The theory that Christopher Marlowe should be seen as a spy as well as a poet gained considerable impetus in 2005 with Park Honan’s Christopher Marlowe, Poet and Spy (1). Honan’s book sought to establish Marlowe’s credentials in the world of espionage. To a considerable extent he succeeded as entries to the influential Oxford Dictionary of National Biography demonstrate. The entry on Marlowe himself, by Charles Nicholl, (2) – argues Marlowe “had been moving in Catholic circles as a spy or ‘intelligencer’…. typically (but not exclusively) under the aegis of Sir Francis Walsingham” – while the entry on Walsingham himself in the version supplied eighteen months later (3) commits to Marlowe working for the great spymaster. The three authors have no doubt that “Walsingham is now best remembered in the popular imagination for his role as spymaster, which continues to generate a certain notoriety. His casual and brief employment of Christopher Marlowe as an agent in 1587 still gives rise to implausible conspiracy theories”. Yet there is no consensus on whether Marlowe was an espionage operative, or that he ever met Francis Walsingham. The wider views that Marlowe was a protestant spy although attracted to the Catholic Religion remain controversial but attract considerable attention. Despite the work of historians over the best part of a century, since the groundbreaking publication of 1925, Marlowe scholars have not been able to make definitive judgements. Why is this?
In this paper dates are given in the old Julian Calendar – the year did not end till March 25. The year which began in January by the Gregorian New Style calendar, was 1592 but this was not in use in England which was 11 days behind the continent).
*The key points on Marlowe’s final known hours – see www.trevorfisherhistorian.com 1593 Marlowe’s disappearance.
** Sir Francis Walsingham, puritan Secretary of State in the 1580s, legendary spy catcher.
*** Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley from 1571, Lord Treasurer in the 1580s and Elizabeth 1’s key advisor since before she became Queen. His son Robert Cecil inherited the role.
**** Marlowe’s name is variously spelt. The Morley cited by the Privy Council at Cambridge is Marlowe as others with this name are not graduating that year.
Marlowe’s life was lived on the margins of late Elizabethan culture and even in the theatre left little hard evidence behind. Playwrights of this period rarely had a high profile, though Marlowe was unusually newsworthy. He generated rumours about heterodox views and activities, though until the second decade of the twentieth century there was no suggestion that he was involved in covert activities. That Marlowe might be a spy became an issue in 1925 when J Leslie Hotson published researches intending to account for Marlowe’s disappearance on May 30th 1593. (4). Hotson did not intend to suggest that the playwright had been involved in espionage. His headline discovery was an inquest report into a death in Deptford, on May 30th 1593, which Hotson showed was officially regarded as the lawful killing of the poet in an act of self defence. But Hotson also discovered a remarkable letter from the Privy Council to Cambridge University on Marlowe’s behalf which pointed to the student Marlowe being employed on government business. Hotson had no doubt this proved Marlowe had been a reliable espionage operative, and closed his monograph by commenting that leading politicians had “praised” him as a “faithful and effective secret agent” (5). This was not quite what the Privy Council letter did, but there was no question Marlowe was known to some of the most important politicians in government.
That Marlowe might be a spy became an issue in 1925 when J Leslie Hotson published researches intending to account for Marlowe’s disappearance on May 30th 1593. (4). Hotson did not intend to suggest that the playwright had been involved in espionage. His headline discovery was an inquest report into a death in Deptford, on May 30th 1593, which Hotson showed was officially regarded as the lawful killing of the poet in an act of self defence. But Hotson also discovered a remarkable letter from the Privy Council to Cambridge University on Marlowe’s behalf which pointed to the student Marlowe being employed on government business. Hotson had no doubt this proved Marlowe had been a reliable espionage operative, and closed his monograph by commenting that leading politicians had “praised” him as a “faithful and effective secret agent” (5). This was not quite what the Privy Council letter did, but there was no question Marlowe was known to some of the most important politicians in government.
Hotson put most of his effort into discussing the inquest report, but within weeks of Hotson publishing, a Cambridge student, Eugenie de Kalb published a highly critical discussion of Leslie Hotson’s interpretation of the events in Deptford*. Reviewing Hotson’s study of the official account of events for the Times Literary Supplement, De Kalb disagreed with Hotson’s acceptance of the official verdict of lawful killing, but more pertinently argued that the companions who met Marlowe in Mrs Bull’s room and garden on the day he disappeared were not part of his literary or Canterbury circles. She contended that “three of the four have been cogs…in the hidden political machinery of Elizabeth’s reign”. (6) This comment started a continuing attempt to find links between Marlowe and the secret operations of Elizabethan government. De Kalb noted that Hotson touched on the fact that Marlowe was summoned to appear before the Privy Council in 1593, the same body which had sent the letter to Cambridge in 1587, but her main argument was about the men at Deptford.