Talk:Ingram Frizer

First of all, let me congratulate you all for what you have done here. Your understanding of how Wikipedia works is way beyond mine, and your grasp of Frizer's connections with Thomas Walsingham and Christopher Marlowe most impressive. That I have comments to make upon the article is based solely upon my having "lived with" Marlowe for over half a century, and his associates only a few years less than that.

Since this is your project, however, it seems only right to me that you should be the people to have the opportunity to change what is said. So at least initially let me tell what my reactions are to what is said in the article.

"Ingram Frizer, died August 1627, (/ˈfriːzər/—"freezer")^[1] was an English gentleman, businessman and intelligence agent of the late 16th century and early 17th century who is notable for killing playwright Christopher Marlowe in the home of Eleanor Bull on 30 May 1593.^[2]"

There is no evidence at all that Frizer was ever an "intelligence agent" and no reason to assume any connection with Thomas Walsingham until after Thomas apparently gave up such work about four years earlier. See my comment below concerning the citation provided for this.

"==Biography==

Little is known of Frizer's life, but surviving legal records show him to have been a fairly well-to-do business man profiting from buying and selling property. At the time of Marlowe's death the landowner Thomas Walsingham was Frizer's "master", but this does not imply that Frizer was a servant: As well as acting on his own behalf, Frizer was Walsinham's business agent.^[3] Walsingham was a young relative of Queen Elizabeth's Secretary of State, Sir Francis Walsingham; both Walsinghams were heavily involved with espionage and it is probable that Frizer was involved in intelligence work on behalf of the younger Walsingham.^[4]"

"Walsinham" (spelling)

"a servant: As well..." (punctuation)

We know that Frizer was Audrey Walsingham's "business agent" in 1603, but can only infer that his role vis-a-vis Thomas was a similar one in 1593, and as the number of biographers saying this are well outnumbered by those who don't some lessening of the certainty expressed here is advisable.

Thomas Walsingham's father (another Thomas) was first cousin to Sir Francis. Why not say so?

That a single biographer has suggested as a "probability" (but did he?) that Frizer was "involved in intelligence work" should not be given precedence over the significant majority who suggest no such thing unless new evidence is offered by him, which is not so in this case.

"For several years before his murder Marlowe had been loosely attached to the Walsinghams' intelligence operation and was likely to have done some espionage work for them.^[5]"

There is no evidence that his work was for "the Walsinghams". In fact the evidence of his involvement in such activities suggests otherwise. Sir Francis was not one of the signatories of the Privy Council letter in 1587 concerning Marlowe's work for them, and the next piece of 'evidence' would not be until 1592, at least two years after Sir Francis's death and Thomas's apparent retirement to Scadbury. The common factor in these two events is Lord Burghley, not either of the Walsinghams.

"In the Spring of 1593 Marlowe was staying at Thomas Walsingham's home at Scadbury Park, Kent and on the day of the murder Frizer invited Marlowe to a banquet in Deptford, a riverside town some seven miles to the north, at the house of Eleanor Bull, the widow of a local official.^[4] The status of the establishment to which Frizer invited Marlowe is unclear, but it was probably a private victualling house, rather than a public tavern.^[6] Also in attendance were Nicholas Skeres and Robert Poley, both associated with Sir Francis Walsingham's intelligence operation.^[7]"

Whilst the warrant issued on behalf of the Privy Council suggests that Marlowe might be found at Scadbury, we don't actually know that he was found there.

That Frizer invited Marlowe there for a feast (not a banquet) comes from a source (William Vaughan) who got enough of the other details wrong, according to the inquest, to cast a little doubt upon the accuracy of this too. Mention it of course, but not as the fact it seems to be portrayed as here.

Whilst both Skeres and Poley had been associated with Sir Francis's intelligence operation, and Poley was certainly employed by the Privy Council in 1593, the current position of Skeres is far less certain, so the tense used is important.

"According to Frizer's evidence, which was supported by Poley and Skeres and accepted by the coroner's jury, at the end of a long day's conversation Poley, Frizer and Skeres were in a private room, seated on a narrow bench against a table, to play backgammon. Marlowe was lounging on a bed elsewhere in the room. Frizer and Marlowe got into an argument over "the reckyninge" — the bill. Marlowe suddenly jumped over to Frizer, seized the other man's dagger, carried in the small of his back and used for cutting meat rather than fighting,^[8] and with it stabbed him twice in the head. Frizer, his freedom of movement restricted between Poley and Skeres, could only defend himself by wresting the weapon from Marlowe and striking out at his assailant. His blow landed above Marlowe's right eye.^[9] The blade entered Marlowe's brain, killing him immediately. According to the coroner's report, Frizer escaped with only the cuts on his head inflicted by Marlowe with Frizer's own dagger.^[10]"

That they were playing backgammon, as this tells us, was not "According to Frizer's evidence" or even mentioned in the inquest at all. Again we are relying upon a doubtful source and need to reflect this in the wording.

The inquest tells us that the table was (apparently for emphasis, in English rather than Latin) "nere the bed" so that the bed must have been near the table, not as far away as "elsewhere in the room" implies.

We need to indicate that the carrying of a dagger for the purposes described applied to most men, not just Frizer?

There is a difference between "stabbing" someone with a knife (i.e. using the point) and giving them "two wounds" with it, which could easily (and in my opinion more probably) have been inflicted by the hilt. The same applies to the word "cuts" of course.

Why do we keep on coming up with new sources (e.g. David Riggs) when all they are doing is repeating information gleaned from the original discoverer of the information, in this case Leslie Hotson?

"Frizer was found 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.^[11] The pardon, which is in Latin, refers to him as Ingramus ffrisar, Generosus (gentleman), and gives a detailed account of the death of Marlowe.^[12][13] A few years later, when King James ascended the throne, Frizer received numerous benefices from the crown, through the action of Audrey Walsingham (Thomas's wife and a friend of James's Queen, Anne of Denmark).^[14] He moved to an estate in Eltham, Kent, where he lived respectably until his death.^[15]"

As above, why cite Tucker Brooke, when all he was doing is repeating what Hotson had said - together with transcripts and translations of all of the relevant information - unless he had something new to say?

(to be continued) Peter Farey (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(continued)

"===Motives===

Although the "self defence" evidence offered at Marlowe's inquest was quite in keeping with the victim's known propensity for sudden violence,^[16] some theories suggest that Frizer could have had other motives. Park Honan proposes that Marlowe's presence at Scadbury was a threat to Walsingham's reputation and influence, and thus threatened Frizer's interests also: The Privy Council certainly suspected Marlowe of atheism and heresy, and yet he was a regular and welcome house-guest of one of Elizabeth's former spymasters.^[8][17] Honan considers it possible that, given the circumstances, it was Thomas Walsingham himself—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.^[8] 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 silence. 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 surmise Frizer is no more than one of Skeres's associates, and not the principal player.^[18] 864-3902-7)</ref>"

Ros Barber, in the thesis for her recently awarded PhD, demonstrates very clearly how Park Honan's characterization of Marlowe as "violent" is entirely without foundation. In fact there is quite enough of a discrepancy between the various biographers' thoughts on this subject for it to be seen as failing to provide a NPOV to pick any one biographer's opinion above that of any other. (Nicholl?)

I'm not sure that this is the right place to get into this whole business of motives unless we are prepared to cover the whole spectrum of theories as to why he did it. Just two is hardly enough! A survey of the many different theories as to why Marlowe was murdered rather than being killed in self defence belongs in the "Christopher Marlowe" entry, not here. A simple redirect to where this is discussed in detail should be enough.

"The Marlovian theory suggests that Frizer aided Marlowe in faking his death to become William Shakespeare.^[19]"

Oh dear me no. The Marlovian theory argues that Marlowe's death was faked (whether Marlowe was involved in the decision or not) and that Frizer played a major part in that deception. Frizer's role in this was concerned solely with the faked death, and had nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Marlowe continued to write plays, or just who he would have chosen as a 'front' if he did so.

May I suggest that the link to "Marlovian theory" is quite enough, and that citing any single author as being "the source" for it is going to be wrong. Some more than others!

Peter Farey (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

My initial reaction is be bold: AFAICS no previous contributor has "lived with Marlowe" for longer than the duration of two or three biographies, or even the 60 minutes of a documentary-flavoured TV entertainment, let alone half a century. I only came here through starting a page to bring Walsingham out from the shadow of his fourteenth-century namesake—I've no special expertise, or even interest, beyond filling the gap in Wikipedia. (Incidentally I've decided to postpone starting anything on Poley while there's a chance that someone knowledgeable may take the field.) There's no one contributor to whom you need to justify changes, and nobody "owns" the page. As you can see, a lot of what's here has been added piecemeal, without the benefit any overall view of Frizer's role and significance. All his life should be covered, not just his links with Walsingham and Marlowe.

We do need to balance all the sources and, informed though your selections obviously are, we do need to be even-handed; you seem to have regard for Hotson and his meticulous research, but surely some of the material of the subsequent 80 years, perhaps unlike that from Brooke, contains a good deal that is of value.

On other pages I've retired, battered and bruised, after trying to balance the sources on the Shakespeare authorship question—as James Shapiro notes it's persistence, rather than expertise, that carries the day for the anti-Strats on Wikipedia—so I've shirked touching it here, even when it is only dealing with a peripheral player. However, motive does need to be covered. Your point about "do the motive properly or leave it out" (heavy paraphrase) for me only has one answer: "do it properly". This doesn't, as you say, mean cover Marlowe in detail: only as far as needed to explain and contextualize Frizer's actions.

Good luck!

--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the very valid comments. As you know from the Marlowe and Marlovian theory pages I am not always so reluctant to wade straight in with my edits, but given the background to this one I thought it more polite to allow the originators a chance at least to comment upon what I was suggesting first.

Yes, later writers have added to Hotson's discoveries concerning Frizer - I seem to recall Honan cominng up with some new information concerning a property he acquired later - and my only complaint was really that it is better for the person who discovered the "fact" in the first place to be cited rather than someone who is simply repeating in a different way what the discoverer has already said.

Funnily enough, I had already noted the Poley-and-Skeres-shaped gaps created by the inclusion of an entry on Frizer, and was intending to do something about it some day. Maybe I'll bring that forward, but let's at least get this one "done properly" first!

Never thought I'd see the day when a Stratfordian needed to persuade me to include the "faked death" theory in an article!

Peter Farey (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have just re-read Marlovian theory and I need, in fairness, to add to my last (above) that Shapiro was talking mainly about Oxfordians on Wikipedia; there doesn't seem to be anything exceptionable in the Marlovian article's page history. Indeed, Shapiro predicts that Oxford is about to lose his place in the Wikipedia sun when the see-saw of fashion once again promotes Marlowe to preferred alternative candidate for authorship. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Where Shapiro really annoyed us was by lumping our case in with that of all other anti-Stratfordians, clearly without making any attempt to find out just what the Marlovian argument actually is. We noted with a wry smile the sudden flurry of activity on Marlovian websites from his university very late on in the process, presumably so that he could at least give the impression in his bibliography that he had given our arguments some attention. In a nutshell, the Marlovian argument is not based upon a biographical interpretation of the works as he claims but firstly, as you now know for yourself, upon doubts about Marlowe's alleged death and secondly the relationship of his work to Shakespeare's. In fact I have just been pressured by someone into providing a mass of information in support of a related claim about Marlovian theory in Wikipedia which was perfectly obvious to anyone who had had any sort of interest in it over the years.

Sadly, Shapiro's predictions about the way in which the canditature of the Shakespeare authorship will change is to be relied upon no more than his understanding of just what the Marlovian argument actually is. As for "fashion", I think we may assume that Emmerich's "Anonymous" will make Oxfordianism even more fashionable, but I'm not sure that this has any relevance to what is needed for something eventually to be accepted as a legitimate subject for consideration in academic circles. Do you?

Peter Farey (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

AFAICR there are academics who acknowledge the possibility and include the topic in their courses, but this comes from the wearying to-and-fro arguments that used to be a feature of the subject on WP, rather than any WP:RS that can be quoted. There seems to be scope for tactfully—and your approach here has certainly been tactful—examining academic scrutiny of the subject on SAQ, even if academic support may be harder to demonstrate. Best do it before September, when any well-reasoned arguments are likely to be swamped by those from excited fans of the movie!--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Apart from crying out for a {{who}} tag, I reverted this because it's not what the reference says: Nicholl's opening on the cited page certainly bears this interpretation, but he goes on to blame the biographers in question for not "fully investigating the subject". Later on the page he confidently describes "the beginnings of Marlowe's dealings with the Elizabethan intelligence service", and he develops this in detail over the following ten pages. When I get time, perhaps I can add to the references. Hutchinson (2006), for example, has "Marlowe (playwright and spy)" and Honan names his biography Christopher Marlowe: poet & spy. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Added --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)