For several years before his death,
Christopher Marlowe had been employed in some intelligence capacity on behalf of the government. In the spring of 1593 he appears to have been staying at Thomas Walsingham's home at Scadbury, near Chislehurst in Kent, and had been invited by Frizer to a "feast" in
Deptford, a township on the river Thames some seven miles to the north, at the house of
Eleanor Bull, the widow of a local official. The status of Bull's establishment is unclear, but it was probably a private
victualling house, rather than a public tavern. Also in attendance were Nicholas Skeres and
Robert Poley, both of whom had been associated with Sir Francis Walsingham's intelligence operation. In fact, Poley was working for the
Privy Council at the time. Complete details of Marlowe's killing on 30 May 1593, as contained in an inquest run by the Coroner of the Queen's Household two days later, were discovered by
Leslie Hotson in 1925. According to this report, based upon accounts from the three men present, Poley, Frizer, Skeres and Marlowe were in a private room, having had dinner. Poley, Frizer and Skeres were all seated facing a table with Frizer in the middle. Marlowe was lounging on a bed just behind them when Frizer and he got into an argument over "le recknynge" (the reckoning, i.e. the bill). Marlowe suddenly jumped up, seized Frizer's dagger, which Frizer was wearing "at his back", and with it struck him twice on the head, leaving wounds two inches long and a quarter deep. Frizer, his freedom of movement restricted between Poley and Skeres, struggled to defend himself and in doing so stabbed Marlowe above the right eye, killing him immediately. Frizer was found by the inquest jury on 1 June 1593 to be not guilty of murder for reasons of self-defence, and on 28 June, the queen granted him a formal pardon.
Motives Although some contend the "self-defence" evidence offered at Marlowe's
inquest was quite in keeping with the victim's alleged propensity for sudden violence, this has been brought into question by
Charles Nicholl, who notes that Marlowe's supposed previous history of violence has been somewhat exaggerated. The tendency, particularly by
Park Honan, to portray Marlowe as violent is challenged by Rosalind Barber in her essay "Was Marlowe a Violent Man?". It has been suggested that Frizer could have had other motives. Honan proposes that Marlowe's presence at Scadbury was a threat to Walsingham's reputation and influence, and thus threatened Frizer's interests. The Privy Council certainly suspected Marlowe of atheism and heresy, yet he was a regular and welcome house-guest of one of Elizabeth's former spymasters. At the start of 1593, it was upheld in Parliament that heresy was tantamount to the greatest crime of all: treason. Honan considers it possible that, given the circumstances, it was Thomas Walsingham, accustomed "not to look far into Frizer's...trickery", who initiated the deed by making his agent aware that Marlowe was becoming a liability to them both, and so indirectly securing his former friend's death. Another theory suggests that Marlowe, as a supposed member of
The School of Night, became aware of
Essex's plots against
Raleigh, and Skeres was sent to warn him to keep silent. It was only when Marlowe refused to heed the warning was the unpremeditated decision taken to silence him in a more certain and final way. In this theory, Frizer is no more than one of Skeres's associates, and not the principal player. The
Marlovian theory suggests that Frizer took part in the faking of Marlowe's death to allow him to escape trial and almost certain execution for his subversively atheistic activities. This theory further suggests that Marlowe went into exile, and wrote the plays attributed to
William Shakespeare. ==References==