FOOTNOTES:[34]That such dastardly plotting was not beyond an Elizabethan nobleman is clearly shown by the statement in theDictionary of National Biographythat the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, "was said to have deliberately planned the murder of an antagonist, and he very reluctantly abandoned what he affected to regard as a safe scheme of assassination."[35]In the spy's affidavit Cholmeley is reported as saying that Marlowe had told him that "he hath read the Atheist lecture to Sr Walter Raleigh & others." For Marlowe's relations with his contemporaries the reader should consult Professor Tucker Brooke's essay, "Marlowe's Reputation," inTrans. of the Conn. Acad. of Arts & Sciences, 1922, vol. 25, pp. 347-408.[36]J. Buchan,Sir Walter Raleigh, pp. 41, 45.[37]Cf. A Compleat Journal of the Notes, Speeches and Debates, both of the House of Lords and House of Commons throughout the whole Reign of Queen Elizabeth.Collected by ... Sir Simonds D'Ewes, London, 1693, pp. 504-9.[38]When the Queen released Ralegh from the Tower to go to Dartmouth to settle the disputes about the distribution of the spoils taken on the "Madre de Dios," Robert Cecil wrote home: "I assure you, Sir, his poor servants to the number of one hundred and forty goodly men, and all the mariners, came to him with such shouts and joy, as I never saw a man more troubled to quell in my life; for he is very extreme pensive longer than he is busied, in which he can toil terribly."[39]The Life of Sir Walter Raleigh, 1868, vol. 2, pp. 164-9.[40]Cf.S. Lee,A Life of William Shakespeare, 1916, pp. 129, 254-5.[41]That he had friends in the Privy Council seems to be indicated by the following interesting circumstance: in the official replica (Harl. MS. 6853, fo. 320), laid before Queen Elizabeth, of Richard Baines' note accusing Marlowe of blasphemy, the designation of Harriott as "Sir W. Raleighs man" was omitted—surely not for the purpose of sparing the Queen's feelings. And nine months later the Commission, which had been appointed to examine him at Cerne, apparently squashed the matter after it had heard all the witnesses and obtained sufficient evidence to convict him, his brother and Harriott, had it wished to do so.[42]Harriott, and therefore Ralegh, was mentioned not only in every one of the documents we have referred to in connection with the charges of heresy and blasphemy but also in connection with plots against the Government.[43]ThatSir Thomas Moorewas written for a political purpose was dearly felt by Professor Ashley H. Thorndike; in 1916 (Shakespeare's Theater, p. 213), when we knew a great deal less about this play than we now know, he expressed surprise that Tyllney "should have permitted in any form a play intended to excite feeling against the foreigners dwelling in London." That the drama was 'universally used for political purposes' in Shakspere's time is convincingly shown in Richard Simpson's paper, "The Political Use of the Stage in Shakspere's Time," inThe Transactions of the New Shakspere Society, 1874, part II, pp. 371-95.[44]That Sir Walter, like some of his intimate associates,e.g., Edward de Vere, had intimate contacts with theatrical companies, is fairly certain. On January 30, 1597, Rowland Whyte wrote to Sir Robert Sydney as follows: "My Lord Compton, Sir Walter Rawley, my Lord Southampton doe severally feast Mr. Secretary before he depart, and have Plaies and Banquets." (Letters and Memorials of State, ed. class="center"by Arthur Collins, 1746, vol. 2, p. 86.)
FOOTNOTES:
[34]That such dastardly plotting was not beyond an Elizabethan nobleman is clearly shown by the statement in theDictionary of National Biographythat the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, "was said to have deliberately planned the murder of an antagonist, and he very reluctantly abandoned what he affected to regard as a safe scheme of assassination."
[34]That such dastardly plotting was not beyond an Elizabethan nobleman is clearly shown by the statement in theDictionary of National Biographythat the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, "was said to have deliberately planned the murder of an antagonist, and he very reluctantly abandoned what he affected to regard as a safe scheme of assassination."
[35]In the spy's affidavit Cholmeley is reported as saying that Marlowe had told him that "he hath read the Atheist lecture to Sr Walter Raleigh & others." For Marlowe's relations with his contemporaries the reader should consult Professor Tucker Brooke's essay, "Marlowe's Reputation," inTrans. of the Conn. Acad. of Arts & Sciences, 1922, vol. 25, pp. 347-408.
[35]In the spy's affidavit Cholmeley is reported as saying that Marlowe had told him that "he hath read the Atheist lecture to Sr Walter Raleigh & others." For Marlowe's relations with his contemporaries the reader should consult Professor Tucker Brooke's essay, "Marlowe's Reputation," inTrans. of the Conn. Acad. of Arts & Sciences, 1922, vol. 25, pp. 347-408.
[36]J. Buchan,Sir Walter Raleigh, pp. 41, 45.
[36]J. Buchan,Sir Walter Raleigh, pp. 41, 45.
[37]Cf. A Compleat Journal of the Notes, Speeches and Debates, both of the House of Lords and House of Commons throughout the whole Reign of Queen Elizabeth.Collected by ... Sir Simonds D'Ewes, London, 1693, pp. 504-9.
[37]Cf. A Compleat Journal of the Notes, Speeches and Debates, both of the House of Lords and House of Commons throughout the whole Reign of Queen Elizabeth.Collected by ... Sir Simonds D'Ewes, London, 1693, pp. 504-9.
[38]When the Queen released Ralegh from the Tower to go to Dartmouth to settle the disputes about the distribution of the spoils taken on the "Madre de Dios," Robert Cecil wrote home: "I assure you, Sir, his poor servants to the number of one hundred and forty goodly men, and all the mariners, came to him with such shouts and joy, as I never saw a man more troubled to quell in my life; for he is very extreme pensive longer than he is busied, in which he can toil terribly."
[38]When the Queen released Ralegh from the Tower to go to Dartmouth to settle the disputes about the distribution of the spoils taken on the "Madre de Dios," Robert Cecil wrote home: "I assure you, Sir, his poor servants to the number of one hundred and forty goodly men, and all the mariners, came to him with such shouts and joy, as I never saw a man more troubled to quell in my life; for he is very extreme pensive longer than he is busied, in which he can toil terribly."
[39]The Life of Sir Walter Raleigh, 1868, vol. 2, pp. 164-9.
[39]The Life of Sir Walter Raleigh, 1868, vol. 2, pp. 164-9.
[40]Cf.S. Lee,A Life of William Shakespeare, 1916, pp. 129, 254-5.
[40]Cf.S. Lee,A Life of William Shakespeare, 1916, pp. 129, 254-5.
[41]That he had friends in the Privy Council seems to be indicated by the following interesting circumstance: in the official replica (Harl. MS. 6853, fo. 320), laid before Queen Elizabeth, of Richard Baines' note accusing Marlowe of blasphemy, the designation of Harriott as "Sir W. Raleighs man" was omitted—surely not for the purpose of sparing the Queen's feelings. And nine months later the Commission, which had been appointed to examine him at Cerne, apparently squashed the matter after it had heard all the witnesses and obtained sufficient evidence to convict him, his brother and Harriott, had it wished to do so.
[41]That he had friends in the Privy Council seems to be indicated by the following interesting circumstance: in the official replica (Harl. MS. 6853, fo. 320), laid before Queen Elizabeth, of Richard Baines' note accusing Marlowe of blasphemy, the designation of Harriott as "Sir W. Raleighs man" was omitted—surely not for the purpose of sparing the Queen's feelings. And nine months later the Commission, which had been appointed to examine him at Cerne, apparently squashed the matter after it had heard all the witnesses and obtained sufficient evidence to convict him, his brother and Harriott, had it wished to do so.
[42]Harriott, and therefore Ralegh, was mentioned not only in every one of the documents we have referred to in connection with the charges of heresy and blasphemy but also in connection with plots against the Government.
[42]Harriott, and therefore Ralegh, was mentioned not only in every one of the documents we have referred to in connection with the charges of heresy and blasphemy but also in connection with plots against the Government.
[43]ThatSir Thomas Moorewas written for a political purpose was dearly felt by Professor Ashley H. Thorndike; in 1916 (Shakespeare's Theater, p. 213), when we knew a great deal less about this play than we now know, he expressed surprise that Tyllney "should have permitted in any form a play intended to excite feeling against the foreigners dwelling in London." That the drama was 'universally used for political purposes' in Shakspere's time is convincingly shown in Richard Simpson's paper, "The Political Use of the Stage in Shakspere's Time," inThe Transactions of the New Shakspere Society, 1874, part II, pp. 371-95.
[43]ThatSir Thomas Moorewas written for a political purpose was dearly felt by Professor Ashley H. Thorndike; in 1916 (Shakespeare's Theater, p. 213), when we knew a great deal less about this play than we now know, he expressed surprise that Tyllney "should have permitted in any form a play intended to excite feeling against the foreigners dwelling in London." That the drama was 'universally used for political purposes' in Shakspere's time is convincingly shown in Richard Simpson's paper, "The Political Use of the Stage in Shakspere's Time," inThe Transactions of the New Shakspere Society, 1874, part II, pp. 371-95.
[44]That Sir Walter, like some of his intimate associates,e.g., Edward de Vere, had intimate contacts with theatrical companies, is fairly certain. On January 30, 1597, Rowland Whyte wrote to Sir Robert Sydney as follows: "My Lord Compton, Sir Walter Rawley, my Lord Southampton doe severally feast Mr. Secretary before he depart, and have Plaies and Banquets." (Letters and Memorials of State, ed. class="center"by Arthur Collins, 1746, vol. 2, p. 86.)
[44]That Sir Walter, like some of his intimate associates,e.g., Edward de Vere, had intimate contacts with theatrical companies, is fairly certain. On January 30, 1597, Rowland Whyte wrote to Sir Robert Sydney as follows: "My Lord Compton, Sir Walter Rawley, my Lord Southampton doe severally feast Mr. Secretary before he depart, and have Plaies and Banquets." (Letters and Memorials of State, ed. class="center"by Arthur Collins, 1746, vol. 2, p. 86.)
III
Appendix A
OPINIONS OF MEDICAL EXPERTS
III
Dr. Charles A. Elsberg, of New York City, distinguished consulting neurological surgeon, wrote me on March 19, 1928, as follows:
You are quite right in the assumption that it would be very unusual for a "dagger wound just above the right eye, two inches deep and one inch wide," to have caused instant death, altho it is possible that if Marlowe had a very thin skull and short frontal region that the dagger might have penetrated the cavernous sinus. This seems to me, however, very improbable. On the other hand, if Marlowe was suffering from a cardiac disease, a sudden shock might have caused instant death, altho it was not the actual trauma.
You are quite right in the assumption that it would be very unusual for a "dagger wound just above the right eye, two inches deep and one inch wide," to have caused instant death, altho it is possible that if Marlowe had a very thin skull and short frontal region that the dagger might have penetrated the cavernous sinus. This seems to me, however, very improbable. On the other hand, if Marlowe was suffering from a cardiac disease, a sudden shock might have caused instant death, altho it was not the actual trauma.
Dr. James Ewing, professor of pathology at Cornell University Medical College (New York City), sent me the following reply to my letter to him regarding Marlowe's death:
I do not see how the wound that you describe by a dagger entering the orbit above the right eye could cause instant death. Yet it seems possible that if the dagger went deeply into the brain, it might sever blood vessels and cause hemorrhage which would lead to almost immediate unconsciousness and death in a short time, without recovering consciousness.
I do not see how the wound that you describe by a dagger entering the orbit above the right eye could cause instant death. Yet it seems possible that if the dagger went deeply into the brain, it might sever blood vessels and cause hemorrhage which would lead to almost immediate unconsciousness and death in a short time, without recovering consciousness.
Professor W.G. MacCallum, head of the department of pathology at Johns Hopkins University, wrote me as follows:
I should think that a wound such as you described ... would hardly have gone further than through the frontal sinus and into the frontal lobe of the cerebrum and I don't see either how it caused instant death.Of course, one might imagine that the force of the blow was such as to stun him and allow time for fatal haemorrhage in that position. The only other thing one could think of would be perhaps that with extreme violence some further injury might have been produced in a more vital part of the brain, but on the whole it seems to me questionable that instant death would follow such a blow.
I should think that a wound such as you described ... would hardly have gone further than through the frontal sinus and into the frontal lobe of the cerebrum and I don't see either how it caused instant death.
Of course, one might imagine that the force of the blow was such as to stun him and allow time for fatal haemorrhage in that position. The only other thing one could think of would be perhaps that with extreme violence some further injury might have been produced in a more vital part of the brain, but on the whole it seems to me questionable that instant death would follow such a blow.
Dr. Otto H. Schultze, professor of pathology and medical jurisprudence, Coroner's physician in New York from 1896 to 1914, medical assistant District Attorney of New York County from 1914 to date, and the author of several works on the medico-legal aspects of homicide, wrote as follows in reply to my inquiry:
A stab wound of the skin or even puncturing the orbit could not cause instant death, nor would be likely to cause a fatal hemorrhage. A stab wound above the eye, penetrating the orbital plate and frontal lobe of brain, may cause death, but hardly would account for "instant" death.
A stab wound of the skin or even puncturing the orbit could not cause instant death, nor would be likely to cause a fatal hemorrhage. A stab wound above the eye, penetrating the orbital plate and frontal lobe of brain, may cause death, but hardly would account for "instant" death.
IV
Appendix B
THE CORONER'S REPORT
IV
Kent./ Inquisition indented taken at Detford Strand in the aforesaid County of Kent within the verge on the first day of June in the year of the reign of Elizabeth by the grace of God of England France & Ireland Queen defender of the faith &c. thirty-fifth, in the presence of William Danby, Gentleman, Coroner of the household of our said lady the Queen, upon view of the body of Christopher Morley, there lying dead & slain, upon oath of Nicholas Draper, Gentleman, Wolstan Randall, gentleman, William Curry, Adrian Walker, John Barber, Robert Baldwyn, Giles ffeld, George Halfepenny, Henry Awger, James Batt, Henry Bendyn, Thomas Batt senior, John Baldwyn, Alexander Burrage, Edmund Goodcheepe, & Henry Dabyns, Who say [upon] their oath that when a certain Ingram ffrysar, late of London, Gentleman, and the aforesaid Christopher Morley and one Nicholas Skeres, late of London, Gentleman, and Robert Poley ofLondon aforesaid, Gentleman, on the thirtieth day of May in the thirty-fifth year above named, at Detford Strand aforesaid in the said County of Kent within the verge, about the tenth hour before noon of the same day, met together in a room in the house of a certain Eleanor Bull, widow; & there passed the time together & dined & after dinner were in quiet sort together there & walked in the garden belonging to the said house until the sixth hour after noon of the same day & then returned from the said garden to the room aforesaid & there together and in company supped; & after supper the said Ingram & Christopher Morley were in speech & uttered one to the other divers malicious words for the reason that they could not be at one nor agree about the payment of the sum of pence, that is,le recknynge, there; & the said Christopher Morley then lying upon a bed in the room where they supped, & moved with anger against the said Ingram ffrysar upon the words as aforesaid spoken between them, And the said Ingram then & there sitting in the room aforesaid with his back towards the bed where the said Christopher Morley wasthen lying, sitting near the bed, that is,nere the bed, & with the front part of his body towards the table & the aforesaid Nicholas Skeres & Robert Poley sitting on either side of the said Ingram in such a manner that the same Ingram ffrysar in no wise could take flight: it so befell that the said Christopher Morley on a sudden & of his malice towards the said Ingram aforethought, then & there maliciously drew the dagger of the said Ingram which was at his back, and with the same dagger the said Christopher Morley then & there maliciously gave the aforesaid Ingram two wounds on his head of the length of two inches & of the depth of a quarter of an inch; whereupon the said Ingram, in fear of being slain, & sitting in the manner aforesaid between the said Nicholas Skeres & Robert Poley so that he could not in any wise get away, in his own defence & for the saving of his life, then & there struggled with the said Christopher Morley to get back from him his dagger aforesaid; in which affray the same Ingram could not get away from the said Christopher Morley; and so it befell in that affray that the said Ingram, in defence of his life, with the dagger aforesaid of the value of 12d. gave the said Christopher then & there a mortal wound over his right eye of the depth of two inches & of the width of one inch; of which mortal wound the aforesaid Christopher Morley then & there instantly died; And so the Jurors aforesaid say upon their oath that the said Ingram killed & slew Christopher Morley aforesaid on the thirtieth day of May in the thirty-fifth year named above at Detford Strand aforesaid within the verge in the room aforesaid within the verge in the manner and form aforesaid in the defence and saving of his own life, against the peace of our said lady the Queen, her now crown & dignity; And further the said Jurors say upon their oath that the said Ingram after the slaying aforesaid perpetrated & done by him in the manner & form aforesaid neither fled nor withdrew himself; But what goods or chattels, lands or tenements the said Ingram had at the time of the slaying aforesaid, done & perpetrated by him in the manner and form aforesaid, the said Jurors are totally ignorant. In witness of which thing the said Coroner as well as the Jurors aforesaid to this Inquisition haveinterchangeably set their seals.
Given the day & year above named etc.
by William DanbyCoroner.[45]
FOOTNOTES:[45]For permission to reprint this English version of the Coroner's report I am indebted to Professor Hotson.
FOOTNOTES:
[45]For permission to reprint this English version of the Coroner's report I am indebted to Professor Hotson.
[45]For permission to reprint this English version of the Coroner's report I am indebted to Professor Hotson.