on the part of the Council that, in connection with its knowledge, as the records show, that Kit was to be found at "the house of Mr. T. Walsingham [one of the chiefs of England's secret service] in Kent," we are surely warranted in inferring that the Council did not take the matter too seriously, very probably because it knew that Marlowe was one of the Queen's secret agents, and perhaps, too, that he had been responsible for the arrest of his vindictive accuser.[17]

Just what happened during the first few days after Kyd's arrest can only be conjectured. From his memorandum to their Lordships of the Council—which, in all probability, only repeats what he had told them orally—we may infer that, under the stress of "paines and vndeserved tortures," he had spoken of "men of quallitie" (members of the nobility) who kept Marlowe "greater company;" but, even though he admits that he can p[ar]ticularize (—name) some of these, he carefully refrains from divulging their identity. He evidently hoped that some of these men of quality would come to his rescue.

After Kyd had been given a preliminary treatment in Bridewells, perhaps with the "crewel garters" spoken of in Shakspere's King Lear, he began to realize that those who were in peril from him were not rushing to his rescue. He there-upon ventured a little further and certified to his torturers that Marlowe "wold p[er]swade w[i]th men of quallitie" [still unnamed] "to goe vnto the K[ing] of Scots whether [—whither] I heare Royden is gon and where if he [Marlowe] had liv[e]d he told me when I saw him last he meant to be." This was clearly intended to inform the Council and the Queen that some of the foremost men in England were in secret communication with King James of Scotland. To understand the significance of this, we must remember that Queen Elizabeth, ever since the execution of Mary, was in constant fear of what James might do to avenge his mother's cruel death, and that he, on his part, was engaging in a succession of intrigues to secure what, by virtue of his hereditary right and his Protestantism, was virtually already his.[18]

That the Commissioners, or torturers, succeeded in breaking down Kyd's resistance, real or pretended, and "drew" from him the names of some at least of Marlowe's associates, is deducible from his letter to Puckering, wherein he says: "ffor more assurance that I was not of that vile opinion [atheism], Lett it but please yo[u]r L[ordshi]p to enquire of such as he conversed w[i]thall, that is (as I am geven to vnderstand) w[i]th Harriott,[19] Warner,[20] Royden, and some stationers in Paules churchyard, whom I in no sort can accuse nor will excuse by reason of his companie." Though the men he names are not the "men of quallitie" he hints at in his memorandum, their mention enables us to designate the men he had in mind, ("the men higher up," our journalists would say). These men of quality, who associated with Marlowe and the three distinguished men just named, were none other than Sir Walter Ralegh, Edward Vere[21] (seventeenth Earl of Oxford), Henry Percy[22] (Earl of Northumberland), Sir George Carey (afterwards Lord Hunsdon), and others.[23] These men constituted a not very popular coterie which a Jesuit pamphleteer, Father Robert Parsons, branded as a "school of atheism" in a book entitled Responsio ad Elizabethae Reginae Edictum contra Catholicos (published in London in 1592). It is generally held that the incomparable Ralegh, at one of whose London houses these brilliant and daring spirits—scientists, poets and philosophers—held their weekly discussions, was the leader of the group, and that for a while his powerful influence with the Queen protected them from molestation and perhaps even from prosecution. Kyd, be it borne in mind, was not one of this circle.

The astonishing thing in this whole matter is Kyd's daring to appeal to the testimony of members of Ralegh's unpopular group of freethinkers at a time when Sir Walter himself, never popular either at Court or with the masses, and still in disgrace with the Queen about his liaison and marriage, was by general report condemned for atheism. From certain documents preserved at the British Museum,[24] we know that the Government, alarmed at the spread of atheism, was willing to make a scapegoat of Sir Walter. Not long after the events we have just narrated, Ralegh was, as a matter of fact, under surveillance, and the Court of High Commission ordered him, his brother, and some of their intimate friends, to be examined (at Cerne, in Dorsetshire) on March 1, 1594. "The examinations," says Mr. Boas,[25] "do not seem to have been followed by any proceedings against Ralegh, but the discovery [which he made during the hearings] that even his private table-talk was not safe from espionage may well have helped to hasten him forth on his adventurous quest for an El Dorado across the southern main." It is worth noting that during the examinations Harriott[26] was several times referred to and that once he was spoken of as an "attendant" on Sir Walter Ralegh.

Kyd was by no means the only one to accuse Marlowe. On Whitsun Eve, May 29, 1593, the Privy Council received a "Note"[27] from one Richard Baines[27] (not "Bames"), charging Marlowe, the associate of cutpurses and masterless men, with the foulest blasphemies. In this document, in the informer's own hand, Baines accuses Marlowe of maintaining that Harriott, the brilliant scientist and inventor, whom the fool multitude regarded as a magician, and whom he describes as "Sir W. Raleighs man," could "do more" than Moses who "was but a Jugler." He goes on to aver that "on[e] Ric[hard] Cholmley hath Confessed that he was perswaded by Marloes Reasons to become an Atheist." The seriousness of this charge will be realized when it is noted that this Cholmelie (or Chamley) was known to have organized a company of "atheists" as well as to have entertained revolutionary political designs, and that Baines[28] further charged Marlowe with having claimed "as good a Right to Coine as the Queen of England."

How Marlowe would have met these grave charges, each punishable by death, must remain a matter of conjecture. He was not destined to reply to them, however, for on the very next day, May 30, this "famous gracer of tragedians" was assassinated by Ingram Frizer, "gentleman," a notorious rascal and a proved habitual swindler. The only witnesses to the homicide were one Nicholas Skeres and one Robert Poley, the former a cheat and jailbird who had been associated with Frizer in some of his nefarious schemes, and the latter a spy.[29] Here, it will be acknowledged, was an excellent trio for a contrived murder. I say "contrived murder" because, from Mr. Hotson's account of the matter, it is clearly apparent that the story told at the Coroner's inquest by Skeres and Poley (the only witnesses to the assassination) is incredible.[30] The circumstances considered, it seems to me much more likely that on that fatal Wednesday, Marlowe was lured[31] to Eleanor Bull's inn at Deptford Strand, was wined liberally till he fell into a drunken stupor; the time being ripe and Eleanor Bull safely out of the way in another part of the building, Ingram Frizer deliberately plunged his dagger into Marlowe's brain to a sufficient depth to cause his instant death.

The assumption that Marlowe's death, contrary to the Coroner's report (q.v.), was premeditated assassination, not accidental homicide in self defence, is warranted by the following considerations.

1. The two wounds on Frizer's head were too slight to have been inflicted by a man in a rage wielding a sharp dagger. In this connection we must not overlook the significance of the fact that no physician seems to have been called in to dress Frizer's wounds, which were probably too slight to require medical attention. That each of the two wounds on Frizer's head was two inches long and a quarter of an inch deep is so curious a phenomenon as to warrant the assumption that they were self-inflicted. A dagger thrust from above downward or from below upward is much more likely to make a punctured wound of variable depth than an incised wound two inches long and only a quarter of an inch deep. (Parenthetically it may be noted that the number "two" seems to have been a favorite with the Coroner in this case.)

2. The only witnesses to the fatal fray were two disreputable friends of the man charged with the killing.

3. Frizer and his friends kept Marlowe company in the tavern, or the grounds adjoining it, from about ten o'clock in the forenoon until night. None of these men explained to the Coroner's jury how he happened to be idle that day and disposed to loaf at Eleanor Bull's tavern all those hours. There is nothing in the evidence to show they had ever been there before or even that they knew the place. And it certainly is strange that both Poley and Skeres (who, as far as the Coroner's evidence shows, may not have been acquainted with Marlowe) should have expected Marlowe to pay for their suppers.

4. It is incredible that Marlowe should have been lying on a cot and that Frizer should have had his back toward him while they were engaged in an acrimonious discussion.

5. The Coroner's statement that Frizer, while sitting in a chair and wrestling with a man in bed behind him, inflicted "a mortal wound over his [assailant's] right eye of the depth of two inches & of the width of one inch" is so improbable as to throw doubt on the whole of his account of the matter.

6. Neither Skeres nor Poley made the slightest attempt to interfere with or to part the combatants. There is no indication that they attempted to summon help.

7. The Coroner apparently made no attempt to find any other persons who ate or drank at Eleanor Bull's that day and who might have testified to the behavior of this remarkable quartet. How was it that none of the habitués of the place, a cheap tavern frequented mainly by sailors, were called upon to say what they knew or saw? The Coroner's strange silence suggests that Frizer, Skeres, and Poley probably managed to keep Marlowe most of the day in a private room and out of view of any of Eleanor's patrons. We must not overlook the significance of the fact that the Coroner reports that Marlowe and his associates "met together in a room in the house ... & there passed the time together & dined" and that, after walking about in the garden belonging to the house, they "returned ... to the room aforesaid & there together and in company supped."

8. The Coroner's failure to get Eleanor Bull's testimony is a highly suspicious feature, especially in view of the fact that the law required him to question the neighbors and any other persons who might throw any light on the homicide. It would surely have been of the utmost importance to know whether there were any evidences of a struggle, e.g., overturned chairs, broken dishes, the position of Marlowe's body, etc. As matters stand, we do not even know for certain whether the dead Marlowe was discovered in bed or on the floor, whether there were bloodstains in the bed, whether the Coroner found the dagger in the wound and in the clutch of the deceased—surely very material facts in an inquiry regarding a possible murder. And yet Eleanor Bull did not testify. The only likely explanation for this fact is that the assassin or assassins kept Marlowe in a private room in a remote part of the house until they were ready to dispatch him. Having got him sufficiently drunk, one of them thrust a dagger into the sleeping Marlowe's brain just above his right eye.

9. That the Coroner's inquest was a perfunctory matter and that his story cannot be accepted as a faithful account of what actually transpired is sufficiently evident from the facts that he made no inquiry into how much liquor Marlowe had imbibed and that he was willing to believe that a two-inch wound above the eye would result in instant death. One who knows the anatomy and pathology of the human brain knows that it is almost impossible for death to follow immediately upon the infliction of such a wound.[32] That Marlowe's brain—"the abode of the poet's vaulting imagination," as Hotson poetically calls it—was not examined is, therefore, certain, and yet the Coroner says that the wound was two inches deep and one inch wide. Such a wound, if made horizontally, traversing the eye socket, would not have involved the brain for more than half an inch, and would not have affected any vital area; if the wound was made vertically, the injury would have been in the frontal lobe of the brain and would not have proved fatal, certainly not immediately. To have caused instant death the assassin would have had to thrust his dagger horizontally into Marlowe's brain to a depth of six or seven inches—and that could not have happened if Frizer and Marlowe had been wrestling as the witnesses described. Portions of the frontal lobe have been shot away without fatal consequences. Bullets have been known to enter the brain through one temple and to come out through the other without causing death. The Coroner's "grim tale" of Marlowe's violent and untimely end is, therefore, not a true account of what happened.

Taking all the known facts into consideration, we must, it seems to me, conclude (1) that Marlowe was assassinated while he was asleep, probably in a drunken stupor; (2) that while he was in this condition, Ingram Frizer thrust his twelve-penny dagger, which he had brought with him for the purpose, deeply into Marlowe's brain; and (3) that the Coroner was influenced by certain powers not to inquire too curiously into the violent death of an "outcast Ismael".[33]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Harl. MS. 7368, at the British Museum.

[2] That the sixth man, hitherto known as "D", was not Shakspere, I have tried to show in my books, Problems in Shakspere's Penmanship and The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore. The latter of these presents my case for the dating of this play (the spring of 1593) as well as for the identification of Heywood, Chettle, and Kyd.

[3] For additional details regarding the quarrel between the aliens and the natives, the reader is referred to my Booke of Sir Thomas Moore.

[4] The Acts of the Privy Council of England, 1901, vol. 4, pp. 187, 200, 201, 222.

[5] See The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore, pp. 96-98.

[6] They were rediscovered by Professor F.S. Boas in 1898 and are preserved in the British Museum, where they bear the mark MS. Harl. 6848, ff. 187-189. Professor Boas reprinted them, in reverse order, in his book, The Works of Thomas Kyd, London, 1901. His book contains a facsimile of the first page of the alleged treatise. A correct transcript of all three pages and a facsimile of the second page appear in my Booke of Sir Thomas Moore.

[7] Op. cit., pp. 43, 47.

[8] "On a document concerning Christopher Marlowe," in Studies in Philology, April, 1920, vol. 20, pp. 153-159.

[9] It is not impossible, however, that the endorsement was the work of a clerk of the Privy Council or of the prison to which Kyd was committed.

[10] That the Lord whom Thomas Kyd served, probably in the role of secretary, was Ferdinando Stanley, I have shown in my Booke of Sir Thomas Moore, pp. 38-41.

[11] The whole of this interesting and important letter (B.M., MS. Harl., 6849, ff. 218-19) is finely facsimiled (but not accurately transcribed) in Professor Boas' book. The reader will find it in my book, pp. 108-11.

[12] B.M., MS. Harl. 6848, ff. 154.

[13] In Virgil's 2d. Eclogue Alexis is a beautiful youth beloved by the shepherd Corydon. This therefore amounts to a charge of homosexuality.

[14] This important document was discovered by Mr. F. K. Brown in 1921 and is described in The Times Literary Supplement (London), June 2, 1921, p. 335. It is finely facsimiled and accurately transcribed in Dr. W.W. Greg's Literary Autographs from 1550-1650. See also my book, op. cit., pp. 38, 41-44, 52.

[15] This probably alludes to the felony with which Marlowe was charged in 1588. (See Professor Hotson's essay, "Marlowe among the Churchwardens," in the Atlantic Monthly, July, 1926, vol. 138, pp. 37-44.)

[16] The Acts of the Privy Council, May 20, 1593.

[17] That Marlowe was a spy in the service of the Queen and of Sir Francis Walsingham we know from the labors of Professor Hotson (cf. the work cited, pp. 63-4) and of Miss Eugenie de Kalb (cf. "The Death of Marlowe," in The Times Literary Supplement, May 21, 1925, p. 351).

[18] Cf. The Dictionary of National Biography.

[19] Thomas Harriott, one of the "three magi" who frequently attended the Earl of Northumberland in the Tower, had acknowledged himself to be a deist He was a member of Walter Ralegh's group of freethinkers.

[20] Walter Warner, the distinguished mathematician, another one of the Earl of Northumberland's "three magi," was also one of Ralegh's group. Some think that Kyd may have meant William Warner, the poet, the author of the highly praised Albion's England.

[21] Edward de Vere, seventeenth Earl of Oxford and Lord Great Chamberlain, was one of the most talented, eccentric, extravagant, irresponsible, and intersting men of the Age of Elizabeth. He was born in 1550 and died in 1604. He was inordinately quarrelsome, temperamental and reckless, and therewithal endowed with a high degree of musical talent and literary ability. Men of letters found him friendly and helpful, and he was the patron of a company of actors. He was as erratic in his relations with the Queen as with others, and in 1592 he fell out with her because she refused to grant his petition for a monopoly to import into England certain oils, wool, and fruits—a refusal which doomed him, for financial reasons, to live in retirement. This is the man who, in the opinion of some writers, was the "real Shakespeare."

[22] This was the "wizard Earl," as he was popularly known, whom the Roman Catholics had instigated to assert and fortify his claim to the English crown and who fearlessly protested against King James' severity in his treatment of Ralegh. He was, in all probability, the first owner of the famous Northumberland Manuscript. For an interesting and entertaining account of this eccentric patron of the arts and sciences, consult the Dictionary of National Biography.

[23] In their edition of Love's Labour's Lost (1923, p. xxxiii), Mr. Dover Wilson and Professor Quiller-Couch erroneously include the name of the ingenious Stanley, fifth Earl of Derby, in this group. George Chapman, the authorities say, was one of the coterie; Shakspere was not, as far as we know.

[24] An account of these documents (MS. Harl. 6842, ff. 183-90) and extracts from them were published by Mr. J.M. Stone ("Atheism under Elizabeth and James I." in The Month for June, 1894, vol. 81, pp. 174-87) and by Professor Boas (in Literature, Nos. 147 and 148).

[25] Works of Thomas Kyd, p. lxxiii.

[26] Harriott was again coupled with Marlowe in a letter (Harl. MS. 6848, f. 176) written to Justice Young by a spy concerning Cholmely and his "crues." We may recall that at Sir Walter's trial, in 1603, Lord Chief Justice Coke branded the accused as "a damnable atheist" and denounced him for associating with that "devil" Harriott.

[27] This "note Containing the opinion of on[e] Christopher Marly, Concerning his damnable Judgment of Religion and scorn of gods words" (Harl. MS. 6848, fol. 185-6, also Harl. MS. 6853, fo. 320) has been reprinted in an expurgated version by Boas (op. cit., pp. cxiv-cxvi), by Ingram (op. cit., pp. 260-2) and in Mr. H. Ellis's "unexpurgated" edition of Marlowe's Plays in the Mermaid Series (1893, pp. 428-30). It is transcribed, without abridgement, in my Notes and Additions to 'The Books of Sir Thomas Moore.'

[28] Concerning Baines we are told by Mr. Havelock Ellis (op. cit., p. xliv) that he "was hanged at Tyburn next year for some degrading offence," but, as Mr. Ellis says, "there seems no reason—while making judicious' reservations—to doubt the substantial accuracy of his statements."

[29] That Poley was a "secret agent" we know from Conyers Read's Mr. Secretary Walsingham, 1925, II. 383. For additional information about him, see Mr. Chambers' review of Hotson's book, in Modern Language Review, 1926, vol. 21, pp. 84-85.

[30] For a translation of the Coroner's report, see pp. 71-75.

[31] William Vaughan, who has given us (in his Golden Grove, 1600) the most nearly authentic account of the assassination, tells us that Ingram invited Marlowe to Deptford "to a feast." Neither Frizer, Skeres, nor Poley, be it remembered, gave the Coroner any explanation of how they happened to meet Marlowe that morning and why they did not leave him out of their sight all day.

[32] For expert medical opinions on this matter, see pp. 65-67.

[33] It is at least interesting to note that the day before Marlowe's cruel end Richard Baines had included in his report to the Privy Council these words: "I think all men in Cristianity ought to indevor that the mouth of so dangerous a member [as this Marlowe] may be stopped." Was this a mere coincidence? or was it a broad hint to their Lordships of what was about to happen? or was it only an unintended betrayal of a secret of which the writer had cognizance? That it was not the pious indignation of a good Christian which prompted Baines' prophetic utterance is sufficiently evident from what we know of that worthy's career.

II

If, then, Christopher Marlowe did not make his "great reckoning in a little room" accidentally but was the victim of a deliberate and planned murder, it seems impossible not to believe that the outrage was the outcome of the events immediately preceding it and intimately connected with Kyd's difficulties and accusations. To accept this view we need only think that Kyd, living in a city having a population of over one hundred thousand, was pounced upon by the police on the very day following the Privy Council's action; that Kyd could not but suspect that Marlowe, his quondam room-mate, had betrayed him to the officers of the law; that in his defence he attributed the incriminating "disputation" to Marlowe; that he subsequently charged Marlowe with numerous criminal offences (atheism, Socinianism, blasphemy, converting others to atheism, plotting against the State); that, not content with this, he named certain men—Harriott, Warner, Royden—with having associated with the "outcast Ismael" and listened to his atheistical doctrines; and that he very clearly threatened to divulge the identity of certain "men of quallitie" who (he implied) were not only intimates of the "outcast" but were leagued with him in conspiring with King James against Queen Elizabeth. At the same time we must not lose sight of this significant fact—Marlowe was the subject of attack from other quarters too. Baines' report to the Council not only duplicated and confirmed Kyd's charges, but added the grave accusations that Marlowe openly advocated sexual perversions, claimed to have as good a right to coin as the Queen of England had, and had converted at least one other to atheism. In another spy's memorandum (MS. Harl. 6848, fo. 190) "Sr Walter Raliegh & others" are coupled with "one Marlowe [who] is able to shewe more sounde reasons for Atheisme then any devine in Englande is able to geue to prove devinitie." That Marlowe, one of Walsingham's secret agents, was being apprised of the powerful forces at work to destroy him can hardly be doubted. He must have realized now that his ex-associate knew too much, suspected him, and was ready to sacrifice everything and everybody to save himself and to be revenged on the causer of his miseries. Kyd was safe in jail and was being closely guarded by the authorities, who hoped that the names of the "men of quallitie" he had implicated might yet be "drawn" from the prisoner.

And what about the "men of quallitie" whose lives were being threatened? From what we know of the characters of the Council's spies we may safely assume that these noblemen were not wholly ignorant of what Kyd had charged them with and what certain spies had reported to the Council. There were "leaks" in those days, as there are now. That Marlowe's situation was desperate is certain. The only ones who could have saved him—by the use of their political influence—were the men who were most in danger from him. From Kyd's reticence—a politic reticence, no doubt—the "men of quallitie" knew that they were safe if he was. Marlowe was the only one they had cause to fear. Marlowe, therefore, had to be silenced.[34] Ingram Frizer, a servant of Mr. Thomas Walsingham, and therefore an associate of Marlowe (and not likely to be distrusted), was assigned the task of stopping the poet-spy's career. Nicholas Skeres and Robert Poley were schooled to corroborate the assassin's defense. Kyd was instructed to hold his tongue and wait. May 30th came and Marlowe walked into the trap which had been set for him. What followed we know.

When we attempt to answer the question what Englishman or Englishmen of that day could have been so situated as to be in sufficiently great danger from Marlowe's possible revelations to desire his death, it seems that we must restrict our investigation to the "men of quallitie" who constituted Sir Walter Ralegh's coterie. And when we consider that Sir Walter was not only hinted at in Kyd's accusing memorandum but was actually named in Baines' "Note," that he had a reputation for atheism, and that a few months later he had to submit to being examined regarding his religious views, we have no choice but to focus our attention on him. When, in addition to the facts just mentioned, we find him so constituted as to be eminently capable of so bold and ruthless an act as the assassination of an enemy in the furtherance of his own interests, and so situated as to be almost driven to such an act of desperation, it becomes a reasonable assumption that the responsibility for Marlowe's violent and cruel taking-off should be laid at his door.

Tradition says that Marlowe was one of the choice spirits who were received at the weekly gatherings of brilliant literary and scientific men at Sir Walter's house, "where religious topics were often discussed with perilous freedom." Mr. Ingram, following Dyce, says (Christopher Marlowe and his Associates, 1904, p. 184): "The earliest references to the poet not only allude to his friendship with Raleigh but even assert that he read a paper on the Trinity before Sir Walter Raleigh and his brother Carew and others at the Knight's house."[35] The alleged friendship is in all probability a myth, though Ralegh must have been fascinated by the creator of Tamburlaine and Faust, two portraits in which that bold and aspiring spirit may very well have seen himself. But the relations between them were probably of a sufficiently intimate nature to cause Sir Walter considerable anxiety on learning—as he must have learned—that this "god of undaunted verse," who had enjoyed his hospitality, was not only a disciple of Machiavelli but a secret agent of the Government and had been responsible for Kyd's arrest. That at this critical moment Marlowe might have made it clear to Sir Walter that he looked to him to save him is not at all improbable. But Ralegh knew that he was then in no position to do what was demanded of him.

To an ambitious, cruel, and unscrupulous Elizabethan adventurer, to such a "soldier, sailor, and courtier" as Ralegh was—careers which he himself subsequently blamed for his "courses of wickedness and vice" (his own words)—the removal by assassination of a dangerous foe, who might not only frustrate the fulfilment of his dreams but land him in the Tower, or worse (especially at a time when he was in disgrace with the furious Elizabeth and the subject of almost universal hatred and obloquy), was as obvious as it was practicable. This many-gifted, brilliant, enigmatical Englishman—as striking a case of dual personality as history affords—was capable of "unspeakable cold-blooded cruelty," of "treachery and false faith," of "bold unscrupulousness," of almost "any act of baseness." That is the verdict of those of his biographers (Stebbing, Gosse, Buchan, Thoreau) who are not obviously his apologists. Ralegh's wanton brutality and wholesale butcheries in Ireland—"that commonwealth of common woe," as he called it—is one of the saddest and darkest pages in the history of the English-Irish troubles. To attain his ends all means were permissible. Is it any wonder, then, that "he was hated by all and sundry, from the citizens of London to the courtiers who jostled him in the Queen's antechamber"?[36] To the popular mind, and even to the best men of his day, "Raleigh remained the ambitious courtier, the able and unscrupulous soldier, and the man who wrought ever for his own ends." To this vain, egotistical man, this victim of an insatiable passion for fame, wealth, and rule, who dreamed of founding empires, and who realized all too keenly how his many enemies—envying him for his great wealth, his ostentation, his adventures, his talents, his special privileges—would revel in his ruin,—to such a man it would have been the most trivial undertaking to sweep out of his path a hot-headed, quarrelsome, vainglorious, and treacherous son of a shoemaker, a fellow whom he had befriended and admitted into the privacy of his sanctum. He knew, none so well as he, that his and his friends' fortunes were desperate if Marlowe divulged what he knew.

To understand what Ralegh's state of mind was at this time it is necessary to recount the occurrences of the preceding year. After having for several years played the rôle of devoted and impassioned lover to the Virgin Queen—"love's queen and the goddess of his life"—he had permitted himself to fall a victim to the charms of one of the Queen's maids of honor, the witty, beautiful (tall, slender, blue-eyed, golden-haired) and altogether lovely Elizabeth Throgmorton, some thirty-five years younger than her royal rival. The Queen, "who loved the presence of handsome young men with unmaidenly ardour," notwithstanding her alleged prudery and the sixty years she carried on her ulcerous back, was furious—"fiercely incensed," says a contemporary. Sir Walter was immediately dismissed from the royal favor and committed to the Tower where he was detained from June to September, 1592. While imprisoned there, he behaved like a spoiled child, quarrelling with his keepers, bemoaning his hard lot, and writing lovesick letters to the Queen—even though his betrothed was confined in a suite only a few feet from his.

During his confinement in the Tower he discovered another grievance against his "Belphoebe:" she prohibited him from sharing to the full in the expedition of 1592 which ended in the capture of the great Spanish carack, the "Madre de Dios." And, besides, the Queen's greed made the division of the spoils so extremely unequal that he, "to whom the success was owing, who bore the toils and burden of it all, was considerably the loser," whereas Lord Cumberland (who had invested only a relatively small sum in the piratical venture) made £17,000 profit.

Circumstances into which we need not now enter brought about his release from the Tower. But "freedom from confinement did not bring with it a return of the royal graciousness, and for some years he was practically an exile from the Court" (Buchan). Early in 1593 he was in retirement at his manor of Sherborne in Dorset, where he spent the time in hunting, hawking, cultivating potatoes, and attempting to grow tobacco. That this sort of life, coupled with ostracism from the Court (the latter extended also to his wife), must have been dreadfully galling to this bold and adventurous spirit, always hankering for battle and enterprise, can hardly be doubted. He seems to have been firmly convinced that in his case the Queen—who had been known to overlook the fickleness of lovers—would be obdurate and never again have anything to do with him. Here, then, at the age of forty, he saw his career ended, his dreams of power and rule shattered.

Would he permit himself to be doomed to a life of inaction and obscurity, to "keep a farm and carters?" Of course he would not. We know that he brooded on schemes of maritime adventure as an escape from the boredom to which an insulted Queen had banished him. London fascinated him and drew him like a magnet; the records show that he paid frequent visits to the capital. To keep in touch with the world he had himself elected to Parliament—and to his credit be it said that, notwithstanding the odium in which he was generally held, he took a lively interest in public affairs and championed what was just and reasonable in popular demands.

The Queen took advantage of every means in her power to harass him and make him feel the settled hate in her heart. Thus, she now made him recall all his people from Ireland where he had established a colony on his estates in the Counties of Westford and Cork; after Michaelmas, 1594, she ordered him to pay a rental of 100 Marks (instead of the 50 Marks he had been in the habit of paying) for one of his Irish estates. (See Malone's Variorum, 1821, vol. 2, p. 573.)

That he was watching his opportunity to get back into power, to find an outlet for his talents, to get into the limelight in the political arena, rather than to be restored to the Queen's good graces, seems to be proved by several circumstances. He protested loudly—no doubt more loudly than the circumstances warranted—against the Government's blundering policies as regards Ireland, and advocated a resolute and consistent despotism, sustained, if necessary, by treachery and murder. About this time—on February 28, 1593, to be exact—he also advocated open war with Spain. Three weeks later he opposed the bill in the House of Commons for the extension of the privileges of aliens in England. In the discussion of the latter measure he was the only one who spoke of expelling the strangers.

Sir Walter's attitude to the foreigners who were the objects of the city's "exceeding pitiful and great exclamations" at this time is deserving of careful attention. So grave was the situation that it occupied the House of Commons during several sessions (March 21, 23, and 24, 1593). Unmindful of the humanitarian pleas of some of his associates (Mr. Finch, Sir Robert Cecil, and others), Ralegh expostulated: "Whereas it is pretended, That for strangers it is against Charity, against Honour, against Profit to expel them; in my opinion it is no matter of Charity to relieve them.... I see no reason that so much respect should be given unto them. And to conclude, in the whole cause I see no matter of Honour, no matter of Charity, no Profit in relieving them."[37]

That his policies on public questions were the expression of his secret purposes cannot be doubted. A man, constituted as he was, conscious of his powers, his talents, his unemployed energy, his versatility, his military ability and skill, his scientific attainments, his popularity with the crews of his ships,[38] his ambitions, and smarting under the disabilities attendant on being in disgrace, would without a doubt be keenly on the alert for any opportunity that chance might offer to bring him back into a position of influence and power.

Sir Walter, like others of his distinguished contemporaries, was capable of treasonous intrigue against his Queen. This may reasonably be deduced from a letter of his written—on July 6, 1597—to the none too scrupulous Robert Cecil. In that letter he says: "I acquaynted the L: Generall [i.e., The Earl of Essex] wth your ... kynd acceptance of your enterteynment; hee was also wonderfull merry att ye consait of Richard the 2. I hope it shall never alter, & whereof I shall be most gladd of, as the treu way to all our good, qu[i]ett, & advacemet, & most of all for her sake whose affaires shall therby fy[n]d better progression." This passage has been a hopeless conundrum to the biographers, but as Edward Edwards has shown,[39] there can be little doubt that it refers to Shakspere's Richard the Second which was then being performed at the Globe Theatre. It will be recalled that this tragedy, destined to play an important rôle in 1601 in the treasonous enterprise of the Lord General Essex, at this time included the celebrated "deposition scene" (IV. i, 154-318) which the Queen, conceiving that Richard II was a mask for herself, sternly disapproved of.[40] To the psychologist there will be profound significance in the unusual (and hitherto unnoticed) subscription to the above letter by Ralegh: "Sir, I will ever be yours: it is all I can saye, & I will performe it with my life & wth my fortune." He wrote better than he knew.

But let us return to 1593. Being in the frame of mind we have already described, and knowing that he could rely on the crews of his ships and the men of Devon, this malcontent must have thought of ways and means of bringing about some situation which would enable him to play a conspicuous part, get close to the Queen, oust his enemies from the Court, and possibly even take charge of the Government, as Essex planned to do a few years later. His life at the Court had acquainted him with the arts of indirect dealing. The hostility between the natives and the aliens and between the city and the national Government seemed to offer the coveted opportunity. We must remember that at this time he was in London a great deal; that he advocated publicly the expulsion of the aliens; that he was attempting to fan into a flame the smouldering anti-Hispanism, was openly criticising the Government's Irish policy, and was not without powerful political friends.[41]

It seems not too far-fetched, therefore, to conjecture that directly or indirectly, possibly with the assistance of his intimate associate, his other self, Harriott,[42] he convinced the manager of a theatrical company, preferably the Admiral's, that a play dealing with Sir Thomas More and the "ill May day" of 1517 would be timely and might prove a money maker.[43] Munday, "our best plotter," and his young associates, Heywood and Chettle, were entrusted with the task. They at once betook themselves to Hall's Chronicle, familiarized themselves with More's career, met together to outline the play, and set to work. Fortunately or unfortunately, however, for the course of history, the writing and revision of the play did not go on to completion.[44] The plague, which drove the actors out of London, may have had something to do with it, but the greater likelihood is that the revisers were interrupted by the informer's betrayal of Kyd's participation in a plot to expel French and Flemish subjects from London. And thus the plan centering around the tragedy of Sir Thomas Moore came to naught. For the time being, Sir Walter Ralegh's plots to be revenged on an unreasonable and irascible queen were frustrated, but, unfortunately for English literature, not before Christopher Marlowe had become so enmeshed in them that they cost him his life.

FOOTNOTES:

[34] That such dastardly plotting was not beyond an Elizabethan nobleman is clearly shown by the statement in the Dictionary of National Biography that the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, "was said to have deliberately planned the murder of an antagonist, and he very reluctantly abandoned what he affected to regard as a safe scheme of assassination."

[35] In the spy's affidavit Cholmeley is reported as saying that Marlowe had told him that "he hath read the Atheist lecture to Sr Walter Raleigh & others." For Marlowe's relations with his contemporaries the reader should consult Professor Tucker Brooke's essay, "Marlowe's Reputation," in Trans. of the Conn. Acad. of Arts & Sciences, 1922, vol. 25, pp. 347-408.

[36] J. Buchan, Sir Walter Raleigh, pp. 41, 45.

[37] Cf. A Compleat Journal of the Notes, Speeches and Debates, both of the House of Lords and House of Commons throughout the whole Reign of Queen Elizabeth. Collected by ... Sir Simonds D'Ewes, London, 1693, pp. 504-9.

[38] When the Queen released Ralegh from the Tower to go to Dartmouth to settle the disputes about the distribution of the spoils taken on the "Madre de Dios," Robert Cecil wrote home: "I assure you, Sir, his poor servants to the number of one hundred and forty goodly men, and all the mariners, came to him with such shouts and joy, as I never saw a man more troubled to quell in my life; for he is very extreme pensive longer than he is busied, in which he can toil terribly."

[39] The Life of Sir Walter Raleigh, 1868, vol. 2, pp. 164-9.

[40] Cf. S. Lee, A Life of William Shakespeare, 1916, pp. 129, 254-5.

[41] That he had friends in the Privy Council seems to be indicated by the following interesting circumstance: in the official replica (Harl. MS. 6853, fo. 320), laid before Queen Elizabeth, of Richard Baines' note accusing Marlowe of blasphemy, the designation of Harriott as "Sir W. Raleighs man" was omitted—surely not for the purpose of sparing the Queen's feelings. And nine months later the Commission, which had been appointed to examine him at Cerne, apparently squashed the matter after it had heard all the witnesses and obtained sufficient evidence to convict him, his brother and Harriott, had it wished to do so.

[42] Harriott, and therefore Ralegh, was mentioned not only in every one of the documents we have referred to in connection with the charges of heresy and blasphemy but also in connection with plots against the Government.

[43] That Sir Thomas Moore was written for a political purpose was dearly felt by Professor Ashley H. Thorndike; in 1916 (Shakespeare's Theater, p. 213), when we knew a great deal less about this play than we now know, he expressed surprise that Tyllney "should have permitted in any form a play intended to excite feeling against the foreigners dwelling in London." That the drama was 'universally used for political purposes' in Shakspere's time is convincingly shown in Richard Simpson's paper, "The Political Use of the Stage in Shakspere's Time," in The Transactions of the New Shakspere Society, 1874, part II, pp. 371-95.

[44] That Sir Walter, like some of his intimate associates, e.g., Edward de Vere, had intimate contacts with theatrical companies, is fairly certain. On January 30, 1597, Rowland Whyte wrote to Sir Robert Sydney as follows: "My Lord Compton, Sir Walter Rawley, my Lord Southampton doe severally feast Mr. Secretary before he depart, and have Plaies and Banquets." (Letters and Memorials of State, ed. class="center"by Arthur Collins, 1746, vol. 2, p. 86.)

III

APPENDIX A

OPINIONS OF MEDICAL EXPERTS

III

Dr. Charles A. Elsberg, of New York City, distinguished consulting neurological surgeon, wrote me on March 19, 1928, as follows:

You are quite right in the assumption that it would be very unusual for a "dagger wound just above the right eye, two inches deep and one inch wide," to have caused instant death, altho it is possible that if Marlowe had a very thin skull and short frontal region that the dagger might have penetrated the cavernous sinus. This seems to me, however, very improbable. On the other hand, if Marlowe was suffering from a cardiac disease, a sudden shock might have caused instant death, altho it was not the actual trauma.

Dr. James Ewing, professor of pathology at Cornell University Medical College (New York City), sent me the following reply to my letter to him regarding Marlowe's death:

I do not see how the wound that you describe by a dagger entering the orbit above the right eye could cause instant death. Yet it seems possible that if the dagger went deeply into the brain, it might sever blood vessels and cause hemorrhage which would lead to almost immediate unconsciousness and death in a short time, without recovering consciousness.

Professor W.G. MacCallum, head of the department of pathology at Johns Hopkins University, wrote me as follows:

I should think that a wound such as you described ... would hardly have gone further than through the frontal sinus and into the frontal lobe of the cerebrum and I don't see either how it caused instant death.

Of course, one might imagine that the force of the blow was such as to stun him and allow time for fatal haemorrhage in that position. The only other thing one could think of would be perhaps that with extreme violence some further injury might have been produced in a more vital part of the brain, but on the whole it seems to me questionable that instant death would follow such a blow.

Dr. Otto H. Schultze, professor of pathology and medical jurisprudence, Coroner's physician in New York from 1896 to 1914, medical assistant District Attorney of New York County from 1914 to date, and the author of several works on the medico-legal aspects of homicide, wrote as follows in reply to my inquiry:

A stab wound of the skin or even puncturing the orbit could not cause instant death, nor would be likely to cause a fatal hemorrhage. A stab wound above the eye, penetrating the orbital plate and frontal lobe of brain, may cause death, but hardly would account for "instant" death.

IV

APPENDIX B

THE CORONER'S REPORT

IV

Kent./ Inquisition indented taken at Detford Strand in the aforesaid County of Kent within the verge on the first day of June in the year of the reign of Elizabeth by the grace of God of England France & Ireland Queen defender of the faith &c. thirty-fifth, in the presence of William Danby, Gentleman, Coroner of the household of our said lady the Queen, upon view of the body of Christopher Morley, there lying dead & slain, upon oath of Nicholas Draper, Gentleman, Wolstan Randall, gentleman, William Curry, Adrian Walker, John Barber, Robert Baldwyn, Giles ffeld, George Halfepenny, Henry Awger, James Batt, Henry Bendyn, Thomas Batt senior, John Baldwyn, Alexander Burrage, Edmund Goodcheepe, & Henry Dabyns, Who say [upon] their oath that when a certain Ingram ffrysar, late of London, Gentleman, and the aforesaid Christopher Morley and one Nicholas Skeres, late of London, Gentleman, and Robert Poley of London aforesaid, Gentleman, on the thirtieth day of May in the thirty-fifth year above named, at Detford Strand aforesaid in the said County of Kent within the verge, about the tenth hour before noon of the same day, met together in a room in the house of a certain Eleanor Bull, widow; & there passed the time together & dined & after dinner were in quiet sort together there & walked in the garden belonging to the said house until the sixth hour after noon of the same day & then returned from the said garden to the room aforesaid & there together and in company supped; & after supper the said Ingram & Christopher Morley were in speech & uttered one to the other divers malicious words for the reason that they could not be at one nor agree about the payment of the sum of pence, that is, le recknynge, there; & the said Christopher Morley then lying upon a bed in the room where they supped, & moved with anger against the said Ingram ffrysar upon the words as aforesaid spoken between them, And the said Ingram then & there sitting in the room aforesaid with his back towards the bed where the said Christopher Morley was then lying, sitting near the bed, that is, nere the bed, & with the front part of his body towards the table & the aforesaid Nicholas Skeres & Robert Poley sitting on either side of the said Ingram in such a manner that the same Ingram ffrysar in no wise could take flight: it so befell that the said Christopher Morley on a sudden & of his malice towards the said Ingram aforethought, then & there maliciously drew the dagger of the said Ingram which was at his back, and with the same dagger the said Christopher Morley then & there maliciously gave the aforesaid Ingram two wounds on his head of the length of two inches & of the depth of a quarter of an inch; whereupon the said Ingram, in fear of being slain, & sitting in the manner aforesaid between the said Nicholas Skeres & Robert Poley so that he could not in any wise get away, in his own defence & for the saving of his life, then & there struggled with the said Christopher Morley to get back from him his dagger aforesaid; in which affray the same Ingram could not get away from the said Christopher Morley; and so it befell in that affray that the said Ingram, in defence of his life, with the dagger aforesaid of the value of 12d. gave the said Christopher then & there a mortal wound over his right eye of the depth of two inches & of the width of one inch; of which mortal wound the aforesaid Christopher Morley then & there instantly died; And so the Jurors aforesaid say upon their oath that the said Ingram killed & slew Christopher Morley aforesaid on the thirtieth day of May in the thirty-fifth year named above at Detford Strand aforesaid within the verge in the room aforesaid within the verge in the manner and form aforesaid in the defence and saving of his own life, against the peace of our said lady the Queen, her now crown & dignity; And further the said Jurors say upon their oath that the said Ingram after the slaying aforesaid perpetrated & done by him in the manner & form aforesaid neither fled nor withdrew himself; But what goods or chattels, lands or tenements the said Ingram had at the time of the slaying aforesaid, done & perpetrated by him in the manner and form aforesaid, the said Jurors are totally ignorant. In witness of which thing the said Coroner as well as the Jurors aforesaid to this Inquisition have interchangeably set their seals.

Given the day & year above named etc.

by William Danby

Coroner.[45]

FOOTNOTES:

[45] For permission to reprint this English version of the Coroner's report I am indebted to Professor Hotson.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ASSASSINATION OF CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE (A NEW VIEW) ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

[Pg 13]

[Pg 14]

[Pg 15]

[Pg 16]

[Pg 17]

[Pg 18]

[Pg 19]

[Pg 20]

[Pg 21]

[Pg 22]

[Pg 23]

[Pg 24]

[Pg 25]

[Pg 26]

[Pg 27]

[Pg 28]

[Pg 29]

[Pg 30]

[Pg 31]

[Pg 32]

[Pg 33]

[Pg 34]

[Pg 35]

[Pg 36]

[Pg 37]

[Pg 38]

[Pg 39]

[Pg 40]

[Pg 41]

[Pg 42]

[Pg 43]

[Pg 45]

[Pg 46]

[Pg 47]

[Pg 48]

[Pg 49]

[Pg 50]

[Pg 51]

[Pg 53]

[Pg 54]

[Pg 55]

[Pg 56]

[Pg 57]

[Pg 58]

[Pg 59]

[Pg 60]

[Pg 62]

[Pg 63]

[Pg 65]

[Pg 66]

[Pg 67]

[Pg 69]

[Pg 71]

[Pg 72]

[Pg 73]

[Pg 74]

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE