Copyright and use of this thesis

285 Pages·2014·1.5 MB·English

by  Richard Smith

Copyright and use of this thesis
This thesis must be used in accordance with the
provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.
Reproduction of material protected by copyright
may be an infringement of copyright and
copyright owners may be entitled to take
legal action against persons who infringe their
copyright.
Section 51 (2) of the Copyright Act permits
an authorized officer of a university library or
archives to provide a copy (by communication
or otherwise) of an unpublished thesis kept in
the library or archives, to a person who satisfies
the authorized officer that he or she requires
the reproduction for the purposes of research
or study.
The Copyright Act grants the creator of a work
a number of moral rights, specifically the right of
attribution, the right against false attribution and
the right of integrity.
You may infringe the author’s moral rights if you:
- fail to acknowledge the author of this thesis if
you quote sections from the work
- attribute this thesis to another author
- subject this thesis to derogatory treatment
which may prejudice the author’s reputation
For further information contact the University’s
Director of Copyright Services
sydney.edu.au/copyright
Spying and Surveillance in Shakespeare’s Dramatic Courts

Richard Angus Smith

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

2014

Department of English
The University of Sydney
Contents

Declaration of originality ii

Abstract iii

Acknowledgments iv

Note on editions used v

1. Introduction: Elizabethan espionage and the behavioural
equivocation of Elizabethan spies 1-62

2. Much Ado About Nothing: surveillance and self-deception 63-96

3. The Tempest: the political rehabilitation of spymaster Prospero 97-134

4. Measure for Measure: manipulation in the space of the prison 135-175

5. Henry V: surveillance operations during a hot war 176-210

6. Hamlet: dangerous play at the Danish court 211-255

7. Conclusion: plotting a thesis on espionage 256-260

Bibliography 261-278

i
Declaration of originality

I declare that this thesis is my own work and that I have acknowledged all sources
appropriately. No part of this thesis has been submitted for examination at another
institution.

Signed: Richard Angus Smith Date: 02/07/2014

ii
Abstract

This thesis examines representations of spying and surveillance in
Shakespearean drama in conjunction with historical practices of espionage in later
sixteenth-century England. The introductory chapter outlines how spying operations
were conducted in Elizabethan England, with specific attention to the complex
attitudes and behaviour of individual agents working in the broader context of the
religious wars, both hot and cold, taking place between Protestant England and the
Catholic powers of continental Europe. It also provides some analysis of the
organisational structures within which those agents worked and examines a wide
range of particular cases to illustrate how surveillance operations might play out in
practice. The memory of Sir Francis Walsingham, often described as the ‘spymaster’
of Elizabeth’s government and noted for his skill in intelligence work, would have
loomed large for any dramatist thinking about espionage at the turn of the seventeenth
century.
Subsequent chapters each examine a specific play in light of the material
presented in the introduction, comprising Much Ado About Nothing, The Tempest,
Measure for Measure, Henry V and Hamlet. Each chapter seeks to elucidate how
Shakespeare draws upon the world of Elizabethan espionage to provide vital
structural components in his dramatic plotting, especially as regards inter-personal
relationships between courtiers, secretaries and agents on the ground. Real individuals
and the spies depicted in Shakespeare’s plays all behave in a manner that is personally
inflected to a profound degree, and it is this particular aspect of early-modern
espionage that provides the single most important connection between history and
drama. Periodically, this thesis also reflects upon the metatheatrical relationship
between characters’ schemes and Shakespeare’s own plotting as a dramatist.

iii
Acknowledgements

First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor Associate Professor
Liam Semler: his enthusiasm has proved vital throughout this project, as has his skill
in helping me develop an endless stream of half-formed ideas whose usual gambit
was to hide behind the arras and wait for me to tempt them out. I would also like to
thank my associate supervisor Dr Huw Griffiths for his input, particularly on aspects
of early-modern court culture.
I am very grateful to Dr Emma Cole and Dr James Marland for taking the time
to read through the thesis in its entirety and provide comments. My thanks also to Dr
Alex Cameron-Smith for his comments on the introduction.
The Early Modern Literature and Culture research cluster within the
Department of English provided the opportunity for me to interact regularly with
others working in the same field. Dr Melissa Hardie has also taken a keen interest in
my work on a number of occasions; unfortunately her suggestion that I write the
thesis in invisible ink and supply each examiner with a box of lemons did not come to
pass.
The Australian Government funded my candidature through its Research
Training Scheme, as well as providing an Australian Postgraduate Award for living
expenses. The Postgraduate Research Support Scheme at the University of Sydney
provided financial assistance for conferences held in Hobart (August 2010) and
Auckland (February 2011), and the Australia and New Zealand Shakespeare
Association provided a bursary to help with expenses for their conference held in
Perth in November 2012.
This thesis could not have been completed without the support of my parents
Paul and Jane, and my sister Helen. Thanks also to all those who provided other forms
of support or simply the opportunity for time out: Margaret Boulos, Daniel Fleming,
Jez Fletcher, Sam Fletcher, Sarah Fletcher, Roberta Kwan, Rebecca Lo, Qiu Zitong
and Annette Thomas.

iv
Note on editions used

Unless otherwise indicated, all references to works by Shakespeare are to the
following edition:

William Shakespeare, The Complete Works, Second Edition, ed. Stanley Wells, Gary
Taylor, John Jowett and William Montgomery (Oxford: Clarendon, 2005).

v
1. Introduction: Elizabethan espionage and the
behavioural equivocation of Elizabethan spies

This thesis examines representations of spying and surveillance in
Shakespearean drama in conjunction with historical practices of espionage in later
sixteenth-century England. The first chapter outlines how spying operations were
conducted in Elizabethan England, with specific attention to the complex attitudes
and behaviour of individual agents working in the broader context of the religious
wars, both hot and cold, taking place between Protestant England and Catholic
powers in continental Europe. Subsequent chapters each examine a specific play in
light of the material presented in this introduction, comprising Much Ado About
Nothing, The Tempest, Measure for Measure, Henry V and Hamlet. At heart, this
thesis argues that Shakespeare’s widely varied use of concepts relating to espionage
throughout his dramatic writing draws on the prevalence of such behaviour in later
sixteenth-century England.
This introductory chapter is split into two parts. The first half provides some
general background about the purpose and nature of spying operations in later
sixteenth-century England, with significant attention paid to the political career of Sir
Francis Walsingham, Principal Secretary to Elizabeth I from 1573 until his death in
1590, often described as the ‘spymaster’ of her government. It also sets up some
connections between that culture of espionage and the practice of early-modern
theatre, including Shakespeare himself. The second half of the chapter examines the
roles played by five government agents in the context of specific spying operations
during the 1580s and 1590s. Often such individuals feigned allegiance to the Catholic
faith in order to penetrate organisations plotting to overthrow Elizabeth and her
Protestant government, allowing them to provide intelligence about such plots to
Walsingham and his secretaries. These spies were quite willing to alter their
behaviour and attitudes as occasion demanded, thus indicating that the success or
failure of spying missions became critically dependent on the whim of such agents.
Real individuals and the spies depicted in Shakespeare’s plays all behave in a manner
that is personally inflected to a profound degree, and it is this particular aspect of
early-modern espionage that provides the single most important connection between
history and drama.
1
Part 1: Elizabethan espionage

‘Spymaster’ Walsingham
The past decade has proved something of a boom time for interest in
Elizabeth’s ‘spymaster,’ with the publication of no less than five new biographies on
Walsingham.1 All, however, owe a significant debt to the scholarly endeavours of
Conyers Read, whose account of Sir Francis’s professional life in Mr Secretary
Walsingham and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth, first published in 1925, is little short
of exhaustive.2 As Read states in his preface, virtually all information about
Walsingham’s life and work must be extracted from official records because there is
no extant material of a more personal nature.3 Robert Beale, Walsingham’s private
secretary for many years, noted in his pamphlet entitled ‘Instructions for a Principall
Secretarie’ that ‘upon the death of Mr. Secretarie Walsingham all his papers and
bookes both publicke and private weare seazed on and carried away.’4 Exactly why
this happened is unclear, but it certainly explains why Beale, anxious to ensure that
Walsingham’s practices had not been scattered to the wind, decided to write about
this issue.5 More simply, the intermingling of documents both public and private
suggests that Walsingham’s career in public office demanded so much of him that
there was precious little time left for personal matters. Arguably, he lived for the role
of Principal Secretary.
So why the recent interest in Walsingham? Derek Wilson proposes that there
are significant parallels between our own post-9/11 world and the one that
Walsingham sought to influence through his position in Elizabeth’s government:
State-sponsored terrorism, hit men paid to eliminate heads of state, mobs fired
up by hate-shrieking ‘holy’ men, fanatics ready to espouse martyrdom in the
hope of heavenly reward, asylum-seekers, internment camps, the clash of
totally irreconcilable ideologies. The list is familiar to us but as well as

1 In order of publication they are: Alan Haynes, Walsingham: Elizabethan Spymaster and Statesman
(Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing, 2004); Stephen Budiansky, Her Majesty’s Spymaster:
Elizabeth I, Sir Francis Walsingham and the Birth of Modern Espionage (New York: Viking, 2005);
Robert Hutchinson, Elizabeth’s Spymaster: Francis Walsingham and the Secret War that Saved
England (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2006); Derek Wilson, Sir Francis Walsingham: A
Courtier in an Age of Terror (New York: Carroll and Graf, 2007); and John Cooper, The Queen’s
Agent: Francis Walsingham at the Court of Elizabeth I (London: Faber and Faber, 2011).
2 Conyers Read, Mr Secretary Walsingham and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth, 3 volumes (1925;
Harwich Port, MA: Clock & Rose Press, 2003).
3 Read, Mr Secretary Walsingham, vol. I, vii.
4 Quoted in Read, Mr Secretary Walsingham, vol. I, 431.
5 Cooper, The Queen’s Agent, 43.
2
highlighting some of the problems of twenty-first-century Britain, it also
offers an accurate picture of England 1570-90.6

Yet this should also sound a cautionary note, and one that has become prevalent in
recent public discourse about the link between terrorism and religious practice: to
what extent do the actions of extremists truly represent the wider body of any given
religious sect? For practical purposes, that question is probably a moot point because
Elizabeth’s government made an express point of quashing the political ambitions of
English Catholics, particularly those who were plotting to kill the Queen and install a
Catholic monarch in her place. From the perspective of the Privy Council the Catholic
faith presented a direct threat to the stability of Elizabeth’s Protestant government and
thus it was incumbent on Walsingham to seek out and foil plots against the Crown
before they could be realised.
To describe Walsingham as the ‘spymaster’ of Elizabeth’s government is,
technically speaking, an anachronism. The Oxford English Dictionary records the first
use of the word by Time magazine in 1943 in reference to ‘the Nazi spymaster and
Naval Attaché, Captain Dietrich Niebuhr’ and the term comes to be most widely used
in reference to espionage in the mid to late twentieth century, especially in the context
of the Cold War. Similarly, the noun ‘espionage,’ which comes to English from the
French ‘espionnage,’ only enters the language about two hundred years ago; the term
‘spiery’ was instead current during Elizabeth’s reign.7 Although terms like
‘spymaster’ and ‘espionage’ were not current in Elizabethan England, they do,
however, provide reasonable points of reference for describing the activities of the
period and as such this thesis does not avoid using them.
The epitaph that hung over Walsingham’s tomb in St Paul’s Cathedral,
probably written by his granddaughter Elizabeth, declared that ‘In his Virile Age, he
voluntarily (during the Reign of Queen Mary) / Forsook his Country for the
preservation of his Religion.’8 This may have overstated the case. Although with
hindsight Walsingham’s stoic Protestantism seems to provide the most compelling
reason for his absence from England during the reign of Catholic Mary I, this may not
have been quite so apparent to the young Francis or other members of his family at
the time. A more significant factor may have been the opportunity to gain crucial life

6 Wilson, Sir Francis Walsingham, ix.
7 Stephen Alford, The Watchers: A Secret History of the Reign of Elizabeth I (London: Allen Lane,
2012), 14.
8 Quoted in Hutchinson, Elizabeth’s Spymaster, 255.
3