The Grafton Portrait; news article, Peter Ackroyd
bookburn
The Times
October 29, 2005
I still believe that this man might be the 'bodger of blank verse'
Peter Ackroyd
THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT Gallery has just announced that a portrait of a
young man known as the Grafton Portrait is not that of William
Shakespeare. It has thus exploded decades of what has been considered
to be speculation or wishful thinking.
It is interesting to note, however, that the gallery have not come to
this conclusion on the basis of scientific tests; the experiments on
paint, on canvas, or on the wooden frame, have not yielded any
negative results. The painting is undoubtedly of the late 16th
century. The gallery has come to its conclusion simply on the basis of
biographical speculation, which is not perhaps the proper sphere of
the art expert. It has decided that in 1588, when the portrait was
completed, the 24-year-old Shakespeare was neither rich nor famous
enough to have been painted in an elaborate doublet of silk or satin.
I believe this to be quite mistaken. In my recent study Shakespeare:
The Biography, I came to the conclusion that by 1588 the young
Shakespeare was in exactly the position to have his portrait painted
as a relatively affluent and "coming" young man. Indeed I think it
almost inevitable that his portrait would have been painted.
The Grafton Portrait is named after the Duke of Grafton, who is
believed to have owned it in the early 18th century. It was discovered
in the possession of a northern family in the 1880s and was eventually
presented to the John Rylands University Library in Manchester. It
shows a fashionably dressed young man with expensive doublet and
collar. He has a slightly long face with what looks like a
close-cropped beard and a faint moustache; he has large expressive
eyes, a wide forehead and a full mouth.
Above the sitter are to be found the words "AE SUAE.24" and then
"1588". The sitter's age was, in other words, 24 in the year 1588.
That fits Shakespeare's case. On the back of the portrait has been
written W + S, an indication that someone, at some time, believed the
painting to be of Shakespeare. So why should the experts of the
National Portrait Gallery reject the attribution? They do so on the
ground that he was not wealthy enough to have commissioned the work.
It looks to have been the work of an amateur, in any case, or one of
those hired artists who could be found in Southwark, Blackfriars and
elsewhere. So it may not have been altogether expensive.
But in my biography I have described how, by 1588, Shakespeare had
already written Titus Andronicus, an early, and inferior, version of
Hamlet, The Taming of A Shrew (later to be transmogrified into The
Taming of the Shrew) and The Troublesome Raigne of King John (the
forerunner of his more famous King John). He was, in other words, a
young dramatist who had already had remarkable success with history
plays, comedies and revenge tragedies. The year after the portrait was
painted he was being attacked by a rival as a plagiarist and simpleton
who could only "bodge up a blank verse with ifs and ands". Shakespeare
was already well known enough, and successful enough, to attract
carping critics. There is no reason, then, to accept the National
Portrait Gallery's description of him as impoverished and anonymous.
Quite the contrary.
The experts and scholars have done one service. They have concluded
that the paint and canvas do indeed date from 1588. The portrait is
not one of those fakes that occasionally emerge on to the market as
the true image of Shakespeare. They have also concluded that the
original age placed above the sitter was "23", which was then changed
to "24". This might seem ground for suspicion, suggesting that there
was some manipulation of dates. But they have also demonstrated that
the correction was made at the time. It was altered when the portrait
had just been completed, or was about to be completed. In other words,
someone noticed the mistake. This is more than likely to have been the
sitter himself.
There is one other clue to the identity of this sitter. If you place
the Grafton Portrait beside the famous Martin Droeshout engraving of
the older Shakespeare that adorns the First Folio of Shakespeare's
plays, you will see a remarkable resemblance between the two
physiognomies. Of course none of this is enough to "prove" that the
Grafton Portrait is that of Shakespeare. Proof is not available in
this case. All that can be said, with reasonable certainty, is that
the grounds for the disavowal of the painting by the National Portrait
Gallery are highly dubious. If you read my biography, you will gather
my reasons for thinking so. If you look at the Grafton Portrait with
unbiased eyes, it may be the face of Shakespeare staring back at you.
(unquote)
wate...@financier.com
looks similar to the Martin Droeshout engraving
(not the Grafton portrait)
waterboy
igoyyogi
came from Grafton, close to Abington where Shakespeares grand-daughter
Elizabeth died. Elizabeth had inherited the poets possesions....books
goods and lumber from Stratford.
I agree with Bookburn
Elisabeth Riba
> The gallery has come to its conclusion simply on the basis of
> biographical speculation, which is not perhaps the proper sphere of
> the art expert. It has decided that in 1588, when the portrait was
> completed, the 24-year-old Shakespeare was neither rich nor famous
> enough to have been painted in an elaborate doublet of silk or satin.
Frankly, given this conclusion, I was shocked, shocked to find that they
didn't take the one extra step of comparing it to the Corpus Christi
portrait of a young man of the right age who clearly could afford such a
wardrobe...
More seriously, considering NPG is gathering and restoring other such
paintings for next year's exhibition, I wonder if this isn't the first of
many such revelations we'll be seeing over the next few months.
--
------> Elisabeth Riba * http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/ <------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
Mark Steese
news:dmfrlp$8q3$1...@reader2.panix.com:
> bookburn <book...@yahoo.com> quoted The Times:
>> The gallery has come to its conclusion simply on the basis of
>> biographical speculation, which is not perhaps the proper sphere of
>> the art expert. It has decided that in 1588, when the portrait was
>> completed, the 24-year-old Shakespeare was neither rich nor famous
>> enough to have been painted in an elaborate doublet of silk or satin.
>
> Frankly, given this conclusion, I was shocked, shocked to find that
> they didn't take the one extra step of comparing it to the Corpus
> Christi portrait of a young man of the right age who clearly could
> afford such a wardrobe...
The Corpus Christi portrait *might* be of a young man of the right age,
assuming that it isn't a portrait of Christopher Marlowe. As I have
already pointed out, the painter changed the sitter's age at some point
but the year remained untouched: the most reasonable explanation is that
the sitter's age changed from 23 to 24 during 1564, and by the calendar
then in use the year 1564 began on March 25. Marlowe was already 24 by
that time.
It is possible that the portrait was begun in late 1563 and the painter
painted in the subject's age but not the year when he began, but it
doesn't strike me as especially likely, and there is no need for such
special pleading, seeing as how there is no evidence linking the
portrait to Marlowe in the first place. The Grafton portrait doesn't
even look like the Corpus Christi: the shape of the eyes, nose, and
mouth are substantially different and the Grafton head is thinner. The
Corpus Christi sitter might have lost some weight, true, but I don't
think he would have had his skull resized. (On the other hand, perhaps
that's the true secret of Marlowe's death -- Frizer was performing
cosmetic surgery to clean up the bags under Chris's eyes, and it went
horribly wrong...)
--
Mark Steese
===========
The first signs of the death of the boom came in the summer,
early, and everything went like snow in the sun.
Out of their office windows. There was miasma,
a weight beyond enduring, the city reeked of failure.
Art Neuendorffer
> > The gallery has come to its conclusion simply on the basis of
> > biographical speculation, which is not perhaps the proper sphere of
> > the art expert. It has decided that in 1588, when the portrait was
> > completed, the 24-year-old Shakespeare was neither rich nor famous
> > enough to have been painted in an elaborate doublet of silk or satin.
Elisabeth Riba wrote:
> Frankly, given this conclusion, I was shocked, shocked to find that they
> didn't take the one extra step of comparing it to the Corpus Christi
> portrait of a young man of the right age who clearly
> could afford such a wardrobe...
Dennis Miller: "Everywhere you look, cooperation is as rare
as a tube top in Queen Elizabeth's wardrobe."
Wardrobe. [from Old English expression warderobe,
Old French warderobe, French garderobe; of German origin.]
_Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_:
"A little boy had been taught geography by an old woman
who kept two brushes in her wardrobe."
2 Chronicles 34:22 And Hilkiah, and they that the king had appointed,
went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvath,
the son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem
in the college:) and they spake to her to that effect.
Art Neuendorffer
lariadna
> Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote in
> news:dmfrlp$8q3$1...@reader2.panix.com:
>
> > bookburn <book...@yahoo.com> quoted The Times:
> >> The gallery has come to its conclusion simply on the basis of
> >> biographical speculation, which is not perhaps the proper sphere of
> >> the art expert. It has decided that in 1588, when the portrait was
> >> completed, the 24-year-old Shakespeare was neither rich nor famous
> >> enough to have been painted in an elaborate doublet of silk or satin.
> >
> > Frankly, given this conclusion, I was shocked, shocked to find that
> > they didn't take the one extra step of comparing it to the Corpus
> > Christi portrait of a young man of the right age who clearly could
> > afford such a wardrobe...
>
> The Corpus Christi portrait *might* be of a young man of the right age,
> assuming that it isn't a portrait of Christopher Marlowe. As I have
> already pointed out, the painter changed the sitter's age at some point
> but the year remained untouched: the most reasonable explanation is that
> the sitter's age changed from 23 to 24 during 1564, and by the calendar
> then in use the year 1564 began on March 25. Marlowe was already 24 by
> that time.
>
I think you mean the Grafton rather than the Corpus Christi, and 1588
rather than 1564. (You did mention it before like that.)
> It is possible that the portrait was begun in late 1563 and the painter
> painted in the subject's age but not the year when he began, but it
> doesn't strike me as especially likely,
Hard to say, but what you say does make sense, and I agree that it
might point away from Marlowe as the sitter in the Grafton. Yet as
usual there are some other possibilities here. Considering how
inconsistent spelling was at that time, perhaps people made
mistakes in arithmetic too. Or perhaps the painter was from
somewhere else where the calendar was already different (although
Wraight does say it is an English painting and I think someone
said the wood was from England).
>and there is no need for such
> special pleading, seeing as how there is no evidence linking the
> portrait to Marlowe in the first place. The Grafton portrait doesn't
> even look like the Corpus Christi: the shape of the eyes, nose, and
> mouth are substantially different and the Grafton head is thinner. The
> Corpus Christi sitter might have lost some weight, true, but I don't
> think he would have had his skull resized.
One would have to do some more accurate measurements on it to
really say that. Otherwise to say that one portrait looks like
another or not is a subjective judgment.
And as I mentioned, Wraight claims that the Italian style of the
Corpus Christi is expected to be different from a leaner English
style. Again, I don't know how accurate that is.
The whole point is that the National Portrait Gallery seems to have
done a very quick job in assessing this portrait. It could still be
either Shakespeare or Marlowe or someone else, and they have
not pursued any of the three possibilities, but have just assumed
their work is finished. What they have contributed is in verifying
the approximate date of the portrait and in noticing the change
from 23 to 24.
> (On the other hand, perhaps
> that's the true secret of Marlowe's death -- Frizer was performing
> cosmetic surgery to clean up the bags under Chris's eyes, and it went
> horribly wrong...)
I know--it is hard to deal with his death.
On the other hand, maybe Frizer was performing cosmetic
surgery on someone else's skull to make you think that.
C.
Tom Reedy
news:1133209695.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Well, if the Grafton portrait is Shakespeare, then the Sanders portrait is
not.
TR
Elisabeth Riba
> seeing as how there is no evidence linking the
> portrait to Marlowe in the first place.
While I'll confess to being a Marlowe fan, I've had my doubts about him
being the Corpus Christi sitter, for the same reason NPG doubts Grafton
is Shakespeare (the sitter looks too rich and comfortable for someone
of Marlowe's status)
Still, regardless of identification of subject, I'd think it would be a
natural to compare one unidentified portrait with others of the timeperiod
to look for a match.
Logically speaking, these two statements are mutually exclusive:
1. Corpus Christi sitter == Marlowe
2. Corpus Christi sitter == Grafton sitter
Either can be true independent of the other.
And there's value in trying to prove either.
Only if *both* are true do you have a syllogism identifying Marlowe as
the Grafton sitter.
At the Folger Shakespeare library, a docent once remarked that just about
every unidentified portrait of a man during that period has at one point
or another been passed off as The Bard. The Folger library has a huge
collection of fakes sold under false pretenses. I'm sure there must be
some central list of all such portraits, whether the sitter has been
identified or not. So once an identification is ruled out, it might make
sense to compare the anonymous subjects with other portraits to look for a
match.
> The Grafton portrait doesn't
> even look like the Corpus Christi: the shape of the eyes, nose, and
> mouth are substantially different and the Grafton head is thinner. The
> Corpus Christi sitter might have lost some weight, true, but I don't
> think he would have had his skull resized.
I've heard the argument attributing these to different painting styles.
I don't know.
I'm not an art expert.
But it just seems like sloppy work and the loose end annoys me.
The NPG had to have known that interested parties would raise the Corpus
Christi connection. It wouldn't've been that much more effort on their
part to address the issue, possibly putting a lot of fruitless speculation
to rest. [Three possible results: inconclusive, leaving the debate open,
or a yay or nay, which would've resolved matters for most people. And any
which way, people would have more concrete evidence to discuss or dispute.]
But it appears NPG didn't even bother, leaving behind all these unanswered
questions... And, as I said, that annoys me. :)
Mark Steese
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>> > Frankly, given this conclusion, I was shocked, shocked to find that
>> > they didn't take the one extra step of comparing it to the Corpus
>> > Christi portrait of a young man of the right age who clearly could
>> > afford such a wardrobe...
>>
>> The Corpus Christi portrait *might* be of a young man of the right
>> age, assuming that it isn't a portrait of Christopher Marlowe. As I
>> have already pointed out, the painter changed the sitter's age at
>> some point but the year remained untouched: the most reasonable
>> explanation is that the sitter's age changed from 23 to 24 during
>> 1564, and by the calendar then in use the year 1564 began on March
>> 25. Marlowe was already 24 by that time.
>
> I think you mean the Grafton rather than the Corpus Christi, and 1588
> rather than 1564. (You did mention it before like that.)
I did mean 1588 (mea culpa), but I also meant the Corpus Christi rather
than the Grafton. If we assume (as Elisabeth Riba seems to have) that
the person depicted in the Corpus Christi is the right age to be the
person in the Grafton, it follows that the person in the Corpus Christi
isn't Marlowe, since he was 24 before 1588 began.
>> It is possible that the portrait was begun in late 1563 and the
>> painter painted in the subject's age but not the year when he began,
>> but it doesn't strike me as especially likely,
>
> Hard to say, but what you say does make sense, and I agree that it
> might point away from Marlowe as the sitter in the Grafton. Yet as
> usual there are some other possibilities here. Considering how
> inconsistent spelling was at that time, perhaps people made
> mistakes in arithmetic too. Or perhaps the painter was from
> somewhere else where the calendar was already different (although
> Wraight does say it is an English painting and I think someone
> said the wood was from England).
That's the sort of thing I was referring to as special pleading. *If*
there were any evidence indicating that the Grafton portrait depicts
Marlowe, then it would be reasonable to seek an explanation for the
age/date discrepancy, but since there is no such evidence, there's no
discrepancy to be explained.
>> and there is no need for such special pleading, seeing as how there
>> is no evidence linking the portrait to Marlowe in the first place.
>> The Grafton portrait doesn't even look like the Corpus Christi: the
>> shape of the eyes, nose, and mouth are substantially different and
>> the Grafton head is thinner. The Corpus Christi sitter might have
>> lost some weight, true, but I don't think he would have had his skull
>> resized.
>
> One would have to do some more accurate measurements on it to really
> say that. Otherwise to say that one portrait looks like another or not
> is a subjective judgment.
My subjective judgment is in response to the subjective judgment of
those who think the two portraits *do* look alike. Nobody's provided any
substantial evidence.
> And as I mentioned, Wraight claims that the Italian style of the
> Corpus Christi is expected to be different from a leaner English
> style.
So the difference is *not* a subjective judgment?
> Again, I don't know how accurate that is.
It would be helpful to have a standard of comparison, i.e., portraits
that are known to be of the same person and display such stylistic
differences. Did Wraight happen to mention any?
> The whole point is that the National Portrait Gallery seems to have
> done a very quick job in assessing this portrait. It could still be
> either Shakespeare or Marlowe or someone else, and they have
> not pursued any of the three possibilities, but have just assumed
> their work is finished. What they have contributed is in verifying
> the approximate date of the portrait and in noticing the change
> from 23 to 24.
>
>> (On the other hand, perhaps
>> that's the true secret of Marlowe's death -- Frizer was performing
>> cosmetic surgery to clean up the bags under Chris's eyes, and it went
>> horribly wrong...)
>
> I know--it is hard to deal with his death.
> On the other hand, maybe Frizer was performing cosmetic surgery on
> someone else's skull to make you think that.
I have no objection in theory to the possibility that Marlowe's death in
1593 was a put-up job, but there is not the slightest shred of evidence
that his existence continued beyond the date of the unpleasantness in
Deptford. There is no point to speculating on *how* the death was faked
until somebody comes up with evidence that Marlowe was still around.
Unfortunately, "Shakespeare was a bum and Marlowe was great so he must
have written Shakespeare" doesn't qualify as evidence.
Peter Farey
Mark Steese wrote:
>
> I have no objection in theory to the possibility that
> Marlowe's death in 1593 was a put-up job, but there is
> not the slightest shred of evidence that his existence
> continued beyond the date of the unpleasantness in
> Deptford.
It does of course depend upon what one would think of as
evidence. In my essay "Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End",
I believe I show that the most probable reason for those
people to have met at Deptford that day was to fake
Marlowe's death. If this is indeed what actually happened,
then we must assume that from then on Marlowe adopted
some other identity or identities, and any evidence of his
continued existence would therefore have to be under a
name which is not currently recognized as his.
The difficulty is that then any such argument tends to
become circular. For example, I think it very likely that a
certain Monsieur Le Doux who turned up at a stately home in
Rutland in 1595 was in fact Christopher Marlowe. But the
argument for his being Marlowe - although very strong if he
*did* survive 1593 - does depend to a certain extent on
accepting this probability, rather than it being in any way
proof that he did.
Beyond that sort of thing, one must consider what hints
might have been dropped by others in the know. For example,
I find it impossible not to see some meaning in *The Merry
Wives of Windsor* when Evans mixes up the two songs - one
by Marlowe and the other about being in exile. Similarly,
in *As You Like It*, how can being misunderstood strike a
man *more dead* than "a great reckoning in a little room"?
And why does the writer of the Sonnets say that he will be
remembered only as "the coward conquest of a wretch's knife"?
For me, the case for Marlowe's survival is almost all, like
this, largely circumstantial, with one exception. I believe
that the Stratford monument, albeit cryptically, beyond any
reasonable doubt states that Marlowe was still alive when
the epigraph was created. Furthermore, my reasons for
believing this to have been done deliberately are, I think,
far more soundly based than anyone here realises.
> There is no point to speculating on *how* the death was
> faked until somebody comes up with evidence that Marlowe
> was still around.
On the contrary. On many occasions when I have suggested
here that the death was faked, I have been faced with all
sorts of reasons why this would not have been possible. The
only way of dealing with such arguments is to speculate
upon just how it *might* have been done. Even if that is not
what happened in practice, I try to demonstrate that such
a faking would not have been impossible as is being argued.
A whole section of the essay I mentioned consists of nothing
but such speculation, in fact mainly in response to points
argued by Thomas Larque and Clark Holloway.
> Unfortunately, "Shakespeare was a bum and Marlowe was
> great so he must have written Shakespeare" doesn't
> qualify as evidence.
No it doesn't. Nor does this resemble in any way the
Marlovian argument as I see it.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Gary Kosinsky
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Mark Steese wrote:
>>
>> I have no objection in theory to the possibility that
>> Marlowe's death in 1593 was a put-up job, but there is
>> not the slightest shred of evidence that his existence
>> continued beyond the date of the unpleasantness in
>> Deptford.
>
>It does of course depend upon what one would think of as
>evidence. In my essay "Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End",
>I believe I show that the most probable reason for those
>people to have met at Deptford that day was to fake
>Marlowe's death.
SNIP
I've been meaning to ask you about this, Peter. You contend
that the four people involved met at Mrs. Bull's house with the
express intention of meeting one another. What if that isn't true?
What if they just accidently bumped into one another there? Of
course, the obvious response to this would be: "Why on earth, then,
did they meet at the house for?" My answer to which would be - it
depends on what type of 'house' Mrs. Bull was keeping. What do we
actually know about Mrs. Bull and her 'house'. Is it at all possible
that Mrs. Bull's house was actually a house of prostitution, male or
female, or that, at least, she let her premises out for illegal
activities? And that the four of them happened to meet there?
In connection with this is the report that Marlowe "...was
stabbed to death by a bawdy serving-man, a rival of his in his lewd
love" in Mere's Palladis Tamia. Maybe the fight really was over a
prostitute, male or female. After the killing, realizing it would
reflect poorly on all of them, including Mrs. Bull, to tell the truth,
the story was concocted about the dispute over the bill.
Total speculation on my part, but I would be interested in
what you think.
- Gary Kosinsky
Paul Crowley
news:dmrteo$k40$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> It does of course depend upon what one would think of as
> evidence. In my essay "Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End",
> I believe I show that the most probable reason for those
> people to have met at Deptford that day was to fake
> Marlowe's death.
What was the reason for faking the death?
What was wrong with the a recourse to the
obvious simple bog-standard flight, like
that of everyone else who got into all kinds
of trouble? Why go to the expense and
danger of all the extra and extraordinary
complications of 'a faked death'?
Did Marlowe claim on his life insurance?
Was he in some form of Early Modern
Police Protection Program, where a new
identity was essential? Did he have good
reason to think that he would be hunted
down and killed if he was thought to be
living somewhere on the Continent?
> And why does the writer of the Sonnets say that he will be
> remembered only as "the coward conquest of a wretch's knife"?
Because he doesn't. In Sonnet 74, the
poet is talking about assassinations in
general, and particularly about a possible
one of his monarch.
> Mark Steese wrote:
> > There is no point to speculating on *how* the death was
> > faked until somebody comes up with evidence that Marlowe
> > was still around.
There is no point on speculating on *how*
the death was faked until somebody comes
up with a good reason for the faking in the
first place.
> On the contrary. On many occasions when I have suggested
> here that the death was faked, I have been faced with all
> sorts of reasons why this would not have been possible.
The issue is nearly always one of probability,
not possibility. And that is what it is here.
> The only way of dealing with such arguments is to speculate
> upon just how it *might* have been done.
Nope. We should be told why anyone
would have wanted to bother in the first
place. Without a convincing answer here,
we should forget about the whole thing.
> Even if that is not
> what happened in practice, I try to demonstrate that such
> a faking would not have been impossible as is being argued.
Not the problem.
Of course, answers will not be forthcoming.
Those with bad theories cannot deal with
obvious questions.
Paul.
Mark Steese
$k40$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk:
>
> Mark Steese wrote:
>>
>> I have no objection in theory to the possibility that
>> Marlowe's death in 1593 was a put-up job, but there is
>> not the slightest shred of evidence that his existence
>> continued beyond the date of the unpleasantness in
>> Deptford.
>
> It does of course depend upon what one would think of as
> evidence.
Contemporary records of Marlowe's continuing to be alive past the date
of his murder would be a good start. Even a contemporary rumor or two
would be useful, though hardly probative. Absent such evidence, there is
no point in theorizing as to how his death could have been faked,
because there is no reason to believe it was. Unless, of course, one has
rejected all the evidence for Shakespeare's authorship of his own works
and has settled on Marlowe as an alternative Bard, only to be brought up
short by the unfortunate fact that Mistah Kit, he dead.
[snip]
>> There is no point to speculating on *how* the death was
>> faked until somebody comes up with evidence that Marlowe
>> was still around.
>
> On the contrary. On many occasions when I have suggested
> here that the death was faked, I have been faced with all
> sorts of reasons why this would not have been possible. The
> only way of dealing with such arguments is to speculate
> upon just how it *might* have been done.
Actually, there is another way of dealing with such arguments: point out
that they, like arguments for Marlowe's survival, are pointless in the
absence of evidence. It is as senseless to argue that it would have been
impossible to fake Marlowe's death as it is to argue that it would have
been possible. One might as well for or against the position that
Marlowe's parents adopted him and concealed his true ancestry, which
stemmed back to one of the Princes in the Tower and thus made him the
rightful King of England. It is not impossible, but there is not the
slightest shred of evidence for it, so why bother to consider it at all?
>> Unfortunately, "Shakespeare was a bum and Marlowe was
>> great so he must have written Shakespeare" doesn't
>> qualify as evidence.
>
> No it doesn't. Nor does this resemble in any way the
> Marlovian argument as I see it.
No; the Marlovian *argument* has even less substance.
Gary Kosinsky
SNIP
>It is as senseless to argue that it would have been
>impossible to fake Marlowe's death as it is to argue that it would have
>been possible. One might as well for or against the position that
>Marlowe's parents adopted him and concealed his true ancestry, which
>stemmed back to one of the Princes in the Tower and thus made him the
>rightful King of England. It is not impossible, but there is not the
>slightest shred of evidence for it, so why bother to consider it at all?
SNIP
I wish you wouldn't give people ideas like this, Mark. Sure
as hell, in the new year, someone is going to return with this theory
backed up with all sorts of 'evidence'.
- Gary Kosinsky
lariadna
>
> >> It is possible that the portrait was begun in late 1563 and the
> >> painter painted in the subject's age but not the year when he began,
> >> but it doesn't strike me as especially likely,
> >
> > Hard to say, but what you say does make sense, and I agree that it
> > might point away from Marlowe as the sitter in the Grafton. Yet as
> > usual there are some other possibilities here. Considering how
> > inconsistent spelling was at that time, perhaps people made
> > mistakes in arithmetic too. Or perhaps the painter was from
> > somewhere else where the calendar was already different (although
> > Wraight does say it is an English painting and I think someone
> > said the wood was from England).
>
> That's the sort of thing I was referring to as special pleading. *If*
> there were any evidence indicating that the Grafton portrait depicts
> Marlowe, then it would be reasonable to seek an explanation for the
> age/date discrepancy, but since there is no such evidence, there's no
> discrepancy to be explained.
>
If one could not think of any reasonable explanations for the
discrepancy, it might not be worth pursuing, but you listed one,
and I listed two more.
It is just a matter of interest (and funding) as to which
possibilities one investigates or at least acknowledges. The
NPG didn't seem to know about those possibilities though
(or just didn't mention them), or about the possibility that
Shakepeare could have been wearing a costume.
They should be told.
>>
> My subjective judgment is in response to the subjective judgment of
> those who think the two portraits *do* look alike. Nobody's provided any
> substantial evidence.
>
> > And as I mentioned, Wraight claims that the Italian style of the
> > Corpus Christi is expected to be different from a leaner English
> > style.
>
> So the difference is *not* a subjective judgment?
>
> > Again, I don't know how accurate that is.
>
> It would be helpful to have a standard of comparison, i.e., portraits
> that are known to be of the same person and display such stylistic
> differences. Did Wraight happen to mention any?
>
She has written a lot, and I have not read it all, but I don't think
so. I agree, however, that it would be excellent research. But
you seem to reject even looking into it.
> I have no objection in theory to the possibility that Marlowe's death in
> 1593 was a put-up job, but there is not the slightest shred of evidence
> that his existence continued beyond the date of the unpleasantness in
> Deptford. There is no point to speculating on *how* the death was faked
> until somebody comes up with evidence that Marlowe was still around.
> Unfortunately, "Shakespeare was a bum and Marlowe was great so he must
> have written Shakespeare" doesn't qualify as evidence.
No, I certainly don't agree with that statement.
Yet, no one can find evidence unless they look for it. And if they
assume there is no point in looking for it, of course they will not
find anything.
Also, I certainly don't assume that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare's works,
even if he did survive, but I'd like to know whether he survived or
not, and whether he might have had any connections with
Shakespeare other than what we already think.
As mentioned, this is a matter of interest. I don't expect
most people to begin research work on Marlowe, but I hope that
English Renaissance art historians at least know that he was an
exact contemporary of Shakespeare (which could link him to the
Grafton), and that the Corpus Christi portrait could be of Marlowe.
C.
Peter Farey
>
> I've been meaning to ask you about this, Peter. You contend
> that the four people involved met at Mrs. Bull's house with
> the express intention of meeting one another. What if that
> isn't true? What if they just accidently bumped into one
> another there? Of course, the obvious response to this would
> be: "Why on earth, then, did they meet at the house for?"
> My answer to which would be - it depends on what type of
> 'house' Mrs. Bull was keeping. What do we actually know about
> Mrs. Bull and her 'house'. Is it at all possible that Mrs.
> Bull's house was actually a house of prostitution, male or
> female, or that, at least, she let her premises out for
> illegal activities? And that the four of them happened to
> meet there?
>
> In connection with this is the report that Marlowe "...was
> stabbed to death by a bawdy serving-man, a rival of his in
> his lewd love" in Mere's Palladis Tamia. Maybe the fight
> really was over a prostitute, male or female. After the
> killing, realizing it would reflect poorly on all of them,
> including Mrs. Bull, to tell the truth, the story was
> concocted about the dispute over the bill.
>
> Total speculation on my part, but I would be interested in
> what you think.
I confess that this is not a possible reason for their meeting
there that I gave any consideration to in my essay, nor the
less specific possibility of them just happening to bump into
each other there, as Bob has suggested in the past. Maybe I
should have.
Gary, I haven't time to give an adequate answer to this right
now, but will do as soon as I have another moment or two to
spare.
Peter Farey
Mark Steese wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Mark Steese wrote:
> > >
> > > I have no objection in theory to the possibility that
> > > Marlowe's death in 1593 was a put-up job, but there is
> > > not the slightest shred of evidence that his existence
> > > continued beyond the date of the unpleasantness in
> > > Deptford.
> >
> > It does of course depend upon what one would think of as
> > evidence.
>
> Contemporary records of Marlowe's continuing to be alive
> past the date of his murder would be a good start. Even a
> contemporary rumor or two would be useful, though hardly
> probative. Absent such evidence, there is no point in
> theorizing as to how his death could have been faked,
> because there is no reason to believe it was.
Contemporary records of Marlowe's death at Deptford in 1593
are clear. Ingram Frizer killed him in self-defense, and not
a shred of evidence to contradict the verdict of the inquest jury
has been discovered since then. Even a contemporary rumor or
two would be useful, though hardly probative. Absent such
evidence, there is no point in theorizing as to how else his
death could have occured, because there is no reason to
believe it was in any way other than as decided by the jury.
And yet (excluding all Marlovian versions), of the eight
different accounts of his death that have been published in
the past decade, no fewer than six conclude that the inquest
was a lie, and that Marlowe was in fact deliberately murdered.
This is the conclusion they arrive at by asking themselves
the question "why was Marlowe killed?", whereas I maintain
that a better question (because it does not remove from
consideration one of the possibilities) has to be "Why were
these people there in the first place?".
> Unless, of course, one has rejected all the evidence for
> Shakespeare's authorship of his own works and has settled
> on Marlowe as an alternative Bard, only to be brought up
> short by the unfortunate fact that Mistah Kit, he dead.
This is indeed how most Marlovians have got there. What my
essay demonstrates, however, is that a strong case can be
made for Marlowe's death having been faked, even if he never
wrote another word. And if the faking were successful, there
would be no reason at all to expect any direct evidence of
the continued existence of anyone called Christopher Marlowe.
> [snip]
> > > There is no point to speculating on *how* the death was
> > > faked until somebody comes up with evidence that Marlowe
> > > was still around.
> >
> > On the contrary. On many occasions when I have suggested
> > here that the death was faked, I have been faced with all
> > sorts of reasons why this would not have been possible. The
> > only way of dealing with such arguments is to speculate
> > upon just how it *might* have been done.
>
> Actually, there is another way of dealing with such arguments:
> point out that they, like arguments for Marlowe's survival,
> are pointless in the absence of evidence. It is as senseless
> to argue that it would have been impossible to fake Marlowe's
> death as it is to argue that it would have been possible.
And presumably equally senseless to argue for or against any
claim that he was murdered, for example on behalf of Ralegh,
Essex, Burghley, Hunsdon, Effingham, Cecil, Walsingham etc.?
No point in discussing it. Case closed.
> One might as well for or against the position that Marlowe's
> parents adopted him and concealed his true ancestry, which
> stemmed back to one of the Princes in the Tower and thus made
> him the rightful King of England. It is not impossible, but
> there is not the slightest shred of evidence for it, so why
> bother to consider it at all?
>
> > > Unfortunately, "Shakespeare was a bum and Marlowe was
> > > great so he must have written Shakespeare" doesn't
> > > qualify as evidence.
> >
> > No it doesn't. Nor does this resemble in any way the
> > Marlovian argument as I see it.
>
> No; the Marlovian *argument* has even less substance.
You appear to have little idea of what the argument that
I am referring to is, Mark.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
to expect any direct evidence of the continued existence of anyone
called Christopher Marlowe."
Actually, Peter, I've heard rumors of a conspiracy THAT LEFT BEHIND
TRACES OF ITSELF!!! Granted, I can't pass on any details, and the
conspiracy had been carried out, I was told, by commoners, not
aristocrats and similar big shots like perpetrators of the Marlovian
Conspiracy, and the hoax friends of Oxford successfully pulled to make
it seem like the plays Chaucer wrote under the names of Marlowe and
Shakespeare were Oxford's. Still, it suggests that it just might be
possible for a conspiracy not to be perfect.
Bob G.
Peter Farey
>
> " . . . if the faking were successful, there would be no
> reason at all to expect any direct evidence of the continued
> existence of anyone called Christopher Marlowe."
>
> Actually, Peter, I've heard rumors of a conspiracy THAT
> LEFT BEHIND TRACES OF ITSELF!!!
No doubt, Bob. Not that it is 'traces' we are talking about,
of course, but direct evidence of Marlowe's survival, which
is not quite the same thing.
> Granted, I can't
> pass on any details, and the conspiracy had been carried
> out, I was told, by commoners, not aristocrats and similar
> big shots like perpetrators of the Marlovian Conspiracy,
> and the hoax friends of Oxford successfully pulled to make
> it seem like the plays Chaucer wrote under the names of
> Marlowe and Shakespeare were Oxford's. Still, it suggests
> that it just might be possible for a conspiracy not to be
> perfect.
Yes, Bob. It is possible for a conspiracy not to be perfect,
even though you clearly can't think of an example right now.
It is *also* possible for a conspiracy to work perfectly and
to leave no trace. It is also possible for there to have been
traces, but for them to have been deliberately destroyed, or
to have simply disappeared, or to still be there but not yet
discovered. Whilst it is possible for a successful conspiracy
to leave traces of itself, therefore, there is, as I said, no
reason at all to *expect* it to.
This is why, as I pointed out in the post to which you seem
to be responding, the majority of recent commentators
have been able to conclude that Marlowe was in fact the
victim of a conspiracy to murder him, despite there being
no trace of any such conspiracy left behind.
Peter Farey
Gary Kosinsky wrote:
>
> I've been meaning to ask you about this, Peter. You contend
> that the four people involved met at Mrs. Bull's house with
> the express intention of meeting one another. What if that
> isn't true? What if they just accidently bumped into one
> another there? Of course, the obvious response to this would
> be: "Why on earth, then, did they meet at the house for?"
> My answer to which would be - it depends on what type of
> 'house' Mrs. Bull was keeping. What do we actually know about
> Mrs. Bull and her 'house'. Is it at all possible that Mrs.
> Bull's house was actually a house of prostitution, male or
> female, or that, at least, she let her premises out for
> illegal activities? And that the four of them happened to
> meet there?
>
> In connection with this is the report that Marlowe "...was
> stabbed to death by a bawdy serving-man, a rival of his in
> his lewd love" in Mere's Palladis Tamia. Maybe the fight
> really was over a prostitute, male or female. After the
> killing, realizing it would reflect poorly on all of them,
> including Mrs. Bull, to tell the truth, the story was
> concocted about the dispute over the bill.
>
> Total speculation on my part, but I would be interested in
> what you think.
First of all, I guess we must assume that even if Danby was
unfamiliar with the uses to which Dame Bull's house was put
several members of the jury would have been. And if it had
been a brothel he would have said so, calling it *lupanar*
rather than *domus* (house) as it is in fact described.
Similarly, whilst it might have been possible for the three
of them (plus Bull) to pull the wool over Danby's eyes, I
doubt very much whether the jury would have let them get
away with it so easily.
We must also bear in mind that Eleanor was only fairly
recently widowed, and that her husband had been sub-bailiff
to the Lord of the Manor, whilst she herself seems to have
come from a well-respected family. Not that these factors
would prevent her running such a house on the quiet, of
course, but they would certainly make it rather less likely.
Remember too that Marlowe was, according to the record,
required to report to the Privy Council every day, so just
happening to bump into some acquaintances at ten in the
morning some 16 miles away by road strikes me as unlikely.
As would Robert Poley - who was apparently carrying urgent
letters of great importance to the Court - stopping off
there for a quickie, given that he was paid in full and
authorized as having been on duty while he was there,
despite his delivering the letters some 8 days late.
My main concern, however, is how the Coroner of the Queen's
Household came to be holding the inquest on his own. A
County Coroner should have been informed, and he should
have brought in Danby to officiate *with* him. Given that
this did not happen, and the Court was so far away, the
only reasonable explanation as far as I am concerned is
that Danby knew it was going to happen *beforehand*, and
this would certainly not have been possible with the
scenario you suggest!
Peter Farey
One further thought, Gary. William Vaughan's report
of the death is the one generally regarded as the most
accurate before the discovery of the inquest, and he
said that Marlowe had been invited to Deptford by
"one named Ingram...to a feast".
Gary Kosinsky
I'm not sure if we *have* to assume that. However, although
I'm not sure just how large Deptford was, it does seem possible,
perhaps likely, that someone among sixteen jurors might have known
about it. But would they have necessarily interjected that
information into the inquest?
>And if it had
>been a brothel he would have said so, calling it *lupanar*
>rather than *domus* (house) as it is in fact described.
My Latin is a bit rusty. Actually, my Latin is non-existent.
I gather 'lupanar' is latin for brothel? In any event, this would
assume that Danby knew that the house was a brothel.
Also, the house itself may not have been a brothel, in the
sense that it had in-house prostitutes on hand. It may have been more
like a sleazy hotel where practitioners of whatever knew they could
meet and that few questions would be asked.
>Similarly, whilst it might have been possible for the three
>of them (plus Bull) to pull the wool over Danby's eyes, I
>doubt very much whether the jury would have let them get
>away with it so easily.
I'm at a disadvantage - I'm unfamiliar with how much input
into the inquest the jury actually had. Did they ask questions? Did
they volunteer information? Or did they simply listen to the reports
given by the witnesses and vote yea or nay on whether to agree with
the Coroner's judgement? Given the speed with which this thing seems
to have been conducted, it's not clear how much discussion actually
took place.
>We must also bear in mind that Eleanor was only fairly
>recently widowed, and that her husband had been sub-bailiff
>to the Lord of the Manor, whilst she herself seems to have
>come from a well-respected family. Not that these factors
>would prevent her running such a house on the quiet, of
>course, but they would certainly make it rather less likely.
A widow has to make ends meet. The thought that members of "a
well-respected family" might indulge in criminal behaviour doesn't
faze me. Since I'm speculating - I think it's even theoritically
possible that the house could have been used for unsavoury purposes
even while Mr. Bull was alive and well. Is it really that
preposterous to think that an official in Elizabethan England might
have wanted to make a few bucks on the side from some criminal
activity?
>Remember too that Marlowe was, according to the record,
>required to report to the Privy Council every day, so just
>happening to bump into some acquaintances at ten in the
>morning some 16 miles away by road strikes me as unlikely.
While we have a record of Marlowe being required to report to
the Privy Council daily, do we have records of him *actually*
reporting daily? I don't believe we do. My point being that we don't
actually know what Marlowe's behaviour was in the days leading to his
death. Maybe he had missed a few days, deciding to go on a reckless
debauch with some friends.
>As would Robert Poley - who was apparently carrying urgent
>letters of great importance to the Court - stopping off
>there for a quickie, given that he was paid in full and
>authorized as having been on duty while he was there,
>despite his delivering the letters some 8 days late.
I thought about this, too. Oddly enough, the thought that he
might stop off for a quickie struck me as not implausible.
>My main concern, however, is how the Coroner of the Queen's
>Household came to be holding the inquest on his own. A
>County Coroner should have been informed, and he should
>have brought in Danby to officiate *with* him. Given that
>this did not happen, and the Court was so far away, the
>only reasonable explanation as far as I am concerned is
>that Danby knew it was going to happen *beforehand*, and
>this would certainly not have been possible with the
>scenario you suggest!
Given that Marlowe was a 'person of interest' to the Privy
Council, it's not surprising to me that a representative of the
Council would immediately go to Deptford upon hearing of the death to
investigate. Burghley & co. were not stupid - and the thought that
Marlowe might be faking his death might very well have occurred to
them. Under these circumstances, sending the coroner makes good
sense. I have no explanation why the local coroner was not present at
the inquest - maybe it was something as mundane as illness.
This also presupposes that Danby would have recognized Marlowe
- if, as I've suggested, the Privy Council wanted to ensure no
subterfuge was going on, surely the investigator would have needed to
know who Marlowe was and what he looked like. Did Danby know Marlowe?
I don't believe there is any actual evidence to suggest he did. But
then, there's no evidence to suggest he didn't. Danby was an official
of the Court. Was it at all possible he was involved in the panel
that initially interogated Marlowe? Or, by being in the vicinity, at
least knew who Marlowe was, in order to confirm the identity of the
victim in Deptford? I would speculate that it was possible.
And again - I admit this is total speculation. But I do have
a problem with your insistence that the *only* possible reason for the
four to have met in Deptford was to plan a fake death. It seems to me
that we simply don't have nearly enough information about these men,
their relationships, the other players in the drama etc, to make such
a definite statement.
- Gary Kosinsky
Gary Kosinsky
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>One further thought, Gary. William Vaughan's report
>of the death is the one generally regarded as the most
>accurate before the discovery of the inquest, and he
>said that Marlowe had been invited to Deptford by
>"one named Ingram...to a feast".
Okay, but there does seem to have been some confusion about
the reason Marlowe was there. And oftentimes, despite the 'official
story', whatever it may be, the *real* story percolates out into
public knowledge. This may have been what happened here:
"You heard that the inquest decided that Marlowe was killed after a
quiet meeting, huh? Well let me tell you what they were *really* up
to....".
- Gary Kosinsky
Mark Steese
@news.vcn.bc.ca:
If only they would! It would make Marlovianism far more entertaining.
But I fear you overestimate my ability to give the alter-Shakespeareans
ideas. I received nothing but abuse from Paul Streitz over my
groundbreaking discovery that Streitz's method conclusively proves that
Edward de Vere was dead when he wrote *Hamlet*. And it's been over two
years since I pointed out that the true author of Shakespeare's works
was irrefutably the extraterrestrial spirit being-cum-Mayan king Pacal,
only to be met with deafening silence. No, I'm afraid my truths are too
radical to be embraced by the hidebound conventionalists who dominate
modern alter-Shakespeareanism.
lariadna
Mark Steese wrote:
> gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote in news:43923419.4825548
> @news.vcn.bc.ca:
>
> > On 3 Dec 2005 22:19:25 GMT, Mark Steese <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> >>Marlowe's parents adopted him and concealed his true ancestry, which
> >>stemmed back to one of the Princes in the Tower and thus made him the
> >>rightful King of England.
> >
> > I wish you wouldn't give people ideas like this, Mark. Sure
> > as hell, in the new year, someone is going to return with this theory
> > backed up with all sorts of 'evidence'.
>
> If only they would! It would make Marlovianism far more entertaining.
Some Marlovians do think Marlowe was adopted. I don't recall the
details of the ancestry, but I have heard talk of how he might have
been a page to someone at court. Personally, I'm fine with him as
a cobbler's son, and the Marlowe scholars I've read go along with
that, though I meant to look up exactly how we know that his father
was a cobber. (I'm sure it's documented somewhere, probably
more than once, but I've forgotten.)
I've noticed in some postings of past years some very creative
Marlovians on this ng, but don't think most have posted in awhile.
> But I fear you overestimate my ability to give the alter-Shakespeareans
> ideas. I received nothing but abuse from Paul Streitz over my
> groundbreaking discovery that Streitz's method conclusively proves that
> Edward de Vere was dead when he wrote *Hamlet*. And it's been over two
> years since I pointed out that the true author of Shakespeare's works
> was irrefutably the extraterrestrial spirit being-cum-Mayan king Pacal,
> only to be met with deafening silence. No, I'm afraid my truths are too
> radical to be embraced by the hidebound conventionalists who dominate
> modern alter-Shakespeareanism.
I doubt that! Either they took you seriously, or else thought that you
had a right to believe it if you wanted to. Why some don't seem to be
similarly tolerant about thinking of WSStratford as Shakespeare I
don't know.
C.
Peter Farey
Gary Kosinsky wrote:
Of the sixteen jurors, we know that at least six of them were
from Deptford, and one at least from Deptford Strand, which
seems to have consisted of no more than 50 households in all.
> But would they have necessarily interjected that information
> into the inquest?
If, as you suggest, it seemed pertinent, yes. It was their
responsibility to arrive at the verdict, not the Coroner's.
And if he ran it according to the rules, this would have been
made clear to them.
> > And if it had been a brothel he would have said so, calling
> > it *lupanar* rather than *domus* (house) as it is in fact
> > described.
>
> My Latin is a bit rusty. Actually, my Latin is non-existent.
> I gather 'lupanar' is latin for brothel?
According to my Oxford Latin minidictionary it is.
> In any event, this would assume that Danby knew that the
> house was a brothel.
>
> Also, the house itself may not have been a brothel, in the
> sense that it had in-house prostitutes on hand. It may have
> been more like a sleazy hotel where practitioners of whatever
> knew they could meet and that few questions would be asked.
And which people from far and wide (as these four were) knew
all about, but which none of the locals did. Right.
> > Similarly, whilst it might have been possible for the three
> > of them (plus Bull) to pull the wool over Danby's eyes, I
> > doubt very much whether the jury would have let them get
> > away with it so easily.
>
> I'm at a disadvantage - I'm unfamiliar with how much input
> into the inquest the jury actually had.
As I said - it was their job to decide what had happened. All
the coroner was supposed to do was to help them achieve this.
If he was playing it straight, I guess that this is what would
have happened. Under *my* scenario, however, I don't think
that he *was* playing it straight, and assume that it would have
been very easy for the Coroner of the Queen's Household to
have got almost any verdict he wanted if he had a mind to.
> Did they ask questions? Did they volunteer information? Or
> did they simply listen to the reports given by the witnesses
> and vote yea or nay on whether to agree with the Coroner's
> judgement? Given the speed with which this thing seems
> to have been conducted, it's not clear how much discussion
> actually took place.
All I can tell you is what the legal position was, and what I
think would have been possible for a Coroner to do in the
circumstances. And that's what I have done.
> > We must also bear in mind that Eleanor was only fairly
> > recently widowed, and that her husband had been sub-bailiff
> > to the Lord of the Manor, whilst she herself seems to have
> > come from a well-respected family. Not that these factors
> > would prevent her running such a house on the quiet, of
> > course, but they would certainly make it rather less likely.
>
> A widow has to make ends meet. The thought that members of "a
> well-respected family" might indulge in criminal behaviour doesn't
> faze me. Since I'm speculating - I think it's even theoritically
'Theoritically' - there you go again!
> possible that the house could have been used for unsavoury
> purposes even while Mr. Bull was alive and well. Is it really
> that preposterous to think that an official in Elizabethan
> England might have wanted to make a few bucks on the side
> from some criminal activity?
Who said that such an idea was preposterous? My opinion is that
it is simply far less likely that it was a 'house of ill-repute'
than that it was (as almost every other biographer thinks) a
house where a private room and refreshment might be hired for
a private meeting, and nothing more.
> > Remember too that Marlowe was, according to the record,
> > required to report to the Privy Council every day, so just
> > happening to bump into some acquaintances at ten in the
> > morning some 16 miles away by road strikes me as unlikely.
>
> While we have a record of Marlowe being required to report to
> the Privy Council daily, do we have records of him *actually*
> reporting daily? I don't believe we do.
Nor do we have any record of any other person under such an
edict (of whom there were many) attending. The record says
that he was required to attend. So unless you know of any
evidence that he didn't, that is what history would assume
that he did.
> My point being that we don't actually know what Marlowe's
> behaviour was in the days leading to his death. Maybe he
> had missed a few days, deciding to go on a reckless debauch
> with some friends.
Yes, Gary. He may. But what historical evidence is there to
suggest that this is *more* likely than that he did what we
know he was commanded to do at least until this day?
> > As would Robert Poley - who was apparently carrying urgent
> > letters of great importance to the Court - stopping off
> > there for a quickie, given that he was paid in full and
> > authorized as having been on duty while he was there,
> > despite his delivering the letters some 8 days late.
>
> I thought about this, too. Oddly enough, the thought that he
> might stop off for a quickie struck me as not implausible.
Sure it's plausible, but again, does that make it *probable*?
> > My main concern, however, is how the Coroner of the Queen's
> > Household came to be holding the inquest on his own. A
> > County Coroner should have been informed, and he should
> > have brought in Danby to officiate *with* him. Given that
> > this did not happen, and the Court was so far away, the
> > only reasonable explanation as far as I am concerned is
> > that Danby knew it was going to happen *beforehand*, and
> > this would certainly not have been possible with the
> > scenario you suggest!
>
> Given that Marlowe was a 'person of interest' to the Privy
> Council, it's not surprising to me that a representative of
> the Council would immediately go to Deptford upon hearing
> of the death to investigate.
One more time, Gary. How did he hear of it? The law said that
it was a County Coroner's job to hold the inquest and record
it in the County records. If it was within the verge, he had
to bring in the Queen's coroner to assist. So who told Danby?
> Burghley & co. were not stupid - and the thought that
> Marlowe might be faking his death might very well have
> occurred to them. Under these circumstances, sending the
> coroner makes good sense.
Too right it does! But who told them that Marlowe had been
killed? Or did they already know that it would happen?
> I have no explanation why the local coroner was not present at
> the inquest - maybe it was something as mundane as illness.
There wasn't just *one* coroner per County. If one was sick,
another could take his place.
> This also presupposes that Danby would have recognized
> Marlowe - if, as I've suggested, the Privy Council wanted
> to ensure no subterfuge was going on, surely the invest-
> igator would have needed to know who Marlowe was and what
> he looked like. Did Danby know Marlowe? I don't believe
> there is any actual evidence to suggest he did. But then,
> there's no evidence to suggest he didn't.
You've lost me. Poley, Skeres and Frizer would have been
able to "identify" Marlowe, and it is my claim that Danby
was fully involved in whatever the subterfuge was. The
question is, how else would Danby have known about it?
> Danby was an official of the Court. Was it at all
> possible he was involved in the panel that initially
> interogated Marlowe?
Marlowe was seen by the Privy Council, of which Danby was
certainly not a member.
> Or, by being in the vicinity, at least knew who Marlowe
> was, in order to confirm the identity of the victim in
> Deptford? I would speculate that it was possible.
I'm really not sure where you are going with this. It was
certainly never the job of a coroner to identify the victim.
> And again - I admit this is total speculation. But I do
> have a problem with your insistence that the *only*
> possible reason for the four to have met in Deptford was
> to plan a fake death.
Gary, you have been arguing with me over this stuff for
longer than anyone else here. When have you known me to
claim such a thing? My words on this occasion, if you care
to check them, were "the most probable reason for those
people to have met at Deptford that day was to fake
Marlowe's death". That is what I said, and that is what I
continue to believe, but I certainly have never claimed
that it was "the *only* possible reason".
> It seems to me that we simply don't have nearly enough
> information about these men, their relationships, the
> other players in the drama etc, to make such a definite
> statement.
Which is why I didn't!
Peter Farey
"lariadna" wrote:
>
> Some Marlovians do think Marlowe was adopted. I don't recall the
> details of the ancestry, but I have heard talk of how he might have
> been a page to someone at court. Personally, I'm fine with him as
> a cobbler's son, and the Marlowe scholars I've read go along with
> that, though I meant to look up exactly how we know that his father
> was a cobber. (I'm sure it's documented somewhere, probably
> more than once, but I've forgotten.)
I show the connection in my essay "The Spelling of Marlowe's Name"
at the address below.
christia...@gmail.com
There is of course no final evidence that Christopher was the actual
son of John Marlowe the shoemaker, but there is even less evidence for
anything else.
Chris
Mark Cipra
> Gary Kosinsky wrote:
>>
>> Peter Farey wrote:
>>>
>>> Gary Kosinsky wrote:
>>>>
[snip]
>
> Of the sixteen jurors, we know that at least six of them were
> from Deptford, and one at least from Deptford Strand, which
> seems to have consisted of no more than 50 households in all.
>
>> But would they have necessarily interjected that information
>> into the inquest?
>
> If, as you suggest, it seemed pertinent, yes. It was their
> responsibility to arrive at the verdict, not the Coroner's.
> And if he ran it according to the rules, this would have been
> made clear to them.
>
For what it's worth: I've heard that in Grand Juries in the US, any
District Attorney worth his salt will lead the jury to the indictment he
wants. If he were inclined to *mislead* the jury, he would still be in
control of what they see and hear and the way it would be presented; so,
while it is technically the jury's call, the DA has great control over the
proceedings. I assume the same is probably true of coroner's inquests.
(But perhaps some of our legal-minded friends can correct me, if I'm wrong).
Does anyone know how common or routine these inquests were, by the way? If
anyone had asked me whether a garden variety
bludgeoning-stabbing-crossbow-accident in a seedy neighborhood in
Renaissance England would go before a coroner's inquest, I would have said
"probably not" ("Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown"). Is that true? And if
so, what made this one special? Involvement of the Privy Council?
Prominence of victim?
[snip]
--
Mark T. Cipra
The 'T' is for 'Trustworthy'
(Play Indiana Jones! Hide the "ark" in my address to reply by e-mail!)
lariadna
>Gary Kosinsky wrote:
> My point being that we don't
> actually know what Marlowe's behaviour was in the days leading to his
> death. Maybe he had missed a few days, deciding to go on a reckless
> debauch with some friends.
Perhaps this happened, but there was also a meeting to fake his
death as well. (In other words, not one or the other, but both.)
In fact, it would make a good story if one could get the details
right. There is a fight over the lover, and it gives everyone an
idea for the fake death.
C.
lariadna
You mention the christening "in Canterbury on 26th February 1563/4.
'Christofer the sonne of John Marlow'.(14)" as well as the quote from
the 1640 commonplace book that mentions that Marlo
was the son of a shoemaker from Cant.
So a question might be: if he were adopted, why christen him as a
Marlowe? And were adoptions commonplace at that time, and if so,
how young was the child on average when adopted? I think I've
heard of such a thing in medieval sagas, but don't exactly recall.
Why John Marlow in Canterbury as the father?
I was also interested in which documents described John Marlowe as a
shoemaker. I see that Riggs does allude to some of them in Ch.2
of his Marlowe biography:
"Between 1559 and 1560 John Marlowe apprenticed himself to a member
of the shoemakers' guild. His new master, the ageing and impoverished
Gerard Richardson, was a fellow immigrant."
Richardson dies, then J.Marlowe joins the Shoemaker's Guild. On April
20, 1564 (just a few days before S's supposed birth!-ha, ha), "John
Marlin of Canterbury shoemaker was admitted and sworn to the
liberties of the city."
"As a freeman, John gained the right to open his own shop, sell his
wares, and enrol[l] apprentices. He could now 'speak and be heard'
at town meetings. He was entitled to sue for debt in the Borough
Court.... By 1565 John Marlowe had set up his own shop.....
He enrolled his first apprentice, ... in 1567-68, etc."
So there does seem to be quite a bit of documentation about that,
and I imagine it is examined more in the Urry book about Marlowe
in Canterbury.
C.
christia...@gmail.com
> Peter Farey wrote:
> > "lariadna" wrote:
> > >
> > > Some Marlovians do think Marlowe was adopted. I don't recall the
> > > details of the ancestry, but I have heard talk of how he might have
> > > been a page to someone at court. Personally, I'm fine with him as
> > > a cobbler's son, and the Marlowe scholars I've read go along with
> > > that, though I meant to look up exactly how we know that his father
> > > was a cobber. (I'm sure it's documented somewhere, probably
> > > more than once, but I've forgotten.)
> >
> > I show the connection in my essay "The Spelling of Marlowe's Name"
> > at the address below.
> >
> >
> > Peter F.
> > pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
> > http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
>
> You mention the christening "in Canterbury on 26th February 1563/4.
> 'Christofer the sonne of John Marlow'.(14)" as well as the quote from
> the 1640 commonplace book that mentions that Marlo
> was the son of a shoemaker from Cant.
>
> So a question might be: if he were adopted, why christen him as a
> Marlowe? And were adoptions commonplace at that time, and if so,
> how young was the child on average when adopted? I think I've
> heard of such a thing in medieval sagas, but don't exactly recall.
> Why John Marlow in Canterbury as the father?
>
One of the alternative theories is something I discussed with Lyra this
summer, about Christoper's possible origin in the Parr family.
Catherine Parr's brother had an intriguing cavalier's life including a
number of marriages, being very popular among women. Among his notable
activities was a deep engagement for immigrant huguenots in Canterbury.
One of his publications was a kind of 'Legenda Aurea' about their
sufferings and martyrdoms. He clearly had a foot in Canterbury and
could theoretically (and therefore also practically) have been the
natural father of Christopher. But he was a prudent and very discreet
man, and it is well known what usually happened to the Queen's
courtiers if they showed up with babies out of proper wedlock. If he
had a son with, let's say, one of the ladies in waiting, he would have
had every reason to keep it secret. If the son was brought up in
Canterbury, he could have kept an eye on him and (clandestinely, of
course,) helped him on his way.
> I was also interested in which documents described John Marlowe as a
> shoemaker. I see that Riggs does allude to some of them in Ch.2
> of his Marlowe biography:
>
> "Between 1559 and 1560 John Marlowe apprenticed himself to a member
> of the shoemakers' guild. His new master, the ageing and impoverished
> Gerard Richardson, was a fellow immigrant."
This is very interesting, implying the possibility that John Marlowe
might have been an immigrant.
>
> Richardson dies, then J.Marlowe joins the Shoemaker's Guild. On April
> 20, 1564 (just a few days before S's supposed birth!-ha, ha), "John
> Marlin of Canterbury shoemaker was admitted and sworn to the
> liberties of the city."
>
> "As a freeman, John gained the right to open his own shop, sell his
> wares, and enrol[l] apprentices. He could now 'speak and be heard'
> at town meetings. He was entitled to sue for debt in the Borough
> Court.... By 1565 John Marlowe had set up his own shop.....
> He enrolled his first apprentice, ... in 1567-68, etc."
>
> So there does seem to be quite a bit of documentation about that,
> and I imagine it is examined more in the Urry book about Marlowe
> in Canterbury.
>
> C.
Unfortunately I have never so far come across Urry's book, but I hope
to some day.
Cheers!
Chris
lariadna
>>lariadna wrote:
> One of the alternative theories is something I discussed with Lyra this
> summer, about Christoper's possible origin in the Parr family.
> Catherine Parr's brother had an intriguing cavalier's life including a
> number of marriages, being very popular among women. Among his notable
> activities was a deep engagement for immigrant huguenots in Canterbury.
> One of his publications was a kind of 'Legenda Aurea' about their
> sufferings and martyrdoms. He clearly had a foot in Canterbury and
> could theoretically (and therefore also practically) have been the
> natural father of Christopher. But he was a prudent and very discreet
> man, and it is well known what usually happened to the Queen's
> courtiers if they showed up with babies out of proper wedlock. If he
> had a son with, let's say, one of the ladies in waiting, he would have
> had every reason to keep it secret. If the son was brought up in
> Canterbury, he could have kept an eye on him and (clandestinely, of
> course,) helped him on his way.
>
> > I was also interested in which documents described John Marlowe as a
> > shoemaker. I see that Riggs does allude to some of them in Ch.2
> > of his Marlowe biography:
> >
> > "Between 1559 and 1560 John Marlowe apprenticed himself to a member
> > of the shoemakers' guild. His new master, the ageing and impoverished
> > Gerard Richardson, was a fellow immigrant."
>
> This is very interesting, implying the possibility that John Marlowe
> might have been an immigrant.
>
I suppose it is possible that John Marlowe was an immigrant, maybe
even a Huguenot immigrant, or descended from Huguenot immigrants,
but don't think anyone has found any documentary evidence
supporting that idea. One wonders if he spoke French.
You're right that Riggs calls him an immigrant, and yet now that I
look, he also says that '[T]he migrant worker John Marlowe moved
to Canterbury, in the mid-1550s. He was about twenty years old
and came from Ospringe, beside the north Kent port of Faversham.'
(Chapter One, not Two as I mistakenly said before.)
So maybe he means 'migrant' rather than 'immigrant'? That doesn't
seem very careful to me, or perhaps I misunderstand what he is
saying.
I do recall that F.S.Boas, in his older biography of Marlowe, mentions
a whole list of variations of the (French) name Marlowe that appear in
the area during the 15th century, so the immigration might not have
been so recent.
Huguenot's do keep good records of genealogy, however,
yet this is very old. I recently did a search in a university library
to see if any books had been written about Huguenot immigration,
and the oldest period covered seemed to be ~17th century, not
earlier. But I'm sure there is more information about it, possibly
in French as well.
Wonder if John or Katherine Marlowe (or other relatives) have
christening records.
> >
> > Richardson dies, then J.Marlowe joins the Shoemaker's Guild. On April
> > 20, 1564 (just a few days before S's supposed birth!-ha, ha), "John
> > Marlin of Canterbury shoemaker was admitted and sworn to the
> > liberties of the city."
> >
> > "As a freeman, John gained the right to open his own shop, sell his
> > wares, and enrol[l] apprentices. He could now 'speak and be heard'
> > at town meetings. He was entitled to sue for debt in the Borough
> > Court.... By 1565 John Marlowe had set up his own shop.....
> > He enrolled his first apprentice, ... in 1567-68, etc."
> >
> > So there does seem to be quite a bit of documentation about that,
> > and I imagine it is examined more in the Urry book about Marlowe
> > in Canterbury.
> >
> > C.
>
> Unfortunately I have never so far come across Urry's book, but I hope
> to some day.
>
Me neither... It seems like it would be a good source though if one is
interested in Marlowe's childhood and in his subsequent
connections with Canterbury.
C.
> Cheers!
>
> Chris
Chess One
"lariadna" <lar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134106533.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >christia...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>lariadna wrote:
Peter Farey
Mark Cipra wrote:
>
> For what it's worth: I've heard that in Grand Juries in
> the US, any District Attorney worth his salt will lead
> the jury to the indictment he wants. If he were inclined
> to *mislead* the jury, he would still be in control of
> what they see and hear and the way it would be presented;
> so, while it is technically the jury's call, the DA has
> great control over the proceedings. I assume the same is
> probably true of coroner's inquests. (But perhaps some of
> our legal-minded friends can correct me, if I'm wrong).
My speculation about precisely how it was possible to fake
Marlowe's death certainly assumes that it was possible in
those days. In the case of Marlowe's death, however, being
within the verge, two coroners should have officiated, which
would presumably would have made this rather more difficult.
Luckily (?), only the Coroner of the Queen's Household was
to show up, so although this actually rendered the inquest
legally "erroneous and void" it would have allowed a bit of
jury-leading after all. I describe what I think may have
happened in my essay "Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End".
> Does anyone know how common or routine these inquests
> were, by the way? If anyone had asked me whether a garden
> variety bludgeoning-stabbing-crossbow-accident in a seedy
> neighborhood in Renaissance England would go before a
> coroner's inquest, I would have said "probably not"
> ("Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown"). Is that true?
No. All the evidence suggests that a death from anything
other than natural causes had to have an inquest. Without a
certificate signed by the coroner in such cases, no burial
was possible. And inquests were, of course, a source of
income not only for the coroners but for the crown too, and
a heavy fine was imposed on the community if they failed to
report one properly.
> And if so, what made this one special? Involvement of
> the Privy Council? Prominence of victim?
There is no evidence that this one was considered in any way
special, other than by its having taking place within the
verge, and the Queen's Coroner somehow getting away
with officiating on his own. As I said to Gary, however, it is
difficult to know how Danby found out about the killing if
the local coroner was unaware of it.
Peter Farey
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
lariadna
lyra and Chris are the ones who have been researching the Parrs.
Don't know if they traced anyone to Cornwall or neighboring areas.
C.
Mark Cipra
--
Mark T. Cipra
The 'T' is for 'Trustworthy'
(Play Indiana Jones! Hide the "ark" in my address to reply by e-mail!)
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dncc9h$qrb$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
tormo...@gmail.com
gde...@theedge.ca
> (quote)
> The Times
> October 29, 2005
>
>
> I still believe that this man might be the 'bodger of blank verse'
> Peter Ackroyd
>
> THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT Gallery has just announced that a portrait of a
> young man known as the Grafton Portrait is not that of William
> Shakespeare. It has thus exploded decades of what has been considered
> to be speculation or wishful thinking.
>
> It is interesting to note, however, that the gallery have not come to
> this conclusion on the basis of scientific tests; the experiments on
> paint, on canvas, or on the wooden frame, have not yielded any
> negative results. The painting is undoubtedly of the late 16th
> century. The gallery has come to its conclusion simply on the basis of
> biographical speculation, which is not perhaps the proper sphere of
> the art expert. It has decided that in 1588, when the portrait was
> completed, the 24-year-old Shakespeare was neither rich nor famous
> enough to have been painted in an elaborate doublet of silk or satin.
> I believe this to be quite mistaken. In my recent study Shakespeare:
> The Biography, I came to the conclusion that by 1588 the young
> Shakespeare was in exactly the position to have his portrait painted
> as a relatively affluent and "coming" young man. Indeed I think it
> almost inevitable that his portrait would have been painted.
>
> The Grafton Portrait is named after the Duke of Grafton, who is
> believed to have owned it in the early 18th century. It was discovered
> in the possession of a northern family in the 1880s and was eventually
> presented to the John Rylands University Library in Manchester. It
> shows a fashionably dressed young man with expensive doublet and
> collar. He has a slightly long face with what looks like a
> close-cropped beard and a faint moustache; he has large expressive
> eyes, a wide forehead and a full mouth.
>
> Above the sitter are to be found the words "AE SUAE.24" and then
> "1588". The sitter's age was, in other words, 24 in the year 1588.
> That fits Shakespeare's case. On the back of the portrait has been
> written W + S, an indication that someone, at some time, believed the
> painting to be of Shakespeare. So why should the experts of the
> National Portrait Gallery reject the attribution? They do so on the
> ground that he was not wealthy enough to have commissioned the work.
> It looks to have been the work of an amateur, in any case, or one of
> those hired artists who could be found in Southwark, Blackfriars and
> elsewhere. So it may not have been altogether expensive.
>
> But in my biography I have described how, by 1588, Shakespeare had
> already written Titus Andronicus, an early, and inferior, version of
> Hamlet, The Taming of A Shrew (later to be transmogrified into The
> Taming of the Shrew) and The Troublesome Raigne of King John (the
> forerunner of his more famous King John). He was, in other words, a
> young dramatist who had already had remarkable success with history
> plays, comedies and revenge tragedies. The year after the portrait was
> painted he was being attacked by a rival as a plagiarist and simpleton
> who could only "bodge up a blank verse with ifs and ands". Shakespeare
> was already well known enough, and successful enough, to attract
> carping critics. There is no reason, then, to accept the National
> Portrait Gallery's description of him as impoverished and anonymous.
> Quite the contrary.
>
> The experts and scholars have done one service. They have concluded
> that the paint and canvas do indeed date from 1588. The portrait is
> not one of those fakes that occasionally emerge on to the market as
> the true image of Shakespeare. They have also concluded that the
> original age placed above the sitter was "23", which was then changed
> to "24". This might seem ground for suspicion, suggesting that there
> was some manipulation of dates. But they have also demonstrated that
> the correction was made at the time. It was altered when the portrait
> had just been completed, or was about to be completed. In other words,
> someone noticed the mistake. This is more than likely to have been the
> sitter himself.
>
> There is one other clue to the identity of this sitter. If you place
> the Grafton Portrait beside the famous Martin Droeshout engraving of
> the older Shakespeare that adorns the First Folio of Shakespeare's
> plays, you will see a remarkable resemblance between the two
> physiognomies. Of course none of this is enough to "prove" that the
> Grafton Portrait is that of Shakespeare. Proof is not available in
> this case. All that can be said, with reasonable certainty, is that
> the grounds for the disavowal of the painting by the National Portrait
> Gallery are highly dubious. If you read my biography, you will gather
> my reasons for thinking so. If you look at the Grafton Portrait with
> unbiased eyes, it may be the face of Shakespeare staring back at you.
> (unquote)
The Sanders portrait, purportedly Shakespeare at 39, has terrific provenance. It looks right, as a potential image of a great artist. One factor that I haven't seen addressed is that it looks absolutely exactly like the person depicted in the Grafton portrait, purportedly Shakespeare at 24, would look if he were15 years older. Surely this dead ringer resemblance factor weighs in favour of the authenticity of both portraits. No one is contesting that they are both authentic portraits from that time period as per the dates written on the paintings. Yet, it still seems to be the predominant view to dismiss both paintings without ever acknowledging the resemblance factor.
marco
marco
What's here? the portrait of a blinking idiot, Merchant of Venice: II, ix
The portraiture of his: i'll court his favours. Hamlet: V, ii
marc
graham.a...@btinternet.com
marco
[others seem to also]
Using painting, do prove my occupation a mystery: Measure for Measure: IV, ii
With oily painting. shall I draw the curtain? The Winter's Tale: V, iii
The painting is almost the natural man; Timon of Athens: I, i
marc
graham.a...@btinternet.com
I don't know why the Stratford lot think the Cobb picture is William, when it clearly is Francis Collins his lawyer!!!
marco
why/what do you like about it
how does it compare alongside the Droeshout engraving?
i think the Chandos looks very close, alongside the Droeshout,
which is one reason i like it
marc
graham.a...@btinternet.com
marco
marco
i was totally unaware of the Soest
it does look interesting,
but, the two paintings look like different people
[i'm going to do some more research]
my benchmark starts with the Droeshout, which his contemporaries accepted
side by side, i still have to go with the Chandos, for now
marc
marco
1. Soest painted his WS portrait 30 years After Shakespeare's death!
2. his first known work is 1646
the Chandos may be a live WS painting, not postive
marc
graham.a...@btinternet.com
Answer you copy it from another already done, or get someone to describe Shakespeare to you. But personally I would go for the copy technique. Perhaps the original was badly damaged?
