Raleigh, Hariot, And Atheism in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England

8/9/2019 Raleigh, Hariot, And Atheism in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England

1/10

Raleigh, Hariot, and Atheism in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England

Author(s): Susanne S. WebbReviewed work(s):Source: Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1969), pp.10-18Published by: The North American Conference on British StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4048171.

Accessed: 06/01/2012 23:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The North American Conference on British Studiesis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access toAlbion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nacbshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4048171?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4048171?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nacbs


2/10

RALEIGH, HARIOT,

AND ATHEISMIN ELIZABETHAN

AND

EARLY

STUART ENGLAND

Susanne

S.

Webb

It

has

long

been

accepted

as

fact

that

Raleigh

was an

important figure

in

a

coterie

of

maverick

intellectual,

generally

referred

to as

the

School

of

Night.

The

asuptions

are

that

this

coterie was a structured

group;

that it

concerned

itse

with

iconoclastic

attitudes

toward religion

and

philosophy,

politics

literature,

and the

sciences-

and

that

the

Raleigh

corie

was

in

active

opposi-

tion to a

rival

group,

the

members of wich

included the

Earl of

Essex,

the

Earl of

Southampton,

and

William

Shakespeare.

However,

to concerns

need

clariication to

eva-uate

he evidence

tha

Raleigh

was

a

member of

such

a

,group:

were the

attacks

on

hm as

atheist

justifd,

and

what were

his

attitudes toward intellectu

pursuits?

It

would

then

be most

practic

to

ascertain on whaLt evidene. the

School of Night

theorv

is

based,

how it

is

presen.ted

and interpreted

by

tenteth

centry

scholars,

a

whether

or not

earlier accounts of

Raleigh

scribe

to such

theories,

examining along the

way

what

Rleigh's

beliefs

were

c

can

be

deterniined

by

his

writings

ad

what

contemporary atitudes

were toward

Raleigh

and his

associates.

It

nay then be

possible

to

judge

if

there

is

liustification for

serting

that Raleigh ws a

leader--or even a member--of such a group, and indeed, if any such roup is

likely

to

have

existed.

1:

592,

in

answer

t

iElizabeth's proclamation

against

the

Jesuits,

Father

Robert

Parsons

published

his

Responsio

in which

he

deplored

the

notion

that

Raleilgh

might

become

a privy

councilor

and thus

introduce an atheistic

policy

into

Engl

d,

through

the

agency

of

his

conjurer,

usually taken

to

be

Thomas

Hariot, An

Advertisment,

the

English

summary of the

Resposio,

repeated

the

charge but did not speculate

on Raleigh's appointment to the Privy

Council.

Of

Sir

Walter

Raleigh's school

of atheism by the

way,

and of the conjurer

that is

M

Laster] thereof,

and of the diligence used to

get young

gentlemen

to this school, wherein both Mioses and our Savior, the Old and New Testament

are

jested

at,

and

the

scholars

taught among other things to spell God back-

ward.

,2

These

two

indictments,

while by far the

most

widely

circulated,

were

lElizabethae,

Angliae

Reginae

Haeresim

Calvinianam

Propugnantis

Saevissiunum

in

Catholicos

sui

Regi

e4dictu.

cum

Responsione.

per

D.

Andream

Philopatrum

(Augsburg, 1a92)

cited

by Ernest A.

Strathman,

John Dee as

Raleigh's

Conjurer,

Huntington

Library

uarterl

X

(1947)

370.

2An Advertisement Written to a Secretary of

My

L..

Treasurers of

,England,

by

an

English

Intelligencer

as

He Passed

through

Germany

towards

Italy,

18.

10


3/10

not

the

only replies

to the

proclamation

that attacked Raleigh

directly

or

indirectly. Father

Creswell, Thomas Stapleton, and Richard

Verstegern also

treated Raleigh as a

man

to be reckoned

with. However, other

significant

references to Raleigh's

atheism

during

1592-1594 are in manuscript

sources.

Thus

it is

largely

due

to the wide circulation

of Parsons's tract

that Raleigh

was suspected of

atheism.

The charge of atheism may be refuted both circumstantially and by

reference

to

Raleigh's

own

works.

Both

the

antiquary Hooker and preacher

Hakluyt

dedicated editions of their

wsorks

to Raleigh, and did so in specifically

Christian

terms:

Hooker dedicated

The

Irish

History

and

Hakluyt dedicated

both his edition of

Peter

Mlartyrls

De

Orbe Novo

and his

English translation of

Laudonniere's

History

of

Florida. Further, Raleigh

was instrumental

in

securing

the

remission

of

a sentence

of

death

upon

John

Udall,

a

Puritan

scholar

and

preacher,

and

by

1591

Nvasknowvn

s a

source of

aid

for persecuted

Puritans.

3

In addition

to helping Puritans, Raleigh

was

active

in

pursuing

Jesuits,

and

with

Ralph Horsey

was

present

at

the

interrogation

of a

notabell

stout

villayne,

John Mlooney, Father Cornelius.4

Further refutation of

the

charge

that

Raleigh

was an

atheist

rests

upon his

own

intellectual

attitudes which reveal

a

staunchly Christian

but

hardly

pedestrian approach

to

religion and

the

pursuit

of

knowledge.

Raleigh main-

tains

three

principles throughout

the

History

of

the

World. First,

that

God

is

over

nature,

and that nature

is the

agency by

which God's

purposes

are

accomplished: I

do also

account

it

not

the

meanest,

but

an impiety monstrous

to confound God and nature

be it but

in

terms.

For

it is

God that only disposeth

of all

things according

to

his

own

will,

and nmaketh

of

one

earth

v-essels

of

honour and dishonour: it is nature that can dispose of nothing, but according

to

the

will of the

matter wherein

it

worketh.

It

is

God

that

commandeth

all.

a

Second,

that

man,

in

studying nature,

must

of

necessity

be restricted

by

the

bounds of human

reason: That Nature

is

no

principium

per

se;

nor form

the

giver of being: and

of our ignorance

how second causes should

have

any pro-

portion

with

their effects.

,,6

Third, that man,

even

though

human reason

is

limited, should

aid in any way possible

and legitimate

the

advancement

of

knowvledgeto effect

the betterment of

the

condition of

mankind. It

is

note-

worthy that throughout the preface Raleigh

rejects

the

old

Aristotelian

scholastic approaches

to Christian theology,

but that

he

replaces

them

with a

firm faith and soundly logical--almost Baconian--approach. But doth it

follow, that

the

positions

of

heathen

philosophers

are

undoubted

ground

and

principles, indeed,

because so called?

or

that

ipsi

dixerunt,

doth

make

them

3Edw'ard Edwards,

Life of Raleigh,

2

vols.; (London, 1868), I,

132.

4

Ibid. II, 91.

5Walter

Raleigh,

Preface, The History

of

the

World,

The Works of

Sir Walter

Rzleigh

(London,

1829), lvii.

6Ibid.,

I, i,

24.

, , ,~~~~~~~~1


4/10

to

be such?

Certainly

no.

But

this is

true,

that where natural

reason

hath

built

anything

so

strong

against

itself,

as the same

reason

can

hardly

assail

it,

much less

batter

it

down,

the

same,

in

every question

of

nature,

and

finite

power,

may be

approved for a fundamental

law of human

knowledge., 7

Raleigh

was

no

original

thinker and

accepted

much

conventional

sixteenth

century

thought;

yet

he did

so

having

examined

it and

judged.

He

argued

against

the

confusion of natural magic and sorcery; he defended judicial astrology, granted

that

astrology

is

abused, yet

argued that

the

abuse does

not

negate

its

proper

use;

because

he

distrusted the

multitudes,

he

revealed a

fleeting doubt

whether

it

was

wise

to

publish

scientific

discoveries,

but

acknowledged

that

the

scientist

has

that

responsibility

to

his

society.

His

greatest

admiration

was

for

pure

science,

and he

ridiculed the

father

who sends his

son to the

univer-

sity

expecting

to

see

tangible evidence

and results

from his

investment.

The

evidence

for

Raleigh's

connection

with

the

School

of Night

rests

upon

a

juncturing

of

several

matters,

the

interdependency

of

which

is

highly

dubious:

an

attempt

to

associate

Raleigh

with

Mlarlowe and thus

blacken

his

reputation

wN-ithhe same brush

that

has

blackened

Marlowe's; an

attempt to

read the

evidlence

given at

Cerne

Abbas as

conclusive

proof

of his

highly

unorthodox

beliefs

and

practices;

and

an

attempt to

color

hiis

activities with

the

same

suspicion

as

contemporaiy

accounts

reveal

of the

activities

of

Hariot and

Percy

by

emphasizing

his

association

with them.

Only

one

bit

of hard

evidence

exists

to

link

Raleigh

with

Marlowe:

the

statement in

an

accusation

against

Richard

Chomley

that

Chomley

saieth

and

verily

believeth

that one

Marlowe is

able

to show

more sound

reasons

for

atheism

than

any divine

in

England

is

able to

give

to prove

divinity

and that

Marlowe told him that he hath read the atheist lecture to Sir Walter Raleigh

and

others.

8

Chomley's

statement

loses

much

credibility

because

Chomley

himself

was

under

suspicion

of

organizing a

treasonable

conspiracy

of

atheists

and

because

of the

apparent

connection

betwveen

Chomley

and

the Earl

of

Essex,

Raleigh's

enemy,

who on

November

13

wrote to

Littleton,

Aston,

and

Bagot

thanking

them for

their

trouble in

the

matter of

his

servant

ghomley

and

asking

for its

continuance that

his

innocency

may be

established.

Other

evidence

attempts to link

Raleigh

with

Marlowe

through

Thomas

Hariot.

On June

2,

1593,

Richard Baines

accused

Marlowe of

blasphemy

and

connected

him

with

Hariot:

He

affirmeth

that

Moses was

but

a

Juggler

and

that one Hariot being Sir A. Raleigh's man can do more than he. ,10 Having

thus

established a

tenuous

association

between

Raleigh

and

Marlowe

through

7Ibid

Prefs

ee.

xliv-xlv.

8

F.

S.

Boas,

Marlowe

and His

Circle

(Oxord,

1929),

84.

91bid.,

83.

10

Ibid., 71-

72 .

12


5/10

Hariot,

the

supporters

of the

theory

cite references to the

association of

Hariot and

Marlowe to reinforce their

theory.

When

questioned about his own

beliefs, Thomas Kyd mentioned that Marlowe had

conversed

with Hariot,

Warner, Roydon

and some

stationers

in

Paul's

churchyard,

and

also that

Mlarlowe

intended to

go

to

Scotland

where

Roydon

had

already gone.

11

From

this

evidence,

M.

C.

Bradbrook concludes

of

Raleigh that

'larlowe knew

him ,12

that such were the men who gathered in Raleigh's house for discus-

sion.

t13

The

partisans

of the

School of

Night support

their

theory

with

evidence

from

the

inquiry

at Cerne

Abbas, March

1594.

The

commission, a branch

of

Her

Majesty's

Commissioners for Causes

Ecclesiastical,

was

to

investigate

possible heretical

activity

in

Dorsetshire.

The

commission's members were

Lord

Thomas

Howard, Chancellor

Francis

James, John Williams, Francis

Hawley,

and

Sir

Ralph

Horsey.

14

The

witnesses

were

asked

nine

questions in

an

attempt

to elicit

information

about who

was

suspected

of

atheism, or

apostasy,

who had

blasphemed

or doubted God's existence

or

his

power,

the

resurrection,

predestination, and heaven and

hell

as well as

who had doubted

the

truth

of

the

Scriptures,

the

being

or

immortality

of the

soul,

and

who had

consorted

with such

as

did

doubt. Of

the

witnesses,

two

of

the twelve knew

nothing. Two others

restricted their

accusations

to

Raleigh's associates

Hariot and

Allen,

and his

brother

Carew.

Three others knew

something

to

the

detriment

of

Allen,

and

three

reported

mere

suspicion of

Raleigh. Most of

the

information

resides

in

the

depositions of

Nicholas

Jefferys and Ralph

Ironside. Jefferys

may

well

have

held

a grudge against

Raleigh,

but

Ironside's

deposition

must

be

credited since

one

of

the

Commissioners, Horsey,

had

been

present at the dinner at Trenchard's. Jefferys took Raleigh to task on three

counts:

that

Raleigh

was suspected of

atheism,

that Hariot

had been

convented

before

the

council for

denying

the

resurrection of

the

body,

and

that

Raleigh had disputed with

Ironside about

the

soul.

Jefferys also

gratuitously

included

information that

the

Raleighs

had

been

high handed

with

him

several years before in

commandeering

his

horse. Ironside's

deposition recounts

the

dinner

at Trenchard's

where

Carew

Raleigh began

the

imbroglio by some

loose speeches which Horsey

reproved.

Ironside

disputed

with

Carew,

and Walter, defending his brother,

requested Ironside

to answer

Carew's question, Soul, what

is that?

Unfortunately,

we

do not

know what Carew's loose speech was, the better to judge Horsey's attitude,

11G. B. Harrison (ed.),

Willobie His

Avisa

(New York, 1966),

211.

12M. C. Bradbrook, The

School of

Night

(New York, 1965),

29.

13Ibid.,

42.

1

Harrison (ed.),

Wllobie

257. All references to

the

inquiry

are from

Appendix m.

13


6/10

but

the

fact that no

action

was taken

against Raleigh

or others as a result of

the

hearing is, perhaps, significant.

According

to the

deposition,

Raleigh

obviously baited

Ironside,

trying

to force him to

pin

down what he was

saying and quit talkng in circles--an action of which Raleigh was

entirely

capable. His skeptical

comments

reveal

that he took issue with the

traditional

approaches

to

explainig

God and

the

soul, not that

he

disputed

their

existence.

Ironside is made to appear a fool; thus it is likely that he gives us an unflat-

tering picture

of

Raleigh,

but because

Horsey

was

present

at both the

dinner

and the

inquiry,

we must

suppose

that Ironside

reported truthfully.

Finally, Raleigh

is

connected

to

the

School of

Night by

evidence

of

his

associates,

Hariot

and

Percy,

who were known

freethinkers.

Thomas Hariot

was a

close

associate

of

Raleigh's apparently

from

about 1580. Some

time

after

1594

he left

Raleigh's employ

and took

Henry

Percy,

Earl of Northum-

berland, as

his

patron. Hariot, largely because

he

rejected conventional

contemporary learning, was suspected of holding strange opinions at

least

from the early 1590's to the end of his life. As the reference to Hariot in the

Marlowe

evidence

and

the

Cerne

Abbas

inquiry

should

indicate,

much

of

the

calumny

which

accrues to Raleigh comes from

his

association with Hariot, for

even

Chief Justice Popham, in pronouncing sentence upon Raleigh

in

1603

urged him to abandon the company and influence of Hariot for fear of

eternal

damnation.

15

Yet there is contemporary evidence affirming Hariot's ortho-

doxy. He is praised by churchmen for his scientific accomplishments,

notably by Hakluyt and by Corbet, later Bishop of Norwich.

6

His

own work,

A

Brief

and True

Report

of

Virginia,

demonstrates

that

he

was no

atheist.

Furthermore, William Lower, in a personal letter to Hariot, says

amongst

other things I have learnt of you to settle and submit my desires to the will of

God.

,,17

Hariot's letter to his physician further substantiates his orthodoxy,

'My recovery will be your triumph, gut through the almighty who is the author

of

all good things. . .

.

I

believe

in God Almighty; I believe that medicine was

ordained

by him; I trust the physician as his minister. ,,18

Henry Percy, a Catholic, was well known for his interest in

scientific

and

occult

studies. Apparently he patronized many poets and

scientists includ-

ing not only Hariot but also Robert Hues, Walter Warner, John Donne, Chap-

man and Peel. Ferdinando Stanley, Lord George Hunsdon and Raleigh are

often

included

in his circle.

19

However, except for their common

15Edwards, Life of

Raleigh, I, 435-6.

16Ernest

A. Strathman,

Sir

Walter

Raleigh

(New York,

1951),

45.

17Henry

Stevens,

Thomas Hariot

and His

Associates

(London,

1900),

124.

18

Ibid.,

142.

19Robert

Kargon,

Atomism

in

England

from Hariot

to

Newton (Oxford,

1966), 6-7.

14


7/10

association

with Hariot,

except for

a letter

in 1602

to Lord Cobham

anticipat-

ing

a

meeting

between

Cobham,

Raleigh

and

Percy,

and

except

that

in

1605

Percy

was examined

in Star

Chamber about

his

association

with Raleigh,

21

know no

reason

to associate

Raleigh firmly

with

an intellectual coterie

around

the earl

prior to

1605. During

their long imprisonment

in

the Tower,

Raleigh

and

Percy

were

very

likely

intellectually

associated,

and

Raleigh probably

conducted

some chemical experiments

in concert

with

Percy.

Both

of

them

maintained

their contact

with Hariot

during

this

period. However,

with

the

exceptions noted

above,

I

suspect

that

before 1605

their

association

was

at

the most

a

friendship.

Certainly

the facts that

both men were

closely

associated

with

Hariot,

and

that both

were in the

tower for

over

a decade,

and that

Northumberland gathered

about himself

many

of the intellectuals

of

the

day

must

account

for

part

of the School

of Night

myth.

Basically,

the

theory

has been structured

on

reiteration

of the

same

scraps

of

evidence,

over

and

over,

and such reiteration

has

tended to give

the

allegation the force of fact. The interpretation of the evidence based on such

reiteration

and reinforced

with

highly

selective

references to Raleigh's

works,

together

with comparative

studies

of

Raleigh's

works

with those of

Marlowe

and

Chapman,

have

produced

evidence

of some

similar

ideas.

But

Raleigh's

definite

statements

of

belief

as

presented

in

The

Treatise

of

the Soul and

The History

of

the

World

have

been

ignored,

as

have major

discrepancies

be-

tween

the ideas of

Raleigh

and those

of

the other

writers.

Several

twentieth century

scholars

ascribe

to

the

notion

of

the School

of

Night,

but

two

in

particula-r

C. T.

Tharrison

and

M.

C. Bradbrook, present

elaborately

structured

accounts

of

the

school

and

the

rivalry attendant

upon

it.

Harrison, in his edition of Willobie His Avisa, draws a number of unwarranted

conclusions.

22

It

is

unnecessary

to

refute

the first

few of them because

to

grant

them does not prejudice

the

case

against

Raleigh:

After

establishing

the

popularity

of

the

poem,

Harrison

asserts

that

it

was concerned

with the

private

lives of great

men

and

not

with

any

hole-in-the-corner

intrigue.

Harrison

then

asserts

that

Avisa

lived near

Sherborne,

and

if she was

real,

she

may

have. His third

point,

too,

need not

be refuted:

Throughout

the

book

the morals

of courtiers

in general

are

attacked.

The writer

therefore

was not

at

the time

attached

to

the

Court or

to anyone

in

favor

at court.

However,

for

his

fourth conclusion,

Harrison

makes

a leap of

faith.

He says

that among

those attacked

are

the

Earl

of Southampton

and

his

protege,

William

Shakespeare.

The author

of

Willobie

His Avisa

was

therefore an

enemy

of

the

Essex-Southampton

group.

That

the poem

is uncomplimentary

to

Shakespeare

and

the

Earl--and

they are

to be taken

together

if

they are

to

be

accepted

as

appearing

in

the poem at all--need

not imply

concerted,

factional

enmity.

20Edwards,

Life

of Raleigh,

II, 249.

21Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 1603-10 (London, 1857), 263.

22Harrison (ed.),

Wiobi

228-229.

15


8/10

Both

were

prominent

enough

to

arouse

jealousy.

Harrison

then assumes

that

Sir

Ralph

Horsey,

whom

Sir Walter

Raleigh

had

every

reason to

dislike,

was

also

attacked.

Even if we

grant

that

Horsey

is

attacked,

there is

little

justification

for

assuming

active

dislike

of

Horsey

on the

part

of

Raleigh.

Harrison

may

well have assumed such

an

antipathy

because

Horsey

headed

the

Cerne Abbas

conmission;

however,

as

lieutenant for

the

county

it

was

his

duty to hold the inquiry and it is not necessarily an inimical act. Horsey

appears to have given

Raleigh a

square

deal as

the

inquiry

resulted

in

no

action

against

Raleigh.

Furthermore,

a few

months

later

they

were

out

chasing

Jesuits

together.

Yet

this

alleged

enmity

is

the

first of

two

links

with

Raleigh.

The other

is even less

supportable.

Evidence

of

style

suggests

that Matthew

Roydon

may

have

been

the

author. Roydon

was one of

Sir

Walter

Raleigh's

personal

followers.

The

only

connection between

Raleigh

and

Boydon

is

the

remark

by

Kyd

that

Hariot,

Marlowe,

and

Roydon

conversed

with some

stationers

in

Paul's

Churchyard.

Kyd also

suggested

in

the

information

he

gave

against Marlowe in

1593

that

Roydon

had

fled

to

Scotland

and that

Marlowe

planned

to

follow,

which

casts

doubt

upon Roydon's

presence

near

Raleigh

at this

time. He

would

hardly be

likely to have

returned

by

summer, 1594.

Furthermore,

Roydon's

canon

is

even

more

difficult

to

ascertain

than

Raleigh's; thus,

evidence of

style

must be

suspect.

Harrison's

final

point is that

'the poem

was written

as

an answer

to

an

attack

made on the

Raleigh

group.

Thus,

on

the

basis

that

the

poem

is

topical and

that

the

setting

can be

determined as

near

Sherborne,

Harrison

makes the

assumption

that the

writer

was no

courtier nor

connected with

anyone

in

favor

at

court, and

that

since

Southampton and

Shakespeare

are

attacked, the writer was an enemy of the Essex faction. His identification of

Horsey in

the

poem and

the

attribution of the

poem to

Roydon rest

upon his

first

assumxtion. This

conclusion is

unwarranted.

But, based

upon his

unwarranted

conclusion, he

arrives at

his final

conclusion,

which is at

least

three

steps

removed from

admissible

evidence.

M.

C.

Bradtrook

states as the

purpose

of

her

study,

The School

of Night,

that

the

influence

[

of

Raleigh's

poetry

I

can be

traced

in

the writings

of

Spenser,

Marlowe

and

Chapman.

Historically

Raleigh's poetry

is of

the first

importance,

and it

has

seldom

had proper

appreciation.

,,23

Asserting the

existence

of

a

coterie,

she

enrolls the

membership as

follows:

Raleigh

was

the patron of the school; Thomas Harriot, a mathematician of European

reputation,,

was

its

master.

It

probably included

the

earls of

Northumberland

and

DeiTy,

and

Sir

George

Carey, with

the poets

Marlowe,

Chapman,

Matthew

Roydon

and

William

Warner.

24

However,

Miss

Bradbrook

argues

illogically: she

cites

Parsons,

and

then says,

The

different rumors

have

such

uniformity

as

to

give a

reasonable

picture of

the

way in

which the

23Bradbrook,

School

of

Night,

3.

24Ibid.,

8.

16


9/10

members of

the school

behaved

in

public.

25

She

assumes there was a

school,

and

then

uses

an

assumption

of

secretive

behavior

to

prove

that

there

was.

Shades of

Rev, Ironside.

Her

analysis of

the

Cerne Abbas

inquiry

is that it

was

obviously

directed at

Raleigh.

The local

clergy

had all heard

rumors

of

Raleigh's

atheism

and of

Hariot's.

Hariot

was

thought

to have been

cited

before the Privy Council for denying the resurrection of the body. But there

is no

evidence of such a

citation,

which

Miss

Bradbrook

conveniently

ignores.

The

conclusion

to be

drawn from

the

testimony of

Kyd,

Baines and the

Devonshire clergy

is

that

the

school

did not disclose its opinions to the

generality:

that

it

enjoyed scandalzing

the

godly

and

confounding

the

dogmatic;

that

it

was

provocative

and

irreverent,

out of deliberate policy or natural

devilment or both.

26

Her demonstration is too

lengthy

to

encapsulate

heref

but

it

makes

use

of

a

very

selective

approach

to

Raleigh's

writings

to

demon-

strate

the

congruence

of

his ideas with

Marlowe

and

Chapman,

thus

establish-

ing

the

doctrine

of

the

school.

There is, according to PIaulKocher, only one bit of independent evidence

to connect

Raeigh

with

Chapman,

and

it is indirect.

27

Chapman

did dedicate

his

poem

De

Guiana

to

Keymis,

well known as a loyal

follower of Raleigh.

Yet,

even

ths

must be

taken cautiously,

for

Chapman's

dedications

reveal

loyalties

so

inconsistent

as

to

enable

him

to dedicate poems

to

both Hariot and

Esse.

Fuhermore,

there

is n me tion of

Raleigh

in

the dedication of

'The

Shadow

oft

e

Nght

though

Chapman

does mention

De

by, Percy,

and

Hu.nsdon,

Conce>in

te

Shool o Night

there

is

nothing

in

earlier accounts of

Raeigh

which

would

link

himx

with

the

school

Aubrey,

in

Brief

Lives,

mentions Raeigh's chemical experimens, links im with Percy and Hariot,

and

reports

that he had

been

scandalised

with

atheism.

28

Anthony

Wod29

asserts that Hariot

was a

deist who

infected

Raleigh

and

Northumberland

with

his

beliefs. Thomas

Birch30

rejects

Parsons'

authority,

cites

Francis

Osborne

as

observing

that

Raleigh's

dissent

from

some

principles

of

school

divinity

left

him

open

to

an

accusation

of

atheism. Birch

includes also

Popham's

exhortation

to

Raleigh

and

makes reference

to

Wood's

charge

of

deism. Birch,

however, presents

one

source which has been ignored by

25T.bid.,

12.

26Ibid,

13-14.

27

Pau

Kocher,

ChristopherMarlowe(New

York,

1962),

14.

28J.

Aubrey,

Brief

Lives (Ann

Axbor,

1957),

259,

29Strathman,

45.

30Thomas

Birch,

Lf

of

Ralei The

Works

of SirW

(London,

1829).

17


10/10

twentieth

century

sleuths:

Archbishop

Abbot,

in a letter

to

Thomas

Roe,

charges

Raleigh

with

questioning

God's

being

and

omnipotence.

Birch

dis-

counts this

reference

by

the

suggestion

that

Raleigh's

enemies

might

repre-

sent his

opinions

wron'fly,

or

that

wrong

conclusions

might

be

drawn

from

them. William

Oldys

defends

Raleigh's

reputation

against

Parsons,

Wood,

and

even

Osborne.

However,

Edward Edwards32 makes

only

a

single

reference to Raleigh's atheism; he reconstructs Raleigh's trial in 1603 and

charges

Coke

and

Popham

with

attempting

to blacken

Raleigh's

reputation

in

order to obtain

a

conviction.

Other members

of the

supposed

school,

with

the

exception

of

Hariot,

are

either

mentioned

in

other texts

or not referred

to

at

all.

Thus, to

the related

questions

of whether it is

justifiable

to

assert

that

Raleigh

was

an atheist

and

that

he

was

associated

with

Marlowe,

Chapman,

Roydon,

Hariot, Percy, et al.

in an intellectual

coterie,

we must

plead

not

justified

to

the first

and

insufficient

evidence

to

the

second. The

speculation

that such a group may have existed is interesting, and the ramifications of

such

speculation

are

far-reaching.

However,

we

have only a few

facts:

Raleigh and Hariot

were

close

associates; Hariot and

Percy

were

very

close

associates;

Northumberland

was

a

generous

patron

as is

shown

by

the

number

of

men

he

patronized and

his

generosity

to Hariot;

Raleigh was

accused of

atheism

by

Parsons;

he was

link-ed, by

hearsay

evidence,

with

Hariot in

atheism;

we

have

only one

scrap of

fact to link

Raleigh with

Marlowe and

Chapman,

and none

to link him

with

Roydon; we

have two or

three more

to link

Marlowe

and

Hariot; Willobie His

Avisa may

attack the

Essex

faction

through

Shakespeare

and

Southampton;

Willobie His

Avisa is

probably set in

the

Sherbourne district,

Raleigh's

seat.

The

most

obvious

problem

confronting us

here

is the

weakness of the

links

in

the

chain. Such

a chain of

evidence may

tolerate

one--or

perhaps two--

weak

links. But

this chain

breaks

in at least

four places.

To

discount

the

weaknesses

as the

advocates

of the

theory of

the School

of Night do,

results

in

disintegration of

the

entire chain.

However, it is

perhaps

not amiss to

point out

that

a loosely

organized

coterie

may have

existed

around

Percy and

Hariot.

This,

certainly,

would be

a far

more

fruitful field for

investigation

than is

the

speculation

about

Raleigh.

31William

Oldys,

Life

of

Raleigh,

The

Works

of

Sir

Walter

Raleigh

(London, 1829), I, 168-170.

32Edwards,

Life of

Raleigh, I,

435-6.

18

Documents

Raleigh, Hariot, And Atheism in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England