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 (http://books.google.com)
and generously made available by HathiTrust Digital Library
(https://www.hathitrust.org/)



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


Transcriber's note:

      Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

      A caret character is used to denote superscription. A
      single character following the caret is superscripted
      (example: o^r). Multiple superscripted characters are
      enclosed by curly brackets (example: w^{th}).





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

Copyright, 1928, by 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 o^r 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
o^r 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 intem_p_[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:

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

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 3: For additional details regarding the quarrel between the
aliens and the natives, the reader is referred to my _Booke of Sir
Thomas Moore_.]

[Footnote 4: _The Acts of the Privy Council of England_, 1901, vol. 4,
pp. 187, 200, 201, 222.]

[Footnote 5: See _The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore_, pp. 96-98.]

[Footnote 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_.]

[Footnote 7: _Op. cit._, pp. 43, 47.]

[Footnote 8: "On a document concerning Christopher Marlowe," in
_Studies in Philology_, April, 1920, vol. 20, pp. 153-159.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 12: _B.M., MS. Harl. 6848, ff. 154._]

[Footnote 13: In Virgil's _2d. Eclogue_ Alexis is a beautiful youth
beloved by the shepherd Corydon. This therefore amounts to a charge of
homosexuality.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.)]

[Footnote 16: _The Acts of the Privy Council_, May 20, 1593.]

[Footnote 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).]

[Footnote 18: _Cf._ _The Dictionary of National Biography._]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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_.]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 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_.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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).]

[Footnote 25: _Works of Thomas Kyd_, p. lxxiii.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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_.']

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 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.]

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

[Footnote 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.]

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

[Footnote 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_) "S^r 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] w^{th} 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 & w^{th} 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:

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 36: J. Buchan, _Sir Walter Raleigh_, pp. 41, 45.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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."]

[Footnote 39: _The Life of Sir Walter Raleigh_, 1868, vol. 2, pp.
164-9.]

[Footnote 40: _Cf._ S. Lee, _A Life of William Shakespeare_, 1916, pp.
129, 254-5.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.
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 &c

 by William Danby
 Coroner.[45]

FOOTNOTES:

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