Home / Topics / Richard Carew

Richard Carew

Mixed Needs Review evidence packet

Topic: Richard Carew

Source-Control Position

Source Controls

ODNB Source-Control Position

1. Verified Sourced Facts

“Survey of Cornwall - Available via Internet Archive”

“Richard Carew's mention of William Shakespeare”

“Richard Carew's Son - Connected to learning French with Henry Neville”

“His like-named son (the future first Baronet Carew [b. 1580], to whom the present poem is written, matriculated from Merton College in 1594”

“Evidently Carew and Trelawny were in his train when he presented his credentials at the Fench court.”

“Richard Carew esquire”

“a play unique in the Shakespearean canon for its focus on "our English tongue,"”

“precisely placed in its intertextual relation to contemporary debate surrounding Richard Stanyhurst's translation of Virgil's Aeneid.”

“Survey of Cornwall by Carew _ Lond. 1602.”

2. Ken Feinstein Twitter and Blog Information

3. Quoted Source Text

Richard Carew wiki page

Fitzgeoffrey / Philological Museum note layer

Tudeau-Clayton

Billingbear book list

Richard Carew the younger

4. Citations

5. Notes on Access

2026-07-11 addition: the exact Carew book inside John Jaggard's Italian-translation list

The 1602 Billingbear/Audley End Survey of Cornwall is now part of a larger, source-controlled book-trade cluster. Its publisher, John Jaggard at the Hand and Star near Temple Bar, had also published the 1594 English translation of Giacomo di Grassi's fencing manual, Edward Fairfax's 1600 English Tasso, and the 1601 English Botero. Billingbear/Audley End preserves:

This does not establish that Billingbear possessed the corresponding English translations. It does show that John Jaggard's list repeatedly translated or published authors represented in the library, and that his exact Carew imprint survives there. John was William Jaggard's brother and must not be confused with the later First Folio printer. Full metadata, comparative table, and page images are in grassi 1570 billingbear fencing shakespeare and jaggard.

2026-07-15 Preservation-First Deep Research: Carew’s exact Shakespeare–Marlowe comparison

The open task of locating Carew’s exact passage is now closed through the Folger’s Shakespeare Documented record. Carew writes, in the modernized transcription:

Will you read Virgil? Take the Earl of Surrey. Catullus? Shakespeare, and Marlowe’s fragment. Ovid? Daniel. Lucan? Spencer. Martial? Sir John Davies and others. Will you have all in all for Prose & Verse? Take the miracle of our age, Sir Philip Sidney.

The underlying manuscript is British Library Cotton Julius F XI, fols. 265r–267v, dated after 1605. The Folger record notes that William Camden acquired the manuscript and printed the essay in the second edition of Remaines (1614), pp. 36–44; it was not in the 1605 edition. The manuscript and printed spelling deserve separate recording: the name appears as Shakespheare, while Marlowe appears as Barlowe in both manuscript and print.

This passage is important for more than the bare name “Shakespeare.” Carew organizes contemporary English writers as functional equivalents of classical authors. Shakespeare and Marlowe’s unfinished Hero and Leander occupy the Catullus position; Daniel answers to Ovid, Spenser to Lucan, and Davies to Martial. The comparison is therefore a compact map of early Jacobean literary reputation and genre, preserved first in manuscript and then passed through Camden into print.

Public source with manuscript images, transcription, printed-state history, and DOI 10.37078/586: Shakespeare Documented, “The Excellencie of the English Tongue”.

Relevance to this packet

Carew now has four independently documentable roles in the project: author of the Billingbear/Audley End 1602 Survey of Cornwall; a member of the Carew diplomatic-family field; father of the younger Richard Carew who traveled to France with Neville; and an early comparator of Shakespeare and Marlowe whose manuscript was transmitted by Camden. These roles should be connected as a research programme, not collapsed into an authorship conclusion.