The Elizabethan CIA

The surveillance state in the 16th century


The Watchers: A Secret History of the Reign of Elizabeth I, by Stephen Alford, Bloomsbury, 2012, 398 pages, $35 

We think of the surveillance state as a modern development, something conjured up by novels such as Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent or George Orwell's 1984, or by real-life stories of Stalin's Soviet Union or Hitler's Germany. But spying is one of the world's oldest professions, as the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Bible attest. Well before the 20th century, many states were doing all they could to monitor their citizens' activities as closely and comprehensively as possible.

England in particular has a long history of spying on its own people. It is no accident that in Hamlet, Shakespeare portrays the Danish government specializing in espionage and double-dealing. In Act 2, scene 1, the court councilor Polonius teaches a henchman how to spy on Polonius' own son, Laertes, in Paris, instructing him "by indirections find directions out." Moving as he did in court circles, Shakespeare was evidently familiar with intelligence operations in Elizabethan England, some of which involved several of his famous contemporaries—certainly Francis Bacon and possibly Christopher Marlowe. Under such spymasters as Lord Burghley and Francis Walsingham, Queen Elizabeth's court pioneered many of the techniques and practices we associate with international espionage to this day, including code-breaking and the use of double and even triple agents.

A fascinating book could be written on the surveillance state in Elizabethan England. Unfortunately, Stephen Alford's The Watchers is not it. As interesting as the material the King's College historian has assembled may be, it is so badly written that I cannot in good conscience recommend it. The book is filled with clichéd prose: "Courtiers sparkled, poets and dramatists wrote, and audacious sea captains harried the Spanish enemy" and "Elizabethan London was a crowded, suffocating, jostling world of pleasure, business and life" and "Life carried on; pain passes away, memories eventually heal." It is filled with sentences that are either ungrammatical or unintelligible, and sometimes both: "Treason was cumulative, a self-sustaining and self-nurturing fear, incident building upon incident over many years, a great pattern of conspiracy" and "The mystery of Thomas Phelippes's mission remains its object and purpose." (I believe the latter sentence means "The purpose of Thomas Phelippes's mission remains a mystery.") As an involuntary connoisseur of bad undergraduate prose, I need to add this sentence to my collection: "Three years later he founded a seminary to train priests in the town of Douai in the Low Countries which had moved, by the time Allen was in Rome in 1579, to Rheims in France." I did not know that the Low Countries were ever this mobile or so small that they could fit conveniently into a French town. I have rarely seen a book from a real press with so many grammatical and stylistic errors.

If the problems with Alford's writing remained on the level of individual sentences, perhaps I could give this book a pass on the grounds of its content. But The Watchers is poorly written on the global as well as the local level. Alford's narrative is repetitious, he constantly emphasizes details at the expense of the big picture, he discusses events out of logical order, and he apparently cannot gauge what the general reader needs to know in order to follow the larger story he is trying to tell. He has no sense of proportion. He devotes one paragraph to the defeat of the Spanish Armada, and a slightly longer paragraph to a random dinner among Catholic Englishmen in Rome. We learn of the dinner: "The food was very fine indeed, beginning with antipasto of meat, Spanish anchovies or syrup of stewed prunes and raisins." And of the demise of the great Spanish fleet we learn: "The Armada, and with it the cherished Enterprise of England, hoped for and then planned for so long, failed." A reader may be excused for desiring more information about the most momentous event that happened during Elizabeth's reign and less about what was on the menu at the Renaissance equivalent of a tapas bar.

The Watchers is also fundamentally incoherent in intellectual terms. Early in the book, Alford appears to be offering Elizabethan England as an object lesson in the dangers of the surveillance state: "Yet the heightened vigilance of Queen Elizabeth's advisors was in fact potentially corrosive of the security they craved. It is a cruel but perhaps a common historical paradox. The more obsessively a state watches, the greater the dangers it perceives. Suspicions of enemies at home and abroad became more extreme, even self-fulfilling." (For the record, prophecies, not suspicions, are self-fulfilling.) But despite a few scattered hints at parallels between Elizabethan espionage and later developments, Alford does not pursue this theme in any depth or prove that the queen's advisors were paranoid. Toward the end of his narrative, he does discuss a few cases where Elizabeth's government, to suit its own political agenda, may have manufactured evidence of treason. For example, in 1594, Elizabeth's doctor, Roderigo Lopez, may well have been wrongfully accused and convicted of plotting to kill her. But in general, the threats against Elizabeth's rule that Alford discusses were real. The Spanish Armada was not a figment of some overzealous Elizabethan spy's imagination.

Thus, by and large, Alford ends up justifying the espionage he documents, though not all the unethical and even morally repellant forms it took. (Burghley and Walsingham were pioneers in torture.) But according to what Alford himself shows—and other historians would agree—Elizabeth's England faced genuine and profoundly threatening enemies: the Spanish, the French, and the Papacy abroad and dissident Catholics at home. At times Alford seems to downplay the extent of the Catholic threat to Protestant England. But most of his narrative is devoted to showing that renegade Catholics were operating within Elizabethan England, and they were conspiring with foreign forces to overthrow the Queen. As the saying goes, you're not paranoid if everybody is out to get you.

I should acknowledge that Alford has done some remarkable archival research in developing this book, and he does succeed in documenting the details of Elizabethan espionage rings and Catholic counter-intelligence operations. A reader who already has a grasp of Renaissance history, and in particular one who already understands the Catholic-Protestant conflict in this era, can profit from reading The Watchers. But the general reader will have a hard time following Alford's account, and those looking for an indictment of the surveillance state will have to draw their own parallels to modern experience, and even their own conclusions. On the larger issues his book appears to broach, Alford is ultimately as evasive as the shadowy spies who people his narrative.

NEXT: Walmart Workers Revolt! (Workers Decline to Participate)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Now that’s my kind of a book review! Brutally honest.

  2. It is filled with sentences that are either ungrammatical or unintelligible, and sometimes both…

    Maybe it was translated into Japanese and then back into English. “I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung.”

    1. Opulent buffalo dung is the last thing you want in monkey bowels.

      1. “The glorious sunset of my heart was fading. Soon the super karate monkey death car would park in my space. But Jimmy has fancy plans, and pants to match. Monkey clown horrible karate browned and yummy like a cute small baby chick will now eat the donkey.”

        1. “I don’t think Margaux Hemingway ever gave a reading that bad”

  3. Just finished reading Alford’s book on Burghley and this is in my Amazon cart. Sounds as if the niggling faults in Burghley (repetition, some silly, overwrought prose) have metastasized in this book. What a pity. Burghley was published (and presumably edited into shape) by Yale, whereas this is by Bloomsbury, which like many UK publishers barely edits non-fiction books at all.

  4. “Elizabeth’s England faced genuine and profoundly threatening enemies: the Spanish, the French, and the Papacy abroad and dissident Catholics at home.”

    The Spanish, heck yes they were a threat. The French were at the time a threat to *themselves,* what with their civil war. As for “the Papacy and dissident Catholics,” you can kind of expect to be opposed by an organization which you ban and whose priests you threaten with execution.

    Still, Elizabeth I gets credit for maintaining peace at home – that is, no civil war – as well as to a certain extent abroad – minimizing war expenditures except when clearly necessary (the aforementioned Spanish threat).

    1. And the way she relied on private contractors for some of her war measures – that is, anti-Spanish piracy – is worthy of commendation in a Reason Foundation report. Or see https://reason.com/blog/2007/04…..rtnerships

    2. France’s civil war? The one that happened hundreds of years later?

      you can kind of expect to be opposed by an organization which you ban and whose priests you threaten with execution.

      Er… this is questionable. Elizabeth was pretty tolerant of other religions while Walsingham was by her side. After Walsingham died she did some bad things but not that much.

      1. France was too sophisticated a country to limit itself to just one civil war – they had one at the same time Elizabeth was queen in England:


        “”Priest hole” is the term given to hiding places for priests built into many of the principal Catholic houses of England during the period when Catholics were persecuted by law in England, from the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I in 1558.”


        1. Be honest, you only found out about priest holes from Skyfall.

          Oh, also, spoiler alert.

          1. Gosh, thank you for the warning.

        2. so it’s not a glory hole in a confessional?

          1. +9 hrs

  5. The U.K. has never really had even a hint of true freedom. I’m not sure that those poor British subjects evem know what the word means.

    1. Not true. The UK was very free after the Glorious Revolution and in Victorian times.

  6. I just read a story about a couple whose adoption was negated by a local council because they were UKIP supporters.

    1. Actually, they were already foster parents for the kids and then the kids were removed from their custody.

      Here’s the quote from the person who did it:

      “The fact of the matter is I have to look at the children’s cultural and ethnic needs. The children have been in care proceedings before and the judge had previously criticised us for not looking after the children’s cultural and ethnic needs, and we have had to really take that into consideration with the placement that they were in.”

  7. Sometimes man, that makes a lot of sense.


  8. “The mystery of Thomas Phelippes’s mission remains its object and purpose.” (I believe the latter sentence means “The purpose of Thomas Phelippe’s mission remains a mystery.”)

    And I believe it means: “The object and purpose of Thomas Phelippes’s mission was meant to remain a mystery — which is what it has remained.”

  9. Don’t publishing houses use editors any longer?

  10. Perhaps Mr. Alford’s puffed-up prose was a clever marketing play for the NPRPBSWGBH crowd? He’s dangling florid prose like fresh Twinkies, how can they resist?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.