Marlowe and Watson

Mark Eccles – Christopher Marlowe & Tom Watson – in Elizabethan London

dell writing matters june 2018 – marlowe -Eccles \CM & Marlowe 1934 web vers     13 09

Notes on –Chistopher Marlowe in London Harvard USA, 1934, Octagon  NY 1967- reprint
Featuring the document on the \Bradley or Hog Lane incident used by Peter Farl Baiey*

This document, in latin- there is currently no English translation –  is the jail delivery document for Thomas Watson published by Mark Eccles in the book dealing with Marlowe’s relation with Watson, discovered by  Eccles when he was undertaking research into Thomas Watson (pp8-9).

The text gives information on Marlowe and the document, which he claims to have discovered  in the Public Record Office He noticed the name Christopherus Morley and had the document photostated. The following commentary is based on reading Eccles book. A translation would be helpful as the commentary depends on this and other documents not always given by Eccles.

Preface

Eccles cites help from J Leslie Hotson, and Hotson sets the scene with a preface in which he asserts that  Eccles has added “a generous chapter to the poet’s life, which confirms our notion of the violence of his character”. (v) and also claims Eccles has discovered a new group of associates, led by  poet Thomas Watson. (vi). Eccles then suggests

“Marlowe’s life… has the fascination of the unknown. Such fragments of it as we do succeed in discovering only intensify the silence and blackness of the rest. Of the six years of his prime (ie 1587-1593, TF), nothing is known beyond a few casual allusions and the charges made at the time of his arrest and death. Between the Privy \Council’s letter on his behalf to the University of Cambridge in 1587 and the warrant which it issued in 1593 for his arrest, only one definite record of Marlowe has been found.  From this record we shall take our start”. (page 4)

The Bail Bond

What is this record? It  is clearly a bail bond –  the sureties being named as Richard Kitchen and Humphrey Rowland, but details of the offence appear missing. Eccles asks

“What breach of the law brought him in 1589 to Newgate? …The bond into which he entered on October 1st of that year …to appear at the next session of Newgate… a document so vague and all embracing provokes our curiosity” p4

This bond is however not reproduced by Eccles. He mentions that J H Ingram has discussed it in his book THE LIFE OF MARLOWE(P51) and discusses Hotston in an article in July 1926 commenting he cannot find anything about the recognizances. The anonymous sureties were however found by Hotson in other documents. Eccles comments that Hotson could not find why Marlowe was charged, asking  ‘he is indicted for felony, is committed to bail. What was his offense? Was he convicted? Nobody knows”. p5-6.

However later (p13) Eccles discusses the bail document and in a footnote points out that J H Ingram provides a facsimile on p149. This does not seem to be reproduced though he comments that it was missed by Jeafferson (cited in a footnote on page 13) along with the 1592 document on Marlowe and the constables, which is reproduced on page 105. This is muddle.

The Goal Delivery – Marlowe & Watson

Eccles indicates he was researching Marlowe’s life and notes that Kyd and Nashe are known to be friends of Marlowe, and thinks Thomas Watson could be a friend so he researches Thomas Watson- he had dedicated Meliboeus to Thomas Walsingham – p8 – and was likely to be in Marlowe’s circle as Walsingham was closely associated with Marlowe. Then Eccles  discovered Chancery Miscellanea, Bundle 68 file 12 No 362 a writ and return into Chancery of a Goal delivery at Newgate reciting the coroner’s request. Patent Rolls for 32 Eliz (part 4) contain also a pardon” (Eccles op cit pp8-9 given in latin pp25-26).

Eccles implies that the Goal Delivery document for which he gives the legal latin original encapsulates the other two, but why these other docs are not given is not clear from the book.  It is unfortunate that the bond which Marlowe gave – and which he presumably signed – is not given – particularly as this would give us a second signature for Marlowe if he did sign it. The lack of signatures for Marlowe has always been a challenge for scholars. The introduction ends, on page 9, with the comment “the story which these records have to tell follows”, and is given in three sections.

Section 1 tells of a street fight based on the coroner’s inquest into William Bradley, who had been fighting Marlowe with swords. Watson tried to defend Marlowe, Bradley fights him and is killed (pp9-11). Eccles then discusses the inquest jury  report (11- 13)  implying he has seen it. He then mentions the bond “for his appearance at the next Goal Delivery” and says the “brief and uncommunicative memorandum of this bond is the only document in the case which has been known up to this time”, and gives a reference for it. (p13- he states a facsimile is given in J H Ingram, Christopher Marlowe and his Associates, p149  – but gives no more information on this book).

Eccles says the recognizance bound Marlowe to appear at the next court sessions and this document was found among the court delivery rolls. He comments on the use or non use of the bond by historians (pp13-14) and asserts that it showed Marlowe was charged with a felony…but does not say  what crime he is charged with. But “the newly discovered documents (plural- referring to his own discoveries TF) give information on ‘what had happened to cause Marlowe’s arrest’ and details of the court case (‘what went on at the hearing of the case’). Since more than one document is mentioned, why only one document is cited is again curious.

Section 2: On the “Goal Delivery of Newgate at which Marlowe and Watson appeared”- the trial was held on Dec 3 in the 32nd year of Elizabeth (which began on November 17 1589)” p14.  Eccles describes the judges noting a connection with Marlowe – Manwood – Chief Baron of the Exchequer- his tomb d 14 12 92 – has an epitaph by CM – Hackington Canterbury. Potentially an important piece of evidence.

P22 THE GOAL DELIVERY (incorporates inquest ) Eccles also gives (p24-25) the pardon for  WATSON 5 months after entering Newgate; this is NOT the bond. It is the PARDON  and is only given in latin.

Section III

Eccles attempts a comparative analysis with other documents. 26-31. Mainly on legal procedure, what counts in getting a not guilty verdict.

CHAPTER 2 IN NEWGATE

Eccles seeks information on Marlowe’s time  in Newgate before getting pardoned. Notes different dates for entering the prison for register of prisoners and coroners inquest, but both dates are in September 1589, p35 raises issue of whether learned to coin in Newgate – the Baines note says he learned coining from Poole- who might be Poley??? – but was only in Newgate 3 days or 13 days, not really enough time to learn. (see 36) –  Discusses prison procedure, first cell Limbo p39-42.

CHAPTER 3; WILLIAM BRADLEY,

P43 – 58 LONG DISCUSSION OF WILLIAM BRADLEYS in the records

p59 The fight with Marlowe. Bradley to Watson – “Art thou now come?” indicates Watson was the real combatant. Eccles contends Bradley had sworn that WATSON not MARLOWE was seeking his bodily injury or death BEFORE A JUSTICE OF THE QUEEN’S BENCH SO MARLOWE WAS NOT THE INSTIGATOR. pp57-58 Eccles gives a discovery by Hotson who found a proceeding of the Queen’s Bench where William Bradley seeks to bind Hugonem Swyft, Johannem Allen and Thomamem Watson to keep the peace against him, the three to appear on November 25th 1589, by which time he was dead. p59. “the fray… was not a sudden or casual brawl in the streets” and  CM was not the cause.

Indications of how the fight started are not given in a confusing discussion of conflicts none of which involve Marlowe.ends p 68- the killing of Bradley was on 18 9 89 p69

CHAPTER IV MARLOWE’S SURETIES

Relates to the bond which has not appeared in this text. Marlowe’s sureties for his bail bond are Richard Kitchen – Humphrey Rowland. On Kitchen some data is available  relating to Marlowe but Eccles assumes ‘friend’ but has no evidence to prove this. 19th page on Richard Kitchen data states he knew host of Mermaid – concludes he knew Marlowe. There are 9 inconclusive pages on Humphrey Rowhlands “even conjecture is hard pressed to imagine how Marlowe is likely to have made his acquaintance”. p100. At the end of this chapter it is not established how the two men standing bail knew Marlowe.

CHAPTER V MARLOWE AND THE CONSTABLES.

Eccles returns to the issue of recognizances (Bail agreements) and states one Jeafferson MIDDLESEX COUNTY RECORDS wrote of the problems with recognizances, and gives what appears to be a recognizance for Marlowe for alleged assault on constables on May 9th 1592 GIVEN ON PAGE 105 DOES NOT APPEAR IN FAREY but what happened when he came to court is not explained.

ONE FROM 1589 IS MENTIONED P 104…. but no details. The 1592 case  seems to be ‘threats against the constables’  – Marlowe should have appeared before the middlesex justices at the Michaelmas Sessions of 1592… p 107

Eccles does not discuss the actual threats to the constables (Hollowell Street is named in the latin document) and discusses whether this is THE christopher marlowe pp108-113. Concludes it is. Eccles has Holywell Street. However spelling is less important than outcome, which is absent.

CHAPTER VI- NORTON FOLGATE

Eccles believes these two documents deal with “an unsuspected conflict with the law in 1592” and “the second definite record of Marlowe’s life as a playwright in London”. (p114) and also where he lived – in Norton Folgate. “The Newgate calendar of 1589 describes Marlowe as living in “the same precinct with Watson, ‘Norton Fowlgate'”- 10 pages on the area given.

p123 “Marlowe as the newly found records of the Middlesex Sessions now make it (sic) evident, inhabited the same theatrical quarter in 1589 living in the liberty of Norton Folgate, and in 1592 assaulting the constables of Holywell Street in Shoreditch”.

Then goes on to Greene, and his mistress, cites Harvey on his burial, Cutting Ball, Tarlton to Francis Walsingham on his son, p125 – godson of Sir Philip Sidney – Ends on Poley. An intriguing insight into the world around the ‘Roaring Boys’ of Elizabethan Theatre.

——————————————————————–

The coverage of Thomas Watson starts here p128

CHAPTER VII Douai 128-144

CHAPTER VIII THE WISE MAN OF ST HELENS 145 -161

exclusive material on Watson ends p161

——————————————————————–

Returns to Marlowe with chapter IX A DEDICATION BY MARLOWE

The dedication is to a poem by Watson AMINTAE GAUDIA 10 11 1592 entered at the stationers register, the dedication commends  the posthumous poem to Countess of Pembrokeshire-  Watson like so many  of the ROARING BOYS died young and was mourned by his friends. The initials at the end of the dedication are CM- this has been dismissed as referring to Marlowe by previous writers on Marlowe but Eccles is justified in thinking this perverse. However the dedication (in latin, translated) ends

“Shall I, whose slender wealth is but the seashore myrtle of Venus, and Daphne’s evergreen laurel, on the foremost page of every poem invoke the as Mistress of the Muses to my aid: to sum up all, thy virtue, which shall overcome virtue itself, shall likewise overcome even eternity

“Most desirous to do thee honour, CM”

This is not obviously Marlovian – I leave it to the experts to decide. Eccles is probably right that Marlowe could be the author asking for Lady Sidney’s patronage of the poem in fulsome language, but the initials CM are not definitively Marlowe.

The rest of the chapter sums up that Eccles has established the link between Marlowe and Watson, and argues the discoveries “at last clears the poet’s reputation from the shadow of supposed felony”. (p170) As he was pardoned, this is fair comment though making Hotson’s earlier comment on Marlowe’s violent character (v) insubstantial.

On page 171 Eccles concludes that Marlowe lived in Norton Folgate in 1589 and three years later attacked or threatened to attack the constables of Holywell Street.

The concluding comment (p171) that “Watson had family connections with two of Sir Francis Walsingham’s adroitest spies” does not make it likely that Marlowe made the acquaintance of Thomas Walsingham through Watson, though it is possible.

There is no bibliography and footnotes were given in the text.

Trevor FIsher                                                                                            13 09 18

*Peter Farey’s list of documents is found at www.rey.prestel.co.uk

Mark Eccles – Christopher Marlowe & Tom Watson – in Elizabethan London

dell writing matters june 2018 – marlowe -Eccles \CM & Marlowe 1934 web vers     13 09

Notes on –Chistopher Marlowe in London Harvard USA, 1934, Octagon  NY 1967- reprint
Featuring the document on the \Bradley or Hog Lane incident used by Peter Farl Baiey*

This document, in latin- there is currently no English translation –  is the jail delivery document for Thomas Watson published by Mark Eccles in the book dealing with Marlowe’s relation with Watson, discovered by  Eccles when he was undertaking research into Thomas Watson (pp8-9).

The text gives information on Marlowe and the document, which he claims to have discovered  in the Public Record Office He noticed the name Christopherus Morley and had the document photostated. The following commentary is based on reading Eccles book. A translation would be helpful as the commentary depends on this and other documents not always given by Eccles.

Preface

Eccles cites help from J Leslie Hotson, and Hotson sets the scene with a preface in which he asserts that  Eccles has added “a generous chapter to the poet’s life, which confirms our notion of the violence of his character”. (v) and also claims Eccles has discovered a new group of associates, led by  poet Thomas Watson. (vi). Eccles then suggests

“Marlowe’s life… has the fascination of the unknown. Such fragments of it as we do succeed in discovering only intensify the silence and blackness of the rest. Of the six years of his prime (ie 1587-1593, TF), nothing is known beyond a few casual allusions and the charges made at the time of his arrest and death. Between the Privy \Council’s letter on his behalf to the University of Cambridge in 1587 and the warrant which it issued in 1593 for his arrest, only one definite record of Marlowe has been found.  From this record we shall take our start”. (page 4)

The Bail Bond

What is this record? It  is clearly a bail bond –  the sureties being named as Richard Kitchen and Humphrey Rowland, but details of the offence appear missing. Eccles asks

“What breach of the law brought him in 1589 to Newgate? …The bond into which he entered on October 1st of that year …to appear at the next session of Newgate… a document so vague and all embracing provokes our curiosity” p4

This bond is however not reproduced by Eccles. He mentions that J H Ingram has discussed it in his book THE LIFE OF MARLOWE(P51) and discusses Hotston in an article in July 1926 commenting he cannot find anything about the recognizances. The anonymous sureties were however found by Hotson in other documents. Eccles comments that Hotson could not find why Marlowe was charged, asking  ‘he is indicted for felony, is committed to bail. What was his offense? Was he convicted? Nobody knows”. p5-6.

However later (p13) Eccles discusses the bail document and in a footnote points out that J H Ingram provides a facsimile on p149. This does not seem to be reproduced though he comments that it was missed by Jeafferson (cited in a footnote on page 13) along with the 1592 document on Marlowe and the constables, which is reproduced on page 105. This is muddle.

The Goal Delivery – Marlowe & Watson

Eccles indicates he was researching Marlowe’s life and notes that Kyd and Nashe are known to be friends of Marlowe, and thinks Thomas Watson could be a friend so he researches Thomas Watson- he had dedicated Meliboeus to Thomas Walsingham – p8 – and was likely to be in Marlowe’s circle as Walsingham was closely associated with Marlowe. Then Eccles  discovered Chancery Miscellanea, Bundle 68 file 12 No 362 a writ and return into Chancery of a Goal delivery at Newgate reciting the coroner’s request. Patent Rolls for 32 Eliz (part 4) contain also a pardon” (Eccles op cit pp8-9 given in latin pp25-26).

Eccles implies that the Goal Delivery document for which he gives the legal latin original encapsulates the other two, but why these other docs are not given is not clear from the book.  It is unfortunate that the bond which Marlowe gave – and which he presumably signed – is not given – particularly as this would give us a second signature for Marlowe if he did sign it. The lack of signatures for Marlowe has always been a challenge for scholars. The introduction ends, on page 9, with the comment “the story which these records have to tell follows”, and is given in three sections.

Section 1 tells of a street fight based on the coroner’s inquest into William Bradley, who had been fighting Marlowe with swords. Watson tried to defend Marlowe, Bradley fights him and is killed (pp9-11). Eccles then discusses the inquest jury  report (11- 13)  implying he has seen it. He then mentions the bond “for his appearance at the next Goal Delivery” and says the “brief and uncommunicative memorandum of this bond is the only document in the case which has been known up to this time”, and gives a reference for it. (p13- he states a facsimile is given in J H Ingram, Christopher Marlowe and his Associates, p149  – but gives no more information on this book).

Eccles says the recognizance bound Marlowe to appear at the next court sessions and this document was found among the court delivery rolls. He comments on the use or non use of the bond by historians (pp13-14) and asserts that it showed Marlowe was charged with a felony…but does not say  what crime he is charged with. But “the newly discovered documents (plural- referring to his own discoveries TF) give information on ‘what had happened to cause Marlowe’s arrest’ and details of the court case (‘what went on at the hearing of the case’). Since more than one document is mentioned, why only one document is cited is again curious.

Section 2: On the “Goal Delivery of Newgate at which Marlowe and Watson appeared”- the trial was held on Dec 3 in the 32nd year of Elizabeth (which began on November 17 1589)” p14.  Eccles describes the judges noting a connection with Marlowe – Manwood – Chief Baron of the Exchequer- his tomb d 14 12 92 – has an epitaph by CM – Hackington Canterbury. Potentially an important piece of evidence.

P22 THE GOAL DELIVERY (incorporates inquest ) Eccles also gives (p24-25) the pardon for  WATSON 5 months after entering Newgate; this is NOT the bond. It is the PARDON  and is only given in latin.

Section III

Eccles attempts a comparative analysis with other documents. 26-31. Mainly on legal procedure, what counts in getting a not guilty verdict.

CHAPTER 2 IN NEWGATE

Eccles seeks information on Marlowe’s time  in Newgate before getting pardoned. Notes different dates for entering the prison for register of prisoners and coroners inquest, but both dates are in September 1589, p35 raises issue of whether learned to coin in Newgate – the Baines note says he learned coining from Poole- who might be Poley??? – but was only in Newgate 3 days or 13 days, not really enough time to learn. (see 36) –  Discusses prison procedure, first cell Limbo p39-42.

CHAPTER 3; WILLIAM BRADLEY,

P43 – 58 LONG DISCUSSION OF WILLIAM BRADLEYS in the records

p59 The fight with Marlowe. Bradley to Watson – “Art thou now come?” indicates Watson was the real combatant. Eccles contends Bradley had sworn that WATSON not MARLOWE was seeking his bodily injury or death BEFORE A JUSTICE OF THE QUEEN’S BENCH SO MARLOWE WAS NOT THE INSTIGATOR. pp57-58 Eccles gives a discovery by Hotson who found a proceeding of the Queen’s Bench where William Bradley seeks to bind Hugonem Swyft, Johannem Allen and Thomamem Watson to keep the peace against him, the three to appear on November 25th 1589, by which time he was dead. p59. “the fray… was not a sudden or casual brawl in the streets” and  CM was not the cause.

Indications of how the fight started are not given in a confusing discussion of conflicts none of which involve Marlowe.ends p 68- the killing of Bradley was on 18 9 89 p69

CHAPTER IV MARLOWE’S SURETIES

Relates to the bond which has not appeared in this text. Marlowe’s sureties for his bail bond are Richard Kitchen – Humphrey Rowland. On Kitchen some data is available  relating to Marlowe but Eccles assumes ‘friend’ but has no evidence to prove this. 19th page on Richard Kitchen data states he knew host of Mermaid – concludes he knew Marlowe. There are 9 inconclusive pages on Humphrey Rowhlands “even conjecture is hard pressed to imagine how Marlowe is likely to have made his acquaintance”. p100. At the end of this chapter it is not established how the two men standing bail knew Marlowe.

CHAPTER V MARLOWE AND THE CONSTABLES.

Eccles returns to the issue of recognizances (Bail agreements) and states one Jeafferson MIDDLESEX COUNTY RECORDS wrote of the problems with recognizances, and gives what appears to be a recognizance for Marlowe for alleged assault on constables on May 9th 1592 GIVEN ON PAGE 105 DOES NOT APPEAR IN FAREY but what happened when he came to court is not explained.

ONE FROM 1589 IS MENTIONED P 104…. but no details. The 1592 case  seems to be ‘threats against the constables’  – Marlowe should have appeared before the middlesex justices at the Michaelmas Sessions of 1592… p 107

Eccles does not discuss the actual threats to the constables (Hollowell Street is named in the latin document) and discusses whether this is THE christopher marlowe pp108-113. Concludes it is. Eccles has Holywell Street. However spelling is less important than outcome, which is absent.

CHAPTER VI- NORTON FOLGATE

Eccles believes these two documents deal with “an unsuspected conflict with the law in 1592” and “the second definite record of Marlowe’s life as a playwright in London”. (p114) and also where he lived – in Norton Folgate. “The Newgate calendar of 1589 describes Marlowe as living in “the same precinct with Watson, ‘Norton Fowlgate'”- 10 pages on the area given.

p123 “Marlowe as the newly found records of the Middlesex Sessions now make it (sic) evident, inhabited the same theatrical quarter in 1589 living in the liberty of Norton Folgate, and in 1592 assaulting the constables of Holywell Street in Shoreditch”.

Then goes on to Greene, and his mistress, cites Harvey on his burial, Cutting Ball, Tarlton to Francis Walsingham on his son, p125 – godson of Sir Philip Sidney – Ends on Poley. An intriguing insight into the world around the ‘Roaring Boys’ of Elizabethan Theatre.

——————————————————————–

The coverage of Thomas Watson starts here p128

CHAPTER VII Douai 128-144

CHAPTER VIII THE WISE MAN OF ST HELENS 145 -161

exclusive material on Watson ends p161

——————————————————————–

Returns to Marlowe with chapter IX A DEDICATION BY MARLOWE

The dedication is to a poem by Watson AMINTAE GAUDIA 10 11 1592 entered at the stationers register, the dedication commends  the posthumous poem to Countess of Pembrokeshire-  Watson like so many  of the ROARING BOYS died young and was mourned by his friends. The initials at the end of the dedication are CM- this has been dismissed as referring to Marlowe by previous writers on Marlowe but Eccles is justified in thinking this perverse. However the dedication (in latin, translated) ends

“Shall I, whose slender wealth is but the seashore myrtle of Venus, and Daphne’s evergreen laurel, on the foremost page of every poem invoke the as Mistress of the Muses to my aid: to sum up all, thy virtue, which shall overcome virtue itself, shall likewise overcome even eternity

“Most desirous to do thee honour, CM”

This is not obviously Marlovian – I leave it to the experts to decide. Eccles is probably right that Marlowe could be the author asking for Lady Sidney’s patronage of the poem in fulsome language, but the initials CM are not definitively Marlowe.

The rest of the chapter sums up that Eccles has established the link between Marlowe and Watson, and argues the discoveries “at last clears the poet’s reputation from the shadow of supposed felony”. (p170) As he was pardoned, this is fair comment though making Hotson’s earlier comment on Marlowe’s violent character (v) insubstantial.

On page 171 Eccles concludes that Marlowe lived in Norton Folgate in 1589 and three years later attacked or threatened to attack the constables of Holywell Street.

The concluding comment (p171) that “Watson had family connections with two of Sir Francis Walsingham’s adroitest spies” does not make it likely that Marlowe made the acquaintance of Thomas Walsingham through Watson, though it is possible.

There is no bibliography and footnotes were given in the text.

Trevor FIsher                                                                                            13 09 18

*Peter Farey’s list of documents is found at www.rey.prestel.co.uk

Comments are closed.