| Chapter 1: | The Traditional Story, the Revisionist Story, and the Story |
|
|
or what killed Ferdinando. His narrative of the events, going against (and attempting to revise) the versions by both the Tudor-Stuart chroniclers and the mainstream specialist historians of modern times, has as its only actual “protagonist” the created hero of a guiltless, and in fact totally honorable, Elizabethan Catholic leadership at home and abroad. The establishment of across-the-board Catholic innocence appears to have also been the aim of some of Devlin’s most notable followers, particularly Francis Edwards. At the same time, however, several leading mainstream historians and biographers, disinterested in their intent but trusting in Devlin’s authority and fabled scrupulousness, have followed him on key points (notably Paul E. J. Hammer, the leading authority on Essex, as well as Ian Wilson, A. G. Petti, and Nicholl in his earlier work). They have thus accidentally perpetuated Devlin’s errors, some of which are thus regrettably now themselves considered to be “mainstream.”18
The Story
Both histories of what happened, the traditional one and the Jesuit one, are far from the truth—and are much more boring than the truth, despite Devlin’s creative efforts. The problem with the mainstream account is that far too much crucial information is missing from it, for the simple reason that nobody ever found it and included it. A second, growing problem with it is that it is slowly and subtly becoming polluted by “Devlinism,” albeit in the historical writings of innocent and well-meaning parties, including those mentioned earlier. The problem with the Catholic version is, at its root, Devlin’s effect again. Devlin made many errors, large and small, in “The Earl and the Alchemist.” Moreover, he went on to make arguments that were based on those errors and which have subsequently been accepted as true by many scholars over the last fifty years. I wish I could say that I am completely convinced that in all cases Devlin went astray as the result of his unconscious overzealousness. Rather, it seems to me upon carefully reading the same sources and the same original strings of words he read that he may have actually manipulated his evidence at a few crucial points in order to reach the