January 4, 2005

Ok. The Marlowe case is simple. But the amount of knowledge required to grasp it is vast. Marlovians suppose Marlowe did not die on 30 May 1593, as his inquest claims, but lived on, as the official dispatch delivered to the Queen on the 5th of June stipulates. One of the two documents has to be wrong. Might they both be? Marlovians say yes. They were both wrong. Marlowe didn’t die on or shortly after the 30th of May, but simply fabricated his death to avoid what Shakespeare will call, in the Sonnets, the "vulgar scandal stamped upon [his] brow."

. 112.

Your love and pity doth th' impression fill

Which vulgar scandal stamped upon my brow,

For what care I who calls me well or ill,

So you o'er-green my bad, my good allow?

You are my All the world, and I must strive

To know my shames and praises from your tongue;

None else to me, nor I to none alive,

That my steeled sense or changes right or wrong.

In so profound Abysm I throw all care

Of others' voices, that my Adder's sense

To critic and to flatterer stopped are.

Mark how with my neglect I do dispense:

You are so strongly in my purpose bred

That all the world besides methinks y'are dead.

(~ you thinks me’are dead~)

Marlovians know Marlowe was supposedly stabbed in his brow by a "wretch’s knife,"


But be contented when that fell arrest

Without all bail shall carry me away,

My life hath in this line some interest,

Which for memorial still with thee shall stay.

When thou reviewest this, thou dost review

The very part was consecrate to thee:

The earth can have but earth, which is his due,

My spirit is thine, the better part of me.

So then thou hast but lost the dregs of life,

The prey of worms, my body being dead,

The coward conquest of a wretch's knife,

Too base of thee to be remembered.

The worth of that is that which it contains,

And that is this, and this with thee remains.

Taken in tandem, these two sonnets alone prove Marlowe’s case. Of the two, only Marlowe had been the victim of a vulgar scandal stamped upon his brow by a coward’s knife and only Marlowe’s body had been dumped into a plague pit or "common grave,"

My name be buried where my body is,

And live no more to shame nor me nor you. (72)

Though I (once gone) to all the world must die;

The earth can yield me but a common grave,

When you entombed in men's eyes shall lie;


as "the prey of worms" just as only Marlowe’s name had received a "brand" and had his "nature subdued:"

Thence comes it that my name receives a brand,

And almost thence my nature is subdued

To what it works in, like the Dyer's hand. (111)


William Shakespeare never underwent this sort of public scandal. Was never thought stabbed or thought tossed in a common grave to arise from it to warn the world that he had "fled":


No Longer mourn for me when I am dead

Than you shall hear the surly sullen bell

Give warning to the world that I am fled

From this vile world with vildest worms to dwell;

Nay, if you read this line, remember not

The hand that writ it, for I love you so,

That I in your sweet thoughts would be forgot,

If thinking on me then should make you woe.

O, if (I say) you look upon this verse,

When I (perhaps) compounded am with clay,

Do not so much as my poor name rehearse,

But let your love even with my life decay;

Lest the wise world should look into your moan,

And mock you with me after I am gone.



Or I shall live your Epitaph to make,

Or you survive when I in earth am rotten;

From hence your memory death cannot take,

Although in me each part will be forgotten.

Your name from hence immortal life shall have,

Though I (once gone) to all the world must die;

The earth can yield me but a common grave,

When you entombed in men's eyes shall lie;

Your monument shall be my gentle verse,

Which eyes not yet created shall o'er-read.

And tongues to be your being shall rehearse,

When all the breathers of this world are dead;

You still shall live (such virtue hath my Pen)

Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths of men.

The only proposition that clarifies these conditions is that the Poet appeared to die, appeared to have been tossed into a common grave and left his name there so that it would "live no more to shame nor me nor you." The name left in that common grave is not named, but the new one, taken up by the poet, to be read by "eyes not yet created, " was "Will,"

for my name is Will.     (136)

This assumption is the only one that explains why this conclusion, i.e., "my name is Will," comes as a surprise to the reader. If the reader knew in advance the Poet’s name was "Will" or "William Shakespeare," there would be no surprise. The surprise arises only in the learning the poet’s name had changed to "Will." We are thus led to know the poet faked his death, after some disgrace, fled and changed his name to "Will."

So the case is simple and straight forward. Marlowe, having sustained his arrest appeared to die, the victim of a "wretch’s knife" via a blow to his "brow." His body was tossed into a "common grave" along with his name. He then became the writer "Will" or "William Shakespeare," who appears in these same sonnets to have been the de facto father of a young noble with the initials of "W. H.", to whom the Poet and his publisher, Thomas Thorpe, "wisheth..eternitie." The only peer with those initials at that moment (1595/6) was William Herbert, later the Third Earl of Pembroke, it being well known that Marlowe and Herbert’s mother knew one another and were in the same small community at the time of Herbert’s conception in 1579. Venus and Adonis, which recalls Herbert’s birth and the quakes of that year, "and like an earthquake shakes thee on my breast," entered history on Herbert’s 13th birthday in 1593, i.e., April 8/18th. The poem pledges his future patronage:

Venus salutes him with this fair good morrow:

"Oh thou clear god, and patron of all light,

From whom each lamp and shining star doth borrow

The beauteous influence that makes him bright,

There lives a son that sucked an earthly mother,

May lend thee light, as thou dost lend to other."

The pledge was fulfilled in 1623 when Herbert backed the publication of the First Folio, while excluding the autobiographic poems that connected him to the poet and implied him illegitimate. Both Sir E. K. Chambers and Frederic Boas came to the opinion that "W.H." was in fact William Herbert, Chambers caving in reluctantly after evidence of Herbert’s early marriage proposal surfaced. The poet comes as close to making this relationship clear as possible and even hints of some family blackmail if his demands are not met,



For if I should despair, I should grow mad,

And in my madness might speak ill of thee;

Now this ill-wresting world is grown so bad,

Mad slanderers by mad ears believed be.

That I may not be so, nor thou belied,

Bear thine eyes straight, though thy proud heart go wide.


Let me confess that we two must be twain,

Although our undivided loves are one:

So shall those blots that do with me remain,

Without thy help, by me be borne alone.

In our two loves there is but one respect,

Though in our lives a separable spite,

Which though it alter not love's sole effect,

Yet doth it steal sweet hours from love's delight.

I may not evermore acknowledge thee,

Lest my bewailed guilt should do thee shame,

Nor thou with public kindness honor me,

Unless thou take that honor from thy name.

But do not so, I love thee in such sort,

As thou being mine, mine is thy good report.


As a decrepit father takes delight

To see his active child do deeds of youth,

So I, made lame by Fortune's dearest spite,

Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth.

For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit,

Or any of these all, or all, or more,

Entitled in (thy) parts do crowned sit,

I make my love ingrafted to this store:

So then I am not lame, poor, nor despised,

Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give,

That I in thy abundance am sufficed,

And by a part of all thy glory live.

Look what is best, that best I wish in thee:

This wish I have, then ten times happy me!

No estranged father could put it any better. Such fathers are made "lame by Fortune’s dearest spite." They are cut off from their sons, not only by name, but by lineage as well. Thus they are truly lamed, for their name dies. And the "hidden shame" is all theirs. Stratfordians would rather Shakespeare to have been a homosexual pedophile, but the record is clear he wasn’t, as proven by the 26 sonnets to the so called "dark lady," who the boy shared affections with, as sons do, with their father’s former lovers. Lovers who become their sons’ mothers. What sort of homosexual would fondly recall the boy’s mother, let alone urge him to marry so he might have a lineage:



Thou art thy mother's glass, and she in thee

Calls back the lovely April of her prime,

So thou through windows of thine age shalt see,

Despite of wrinkles, this thy golden time.

But if thou live remembered not to be,

Die single, and thine Image dies with thee.


Full many a glorious morning have I seen

Flatter the mountain tops with sovereign eye,

Kissing with golden face the meadows green,

Gilding pale streams with heavenly alchemy;

Anon permit the basest clouds to ride

With ugly rack on his celestial face,

And from the forlorn world his visage hide,

Stealing unseen to west with this disgrace:

Even so my Sun one early morn did shine

With all-triumphant splendor on my brow,

But out, alack, he was but one hour mine,

The region cloud hath masked him from me now.

Yet him for this my love no whit disdaineth:

Suns of the world may stain, when heaven's sun staineth.


Of the two, only the Kentish Marlowe could have known William Herbert’s Kentish mother in the "lovely April of her prime." So the case is closed. Marlowe did it. If additional proof be needed consider just sonnet 76, which contains an acrostic to Marlowe’s teacher and friend Dr. Thomas Watson who saved Marlowe’s life in the now famous fray in Hogs Lane and slew William Bradley in the process:


Why is my verse so barren of new pride?

So far from variation or quick change?

Why with the time do I not glance aside

To new found methods and to compounds strange?

Why write I still all one, ever the same,

And keep invention in a noted weed,

That every word doth almost tell my name,

Showing their birth, and where they did proceed?

O, know, sweet love, I always write of you,

And you and love are still my argument;

So all my best is dressing old words new,

Spending again what is already spent:

For as the Sun is daily new and old,

So is my love still telling what is told.

Can the reader spot it? Stratfordians claim they can’t. Since acrostics and anagrams can and should be deciphered "forward and backwards," as Marlowe reminds us in Faustus, notice lines three and four can read "To W" or, read twice, as "To T W". Then come the six lines in a row that read, indisputably, "TWATSO". They are followed by a line that opens with "And" which has the sound value of "N" so the actual acrostic was devised to read TWATSON. Or T. Watson. The sonnet credits him as the Poet’s mentor and inspiration, a well established fact regarding Marlowe and an impossibility regarding the actor.

Hero and Leander had entered on the 28th of September 1593, or five years after Watson had saved Marlowe’s life on that day in 1589, i.e., 18/28 September. This date trail in the works, links both canons to events in Marlowe’s life or to events in the works. The Sonnets, for example, entered on the 20th  of May 1609 or 16 years after Marlowe’s unexpected release on the 20th May 1593. Two other works said Shakespeare’s entered on that same day in consecutive years, Anthony and Cleopatra and Pericles, an unlikely coincidence, particularly since different publishers and printers were involved. Edward II entered history on the day its historic events begin on, as does 1 Henry VI.   1 Henry VI entered history 201 years to the day from the date of its opening action, it being a well established fact the FF was delayed in print for a year, raising the possibility 1 Henry VI had been planned to enter on the 200th anniversary of its opening action, and suppressed for thirty years to do so. 

The last work said Shakespeare’s, Two Noble Kinsmen, entered in 1634 on the same day the first work said Shakespeare's (V&A) appeared on in 1593 (the 8/18 of April). Twenty years later Marlowe’s last known work, the lost Maiden’s Holiday, entered on that same day in 1654, a registration cycle that spans 60 years and memorializes William Herbert’s birthday. Marlowe, if he was still alive, would have celebrated his 90th birthday that year.  Two of his sisters made it nearly that long.

Midsummer Night’s Dream entered on the 8th of October 1600 or on the same day North claimed the Athenians celebrated the return of Theseus on and, thus, the birth of their Republic. It proves an imaginary date North made up and mentioned only once in his Life of Theseus, a translation of Pultarch's, relied upon by the author of MND. Hamlet, it’s oblique subject having been James VI, later James I, surfaced on the 26 of July in 1603, James having been crowned on the 25th of July in 1566 and on the 27th in 1604, on St James Day. Masters of ceremonies, like Shakespeare’s Sir Andrew Aguecheek, were paid to track these important dates and arrange events to memorialize them properly. Their real life analogs, Sir John Cheek and Sir Lewis Lewis Lewknor were well known Elizabethan and Jacobean figures, universally ignored by Stratfordians. Cheek was Lord Burghley’s brother-in-law and Lewknor claimed to have been Marlowe’s classmate at Cambridge and to have been given the same degrees, a fact not supported by the Cambridge records. As James’ mysterious master of ceremonies he would have frequently interacted with the players and writers. His appointment dates to the 21th of May 1603. 

Henry IV, the most personal of the histories and the one to signal Marlowe’s survival, entered on Marlowe’s birthday, the 26th of February (1598), a day of no importance to Henry. Henry V entered on the 4th in 1600, the first Monday. Henry’s death fell on the 3rd of August in 1422 or the first Monday of the month.  Two other plays by "Shakespeare" entered that same day, Much Ado and As You Like It.  It is the only time three of his plays surfaced at once.  As it turns out Henry VI created a three day festival in Canterbury to celebrate the memory of his father, Henry V.  They were and are the 4th, 5th and 6th of August.  Three plays for three days, with a bit of a private jest tossed in for good measure.

Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta entered on the same week day a year to the day from his arrest orders, i.e., the 17th of May 1594 and 18th of May 1593 prove the same weekdays. Othello entered on Southampton’s birthday, Marlowe and Southampton having overlapped at Cambridge. Richard II entered history on the 29 August, Richard having been defeated at Flint on the 19/29 August in 1399. The Rape of Lucrece appeared on 9 May 1594, or a year and one day from the date of the London pogrom that tortured Kyd and arrested Marlowe. The Privy Council’s orders, authorizing torture, were dated Friday 11 May 1593. The 9th of May 1594 proves a Thursday. Perhaps the office was closed on Friday? Henslowe notes in his Diary, on the 8th of May 1594, that he paid 15 pounds "to lay down for his share to the Queen’s players when the broke and went into the country."  The plague, scholars know, was ravishing London that week.  Someone tracked dates for the entry of these works over a period of 60 years.  If it wasn’t the author who was it? And why connect them to events in Marlowe’s life, if it wasn’t Marlowe? So Marlowe did it. And he had fun doing it, "these blenches gave my heart another youth." The plays, nearly all of which, except for the English histories, follow his adventures in the foreign diplomatic service of England:


Alas, 'tis true, I have gone here and there,

And made myself a motley to the view,

Gored mine own thoughts, sold cheap what is most dear,

Made old offenses of affections new;

Most true it is that I have looked on truth

Askance and strangely: but by all above,

These blenches gave my heart another youth,

And worse essays proved thee my best of love.

Now all is done, have what shall have no end,

Mine appetite I never more will grind

On newer proof, to try an older friend,

A God in love, to whom I am confined.

Then give me welcome, next my heaven the best,

Even to thy pure and most most loving breast.

He found favor with James VI, just as Kyd said he was planning to do, and he never looked back. The sonnet above, along with the "encryption" of his name in the King James Bible (Psalms 45 and 46) and his verse translation of it, disguised as the marvelously heretical, Slave Deus Rex Judaeorum, which he attributed to the notorious courtesan, Emilia Lanier and timed to appear along with the King James Bible in 1611, suggest he really was ordained and cloistered, at least once.  (Stratfordians like to print "God" in lower case, attempting to imply the author supposed himself a disciple of Pan, but the original is uppercase.) His cloister was, likely, at Valladolid, Spain where he surfaced under his own name on the 20/30 May 1599. He returned to London in 1604 and was pardoned under his own name that year in Canterbury by the new Archbishop, a mentor from his Cambridge days, Richard Bancroft. 

Once believed the Trinity Marlowe, that other Marlowe proves dead in 1596, leaving scholars with the choice of two dead Marlowes, only one of whom had been Kentish. With him at Valladolid was Cervantes, which explains the remarkable English version of Don Quixote published by Marlowe’s publisher, Edward Blount, and attributed to "Thomas Shelton," a nom de plume scholars have never deciphered, but which is comprised of the names of Marlowe’s patrons, Thomas Walsingham and his wife Audrey Shelton, to whom Hero and Leander was dedicated by Blount. Blount, we must remember, also furnished the world with the 20 manuscripts first published in the First Folio as the plays of William Shakespeare. 

Curiously Blount published several anonymous diplomatic translations during the period dedicating them to Southampton, Walsingham and Herbert, linking the four principals of the Shakespeare conspiracy to a high level translator who could not be named, but who Blount says was alive, well and "desirous" of doing them "good service."   Oddly Stratfordians, including the Editors of the prestigious Cambridge Bibliography of the English Language (CBEL) have erroneously attributed these translations to Blount, even though he clearly stipulates he wasn't  in his dedications to these men.  Shakespeare either uses these same translations, including Don Quixote, or the original materials in his works. 

Returning to those 20 manuscripts, which appeared out of the blue and immediately returned to it, they prove the only source of these priceless dramas, with the single exception of the remarkable manuscript of Henry IV, that surfaced in Pluckley, Kent, the small hamlet that was the home of Marlowe's major professor, Thomas Harris.  Denied by Stratfordians, it has been laboriously and repeatedly proven a unified pre-quarto version of the printed two part drama.  Stratfordians, namely the Folger Library and their spokespersons, have lied about this discovery and libeled Professor Hardin Craig who first proved the ms. independent of the printed text in the mid 1950s.   In the account records of Sir Edward Dering (1598 -1644), in whose library the manuscript was preserved, is an order for a presentation copy of Henry IV, likely the one proven used by the printers of the FF that same year, dated 26 February 1623, or twenty-five years to the day from the date of its initial registration in 1598.  Marlowe's birthday. That same Jacobean ledger contains the excited utterance or entry reading "two copies of I Shakesperes plays" recording the purchase of the First Folio late in 1623.  There is no cross over, blot or other indication that the "I" was a mistake.  Stratfordians suppose the writer wanted to write "Jonson's plays" and changed, without strikeover, when he noticed his mistake.  Dering's library contained the largest collection of playbooks ever cataloged from the period, over 250 volumes.  It was cataloged by "tutor" or "secretary" whose hand appears as the author's hand in the manuscript of Henry IV.   It appears as an Elizabethan hand which learned its letter in the 1570s.  Dering, born in 1598, perhaps in the Tower of London, wrote with a transitional hand.  Like young Marlowe, Sir Edward Dering attended the King's School and later Cambridge.  Curiously someone working for him, when he was only five, intercepted the Magna Carta, as it was in route, through Kent, to the coronation of James I, from Dover Castle, and placed Dering's family name into the text, in what became a obvious forgery as the centuries passed.  For the period, however, the forgery went unnoticed and through it Dering obtained a coveted Baronet status. I suspect the forgery was Marlowe's doing, who seems to have had a life long interest in and association with young Dering.  Dering then five, simply couldn't have managed it.  Funeral bronzes were changed as well.

What would appear to be this same hand turns up as the emendator to the unique copy of the Second Folio of 1634 called the "Perkins," now at the Huntington and once thought a Collier forgery.  The hand made over twenty thousand emendations, some of which have been proven authentic, when an original edition of Troilus and Cressida surfaced in the early 20th century.  In order to avoid facing the implications of Shakespeare alive and well c. 1635, the famous or infamous Sir Frederic Madden, then head of the British Library and Museum (c.1860) labeled Collier a forger.  The case against Madden has been proven by Professor Dewey Ganzel in his Oxford University Press biography, Fortune & Men's Eyes The Career of John Payne Collier. (1982) And by forensic analysis of the ink which proved it was period ink and not dies or paints mixed by Collier. Ganzel called the criminal conspiracy against Collier "the most successful...defamation...in literary history."   I'd say it was the second most successful...with the Shakespeare conspiracy taking top honors.  There can be no doubt we are reviewing the most puzzling series of literary events in our history---just as there is no doubt Marlowe's life lies woven into the fabric of the Sonnets and most of the plays.  Just as the author chortled, in Measure for Measure, "death's a great disguiser." 


Return to Baker's Dozens Home Page