i:etterg to tfje Cbitor

To the Editor: To the Editor:

Warren Hope's article on "Lear's I read with interest Dr. John Cordelia, Oxford's Susan, and Baker's comment (see ER 5:2) on my Manningham's Diary" (ER 5:2) sugestion that the celebrated brought The Poems of Lady Mary Monteagle letter, which gave the first Wroth to mind (Josephine A. Roberts, official intimation to the English gov­ ed. Louisiana University Press, 1983). ernment of the Gunpowder Plot, "was Lady Mary was a good friend of almost certainly written by the Earl of Susan Vere, Countess Montgomery. Salisbury." As he says, Dr. Mark One of the poems is called "The NichoUs "suspects that Thomas Percy Countesse of Montgomery's Urania." wrote the letter," but NichoUs, a care­ In the preface of the book, there is a ful scholar, admits, "It was widely little epitaph written at the time of believed at the time that Percy had Lady Susan's death in 1629 by Will­ written the letter to Monteagle. Just iam Browne of Tavistock (the Dowa­ why the conviction was so strong is ger Countess of Pembroke was his now a littie difficult to say, but we pationess): have seen how in King's Book, Monteagle no sooner heard Thomas Though we trust the earth with thee.Percy' s name mentioned in connec­ We will not thy memory. tion with the Westminster vault than Mines of brass or marble shall he suspected, by reason of Percy's Speak nought of thy funeral. 'backwardness in religion' and their They are verier dust than thee old friendship that the letter had come And do beg a history. from him" (Investigating Gunpowder In thy name there is a tomb Plot, p. 175). If the world can give it room. There is no good reason for sup­ For a Vere and Herbert's wife posing that Percy wrote the letter; not Outspeaks all tombs, outiives all if we take the handwriting of the letter life. into account, which is still extant in the Public Record Office in London, Sincerely, like most of the records in the case Isabel Holden which have survived, or more cor- Northampton, Massachusetts rectiy, been allowed to survive. The most lucid treatment of this subject first appeared on page 17 of the Ob­ server magazine, a London-based Sunday newspaper, in its issue of November 5, 1967. The late Colin Letters-

Cross, the journalistprimarily respon­ Paris, he admitted in what could only sible, took along to the Record Office have been a moment of inadvertence Joan Cambridge, a leading grapholo­ that Monteagle's letter was written gist whose expertise is in the solution "in a hand disguised" (see F. Edwards, of legal problems arising from dis­ Guy Fawkes, the Real Story of the puted handwriting and signatures. He GunpowderPlot?, London, 1969,188; insisted on my absence lest the con­ quoting from Winwood' s Memorials, clusions of the lady be in any way n, 171). So it was. But how could he prejudiced. Having no personal inter­ know? There was no problem if he est in the settlement of the problem, had written it himself. Cecil was very she was asked to compare the hands of coy about references to whoever might the principal suspects as writers of the have written it. When he gave the letter—Francis Tresham, Henry Gar­ instructions to the Attorney General, net and Robert Cecil, all of whose Sir Edward Coke, as to how he should hands bear a certain resemblance. conduct the trial of the plotters, he Examples of the hands were given in warned him to stay away from any the article together with an enlarge­ mention of the authorship of the letter. ment of two words, "frend" and "Absolutely disclaim that any of these "frends," taken from Cecil's normal wrote it, though you leave the further writings and the Monteagle letter, re­ judgement indefinite who else it should spectively. One cannot reproduce here be" (ibid, 210; quoted from PRO, all her reaons, but Ms. Cambridge London, SP 14, vol. 19, f.222 r/v). concluded, "examination of original As for the assurance, "there is no documents written and signed by Rob­ need to accuse Salisbury of hypocrisy ert Cecil shows that his natural graphic in these letters," I agree that hypocrisy movement, normal pressure pattern is not perhaps the best or most precise and character of stroke allow of the word to use as a simple judgment in possibility that he wrote the Monteagle connection with the activity of either letter. Further to this, examination of Cecil, William the father or Robert his spontaneous letter-forms, particu­ the son. The Cecils were completely larly "h," "s," and "e," indicate defi­ and utterly sincere in their determina­ nite similarities with those in the tion to keep theirpolitical ascendancy, Monteagle letter... So on aggregate and while they made a good thing for there is sufficient evidence to support themselves out of this, it would be an opinion that in all probability Cecil unjust to suppose they did not believe himself wrote the Monteagle warn- they were serving the country's inter­ ing. ests as well. But to get rival influences NichoUs indicated further candi­ out of the way, they would stop at dates on page 214 of his book but does nothing. So William Cecil got rid of not take the evidence given here into the good Anglican Thomas Howard, consideration. When Cecil wrote his fourth Duke of Norfolk, by implicat­ dispatch of November 9 to to Sir Tho­ ing him in the Ridolfi Plot (see my The mas Parry, English ambassador in Marvellous Chance, London, 1968) -Elizabethan Review- and son Robert did as much for Henry lished by the Folio Society can stand Percy, the ninth Earl of North­ as a scholarly aid in its own right. Both umberland, not as convinced in his NichoUs and Eraser made use of it. I Anglicanism as Howard, but certainly have in preparation a larger work on not a papist. (The sincerity of the the subject since nothing published so Cecils was proved at its most savage, far is adequate, although I am not of course, in their treatment of papists, naive enough to suppose that any­ especially priests.) thing I shall write will end all contro­ On this and the whole subject, the versy. Too much of the evidence is work of an American scholar, George missing for anyone ever to be able to Blacker Morgan, deserves to be better claim absolute certainty—unless some known. Unfortunately for its wider dramatic discovery is made in the dissemination, The Great English cellars of the solicitors or behind the Treason... was printed privately in a paneling somewhere, as in the case of limited edition at Oxford in two vol­ the Clarke-Thornhill manuscripts. umes in 1931 and 1932. Morgan This is sufficientiy unlikely but the thought the plot was genuine but his unlikely can happen. Nevertheless, book was by no means a whitewash many of the difficulties not resolved job. He comments on Robert Cecil, by Dr. NichoUs's book, or for that "although Salisbury completely sup­ matter the latest work on the subject pressed that information about [Tho­ by the Lady Antonia Eraser, have al­ mas] Percy's embezzlement, yet he ready been taken up in my article made a most cleverly unscrupulous published in Recusant History, "Still and deadly use of that letter and of Investigating The Gunpowder Plot" others which the earl wrote to his (vol. 21, pp. 305-346). Perhaps I should steward, in regard to the money, so add by way of footnote that I enjoy that they formed, without being pro­ good personal relations with both duced in any court, the earl's chief scholars, for nothing is more foolish condemnation in the Star Chamber: or unprofessional than to entertain though Salisbury knew that the weak animosity toward those who disagree earl was as innocent as a child in the with one. plot" (op. cit, II, p. 34; cf. Stow, Joan Cambridge, I am sure, would Annals, p. 884). And again, "Salisbury hardly agree with Dr. Baker that "hand­ even brought it against the earl that he writing analysis is an art, not a sci­ had a footman in his employement ence. It is not used forensically in the who had served Francis Tresham; al­ identification of persons, as are fin­ though the eari showed that the man gerprints." But surely it is. To attempt had left Tresham's service two years to establish identity in the case of before the plot" (ibid, footnote 2). characters involved in the Gunpow­ The subject is vast and compli­ der Plot does not entail dealing "with cated and I am not satisfied with my all the hands in Elizabethan England." own work on the subject so far, al- Nevertheless, it would be unfair to say tiiough the Tesimond nanative pub­ thatthe objiciantdoes not have a point. Letters-

The idenfication of hands is some­ I was not present when she made her thing of a minefield. I made a mistake examination of the Tresham and myself in attempting to identify the Bmninge letters in the Public Record writer of one letter in the course of Office. She published herfindings in Guy Fawkes, the Real Story... ? This Appendix 3 to The Gunpowder Plot, mistake has been acknowledged since Folio Society, London 1973,250-254. in two or three places in print. But The first appendix dealth with my even after the caution acquired, one thesis that Tresham escaped from the hopes, after another thirty years study Tower (231-246). The second (247- of this and related problems, I am 249) dealt with the handwriting analy­ convinced that this is a fruitful and sis of the Monteagle letter as it was necessaryfield o f endeavor. One can published originally in the Observer. understand the reluctance of those who Dr. David Kathman's letter in uphold the traditional story of the plot answer to mine (see ER 5:2) made to make much of the importance of some undoubtedly good points. How­ handwriting investigations. If we take ever, some doubt remains about the the documents at their face value and earlier education of some of the play­ presume that, if the author did not sign wrights mentioned as to whether they himself, or did not always sign him­ were at university or not. There seems self the same way on every occasion, to be no doubt that Henry Chettie and then we do not know whose it was John Webster missed the Oxbridge from the handwriting, then it is much experience. Chettie, in any case, was easier to believe the traditional ac­ more successful as a printer than a count. But if we do keep our eyees playwright, although he put himself open for resemblances and identity, in the center of controversy by print­ then serious difficulties arise for those ing Greene's Groatsworth of Wit, who accept the claim, for example, which he tried to ward off in his pref­ that Francis Tresham died of a ace to Kind-Heart's Dream. As a play­ strangury in the Tower. The indica­ wright he had rather less than genius tions are that, like Monteagle, Robert since he produced no less than 48 Catesby and Thomas Percy, he had a plays infive years, but none of them well-defined role to play, a role of brought him success or much money. which Robert Cecil was only too well According to the Dictionary of aware. The man who wrote from the National Biography, Ben Jonson was English embassy in Valladolid as certainly educated at Westminster Matthew Bmninge in 1606 and 1607, School at William Camden's expense. was beyond reasonable doubt, taken It admits "the evidence is rather against with other evidence, Francis Tresham. his having attended either university," Joan Cambridge did a similar inves­ but Fuller, no mean authority, claimed tigation for the Folio Society, when it that he was at St. John's College, contracted to publish the Tesimond Cambridge, for atime. A s for George nanative in translation from the manu­ Chapman, "Wood is confident that script kept at Stonyhurst. Once again. Chapman was educated at Oxford, but -Elizabethan Review- he gives no precise information. It is eariy 2000's. usually assumed that he spent some As to where the young time at Oxford, and afterwards pro­ Shakespeare of popular tradition could ceeded to Cambridge." This would have gained his knowledge of the many account for his proficiency in Latin things necessary for his plays, we and Greek but since he did not, it emerge in our speculation from the seems, study logic or philosophy, this relatively safety of port for the uncer­ would also account for the fact that he tainty of the high seas. There were took no degree. certainly good libraries in London— There is less likelihood concern­ Lord Montagu for example had one of ing Thomas Kyd, although he had the them—but none were public or of beginning in Merchant Taylors' easy accessibility in a modern sense, School which might have taken him and it seems doubtful that anyone on to university. But perhaps what would have made his books—valu­ Nashe referred to as "the swelling able items—available to someone up bombast of bragging blank verse" and from the country and with the smell of his addition to "tragedy of blood" horses still clinging to him from his which characterized his work and that day's work. But Richard Field is a of other populist playwrights, put him good possibility. The more serious firmly in the second division, as it difficulty arises about the books that were; all in the time "before the young Shakespeare could have Shakespeare revolutionzed public bortowed, especially for hisfirst play taste." Admittedly, no one, and cer­ or plays—he could hardly have af­ tainly not Kyd himself, it seems, made forded to buy them on the wages of a any claim that he ever went to univer­ horse holder! It seems to be generally sity. As for Michael Dayton, "there is agreed that Love's Labour's Lost was no evidence to show whether he was a the writer's earliest play. A. Gray member of eitheruniversity,"altiiough says of it, "the play has all the marks he himself claimed he was "nobly of afirst exercis e in comedy. It has no bred" and "well allied" and if so might progress or plot... In structural skill it have been expected to attend one of is as inferior to the Two Gentlemen as the universities. Thomas Dekker is it surpasses it in poetical fancy" (A something of a mystery man: like Chapter in the Early Life of Melchisedech of old, he turned up Shakespeare, Cambridge 1926, p. 50). rather suddenly and nobody knows But as I. Wilson noted, the play refers where he came from. The fact that not only to recognizable characters in names of students do not always ap­ French court circles of the time—^the pear in the official list is not of course King of Navarre, Berowne, Longaville proof that they were never in atten­ and the Duke of Mayence recall names dance. It will be interesting to see of known courtiers (Shakespeare the what The New Dictionary of National Evidence, London 1993, p 160)—but Biography has to say about these it also shows a knowledge of the court worthies when it is reissued in the etiquette of the time which could not Letters- have been lifted from a book before vantages of his surroundings and cir­ the early 19th century. cumstances, but it is diffcult to be­ Although Ben Jonson against all lieve that he could have done this in likelihood seems to have passed the world of the 16th century. Without through various trades and occupa­ at least a modicum of real evidence, tions he surely did not "become the which we do not have, it seems at least greatest classical scholar in England unlikely. So in the absence of real while working as a bricklayer's ap­ evidence on so much, we will all con­ prentice, soldier, and actor" while he tinue to speculate on what we take to was actually engaged in them? be the strength of the probabilities Shakespeare's genius doubtless al­ supporting our own position and the lowed him to make better and fuller unlikelihood of what is taken to up­ use of his talents than most, and in hold our adversaries. these days of unemployment subsi­ dized by state benefits, numerous free libraries and plentiful opportunities of bursaries and scholarships even in Sincerely, the present straitened times of En­ Francis Edwards, SJ gland, William of Stratford mightcon- Fellow, Royal Historical Society ceivably have risen above the disad­ London