The Widow of Deptford's Tale
Peter Farey
(or 'A load of Eleanor Bull?)
As you know, I believe that the most likely reason for
those four people to have met at Deptford on Wednesday
30th May 1593 was to fake Marlowe's death. We have been
discussing just how this might or might not have been
achieved, particularly if, as I think is likely, the body
they had available had been hanged the previous evening.
In the course of this discussion I have learned quite a
lot about coroners, dead bodies, etc. (rather more than
I might have wished in some cases!), and my ideas about
how they could have managed this have necessarily
changed to a certain extent. Here, therefore, are my
current thoughts on the subject.
First of all, though, we need to meet someone else who,
whether wittingly or not, probably had a significant
part to play in the story - the Lord of the Manor of
Deptford, Christopher Browne.
Although not necessarily relevant here, it is interesting
to note that Browne's wife was a first cousin of Thomas
Marlowe, agent of the Muscovy Company in Deptford, and,
according to Richard Wilson, "long identified as a
Crayford relative of Christopher Marlowe".(1)
Of more relevance, perhaps, is the fact that, up until
his death some three years earlier, Eleanor Bull's late
husband, Richard, had worked for Christopher Browne as
his sub-bailiff.(2)
In addition to his responsibilities as lord of the manor,
Browne was employed as Clerk of the Greencloth - a sort
of internal auditor for the Queen. As such, he was a
member of the Queen's Household and thus also a colleague
of the Coroner to the Queen's Household, William Danby.
If, as seems likely, William Danby lived at Woolwich,(3)
five miles or so east of Deptford, he would pass it on
his way home, so it is easy to see him finding some
pretext for stopping off at his colleague's house, then
being invited for supper, and, depending upon how late it
was, perhaps even to stay the night. The manor house
itself was Sayes Court which, as can be seen from Plate 3
in Nicholl's *The Reckoning*, where it appears at the
bottom of the map, was no more than a few hundred yards
from any dwelling in Deptford Strand.(4)
Returning, then, to Widow Bull's house, let us see what
might have been *her* account of what happened that
Wednesday evening.
She was sitting quietly in her living room, when suddenly
she heard a great commotion from upstairs, where her four
'paying guests' had been occupying themselves since
supper. Robert Poley appeared and told her that something
terrible had happened. Apparently Christopher Morley (as
they appear to have called him) had had too much to drink,
attacked Ingram Frizer with a dagger, and Frizer, trying
to protect himself, had accidentally stabbed Morley in
the eye. It looked as though he might even be dead.
She rushed upstairs, to find Morley lying motionless on
the bed, with a dreadful wound above his eye, and Frizer
sitting at the table, with blood pouring from wounds to
the scalp. Nicholas Skeres confirmed Poley's account,
adding only that there was now no doubt that Morley was
dead.
Realising that, as she was the only Deptford resident
there, it was probably her duty to raise the necessary
'hue and cry', she suggested that they all come down-
stairs, and she would lock the body in the room, leaving
everything exactly as it was, so that nobody could claim
that it had been interfered with in any way before the
authorities arrived.(5)
Once downstairs, they started to clean and dress Frizer's
wounds. Poley pointed out that Frizer would be able to
plead self-defence, which it certainly was, provided he
made no attempt to escape, and Frizer assured them that,
even if he had felt like it, he wasn't going anywhere.
Poley and Skeres told Eleanor Bull that they would never-
theless make sure he didn't, while she went for help.
Clearly a full-scale hue and cry for the 'pursuit and
apprehension of the offender' would have been foolish,
but she knew that it was necessary to get the neighbours
involved somehow. Two or three of them were therefore
asked to come in and help 'guard' Frizer and the body
(a duty which, as the latter was safely locked away, just
meant sitting with the others) while she went, taking the
key with her, to alert the authorities.
Not knowing exactly who she should tell first, she
decided to go to the Lord of the Manor, Christopher
Browne, whom she knew quite well as her late husband's
employer, and who lived nearby. It was quite a surprise,
therefore, to find that the very person who apparently
should have been informed - the Coroner to the Queen's
Household, William Danby - was there with Browne. Having
heard her story, he said that as this had happened
within the Verge, in other words within twelve miles of
the Queen (which he knew to be the case, having just
travelled from the Court (6)) it was in fact *his*
responsibility to view the body and to hold the inquest
in sight of it.(7) From this moment on, therefore, he
took charge.
Before leaving Sayes Court (8), however, he wrote a
letter to the Bailiff of the hundred,(9) explaining
briefly what had happened, and asking that he arrange
for a few of his men to go to Widow Bull's house, to
escort Ingram Frizer to gaol, and to provide a guard for
the next day or two. He was also as soon as possible to
start organizing the jury for the Inquest, which would
be at 10 o'clock (say) on Friday morning. There was
nothing else required of him for the time being, but, if
he thought there was, would he please check it out with
Danby first. A servant was dispatched to the Bailiff's
house with this letter.
Next, Danby and Eleanor Bull went to her home, where he
had a quick look at the body and heard the accounts of
those who had been there. Once the guards arrived, he
allowed the neighbours to go home, sent Frizer off to
gaol, presumably insisting that he be used kindly, and
left the others downstairs, while he went up (with
Eleanor Bull's help) to 'view' the body properly. They
removed all of the clothing, and he examined the corpse
thoroughly, noting that the only injury to it was the
one above the right eye.
When he had finished, and promising her some recompense,
he asked Mrs Bull for a clean linen sheet, in which -
having washed the blood from the body as best they could
- they completely 'wound' it (i.e rolled it up), ready
for burial. Having also removed or covered the blood-
stained bedclothes, they then put the body back on the
bed.(10)
He then locked up the room, made sure that Poley and
Skeres had somewhere to sleep and would be available for
the inquest, and left the guard with strict instructions
that *nobody* else was to enter the room where the body
was. Mrs Bull would keep the key and, in the very
unlikely event that it proved necessary to enter the
room, they must go in together, and neither of them must
touch the body in any way. He then went back to Sayes
Court for the night, continuing his journey to Woolwich
the following day.
___
On the Friday morning he returned to Mrs Bull's house to
find the jurymen beginning to assemble. He briefly inter-
viewed each of them and, having rejected one or two, was
left with the sixteen we know about.
The room containing the body was quite small, and it was
hard for everybody to squeeze into comfortably, let alone
to hold an inquest in, so this was to be held in the
large room downstairs.(11) They all had to view the body,
however (or the inquest would be null and void), so they
gathered round while Danby showed it to them, tugging the
sheet down far enough for everyone clearly to see the
wound above the eye. He assured them that he had examined
the body thoroughly, that the dagger wound would
certainly have been enough to kill him, and that he had
no doubts at all as to what had caused the death.(12)
Once everybody had viewed the body in this way, they
returned to the larger room for the inquest, where they
heard the evidence of Frizer himself and the two
witnesses (who had also identified the body) and
returned the verdict as reported in the coroner's
inquisition.
The body being ready for disposal (and presumably the
relevant people having been warned), there was now
nothing to prevent the burial being carried out
almost immediately, which is indeed what happened.
(1) Richard Wilson, *Visible Bullets: Tamburlaine the
Great and Ivan the Terrible*, in Darryl Grantley & Peter
Roberts, eds., *Christopher Marlowe and English
Renaissance Culture* (1996), p.52
(2) Willam Urry, *Christopher Marlowe and Canterbury*
(1988), p.85
(3) *Ibid*., p.92
(4) Charles Nicholl, *The Reckoning: The Murder of
Christopher Marlowe* (1992), between pp. 194 & 5. The
map covers about one third of a mile from left (north)
to right, and about half a mile from the top (east) to
the bottom.
(5) R. F. Hunnisett, *The Medieval Coroner* (1961), p.10
(6) Strictly speaking, this was not true, as the
distance between Deptford Strand and Nonsuch Palace,
where the court was, is nearly 13 miles. As they had
no way of knowing 'as the crow flies' measurements,
however, his word would have been taken for this.
(7) Again this was not true, as the law was that
inquests held within the Verge (other than those within
the precincts of the royal residence at the time) should
have been held *jointly* by the appropriate County
Coroner and the Coroner of the Queen's Household, William
Danby. See R. Henslowe Wellington, *The King's Coroner*
(1905) pp.26-7 and statutes 14 Edw III, Stat 1, chap.8
and 30 Hen VIII, chap.12. Clearly, he would not have
taken this on if he hadn't known that, at least on this
occasion, his doing it alone would be permissible.
(8) See Hunnisett, *op. cit*., p.13
(9) Not to be confused with the Bailiff of the manor,
Sir George Howard, who acted as a sort of superintendant
for the lord of the manor. Also see Hunnisett (*op. cit.*)
p.19.
(10) All of this could, of course, have been accomp-
lished long before Danby's arrival, had they wished.
Hunniset's words (*op.cit*., pp.13,19) makes it fairly
clear that, while it was obviously essential for the
coroner to have seen the body naked, this was not
necessarily the case for the jury, unless the wounds
they had to see made it unavoidable.
(11) Hunnisett (*op.cit*., p.20) reports this as
becoming fairly standard practice.
(12) *Ibid*., p.19. The rate at which bodies change
after death is so variable that by this time it would
have been virtually impossible to be sure that the time
of of death was some 64 hours earlier (as Penry's was)
rather than around 38 hours earlier, as Marlowe's should
have been. See John A Williams's excellent description
at http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmed/11b/timedeath.htm
Thomas Larque
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>THE WIDOW OF DEPTFORD'S TALE
>(or 'A load of Eleanor Bull?)
This is fine if you want to write Fiction, Farey, but it is nothing
like History. You just make up anything that you feel like. The idea
that because you can make some vague connections between various
people that you think you can suggest whose room Danby was sitting in
at the time of the killing is really comical. The idea that Bull
locked the body in a room and nobody looked at it until the jury
arrived does not fit in with Elizabethan practice - which required
outside witnesses to the circumstances of the killing, your sheet
binding up the body does not fit in with Elizabethan treatment of
corpses (if it does, then please show us some evidence to this effect)
and generally your "story" reads like what it is, 21st Century fiction
written by somebody who has already made up his mind about what
happened and doesn't want to look too closely at contemporary
realities.
Thomas Larque.
"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://shakespearean.org.uk
Christian Lanciai
So far so good, Peter, and the above is all workable as a basis for
further research. The rest, however, is pure fiction.
yours,
Chris
Peter Zenner
Greville, Peter? Blanche Whitney was an aunty to both of them,
so I suppose that they were cousins. I believe that he was the
Mr Fixit. Greville was VERY close to Philip Sidney and, as you
know, I believe that Marlowe was 'adopted' by Sidney -- so he
would be well known to Greville as well.
This staged death was not the first by Marlowe and not the
last either. This was different, however. Marlowe's room-mate
accused him under his REAL name and so that was the name
that he had to lose, much to his chagrin. When it came to the
event, he and Fryzer got into an argument over a young man
who they had both taken a liking to and THAT was the cause
of the scuffle which resulted in Marlowe being blinded in his
right eye. Ever the stoic, he went through with the plan and it
has gone down in history that the knife went in further than it
really did.
If you don't believe me, send Bob Grumman back to have a chat
with Francis Meres; he knew an awful lot about 'Shakespeare'
for a vicar living in the middle of nowhere. Have you ever been
to Wing?
Peter Zenner
Visit my web site 'Zenigmas' at
http://www.pzenner.freeserve.co.uk
Peter Farey
Thomas Larque wrote:
>
> > THE WIDOW OF DEPTFORD'S TALE
> > (or 'A load of Eleanor Bull?)
>
> This is fine if you want to write Fiction, Farey, but
> it is nothing like History. You just make up anything
> that you feel like.
I do not claim that this is exactly what happened, Larque,
only that it is perfectly *feasible* for it to have
happened this way. Your arguments that:
* The body must have been in full view of anyone entering
the house
* The first people to arrive on the scene must have seen
that the body had not died recently
* The jury must have fully examined the naked corpse and
seen the marks of the hanging
* It would not have been possible for Danby to arrange to
be found nearby at the time
are thereby shown to be specious.
> The idea that because you can make some vague connections
> between various people that you think you can suggest
> whose room Danby was sitting in at the time of the killing
> is really comical.
You must be easily amused. I can think of at least half a
dozen ways in which, had I been Danby, I could have made
sure that I would be at Sayes Court that evening, and thus
'happen' to be there when they came to inform the lord of
the manor what had happened. And so can you.
> The idea that Bull locked the body in a room and nobody
> looked at it until the jury arrived does not fit in with
> Elizabethan practice - which required outside witnesses
> to the circumstances of the killing,
You quoted Hunnisett as telling us that "It was the
responsibility of the townships to guard dead bodies from
their discovery until the coroner's arrival", which is
exactly what Eleanor Bull, the representative of the
township, would have been doing. I don't recall reading
that bit about 'outside witnesses' anywhere. Can you
provide the quotation, please?
> your sheet binding up the body does not fit in with
> Elizabethan treatment of corpses (if it does, then please
> show us some evidence to this effect)
What do you think the 'winding-sheet' was that Shakespeare
referred to in *3H6* - "These arms of mine shall be thy
winding sheet"? In the OED, we have the particularly
graphic 1624 example of "they...rowle them in mats for
their winding-sheets".
For an illustration of one in use in 1592, look at page
62 of Julian Litten's *The English Way of Death*. The
corpse has clearly been rolled up in a sheet, with about
a foot to spare at each end, gathered in and with a knot
tied around it.
As for the use of an ordinary sheet, this is what David
Cressy has to say in his *Birth, Marriage, and Death:
Ritual, Religion, and the Life Cycle in Tudor and Stuart
Engand*:
"A bed sheet would suffice - either the linen the party
died in or a better piece from the household stock".
> and generally your "story" reads like what it is, 21st
> Century fiction written by somebody who has already made
> up his mind about what happened and doesn't want to look
> too closely at contemporary realities.
Nice rhetoric, but I have made up my mind about nothing.
The question this tries to answer is "IF the most likely
reason for the meeting that day was to fake Marlowe's
death using the body of a hanged man, would it have been
*possible* for them to have done it?" It is, of course,
our looking more closely at 'contemporary realities'
which has given rise to this possible answer.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www.prst17z1.demon.co.uk/
Peter Farey
Christian Lanciai wrote:
Well done Chris, you've got it in one. You don't win the
cuddly toy, however, because I gave you far too many hints -
the title(s) I gave it; "how they could have managed this";
"what might have been *her* account", etc.
Did you notice that it is actually *two* lots of fiction,
though? First, there is the fiction that I suggest Eleanor
Bull could have made up to describe what happened when only
the other conspiritors were there; second there is the
fiction which I would prefer to call a 'possible scenario'.
Thomas Larque
so this will be my last post to the Newsgroup for a while.
> > > THE WIDOW OF DEPTFORD'S TALE
> > > (or 'A load of Eleanor Bull?)
> >
> > This is fine if you want to write Fiction, Farey, but
> > it is nothing like History. You just make up anything
> > that you feel like.
>
> I do not claim that this is exactly what happened, Larque,
> only that it is perfectly *feasible* for it to have
> happened this way.
Far less feasible than the assassination arguments, which you dismiss
out of hand for no particular reason.
>Your arguments that:
> * The body must have been in full view of anyone entering
> the house
> * The first people to arrive on the scene must have seen
> that the body had not died recently
> * The jury must have fully examined the naked corpse and
> seen the marks of the hanging
> * It would not have been possible for Danby to arrange to
> be found nearby at the time
> are thereby shown to be specious.
No. You just made a lot of things up and wrote a fictional story. I
don't see quite how this is supposed to have answered any of the
points that I made.
> > The idea that because you can make some vague connections
> > between various people that you think you can suggest
> > whose room Danby was sitting in at the time of the killing
> > is really comical.
>
> You must be easily amused. I can think of at least half a
> dozen ways in which, had I been Danby, I could have made
> sure that I would be at Sayes Court that evening, and thus
> 'happen' to be there when they came to inform the lord of
> the manor what had happened. And so can you.
Except that nobody says that the Lord of the Manor was the person to
be informed of these things, and your claim that Danby is at all
likely to have made such excuses is pure fiction. I can think of a
lot of excuses that Danby could make if he was engaged in an
adulterous affair with Mistress Bull and was upstairs in her bedroom
at that moment, but my fantasies are not history and neither are
yours.
> > The idea that Bull locked the body in a room and nobody
> > looked at it until the jury arrived does not fit in with
> > Elizabethan practice - which required outside witnesses
> > to the circumstances of the killing,
>
> You quoted Hunnisett as telling us that "It was the
> responsibility of the townships to guard dead bodies from
> their discovery until the coroner's arrival", which is
> exactly what Eleanor Bull, the representative of the
> township, would have been doing. I don't recall reading
> that bit about 'outside witnesses' anywhere. Can you
> provide the quotation, please?
Hunnisett makes clear that the four nearest neighbours were *always*
summoned as Inquest witnesses in the Mediaeval period. If all they
could say was "We was called in and looked at the wrong side of a
locked door for three hours" then that would be rather pointless.
> > your sheet binding up the body does not fit in with
> > Elizabethan treatment of corpses (if it does, then please
> > show us some evidence to this effect)
>
> What do you think the 'winding-sheet' was that Shakespeare
> referred to in *3H6* - "These arms of mine shall be thy
> winding sheet"? In the OED, we have the particularly
> graphic 1624 example of "they...rowle them in mats for
> their winding-sheets".
A winding sheet was a shroud, Farey. They put people in them before
they buried them. If you are claiming that Coroner's Juries routinely
examined dead bodies in shrouds (fully prepared for burial) then you
are making a clearly ridiculous argument. You could not "view" a body
in a shroud.
> For an illustration of one in use in 1592, look at page
> 62 of Julian Litten's *The English Way of Death*. The
> corpse has clearly been rolled up in a sheet, with about
> a foot to spare at each end, gathered in and with a knot
> tied around it.
>
> As for the use of an ordinary sheet, this is what David
> Cressy has to say in his *Birth, Marriage, and Death:
> Ritual, Religion, and the Life Cycle in Tudor and Stuart
> Engand*:
>
> "A bed sheet would suffice - either the linen the party
> died in or a better piece from the household stock".
That was part of the preparation for burial. It was *NOT* common
practice in preparing a body to be viewed by a Coroner's Jury. The
body would rather obviously have been shrouded up and prepared for
burial *AFTER* the Inquest had finished.
> > and generally your "story" reads like what it is, 21st
> > Century fiction written by somebody who has already made
> > up his mind about what happened and doesn't want to look
> > too closely at contemporary realities.
>
> Nice rhetoric, but I have made up my mind about nothing.
> The question this tries to answer is "IF the most likely
> reason for the meeting that day was to fake Marlowe's
> death using the body of a hanged man, would it have been
> *possible* for them to have done it?" It is, of course,
> our looking more closely at 'contemporary realities'
> which has given rise to this possible answer.
Not at all. You just made a lot of things up because they suited you
and ignored the evidence that we have about how Coroner's Juries
examined bodies, and how neighbours were expected to act as witnesses
after killings, and your claims that Marlowe was wrapped up in a
shroud before being "viewed" by the Coroner's Jury is plainly
ridiculous.
Peter Farey
Thomas Larque wrote:
>
> Some other rather more important matters have arisen
> (in real life), so this will be my last post to the
> Newsgroup for a while.
I'm sorry to hear that. For the sake of closure, however,
I shall nevertheless still post my response to your
'assassination theory', as promised.
> > > > THE WIDOW OF DEPTFORD'S TALE
> > > > (or 'A load of Eleanor Bull?)
> > >
> > > This is fine if you want to write Fiction, Farey, but
> > > it is nothing like History. You just make up anything
> > > that you feel like.
> >
> > I do not claim that this is exactly what happened, Larque,
> > only that it is perfectly *feasible* for it to have
> > happened this way.
>
> Far less feasible than the assassination arguments,
> which you dismiss out of hand for no particular reason.
As I said, I have not yet responded to that, but will do
so shortly.
> >Your arguments that:
> > * The body must have been in full view of anyone entering
> > the house
> > * The first people to arrive on the scene must have seen
> > that the body had not died recently
> > * The jury must have fully examined the naked corpse and
> > seen the marks of the hanging
> > * It would not have been possible for Danby to arrange to
> > be found nearby at the time
> > are thereby shown to be specious.
>
> No. You just made a lot of things up and wrote a fictional
> story. I don't see quite how this is supposed to have
> answered any of the points that I made.
Your argument is based upon an assumption that, because
certain things *must* have happened, the use of a hanged
corpse in faking the death would have been impossible. I
have explained how it *would* have been possible for them
to have managed it without those things necessarily
happening, and that therefore your basic premise is false.
That I used the form of a fictional account to make that
point is neither here nor there, but clearly I should
have realized how you would make use of it.
> > > The idea that because you can make some vague connections
> > > between various people that you think you can suggest
> > > whose room Danby was sitting in at the time of the killing
> > > is really comical.
> >
> > You must be easily amused. I can think of at least half a
> > dozen ways in which, had I been Danby, I could have made
> > sure that I would be at Sayes Court that evening, and thus
> > 'happen' to be there when they came to inform the lord of
> > the manor what had happened. And so can you.
>
> Except that nobody says that the Lord of the Manor was
> the person to be informed of these things,
Whether the "Lord of the Manor was the person to be
informed of these things" or not is quite irrelevant.
It just has to be believable that Eleanor Bull would have
gone first to him - well known to her and living nearby -
both to let him know about it and to confirm whom it was
she had to inform. And, of course, it is.
> and your claim that Danby is at all likely to have made
> such excuses is pure fiction. I can think of a lot of
> excuses that Danby could make if he was engaged in an
> adulterous affair with Mistress Bull and was upstairs
> in her bedroom at that moment, but my fantasies are not
> history and neither are yours.
What would have been necessary was a way for him to be
found on the spot which was also within the bounds of
acceptable coincidence. I say that for him to have called
in to see his colleague Christopher Browne on his way
home would have provided that. To refute this, you need
to show either that it would have been impossible for him
to have done this, or that it was so improbable as to
still be outside the bounds of acceptable coincidence.
That you have failed to do either suggests to me that
you are unable to.
> > > The idea that Bull locked the body in a room and nobody
> > > looked at it until the jury arrived does not fit in with
> > > Elizabethan practice - which required outside witnesses
> > > to the circumstances of the killing,
> >
> > You quoted Hunnisett as telling us that "It was the
> > responsibility of the townships to guard dead bodies from
> > their discovery until the coroner's arrival", which is
> > exactly what Eleanor Bull, the representative of the
> > township, would have been doing. I don't recall reading
> > that bit about 'outside witnesses' anywhere. Can you
> > provide the quotation, please?
>
> Hunnisett makes clear that the four nearest neighbours
> were *always* summoned as Inquest witnesses in the
> Mediaeval period.
I asked for the quotation. Couldn't you lay your hands on
it? Never mind, I've got it right here (Hunnisett, p.25):
"Whatever the cause of death, the coroner had to attach
the four neighbours living nearest to the spot where
the body was found, usually by two sureties each, and
to enrol the names of both neighbours and sureties.
Only when the death had occurred within the verge were
such attachments not required."
Oh dear. The truth, but not the whole truth, eh, Thomas?
> If all they could say was "We was called in and looked
> at the wrong side of a locked door for three hours" then
> that would be rather pointless.
Indeed it would, as would setting off with hue and cry
in pursuit of the offender, as you would have them do.
Sensible folk, these Deptfordians. So, as no fewer than
four people - including their neighbour Widow Bull -
already knew perfectly well what had happened, and seemed
to have everything under control, the neighbours would,
I am sure, have been quite happy not to get themselves
involved any more than was strictly necessary.
> > > your sheet binding up the body does not fit in with
> > > Elizabethan treatment of corpses (if it does, then please
> > > show us some evidence to this effect)
> >
> > What do you think the 'winding-sheet' was that Shakespeare
> > referred to in *3H6* - "These arms of mine shall be thy
> > winding sheet"? In the OED, we have the particularly
> > graphic 1624 example of "they...rowle them in mats for
> > their winding-sheets".
>
> A winding sheet was a shroud, Farey. They put people
> in them before they buried them.
Sure did. Putting them on after they buried them would
have been both messy and pointless.
> If you are claiming that Coroner's Juries routinely
> examined dead bodies in shrouds (fully prepared for
> burial) then you are making a clearly ridiculous
> argument. You could not "view" a body in a shroud.
Well, I don't claim that it was 'routine' do I? What I
do claim is
(1) That it was legal, and in no way unheard of, for the
Coroner to examine the body *before* the inquest and
simply show the jury what he had found.
(2) That the Coroner's examination of the body required
it to be naked, but that all the jury had to see was
any wound or marking he *had* found. The main purpose
of the jury's view was merely (I quote) "to discover
whether there were any signs of violence", and the
coroner was in this case able to show them that there
were, without them needing to see more than the face.
(3) That, as the victim was a total stranger, nobody
there was going to give a toss how the inquest was
carried out anyway. (I agree with Kuriyama that his
family almost certainly knew nothing about it).
(4) That as the body would not be buried in its clothes,
and as it was unnecessary for it to be naked in front
of the jury, it would have been seen as quite sensible
to wrap it up straight away in the sheet it was going
to be buried in.
> > For an illustration of one in use in 1592, look at page
> > 62 of Julian Litten's *The English Way of Death*. The
> > corpse has clearly been rolled up in a sheet, with about
> > a foot to spare at each end, gathered in and with a knot
> > tied around it.
> >
> > As for the use of an ordinary sheet, this is what David
> > Cressy has to say in his *Birth, Marriage, and Death:
> > Ritual, Religion, and the Life Cycle in Tudor and Stuart
> > Engand*:
> >
> > "A bed sheet would suffice - either the linen the party
> > died in or a better piece from the household stock".
>
> That was part of the preparation for burial. It was
> *NOT* common practice in preparing a body to be viewed by
> a Coroner's Jury. The body would rather obviously have
> been shrouded up and prepared for burial *AFTER* the
> Inquest had finished.
You haven't a clue, have you? Here's Hunnisett again
(p.20):
"The next development was for the body to be buried as
soon as it had been viewed, and this practice must have
been fairly general by the late thirteenth century when
it came to be recognized as not only lawful, but the
rule."
The question is not whether it was common practice,
however, but whether its being wrapped in a sheet would
have been considered so uncommon as to have had the jury
complaining. It is my contention that if the Queen's
personal Coroner said that it was the best way to do
it on this occasion, nobody would have dared to argue
with him even in the most unlikely event that they
actually wanted to.
> > > and generally your "story" reads like what it is, 21st
> > > Century fiction written by somebody who has already made
> > > up his mind about what happened and doesn't want to look
> > > too closely at contemporary realities.
> >
> > Nice rhetoric, but I have made up my mind about nothing.
> > The question this tries to answer is "IF the most likely
> > reason for the meeting that day was to fake Marlowe's
> > death using the body of a hanged man, would it have been
> > *possible* for them to have done it?" It is, of course,
> > our looking more closely at 'contemporary realities'
> > which has given rise to this possible answer.
>
> Not at all. You just made a lot of things up because
> they suited you and ignored the evidence that we have
> about how Coroner's Juries examined bodies, and how
> neighbours were expected to act as witnesses after
> killings,
Ah yes, what was that quotation again?
> and your claims that Marlowe was wrapped up in a
> shroud before being "viewed" by the Coroner's Jury is
> plainly ridiculous.
My claims was (sic) that the corpse was wrapped up in a
bed-sheet, not a shroud, which is something that could
have been made specially for the purpose. Your finding
this ridiculous says more about your sense of humour,
of course, than about what may or may not have been done
by a Queen's Coroner determined to ensure that the jurors
would see only what he wanted them to see.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
ktfiveus
WORKS!!!
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup] [NOVA Message Board]
Posted by Salac on June 02, 2002 at 15:47:11:
TURN SIX DOLLARS INTO SIX THOUSAND QUICK AND EASY! WOW IT REALLY
WORKS!!!
TURN SIX DOLLARS INTO SIX THOUSAND QUICK AND EASY*** HOW TO TURN SIX
DOLLARS INTO SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS READING THIS COULD CHANGE YOUR LIFE!
IT DOES WORK! I found this on a bulletin board and decided to try it.
A little while back, I was browsing through newsgroups, just like you
are now, and came across an article similar to this that said you
could make thousands of dollars within weeks with only an initial
investment of $6.00! So I thought, "Yeah right, this must be a scam",
but like most of us, I was curious, so I kept reading. Anyway, it said
that you send $1.00 to each of the 6 names and address stated in the
article. You then place your own name and address in the bottom of the
list at #6. Post the article (with your name in the #6 spot) in at
least 200 newsgroups. (There are thousands). No catch, that was it. So
after thinking it over, and talking to a few people first, I thought
about trying it. I figured: "what have I got to lose except 6 stamps
and $6.00, right?" Then I invested the measly $6.00. Well GUESS WHAT!?
Within 7 days, I started getting money in the mail! I was shocked! I
figured it would end soon, but the money just kept coming in. In my
first week, I made about $25.00. By the end of the second week I had
made a total of over $1,000.00! In the third week I had over
$10,000.00 and it's still growing. This is now my fourth week and I
have made a total of just over $42,000.00 and it's still coming in
rapidly. It's certainly worth $6.00, and 6 stamps, I have spent more
than that on lunch!! Let me tell you how this works and most
importantly, WHY it works... Also, make sure you print a copy of this
article NOW, so you can get the information off of it as you need it.
I promise you that if you follow the directions exactly, that you will
start making more money than you thought possible by doing something
so easy!
Suggestion: READ THIS ENTIRE MESSAGE CAREFULLY!! Print it out or
download it. Follow the simple directions and watch the money comes
in!
It's easy. It's legal. And, your investment is only $6.00 (Plus
postage)
IMPORTANT: This is not a rip-off; it is not indecent; it is not
illegal; and, it's 99% risk-free. Best of all-- it really works!
If all of the following instructions are adhered to, you will receive
extraordinary dividends.
PLEASE NOTE: Please follow these directions EXACTLY, and $50,000 or
more can be yours in 20 to 60 days. This program remains successful
because of the honesty and integrity of the participants. PLEASE
CONTINUE IN ITS SUCCESS BY CAREFULLY ADHERING TO THE INSTRUCTIONS.
You will now become part of the Mail Order business. In this business
your product is not solid and tangible, it's a service. You are in the
business of developing Mailing Lists. Many large corporations are
happy to pay big bucks for quality lists. However, the money made from
the mailing lists is secondary to the income which is made from people
like you and me asking to be included in that list. Here are the 4
easy steps to success:
STEP 1: Get 6 separate pieces of paper and write the following on each
piece of paper "PLEASE PUT ME ON YOUR MAILING LIST." Now get 6 US
$1.00 and place ONE inside EACH of the 6 pieces of paper so the it
will not be seen through the envelope (to prevent thievery). Next,
place one paper in each of the 6 envelopes and seal them. You should
now have 6 sealed envelopes, each with a piece of paper stating the
above phrase, your name and address, and $1.00. What you are doing is
creating a service. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY LEGAL! You are requesting a
legitimate service and you are paying for it! Like most of us I was a
little skeptical and a little worried about the legal aspects of it
all. So I checked it out with the U.S. Post Office (1-800-725-2161)
and they confirmed that it is indeed legal. Mail the 6 envelopes to
the following addresses:
#1) T.Shelp 7513 Redcliff Road Indianapolis, IN 46256, USA
#2) Tim Beaudoin 5362 Greenplain Road Norfolk, VA 23502, USA
#3) Ambrose Costanzo 2777 Briargrove Dr. #839 Houston, TX 77057, USA
#4) J.Dougherty 9 Blue Mountain Court Kunkletown, PA 18058, USA
#5) Jurgis Veldre, Kalnciema 151-2, Riga LV 1046, Latvia
#6) Kathleya Tenorio 13308 Hollinger Ave. Fairfax, VA 22033, USA
STEP 2: Now take the #1 name off the list that you see above, move the
other names up (6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4, etc...) and add YOUR name as
#6 on the list. STEP 3: Change anything you need to, but try to keep
this article as close to original as possible. Now, post your amended
article to at least 200 newsgroups. (I think there are close to 24,000
groups) All you need is 200, but remember, the more you post, the more
money you make! You won't get very much unless you post like crazy. :)
This is perfectly legal! If you have any doubts, refer to Title 18
Sec. 1302 & 1341 of the Postal lottery laws. Keep a copy of these
steps for yourself and, whenever you need money, you can use it again,
and again. PLEASE REMEMBER that this program remains successful
because of the honesty and integrity of the participants and by their
carefully adhering to the directions. Look at it this way: if you are
of integrity and honesty, the program will continue and the money that
so many others have received will come your way. NOTE: You may want to
retain every name and addresses sent to you, either on a computer or
hard copy and keep the notes people send you. This VERIFIES that you
are truly providing a service. (Also, it might be a good idea to wrap
the $1 in dark paper to reduce the risk of mail theft.) So, as each
post is downloaded and the directions carefully followed, six members
will be reimbursed for their participation as a List Developer with
one dollar each. Your name will move up the list geometrically so that
when your name reaches the #1 position you will be receiving thousands
of dollars in CASH!!! What an opportunity for only $6.00 - $1.00 for
each of the first six people listed above. Send it now, add your own
name to the list and you're in business!
---DIRECTIONS ----- FOR HOW TO POST TO NEWSGROUPS------------
Step 1) You do not need to re-type this entire letter to do your own
posting. Simply put your cursor at the beginning of this letter and
drag your cursor to the bottom of this document, and select 'copy'
from the edit menu. This will copy the entire letter into the
computer's memory. Step 2) Open a blank 'notepad' file and place your
cursor at the top of the blank page. From the 'edit' menu select
'paste'. This will paste a copy of the letter into notepad so that you
can add your name to the list. Step 3) Save your new notepad file as a
.txt file. If you want to do your postings in different settings,
you'll always have this file to go back to. Step 4) Use Netscape or
Internet Explorer and try searching for various newsgroups (on-line
forums, message boards, chat sites, discussions.) Step 5) Visit these
message boards and post this article as a new message by highlighting
the text of this letter and selecting paste from the edit menu. Fill
in the Subject, this will be the header that everyone sees as they
scroll through the list of postings in a particular group, click the
post message button. You're done with your first one!
Congratulations!!! THAT'S IT! All you have to do is jump to different
newsgroups and post away, after you get the hang of it, it will take
about 30 seconds for each newsgroup!
**REMEMBER, THE MORE NEWSGROUPS YOU POST IN, THE MORE MONEY YOU WILL
MAKE! BUT YOU HAVE TO POST A MINIMUM OF 200**
That's it! You will begin receiving money from around the world within
days! You may eventually want to rent a P.O.Box due to the large
amount of mail you will receive. If you wish to stay anonymous, you
can invent a name to use, as long as the postman will deliver it.
**JUST MAKE SURE ALL THE ADDRESSES ARE CORRECT.** Now, each of the 5
persons who just sent me $1.00 make the MINIMUM 200 postings, each
with my name at #5 and only 5 persons respond to each of the original
5, that is another $25.00 for me, now those 25 each make 200 MINIMUM
posts with my name at #4 and only 5 replies each, I will bring in an
additional $125.00! Now, those 125 persons turn around and post the
MINIMUM 200 with my name at #3 and only receive 5 replies each, I will
make an additional $625.00! OK, now here is the fun part, each of
those 625 persons post a MINIMUM 200 letters with my name at #2 and
they each only receive 5 replies that just made me $3,125.00!!! Those
3,125 persons will all deliver this message to 200 newsgroups with my
name at #1 and if still 5 persons per 200 newsgroups react I will
receive $15,625.00! With an original investment of only $6.00!
AMAZING! When your name is no longer on the list, you just take the
latest posting in the newsgroups, and send out another $6.00 to names
on the list, putting your name at number 6 again. And start posting
again. The thing to remember is: do you realize that thousands of
people all over the world are joining the internet and reading these
articles everyday?, JUST LIKE YOU are now!! So, can you afford $6.00
and see if it really works?? I think so... People have said, "what if
the plan is played out and no one sends you the money? So what! What
are the chances of that happening when there are tons of new honest
users and new honest people who are joining the internet and
newsgroups everyday and are willing to give it a try? Estimates are at
20,000 to 50,000 new users, every day, with thousands of those joining
the actual internet. Remember, play FAIRLY and HONESTLY and this will
really work.
WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND!!! GOD BLESS!
Peter Farey
Peter Farey wrote:
>
> Thomas Larque wrote:
> >
> > Some other rather more important matters have arisen
> > (in real life), so this will be my last post to the
> > Newsgroup for a while.
>
> I'm sorry to hear that. For the sake of closure, however,
> I shall nevertheless still post my response to your
> 'assassination theory', as promised.
And here it is:
A very belated response to Thomas Larque's posting of 26
June on the "Jurors at Marlowe's inquest - members of the
royal household?" thread.
Thomas Larque wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > In particular I was wondering if you had read my reasons
> > for rejecting the 'assassination' option, which 'makes
> > more sense' to you. Unfortunately your response has
> > nothing to say about this.
>
> The main reason for this is that in reading your essay,
> I simply saw no "reasons for rejecting the 'assassination'
> option" listed. They are not a prominent part of your
> essay, and justifiably not, since you do not really have
> any sensible points to make about this at all.
The major objection to any 'assassination' version is
that there is not the slightest evidence of any of the
three 'assassins' having ever been involved in *any*
sort of physical violence whatsoever. Their metier was
deception, pulling the wool over people's eyes. We can't
just assume that all three would act so totally out of
character simply because it happens to fit some favourite
scenario. As Constance Kuriyama says (p.140): "Although
some will undoubtedly continue to resist the conclusion
most forcibly suggested by the available evidence, the
one person in the party at Deptford who was most likely
to attack another person physically was Christopher
Marlowe."
> You have said (in newsgroup postings) that evidence has
> been found against Nicholl's theory about Essex's
> involvement - and I would have to know more about such
> evidence and reread Nicholl to judge it -
My point is that the connection with Essex was certainly
a distant one - if indeed they had ever met at all - as
Paul E J Hammer showed in his article *A Reckoning
Reframed*. It is not even clear that he was still Essex's
'servant' (which may have been no more than serving as a
soldier on Essex's campaigns in Portugal and France) at
the time of the Deptford killing. He seems to have left
Essex's employment under some sort of cloud, which could
well have been occasioned by his appearing in April 1593
before the Star Chamber for extortion, and claiming
(possibly in Essex's presence) that Essex was his 'Lord
and Master'. On the other hand we know for sure that in
May 1593 Skeres was very closely involved with Ingram
Frizer, and therefore probably with Thomas Walsingham,
on a day-to-day basis, so his presence at Deptford is
far more likely to be connected with that relationship
than with some distant, and maybe even by then non-
existent, Essex connection.
Hammer also showed that there are good reasons for
thinking that Nicholl was almost certainly mixing up two
different Cholmeleys when he identified the atheist
agitator as Essex's servant.
> Let us take this a bit further. According to your essay,
> Ingram Frizer was a "servant" of Walsingham, and was
> involved in a dodgy con-trick with him. You give no
> reason for believing, however, that Frizer's loyalty to
> Walsingham was any more fixed and unalterable than
> Skeres' loyalty to Essex.
Frizer was working *with* Walsingham on a day-to-day
basis, a "financial adviser" at Walsingham's home at
Scadbury, according to Nicholl, and apparently involved
with him in some slightly shady financial dealings too.
He would also spend most of the rest of his life working
for him and his wife.
Skeres, on the other hand, seems to have simply served
as a low level soldier on a couple of Essex's campaigns,
and may never have even met him. He writes to Gelly
Meyrick asking for help with his suit to the Earl for
re-employment, and his letter indicates no sort of direct
acquaintance with his Lordship at all. To suggest that
these relationships are equivalent is ridiculous.
> Using your own tactic, therefore, we can say "Whatever
> his espoused loyalty to Walsingham, however, one would
> expect his true loyalty to be with the people he is
> dealing with day to day in some money-making racket".
But this appears to have *included* Walsingham!
> You have already declared supposition to be essential
> to our consideration of Marlowe's death, so we will add
> another bit of untrammelled speculation - of the kind
> that your essay depends entirely upon - and say that
> Frizer was paid an indecently *huge* amount of money to
> take part in the murder of Marlowe.
That he continued to work for Walsingham would appear to
lessen the likelihood of it having been *that* huge. And
that Skeres is found begging for a job some time later
could be further evidence against it. If I may also
anticipate your thoughts about Burghley being behind it,
he was well known as being a real skinflint when it came
to paying for services rendered, so an 'indecently huge
amount' is most unlikely. On the other hand Skeres would
certainly have known that his (ex?) 'lord and master'
Essex *would* pay huge sums for information like this, as
it could utterly destroy his rivals, the Cecils.
To involve him could therefore be suicidal.
> Being a villain and liar - as it has been fairly clearly
> established that Frizer was - the money unsurprisingly
> overrode his loyalty to his master of the time.
I see very little chance of even a 'huge' amount being
sufficiently motivating to do this. As Constance Kuriyama
says: "Frizer was a financial opportunist who knew how to
use the law to his own advantage; while he was not
particularly ethical, he was no hired killer. . ."
Marlowe was Walsingham's friend, and in the absence of
*any* evidence to the contrary we must assume Frizer's
loyalty to him. To let Frizer in on this, therefore,
would very probably let Walsingham in on it too.
> Therefore, by this assassination theory, Walsingham was
> not part of the plot, and the Farey excuse (see above)
> has already suggested to your satisfaction that Skeres
> was available to purchase, so there is no need for Essex.
As I said, the risk of his telling Essex (via Meyrick)
would have been just too great.
> For this theory - that I am just making up as an example -
> this leaves only one mastermind behind the plot.
> William Cecil, Lord Burghley.
We have Edward Blount's word for it (together with
Marlowe's residence at Scadbury) that Walsingham and
Marlowe were good friends. Frizer works closely with
Walsingham on a daily basis. Every man may have his price,
but for Burghley to blithely ignore the possibility of
Walsingham (apparently well-liked by the Queen) finding
out from Frizer just who was suggesting the murder of his
friend, and Essex finding out the same from Skeres, would
have been really idiotic.
> Of course we don't have any evidence for Burghley's reasons
> for wanting Marlowe dead, but then the Farey theory gives
> no evidence as to why he should risk everything to save
> Marlowe's life,
All the evidence points to Burghley having been exactly
the opposite of Whitgift in this regard. In any case,
most people do not need *reasons* to try and save the
life of someone they know, whereas to decide to murder
someone (whether they know them or not) requires a very
good reason indeed. This is also why I said that I
rejected Hoffman's suggestion about some passing drunk
having been murdered. To consider the two motivations to
be roughly equal is plainly wrong. I do not accept that
he would be 'risking everything' of course; in fact I
would assume the risk to be negligible.
> and conspiring to kill Marlowe is a whole lot safer than
> conspiring to fake his death.
Easier, perhaps; certainly not safer.
> So let us take over another part of the Farey plot and
> say that Marlowe has been involved, on Burghley's behalf,
> in some rather dodgy dealings that have something to do
> with King James of Scotland and the English succession -
> something that would certainly cause Burghley serious
> problems if it got to the ears of the Queen, which it
> might well do if Marlowe was tortured.
O.K.
> Perhaps Marlowe had some other of Burghley's dirty secrets
> in his head as well. Perhaps Burghley was protecting his
> own interests by saving people (Burghley's allies, or
> people who Burghley could subsequently blackmail with threats
> or bribe with memories of the help given) who Marlowe could
> have fingered for atheism. Such excuses for Burghley's
> involvement in killing Marlowe are exactly as vague as
> Farey's excuses for Burghley's involvement in saving
> Marlowe's life.
Again, you will forgive me if I suggest that, everything
else being equal, people are far more inclined to try
and save people they know than to have them murdered.
If, therefore, preventing him spilling the beans under
torture can be achieved either by saving him or by
killing him, the first option is the one more likely to
be preferred.
> So Burghley uses one of his own servants, Poley, and he
> buys the easy loyalty of Frizer and Skeres. Frizer's
> connection with Walsingham may have made him still more
> attractive as the murderer, since he was quite reasonably
> going to spend time with Marlowe - a friend of his master -
> and would draw off some of the suspicion that it was a
> premeditated act, since his master would have been against
> the action.
But why would Burghley have had enough confidence in him
to know that Walsingham would not find out and tell the
Queen? and would Frizer at the same time be quite willing
to risk Walsingham's anger that he had killed his close
friend? No way. Again, in the absence of any *evidence*
about their relationship to the contrary, we must assume
it more likely that Frizer would have wanted to help save
him rather than to murder him.
> So Burghley ensures that this is not just a meeting
> between three of his own hired men, but between three
> men with very different masters. He uses Eleanor
> Bull's house because it is a safe place to carry out
> such an action, and Bull can be relied upon.
>
> > Why all day? If all the three people present had to
> > do was kill him, why wait so long, every minute
> > increasing the chance of something going wrong?
>
> The answer to this seems fairly obvious. Because they
> wanted to claim that they had been good buddies and that
> the fight was entirely unprovoked and unexpected.
> "We was all having a drink, friendly like, and Marlowe
> just went wild".
Er, yes, but this doesn't answer the question, does it?
They could have said this just as easily at lunchtime.
> There is no reason why they should not have taken all day.
> Either Marlowe was spending time with them as supposed
> friends, and taking advantage of the food and alcohol, or
> he had been given some incentive to stay talking with
> them - possibly trying to find a way of saving his own life.
This is a good argument for Marlowe's agreeing to be
there (and the only acceptable one I can think of). Rob
Zigler suggested much the same with his version of the
'Murdered by Cecil' (in his case Sir Robert) scenario,
when we discussed it last year.
> If Marlowe ever decided to leave then all the three men
> had to do was grab him and kill him immediately.
Oh no, in this case the whole thing had to be arranged
precisely so that the self-defence claim would be
accepted. Such uncertainty would be far more risky in
this case than in any 'dagger in a back alley' suggestion.
> The Farey excuse for this delay, however, is much weaker.
> Why claim that Marlowe spent all day with these people,
> even walking in the garden visible from the street, if
> he wasn't there? "every minute increasing the chance
> of something going wrong".
I don't understand this. I think he probably was there,
but that it would not have been essential for him to be.
> Farey's only comment
> on this seems to be about Penry's rigor mortis.
This is true, but, as you know, I now think it could have
been arranged that nobody other than those involved saw
the body before the inquest, so this is no longer
important. What has replaced it on the critical path,
however, is the need to be sure that Danby had arrived in
Deptford before curtain up.
> > "Relating this to Penry's body, therefore, we can see
> > that if he was hanged at about six o'clock on the Tuesday
> > evening (although Brook says that it was at about five),
> > (64) full rigor mortis would be reached at about 6 a.m.
> > on Wednesday and the facial muscles would start to relax
> > at about noon. Half way to complete relaxation would be
> > around 6 p.m., so it should have been possible for them
> > to go into action within the following few hours. At just
> > about the time the killing was actually said to have taken
> > place, in fact".
>
> The implied suggestion, that Marlowe was killed at six
> o'clock because Penry's body was suitably (semi-)limp
> by that time, is the utmost nonsense.
For the record, they came in from the *garden* at six,
had supper together, and at some *unspecified* time after
that an argument took place resulting in the killing.
<snip>
> > Why so elaborate? A simple knifing in some back alley
> > would have been relatively easy for someone with
> > sufficient wealth to arrange.
>
> It might. It would also run the risk that somebody might
> just walk past at that very moment and start a hue and cry,
> or that Marlowe would have time to get out his sword and
> fight back, or that Marlowe was only slightly injured and
> survived. A murder safely indoors in a safehouse, with
> time to make sure that Marlowe was good and dead, was
> much easier to control, and much less likely to be botched.
But resulted in the Queen probably knowing that one of
Burghley's men had been involved in Marlowe's murder, and
the risk of her finding out (from either Walsingham or
Essex) that Burghley had organized it.
> Clearly Burghley would have had to be confident that the
> Inquest would go the way he wanted, but again we can just
> steal from the Farey theory and say that his good friend
> Danby (and possibly the Queen)
Er, the whole point of the thing was to *prevent* the
Queen finding out something, wasn't it?
> were going to be used to
> make sure that everything came out smelling of roses.
Oh yes. I can picture him now, telling Danby that there
was this place only just outside the Verge where he had
this sort of feeling that a death was going to take
place and that, if he just happened to be right, he
would really like Danby to cover it rather than the
County Coroner, and make sure the verdict was self-
defence. Oh, and better make sure that the County
Coroner didn't know anything about it, or he'd insist on
being there, as he was legally required to be. And if
Danby wanted to get the Queen's OK, that would be fine,
but just don't tell her who it came from, or she might
just wonder why.
> > Why the need for the whole paraphernalia of the
> > inquest, involving the Queen's own coroner and even
> > the Queen herself?
>
> Because Burghley - by this theory - was covering his back
> very carefully. He made sure that he and his agents were
> beyond any possible suspicion, and that his man had been
> declared innocent of murder by the highest authorities in
> the land.
Ingram Frizer wasn't one of his agents. But Poley was,
which would quite unnecessarily raise the suspicion of
Burghley's involvement if murder was suspected.
> > Why not simply let the law take its course? He was
> > almost certainly doomed anyway and, even if that went
> > wrong, a 'suicide' in prison had been arranged before,
> > and could quite easily have been arranged again.
>
> Because, if the law took its course, Marlowe would have
> been tortured by agents of the *PRIVY COUNCIL*. These
> were not exclusively Cecil's men, and they were not
> entirely in his control. They might have reported whatever
> Burghley wanted hidden to Archbishop Whitgift, to the
> Queen, or to anybody else you care to think about. By
> this assassination theory, Burghley could not afford to
> let Marlowe talk.
I'll accept that one. I think that - assuming they had
been unable to get hold of a copy of his atheistic
'book' - it was quite probable that he would have been
tortured, even though I don't think there was any
evidence of it happening to Barrow, Greenwood or Penry.
> As for the "suicide in prison", the same problem raises its
> ugly head. If the prison guards were not Burghley's men and
> *entirely* Burghley's men then a suicide could not possibly
> have been "arranged". Marlowe would have been one of the
> safest and well-guarded men in the country up to the point
> of his execution or release. The only safe way to kill him
> would be to do so before he was taken into custody, before
> he had the chance to talk, before he was in the hands of
> men who were not under Burghley's sole control.
We'll just have to differ on that one. What was that
about 'Divine Visitation'? It is interesting to note,
however, that in such cases there had to be an inquest,
and assuming - as was of course most probable - that it
was within the Verge, this would also have been Danby's
responsibility.
> Now the theory that I just put forward is not meant to
> be a serious suggestion of what happened. People have
> spent years writing books on this subject, and I can
> hardly produce an equally good claim in a few minutes
> at my keyboard,
So what do you think is the most likely story? As you
know, yet another such book is in the pipeline - by
David Riggs, English Professor at Stanford University -
this time claiming that it was the Queen wot dunnit.
> but what it does do is show that all of Farey's
> "questions" can be answered, very easily indeed,
No, sorry. One and a half of the four at most, and you
have to be able to answer all of them.
> and with less rampant speculation than Farey uses in
> his own explanation of events. I don't need to bring in
> dead bodies from outside. I don't need to involve
> Walsingham, both Cecils, Danby, the Queen, and Archbishop
> Whitgift (Danby and the Queen need not become an active
> part of a conspiracy by this theory, at most they just
> need to know that Burghley wants Frizer cleared as quickly
> as possible, perhaps just because Frizer is useful).
How could Burghley *tell* him this, without letting on
that he was behind it? Danby gets the call to go to
Deptford, and then what?
> I don't need to pretend that the killing took place
> outside the Verge and that Danby was exceeding his
> legal authority.
Who's pretending? It did, and he was, and your answer
has nothing to say about why.
<snip>
> > That's fine. But one may legitimately wonder, I think,
> > upon which evidence you claim that the 'assassination'
> > option makes more sense than mine?
>
> Well, I have just given answers to all of the problems
> that you saw in the "assassination" theories.
One and a half.
> So let's ask you a few questions about your own claims
> to show where some of the weaknesses - and they really
> are very impressive weaknesses - lie.
>
> 1) What evidence do you have that Burghley wanted to save
> Marlowe's life?
The evidence - both by precedent and personality - is
that he is far more *likely* to have wanted to save him
than have him killed.
> 2) Why do you think that Burghley could and did save
> Marlowe's life (risking his own), but - as you admit -
> failed to save the lives of men more important to him?
> [You mention this problem, but give no answer to it].
I don't think he was risking his own, and there is no
evidence that the hundreds of people he is said to have
helped *were* any more important to him than Marlowe.
> 3) Why do you think that Danby would corrupt his office,
> risk disgrace and/or death, and presumably go against
> the wishes of the Queen, for the sake of a not very
> important man?
I think that Danby must have been doing this at least
with the Queen's warrant and possibly even at her command.
> 4) Why do you think that the Conspirators would have
> staged the fake killing of Marlowe outside the Verge
> (as you believe) if Danby was an essential part of the
> plot?
Because they knew that his word would be accepted, and
it was the ideal location for many other reasons.
> 5) Why do you think Archbishop Whitgift wanted to save
> Marlowe, a dangerous atheist?
I don't. I have made it perfectly clear that I think he
wanted Marlowe dead, but that the faked death would have
been a compromise with Burghley, who wanted him saved.
> [You claim that Whitgift and two other Privy Council
> members arranged for Penry's death at the time required
> by the Marlowe fraud]
I claim that the Cecils, who were there when the warrant
was issued, could have had an influence upon what it said.
> 6) Why do you think Queen Elizabeth would have agreed to
> the freeing of a dangerous atheist and blasphemer, who
> would then be free to go out of her power and do whatever
> he felt like? [This is not an essential part of your plot,
> according to you: but there are serious problems - in
> Danby's motivation etc. - if Elizabeth was not in the
> loop].
I am more and more inclined to believe that her being 'in
the loop' was essential, and that Burghley had managed to
persuade her that Marlowe would keep whatever promises he
made as his side of the deal.
> 7) Why do you think that the body of a hanged man
> would be used to fill in for Marlowe, when hanging marks
> were obvious and well known to Elizabethans, and the
> coroner and jury normally examined bodies for strangulation
> marks?
We have covered this elsewhere.
> 8) Why do you think that the body used was that of John
> Penry, an extremely well known and well publicised criminal
> who might have been recognised,
The faces of famous people were far less familiar than
they are today from newspapers and television. And, as
Shakespeare put it, "Death's a great disguiser"
(especially with a deep stab wound to the eye). The
availability of Penry's body was predictable, his death
not down to them, and the disposal of his corpse would
have been within their control.
> or at least his body's disappearance noted? [Your sources
> give no indication that Penry simply disappeared, they
> only state that *we* do not know where he was buried *now*].
His wife and daughters had pestered the authorities,
without success, to be allowed to see him, and would
certainly have begged to know where he had been buried.
Had they been able to find this out, we would certainly
know today where it was. Penry was considered to be one
of the major martyrs of Congregationalism.
> 9) Why did the conspirators claim that Marlowe spent the
> whole day in the company of his killers? [You seem to think
> this is a problem for "assassination" theories, but don't
> seem to be able to answer it yourself]
There is no evidence that this question was ever asked at
the time, nor what the purpose of their get-together was.
I claim that there would have been no good reason for
them to wait so long if they intended to murder him, and
that the invitees make no sense at all for a social
gathering, given what we know about Marlowe's usual
company, and what each of these four people was involved
in at the time.
> 10) If so many influential people were conspiring to save
> Marlowe, including several members of the Privy Council,
> why didn't they just arrange for the Privy Council to
> declare his innocence?
Because neither Whitgift nor the Queen would have accepted
that. The world had to see that there was retribution:
if not administered by the law, then - even better - by
God.
> Those are just the first ten questions that come into my
> head. I am sure that I could come up with more, given
> a bit more time to think about things.
You did.
> I remain fairly certain within myself that your answers to
> these questions will be at best only as good as my answers
> to your questions, and quite probably far less believable
> - since your claims become increasingly outlandish as you
> go along.
They are outlandish only to those who have already made up
their mind (on the basis of no evidence) that the whole
idea is outlandish from the start. To someone who is
open-minded on the subject, this explanation of what might
have happened - even if possibly wrong - is no more
outlandish than any other.
> This being the case your claim to have shown that faked
> death was the only theory that answered all the questions
> raised by the case seems likely to be blatant arrogance
> rather than a strong academic case.
Here is a question raised by the case. We now know not
only that Deptford Strand was outside the Verge, but that
- even if it had been within it - the statutory require-
ment was for one of the County Coroners to be informed.
If he thought it was within the Verge, it was his duty
hold the inquest *with* the Coroner to the Queen's House-
hold. So which of the various scenarios is the only one
to explain how Danby came to be there, how he came to run
the inquest on his own, and how he apparently managed to
get away with doing so?