Deja Vu All Over Again
Resurrecting Marley:
Take Two
by

Mather Walker

February 2001

 

Since writing the original "Resurrecting Marley" article subsequent events have occurred. Peter Farey, who I mentioned in the article, expressed his opinion that the article might have more suitably been titled, "Misrepresenting Farey". He demands satisfaction. Dueling pistols at ten paces, or modifications to the article. Accordingly I have dug out my old rusty dueling pistols. No, I have modified the following portion of the article.And it is my sincere hope that in this modified text Peter Farey gets what's coming to him, i.e., I hope he will be satisfied with the changes. If you read the original article you will remember that in that article I noted that in her book, "Francis Bacon and His Secret Society" Constance Pott said:

"Amongst the many proofs of the intense admiration and affection, esteem and reverence,which Francis Bacon inspired in those who were personally intimate with him, none are more satisfactory than those contained in the voluminous, but still unpublished, correspondence of Anthony Bacon, in the library at Lambeth Palace. Here we find him spoken of as "Monsieurle Doux," and "Signor Dolce," his extreme kindness, sweetness of disposition and heavenly mindedness being continual subjects of comment. His followers and disciples vow fidelity to him from simple love of him and his cause." [12]

This was only one side of the story. Pott was a Baconian on the other side of the fence from the Stratfordians. But, as the Japanese proverb has it, "Even the other side has a other side."

The other side, that the other side has, is the Marlovians. As a result of my rhetoric in the original article I aroused the ire of Peter Farey (who I now freely admit I treated rather shabbily in the article). As the proverb warns (and as I paraphrase) it is best to let sleeping dogmas lie. I have herein made the requested modifications to the article. But I also thought the reader might find it interesting to view, in this modified article, a Marlovian and Baconian in the heat of battle so to speak, as they both pursue their own viewpoint with a myopia compared with which an oyster has the vision of an eagle.

A View From the Marlovian Perspective

While researching "The Story That the Sonnets Tell" (1995) in Thomas Birch's Memoirs of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, Marlovian flagbearer, A.D. Wraight, came across references to a certain Monsieur Le Doux. Le Doux was an agent employed by the Earl of Essex in 1595/96, and as there was mention of an English agent using the name Monsieur La Faye, Wraight wondered if Le Doux might not be an Englishman also.

Could it be? Was it possible that this Le Doux was none other than Christopher Marlowe,who had gone underground after his death was faked in 1593, and had now resurfaced as Monsieur Le Doux? Another Marlovian, Peter Farey, picked up on the revelation and searched the records at Lambeth Palace along with A.D. Wraight. They came across a"coffre" or trunk that they believed belonged to Le Doux. In addition, they found a list of books. Farey wrote articles on his web site http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/ in which he itemized the list of books and the contents of the trunk. A number of these books were directly relevant to Marlowe plays. Farey listed them as follows:

Baptista Egnatius's De Origine Turcarum Libellus (A little book on the originsof the Turks), cited by Bakeless as a source for both of Marlowe's Tamburlaine plays.

Translations (by Leunclavius) of two parts of the Annals of the Turks (also citedby Bakeless), Tamburlaine again, but of course The Jew of Malta also had Turkish history as its backdrop.

Two books concerning George Scanderbeg, another warrior battling the Turks, and the subject of a (now lost) play thought by some to have been an early work by Marlowe.

A history of "The Four Empires" by Johannes Sleidanus. These included the Babylonian and Persian Empires - again Tamburlaine and Scanderbeg territory.The plays of Terence, in the original Latin, containing a quotation employed by Marlowe in Doctor Faustus.

Farey also found material directly relevant to the Shakespeare plays. To Farey this must have been like finding the Holy Grail. Marlowe and Shakespeare connected, along with a resurrected Marlowe! Like Dinah from Carolina nothing could be finer. You search and you search, bear the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, the ridicule of your inferiors, and one day there it all is laid out right in front of you.

Still there was a slight, nagging problem. There was no apparent connection of Le Doux to Marlowe. To tie the package up neatly this was needed, and Farey went to prodigious lengths to produce it. In doing this he showed he had learned his craft well from Calvin Hoffman. Hoffman was the originator of the Marlowe-Shakespeare theory. In his book, "The Murder of the man who was `SHAKESPEARE'" Hoffman listed 29 pages of parallel passages between the Marlowe and Shakespeare works. Hoffman concluded Marlowe wrote the Shakespeare works. As a consequence Hoffman decided Marlowe could not have been killed on May 30, 1593, but instead headed for greener pastures on the continent, and from there waxed prolific with great tracts of Shakespeare Plays that he shipped back. Hoffman reasoned that if Marlowe was on the continent writing Shakespeare plays he must have had someone he could trust who he sent them to in England. No problem. That "someone" was his old flame Thomas Walsingham. But.Marlowe was well known around London. Playhouses and publishers must have owned manuscripts of his previously written dramas (none of them ever came to light, but they must have, they just must). It would have been dangerous for his new writings to find their way into hands that would immediately recognize the handwriting. So Walsingham must have taken steps to prevent this. How could Hoffman prove this?

This problem might have given pause to a lesser man than Hoffman. But Hoffman was well named. Hoffen means hope in German, and Hoffman had more hope than an Eskimo has snow. He searched and searched. What specifically was he searching for? Hoffman reasoned in this manner. "Walsingham was no fool" he averred. (Agreed. WALSINGHAM wasn't.) Hoffman deduced that he must have hired a professional scrivener to copy Marlowe's manuscripts. So like the "gallant knight" who journeyed long, singing a song, in search of Eldorado, Hoffman journeyed long with the refrain singing in his brain that Walsingham must have hired a scrivener to copy Marlowe's "Shakespeare" plays. Finally he nailed the whole thing down with the weight of the crushing, overwhelming evidence he unearthed. He found this evidence in Sir Thomas Walsingham's will. There it was, the tell tale bequest:

"To Thomas Smith, scrivener, 40 shillings for a Ring."

A lesser man might have hesitated to hang the weight of substantial proof on this slender thread of evidence. But Hoffman was made of sterner stuff. For him that was it, there were no further doubts. Here was the scrivener Walsingham had hired. Case was solved. Game and match. I confess. I am a sentimental person. I fondly imagine the ghost of Hoffman hovering over Farey as he examined indexes of The Acts of the Privy Council, The Calendar of State Papers (Domestic, Foreign and Scottish), and The Historical Manuscripts Commission's calendars and reports. Finally in the Manuscripts section of the British Library he made a discovery that did his mentor proud. There on a sixteenth century wax seal he found a picture of a man in Elizabethan clothing, with the face of a baboon, and AROUND THE EDGE OF THE SEAL WAS THE NAME "LOIS LE DOULX"!

I would have surmised that Farey went ape when he saw this, I know I would have. Just the baboon head would have been enough to set me off. But Farey insists he was the perfect example of "scientific detachment". And , only after due deliberation, did he conclude that it had to be his Le Doux. (Way to go, Farey!) He next examined the IGI, the massive genealogical database created by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Here he found a record of a man named Loys Le Doux who lived in Canterbury around the time Christopher Marlowe lived there. Finally Farey made his coup de maitre.

He discovered that on Christmas 1599, the Lord Admiral's Men presented at Court a play by Thomas Dekker. The play was called The Pleasant Comedy of Old Fortunatus, apparently an updated version of an earlier work by him, and seemed to Farey to have something of the flavor of a Marlowe play. In the play Fortune, referring to the 3rd King, made a statement that Farey, after a thorough and scientifically detached examination, concluded was extremely significant:

"This wretch once wore the diadem of France,

{Lewis the Meek}"

Everything came together. A man named Loys Le Doux lived in Canterbury around the time Christopher Marlowe lived there. The 3rd kings' name was Louis the Meek. Dekker was a friend of Edward Alleyn. What more could anyone want. Here was proof piled upon proof. What? You mean you don't get it? Okay. Here goes. Obviously Le Doux had been a boyhood friend of Marlowe's. He lived in the same town, didn't he? Okay. Okay. If that seems a bit thin, lets give Farey his just due. Farey believes he has further evidence that ties them together. This evidence may seem a tad strange to someone without Farey's scientifically honed reasoning powers but here goes. Farey thinks Marlowe (the atheist) and Le Doux became acquainted WHILE THEY ATTENDED CHURCH TOGETHER. Don't look at me. It's not my idea. Anyway, Farey thinks that explains Marlowe using the name "Le Doux" as an assumed name while operating as a secret agent. Since Dekker was a friend of Edward Alleyn it was possible he was a friend of Marlowe's. Scratch that. It was positive that he was a friend of Marlowe's. Since Dekker was a longtime, intimate friend with Marlowe, he most certainly knew Marlowe had used the name of his longtime, intimate, boyhood friend Le Doux as an assumed name. That is why Dekker used the name of Lewis the Meek for the 3rd king. Doux, (in addition to, sweet, affable, kindly, gentle, etc.) could also be translated as meek. There now, the logic of all this is inescapable isn't it? Well, isn't it? After all it was the result of scientific detachment.

Disclaimer: In abridging Farey's account for this article some distortion was inevitable. I urge the reader who wants an impartial view read the account at his website.(http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/)

A View From the Baconian Perspective

When I came across the material on Farey's website, I agreed with Farey that he had amassed some important evidence. But from the viewpoint of my fixation on Bacon, I interpreted the material as strong evidence on the Baconian side. And when I saw that in his article entitled "LE DOUX's COFFRE, BUT WHOSE PAPERS?" Farey said,

"In `The Story that the Sonnets Tell' A.D. Wraight first suggested that a Monsieur Le Doux, mentioned in the Bacon Papers at Lambeth Palace Library, might be a surviving Christopher Marlowe (Wraight, 1994. p.375). Subsequent research certainly seemed to confirm this possibility. I have myself supported this idea for so long that it came as a bit of a shock to me to realize that it might not be true after all."

It seemed to me that Farey had seen how weak his evidence was, and reversed his opinion. So I wrote this article in its original format in which I said Farey had done a 180 degree turn and had scurried for cover. Well, actually I said he had backed out of the situation faster than a skunk backing out of a perfume factory, and that like Roy Rogers and Dale Evans kid who became an angel unawares, Farey had become a Baconian unawares, but I'm trying to live those statements down.

This disturbed Farey, and we had dialogue on the matter. Being the gentlemen that we both are, after he extracted his thumb from of my eye, and I extracted mine from his, we reached an agreement. I can now testify that despite surface appearances, Farey did NOT do a 180-degree turn. He did NOT scurry for cover. I know beyond peradventure of a doubt that no matter how much it rains Farey would not go in out of it. He says it is obvious the paragraph above means he had begun to suspect that the trunk did not belong to Le Doux.

It does not mean that he was beginning to entertain any doubts that Le Doux might be a surviving Marlowe. The reader can form his or her own conclusion as to what the paragraph suggests. But at this point I AM positive it was definitely not Farey's intent to convey the meaning that I read in, or into, the paragraph. And, although by now it may be more than obvious, I would further like to stress that Farey does not in any way endorse the idea that any of the material belonged to Francis Bacon. He in no way suspects the material in the trunk points toward Francis Bacon as being the author of the Marlowe works. He is, and will remain, a Marlovian until Hell freezes over or until he is provided adequate proof that his stance is wrong, and you can call me crazy, you can call me irresponsible, but I have a strong suspicion as to which will come first. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, it should be understood that the books were NOT in the trunk!

Now lets look at this from the Baconian viewpoint. There is an axiom in the medical community, "When you hear the thunder of hooves think horses not zebras". This means when you see a set of symptoms don't search for some rare, extraordinary disease, look for the common place one, nearest to hand first. This axiom points us straight to Francis Bacon. The material was the property of Anthony Bacon who was working with Francis at the time. The material went to Francis after Anthony's death. There were copies of various pieces by Francis Bacon - including a copy of his Essayes dedicated to Anthony, a year before they were actually published, in the trunk. Francis Bacon also collected proverbs, phrases and sayings. There was a lot of material of this nature. The man in question was a polymath as was Bacon. The books were almost equally divided into Latin, French, Italian and Spanish.

There were only two English pieces (a Bible and a French primer), in addition to the writings by Francis Bacon that were in English. There were biblical works, dictionaries covering at least eight different languages, medicine, history, prose, verse and plays. The owner was a fluent writer. There were 'memories', discourses, tracts and treatises, most of them clearly by him.

Moreover there were holes in Farey's reasoning so big that if you backed them up they would beep. From my viewpoint, as a Baconian, the link Farey established with such labor between Le Doux and Marlowe was weaker than a politicians promise, but I hope readers will make their own judgment. And one needs to fly in the face of all the evidence, make a leap of faith that would give a hernia to a kangaroo, and assume Marlowe was not killed on May 30, 1593. Thirdly, you have to assume this well known, and popular playwright had the power of invisibility. Because here only two years after his feigned death he was tutor to the son of Sir John Harington, and also goes abroad in the city without being recognized in an era of factions and counter factions with spies everywhere. There was no way, in my opinion, if Le Doux had been Marlowe that he could have gone undetected. Moreover, are we to suppose the man was mad? If he had really been still alive, a most agonizing death was only a heartbeat away, yet here he was dancing on the edge of the volcano. And, even more incredibly, we are asked to believe that his man who had been a close acquaintance of Raleigh's who Essex hated like the plague, had now found a place after his feigned death, working for Essex? I don't think so!

I AGREE WITH THE MARLOVIANS THAT THE EVIDENCE IS VERY STRONG THAT THE SAME PERSON WROTE BOTH THE MARLOWE WORKS AND THE SHAKESPEARE WORKS.

The question is, how can a determination be made whether that person was Marlowe or Bacon? Surely this determination lies in those crucial features in the plays that reflect the people and places that touch on the life of the author of the plays. And these point unequivocally to Francis Bacon, not to Christopher Marlowe.

Bacon was brought up in Burghley house on the Strand, where he was familiar with William Cecil, Robert Cecil, Anne Cecil, and Edward De Vere. There is no doubt that the character of Polonius in Hamlet was William Cecil, Lord Burghley. Richard III is modeled after Robert Cecil. Bertram in All's Well That Ends Well is modeled after Edward DeVere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who was also a ward in the Cecil household. De Vere married Anne, daughter of William Cecil, and Helen is modeled after Anne. Bacon was a lawyer and resided for many years at Gray's Inn. How many books have been written demonstrating the specialized knowledge in the plays that indicates the author was a lawyer, and even more specifically indicates his intimate acquaintance with the Inns of the Court?

Bacon was a courtier and had close contact with Queen Elizabeth I. He was intimatelyfamiliar with court personalities and on intimate terms with Queen Elizabeth. Malvolio of Twelfth Night was modeled after Christopher Hatton. Richard II was modeled after Elizabeth and the first record of Richard II is in a letter from Essex where he mentions it is being played in the Hoby household. The Hoby's were Francis' first cousins, and Francis and his brother Anthony were close to the Hoby's. Francis' brother Anthony is clearly reflected in The Merchant of Venice. In 1598, when Francis was in financial difficulties, and was actually seized and imprisoned at the instance of a Jewish creditor, Anthony came to his assistance and did everything in his power to help. This occurred shortly before the play was written. Compare the figure of Antonio in the Merchant of Venice.

When Venus and Adonis, and Lucrecre, are dedicated to Southampton, Bacon is right in the middle of the Essex and Southampton circle. Love's Labor Lost not only exhibits an intimate acquaintance with the Essex circle, but opposes it to the Raleigh "School of Night" circle of which Marlowe was a member. Does the leap of faith of the Marlovians now have Marlowe in the Essex circle? Bacon was a member of the Essex circle, and had been to the court at Navarre. A careful reading of Love's Labor Lost demonstrates the author of that work possessed these two special traits. Love's Labour Lost has numerous topical references to members of the Essex circle. For example, what is AB spelt backward with a horn on its head?: AB for Anthony Bacon spelled backward is Bacorn(u). Armado is quite as evidently Antonio Perez, an eccentric, bombastic, Spaniard, one- time Secretary of State to the King of Spain, who had fallen into disgrace with his royal master and had defected, travelling to various locations before winding up in England and the Essex Circle. He amused Essex and his friends very much (Boyet says of Armado in the Play, "This Armado is a Spaniard, that keeps here in court; A phantasime, a Monarcho, and one that makes sport to the Prince and his book-mates") Perez appears in Love's Labour Lost painted to the life:

"Our Court, you know, is haunted

With a refined travailler of Spaine,

A man in all the worlds new fashion planted,

That hath a mint of phrases in his braine:

One who the musicke of his owne vaine tongue

Doth ravish, like inchanting harmonie:

A man of complements whom right and wrong

Have chose as umpire of their mutinie."

Holofernes is obviously John Florio. When Holofernes delivers the Italian proverb in the play:

"Ah, good old Mantuan! I amy speak of thee as

the traveller doth of Venice:

Venetia, Ventia

Chi non ti vede, non ti pretia.

Old Mantuan! old Mantuan! Who understandeth thee not,

Loves thee not."

He is reciting a proverb from Florio's conversation manual "Second Fruits" which was designed to teach Italian to Englishmen. Attention has also been drawn to the phrase in "First Fruits":

"We neede not speak so much of loue, al books are ful of loue, with so many authours, that it were labour lost to speake of Loue."

which seems to have been the source for the title of the play. Burleigh had appointed himself Southampton's guardian and had placed Florio with Southampton as a tutor and spy.

Another member of the Essex circle was that doughty Welsh warrior Sir Roger Williams, who seems to have been the model for Falstaf. Sir Roger loved to boast of his prowess in the field, and of how he had challenged the enemy to single combat, unhorsing the leader of the Spanish troopers, and nearly cutting off the head of an Albanian chief with a blow of his sword, recalling vividly the bragging of Falstaff:

"I am eight times thrust through the Doublet, foure through the Hose,
my Buckler cut through and through, my Sword hackt like a Handsaw,
ecce signum! I never dealt better since I was a man: all would not doe.

"What, fought you with them all?"

"All! I know not what you call all; but if I fought not with fifty of
them, I am a bunch of Raddish: if there were not two or three and
fifty upon poor old Jack, then am I no two-legged creature."

For more details on Love's Labour Lost see the recent article on the sirbacon.org site "How the Shakespeare Play Fit Bacon's Life-Story". This article also ties the life of Bacon in with the following plays in addition to Love's Labour Lost: Othello; Merry Wives of Windsor; Merchant of Venice; Measure for Measure; Richard III; Troilus and Cressida: King John; Henry VI, and King Lear.

In Twelfth Night again, Sir Andrew Aguecheek is obviously Bacon's friend Lancelot Andrewes. Andrewes was a tall man, pale from many years of constant study, and was noted as master of 21 languages. Sir Toby in the play says

"He's as tall a man as any's in Illyria" and again says, "speaks three or four languages word for word without book."

Sir Toby Belch is quite as apparently Bacon's other friend, Sir Toby Mathew. In Othello the character of Iago reflects a combination of Robert Cecil and Henry Howard, while Othello reflects Sir Walter Raleigh. Marlowe was certainly familiar with Sir Walter Raleigh. But this play has to do with the underhanded smearing of Raleigh's character that was conducted through Cecil and Howard's correspondence with King James before James came to the throne. And Marlowe, even if his death had been faked, had no way of being acquainted with their machinations. But Bacon did. See my article "Shakespeare's Other Side of Midnight.".

The Comedy Of Errors was first played (1594) at a Christmas entertainment at Gray's Inn which Francis Bacon had the principle part in producing. The Tempest had its rise from papers of the Virginia Company of which Bacon was a moving force. Bacon knew and was on close terms with King James. Macbeth and Measure for Measure reflect a close acquaintance with King James. The frequency of the appearance of the plays was directly geared to the life of Francis Bacon. In general, the plays appeared most frequently during the period of his leisure and less frequently during his busy periods of public life. Their appearances almost ceased when he was appointed Solicitor-General in 1607, but after his political fall in 1621, they were all revised, and published in the First Folio in 1623.

All over the Elizabethan landscape where immortal writers appeared Bacon was somehow connected. Bacon was not only closely connected to the author of the Shakespeare plays, he had close connections with works that appeared under other names. When the Spenser works were written a known associate of Bacon's wrote letters to someone who resembled Bacon in every aspect, yet who was the author of the "Spenser" works. In the Le Doux case we find intimate papers of Bacon's along with material relating to the Marlowe works and Shakespeare works. And the beat goes on and on. The Marlovians see only their little portion of the whole like blind men feeling a part of the elephant. I am equally fixated on my Baconian viewpoint.

I think we Baconians owe Peter Farey a vote of thanks. In my opinion although it was very much against his intent, the "Le Doux Trunk Affair", and the items that Farey lists on his site actually constitute valuable additional evidence for the Baconian-Marlowe-Shakespeare theory. As for myself, like Meister Eckhart who said, if the truth could be different from God, he would turn away from God and follow the truth, I say equally, if the truth could be different from Bacon, I would turn away from Bacon and follow the truth. (Well, maybe not, but I would certainly be tempted.)

Summary

To sum the matter up, in other articles at the sirbacon.org site I have proven Bacon wrote the Shakespeare works. The evidence indicates Marlowe wrote the Shakespeare works. We know in elementary logic that if A is equal to C; and B is equal to C; then A is equal to B.

The fact is that by proving Marlowe wrote the Shakespeare works, the Marlovians prove that Bacon wrote the Marlowe works. Way to go Marlovians! It is a little complicated, but I have confidence you will sort it all out. Marlowe is one of those apparently multiple faces in the `wilderness of mirrors' that becomes one if you look at it close enough. AND THAT ONE FACE IS FRANCIS BACON!

-end-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Search Engine Optimisation