Biography

Introduction

Christopher Marlowe’s life is largely a negation of everything we think we know about him. Yet a lot of documents exist that shed light on Marlowe’s life. The difficulty, then, is not the lack of materials, but the nature of the information they contain and how it has been dealt with since their discovery. If a biography of Christopher Marlowe wants to list more than just facts and figures, it sometimes has to come up with its own hypotheses, because some sources offer more questions than answers and, especially in the interesting aspects, some documents no longer exist.

But no matter how plausible and realistic one’s assumptions seem, they remain theories. Marlowe’s atheism, homosexuality or secret service activity are just a few of these theories that – because they were propagated loudly enough – eventually achieved the undeserved status of fact. There is something mysterious about Marlowe’s life that, after so many years, probably no longer has a solution. Getting involved with Marlowe means being able to deal with the fact that there are no answers to a lot of questions.

Family

Even in Marlowe’s lifetime, there were several ways of spelling his surname. Marlowe’s father used "Marley" or "Marle". In Cambridge it was "Marlin". To his contemporaries, it was mostly "Marley". (This is also the only existing signature in his hand.) To make matters worse, the name was common in the county of Kent in all its variations. This has always led to some confusion. The tanner Christopher Marley, who died in Canterbury in 1540, was repeatedly referred to as Marlowe’s grandfather. In fact, no connection could ever be proven between these Marleys and Marlowe’s family. Christopher Marlowe’s roots probably lie in Ospringe and Dover. In 1543, a George Marley from the village of Ospringe near Faversham was charged with libel – probably Marlowe’s grandfather. In any case, his father John named Ospringe as his birthplace. The year of birth is assumed to be 1536. In 1559, the shoemaker Gerard Richardson registered John Marlowe as an apprentice with the Canterbury City Council. In the early 1960s Marlowe became a member of the congregation of St George. The apprenticeship period may have been only two years, suggesting that it may have been merely a pretext for him to officially practise a craft he had already learned before coming to Canterbury. He had already married in May 1561. Katherine Arthur came from Dover. Her family seemed to have lived in the St James district.1 In 1558, a William Arthur from Dover who was in debt to some residents of Canterbury, including Thomas Applegate, died. His son Laurence was a friend of John Marlowe. This William Arthur could have been Katherine’s grandfather. In any case, her brother Thomas also moved to Canterbury later. 2
John Marlowe was already a freeman in 1564, but he never became rich. He was always in debt, did not pay his bills and did not fulfil his business obligations. He also liked to argue with his neighbours and landlords, as he was reluctant to pay rent. Probably one reason why the Marlowes moved house more often. But he was also a sociable, helpful and not unpopular citizen who knew his trade. He often witnessed documents with his signature, was a leather inspector and took on some minor tasks in the community. When he died in 1605, he left everything to his wife. Katherine had certainly not had an easy life with her husband, but in her will she stipulated that she should be buried in St George’s churchyard near John Marlowe.3 John and Katherine’s marriage produced nine children, of whom Christopher was the second. The baptismal register of St George records his baptism for 26 February 1564.

Marlowe’s baptism record in the register of St. George (CC0)

Three of his siblings died in infancy, the remaining five survived him, as did his parents. Marlowe is not known to have ever given birth to offspring. Whether there are any descendants from his family today is almost impossible to ascertain. The family of his uncle Thomas Arthur was most likely a victim of the plague in 1593. Marlowe’s sister Margaret married the tailor John Jordan in 1590, with whom she had several children. As the name Jordan was common, only John, Elizabeth and William, mentioned in Katherine Marlowe’s will, are considered certain. Jane’s husband John Moore was probably a brother of Ursula Moore, the wife of Thomas Arthur. Jane probably died in 1583 as a result of the birth of her son, who also did not survive long. Anne, already pregnant, gave her consent to John Cranford, a former apprentice of her father, in 1593. She gave birth to a total of twelve children, some of whom certainly married later and gave her a large number of grandchildren to enjoy until her death in December 1652. In the course of her life she came into conflict with the law not only twice. In 1626 and 1627 she went after a certain William Prowde, each time heavily armed. In 1603 the churchwardens of St Mary Breadman described her as a guileful, quarrelsome, unloving person who was a nuisance to her neighbours and also a sinister conjuror and blasphemist. Dorothy’s husband Thomas Graddell, whom she married in 1594, was a source of constant annoyance to the Canterbury courts. At times he was even excommunicated. Both in 1595 and the following year, he and his wife were accused because she refused to go to church and receive communion. Their two sons went by the name of John, at least one of whom had a child. After the death of her husband in 1625, Dorothy was still a good match, for several suitors flocked to her. It is quite possible that she married again. Only one of Marlowe’s brothers survived infancy. (Incidentally, he was the only one of the Marlowe children to be baptised at St Andrew’s rather than St George’s). Thomas is not mentioned in his mother’s will – perhaps he died before 1605. Or had turned his back on the family in time, for in 1624 a Thomas Marloe arrived in Virginia on the ship Jonathan.4

King’s School

At Christmas 1578, Marlowe was admitted to the King’s School. It had been founded by Henry VIII in Canterbury in 1541. Two things are still unclear: which school had Marlowe attended before he entered and how could his family afford the school fees, which after all amounted to £4? There is still no answer to the first question. In answering the second, we have to rely on conjecture. Perhaps a benefactor unknown to us today paid the school fees. Christopher Marlowe was not an isolated case in this respect. Several sons of poor people attended the school.5 Sir Roger Manwood is considered to be a possible sponsor.6
In any case, his entry was quite late, for according to the statutes of King’s School, no boys over fifteen were admitted.7 Marlowe did not stay long, as he received a scholarship to Cambridge.

Study in Cambridge

Matthew Parker had first established a scholarship in 1548 that enabled gifted sons of poor families to study at Cambridge. Further scholarships had followed until Parker’s death in 1575. His son, John, took over the awarding of the cash grants after his father’s death. What exactly Christopher Marlowe had done in order to benefit from a scholarship is no longer traceable. In any case, the scholarship was intended for young men who wanted to enter the service of the Anglican Church, because Parker not only wanted to introduce his scholarship holders to theology at an academic level, but also to train urgently needed parish priests. 8 Of the 76 who had received a scholarship between 1577 and 1584, 69 graduated, 44 of whom subsequently entered the clergy.9 Christopher Pashley, Marlowe’s predecessor as a scholar, became a preacher and embarked on exactly the career that was generally expected.10
When Marlowe came to Cambridge to Corpus Christi College, he was already seventeen, a good three years older than the average freshman. He reached the university in December 1580. From 27 March 1581, "Christoferus Marlen" was listed as a matriculated student. 11 He was a second-class student, i.e. he was above fellow students who had to work as servants for their studies, but below those whose families could pay the tuition fees themselves.12 As part of his scholarship, Marlowe received 1 shilling for every week he lived at the college. In the event of his absence, the money was withheld. Marlowe’s actual presence can be reconstructed with the help of the account books and the buttery book of Corpus Christi. Until his BA, Marlowe was absent for long periods only twice. In the second quarter of 1582 he was absent for five weeks, in the first quarter for six weeks. In mid-February 1585, "Christofer Marlyn" took his BA, although the formal and ceremonial recognition probably did not take place until Palm Sunday.13 From the spring of 1585, he repeatedly left the college for extended periods. For the academic year 1584/85, Marlowe received a total of only 19 shillings 6 pence instead of the full sum of 2 pounds 13 shillings, but spent more, according to the college’s buttery book. In November he was demonstrably in Canterbury, where he witnessed the will of the widow Katherine Benchkin together with his father and uncle. On this document is Marlowe’s signature, which is now the only one in existence.

Christopher Marlowe’s signature on the will of Katherine Benchkin. 1585. Kent Archives Office PRC 16/36 (CC0)

Between April and June 1586, Marlowe left Cambridge again. At the beginning of the following year, he was absent again for about eight weeks. In April 1587, his scholarship ended. Sometime before the end of his studies, Marlowe applied for admission to the MA. However, this was not granted by the university until a letter was received from a high authority. The original has not survived, but there is a copy in the records of the Privy Council, dated 9 July 1587. In the presence of Archbishop John Whitgift, Lord Chancellor Sir Christopher Hatton, Treasurer William Cecil, Lord Burghley, Chamberlain Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon and the Comptroller Sir James Crofts, the following instruction was drawn up for Cambridge:

"Whereas it was reported that Christopher Morley was determined to have gone beyond the seas to Reams and there to remain, their Lordships thought good to certify that he had no such intent, but that in all his actions he had behaved himself orderly and discretely, whereby he had done Her Majesty good service, & deserved to be rewarded for his faithful dealing. Their Lordships' request was that the rumour thereof should be allayed by all possible means, and that he should be furthered in the degree he was to take this next Commencement, because it was not Her Majesty’s pleasure that anyone employed, as he had been, in matters touching the benefit of his country, should be defamed by those that are ignorant in th’affairs he went about." 14

The English College had good connections with Cambridge, from where students regularly migrated. After 1580, their numbers increased and peaked in 1587. The authorities at the university were aware of this and particularly vigilant. A student who went away for several months without permission was thus automatically suspect.15 Moreover, the scholars at Cambridge moved in a confined space and were probably a closed society in which slanderous rumours could easily arise.16
Marlowe’s presence in Rheims has long been suspected by biographers, but it is clear from the records that Marlowe was never at the Engish College.17
This document is regarded as evidence of Marlowe’s work for the secret service. This usually ignores the fact that today’s definition of "secret agent" has little to do with that of the 16th century. Ultimately, the letter to the university merely confirms that Marlowe had done his queen a good turn in matters concerning the welfare of the country. Many others did so before and after him, without necessarily being spies.
In any case, Marlowe received his MA in July 1587 and probably left the university for London.

London

Marlowe’s reasons for moving to London are as unknown to us as his exact date of arrival or residence. Presumably sometime between autumn 1587 and spring 1588, Tamburlaine saw its first performance. "No English dramatist, surely, has ever made a more astounding debut in the professional theatre than Christopher Marlowe with Tamburlaine."18 Thanks in part to the leading actor Edward Alleyn, London had experienced a sensation that was to reverberate for years to come.
Marlowe’s contacts in the capital could be partially reconstructed. He was friends with Thomas Watson and Thomas Nashe. He shared a workroom with Thomas Kyd for a while and eventually earned the displeasure of Robert Greene. This could lead to the assumption that Marlowe mainly consorted with writers. That may have been so. The Renaissance was the age of youth for the first time. Until the Romantic period, there would be no other era in which cultural, intellectual and political currents were so strongly supported by young people. People enthusiastically explored the new worlds that opened up before them and enjoyed the present with a lust for life. For like the Romantics, youth ended early and – as the fate of Sidney, Greene, Marlowe or Nashe showed – usually fatally. From the joy of being young, something like a bohemian society perhaps emerged for the first time.19 What certainly did not exist was the so often propagated School of Night.

The Battle Of The Writers

Just because much is written about Elizabethan theatre did not mean that we know much about it. Especially as far as the early period is concerned, there is little light and much darkness. In the course of time, theories arose about how things were in the literary world away from the court. If they are to be believed, it was a highly conflictual period and Marlowe was in the thick of it. Thanks to him, commercial drama replaced poetry and prose as the medium of communication, resulting in the ousting of Robert Greene from the literary centre.20 1 Tamburlaine was Marlowe’s break with conventional theatre, where vulgar jokes and doggerel ruled. From now on, the drama moved to a higher level.21 Even in this renewal movement, there was no unity. The so-called " university wits", authors with university degrees such as Marlowe, Thomas Nashe, Robert Greene, George Peele, John Lyly or Thomas Lodge, were opposed by practitioners such as Henry Chettle, Anthony Munday and William Shakespeare.22 Surprising that, with so much hostility, Marlowe had not met a violent death earlier! Indeed, the go-getting Robert Greene dealt fiercely against his contemporaries, but did not name them directly. Their "identity" is almost always based on assumptions that were often made centuries later. The Elizabethan authors wrote their texts deliberately vague, ambiguous, ambivalent and full of allusions.23 Many puns or allusions are incomprehensible to today’s readers.

"Whoſoeuer Samela deſcanted of that loue, tolde you a Canterbury tale ; ſome propheticall full mouth that as he were a Coblers eldeſt ſonne, would by the laſte tell where anothers ſhooe wrings, but his ſowterly aime was iuſt leuell;"24

This passage from Menaphon could refer to Marlowe, the eldest son of a Canterbury cobbler. But it could also mean that Greene was thinking of Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales and was annoyed by his new shoes, which squeezed him terribly. Greene might not have achieved the success as a playwright that he was used to. Although theatre was certainly gaining in importance, quite a few writers continued to stick to poetry and prose. These genres did not suddenly sink into insignificance. Marlowe’s 1 Tamburlaine was sensational, but whether the play heralded the renewal of English theatre is hard to prove, because only two dramas have survived from the period before that that did not come from court life. 25 The university wits are an arbitrary group constructed in literary studies at the end of the 19th century. Especially the last third of the Elizabethan era was a highly productive time for literature. Disagreements, personal animosities, political and religious debates were sometimes even settled in writing at the instigation of the authorities, such as the Martin Marprelate controversy. Thomas Nashe argued with Gabriel Harvey for years. However, this does not substantiate the posthumously created image of a literary battlefield with disputes over direction, waves of renewal and questions of genre.

In Court

We do not know whether Marlowe was able to live from writing. However, it may be doubted, at the latest since court files were discovered in 2008, which primarily provide information about Marlowe’s financial situation at the beginning of his time in London. 26 On 20 August 1587, a Christopher Marlowe, who was probably the playwright and poet, took delivery of a grey gelding with saddle, stirrups and bridle belonging to the horse and carriage hirer James Wheatley. Marlowe had presumably hired the animal and not returned it to the owner at the agreed time. In the autumn of the same year, Wheatley brought an action, claiming that his property was worth 6 pounds 13 shillings and 4 pence. In addition, Wheatley wanted £20 in damages. Neither Marlowe nor a legal representative appointed by him appeared at the hearing on 2 February 1589. As a result, the defendant automatically lost the case. On 15 February, the court assessed Wheatley’s loss at 9 pounds 6 shillings and 8 pence. Marlowe might have needed money, which is why he perhaps turned to a former fellow student from Cambridge. In any case, Marlowe borrowed 10 pounds from Elvyn on 21 April 1588, which the latter never saw again. He therefore sued Marlowe for payment of the borrowed sum as well as £5 in damages. Marlowe denied the allegations, which is why a trial was scheduled for 2 February 1589, which presumably never took place, as no further documents relating to the matter have been found. It is likely that an out-of-court settlement was reached. 27

Theories that Marlowe acted as a messenger for Lord Burghley28 or reader for Arbella Stuart in 1587 and 1592 have since been dismissed. What is certain is his involvement in the Hog Lane incident. On 28 September 1589, between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m., a violent altercation occurred in Hog Lane (now Worship Street) between Marlowe and William Bradley, the son of an innkeeper. The reasons for this may have been a loan of £14 made to Bradley in March of the previous year by one John Allen, presumably Edward Alleyn’s brother, but which Bradley had not repaid.
It is likely that Allen, with the support of friends, had given his claim a fair amount of emphasis, for Bradley had an early form of injunction brought against John Allen, Hugh Swift and Thomas Watson.29 Presumably Bradley had seen Marlowe in the company of Watson and a scuffle had ensued. Watson tried to separate the two. Bradley let go of Marlowe and turned to Watson with the words: "Art thou now come? Then I will have a bout with thee. "30 Watson, wounded him slightly and urged him towards the water-filled ditches that lined the streets. Now Watson was forced to fight back and stabbed Bradley in the right breast. This injury was fatal. Both Watson and Marlowe waited, without resisting, for the arrival of the Justice of the Peace, Sir Owen Hopton, who arranged for both to be taken to Newgate Prison under the guard of Constable Stephen Wyld, a tailor in civil life. The record shows that Watson and Marlowe were then living in Norton Folgate.31 Serving time with Marlowe was one John Poole, charged with forgery. Poole is said to have been vocal at the time about some very dangerous views about, among others, the Earl of Leicester. He accused him not only of the murder of his wife Amy Robsart, but also of conspiracy by trying to marry his son to Arbella Stuart.32 The extent to which Marlowe sympathised with Poole’s subversive theories remains unclear, but Richard Baines would later discuss the connection between Poole and Marlowe.
On 11 October, Marlowe was released on bail of £40. Two guarantors vouched for £20 each. Richard Kitchen and Humphrey Rowland, had no connection with Marlowe and, in Rowland’s case at least, it was quite unlikely that he could actually pay the required sum out of his own pocket. Watson remained in custody until the trial on 13 December. One of the judges present was Sir Roger Manwood. The trial ended with an acquittal for Marlowe and Watson, although the latter had to remain in Newgate for several weeks..33

Netherlands

On 5 February 1592, Robert Sidney, the Governor of Flushing, sent a report to Lord Burghley.

"Besides the prisoner Evan Flud, I have also given in charge to this bearer my anciant twoe other prisoners, the one named Christofer Marly, by his profession a scholer, and the other Gifford Gilbert a goldsmith taken heer for coining, and their mony I have sent over unto yowr Lo: The matter was revealed unto me the day after it was done, by one Ri: Baines whome also my Anciant shal bring unto yowr Lo: He was theyr chamber fellow and fearing the succes, made me acquainted with all. The men being examined apart never denied anything, onely protesting that what was done was onely to se the Goldsmiths conning: […] they do one accuse another to have bin the inducers of him, and to have intended to practis yt heerafter: […] But howsoever it hapned a dutch shilling was uttred, and els not any peece: and indeed I do not thinck that they wold have uttred many of them: for the mettal is plain peuter and with half an ey to be discovered. […] The scholer sais himself to be very wel known both to the Earle of Northumberland and my lord Strang. Bains and he do also accuse one another of intent to goe to the Ennemy or to Rome, both as they say of malice one to another."34

The identity of Evan Flud could not be clarified.35 Nothing is known about the fate of the goldsmith Gifford Gilbert. The similarity of name with the agent who had once contacted Mary Stuart at Walsingham’s request seems to be a coincidence.36 Richard Baines was, depending on one’s view, a failed English spy or a renegade Catholic from the English College. How he met Marlowe in Flushing, of all places, is unfortunately not clear from the letter. Interestingly, the incident apparently had no legal repercussions. Counterfeiting money was not considered a trivial offence, but legally fell under treason and was punishable by death. In the documents, there is only a money order signed by Burghley to David Lloyd, Robert Sidney’s ensign. He received £13 6 shillings and 8 pence for delivering letters and three prisoners.37

Sidney’s writing, as well as the lack of consequences, was taken in the 20th century as further evidence of Marlowe’s work in the secret service. Certainly not rightly.

"We think we know, on the basis of the 1587 Privy Council certificate, that Marlowe was a government agent because he had done 'good service' to the queen. But even if this is true, doing the queen good service in 1587 does not mean that Marlowe continued to perform such service in 1592. In fact, many are the men who did good service for the queen only to become suspected, betrayed, and/or despatched by their employer:"38

If Marlowe was really working undercover both times, then it had become known both times. He was therefore not a good secret agent, because as the name suggests, only the agent whose activities remain secret is successful. Much more important than possible spy stories is the fact that Marlowe had already met Richard Baines at that time.

London – Canterbury

Burghley’s reaction to the letter from Flushing or any consequences for Richard Baines and Marlowe are not known. In any case, he was back in London by May at the latest, for on 19 May 1592 Marlowe was again before Judge Hopton. He had to give an assurance that he would be back in court in the first week after 9 October. Until then he was to behave peacefully, especially towards Allen Nichols and Nicholas Helliott, two constables from Hollywell Street. If he did not comply with these orders, £20 would be confiscated from his property. The latter was a standing phrase used even with defendants who were not even close to having such a sum at their disposal. Marlowe’s next court appearance was in Canterbury. William Corkine, a tailor, reported that Marlowe had attacked him with a stick and dagger in the parish of St Andrews on 25 September, causing him damage in the sum of £5. Marlowe had a lawyer file a counterclaim, but the court rejected it. The trial was scheduled for 19 October. It never took place; the parties had probably reached an out-of-court settlement beforehand. 39

The Writing On The Wall

Occupationally, the second half of 1592 was difficult for all theatre workers. The theatres were closed in June. The number of deaths from the plague remained above average throughout the summer and plays were not allowed again until the end of December. But by the beginning of 1593 the theatres were closed again. The city was hit by a plague epidemic, which meant that the weekly death toll rose to over thirty.40 Those who could turned their backs on the metropolis, including Marlowe, who went to Thomas Walsingham in Scadbury.

In this already tense situation, a number of xenophobic pamphlets appeared, mainly directed against foreign craftsmen in the city. Although the proportion of immigrants was low, London was not considered particularly foreign-friendly and the city administration had done little to track down the authors. 41 On the night of 15 May 1593, an unknown person affixed a leaflet to the wall of the Dutch Church graveyard that surpassed all previous ones in meanness. The so-called Dutch Church Libel prompted the Privy Council to order rigid measures. London’s administration was called upon to find the author, for which extensive house searches and interrogations, if necessary using torture, were to be carried out. This probably brought the playwright Thomas Kyd to their attention. However, not so much because of his work for the theatre, but because he was presumably active as a scribe.42 Among Kyd’s papers, three sheets had been found that contained excerpts from a work on Arianism.43 However, Kyd stated on record that he had received this manuscript from Marlowe. (He later explained that he and Marlowe had shared a workroom two years earlier and in the process the sheets had been mixed with his papers.44)

Marlowe may quite rightly never have been suspected as the author of the Dutch Church Libel.45 It is not even proven whether Kyd’s arrest was connected with it and whether his testimony against Marlowe had any effect. The latter seems possible, for on 28 May the Privy Council sent Henry Maunder to Thomas Walsingham at Scadbury to bring Marlowe to the court, which resided at Nonsuch about 19 km south of London. It is not known what the Privy Council questioned Marlowe about on 30 May. All we know today is that he was released on the condition that he report daily. The Privy Council still met on 2, 4 and 8 June. It is not clear from the records whether Marlowe actually complied with the request.

Deptford

For centuries, people had to rely on legends, innuendo and rumour to find out what Marlowe was doing in Deptford in the first place. Then, in 1920, Leslie Hotson found the inquest report recording the circumstances of Marlowe’s death.46 Ironically, even more speculation and misinformation about that day has circulated since then than before. One thing is quite certain: Christopher Marlowe did not die in an inn brawl! According to the report, on 9 June 1593, at about ten o’clock in the morning, Ingram Frizer, Nicholas Skeres, Robert Poley and Christopher Marlowe met in the room of a house belonging to a widow named Eleanor Bull. The respectable private house stood on Deptford Strand and, with official permission – similar to today’s Bed & Breakfast – offered accommodation and food to guests in return for payment. Eleanor Bull was a "[…] woman of substance, well-born and well-connected, not at all the shabby old ale-house keeper she is often portrayed as."47 The four men took lunch. Afterwards they walked around the garden for a while before going back to their room at about 6 p.m. to have dinner. After they had finished, an argument broke out between Frizer and Marlowe about who should pay the bill. Marlowe lay down on a bed in front of which there was a table at which the other three men sat down. Frizer was sitting, flanked by Poley and Skeres, with his back to Marlowe, who suddenly stole Frizer’s dagger worth 12 pence and inflicted two wounds on Frizer’s head, about 5 cm long and 0.6 cm deep. Wedged between Poley, Skeres, table and bed, Frizer, fearing for his life, tried to wrest the dagger from Marlowe. This led to a scuffle between Frizer and Marlowe, with Frizer using his dagger to inflict a fatal wound over Marlowe’s right eye, 5.08 cm deep and 2.54 cm wide.48 Based on the description given, it is assumed that the dagger entered above the eyeball and penetrated the upper orbital fissure at the back of the eye socket. The assumption that the air flowing into the wound would have caused an embolism is rather unlikely from a medical point of view. Rather, the tip of the dagger injured the internal carotid artery, causing an intracranial haematoma and cerebral compression. 49

As the incident had taken place within a radius of 12 miles (19.31 km) of the queen’s person, the royal coroner, William Danby, was appointed to investigate. Frizer did not evade arrest, but confessed two days later that he had killed Marlowe in self-defence. Sixteen men from Deptford and the surrounding area confirmed Danby’s report as jurors. Frizer was detained until his trial. Marlowe’s body was released and buried the same day at St Nicholas' churchyard in Deptford. The vicar Thomas Macander recorded in the church register: "Christopher Marlowe slaine by ffrauncis ffrezer"

Entry of the burial in the register of St. Nicholas (CC0)

Ingram Frizer may have had a relative named "Francis", which could explain the confusion.50 Macander’s error regarding the first name, still causes confusion today, as there is still literature in which Marlowe’s murderer is called Francis Frizer. It is no longer possible to determine where Marlowe’s grave was located, as the church was rebuilt about a hundred years after his death. Of St Nicholas as it looked in Marlowe’s time, only the 14th century tower exists today.

Tower of St Nicholas. 2019. (Private property)

The memorial plaque to Marlowe was destroyed by bombs during the Second World War and only rebuilt later.51

Memorial plaque on the churchyard wall of St Nicholas. 2019. (Private property)

Taking the inquest report as a given, Marlowe’s death is tragic but not mysterious. Four men were spending a leisurely day together and when they could not agree on the bill, a scuffle ensued in the course of which one was critically injured – bad luck, fate or coincidence.

"[…] few murders of literary men have proven so encouraging simultaneously to scholarship and to fiction, or so open to conflicting biographical exegesis."52

Something in this story is likely to provoke a scepticism that has been massively fuelled by the biography of Ingram Frizer, Nicholas Skeres and Robert Poley, as well as the Baines Note, the Dutch Church Libel affair, the letters of Thomas Kyd and several other documents, for a hundred years now.

"Poe’s death stands alongside Christopher Marlowe’s murder as one of the peculiar and impenetrable mysteries in literary history. Unlike Marlowe, who was actually a spy, Poe’s life was, for the most part, excessively normal, […]."53

Marlowe’s life was also largely normal for his time, his espionage activities are a bold claim at best, but the circumstances of his death, as with Edgar Allan Poe, remain mysterious. Perhaps he really was the victim of a contract killing, 54 , or a perfidious intrigue in the haze of Essex, Raleigh and Burghley,55 or a white-collar crime surrounding the Moscow Company in London,56 or he was in debt to Frizer and Skeres57 or was murdered at the behest of Elizabeth I.58

"What all these conspiracy theses have in common is a reluctance to accept that, as an obscure Elizabethan playwright, Marlowe was highly unlikely to have been of sufficient importance to have attracted the attention of powerful men, let alone the Queen herself."59

It is much more likely, therefore, that he was killed for trivial reasons and that we do not want to admit it, because geniuses are not allowed to die so casually. This applies to Marlowe as well as to Poe. No matter what constellations actually led to Marlowe’s murder, all the information that has been painstakingly brought to light, all the speculations, however plausible they may seem, do not change the outcome of the matter. The day in Deptford ended fatally for Christopher Marlowe. "Tell Kent from me, she has lost her best man […]"60 is Shakespeare’s phrase This may not apply to the county, but the theatre did indeed lose one of its most individual, extraordinary and brilliant men on that spring day in 1593.


Dasent, John Roche, ed. 1897. Acts of the Privy Council of England. Vol. 15. London. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/acts-privy-council/vol15/pp126-150.
Edwards, Philip. 1979. Threshold of a Nation: A Study in English and Irish Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, Blakemore G., ed. 1998. Elizabethan Jacobean Drama: The Theatre in Its Time. Lanham: New Amsterdam Books.
Greene, Robert. 1881-1883. “Menaphon: Camila’s Alarm to Slumbering Euphues in His Melancholy Cell at Silexedra.” In The Life and Complete Works in Prose and Verse of Robert Greene, edited by Alexander Balloch Grosart, 6:1–146. London: Printed for Private Circulation only.
Meissner, Paul. 1952. England Im Zeitalter von Humanismus, Renaissance Und Reformation. Heidelberg: Kerle.
Nashe, Thomas. 1958. The Works of Thomas Nashe. Reprint. Oxford: Blackwell.
Owens, Rebekah. 2007. “A Possible Candidate for ’Shore’ in the Matter of the Dutch Church Libels.” Notes and Queries 53 (3): 253–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/notesj/gjm138.
Pearl, Mattew. 21.05.2006. “Mysterious for Evermore.” The Telegraph, 21.05.2006. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3652541/Mysterious-for-evermore.html.
Saintsbury, George. 1887. A History of Elizabethan Literature. London: Macmillan.

  1. Urry (13.02.1964)↩︎
  2. Urry (1988)↩︎
  3. Urry (1988)↩︎
  4. Urry (1988)↩︎
  5. Urry (1988)↩︎
  6. Wraight and Stern (1993)↩︎
  7. Honan (2005)↩︎
  8. Barnes (1981)↩︎
  9. Ide (2007)↩︎
  10. Urry (1988)↩︎
  11. Honan (2005)↩︎
  12. Nicholl (2002)↩︎
  13. Urry (1988)↩︎
  14. Dasent (1897), 140-141↩︎
  15. Gray (1928)↩︎
  16. Ide (2007)↩︎
  17. Nicholl (2002)↩︎
  18. Birringer (1984), 222↩︎
  19. Meissner (1952)↩︎
  20. Bednarz (2004)↩︎
  21. Nashe (1958); Marlowe (1995); Riggs (2013)↩︎
  22. Saintsbury (1887)↩︎
  23. Edwards (1979)↩︎
  24. Greene (1881-1883), 86↩︎
  25. Erne (2005)↩︎
  26. [KB 27/1308, part 1, rot. ccclij]; [NA kb 27/1307, rot. ccxxiijv]↩︎
  27. Mateer (2008)↩︎
  28. Feldman (1953); Henderson (12.06.1953)↩︎
  29. Honan (2005)↩︎
  30. Kuriyama (2002), 206↩︎
  31. Urry (1988)↩︎
  32. Eccles (06.09.1934)↩︎
  33. Honan (2005)↩︎
  34. PRO SP 84/44 f.60.r,v↩︎
  35. (Wernham 1976)↩︎
  36. Nicholl (2002)↩︎
  37. PRO E351/542, f.169v↩︎
  38. Breight (1993), 28↩︎
  39. Urry (1988)↩︎
  40. Evans (1989)↩︎
  41. Freeman (1973)↩︎
  42. Kuriyama (2002); Owens (2007)↩︎
  43. BL Harley MS.6848 f.187r-189v↩︎
  44. BL Harley MS.6849 f.218r-219r↩︎
  45. Downie (2007)↩︎
  46. Hotson (1925)↩︎
  47. Nicholl (2002), 36↩︎
  48. Hotson (Juli 1926)↩︎
  49. Rowling (1999); Burgess (2015)↩︎
  50. Hopkins (2004)↩︎
  51. Urry (1988)↩︎
  52. Freeman (1973), 46↩︎
  53. Pearl (21.05.2006)↩︎
  54. Greenwood (04.06.1925)↩︎
  55. Seaton (1929); Nicholl (1992)↩︎
  56. Wilson (1995)↩︎
  57. Hammer (1996)↩︎
  58. Riggs (2013)↩︎
  59. Downie (2007), 266↩︎
  60. 2 Henry VI. IV,10,41↩︎

Aktualisiert am 24.05.2024

Comments are closed.