The Earl of Oxford in “The Arte of English Poesie” of 1589 — Reason No. 15 Why He Became “Shakespeare” in 1593

Number 15 on this list — as it steadily builds to 100 reasons to believe the Earl of Oxford was “Shakespeare” — involves his prominent place in an anonymous work The Arte of English Poesie, published in 1589 and regarded as the central text of Elizabethan courtly politics.

"The Arte of English Poesie" - 1589

Oxford’s position in the world of letters had already been stated unequivocally in 1586, when William Webbe declared in A Discourse of English Poetry:

“I may not omit the deserved commendations of many honourable and noble Lords and Gentlemen in Her Majesty’s Court, which, in the rare devices of poetry have been, and yet are, most skillful; among whom the Right Honourable Earl of Oxford may challenge to himself the title of the most excellent among the rest.”  [Emphasis is mine]

Now in 1589, three years later, The Arte of English Poesie by an unnamed author is published by Richard Field, who will soon issue Venus and Adonis of 1593 and Lucrece of 1594, both dedicated by “William Shakespeare” to Henry Wriothesley, third Earl of Southampton – the first and only times this previously unknown poet will dedicate any literary or dramatic work to anyone.

Modern scholars have attributed The Arte to George Puttenham, although others believe the author was Oxford’s friend John, Lord Lumley, but last year Richard M. Waugaman set forth a case for Oxford’s own authorship instead.  [See Brief Chronicles, the online journal of the Shakespeare Fellowship, and Waugaman’s own online site The Oxfreudian.]

Partly the book may represent Oxford’s “eloquent pleading for the Queen’s commission for his writing the pro-Tudor ‘Shakespeare’ history plays,” Waugaman suggests, noting it “champions the persuasive power of poesy historical, while emphasizing that it [poetry or drama] is all the more instructive if it is not slavishly factual.”

The Arte is dedicated to Oxford’s father-in-law [and former guardian] William Cecil Lord Burghley, but it’s actually addressed to Elizabeth herself.  It emphasizes the importance of deception, disguise and anonymity.  The unnamed author says that many members of the nobility or gentry “have no courage to write & if they have, yet are they loath to be a known of their skill,” and continues:

“So as I know very many notable Gentlemen in the Court that have written commendably, and suppressed it again, or else suffered it to be published without their own names to it: as if it were a discredit for a Gentleman to seem learned and to show himself amorous of any good Art.”   [My emphasis]

A page from "The Arte" showing the Elizabethans' interest in structure, form, shape, architectural form and so on

Later he begins to use names:

“And in her Majesty’s time that now is are sprung up another crew of Courtly makers, Noble men and Gentlemen of her Majesty’s own servants, who have written excellently well as it would appear if their doings could be found out and made public with the rest, of which number is first that noble Gentleman Edward Earle of Oxford, Thomas Lord of Bukhurst, when he was young, Henry Lord Paget, Sir Philip Sidney, Sir Walter Raleigh, Master Edward Dyer, Master Fulke Greville, Gascoigne, Britton, Turberville and a great many other learned Gentlemen, whose names I do not omit for envy, but to avoid tediousness, and who have deserved no little commendation.”  [My emphasis]

Does Oxford head the above list because, as Webbe had announced in no uncertain language, he’s the best writer?  Or is he listed first because of his nobleman’s rank?  Our brethren on the Stratfordian side prefer the latter interpretation, and I won’t argue here except to note that the author surely knew he was putting a spotlight on Oxford’s literary work.

Moreover, on the very next page the anonymous author of The Arte names just a few playwrights: “For Tragedy Lord Buckhurst and Master Edward Ferrys do deserve the highest praise: the Earl of Oxford and Master Edwards of Her Majesty’s Chapel for Comedy and Enterlude.”  [My emphasis]

Edwards had been in charge of the Children of the Chapel from 1561 until he died in 1566, a period when Oxford [age eleven to sixteen] was studying with private tutors and receiving honorary degrees from Cambridge and Oxford.  Edwards is credited with writing two plays:  Damon and Pithias, the first English “tragical comedy,” set in the court of Dionysius and performed for Elizabeth’s court in 1565; and Palamon and Arcyte, a “lost” play based on Chaucer’s A Knight’s Tale [and regarded as a possible source for The Two Noble Kinsman attributed to Shakespeare and Fletcher], performed for the Queen at Oxford in 1566.

I believe young Edward de Vere must have written, or at least co-written, those two plays credited to Richard Edwards.  A decade later in 1576 several poems by Oxford [signed with his initials E.O.] appeared in The Paradise of Dainty Devices, an anthology that claims Edwards had compiled it before his death in 1566 – in which case, if true, it’s possible that Oxford’s poems were written no later than his sixteenth year [although he surely could have added to them any time up to 1576, since the likelihood is that Oxford himself caused the anthology to be published].

The Paradise became hugely popular, going into ten editions over the next three decades.
An excerpt of one of Oxford’s poems was reprinted in The Arte of English Poesie of 1589, wherein the anonymous author wrote:
“Edward Earl of Oxford, a most noble and learned gentleman, made in this figure of response an emblem of Desire, otherwise called Cupid, which for excellency and wit I set down some of the verses, for example.”
The excerpt follows:

When wert thou born desire?

In pomp and prime of May,

By whom sweet boy wert thou begot?

By good conceit men say,

Tell me who was thy nurse?

Fresh youth in sugared joy.

What was thy meat and daily food?

Sad sighes with great annoy.

What hadst thou then to drink?

Unfeigned lovers tears.

What cradle wert thou rocked in?

In hope devoid of fears.

What was this poem really about?  Well, The Arte elsewhere speaks of a poet as a “dissembler” who “by reason of a secret intent not appearing by the words, as when we go about the bush, and will not in one or a few words express that thing which we desire to have known, but do choose rather to do it by many words.”

He offers the following example of four lines referring to Queen Elizabeth – not by name, but in words that “any simple judgment might easily perceive” it to be her:

Elizabeth I of England

When Princes serve, and Realms obey,

And greatest of Britain kings begot:

She came abroad even yesterday,

When such as saw her knew her not.

“And the rest followeth, meaning her Majesty’s person, which we would seem to hide leaving her name unspoken, to the intent the reader should guess at it: nevertheless upon the matter did so manifestly disclose it, as any simple judgment might easily perceive by whom it was meant, that is by Lady Elizabeth, Queen of England and daughter to King Henry the Eighth, and therein resteth the dissimulation.”  [My emphasis]

In this same year of 1589 Richard Field would also publish the second edition of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, credited in 1567 to Oxford’s uncle Arthur Golding but more likely translated with youthful zest by the young earl himself.   Here at the end of the tumultuous decade of the 1580’s, Oxford was about to leave public life and become something of a recluse.

Now in 1589, was he using the press of Richard Field to make a final appearance as an identified poet?  Was he withdrawing from the world while preparing to use the same publisher to reappear as “Shakespeare” just four years later, in 1593?

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://hankwhittemore.com/2011/06/07/the-earl-of-oxford-in-the-arte-of-english-poesie-of-1589-reason-no-15-why-he-became-shakespeare-in-1593/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

6 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. The anonymous “The Arte of English Poesie” does not “sound” like Oxford’s prose to me, considering Greene’s prose to be 100% Oxford. In any case, the evidences that it contains are plain: Oxford was writing in disguise, which is what Vice says in “The Marriage of Wit and Wisdom”:

    Wit.- What (…) art thou? What is thy name?

    Idleness.- In faith I am Ipse, he, even the
    very same!
    A man of great estimation in mine own country.

    We now that this Ipse, this Ver-y same (as in Sonnet 108), is, like Touchstone says in “As you like it,” what others writers do consent to be and what a very common figure of rethoric teaches the unlearned William: to have is to have, avere é avere.

    In “The Marriage of Wit and Wisdom” (II.v) we read from Idleness:

    When Wit and Wisdom is joined together,
    then I am rejected.
    Well it can shift elsewhere so long as I am
    not detected.
    Detected I cannot well be; I am of that con-
    dition,
    That I can turn into all colours like the
    chameleon.

    This chameleon condition is what gives the shadows of Gascoigne, Edwards, L.Vaux (in “Paradise…”), Lyly, Watson, Greene, Peele, Marlowe, Kyd, Spencer, Samuel Daniel and Shakespeare their substance.

    And many more, like that strange Arthur Bourcher of song 121 of “Paradise…,” edition 1585: “Vertue is the only meane…” This poem was anonymous in the 1580 edition, only identified in the 1585 one.

    This mysterious Bourcher (another Arthur, like Arthur Brooke) wrote an interesting introductory poem to Whitney’s “A choice of Emblems,” 1586. Whitney dedicated the emblem Avaritia huius saeculi to him.

    I found that in “The Merry Wives of Windsor” (not circa late 1560, but circa 1576), Mr. Ford says to Mrs. Quickly that he wants to talk to Falstaff, but that he wants to be introduced to him as Mr. Brook. Quickly answers: “It is a merry knight.”

    And it is a merry knight, a merry name, because Ford (Edward Oxen-ford) wrote “The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet” in 1562 as Arthur Brooke, “ford” and “brook” meaning the same river of shallow water.

    De Vere’s has a mozartian music and voice which I am comparing for my book. Two joking geniuses…

    • What original stuff and keen insight! We cannot wait for your book. Thanks.

  2. Ha!

    Thanks…

  3. My thanks to Hank Whittemore for mentioning my article. I hope Oxfordians will take a fresh look at The Arte. As both Hank and Ricardo Mena write, it’s an important part of Oxford’s story, whether or not we agree he was its author. I attended a seminar on this book at the Shakespeare Association of America meeting two years ago. Steve May admitted there are many puzzling features of the book, including the fact it never had a second printing, although it would have been expensive to produce (and he said publishers tended to make their profits on subsequent printings). Steve had just returned from research on Puttenham in England. I think it’s fair to say that nothing he turned up proves Puttenham’s authorship of The Arte. The seminar leaders were the editors of a wonderful 2007 edition of The Arte, Frank Whigham and Wayne Rebhorn. They were very tolerant of my paper (an early draft of the article that Hank cited), though they didn’t agree with me.

    • The work Dr. Waugaman has already done is thrilling and a great gift to the Shakespeare authorship question and we look forward to much more. We need more researchers and thinkers who are more interested in “connecting” the dots — the pieces of information from the research and documentation — rather than in looking at the individual pieces of evidence in isolation. We take issue with Dr. Waugaman’s paper on the sonnets, but only with the greatest admiration and respect, and perhaps there will be a venue for us to not only debate but share our points of view. I have a feeling we will end up pretty much in agreement. Meanwhile, thanks for the work, and we encourage all to look at the extensive additional evidence in Dr. Waugaman’s paper on “The Arte of English Poesie” as well as other papers — and we will stay tuned. Hank

  4. […] The author of Arte has been identified variously as George Puttenham and Lord Lumley, but the evidence actually points to Oxford himself as the […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: