Kuriyama's biography of Marlowe
Peter Farey
Marlowe: A Renaissance Life* by Constance Brown
Kuriyama):
>
> Has anybody else seen this book? Does anybody,
> especially the numerous Marlites here want to
> discuss it?
Well, as no Marlite (whatever that may be) has yet
offered an a opinion, may I do so instead?
Joking aside, I agree with Dave in saying that it is
pretty good, and does indeed have quite a lot of
information that was new to me. I was surprised to
find, for example, that the age at which Marlowe
started at Cambridge (17) was not, as I had been led
to believe, unusual for the time; and I was intrigued
to discover that the John Greenwood who was executed a
few weeks before Marlowe's own death seems to have
been a friend of his at Corpus Christi. That Marlowe's
patron, Thomas Walsingham, was once imprisoned for
outlawry (debt) was also a big surprise. (Although
Kuriyama's calling him Sir Francis Walsingham's 'nephew'
at one point and his 'cousin' another - when he was in
fact his first cousin, once removed - could have been
a tad confusing?)
I also found, and continue to find, the author's own
versions of various documents (both in Latin and
English, and taking up about 40 pages in all) to be
very useful indeed. I am indebted to her, by the way,
for translating *indentata* as 'in duplicate', rather
than 'indented', as Hotson said the inquisition was.
Never having looked up what 'indented' meant, I had
been unable to make any sense of it until now!
The biography as a whole is fine, and gives a very
lucid demonstration of what may and may not be
inferred from such documentation as still exists.
I get the feeling, however, that Kuriyama believed that
this was a book which *had* to be written. It was
needed to counter the spate of recent (and apparently
forthcoming) books which challenge the orthodox story,
particularly those, such as Charles Nicholl's *The
Reckoning*, in which the potentially more dramatic
aspects of his life and death are played up. This
attempts to calm us all down - Marlowe was just this
guy, you know - and it is of course rather less *fun*
to read as a result.
She also suffers from the dilemma facing any legitimate
Shakespearean scholar writing such a book, of course.
How do you indicate your utter rejection of anti-
Stratfordian lunacies, without acknowledging the name
of anyone writing the stuff? She does this in a single
footnote in which she says: "The even more bizarre
theories that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare's plays after
his supposed death began in 1819 with an article by an
anonymous author in *Monthly Review* [this was also
news to me] and continue to the present. Like all anti-
Stratfordian fantasies, the claims for Marlowe are
based on deliberate selection and highly partial
interpretation of evidence". I find her use of the
expression 'anti-Stratfordian' quite revealing, and
her description unintentionally ironic. And once again,
sadly, this quite unnecessary link with the authorship
question rules out any chance of her considering the
possibility of a faked death strictly on its own
merits.
I say 'ironic', because she does, I think, not
infrequently rely on deliberate selection and partial
interpretation in support of her own thesis. In the
case of his attack on William Corkine, for example, we
find that Marlowe pummelled him with the hilt of his
dagger, even though the document says nothing about
which weapon of his, if any, was used, and the standard
Latin format can be translated as indicating no more
than a bruise or two, or even just causing distress.
Furthermore, a value was put on the damage, which (in
those days!) hardly implied bodily harm.
She also says that Poley "was frequently employed as
a messenger to the Low Countries and Scotland and had
just returned from one of these journeys when he
joined Frizer's party." That he had not yet delivered
the important and urgent letters he was supposed to be
carrying, that it would be another eight days before he
delivered them to the Court, and that he was said to be
'on her majesty's service' while he was there, are all
completely ignored.
There are also rather too many silly little mistakes
which one must assume are accidental, such as the the
twenty-mile verge Bob already mentioned. She also
misquotes Bradley's inquest (p.82), and gives (as the
PRO insisted when I was looking for it) a non-existent
reference for Watson's gaol delivery (p.242). I do
confess, however, that I had to laugh at her saying
that "...Marlowe was out of London...during September
and at least part of October of 1593". Calvin and
Dolly would have loved that!
Kuriyama's reporting of other people's words goes wrong
at times. For example, she says in her precis of what
happened at the inquest that "after this dispute,
Marlowe lay on a bed". It is perfectly clear, however,
that the dispute occurred *while* Marlowe was lying
down, which of course completely changes the way we
imagine the whole sequence of events.
There are also occasional inconsistencies. Dave has
mentioned her saying that all of Marlowe's absences
from Cambridge were 'entirely normal'. That's fine,
but she also says: "his last long absence from
Cambridge during the weeks before he was to take his
M.A. degree gave rise to a rumor that he had turned
Catholic", and I don't think she can have it both ways.
I note also a tendency to quote from articles (those by
Hammer, Sprott and Kendall all come to mind), and
apparently fail really to take in the main point that
they are making. There is many a reference to Wraight
and Stern's *In search of Christopher Marlowe* too, but
nothing from anything published by Dolly after she
'came out' as a Marlovian!
One or two things of which she seems to be ignorant
quite surprised me. It was the norm at the time to use
italic hand for the signing of documents in secretary
hand, but she refers to one as being "in a bolder
script". In another example, Thomas Drury wrote that
there was "a vile book also by my decyphering taken",
about which she comments "And what could Drury mean by
"decyphering" which in intelligence referred specific-
ally to the decoding of cryptograms?". Had she looked
it up, she would have found out. In the OED, there is
even a quote from Shakespeare (*Titus* 4.2.8) "That
you are both deciphered, that's the news,/ For
villains marked with rape." It meant to 'discover' or
'detect' - that sort of thing.
All of these are fairly trivial complaints, of course.
It is when we get to her *arguments*, however,
particularly those related to the death, that she
starts going off the rails, since, frankly, the logic
is not all that good at times. For example, we are told
that Widow Bull's house "was probably not a safe house
for intelligence operations either, since all the men's
activities specified in the coroner's report and in
Vaughan's account were ostensibly recreational". Like
they would have *said*?
Her remarks about the coroner, William Danby, are
really strange. Countering theories which "question
his competence or integrity" she says: "A number of
his inquests survive in the Middlesex records, and all
those I examined were models of efficiency. Danby was
a shrewd, experienced professional". Well, I am sure he
was, but there is no way of determining his competence
from these records, and certainly not his integrity!
Kuriyama - rather naughtily, as she uses them to
support her argument - provides no references for them,
but did give Thomas Larque some guidance when he asked
her. I am fairly sure I found two of the ones she was
talking about, and doubt whether there were any more
there. Although Danby was present on both occasions,
the inquisition was in each case written and signed by
the County Coroner, and not by Danby at all.
Thomas Drury probably requires a thread all of his own.
If we are to understand what was going on at the time
of Marlowe's death, we have to understand what Thomas
Drury was up to. Even though she accepts the import-
ance of his role she, following Nicholls, fails to
make the essential *connection* between two of his
letters, which in fact confirms, as Sprott posited (and
she denies), that Drury wrote 'The Remembrances'. And
if he wrote the Remembrances, the document associated
with them, and those two letters, we know exactly what
sort of trouble Marlowe was in. I also find it aston-
ishing that Drury is still not seen to be the "outcast
Ismael" Kyd suspected of having fingered him. Drury
could hardly have made it any clearer! (I understand
that Charles Nicholl's revised "The Reckoning" has
much more to say about Drury this time.)
I think it is a bit sad, if understandable, that
although this information had been on my website for
over a year, she almost certainly either never saw it
or, if she did, rejected it out of hand as yet another
"anti-Stratfordian fantasy". Similarly, and for the
same reason I guess, her case for believing that what
happened at Deptford was as reported in the inquis-
ition fails satisfactorily to address ANY of the
main reasons I have given for thinking the opposite.
Finally, one *cri-de-coeur*. A book with an index which
covers only the names of *people*, although a great
improvement on one with no index at all, as Ule
inflicted on us, is far from being helpful to those
who want (as I do) to refer back to what was said
earlier while they are reading it, or, (as I certainly
will) at any time thereafter.
Overall, I would say that Constance Brown Kuriyama's
book is a good buy, one that has a lot of new inform-
ation, and one that will be an invaluable resource in
the future. It is also, unfortunately, one that is
marred by an 'agenda' which it fails adequately to
support. To simply argue that the inquisition is quite
plausible as it stands really isn't good enough.
I mean, with all of *these* people involved, what
would even a 'Shakes-ite'(?) expect it to be, if
not plausible?
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Robert Stonehouse
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
...
>I also found, and continue to find, the author's own
>versions of various documents (both in Latin and
>English, and taking up about 40 pages in all) to be
>very useful indeed. I am indebted to her, by the way,
>for translating *indentata* as 'in duplicate', rather
>than 'indented', as Hotson said the inquisition was.
>Never having looked up what 'indented' meant, I had
>been unable to make any sense of it until now!
For the general benefit, maybe we should explain how this comes about!
An agreement was written out twice in succession on the same piece of
paper. Then both copies were signed, either by both parties or by one
each. (You don't need your own signature on your own copy.) Then the
two were separated by cutting across the paper, and that was done with
a very sharp knife, in a freehand wavy line.That is, an indented line.
So when the two copies were brought together again, there was a way of
checking immediately that they really did correspond. The chance of
getting an identical wavy edge on another document was so small that
the law could ignore it.
Hence the common expression in modern agreements:
WHEREAS ... (preamble)
NOW THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH ...
Nowadays, when I see the word 'duplicate', I automatically think of
carbon paper. Some people hold that 'cc.' at the end of a letter
stands for 'carbon copy'. (I suspect it may be 'c.' for copy, in the
plural.) So we still tend to name things according to some incidental
feature rather than the real purpose of the exercise.
Gary Kosinsky
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>(Although
>Kuriyama's calling him Sir Francis Walsingham's 'nephew'
>at one point and his 'cousin' another - when he was in
>fact his first cousin, once removed - could have been
>a tad confusing?)
I've never understood this 'once removed' business. My dad's
brother's son would be my first cousin, right? When or how does a
cousin become 'once removed'?
- Gary Kosinsky
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>(Although
>>Kuriyama's calling him Sir Francis Walsingham's 'nephew'
>>at one point and his 'cousin' another - when he was in
>>fact his first cousin, once removed - could have been
>>a tad confusing?)
Gary Kosinsky wrote:
> I've never understood this 'once removed' business. My dad's
> brother's son would be my first cousin, right? When or how does a
> cousin become 'once removed'?
Your first cousin's child is your first cousin 'once removed'.
Your first cousin's grand-child is your first cousin 'twice removed'.
Art
Gary Kosinsky
<aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Gary Kosinsky wrote:
>
>> I've never understood this 'once removed' business. My dad's
>> brother's son would be my first cousin, right? When or how does a
>> cousin become 'once removed'?
>
> Your first cousin's child is your first cousin 'once removed'.
>
>Your first cousin's grand-child is your first cousin 'twice removed'.
Thank-you, Art. While we're on the subject, what makes a
cousin a 'second cousin'?
- Gary Kosinsky
Art Neuendorffer
First cousins share grandparents.
Second cousins share great-grandparents.
Your second cousin's child is your second cousin 'once removed'.
Your second cousin's parent is your first cousin 'once removed'.
Greg Reynolds
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
At my cousin's wedding, my uncle was twice removed.
Gary Kosinsky
<aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
Let's see if I've got this straight. Consider the following
chart which I hope displays correctly (I only display one parent most
of the time to simplify matters):
Bill-Mary
|
---------------------------------------
| |
Joe Peter
| |
----------------- |
| | |
Dave Louise Carol
| | |
Sam Bob Arnie
|
Tom
Sam and Bob are first cousins, right?
Bob and Tom are first cousins once removed, right?
Bob and Arnie, sharing great grandparents, should be second
cousins, then?
And Bob and Carol would be first cousins once removed.
So the offspring of first cousins are second cousins to one
another, right? And they are first cousins once removed to each's
respective parents?
Also, as near as I can make out, Tom is Carol's first cousin
twice removed?
What is Tom's relation to Arnie?
- Gary Kosinsky
Tom Veal
gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote in message news:<3dd5bbdf...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
Peter Farey
Gary Kosinsky wrote:
>
> Let's see if I've got this straight. Consider the following
> chart which I hope displays correctly
It works best if you show it in Courier.
> (I only display one parent most
> of the time to simplify matters):
>
> Bill-Mary
> |
> ---------------------------------------
> | |
> Joe Peter
> | |
> ----------------- |
> | | |
> Dave Louise Carol
> | | |
> Sam Bob Arnie
> |
> Tom
>
>
> Sam and Bob are first cousins, right?
Right.
> Bob and Tom are first cousins once removed, right?
Right.
> Bob and Arnie, sharing great grandparents, should be second
> cousins, then?
Right.
> And Bob and Carol would be first cousins once removed.
Right.
> So the offspring of first cousins are second cousins to one
> another, right?
Right.
And they are first cousins once removed to each's
> respective parents?
Right.
> Also, as near as I can make out, Tom is Carol's first cousin
> twice removed?
Right.
>
> What is Tom's relation to Arnie?
Second cousin once removed.
So, substituting (some of!) the Walsinghams, we get:
James=Elinor
|
---------------------------------------
| |
Edmund William
| |
----------------- |
| | |
George Thomas (III) Francis
| | |
John Thomas (IV) Frances
|
Walter
Marlowe's friend was Thomas (IV), whose father,
Thomas (III) was first cousin to Sir Francis Walsingham.
Thomas (IV) was, therefore, first cousin once removed to
Sir Francis, and second cousin to his daughter Frances,
who married Sir Philip Sydney and the Earl of Essex.
Nicholas Whyte
> What is Tom's relation to Arnie?
Second cousin once removed.
Nicholas
Peter Farey
Peter Farey wrote:
>
> So, substituting (some of!) the Walsinghams, we get:
>
> James=Elinor
> |
> ---------------------------------------
> | |
> Edmund William
> | |
> ----------------- |
> | | |
> George Thomas (III) Francis
> | | |
> John Thomas (IV) Frances
> |
> Walter
>
>
> Marlowe's friend was Thomas (IV), whose father,
> Thomas (III) was first cousin to Sir Francis Walsingham.
> Thomas (IV) was, therefore, first cousin once removed to
> Sir Francis, and second cousin to his daughter Frances,
> who married Sir Philip Sydney and the Earl of Essex.
Just in case anyone wants to use this, I should
perhaps point out that the George/John/Walter line
is fictitious, and put in only to match Gary's
layout. George, John and Walter were all elder
brothers of Thomas (III) in fact, all of whom died
without issue. (And, I know, it's 'Sidney'!).
Art Neuendorffer
:: I LOVE LUCY - EPISODE GUIDE
::94 > Season :: #3 - 1953-54
TENNESSEE ERNIE VISITS
Airdate :: May 3, 1954 Filmed :: April 1, 1954 Rating :: 57.3/80
Music :: Wabash Cannon Ball, Turkey in the Straw,
She'll Be Comin' Round the Mountain
Supporting Cast :: Ernest Ford-Tennessee Ernie Ford
Plot : A special-delivery letter from Lucy's mother arrives ("Dear Lucy:
How are you, and how is Xavier...?"), informing them that "a friend's
roommate's cousin's middle boy, Ernest" is coming to New York from Bent
Fork, Tennessee, and will Lucy and "Xavier" show him some hospitality?
"Cousin" Ernie appears and soon disrupts the Ricardo household with his
early-morning warbling of "Wabash Cannon Ball." In an attempt to get rid
of the overbearing house guest, Lucy dresses like a "wicked city woman"
- the type Ernest's mother warned him about - and proceeds to seduce
him. Unfortunately for Lucy, Ernie likes the "vamping"
and decides to extend his visit, commenting:
"Ya took me to yer bosom ... I've got a home."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Art ("Ya took me to yer bosom ... I've got a home.") Neuendorffer
Elisabeth Riba
> Dave Kathman wrote way back on 7/7 (re *Christopher
> Marlowe: A Renaissance Life* by Constance Brown
> Kuriyama):
>>
>> Has anybody else seen this book? Does anybody,
>> especially the numerous Marlites here want to
>> discuss it?
> Well, as no Marlite (whatever that may be) has yet
> offered an a opinion, may I do so instead?
Thank you *very* much; I've been considering trying to get my hands on
this through ILL or somesuch; this helps my decision.
--
--------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@osmond-riba.org <--------------
Looking for work in the Boston area. Dynamic professional with over
10 years experience with software interface design, library science,
documentation and end-user support. See http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis
John W. Kennedy
> I've never understood this 'once removed' business. My dad's
> brother's son would be my first cousin, right? When or how does a
> cousin become 'once removed'?
Your first cousin's child is your first cousin once removed.
So is your parent's first cousin, since the relationship is symmetrical.
Your first cousin's grandchild is your first cousin twice removed.
So is your grandparent's first cousin.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly;
the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton, "The Man Who Was Thursday"