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

Author(s): Susanne S. Webb

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1969), pp.
10-18
Published by: The North American Conference on British Studies
Stable 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 of
content 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 support@jstor.org.

The North American Conference on British Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

RALEIGH, HARIOT, AND ATHEISM IN 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
was in active opposiand the sciences- and that the Raleigh corie
tion to a rival group, the members of wich included the Earl of Essex, the

literature,

Earl of Southampton, and William Shakespeare. However, to concerns need

clariication to eva-uate he evidence tha Raleigh was a member of such a
and what were his
atheist justifd,
,group: were the attacks on hm as
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
whether or not
a
scholars,
centry
earlier accounts of Raleigh
examining along the way
scribe to such theories,

what Rleigh's

beliefs were

contemporary

atitudes

c be deterniined by his writings ad what

can

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 backward.

,2 These two indictments,

lElizabethae,
Saevissiunum

while by far the most widely circulated,

were

Angliae Reginae Haeresim Calvinianam Propugnantis

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

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 Nvasknowvnas 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 maintains 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 nmakethof 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 proportion 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 noteworthy that throughout the preface Raleigh rejects the old Aristotelian
scholastic approaches to Christian theology, but that he replaces them with a
"But doth it
firm faith and soundly logical--almost Baconian--approach.
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

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 university 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-ith
the 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

F. S. Boas,

ee. " xliv-xlv.

Marlowe

and His Circle

91bid., 83.
10
Ibid.,

71- 72 .

12

(Oxord,

1929),

84.

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 discussion. 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
Appendix m.

257. All references to the inquiry are from

13

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 unflattering 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
Thomas Hariot
associates, Hariot and Percy, who were known freethinkers.
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 Northumberland, 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 orthodoxy. 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 including not only Hariot but also Robert Hues, Walter Warner, John Donne, Chapman 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

association with Hariot, except for a letter in 1602 to Lord Cobham anticipatand except that in 1605
ing a meeting between Cobham, Raleigh and Percy,
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 between 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. Tharrisonand 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,
22Harrison (ed.), Wiobi

228-229.
15

1603-10 (London, 1857), 263.

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,
24Ibid.,

School of Night,

3.

8.

16

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 demonstrate the congruence of his ideas with Marlowe and Chapman, thus establishing the "doctrine" of the school.
There is, according to PIaul Kocher, 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
there is n me tion of Raleigh in the dedication of
Esse.
Fuhermore,
'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

(London,

The Works of SirW

1829).

17

twentieth century sleuths: Archbishop Abbot, in a letter to Thomas Roe,

charges Raleigh with questioning God's being and omnipotence. Birch discounts this reference by the suggestion that Raleigh's enemies might represent 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