Fantastic Ros- I wasn’t aware to that depth of Eleanor’s family connections other than she was a niece of Blanche Parry (who left her 100 pounds in her will) and was somehow related to Burghley. (Her deceased husband had a job in government too but I don’t recall the details). My other thought was that given the Flushing incident the previous year Marlowe was likely STILL an ‘intelligencer’ in 1593 and all these men were therefore colleagues or ex colleagues. I greatly admire Charles Nichols as an author but reading his attempts to hammer the square peg of the facts and logical deductions stemming from those facts into the round hole of his Stratfordian primacy bias is extremely painful.
I meant to add I am in total agreement with you on Charles Nichols. Excellent researcher (and indeed writer) but striving too hard for an approved conclusion.
Yes, Carole has helpfully filled you in on the details in my absence (weekend a way).There's little doubt in my mind that those men are colleagues or ex-colleagues given how likely it is that 1592 was secret service work and the whole Baines business (and Cholmely too) is essentially secret service mess.
From the Peter Farey article linked to in the post.
"Of more relevance, perhaps, is the fact that, until his death some three years earlier, Eleanor's late husband, Richard Bull, had worked for Christopher Browne as his sub-bailiff. In addition to his responsibilities as lord of the manor, Browne was employed as Clerk of the Greencloth - a sort of internal auditor for the Queen. As such, he was a member of the Queen's Household, under the Lord Steward, and thus also a colleague to the Coroner of the Queen's Household, William Danby."
Peter's work on Marlowe was so brilliant, and remains my touchstone. Thank you for sharing this in the comments, Carol. I hope everyone will go and read Peter's essay.
Next year is the centenary of Dr Hotson's discovery of the inquest report. Are we having a cake? It is 100 YEARS since the scurrilous 'tavern brawl' scenario was definitively put to rest by a detailed legal document. Oh, hang on. No it wasn't And it really pisses me off.
We *should* have a cake! Next year.... let's make the 100th anniversary the year we cracked through the nonsense that has survived for a century without basis!
Whatever really happened at Mistress Bull's house the coroner's report, on face value, is still a document saying that Marlowe was a dangerous, violent man. Anyone aware of Kit's history and connection with English spy network sees the coroner's report as highly sus. You can either see the coroner's report as confirmation of his blackened reputation or you can open your mind and imagination and wonder what really happened in Deptford. In the same way that 'reasonable doubt' needs to apply to the SAQ it should be raised regarding the circumstances around Marlowe's death. (I was going to write 'death', but not let's not put the cart before the horse.)
Thanks, Maura! It's such a fascinating period to study. I'm deep in the literary-historical side but everything else quickly becomes relevant (religions, politics etc).
I’m not an historian nor a Marlowe scholar but read Calvin Hoffman’s account when I was 12 so am at least aware of the controversy with no resolution. It’s fascinating for that reason. So thanks, Ros. I’m looking eagerly forward to the next instalment.
Please do. It’s one of those historical mysteries like who murdered King Richard II which is never likely to be completely resolved. I love your contextual detail. Thanks.
Urry lists a Nathaniel Bull as one of the boys at King's with Marlowe, but provides no other biographical detail, implying that he found none as he does provide brief biographies for others (Appendix I).
John Baker - always interesting, not always reliable - makes the connection between Nathaniel & Eleanor & Richard Bull in an article [1], but with no explanation apart from the name.
Richard Wilson does not mention the link in his excellent article 'Visible Bullets: Tamburlaine the Great and Ivan the Terrible' [2], which includes biographical information for the Bull family.
Does anyone have information that would show a link other than the name? It's insufficiently unusual to be enough to make a connection without further evidence.
On p126 of Ruth Richardson's biography - 'Mistress Blanche' Logaston Press 2018 - is a facsimile illustration of a family tree drawn up by William Cecil - BL Lansdowne 109 No.90. The reproduction in the book is not clear, but could be interpreted as showing Eleanor as Sybil's granddaughter. If nothing else, this is the source of Ruth Richardson's family tree
Yes, on page 12 of her Mistress Blanche book, she is very clear in her labelling, in the line directly below Sybil and James Whitney, "granddaughter Elinor Bull". So that's definitely how she's interpreted the family tree in the Lansdowne MS. I took that relationship as read until Rachel Blackmore sent me a copy of James Whitney's will, where he clearly names Eleanor as his daughter.
It's always best to be as accurate as possible, even small mistakes allow critics to cast doubt on the whole. What is beyond doubt is that Eleanor Bull was a woman with connections in high places, not the dubious madam of a dodgy dockside dive as so much fiction masquerading as serious history would have it.
Indeed. That is why I have moved from great-niece (as per Richardson's work) to niece (which is clear from James Whitney's will). Are you suggesting there is something wrong with using James Whitney's will as an authoritative source for Mrs Bull's relationship to Blanche Parry?
Quite the opposite! People frequently make mistakes when describing intergenerational family relationships. I agree that Cecil's family tree is a less reliable document than the will, of which I was unaware until today.
Yes, that's the only new thing that I'm bringing in this post, I think, to those like you who are very much up to speed with it all. I met Rachel Blackmore at the MSA conference, which was most fortuitous.
Fantastic Ros- I wasn’t aware to that depth of Eleanor’s family connections other than she was a niece of Blanche Parry (who left her 100 pounds in her will) and was somehow related to Burghley. (Her deceased husband had a job in government too but I don’t recall the details). My other thought was that given the Flushing incident the previous year Marlowe was likely STILL an ‘intelligencer’ in 1593 and all these men were therefore colleagues or ex colleagues. I greatly admire Charles Nichols as an author but reading his attempts to hammer the square peg of the facts and logical deductions stemming from those facts into the round hole of his Stratfordian primacy bias is extremely painful.
I meant to add I am in total agreement with you on Charles Nichols. Excellent researcher (and indeed writer) but striving too hard for an approved conclusion.
Yes, Carole has helpfully filled you in on the details in my absence (weekend a way).There's little doubt in my mind that those men are colleagues or ex-colleagues given how likely it is that 1592 was secret service work and the whole Baines business (and Cholmely too) is essentially secret service mess.
From the Peter Farey article linked to in the post.
"Of more relevance, perhaps, is the fact that, until his death some three years earlier, Eleanor's late husband, Richard Bull, had worked for Christopher Browne as his sub-bailiff. In addition to his responsibilities as lord of the manor, Browne was employed as Clerk of the Greencloth - a sort of internal auditor for the Queen. As such, he was a member of the Queen's Household, under the Lord Steward, and thus also a colleague to the Coroner of the Queen's Household, William Danby."
Peter's work on Marlowe was so brilliant, and remains my touchstone. Thank you for sharing this in the comments, Carol. I hope everyone will go and read Peter's essay.
Next year is the centenary of Dr Hotson's discovery of the inquest report. Are we having a cake? It is 100 YEARS since the scurrilous 'tavern brawl' scenario was definitively put to rest by a detailed legal document. Oh, hang on. No it wasn't And it really pisses me off.
We *should* have a cake! Next year.... let's make the 100th anniversary the year we cracked through the nonsense that has survived for a century without basis!
Whatever really happened at Mistress Bull's house the coroner's report, on face value, is still a document saying that Marlowe was a dangerous, violent man. Anyone aware of Kit's history and connection with English spy network sees the coroner's report as highly sus. You can either see the coroner's report as confirmation of his blackened reputation or you can open your mind and imagination and wonder what really happened in Deptford. In the same way that 'reasonable doubt' needs to apply to the SAQ it should be raised regarding the circumstances around Marlowe's death. (I was going to write 'death', but not let's not put the cart before the horse.)
I'm not a Marlowe scholar, but gosh, I loved this post! But it's a period of history I've studied and find fascinating.
Thanks, Maura! It's such a fascinating period to study. I'm deep in the literary-historical side but everything else quickly becomes relevant (religions, politics etc).
It's an all-consuming passion when you get the bug for a specific topic! I'm looking forward to learning more about all things Marlowe.
I’m not an historian nor a Marlowe scholar but read Calvin Hoffman’s account when I was 12 so am at least aware of the controversy with no resolution. It’s fascinating for that reason. So thanks, Ros. I’m looking eagerly forward to the next instalment.
Wonderful, thanks Cassandra. I'm looking forward to publishing more pieces about Marlowe.
Please do. It’s one of those historical mysteries like who murdered King Richard II which is never likely to be completely resolved. I love your contextual detail. Thanks.
There was a Nathaniel Bull went to King's School with Marlowe.
Urry lists a Nathaniel Bull as one of the boys at King's with Marlowe, but provides no other biographical detail, implying that he found none as he does provide brief biographies for others (Appendix I).
John Baker - always interesting, not always reliable - makes the connection between Nathaniel & Eleanor & Richard Bull in an article [1], but with no explanation apart from the name.
Richard Wilson does not mention the link in his excellent article 'Visible Bullets: Tamburlaine the Great and Ivan the Terrible' [2], which includes biographical information for the Bull family.
Does anyone have information that would show a link other than the name? It's insufficiently unusual to be enough to make a connection without further evidence.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20070806050243/http:/www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/pamphlet/pamphlet.htm#_edn82
[2] https://www.jstor.org/stable/30030260?read-now=1#page_scan_tab_contents?read-now=1
Yes, I don't think there is any provable connection. Bull is a common name.
On p126 of Ruth Richardson's biography - 'Mistress Blanche' Logaston Press 2018 - is a facsimile illustration of a family tree drawn up by William Cecil - BL Lansdowne 109 No.90. The reproduction in the book is not clear, but could be interpreted as showing Eleanor as Sybil's granddaughter. If nothing else, this is the source of Ruth Richardson's family tree
Yes, on page 12 of her Mistress Blanche book, she is very clear in her labelling, in the line directly below Sybil and James Whitney, "granddaughter Elinor Bull". So that's definitely how she's interpreted the family tree in the Lansdowne MS. I took that relationship as read until Rachel Blackmore sent me a copy of James Whitney's will, where he clearly names Eleanor as his daughter.
It's always best to be as accurate as possible, even small mistakes allow critics to cast doubt on the whole. What is beyond doubt is that Eleanor Bull was a woman with connections in high places, not the dubious madam of a dodgy dockside dive as so much fiction masquerading as serious history would have it.
Indeed. That is why I have moved from great-niece (as per Richardson's work) to niece (which is clear from James Whitney's will). Are you suggesting there is something wrong with using James Whitney's will as an authoritative source for Mrs Bull's relationship to Blanche Parry?
Quite the opposite! People frequently make mistakes when describing intergenerational family relationships. I agree that Cecil's family tree is a less reliable document than the will, of which I was unaware until today.
Yes, that's the only new thing that I'm bringing in this post, I think, to those like you who are very much up to speed with it all. I met Rachel Blackmore at the MSA conference, which was most fortuitous.